Property proposal:	Generic	Authority control	Person	Organization
	Creative work	Place	Sports	Sister projects
	Transportation	Natural science	Computing	Lexeme

General edit

agent of action edit

Under discussion

Description	thing that does the action
Data type	Item
Domain	action (Q4026292)
Example 1	German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)agent of actionArmy Group B (Q157572) Source
Example 2	Opening of Tokyo 2020 games (Q116504974)agent of actionNaruhito (Q217096) Source
Example 3	Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)agent of actionJohann Philipp Reis (Q77124) Source
See also	https://schema.org/agent

Motivation edit

I would like to create a data model to describe notable actions agents have made that are described in various Wikimedia articles. We should allow users to document actions so that they can be used to create timelines of events that can then be easily translated. They can also be used as a source to generate detailed Wikipedia article content for Abstract Wikipedia.

This property is the first to be proposed of the data model and follows the Schema.org data model for actions: https://schema.org/Action

participant (P710) exists, however that's usually used usually for events and not actions. It also requires that you use object has role (P3831) to specify the role of the participant. For a relationship as critical and common as an agent is to the action they perform, we should have a dedicated property and not be required to add object has role (P3831)agent (Q24229398) to every single agent statement. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would this work? telephone call (Q2296401)agent of actioncaller (Q113293705). Also, an alias (or better label) could be "done by", more usable than practiced by (P3095) for non-professions. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was considering using telephone call (Q2296401) as an example! However, I think the what that item is describing is the act of talking to someone over a telephone. Not the act of calling someone on a telephone. The agent of a telephone call (Q2296401) is just a normal human then.

Good catch with the similarities to practiced by (P3095)! I almost thought for a second that we could maybe just broaden the scope and rename practiced by (P3095) to "done by" but then I realized that the domain of practiced by (P3095) includes "fields" which are not really actions. I think it's important to distinguish that this is meant for actions by maintaining "action" in the label. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See my concerns with the related property proposal “object of action”. The examples given here make is appear as if those concerns mightn’t apply here, but already users are considering more general use of this proposed property like telephone call (Q2296401)‘agent of action’ (Pxxx)caller (Q113293705) (see above), which would be subject to those same concerns. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The examples can be converted to use participant (P710), and we have officially opened by (P542) too. Midleading (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use those properties for classes, though. Not sure why the only examples are for instance values, class values look much more valuable here to me. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this property should be updated with class examples. But the problem with telephone call (Q2296401) is why the value is not Q5. We also have countless dailiy activities that every person can do. Perhaps the label should be "action performed by role" for telephone call (Q2296401). The significant overlap with practiced by (P3095) and participant (P710) is noted, and they have already used like this (crime (Q83267)→criminal (Q2159907), competition (Q841654)→contestant (Q5165152)) Midleading (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this intended to contrast with/be complemented by a (potential future) property patient of action (Pyyy)? For example:
Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)‘agent of action’ (Pxxx)Johann Philipp Reis (Q77124)
Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)patient of action (Pyyy)Physikalischer Verein (Q2089433)
(The ‘agent’ property would indicate who performs the action, the ‘patient’ property, to whom it happens.)―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "patient of action" "object of action"? Lectrician1 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intuitively I’d have (in the telephone example) associated the telephone with ‘object’, but yes, ‘patient’ and ‘object’ are probably hard to keep apart in any consistent way. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wd-Ryan, Midleading: Regarding the telephone-call example, note the close similarity with the dog-walking example in the proposal for a property “frame element” that attempts to capture actions from a frame-semantics angle. One might want to look into whether the frame-semantics approach is better-suited to statements over classes and the the approach proposed here, to statements over instances. At any rate, I think one and the same property should not be used for both class statements and instance statements. (A property like this here one but for class statements should have the distinctive interpretation of something like “instances have agents of type”.) Insofar I support the current choice of examples for this property proposal. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support we need a generalized property to describe this kind of relationship, for example I suppose conjugation of gametes (Q11742512)→gamete (Q211050) and fertilization (Q14890574)→egg cell (Q1321695),sperm (Q17145). --Mzaki (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question How about broadening the use of perpetrator (P8031) instead, removing the (un)ethical assessment? One man's terrorist... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis Not a bad idea... I like it. @Arbnos @Wd-Ryan @Mzaki @BlaueBlüte @Midleading what do you think? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support this, I've been unable to add a group that performed an event without the implication that it was "immoral". It could be renamed to "done by". -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having given this only a moderate amount of thought I’d say no (to broadening perpetrator (P8031)), because the domain of perpetrator (P8031) includes (instances of) classes that are not subclasses of action (Q4026292) as proposed here, but for example of occurrence (Q1190554). And instances of occurrence (Q1190554) can have multiple agents, only some of which might be considered perpetrator (P8031) (say, versus ‘victim’), a distinction that users of perpetrator (P8031) probably rely on.
But perpetrator (P8031) could perhaps be made a subproperty of this new property ‘agent of action’ (Pxxx) (although similar reservations might apply). ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an important property for the completeness of Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a more general method of indicating the participants of actions (including agents) proposed at Wikidata:WikiProject Events and Role Frames. Mahir256 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

subframe of edit

Under discussion

Description	Property stating that one frame is an integral sub-unit of another, in terms of the action or state described by the parent frame. This is distinct from frame elaboration.
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Example 1	starting the car (Q117748121)subframe ofdriving to work (Q117748167)
Example 2	recruitment (Q899277)subframe ofoperating a business (Q117748249)
Example 3	undress (Q104418065)subframe ofshowering (Q13164396)
Example 4	parking (Q267917)subframe ofdriving to work (Q117748167)
Example 5	opening car hood (Q117748559)subframe ofrepairing car engine (Q117748470)
Planned use	I plan to use this alongside other proposed frame semantic properties for a wikidata project involving building a database of frames for Akkadian.

Motivation edit

See discussion of the 'frame element' property for general motivation of this class of properties. For the 'subframe' property, there is the question of whether, in terms of data structure design, it is preferable to have both 'frame element' and 'subframe' be distinct relations, to have the latter be a subtype of the former, or to dispense with the latter in favor of the former. Not all elements of a semantic frame are subframes (at least as those elements are typically represented in frame notation, such as LEASH in WALKING THE DOG), but a subframe could be argued to be an element of a parent frame.

Discussion edit

@Sinleqeunnini: Please provide actual examples that reference the items or lexemes you mean. Otherwise, this looks like it's not really optimized to deal with the way Wikidata works. Note that Wikidata does distinguish between entities represented by items and lexemes that point toward those items in individual languages. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

Sorry for the delay in responding. I thought I would get automatic updates from Wikidata about responses, but it seems to not be so.

Two examples (one from the explanation of the proposed property 'lexical unit') would be

Artillery (Q64418) is a frame element/role of War (Q198)

'Lugal' (Q854642) is a lexical unit of City (Q515)

The first example is not a frame specific to, or even found within, the language and associated culture of Akkadian. In the second, while an appropriate item for the lexical unit 'lugal' already exists, we would probably want to replace City with Ancient Mesopotamian City, as the two are fairly different frames. One frequent question in building frames for Akkadian will thus be whether pre-given items in Wikidata can function as adequate frames for that language/culture, or whether there needs to be an elaboration (as above) or different item altogether. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinleqeunnini: Lugal (Q854642)lexical unitcity (Q515) tells a Wikidata user very little of how Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) relate to each other. Besides, there isn't anything lexical about any of the two by the dictionary definition of "lexical". I find "relating to the words or vocabulary of a language" and "relating to or of the nature of a lexicon or dictionary" as definition for lexical. Those items are not about words or vocabulary.

If we wanted to link from Q854642 to Q515 the related property would be something like "rules over the jurisdiction" on an equivalent of that. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ChristianKI,

I believe I understand your arguments. Let me respond to them point by point.

I agree that the entry for Lugal does not indicate how it relates to city, even though it is a fact that a Sumerian lugal rules from a city. But that seems to be an issue with how rich the entry for Lugal is rather than my proposal for frame properties, since those properties are meant to indicate fairly generic, cognitive linguistic properties involving frame elements and their frames (for instance, that one item sits in the frame relation to another item).

I think I made a slight mistake in my example of Lugal (Q854642). My understanding of Q-items is that they can represent general things like concepts and objects. Lexemes in Wikidata are labeled as L-items. A better example would be: 'lugal (L643713) is a lexical unit for RULING A MESOPOTAMIAN CITY (Q...).' The predicate item here needs to be a semantic frame or scene (conventionally indicated in capital letters), and I have chosen a phrase 'RULING A MESOPOTAMIAN CITY' to emphasize both that the predicate is not a lexical item, and also is about the specific scene of ruling a Mesopotamian city. I do not think the specific Q-item for that exists in Wikidata so I did not give a specific Q-number, and as said previously, it is still an issue for me to be worked out how much to rely on existing Q-items to serve as frames instead of making new Q-items.

Note also that there can be multiple properties linking two items. While Lugal (Q854642) is related to City (Q515) in the sense of 'rules over the jurisdiction of', note also that Lugal (Q854642) can be seen as a semantic role, and relates to City (or perhaps better labeled CITY) as a frame element. The notion of 'rules over the jurisdiction of' is a semantic elaboration of 'frame element'.

Matt Sinleqeunnini (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata properties are not meant to be generic but exist to express the specific relationship between two items.

Wikidata has certain objects. There are items (number starting with Q), there are lexemes (number starting with L) and there are properties (number starting with P). If you make a proposal for a Wikidata property it needs to be made up of out those entities. Thinking in terms whether something is better labeled as City or CITY is a way to ignore the underlying concepts that exist in Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my proposed properties are actually specific for the items they deal with, namely semantic frames. The idea of a 'frame element', 'subframe of', etc. are quite specific to frames. If it helps, you can consult one of the introductions to frame semantics to understand them better (for instance, Sullivan 2013, Frames and constructions in metaphoric language).

Indeed, everything I have proposed uses those three categories (L, Q, and P). It is, of course, important to distinguish between a lexeme and a 'concept' in a Wikidata project, and of course among different types of concepts (a simple example being say between 'cat' and 'dog'). My point about the difference in labelling some City or CITY is meant exactly to resolve the confusion which I think is affecting you. On the one hand, there is the general convention in linguistics of using capital letters to refer to a semantic object (i.e. a 'concept') rather than a linguistic entity like a spoken or written work. Thus CITY is the concept that is, shall we say, 'mentally associated' with the written word 'city'. This includes references to semantic frames, which are concepts. Yet I do think for most people (especially those not versed in frame semantics), simply equating concepts with frames is misleading. If you were to ask someone to elaborate on their understanding of a concept like 'City', they likely would not give you an answer showing they are thinking in terms of frames (e.g. semantic roles, affordances, scripts), even if the theory of semantic frames itself argues that most of what we call 'concepts' should in fact be seen as frames. Put another way, if you ask someone to describe their conception of a dog, they will likely tell you some physical characteristics of a prototypical image of a dog. But frame theory itself says that the concept of a dog, as it is stored in the brain, importantly includes affordances and related roles that likely do not emerge in someone's verbal description (e.g. the dog's owner, a leash, how a dog typically acts and sounds, what a person is supposed to do with a dog, etc.). Understanding a concept 'as' a frame, or thinking of the closest frame that encapsulates whatever the person is thinking of as the concept, is important for understanding my proposed properties and the related issue of labeling items.

Indeed, this raises the question of whether many of the concepts (i.e. Q-items) in Wikidata should automatically be used to represent frames, since they must both describe semantic roles and (for the purposes of my current project) reflect the semantic frames existing in ancient Mesopotamia (rather than say, the modern USA). From a database design perspective, it may not be appropriate to use the concept of City (Q515) to represent the Mesopotamian frame of a city, or it may still be possible. I don't know yet. However, I believe that issue is technically separate from the status of the proposed properties.

The fact that Wikidata labels what it calls 'concepts' without all capitals is fine since the matter is one of convention. However, I used the label CITY specifically to highlight that we are speaking about a semantic frame rather than just a 'concept' per se. What I wrote above indicates this may both be a general issue of understanding by the user (what a frame is) and an issue of culturally specific frames (whether, say, a Mesopotamian city seen as a frame is approximated by the Wikidata Q-item of City). Sinleqeunnini (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinleqeunnini: In Wikidata we are always either speaking about items, properties or lexemes. If you want to engage here you have to accept those terms as the basic ontology of Wikidata. It's fine for Sullivan to use an ontology where city and CITY refer to different things, but that's Sullivan's ontology and not Wikidata's. On Wikidata it's items, properties and lexemes.

A proposed property needs valid examples of how the property will be used. Again, those examples need to be expressed in terms of items, properties and lexemes. Currently, you have not put any valid example that's made up of those into the property proposal template for any of the properties you proposed. Seperately, you would also need to write property descriptions to have valid proposals. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have followed that ontology of items, properties, and lexemes. My purpose in using the ontological terms from linguistics was to make clearer to you the need and benefit of my proposed properties. If it helps, here I will restrict myself to using the three terms items, properties, and lexemes. Recall that you initially raised objections to the use of the proposed properties, whose justifications come precisely from understanding what semantic frames are and how they work. For instance, you said above:

": Lugal (Q854642)lexical unitcity (Q515) tells a Wikidata user very little of how Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) relate to each other. Besides, there isn't anything lexical about any of the two by the dictionary definition of "lexical". I find "relating to the words or vocabulary of a language" and "relating to or of the nature of a lexicon or dictionary" as definition for lexical. Those items are not about words or vocabulary.
If we wanted to link from Q854642 to Q515 the related property would be something like "rules over the jurisdiction" on an equivalent of that."

But this objection fails to understand how the items Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) are understood, namely as frames (Q115792501) or frame elements (Q116999706) (with the status of such items as frames perhaps expressed by the 'instance of' property). Not all items are frames, but Lugal and city are, or perhaps city is, with Lugal being a frame element of city. If we are interested in relationships between items that are frames (including their relation to lexical items), then the properties 'frame element of', 'subframe of', 'elaboration of', and 'lexical unit' are of primary importance. Those (and others like them) are relationships at the exact level of generality needed to describe how items that are frames relate to each other in general. While the property 'rules over the jurisdiction' is more specific to the items Lugal and city, it cannot be used to describe the relationship between other items that are frames and their elements, such as leash (Q384873) and dog walking (Q38438).

Note that now there are full examples of the proposal for 'frame element' property and 'lexical unit' property. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinleqeunnini You still haven't provided a single example in the templates that's made up of lexemes/properties/items. If you are not willing to do so, maybe it's better to just end this discussion?

If you suggest that city (Q515) should have instance of (P31) "frame" that's quite a big ask from Wikidata and I don't see that you have made an argument about why that would be desireable for Wikidata that goes beyond "it's the same model that people use somewhere in linguistics". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I provided in the proposal for the property 'frame element of' (i.e. Wikidata:Property proposal/frame element of) not a proper example? Sinleqeunnini (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinleqeunnini Is the proposal of 'frame element of' you provided English language strings. As I said above, it's items, lexemes and properties. Items have Q-numbers, properties P-numbers and lexemes L-numbers. lexical unit now has one example that actually an example and needs two more. I usually don't work much with lexemes I didn't talk about senses before. Are you sure that a lexeme is the right thing and that a sense wouldn't be more fitting for lexical unit? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I finally see what was wrong. I will fill out the remaining examples in a bit.

Well, apart from the issue of homonymy (bank = river bank versus bank = place for money) in frame theory I believe it should be lexical units rather than senses since senses are themselves understood as frames. A lexeme thus can (and usually does) evoke many different frames.

However, I see here a potential problem since in my set-up lexical units are treated largely as linguistic tokens divorced from semantic information. They 'evoke' semantic content in the form of frames. The Wikidata template for lexemes specifies senses of the lexeme as suffixes (e.g. L9999-S1, L9999-S2). If we want to say that senses in Wikidata convey the content of frames, that makes the identifiers for those frames an extension of L-numbers, whereas frames should mainly be seen as Q-numbered things (i.e. concepts). Sinleqeunnini (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I added more appropriate examples now. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl Hello. Can you please check if the examples are now satisfactory? Sinleqeunnini (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the examples are now clear. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

exception to constraint (lexeme) edit

On hold

Description	lexeme that is an exception to the constraint, qualifier to define a property constraint in combination with P2302
Data type	Lexeme
Domain	property
Example 1	Breton Favereau dictionary lexeme ID (P11068)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except korrandon (L628622)
Example 2	Breton Favereau dictionary lexeme ID (P11068)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except kaoc'h (L627729)
Example 3	DWDS lemma ID (P9940)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except Cyberstrategie (L905505)
Example 4	DWDS lemma ID (P9940)distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) except Bändel (L815181) and Bendel (L815180)
Example 5	Nynorskordboka-ID (P10041)distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) except daglegstove (L1141770) and daglegstue (L1141771)
See also	exception to constraint (P2303)

Motivation edit

For constraints, we need the equivalent of exception to constraint (P2303), but for lexemes. In particular, it is necessary for identifier properties used on lexemes (usually linking to dictionaries which often have a few weird exceptions like natural languages often have).

Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support - of course, since "element type" properties cannot be used on lexemes, this would be necessary --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ―Eihel (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I'm only leaving out the vote because that will make it easier for me to create the property. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support AdamSeattle (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --So9q (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep in mind that, until the necessary software changes (in WikibaseQualityConstraints and/or KrBot) have been made, this property will have no effect except to confuse users why it isn’t working. There should at the very least be an associated Phabricator task, and IMHO the property should only be created once the Wikidata team has committed to implementing the support in WBQC soon. I’d like to avoid a repeat of Wikidata:Property proposal/applies if regular expression matches. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): I figured that pretty much, thanks for the reminder and yes, indeed, we should absolutely Wait to hear from the dev team. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Useful for some Lexemes. Solaris5296 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identifiant Artcena edit

Under discussion

Description	Identifier of cultural organizations in the ARTCENA database
Represents	ARTCENA (Q60674444)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	élément, Q105815710
Example 1	Q2851554→ORG002239
Example 2	Q2868810→ORG000170
Example 3	Q2815417→ORG002157
Source	https://www.artcena.fr/annuaire
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobs	collecter des données
Wikidata project	Q60674444

Motivation edit

ARTCENA est une association sous tutelle du Ministère de la Culture née de la fusion de deux structures publiques culturelles : Hors les murs et le Centre National du théâtre (CNT) en 2016. ARTCENA est le principal centre de ressources dans le secteur du théâtre, des arts de la rue et du cirque en France. Sa base de données est riche et représentative des organismes de ces secteurs sur le territoire français. Il semble pertinent que les identifiants uniques de cette structure culturelle se retrouvent dans les éléments de wikidata. Joe Brable (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support, an important property for culture.--Arbnos (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it makes good sense to connect to a national organization that is doing this work

‎linguistic family of place name edit

Under discussion

Description	Relates directly a placename to its original language family. It's not the language in which the toponym is written, but the language from which the word (place name) comes from.
Data type	Item
Example 1	Chía (Q1093102)→Chibchan (Q520478)
Example 2	La Calera (Q1440823)→Indo-European (Q19860)
Example 3	Otanche (Q1577588)→Cariban (Q33090)

Motivation edit

Before reading please notice that probably the examples above are wrong because I don't understand how the example template works.

Right now I haven't found a way to relate each toponym to a linguistic root, or a language family. There is a native label (Q45025080) item, but in its description is pointing to how the word is written in its original/native language.

I want to do this classification so I can organize an classify each toponym with its language family and do it a in a more scientific way. Right now I am adding a new statement for each toponym I am interested in using the language of work or name (P407) property and then adding the value of its language family to each "language of work or name" property. Here is the query: https://w.wiki/86BD ~~{{SPARQL}}~~

Technically it works, but the information I am linking doesn't corresponds to how science, linguists, onomastics and toponymy studies the language family of place names. Probably the property I am suggesting is too specific to one set of data (language family (Q25295)), so maybe it is better to find a way for a property to hold more linguistic information, such as "evolution of the name through history" or a "why this place is called that way". This is up to discussion. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duityors (talk • contribs) at 18:22, October 30, 2023‎ (UTC).

Discussion edit

Notified participants of WikiProject Names

Support, an important property for linguistics.--Arbnos (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duityors:, are you interested to continue this property proposal? However, your query also not working! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ZI Jony, yes I am interested in continue the proposal.

Here is the link for the query: https://w.wiki/86BD Thank you. Duityors (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Duityors: in another forum in November, I mentioned to you that if the original language and meaning in that original language of the place names was known, lexemes could be created for those names as a first step (either adding senses referring to the places to those lexemes, or linking Spanish lexemes for those places to the original language lexemes via derived from lexeme (P5191), as a later step). Two months later, perhaps that seems like a better idea? Mahir256 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256 Until know I can sit and analyze your comment. Thank you! I am going to research more about lexeme creation. Still, I am still interested in this proposal. Duityors (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I understood this proposal right, origin of a word can be stated with the property derived from lexeme (P5191) in the lexeme item. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 20:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

event role edit

Under discussion

Description	item that describes a role in an event class
Data type	Item
Domain	occurrence (Q1190554)
Example 1	communication (Q11024)event roleQ_communicator_in_communication
Example 2	communication (Q11024)event roleQ_content_in_communication
Example 3	communication (Q11024)event roleQ_hearer_in_communication
Example 4	eating (Q213449)event roleeater (Q20984678)
Example 5	eating (Q213449)event rolefood (Q2095)
Source	initially based on PropBank, but extensible as needed
Planned use	add to (possibly newly created) items describing occurrences/actions
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
See also	predicate for (P9970), has thematic relation (P9971)

Motivation edit

All events and actions have semantic core roles - "eating" has the "eater" and the "eaten", "throwing" has the "thrower", the "target" and the "projectile". These roles are not optional. Every act of "eating" has an "eater" and the "eaten" independently of how and in which language it is expressed. Most of the existing items for actions do not mention these roles. See our project Events and Role Frames for a more detailed description and discussion. There are several property proposals currently under discussion: “agent of action”, “object of action”, “frame element” to partially remedy this problem. In our opinion, these proposals, while going in the right direction are limited (we discuss their limitations in our project pages). Instead, we propose a more general solution consistent with PropBank, the largest repository of structured event and action descriptions (over 11,000 role sets).

In our proposal, an event can have several "event role" statements each pointing to a item that describes the role in greater detail. Such items will be subclasses of Q_event_role and will be specific to every event-role combination, e.g., Q_eater_in_eating or Q_eaten_in_eating. In some cases, there are existing items that can be used as event roles. For example, eater (Q20984678) can be used as Q_eater_in_eating and food (Q2095) as Q_eaten_in_eating (although there are some problems in using these items that are discussed in our project Events and Role Frames). But in many cases the existing items that describe event roles do not currently exist and need to be created. The event role items use another proposed property "selectional preference" to specify the kinds of items that can play this role, see the selectional preference proposal. The proposed new items will connect back to the event via the "role in event" property, proposed separately.

It is important to note that the proposed property should be applied only to action and event classes, not instances. The event role items describe the instances that can play the role. To connect an actual instance of an event with an instance of a role we need another property and a qualifier: "event argument" and "argument type". These are described in related proposals.

To summarize, we distinguish between "event role" for event classes and "event argument" for event instances. The former point to an item describing the role, the latter to the actual item that plays the role in a specific event.

This is one of the five proposed properties that should be considered together: "event role", role in event, selectional preference, "event argument", and "argument type".

Mahirtwofivesix (talk), on behalf of Anatole Gershman 21:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The project ontology people https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology should be notified. Unfortunately the project is too big to ping. I have added a section on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology mentioning this proposal. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Question: Considering an example from Q118323866 (a Persian-Hindi verb glossary): ارزیدن/арзидан (L1013134) is glossed with بکنا and برابر ہونا indicating a meaning of “to value,” in the sense of to set a price for something to be sold. The predication described here is intransitive. PropBank has value.01 which looks like a close match in meaning, but involves more participants than this sense of ارزیدن permits. Would an item for a "value" event which has three roles be usable for a monovalent sense, or should it be expected that the monovalent sense of ارزیدن link to a different item? --عُثمان (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Can you provide translations of the concepts you used as examples? Sorry, I was not able to understand your argument. It seems you are suggesting that the events roles should be language dependent, at the lexeme level, am I right? If so, the point is it that proposal could be more aligned with the property https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P9971 as in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L3230#S1 Arademaker (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arademaker It was a question rather than an argument. There is no way to translate the verbs in question to English, but they are used in a similar way to the English expression “value sale,” to describe a sale of discounted goods. For a good to be "valued" in this sense is to be made purchasable at a fixed cost.

In any case, since asking that question, I think it is possible and necessary for event items to be agnostic to transivity and verb valency since in some languages this can vary between individual speakers describing the same event. عُثمان (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand the need for a whole new set of Q-items to convey these roles – what is wrong with, e.g., communication source (Q974688), message (Q628523), and receiver (Q1339255)? Or eater (Q20984678) and food (Q2095)? Obviously such items will not always exist, but we should use them where they do. And for that matter, would using has part(s) (P527) in this role be too much of a stretch? Swpb (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You are right, some of the event classes have existing items describing some of the event roles. I modified the proposal to reflect this. We have to be careful, though, some of the seemingly fitting candidates for an event role concept such as receiver (Q1339255) are intended for something else, "an information theory term" in this example.

You also suggest using has part(s) (P527) instead of the proposed "event role". The property has part(s) (P527) is defined as "object is a part of this subject" synonymous to "composed of". Examples include United States Congress (Q11268)has part(s) (P527)United States Senate (Q66096). While this property seems sufficiently general to cover event roles, a better solution may be to have the "event role" property as a more specific subclass of has part(s) (P527). This needs to be discussed further. --Anatole Gershman (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: thoughts on the above reply (and other replies to your concerns regarding the other proposals)? Mahir256 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, an important property for the connectivity of Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as pointed out by User:Swpb, I also consider that many Q items can be reused. For example, we have https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55983771 for the concept of an assassin and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1851760 for the proposed Q_assassinated item, right? But I support this property proposal for standardizing how events are described (at class level). --Arademaker (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having given this proposal more consideration, I can see it being useful --عُثمان (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It brings new insights into the semantics of action. It can be very useful for Lexicographical Data. --Csisc (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The first examples are not involving valid items. The status quo of eating (Q213449) practiced by (P3095) eater (Q20984678) provides the same information but is moer specific. A property that's about expressing relationships that can be already expressed in Wikidata but expressing them in a less informative way is not good. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eating (Q213449) is one of a few event types where the event roles are specified using the existing properties. Currently, Wikidata uses a variety of properties to represent event roles, including some fairly general ones such as practiced by (P3095), participant (P710), uses (P2283) and many event-specific ones such as perpetrator (P8031) and victim (P8032). Currently, Wikidata property related to events (Q22964785) has 61 instances which may or may not include all of the properties used for event roles. It seems that such properties were added as needed without an overall schema. Many event types such as lecture (Q603773) or music competition (Q1955280) do not mention any roles at all. Since adding properties to Wikidata requires extensive discussion, it does not seem reasonable to use properties to represent a potentially open-ended set of event roles. For example, an event representing a chemical reaction may have several specialized roles for various ingredients. We may not want to add new properties for such roles. It is also highly unlikely that Wikidata users would agree on a finite property ontology to represent all event roles. We proposed to solve this problem by adding a single property "event role" whose object is a Q item describing the role. For many event types such role items do not exist and have to be created. Anatole Gershman (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we want to overpopulate or duplicate 'role Qnodes', many of which already exist (e.g., eater, Q20984678, runner, Q12803959, etc.) but we need a way to describe and organize these Qnodes as stakeholders in a verb/event (the subject of eating Q213449, the subject of running, Q105674). The idea is to treat these roles systematically, adding more of them whenever appropriate to describe an event. Take 'public election' Q40231, it is useful to know that there will be an electorate and a political candidate. Knowing that a political candidate is a role in a public election can be useful when reasoning about the T-Box of the ontology.

An organic way to label and connect existing -and new- Qnodes as roles of an event would give us a mechanism to reason about events in a more systematic manner. It doesn't affect the semantics of the roles that already exist and give us a framework to decide which other roles should be added. For example 'presidential election' (Q858439) has an 'office contested' role, but not a 'candidate' role. However the '2020 US Presidential Election' (Q22923830) has a 'successful candidate', which is a subproperty of 'candidate' (P726). This role of 'candidate' would be very useful to have in the 'public election' Qnode directly. Rosariou (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that tying into subproperties is better and fits better into Wikidata than the current proposal. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbnos: Why do you consider it important to for connectivity when connections can already be made? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We want to make the connection of event participants to events much more consistent, so that it will be easy to find participants even if you don't know what they are typically called, and easy to extract the information automatically for all events if needed. Does the make sense? MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: thoughts on the replies to your comments above from Anatole, Rosariou, and Martha? Mahir256 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikidata we generally want to describe relationships as specific as possible. This property is about reducing data quality by letting data be entered in a less specified way.

The suggestion that adding two different ways to enter the information will increase consistency suggests misunderstanding how modeling plays out in practice. If you have to different ways than you have less consistency within Wikidata because different users are going to use different models.

If you want a way to automatically query such relations you could add something like practiced by (P3095) instance of (P31) "Wikidata event role property". I'm not sure that this would be the best way to model it, but it would be the way to batch different properties together.

presidential election (Q858439) properties for this type (P1963) candidate (P726) is a way to express that all presidential elections have candidates in our current ontology. The fact that you come up with examples that our existing ontology handles perfectly fine suggest that it would be better to learn how our ontology works than trying to change it without understanding it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do seem to be learning more about Wikidata every week, and we completely agree that we want any additions we make to synchronize well with what is already there. Rosario had suggested that we use subproperty (Q112037424) to show where something that is already there is more specific than what we want to add. practiced by (P3095) is an excellent example of a more specific version of what we have been thinking of as "event-role". So, if event-role got added as a property, we would also create a sub property relation between them. However, as it is currently defined practiced by seems to primarily be for human agents of human activities, so it is good where it applies, but it doesn't really cover earthquakes as agents of destruction, for instance. And earthquakes can have many effects, such as collapsing buildings, in addition to the landslides, tsunamis and soil liquefaction that are currently listed under has effect (P1542), another excellent property. We don't want to replace practiced by but simply create a more general structure that it would be connected to in a rational way, that will make it easier to add similar kinds of things more systematically, while providing appropriate links to things that are already there. We've been rethinking our original proposal, based on your comments as well as others, and will post our new suggestions soon. MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that the proposal will be amended so that there is a generic property and then specific roles for events would be subproperties of this generic property, reusing existing properties whereever possible? Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure how you would use a item like subproperty (Q112037424) here. What could be used is a construction with subproperty of (P1647). Practically, SPARQL however doesn't make it easy to search through all subproperties. The query has the same complexity as one using instance of (P31) to group all event role properties together.

practiced by (P3095)'s definition from the property proposal explicitely uses the term "agent" instead of person or human. So it's useable for nonhuman agents as well. I agree that an earthquake isn't an agent. We have has cause (P828) and has immediate cause (P1478) which could be used when an earthquake is the cause.

Ontology-wise, it's also worth noting that eating (Q213449) is a process (Q3249551) but not an event (Q1656682) or occurrence (Q1190554) (the same goes for communication (Q11024)). I would prefer consistant naming so "process role" would be more fitting than "event role". Process is a word out of Basic Formal Ontology (https://ontobee.org/ontology/BFO?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000015). What's your motivation for using the term "event"? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless the entire proposal on events is modified to better fit in with what is currently in place in Wikidata. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hijri Date edit

Under discussion

Description	Hijri Date of claim as written in the source
Data type	String
Domain	All time claims may take this qualifier
Allowed values	[\-]?[1-9][0-9]*(\-[0-1][0-9](\-[0-3][0-9])?)?
Example 1	Muhammad (Q9458) -> date of death (P570) -> "632-06-08" -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "11-03-12"
Example 2	Avicenna (Q8011)-> date of death (P570) -> "1037" -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "428-09" only year and month in original source
Example 3	Battle of Badr (Q486124) -> point in time (P585) -> "624-03-12" julian -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "2-09-17"
Source	w:Islamic calendar
Planned use	All the dates that were mentioned in the sources as a Hijri date must have this qualifier

التحفيز edit

There is no way to enter the Hijri date in Wikidata. Some users use refine date (P4241) qualifier and value elements are part of (P361) of Islamic calendar (Q28892), but this not the purpose of refine date (P4241) and reported as violations in Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P4241

This new property will resolve this problem.

This property will be a qualifier property for any time data claim.

The value may be only year (Y), (year and month (Y-MM)) or (year, month and day(Y-MM-DD)) no time allowed. the format of the value will be like ISO 8601 format with some differs:

No zero year, the year before 1 is -1.
No leading zero required for year.

Using string value make it easy to retrieve data and reformat it. --حبيشان (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support.-القلموني (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Indeed, a nesesry proprty for Isllamic heritage and civilzation Materials. @MartinPoulter: I think this is interesting for you :).--Michel Bakni (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support X7md (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose @حبيشان: there is a real lack but this is a very wrong solution to solve it, time should have the datatype "Point in time" not string. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON datatype "Point in time" does not support Hijri Calendar see Help:Data_type#time. Do you want us to store Hijri Dates as Gregoirian dates? حبيشان (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@حبيشان: this is indeed a big problem but Gregorian is still way less worse than storing time as string (plus in this proposal, Hijri Dates are still stored as Gregorian dates, which is also wrong and bad). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON the claim value will take the corresponding Gregorian Date of the Hijri date and this Gregorian Date is approximate because many of Hijri Dates relies of crescent sighting and some of them relying in calculated algorithm we have many of them (see w:Tabular_Islamic_calendar).

Why storing Gregorian with Hijri in same claim value? because many of wikidata clients have not algorithms to view the Hijri date in understandable format so what bad of this. you may suggest to set claim value to "some-value" and the Hijri Date qualifier will give the value in Hijri Calendar.

For storing time value in string: for current wikidata datatypes we have not better from storing Hijri Date as string, If you have better solution please inform us. also WikiData stores "point in time" in the database as string not numeric. حبيشان (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The better solution (and the only right one in my mind) is to add support for others calendar into the datatype. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON I am ready for Adding support of Hijri Calendar to "Point in time" datatype I have past experence in adding Hijri Calendar support to PHP Applications:
I developed a PHP lib

Added Hijri to phpBB forums

Added Hijri to WordPress

Added Hijri to PostgreSQL 12 DB by C extension (closed source)

Added Hijri to Lua

Just give us the approval and I will work with. Other than that we have no better solution than the above proposal. حبيشان (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have dev experience, feel free to develop it ; if it works, I guess it will probably be implemented, ping @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): who could tell us more. You could also create or comment on phabricator task, like phab:T206973. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It should be specified which Hijri calendar will be added as a value, given the lack of a universal Hijri calendar, since it historically depended almost entirely on sighting the new moon, which was different geographically, and even from community to another. If it's a calendar based on astronomical calculations, could it not be calculated from the Gregorian calendar? In which case, a simple conversion option could be added. If not, there is risk that multiple values will be entered, and there will likely always be an uncertainty of a few days as to the exact date.--Ideophagous (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ideophagous Multiple values is not a RISK most of properties accept multiple values.
- Islamic history events that were recorded in their references exclusively in the Hijri date How do you think you can enter their date data in Wikidata, do you have a solution.
- You refuse to enter the Hijri date on the pretext that it did not indicate the type of Hijri Calendar entered, while you accept the registration of historical facts with a Gregorian date while it recorded in the references with a Hijri date without mentioning the method of converting the Hijri date to Gregorian!!
- It is safer to record the Hijri date as stated in the reference without any modification, and then leave it to the user to choose the appropriate conversion method.
حبيشان (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @حبيشان. Maybe the property then should be called "Sourced Hijri Date" or Hijri Date in Source" or such, and the addition of a source has to be mandatory, because I'm sure some editors will simply start converting from Gregorian to Hijri without adding a source. Ideophagous (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ideophagous: dates always have a part of uncertainty and fuzzyness, even inside one "universal" calendar. There is nothing we can do about it, it works mostly well for Julian and Gregorian calendars, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Hijri. It could be a parameter in the datatype and if not, ranks, context and qualifiers could always be used to understand the date. That point is not a problem here. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ideophagous Customize the date under (add qualifier) and include the Hijri date feature, and it is preferable for the user to include a reference to it. Mohammed Qays (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @حبيشان. For a date, multiple values is a necessary evil, not a desirable feature. Uncertainty about an exact date may exist, but in the case of the Hijri Calendar it takes a whole new proportion. 12 Dhu Al Hijja 523 in Arabia is not necessarily 12 Dhu Al Hijja 523 in Morocco. If two events are dated to that day, but happened in different places, how can we know if they happened on the same day or not? Conversely if two events at different locations have different Hijri dates on Wikidata, how do we know they didn't happen on the same day, or how many days exactly separate them? Anyways, if you add the condition that the user will at least see a warning if they don't add a source (without exception), I will switch my vote to a weak support. Ideophagous (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ideophagous If the source mentions the day of the week (as most of hostrical sources). day of week (P2894) can be added and it will give a clear point of time and exact confersion to other calendars. Adding warnig for missing the source is good but with exception of publication date (P577) because it will circular citation. حبيشان (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Hijri date is one of the important dates for Arab and Islamic societies, and there are events, births and deaths recorded in it. It is very important to us as an Arab and Muslim society. Mohammed Qays (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It's a very important property for Islamic Articles. And our friend حبيشان has the technical experience to help in any technical support needed for this addition.--Dr-Taher (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support.--RASHEEDYE (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support عبدالعزيز علي (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support أيمن 1974 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per above Germartin1 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, Hijri calender is very important. Islamic scholars and societies have written down their hisotry, events and other records by using it. Thus we can enrich wikidata by enormous knowledge if we add this property. Ahmed Naji ^Talk 11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Storing dates as strings is not structured data. I think refine date (P4241) is the right property for this until there is proper support for more calendars. It is a common and valid use of the qualifier, the constraint violations report is wrong. If you look at the item page or Special:ConstraintReport instead, it isn't shown as a constraint violation. - Nikki (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikki @Germartin1 @VIGNERON @Ideophagous We can change datatype to item. حبيشان (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support when phab:T206973 is implemented - it's clearly important data but neither string data type or point in time are currently acceptable for this. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

intervener edit

Under discussion

Description	name of a third-party group or person allowed to participate in a legal case
Represents	intervention (Q2292948)
Data type	Item
Domain	human (Q5), organization (Q43229)
Example 1	York University v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Q108085698)→QThe Writers' Union of Canada (Q8038449)
Example 2	CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Q5009584)→QAccess Copyright (Q4672434)
Example 3	Eurobank Ergasias S.A. v. Bombardier inc. (Q125349256)→QCanadian Bankers Association (Q1032046)
Source	https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/search-recherche-eng.aspx, e.g. https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39856
Planned use	To create a Wikidata project for Canadian Supreme Court cases and to start populating SCC entries with this property
Number of IDs in source	"Interveners make submissions in about half of the cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada" (https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1086&context=ohlj)
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Implied notability	Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316)
See also	plaintiff (P1620), defendant (P1591)

Motivation edit

Half of Supreme Court of Canada decisions are made with third-parties called interveners and it has even been said that you can tell how important a case by the number of interveners allowed to weigh in on a pending legal decision (https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=scholarly works) The role of interveners are of great interest to legal scholars, political scientists, and activists. At present, legal cases allow for a plaintiff and a respondent to be properties of a legal case, but not third party intervenes who are also allowed to present documents to the court. Interveners should be considered an 'input' to a legal decision and not an 'outcome' and as such, they don't belong as 'part of' a decision of the judges. Happy to clarify any of the above. Note: I've asked WikiProject Canadian law for comment. Copystar (talk) 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion edit

is fake of edit

Under discussion

Description	the kind (class) of elements this item falsifies / is a fake for
Represents	fake (Q22959676)
Data type	Item
Domain	forgery (Q1332286) feint (Q427117) forgery (Q1332286) … all kind of fakes
Allowed values	class (Q16889133)
Example 1	⟨ play-action pass (Q1734020)    ⟩ → Search ⟨ rush (Q744865) ⟩
Example 2	⟨ Feigned retreat (Q5441540)    ⟩ → Search ⟨ withdrawal (Q1760704) ⟩
Example 3	⟨ Laura l'immortelle (Q3218727)    ⟩ → Search ⟨ speculative/fantastic fiction novel (Q10992055) ⟩ author (P50) ⟨ preadolescent (Q116789753)    ⟩
See also	forgery after (P1778) simulates (P12328)
Distinct-values constraint	yes

Motivation edit

We need a model for modeling fakes, forgery or feints, this is an attempt to advance in this field. Not top priority of course but nice to have I think. author TomT0m / talk page 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support I can see how this would be useful in a number of entries. --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some overlap with simulates (P12328)? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wd-Ryan I did not know about this property, thanks. Maybe yes, but the "trickery/deception" dimension seems absent of "simulate". Nobody would say that a special effect in a movie.

There also seems to be a fundamental difference between something that simulates a situation (truck simulator) in a virtual world and something that is intended to replace by fulfilling the same function, and a virtual simulation with no consequence in the real world besides learning and entropy increase. author TomT0m / talk page 08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think there's enough difference from simulates (P12328) to justify a new property. That the purpose of a particular simulation may be to trick or deceive can be stated separately, with e.g. has goal (P3712), where relevant. Likewise for the physical/virtual nature of the simulation, which will in most cases be established by the basic membership properties. Swpb (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb I think the "artificial heart" is not a question of physical nature or not, it's a question of "fulfills the role of", it's not at all like an exercise. It's the same difference as a drône that would fulfils the same role as a soldier in a battlefield, we would not say that the drone "simulates" a soldier. It would just be a weapon.

for objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) I think usually just using instance of (P31) / subclass of (P279) is usually enough, for example play-action (Q1734020) is just a kind of pass play disguised.

I also still thinks that the (trickery) intention is not trivial to infer. If it's a subclass of "fake" it may be queried like this but … objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) : trickery is convoluted and not a better model, and also there might be a lot of inconsistent ways to express this information. Maybe using several properties in an unclear way to convoy a well identify nuance in the meaning to spare the existence of a property is not a good tradeoff. author TomT0m / talk page 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your reply to wd-Ryan, it seemed to me you were looking to use a physical vs. virtual distinction to separate this proposal from simulates (P12328). If you want to express that something is intended to take the role of something else, I'd use replaces (P1365). As to the purpose of trickery, you're right that P31/P279 will generally be enough to infer trickery, without resorting to has goal (P3712) – but to me, that strengthens the case against a new "is fake of" property, since the presence of a P31/P279 statement implying trickery removes the need to express that nefarious intent with a property that is otherwise the same as simulates (P12328). To me, the reason why you are simulating something – to replace something, to teach someone, to trick someone, etc. – is a separate bit of information from what you are simulating, and trying to capture them in the same property is not good modeling. Swpb (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb No, I don't think so. Think that you can fake something in a sport simulation video game … It's actually two different dimensions.

"Replaces" is definitely not a good property for that. Imagine if a fake doctor replaces your real doctor for a while ? author TomT0m / talk page 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With replaces (P1365), I was thinking of your drone/soldier example. At this point I don't understand what case you are making for this proposal; I need to see specific examples where you think the existing properties are not sufficient. Swpb (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see the distinction between this and simulates. Almost all (if not all) types of fakery in a sporting sense is when someone simulates doing something, but does something else. (Hidden ball trick, diving, etc.) Have you got any examples of something where "simulates" doesn't cover it? Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski : my problem is actually, how do you convey the trickery sense with simulates. A fire truck simulation is not a trickery, but could also use the property you propose. But the intension behind the truck simulation is totally genuine. That's the nuance I want to convey and I did not see yet a simple way to express it.

A more convoluted way could be with queries and inferences : if the action is a subclass of run play but simulates a pass play and "an action cannot be at the same time a run play and a pass play" … (we can do the last one using "disjoint union of") or by classifying as both a subclass of "fake / trickery" and "run play" at the same time, but none of these models are simple.

(also reading about this hidden ball trick it seems it can involve the simple masking of the player to confuse the defense about where it is going, it's then not necessarily a trickery about simulating a kind of action by another kind of action, it can be the same action in a different direction ? You simulate a pass but you actually do a pass ? ) author TomT0m / talk page 14:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

model for and its inverse property modeled by edit

open

Description	what the subject is a conceptual or scientific model/theory for
Represents	model (Q1979154)
Data type	Item
Domain	item (instance of/subclass of conceptual model (Q2623243) or formula (Q976981) or model (Q1979154) or theory (Q17737)… )
Example 1	data model (Q1172480) → data (Q42848)
Example 2	database model (Q267136) → database (Q8513)
Example 3	abstract data type (Q827335) → data type (Q190087)
Example 4	Navier–Stokes equations (Q201321) → fluid dynamics (Q216320)
Example 5	Peano axioms (Q842755) → non-negative integer (Q28920052)
Example 6	hybrid system (Q2665508) → cyber-physical system (Q1120057)
See also	has role in modeling (P6530), computes solution to (P2159), approximation algorithm (P1171), is the study of (P2578) Property sometimes abused for this relationship : is the study of (P2578), for example used in the relativity theory item to link to spacetime.

Motivation edit

There are many conceptual models and formulas that are a model for some thing. It would be nice to be able to express these relations with a simple property instead of having to use awkward statements such as abstract data type (Q827335)subclass of (P279)mathematical model (Q486902)of (P642)data type (Q190087).

There is also has role in modeling (P6530) but that does not express the same relation "has role in modeling X" does not mean that it's a model for X ... but rather that it is a part of a model for X.

Other properties (by User:Fgnievinski like represents/represented by are misused to represent this relationship.

Previously: a 2016 proposal ; a more recent one (this one is basically a reopening of the previous more examples, from the discussion); User:Push-f, the creator of the last proposal, withdrew the proposal with reason I withdraw my proposal in favor of using statements like Xhas use (P366)scientific modeling (Q1116876)of (P642)Y, and the discussion was closed by a property creator asking for a new one, which is this one. There were only support the property.

I reopen because the model proposed by Push-f is using of (P642) qualifier on a usage Search statement which is deprecated, and because I think this is a genuine relationship, very common and many examples that deserves its own property. It's also simpler, note that the model does not seem to be much used only 4 results to a corresponding query.

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, YULdigitalpreservation, ArthurPSmith, Andrew Su, Salgo60, Andrawaag: @Yair rand: (also pinging the participants to the has role in modelling discussion as I discover this was the initial proposal and it is related to [the OBO discussion https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/288] that discussed more specific properties. author TomT0m / talk page 10:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

discussion edit

Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Participants of the old discussion ping : @Push-f, The-erinaceous-one, Tinker Bell, Fgnievinski:

~~I reiterate my Support to the proposal. author TomT0m / talk page 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Being a proposer you don't have to vote for your own proposal. Please note that having your own vote does not give you an advantage when creating a property. See WD:PCC. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirilloparma Please consider the circumstances, this is actually a reopening of an old proposal I actually voted for. It's recreated, actually, after the property creator closing which is actually questionable because the initial proposer closed it with a bad idea and the proposal actually had only support. Creating a regular proposal on Wikidata is usually an arduous journey, please don't be a cold actor making this actually more difficult. We have very few reviewers in a lot of cases, and this is the third attempt for this important and legitimate one. author TomT0m / talk page 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No/reject. I'm responding to the posting over at WPPhys. My knee-jerk reaction is that this is a terrible idea, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and/or science in general. If you're going to link spacetime to general relativity, then what happened to Newton or Cartan or MOND? Are you pronouncing all these other theories of spacetime to be bad/wrong/rejected? What about Kaluza Klein? Is your space-time 5-dimensional, with hidden dimensions? Kaluza-Klein did their work in the 1920's; Einstein himself spent decades on it, its a foundational concept in string theory, but you're going to reject it because you've got some preconceived notion about spacetime that matches what the folks on reddit talk about? As to the equations themselves: they also apply to fluid mechanics, and to configurations of lattices, e.g. the black hole solution (schwarzschild solution) is a soliton, that is, a Lax pair, (Belinski-Zakharov), so are you going to link Lax pairs to gravitation? Or to water (KdV eqn) or to nuclear physics (say, Skyrme model)? The QCD confinemnt of the skyrme model, the quarks can be unconfined by shrinking Einstein spacetime to about 3-4 times the size of a nucleus, at which point, the Skyrmion kind of melts and releases all the quarks: confinement is gone, due to high local space-time curvature. So is nuclear physics all about space-time, now? Yes, I've written a tirade here, but the point is to show that classifying relationships in the sciences are necessarily vague and tenuous when they're correct, and inhibit forward progress, becoming dangerous when enforced by some cultural committee. 67.198.37.16 17:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can link several theories to one kind of objects, this is not a monopolistic claim, no problem with that, it's just a claim about what theory is about what kind of object is all. You can link both Newton and MOND and Cartan to "spacetime" if that's relevant. author TomT0m / talk page 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you link space-time to 5-dimensional spacetime? There are several kinds of 5D spacetimes: the KK one, mentioned above, but also the recent results on 5D black holes with naked singularities and Cauchy horizons. They're two different kinds of 5D spacetimes. Then of course, the affine lie algebras are 26-dimensional spacetimes, unless they're fermionic, in which case they're 10-D. The obvious solution is to say "if wikipedia article X has a wikilink to topic Y in it, then X and Y are related". But to try to then say "the relationship between X and Y is that of theory and model" runs afoul of the details. 67.198.37.16 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(p.s. looking at above examples: the descriptive set theory people and the reverse mathematics people might not like your link of peano axioms to the non-negative integers. Seems like a flawed understanding of what the peano axioms are trying to do, and what they are actually used for, in day-to-day applications: how people actually use them, and what they are good for, as opposed to the ostensible "thing they describe": They describe a fragment of set theory; that fragment has a model which happens to include the non-negative integers. But what matters are the results of model theory, and not that one possible model just happens to be the non-negative integers.) 67.198.37.16 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Peano axioms are used to define the integers, in a formal model, and addition, etc. The fact that there are other models is not a problem for this property, as already said before.

As for your previous point, this property is not intended to solve all the problems nor to model every possible relationship like "this article as a link to that other one", this is nonsense. But yes, N-dimensional theories about spacetime may be link to space and time, what would precisely be the problem ? author TomT0m / talk page 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(anyway, the sentence about the links on Wikipedia pages seems to imply you are kind of against the whole Wikidata idea, so … why coming here commenting, upset about me talking about this on enwiki ?) author TomT0m / talk page 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody explain why the property 'objet of a theory' is not sufficient to link a theory to an object ? The idea of model (in science) has been much discussed in history of science and it is historically strange to apply this for instance to the Peano axioms. Perhaps, one should change the name of "object of a theory" to "important object in or for a theory", but "model" for me describes a very specific type of link (perhaps too specific for a property in Wikidata, as it may lead to debates, depending on one's epistemologic views). Thank you in advance. --Cgolds (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cgolds What property are you referring to precisely is the study of (P2578) (it's intended to link academic fields to their objects) ? has role in modeling (P6530) (which may fit but I find the example stranges, it links gene items to deseases) ? I can't find anything searching that label.

I understand that in "model theory" in maths indeed this is kind of reversed, as the "specification" (the axioms) and the objects that have theses properties (natural numbers for peano axioms) are called "models" of the theory, so yes, the term seems to be a bit off but this is the exception ? If we look at the article about « fr:Modèle scientifique », although there are not many sources, kind of reflects what is usually understand as a scientific model nowdays, and it's in that sense I think it's used.

For I dug a bit, because the "gene - disease" relationship seems way to broad, a gene is not by itself a model or a theory for a disease in any sense, that's why they renamed it : see this related discussion on the OBO ontology in link with the discussion on Wikidata about the proposal. They are talking about more specific relationships if needed, in relationship with Wikidata, and I think that's exactly related to this proposal. A gene may indeed "has a role" in modeling a disease, but it's usually far from being a whole model by itself ? They broadened the label from "is model of" to "has role in modelling" out of practical problems it seems, because it was in practice or they wanted to use it like that. I think Wikidata is larger so I think we could benefit from clarity. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TomT0m I was indeed refering to objet de la discipline (P2578), but if I understand you well, this property means "what is the object(ive) of the discipline" (and it would have been better to call it "subject" then :), not "an important object of the discipline". Or is your problem with "discipline" instead of "theory" ? It is true that "model" is not very appropriate for mathematics, but even in physics you may have a lot of discussions (see above !). For the (general) relativity theory, I understood that it modelizes gravitation more than spacetime (although of course the issue theory vs model(ization) is already a difficult topic). We are looking for for "object playing an important role in" or something of the kind. Cgolds (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cgolds yes, this is this meaning, "objet" have both meanings this may be ambiguous (I think I proposed the property, and it was labelled study of but properties have a way of living their life in Wikidata, I can't fully tell what happened after). I make a difference between the process of studying something and the body of knowledge this process produces. Theories and models are output. If physics eventually everything is bound to model the real world if you take a realistic point of view, which I think we should do. Something else like "nominalism" is self-referential, in practice we reflect visions and descriptions of the world, but … how different visions are tight to each over ?

I don't think it's a problem to model both gravity and spacetime, why should this be exclusive. Although yes, "spacetime" if you look at the wikipedia articles like en:spacetime is actually defined as a class of model in which space and time are intimately tight. But in the real world it can be translated as "if we take two clocks in two referentials that moves relatively fast from each other you cannot get them synchronised, you have to take into account there speed relative to each other (and the mass repartition, for GR) to make sense of it.

There is also the distinction of a theory and a model, a theory can be entirely abstract but if you want to make a model of the world, say a climate model, you have to take measures and datas from the real world to feed the equations, of course. Is it a real problem here ?

"object playing an important role in" really feels like a catch all almost meaningless relationship. The question is "but what role is this ? What kind of importance" ? (oh, it's too hard and philosophical, so we gave up). If you can link almost anything to almost anything it's probably a bad idea, I think we should avoid such properties. We have a couple of them like facet of (P1269) that people sometimes use when they don't know what to use. I think it's not really good because we don't then make the effort of asking ourselve if there is a more precise and purposeful relationship that could be created.

To take the example of a climate model and the earth climate "has a role in modeling" is really an understatement. "simulates" would be a much better choice. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a real problem with this, because space-time and gravitation do not play the same role in (general) relativity theory. Would you say that Newton's theory modelizes space (or time for that matter) ? Space and time (or later space-time) is a constituent/a fundamental element of the theory, but the theory does not modelize (or theoretize or simulates or ... whatever is your philosophical viewpoint on the issue) it. A climate model modelizes the earth climate, but neither the earth nor the PDEs at the basis of the model (if it is a model with PDEs). Perhaps we need indeed two properties, something like "modelizes" (gravition, earth climate etc) and something like "is a constituent of" or "a constitutive element of" or something of the kind (space-time, PDE, ...). It would be nice to have some other inputs, would not it   ? Cgolds (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎tartan image edit

Under discussion

Description	image of the item's tartan
Represents	tartan (Q216797)
Data type	Item
Example 1	Duke of Rothesay (Q1059510)→https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_of_Rothesay_tartan_(Vestiarium_Scoticum).png
Example 2	Clan Scott (Q913761)→https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scott_tartan_(Vestiarium_Scoticum).png
Example 3	Burberry (Q390107)→https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Burberry_pattern.svg
Source	https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/index
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)

Motivation edit

A lot of organizations, clans, families, individuals have their own tartan. Tartans can be done the same way how coat of arms and flags are encoded into Wikidata.

Discussion edit

Oppose We should not repeat the same mistakes made with coat of arms properties. We can use the tartan item with P18: Duke of Rothesay (Q1059510)<tartan><tartan item>image (P18)File:Prince_of_Rothesay_tartan_(Vestiarium_Scoticum).png. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 21:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tinker Bell Can I ask what mistakes were made with the CoA properties? Jhowie Nitnek 18:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm talking about redundancy: coat of arms image (P94) is redundant because the same relationship can be expressed by doing <item>coat of arms (P237)<item for CoA>image (P18). Having these extra properties make more difficult reusing data, because an user has to be aware of all of these ways to express data, instead of just one. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Tinker Bell Then you could say the same for flag image right? Jhowie Nitnek 20:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - @JhowieNitnek: Yes. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 20:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in lieu of the item-based proposal, per Tinker Bell. Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎tartan edit

Under discussion

Description	item's tartan; Tartan is a Scottish cloth pattern symbolizing a clan, region, or group.
Represents	tartan (Q216797)
Data type	Item
Example 1	Victoria (Q36687)→Victoria state tartan (Q124713670)
Example 2	House of Stuart (Q179840)→Royal Stewart tartan (Q7374878)
Example 3	Charles Edward Stuart (Q312581)→tartan of Prince Charles Edward Stuart (Q117826593)
Example 4	Squirrel's End (Q61745091)→Squirrel's End tartan (Q101001391)
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)

⧼Motivation⧽ edit

A lot of organizations, clans, families, individuals have their own tartan. Tartans can be done the same way how coat of arms and flags are encoded into Wikidata. — JhowieNitnek 11:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support — Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 21:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many clans have multiple "official" tartans (dress, hunting, ancient, etc.) I would suggest removing the single value constraint and recommend using a qualifier "object has role" for these. — PKM (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, especially considering the existence of prominent but dubious sources like the Vestiarium Scoticum (Q3556383) whose corresponding statements should be included but perhaps using reason for deprecated rank (P2241) or statement disputed by (P1310) as qualifier. — Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ to current description given that it doesn't tell me what a tartan happens to be. — ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why you oppose? Then I can adapt my proposal to be better. — Jhowie Nitnek 20:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a tartan is. I think that's true for more people then just me. I don't think that anyone who reads "subject's tartan" who didn't know what a tartan is will learn about what a tartan is by reading it. — ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tartan is Scottish cloth pattern, said to represent a clan, region, or other group of people often worn as a kilt. — Jhowie Nitnek 13:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

What about analogous Maasai patterns? Would they be included in this proposal or need a separate one? — Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎total deposits edit

Under discussion

Description	total value of deposits held by a bank or financial institution
Represents	deposit (Q5260774)
Data type	Quantity
Domain	mostly banks
Allowed units	currency
Example	Orient Finans Bank (Q125490253) → UZB 117.35 trillion (March 1, 2024)
Source	Wikipedia infoboxes, various external sources
Robot and gadget jobs	Possibly imports from infoboxes
See also	total assets (P2403)

Motivation edit

We need a way to reflect total value of deposits in banks and other financial institutions. --Fordaemdur (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler RShigapov User:So9q User:1-Byte pmt Rtnf econterms Dollarsign8 User:Izolight maiki c960657 User:Automotom applsdev Bubalina Fordaemdur
Notified participants of WikiProject Companies --Fordaemdur (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎total loans edit

Under discussion

Description	total value of loans given out by a bank or financial institution
Represents	loan (Q189539)
Data type	Quantity
Domain	mostly banks
Allowed units	currency
Example	Orient Finans Bank (Q125490253) → UZB 141.26 trillion (March 1, 2024)
Source	Wikipedia infoboxes, various external sources
Robot and gadget jobs	Possibly imports from infoboxes
See also	total assets (P2403)

Motivation edit

We need a way to reflect the total value of loans given to clients currently outstanding by a bank, this is an important data item for banks and some other financial institutions. --Fordaemdur (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler RShigapov User:So9q User:1-Byte pmt Rtnf econterms Dollarsign8 User:Izolight maiki c960657 User:Automotom applsdev Bubalina Fordaemdur
Notified participants of WikiProject Companies --Fordaemdur (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the name it's not clear whether it counts loans in both direction or only one direction. It would be good to have a more clear name and a description. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianKl, thanks for mentioning that. I'm a bit new to properties creating process so thank you for helping out. total value of loans given by a bank to customers is what i'm referring to. I'm open to better description ideas as well. For loans received by a bank we already have total liabilities (P2138). --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links to publications that publish this statistic in English? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎Pitchbook Company Profile edit

Under discussion

Represents	PitchBook Company Data (Q125349050)
Data type	External identifier
Allowed values	[a-z-]+
Example	BlackRock (Q219635) → Blackrock Company profile
Planned use	Add Pitchbook company profiles for companies
Formatter URL	https://pitchbook.com/$1
See also	Crunchbase organization ID (P2088)

Motivation edit

Pitchbook is an important source of information and a credible database on Venture Capital, Private Equity, and M&A. --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler RShigapov User:So9q User:1-Byte pmt Rtnf econterms Dollarsign8 User:Izolight maiki c960657 User:Automotom applsdev Bubalina Fordaemdur
Notified participants of WikiProject Companies --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer "‎PitchBook company ID" as label for the property so that it follows our usual naming. Is there an argument for this label? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. - PKM (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have several comments/questions about this proposal, which seems incomplete.
- As a non-subscriber, I can't find any way on the web interface to search for a comany profile. https://pitchbook.com/profiles works, but that is not obvious. How would an editor unfamiliar with this site find a profile? You might add source = https://pitchbook.com/profiles to address this question.
- The sample external ID you provide for BlackRock should be the variable part of the actual formatted link https://pitchbook.com/profiles/advisor/10768-06, so "advisor/10768-06", not "Blackrock company profile".
- The part of the link after /profiles/ is variable, for example https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/46488-07 for SpaceX. Therefore the formatter link should be https://pitchbook.com/profiles/$1 and the regex should allow alpha, numbers, hypens, and slashes, so \d+. (It would be even better to list all the possible values for business type if you know what those are - see the formatting for Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417). I have seen advisor, company, investor, limited-partner, person.) Also note that the "numeric" part of the ID may include a letter.
- Please indicate that this is Data type = String.
- Please include more examples of different types: a company, a person and an investor would be good to add. I found https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/46488-07, https://pitchbook.com/profiles/person/327483-37P, https://pitchbook.com/profiles/investor/106350-58. - Thanks - PKM (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a person who actually has a wikidata ID: https://pitchbook.com/profiles/person/89071-66P = John Sculley (Q337024). Also note that Elon Musk has two IDS in PitchBook, one as an investor and one as a person. - PKM (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎Cbonds Company Profile edit

Under discussion

Represents	Cbonds (Q4035938)
Data type	External identifier
Allowed values	number
Example	Gazprom (Q102673) → Gazprom Company Profile
Planned use	Add Cbonds company profiles for companies
Formatter URL	https://cbonds.com/company/$1
See also	Crunchbase organization ID (P2088)

Motivation edit

Cbonds is an important financial database for public companies, especially useful for companies in Russia and other post-Soviet countries. --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler RShigapov User:So9q User:1-Byte pmt Rtnf econterms Dollarsign8 User:Izolight maiki c960657 User:Automotom applsdev Bubalina Fordaemdur
Notified participants of WikiProject Companies --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer "Cbonds company ID" as label for the property so that it follows our usual naming. Is there an argument for this label? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎source of transfer & destination of transfer edit

‎source of transfer edit

Under discussion

Description	entity that a transferred item is initially associated with, before this process associates it with another entity (the destination of transfer) [aliases: source / sender]
Represents	source (Q31464082)
Data type	Item
Example 1	pitch (Q1063937)source of transferpitcher (Q1048902) / pitch (Q1063937)destination of transfercatcher (Q1050571)
Example 2	data import into Wikidata (Q107661232)destination of transferWikidata (Q2013)
Example 3	Alaska Purchase (Q309029)source of transferRussian Empire (Q34266)destination of transferUnited States of America (Q30)
Example 4	radio broadcast (Q64707203)source of transfertransmitter (Q190157) / radio broadcast (Q64707203)destination of transferradio receiver (Q159391)
See also	addressee (P1817), start point (P1427) / destination point (P1444), target (P533), participant (P710)

‎destination of transfer edit

Under discussion

Description	entity that a transferred item comes to be associated with as a result of this process [aliases: recipient / receiver / destination ]
Represents	recipient (Q20820253)
Data type	Item
Example 1	see #source of action
Example 2	see #source of action
Example 3	see #source of action

Motivation edit

source (Q31464082) and recipient (Q20820253) are fundamental thematic roles in transfers (i.e., processes where an item starts off associated with one entity and becomes associated with another), and we do not currently have a simple way to express them. The only existing approach is to assign sources/recipients as values of participant (P710), uses (P2283), has part(s) (P527), or another property, and then to qualify those statements with object has role (P3831). participant (P710) is currently limited in scope to "person[s], group[s] of people or organization[s]", and uses (P2283) and has part(s) (P527) are vague and ill-suited to these roles. This approach is awkward and inconsistently used on main statements, and does not work at all when a source or destination is given by a qualifier.

We currently have some properties for specific types of transfers, such as addressee (P1817) for correspondence and start point (P1427) and destination point (P1444) for travel. The proposed properties would take those as sub-properties, while generalizing to all types of transfers, including physical, digital, legal, etc. (Note: although transfers may involve a wide variety of relations, including physical possession/containment, inclusion as a part, ownership, employment, etc., that does not mean the scope of the proposed properties is unlimited: values of "source" and "destination" must fulfill those thematic relations in context. In other words, there must be an item that is initially associated with the "source", and that comes to be associated with the "destination" in the same way, as a result of the process described by the subject.)

The item being transferred may be specified with uses (P2283) where necessary (leaving open the possibility of a future property for the thematic role of "item transferred"). It should be noted that the source of a transfer is not necessarily the cause of the transfer.

@Push-f, The-erinaceous-one, ZI Jony: Pinging based on participation in the last proposal; SM5POR already expressed intent to sit this one out.

Swpb (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, there is another active proposal, "Event role", that seeks to link all sorts of events to the roles therein. The present proposal seeks to link transfers (a specific type of event) to the entities that occupy the specific roles (inherent to transfers) of source and destination. So these proposals are not competing, and are in fact complimentary. Swpb (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion edit

Support seems sensible. Although uses (P2283) to model the thing transferred is a bad idea in my opinion, as it mixes the end and the means. To me "uses (P2283) " could be used to denote the mean, such as "electronic network" and the things being exchanged should have its own property. author TomT0m / talk page 19:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, agree that should have it's own property, but I didn't want to complicate this proposal. Could add that to the proposal if you think it would help get this through. Swpb (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, this looks good. Where I'm unsure is whether all items where this is used should be of some "transfer" class. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Like transfer (Q125506646)? That is my intent. If we constrained the subject class to that, would you support the properties? Swpb (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like that. As far as I out of the examples only data import into Wikidata (Q107661232) subclasses it and the examples currently do not subclass transfer (Q125506646). Before we creating this property it would make sense to change the subclass tree of the examples to subclass transfer (Q125506646) and see whether that goes well or causes problems. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy:

1. pitch (Q1063937) → throwing (Q12898216)subclass of (P279)transfer (Q125506646)

2. Alaska Purchase (Q309029)instance of (P31)selling (Q3380760) (→ financial transaction (Q1166072) → transfer (Q125506646))

3. radio broadcast (Q64707203) → ... → information exchange (Q6031064)subclass of (P279)transfer (Q125506646)

Swpb (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It mixes physical transfers and logical one, could be an issue if we are not careful. parent class tree. It's currently both a subclass of "spatio-temporal entity" (something physical) and "non-physical entity", a contradiction. I'm surprised it's not found as a disjointness violation. author TomT0m / talk page 20:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

transfer (Q125506646) is not a subclass of abstract entity (Q7048977). It is supposed to include both physical and "logical" (e.g. information, legal) transfers; this does not create a contradiction. Swpb (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pacing edit

Under discussion

Description	video game mechanic based on the rhythm of the player's actions
Data type	Item
Example 1	Civilization: Call to Power (Q1027136)→turn-based (Q74023227)
Example 2	Madden NFL 24 (Q119238637)→real-time (Q74023731)
Example 3	Fallout 76 (Q54497595)→persistent world (Q736958)

Motivation edit

The video games have different types of rhythm mechanic. They can be divided into three or even four categories: turn-based, real-time, persistent (and even medidative or zen, when the goal of the video game is to relax the player).

Nevertheless, there is not a real specific property for this. That's why I suggest this one.

Nota: in French, we could translate it by "rythme narratif", but if you have a better suggestion, please let me know. :)

Notified participants of WikiProject Video games

YotaMoteuchi (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

I wouldn't recommend putting 'rhythm' in the English label (maybe in the aliases, however) because rhythm game (Q2632782) has stronger associations with that word in the context of video games. timekeeping in games (Q4421045) seems to be the main topic but that doesn't lend itself to a property label... Here's a perhaps-relevant Listeria list: WD:WikiProject Video games/Statistics/game mechanic Arlo Barnes (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In English, the label should be 'pacing' which is used very often in other sites or databases. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be better to use game mechanics (P4151) here? Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend game mechanics (P4151) here. Indeed, if you refer to the discussion of the property proposal [1], you will see that it has been proposed for role games and gamebooks. That's why I suggest this 'Pacing' property. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

game mechanics (P4151) is used for video games as well. For instance, you may find it used for open world games. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that game mechanics (P4151) is now used for video games, which detracts from the origin of the property. I think we're using a polysemantic word for a lot of unrelated things.

Wouldn't using a more specific property be more appropriate? YotaMoteuchi (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose This can often be inferred from the genre. If applicable, genre (P136)turn-based strategy video game (Q2176159) or genre (P136)real-time strategy (Q208189) should be used instead. Use game mechanics (P4151)persistent world (Q736958) for consistency with game mechanics (P4151)open world (Q867123). Dexxor (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here too, game mechanics (P4151) shouldn't be used as I said before. Regarding the way it can be inferred from the genre, sometimes, a same game can refer to two types of 'pacing'. FF12 have a "real-time" pacing when you are walking over the world and a "turn-based" when you fight agains monsters. So, a genre is not always a good way to infer the 'pacing'. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Seems reasonable to have a more specific term for the pacing of video games. –MrBenjo (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

category for this time deaths edit

Under discussion

Description	category item for people who died in this time
Data type	Item
Domain	point in time (Q186408)
Allowed values	Wikimedia category (Q4167836)
Example 1	2000 (Q1985) → Category:2000 deaths (Q6939076)
Example 2	1444 AH (Q110982927) → category:1444ah deaths (Q32511177)
Example 3	2020s (Q534495) → Category:2020s deaths (Q9717964)

Motivation edit

We have a category for people who died here (P1465) for place. This property is needed for time to link time of death with category.--حبيشان (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

category for this time births edit

Under discussion

Description	category item for people who born in this time
Data type	Item
Domain	point in time (Q186408)
Allowed values	Wikimedia category (Q4167836)
Example 1	2000 (Q1985) → Category:2000 births (Q6648148)
Example 2	1400 AH (Q6032786) → Q7200242
Example 3	2020s (Q534495) → Category:2020s births (Q9724339)

Motivation edit

We have a category for people born here (P1464) for place. This property is needed for time to link time of birth with category.--حبيشان (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

See also edit

General edit

agent of action edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

subframe of edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

exception to constraint (lexeme) edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

Identifiant Artcena edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

‎linguistic family of place name edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

event role edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

Hijri Date edit

التحفيز edit

Discussion edit

intervener edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

is fake of edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

model for and its inverse property modeled by edit

Motivation edit

discussion edit

‎tartan image edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

‎tartan edit

⧼Motivation⧽ edit

Discussion edit

‎total deposits edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

‎total loans edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

‎Pitchbook Company Profile edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

‎Cbonds Company Profile edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

‎source of transfer & destination of transfer edit

‎source of transfer edit

‎destination of transfer edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

pacing edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

category for this time deaths edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit

category for this time births edit

Motivation edit

Discussion edit