Wikidata:Property proposal/all


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

See alsoEdit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.
Caveat
Do not use the Visual editor, because it will mess up the content of your request (the order of the template parameters will be shuffled and paragraphs are concatenated as one long string of text).

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See property creation policy.

  On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2022/08.


GeneralEdit

fails compliance withEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionfails compliance of the test defined in the associated item
Data typeItem
Example 1Hackers (Q13908) → "fails compliance with" → Bechdel test (Q4165246)
Example 2instant-runoff voting (Q1491219) → "fails compliance with" → monotonicity criterion (Q6902035)
Example 3Copeland's method (Q5168347) → "fails compliance with" → independence of irrelevant alternatives (Q3150644)

MotivationEdit

We need the opposite of complies with (P5009) to state when an item doesn't comply with the criterion associated with an item. For example:

Could someone create a "fails compliance with" property? -- RobLa (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Summary of Wikidata:Project_chat/Archie/2020/01 conversation: this is what was discussed over at Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2020/01 as part of the "Reasonably quick way to resolve 'non-compliance property' issue?" topic back in January/February. User:Jura1 suggested modeling this after assessment (P5021) and test score (P5022), allowing us to specify other options besides "complies", "doesn't comply". User:Ghouston suggested instead that we can add qualifiers to this new property if we need to move beyond binary compliance/non-compliance. User:Ls1g suggested a change to the data model to allow statements which negate any existing property, and links to this paper: "Negative Statements Considered Useful" - Hiba Arnaout, Simon Razniewski, and Gerhard Weikum.

  • Comment - Please edit the summary above if you believe there is a problem with it. I'd still prefer taking User:Ghouston's approach as I understand it, which would mean creating a "Fails compliance with" property. -- RobLa (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


  • @Jura1:, can you give details of how you think it should be done? You want to replace complies with (P5009) with a new property, such that there's only a single property for defining compliance? Then the statement itself would be meaningless without interpreting the qualifiers, which would make it harder to write queries. Ghouston (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I think the explanation on project chat is fairly clear. Please comment there if you think it needs more input. --- Jura 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ghouston:, thank you bringing the conversation to this proposal page. I agree with you that queries seem a lot easier with the addition of "fails compliance with" than queries involving a new regime modeled after assessment (P5021) and test score (P5022). This page seems like a better place to discuss alternatives to "fails compliance with" than the omnibus project chat page. -- RobLa (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: I don't think it's correct to say that compliance is not binary. A voting system either complies with a criterion or it doesn't; there is no in-between. The reason that table has cells other than Yes or No is because it combines closely-related voting systems into the same row, and closely-related criteria into the same column. In other words, some of the rows in that table are actually classes of voting systems rather than instances of voting systems. Omegatron (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. There should be a better data model for both this and complies with (P5009) in such cases. Jura1's suggestion looks workable. --Yair rand (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there any precedent for a statement that's meaningless without interpreting the qualifiers? I can't think of one, but I don't know them all. It would be like X <compliance> Y. Ghouston (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Ghouston: disjoint union of (P2738) only allows list values as qualifiers (Q23766486) as a value. --Yair rand (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's meaningless. It's like the "test taken" mentioned on Project Chat or "significant event". We know that's a valid criterion/test/event for the item, we just don't have full details. The approach seems more suitable for non-binary content like the voting systems description that is planned.
      Also, I don't get why Bechtel test is mentioned. It isn't even used with the other property. --- Jura 23:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - These are binary criteria, and so "test score" or "degree of compliance" or other qualifiers are irrelevant and make queries overly complex. "change to the data model to allow statements which negate any existing property" might be fine, too, but maybe more complicated to use. Omegatron (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support. While "compliance" is binary, Wikidata properties explicitly allows "unknown" and "no value", and implicitly "we don't care" / "there is no verifiable info about this" (by not including a statement). So it will be helpful to have a property to record notable instances of test failures. I also think we should require references for uses of this property so we don't collect irrelevant "failures" and can back ourselves up if people complain we're bad-mouthing them. ("Weak" because I won't have time to help curate this property, but I support whoever wants to do this.) Deryck Chan (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wallacegromit1, focus on media historiography and works from the Global South Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc   Notified participants of WikiProject Media Representation

  •   Comment We spoke about this at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Media_Representation#Fails_compliance_with and we would rather use Yair rand's and Jura's method (using assessment (P5021) or another, similar property that is not restricted to humans with a new qualifier outcome or test result). While Bechdel test results may be modelled using complies with/fails compliance with, this is not true for many other tests (we need a "not applicable" for some tests and some tests don't deliver a "fail" or "pass" result but just a score). The assessment (P5021) and test outcome approach has the advantage to be more flexible. Please have a look at the model presented at the discussion mentioned above to have an overview about tests that don't fit into the complies with/fails compliance with model and how we could model them after assessment (P5021) and test outcome. So please don't use the Bechdel test (Q4165246) as an example for this property as we are not going to model Bechdel test results like that.
That said I won't oppose this property. I even think that complies with/fails compliance with could be useful for us as a qualifier. There are tests that require certain criteria (e.g the Riz Test) or a number of criteria (e.g. the Feldman test) to be met. To be able to make it explicit which criteria are met and which not is, besides other advantages, necessary so that we can meet a minimal standard of sourcing (e.g. while there will be few sources for a certain film that it meets the Feldman test there are enough sources which can be used to decide if a film has a female screenwriter). We are currently using criterion used (P1013) to record the criteria which were crucial for the outcome but this does not fit nicely all tests - sometimes it may seem a bit shoehorned. So could we use this as a qualifier? In this case I would support this. @RobLa: (as this proposal is quite old...) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
To me as Valentina.Anitnelav points out, assessment (P5021) could be used instead, especially with assessment outcome (Property:P9259). Are there things that cannot be described with assessment (P5021) and assessment outcome (Property:P9259)? For instance if a hardware component tried to respect a standard and failed we could add that it failed compliance with that standard according to <the organization that reviewed it> GNUtoo (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Signal numberEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionphone number for this person or organization used by the Signal app for secure communications
RepresentsSignal (Q19718090)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainproperty
Allowed values\d{10}
Example 1Ken Klippenstein (Q97940221)tel:2025101268
Example 2Micah Lee (Q15834986)tel:4159420460
Example 3Muck Rack (Q57500196)tel:2125001883
Sourcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)
Planned useUse it on Ken Klippenstein (Q97940221)
See also

MotivationEdit

Ken Klippenstein offers up his Signal number for submitting tips and leaks, so I wanted to add it to his Wikidata item somehow. QRep2020 (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

edit: The larger motivation here is that we should take advantage of the Wikidata knowledge graph to propagate the means of interacting with journalists, activists, etc. in a safe, end-to-end encrypted fashion. The graph already lists, for instance, the NY Times, yet it does not state how to contact the paper if one wishes to do so securely and secretively. Someone like Ken Klippenstein is urging whistleblowers and the like to reach out to him if they have information the public ought to know and so I think adding a property for editors to use to facilitate such efforts is a small price to pay for a positive social impact at large. QRep2020 (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment You should link the examples to Wikidata items that you propose they are for. See other property proposals for how to do this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @ArthurPSmith, QRep2020: I've fixed some things in the proposal. Also, I think the right datatype is URI, not external identifier. --Tinker Bell 01:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I've read some articles that suggested a person could get a Signal number without using an actual phone number so I was not sure how to classify. In any case, thank you to everyone for helping me with this as it is my first Wikidata property suggestion! QRep2020 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Do we have that many Signal users among our entries? --NMaia (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Any other thoughts or questions? I really think adding this property would contribute to the service. QRep2020 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support Listing contact addresses of individual people on Wikidata is complicated from a privacy perspective but not any different then phone numbers that we are already storing. ChristianKl❫ 13:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not see a good reason for this. Why not just use the existing properties and some qualifiers, e.g., either phone number (P1329) or streaming media URL (P963) (with RFC 3966: The tel URI for Telephone Numbers (Q47467363) Uniform Resource Identifier scheme (Q37071)) and qualifier of (P642) Signal (Q19718090)Uzume (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Please entertain the following reasons, Uzume and others: There is a separate Property for a fax number (fax number (P2900)) from the one for a telephone number (phone number (P1329)) which suggests there is already a point to distinguishing in Wikidata how different telephone "lines" function. Additionally, organizations often list their Signal numbers as is without qualifying them as also being telephone numbers of theirs, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/tips. Finally, I'd argue the qualifier route allows data extractors, everyone from scrapers to Google itself, to easily ignore such a "this is for Signal" note and therefore promotes the possibility of the number appearing elsewhere qua a regular telephone number when perhaps its owner only ever uses the number for Signal messaging and nothing else (perhaps via the method explored at https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/signal-tutorial-second-phone-number/). QRep2020 (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am convinced by Uzume's suggestions to use a qualifier. The existence of one redundant property fax number (P2900) doesn't mean we should create another. And creating a separate property for some phone numbers just makes it harder for users of our data to understand it, not easier. JesseW (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it makes more sense to be a separate property as there are other qualifiers that can then be used such as start time (P580). If overloading phone number (P1329), we would lose this ability to have qualifiers about the subject's use of Signal. Per phone number (P1329) I suggest a string data type and no "tel:" prefix. --Dhx1 (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not really convinced by this. Isn't this and Wikidata:Property proposal/WhatsApp_number today the default use for phone numbers? Not sure if Wikidata isn't a good way to check for availability. Potentially we would end up adding additional properties for other services. --- Jura 15:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Organizations might have a phone number and not a signal number, or only the signal number might be used, so having that looks useful. If we look at the signal protocol, it only uses phone numbers for the initial authentication. And once that's done you can use signal on a desktop computer that doesn't have access to the public switched telephone network (Q243961) at all. References: https://signal.org/download/ (I've accessed it with a desktop browser) says "To use the Signal desktop app, Signal must first be installed on your phone.", and if we look in more details there is a paper that explains how the signal protocol works in details (https://web.archive.org/web/20160828135326/https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/09%20when-signal-hits-the-fan-on-the-usability-and-security-of-state-of-the-art-secure-mobile-messaging.pdf) which shows that signal only uses the public switched telephone network (Q243961) for the very first authentication: "State-of-the-art end-to-end encrypted mobile messengers only require users to authenticate via their mobile number;" and "Alice and Bob want to use SIGNAL to exchange end-to-end encrypted messages. (1) Alice installs SIGNAL and verifies her mobile number at the SIGNAL Server with either a verification text message (SMS) or a voice call. Once verified, Alice creates different sets of keys: [...]". GNUtoo (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Nepalicoi (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my opposition to the now-declined Wikidata:Property proposal/WhatsApp number. Mahir256 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment It is not merely a telephone number and can be used within the Signal system without telephonic connection upon authentication as pointed out above. A user's Signal number can be identical to their current telephone number, but there are cases where it is not and having one will not get your the other; we distinguish maiden names and surnames with properties, do we not?
    Regarding comparisons to Whatsapp, Signal makes very clear its purpose is end-to-end encryption of messages with no metadata preservation, unlike Whatsapp. Providing a Signal number conveys a level of security that its owner has taken. QRep2020 (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Neutral ~Namita (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

reason for normal rankEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to allow the reason to be indicated why a particular statement should have normal rank (and not preferred nor deprecated rank). Avoid using it when there is no statement with another rank nor a qualifier that might induce people to set deprecated rank. Sample use: a statement with an "end date" (P582) would generally have normal rank and not deprecated rank, nor should it be deleted nor overwritten
Data typeItem
Domainstatement and claims with normal Help:Ranking#rank (not preferred or deprecated)
Allowed valuesstatement no longer current (Q103841141) or other
Example 1United States of America (Q30) member of (P463) UNESCO (Q7809)
qualified with → statement no longer current (Q103841141)
Example 2Brazil (Q155) member of (P463) Latin Union (Q123209)
qualified with → statement no longer current (Q103841141)
Example 3Ronan Huon (Q654520) date of birth (P569) 1922
qualified with → new item for "less precise value"
Example 4Dalia Mya Schmidt-Foß (Q66490714) Instagram username (P2003) californiadalia
qualified with → statement no longer current (Q103841141)
Example 5Worle Library and Children's Centre (Q55163610) coordinate location (P625) 51°21'39.474"N, 2°55'35.922"W
qualified with → statement no longer current (Q103841141)
See alsoHelp:Ranking

MotivationEdit

It seems to me that preferred rank is generally more easily understood than normal rank for statements that are no longer current. While we have reason for preferred rank (P7452), we lack a qualifier for this. Obviously, it shouldn't be added to any statement with normal rank. See the description for when to use it. Please help improve it. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 10:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support Fit nicely with our semantics to give reasons for the other ranks. ChristianKl❫ 11:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see no need. United States of America (Q30) has more than 50 statements with member of (P463). Some of the currently valid statements have preferred rank, and some have normal rank. That is not good as it means it is harder to find the statements with normal rank. One of the most asked questions about SPARQL queries is why it doesn't find some statements. The answer usually is that the query find statements of "best rank", and the statement in question have normal rank, but other statements with preferred rank are the best rank.
I think it would be better to just give all statements here normal rank. It is too hard to maintain having dozens of statements with preferred rank for the same property. When new statements are added, many users will not set the rank from the default normal rank.
Do you have any other kind of examples where it would be relevant to give a reason for normal rank? --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Q30 just seems messy. Q155#P463 has it mostly right. That ranks can change isn't really a reason not to use them. We actually do have ranks because one should change the rank and not the statement itself. Maintaining them on countries is really trivial if not done manually. Statements with end dates are frequently misunderstood and either deleted, overwritten or deprecated. --- Jura 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe it would be better if this property was simply "reason for rank," to give it more flexibility. I'd also allow editors to explain why a statement is marked as preferred or obsolete. NMaia (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Supposedly, we could do that and replace the other. We'd have to make sure the rank can be deduced from the item used as value, otherwise we loose a way to check if the rank matches the reason. --- Jura 14:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I like the fact that reason for deprecation spells out deprecation. It makes it easier to see that the item is infact deprecated. ChristianKl❫ 11:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    I posit that properties with a conditional meaning (i.e. their meaning is instance specific) are a bad data smell which encourages lower data veracity. In this case the meaning would change depending on the current rank, removing a method of data constraint. SilentSpike (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Moebeus, Ayack, SilentSpike, SixTwoEight, YULdigitalpreservation: @Tagishsimon, Nomen ad hoc, Tinker Bell, Ghouston: as you participated in preferred rank property proposal, what's your view on this? --- Jura 11:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, I can't see the need of that.   Neutral therefore. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC).
    • I don't see the need of that. However, I like NMaia's comment. --Tinker Bell 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support While I'm not fully sold on the need, I certainly don't see any harm. Moebeus (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Hmm, I'm unsure. I do like the it allows intention to be captured in the data which makes it less prone to misunderstanding. However, what I don't like is that the application of this qualifier would be selective (i.e. there's always a reason a statement has a specific rank, be we wouldn't want to be adding this to every statement ever - I think the reasons will basically all boil down to "the data is valid"). In general, awareness of how ranks are intended to be used should be improved site-wide (i.e. editors need to stop deleting accurate data just because it has a temporal component to it). --SilentSpike (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    • One way of raising the awareness is reverting an edit and adding this qualifier. How do you usually do it? --- Jura 07:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The motivation section sounds like this property would be more "reason this is not preferred rank" - if this is created, would that be a better label? I assume we have no need for a "reason this is not deprecated rank" property? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • That would be when users try to add deprecated rank incorrectly, or outright delete nor overwrite a statement. I'm not sure if I should be linking to specific edits here, but I suppose all of you have come across such edits. --- Jura 07:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I added some from a P2241 cleanup --- Jura 13:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This does not seem necessary. reason for deprecated rank (P2241) is not just about deprecation rank but as can be seen its original proposal it is a reason why it is not the top rank. If there are preferred statements, you can add reason for deprecated rank (P2241) to any statement that is not preferred to provide a reason why those statements are not preferred, regardless if they are of normal or deprecated rank. I personally think reason for preferred rank (P7452) ought to remove "rank" from the label so it can just provide a reason why a statement is preferred over others, regardless of the actual rank (if there are no preferred ranked statements the normal ones are clearly preferred over deprecated rank ones, etc.). In fact perhaps it would be best if we stepped away from using the same terminology as the ranks are named, e.g., maybe "reason for statement deprecation" and "reason for statement preference" would be better labels. —Uzume (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I think in the meantime reason for deprecated rank (P2241) is only for deprecated rank (see its current description). I'm not convinced that the suggested relative use of the term (and preferred) would help users. --- Jura 07:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: I do not see the word "rank" anywhere in its current English description (I did not try to grok the myriad of other languages) and the original proposal is quite clear: Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/38#P2241. —Uzume (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
        • The discussion in 2015 was somewhat short. For quite some time, there is a complex constraint [1] for that and I added it to the domain [2]. --- Jura 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
          • @Jura1: The complex constraint was added after you changed the domain. I wonder how that works when the property is used in a non-qualifier sense. It should be noted the constraints specifically allow its property scope (P5314) as main value (Q54828448) and further it is an instance of (P31) Wikidata property for properties (Q22582645) so presumably this was intended for providing a reason for an entire property to be deprecated and not just specific statements. As far as I know only statements have rankings. I do not thing you did us any service by changing the domain resulting in the complex constraint being developed by @Matěj Suchánek:. It seems you confused things more by focusing on ascribing some sort of meaning to Wikibase statement rankings. —Uzume (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
              • I fixed the domain when it was created. Anyways, let's try to stick with the original scope of this discussion: the proposal above. --- Jura 07:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Uzume: If people start using reason for deprecated rank (P2241) for statements that aren't deprecated that likely leads to increased confusion about ranks and what it means to be deprecated and should be avoided. ChristianKl❫ 10:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @ChristianKl: Perhaps (depending on ones point of view) but methinks it is more confusing to introduce another property to label deprecated statements at a normal rank as well as preferred statements at a normal rank. This proposed property could be confusingly interpreted either way. If you look at any dictionary "normal" is always a sticky abstract definition. A reason for normalcy seems even more confusing. Methinks what you are looking for is something more along the lines of "reason for historic statement" to keep people from removing/deleting statements that do not represent the current situation. I personally see this as exactly what reason for deprecated rank (P2241) was originally intended for. It is unfortunate it got boxed and conflated by the Wikibase statement ranking names. You say it might cause confusion and I won't argue that. There is plenty of room for confusion due to the naming of the Wikibase ranks. However, you will find it much harder to craft machine queries (Wikibase is all about machine readable data) for "outdated" statements since there is no single qualifier property to label them with. Methinks if anything you are creating a system where the data can be more confusingly misinterpreted. From my point of view the Wikibase statement ranks have done much damage. Instead of considering "best" statements by Wikibase rank, we should be considering "best" by qualifiers. —Uzume (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
        • @Uzume: Statements at a normal level are not deprecated. Just because Berlin has a population of 3,644,826 in 2019 doesn't mean that the statement that it had a population of 3,644,826 in 2018 is deprecated. It's still a true statement that Berlin had a population of 3,644,826 in 2018.
An outdated statement has either point in time (P585) or end time (P582) as qualifiers and you can easily query for both if you care about timing.
If you want to filter more directly you can filter for statement that have start time (P580) but no end time (P582). ChristianKl❫ 16:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I totally agree. My point is that the Wikibase statement rankings have no defined and solid meaning and frankly they shouldn't as that is what qualifiers are for. I really do not think we should have qualifiers that are trying to lock in their meaning. Just add the meaning via qualifiers to begin with. This is why I am opposed to this property proposal as it targets a property for a specific Wikibase statement ranking attempting to give the rankings some more solid meaning when the meaning should be all in the qualifiers and thus we do not need to consider even trying to assign or define meaning to rankings (they are inflexible). We would be far better off having Wikibase ranks removed (and during the interim replaced with a rank qualifier until we can manually replace them with more appropriate qualifers).
If people start using reason for deprecated rank (P2241) for statements that aren't deprecated that likely leads to increased confusion about ranks and what it means to be deprecated and should be avoided.
There is your problem right there. What does "deprecation" even mean? Dictionaries will tell you it means disapproval for something, i.e., it is the opposite of "preference" or "best". But what do any of those really mean? Well they are context dependent. If you want to know the current populate of Berlin, the population from 2018 is deprecated. If you want to know what it was in 2018, then the 2018 statements are preferred, right? So I take objection with deprecated and preferred to begin with but this is only made worse by trying to shoehorn meaning into Wikibase statement rankings. Do you want meaning controlled by the Wikibase software or by Wikidata community and the statements they curate? As soon as you attempt to assign meaning to such a field you give it power. Let's not give power to a very small and inflexible Wikibase statement ranking system and instead embrace qualifiers that we can design and assign meaning to. —Uzume (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
If I want to know the current population of Berlin then I don't disapprove if someone tells me "the population from 2018 is X". It's not the answer to the question I asked but it's not a wrong answer. Deprecation is for statements that are actually wrong.
The ability to get single values to queries via wdt is quite useful and we essentially would get rid of that if we would get rid of ranks. ChristianKl❫ 18:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: If something is actually wrong it would be better to correct it or remove/delete it than mark it with some sort of deprecation. As for your other assertion about getting single values, as far as I know there is no interface that guarantees such a thing. There are things like mw.wikibase.getBestStatements that return a set of statements filtered by "best" rank. It would be easy enough to have different qualifier based filters instead. I believe something similar can be done in SPARQL queries. There is nothing wrong with having multiple statements with the same claim/property and the same rank—even if that rank is preferred or the highest rank. Different statements might be preferred for different reasons. In fact we have reason for preferred rank (P7452) for such but there again, I question its value as preference is context dependent and thus the meaning should be all in the qualifiers and how you choose to use them. Ascribing meaning to Wikibase ranks is asking for trouble since it will invariably mean one thing in one context/claim, etc. and a different thing elsewhere over and over again effectively conflating and convoluting things. —Uzume (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@Uzume: Throwing away the research about how claims that serious source make are wrong is very wasteful. Let's say a date of birth (P569) claim is wrong in VIAF and we have a bot that regularly imports data from VIAF. If we just remove the data it will be readded the next time the bot runs. If we deprecate the value it doesn't get readded as normal rank and the people over at VIAF have a chance to notice that a human editor over at Wikidata found that the value is false, so that VIAF can fix their data.
wdt never returns more then one value. It just gives the truthy value. Seperately, the truthy values seem to be valuable enough that enough people download the dumb of the truthy values that WMDE regularly publishes that dumb separately from the full Wikidata data.
@ChristianKl: Yes, and that is another type of "deprecation". Just how many should be supported and will every user be schooled on them all? I agree what you are saying about tagging values from external sources that we know to be questionably incorrect is a good thing. But I think we can more flexibly do that with qualifiers rather than depending on Wikibase rankings and trying to ascribe any special meanings to such. I cannot say I have considerable experience with SPARQL query semantics but even there I question the value of assigning meaning to Wikibase statement ranks. —Uzume (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not another type of deprecation. It's the standard deprecation that one does on Wikidata when one finds a wrong claim with a serious source. ChristianKl❫ 02:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: This would seem to say otherwise: Special:Search/haswbstatement:P31=Q27949697. Despite your claim, there seem to be a large number (141 by my count) of reasons for deprecation. There is also a slightly shorter list here list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174). Quite a number of those have little to nothing to do with inaccuracies from a source. —Uzume (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The point of the rank is that a user doesn't have to know about all those possible qualifier values to use them. They would need to know more if we would get rid of ranks. ChristianKl❫ 12:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting discussion as we seem to come to different conclusions about the same question. --- Jura 08:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just for the scope of this discussion: I added links for "normal", "preferred", "deprecated" and "rank" to the proposal. Maybe we can discuss what "deprecation" means elsewhere --- Jura 07:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment looks like there is no consensus for this. So, I suppose one must add a "reason for preferred rank" to every preferred statement instead. --- Jura 16:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason we need separate properties for each rank? Couldn't we rename reason for deprecated rank (P2241) to "reason for current rank" (and then get rid of reason for preferred rank (P7452))? - Nikki (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I   Support Nikki's proposal. --Tinker Bell 23:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The point was discussed above. --- Jura 08:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose So I've reviewed this proposal again (some significant time has passed) and the two opposition votes seem invalid since they misunderstand the use of the rank system. However, instead of creation I'm adding my own opposing vote, for the same point I gave above in the past: reason for normal rank seems to always boil down to "the data is valid" given that it is the default state. It seems to me this property would have a somewhat arbitrary use case since it presumably should not apply to every normal rank statement in Wikidata. Can someone give a specific use case or have I missed that? --SilentSpike (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    Have a look at the countless statements at Q155#P463. I think it nicely matches the description provided with the proposal.
    I think the same oppose argument could have been made for the qualifier in use for preferred ranks and deprecated rank. They are not always used either. --- Jura 10:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    My objection is not about whether they are always used, but whether it is appropriate to always use them. In the case you link, I think there's an argument for all of those to have "reason of preferred rank"="currently valid value" as it makes it obvious why they are preferred over the others. Setting preferred rank is not the default, thus providing an explanation is logical. Normal rank needs no explanation because it's always "the data is valid, but not preferred". SilentSpike (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    I see your point of view. In general, it may work if there is just a single preferred rank.
    "Normal rank needs no explanation", I wish that too, but I don't think most people understand it that well. The ranks we had at Q30#P463 illustrate the contrary. --- Jura 14:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose "Normal rank needs no explanation" I like that comment from Jura enough to end this discussion. -- ~Namita (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Asking what needs an explanation is misguided. We have cases where we have a discussion. It's useful to be able to store the information of the discussion and the explanation so that it's visible in future. ChristianKl❫ 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose – I don't see any reason why we need this property either. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

inventory numberEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionnumeric or alphanumeric registration or inventory identifier of the subject, usually assigned by the owner, administrator, or registration authority (use this property if there is not a specific property for the concerned register or numbering system)
Representsnot found
Data typeString
Template parameternot found
Domainnot restricted
Allowed valuesnot restricted
Example 1Level crossing in Kounice (Q105848548) → P399 (related to this .ods and .pdf list, this numbering used also in the map Mapy.cz)
Example 2Candelabrum in Loretánská street (Q37290151) → 180036 (Prague streetlamp numbering system: https://skenujprahu.cz/180036)
Example 3Vertical Sculpture of Time (Q107542741) → 390008 (Prague streetlamp numbering system: https://skenujprahu.cz/390008)
Example 4Warehouse No 7 (Q12054443) → 7
Example 5transformer station in Nedvězí (Q37990504) → TS4041
Planned usenothing specific for now, but many types of subjects have their identifiers
Expected completenesscannot be complete, universal use
See alsofleet or registration number (P2802), house number (P670) conscription number (P4856), road number (P1824), route number (P1671) and many and many specific identifiers. See also Property proposal/bridge number.
  • I missed inventory number (P217). This is a very similar universal property. However, its description is centered on "collections", which evokes a museum or archive. Maybe, this property can apply also to management registers of structures, devices and similar utilitarian objects. In such a case, let this proposal be considered as a proposal to extend the existing property; then the proposed creation of a new property would not be necessary.

MotivationEdit

There are many properties for particular unique identifiers, or general types of identifiers (house numbers, fleet number, road number etc.). But however, a general property is missing for such a registration or inventory number for which there is no specific property.

This property is proposed for very wide use for identifiers and registers which have not their own specific property yet. It can apply to numbering of various collection items, structures, street furniture (notable clocks or street candelabras, public art, trees etc.), transport or infrastructure stations and devices (level crossings, distribution substations, train stations, bus stops) etc. etc. In some cases, the use of this property may be a transitional phase before a specific property is established. However, if there are a small number of items with such an identifier, establishing a specific property is unlikely or appropriate, and this universal property is an acceptable solution. ŠJů (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • to change the description and setting of inventory number (P217) to be more universal can be sufficient. --ŠJů (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • catalog code (P528) can be used for cases not covered by inventory number (P217). --- Jura 06:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: Both of them are primarily described and designed rather for some archival material, collection items or library items rather than for structures, technical devices or street furniture, or even abstract entities such as legal entities, events, places etc. inventory number (P217) and catalog code (P528) can be merged and their description adapted for more universal use, or differentiated by type in some more meaningful way - now the two properties seem a bit duplicated, and their extended uses as somewhat random. The terms "inventory" and "catalogue" are almost synonymical in their primary meaning, but there are many various types of registers, lists, collections, anthologies, almanacs, databases etc. etc. which can contain numbered items. It is advisable to cover them all with one universal property, or is it better to differentiate them into several types? The identifier assigned by the owner, administrator, operator, founder, or any registration authority has a different weight and role, than an identifier assigned by an independent researcher, etc. Are we able to find a property name that is concise and appropriate enough for all possible uses, in the full range of possibilities? --ŠJů (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Ideally, we would have a separate property for every registry. I'd say catalog code (P528) is the more general property. --- Jura 05:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: In my langue, the equivalent of the word "inventory" evokes a list of furniture (movables) maintained by the owner, administrator or operator, or the amount of stocks of some goods in stock, while "catalog" can mean rather some independent list, or an offer sheet representing types of offered things, or a list of things at the exhibition. It is possible that the two properties could be merged, as their meaning overlaps in part. However, none of them (with its current description) is now suitable for street furniture or other utility things. I would explain the difference on postage stamps: the catalog represents what types of stamps were issued, while the inventory lists specific pieces of each type and their number. I would call the keeper's or manager's register of his assets "inventory (list)" rather than "catalog". I tried to used inventory number (P217)=180035 for Candelabrum on Hradčanské náměstí (Q37290199) but the property requires collection (P195) qualifier. IMHO, we need rather some qualifiers like "numbering system", "listed in" or "listed by". It would probably be a hurry to create a separate identifier property, which can be used in maximally several dozen items here in Wikidata. --ŠJů (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Properties for legislationEdit

enacted onEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe date on which legislation became law
Representsenacted (Q101753155)
Data typePoint in time
Domainproperty
Allowed valuesdate
Example 1Theft Act 1968 (Q7777756) [UK Act] → 1968-07-26
Example 2Official Languages Act (Q481372) [Canadian Act] → 1988-07-28
Example 3Patriot Act (Q221689) [US Act] → 2001-10-26
Example 4Civil Procedure Rules (Q1055840) [UK delegated legislation] → 1998-12-10
Example 5Item TBC [Irish delegated legislation] → 2021-04-15
Example 6Item TBC [UK private Act] → 1987-05-15
Planned useFor any items of legislation.
Number of IDs in sourcemillions
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobsno - far too much variation in format and method of designation

Parliamentary Archives ID (United Kingdom)Edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier of this item on the Parliamentary Archives website
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainproperty
Allowed values\w+
Example 1Theft Act 1968 (Q7777756) [UK Act] → HL_PO_PU_1_1968_c60
Example 2Civil Procedure Rules (Q1055840) [UK delegated legislation] → HC_CL_JO_10_2636_231
Example 3Item TBC [UK private Act] → HL_PO_PB_1_1987_c1
Sourcehttps://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/
Planned useFor any items in the Parliamentary Archives.
Number of IDs in sourceunknown
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://archives.parliament.uk/collections/getrecord/GB61_$1
Robot and gadget jobsmaybe - many of the item descriptions are shortened/vague/alternatives, and some are just wrong

Parliamentary Office number (United Kingdom)Edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionreference number assigned by the Clerk of the Parliaments to original Acts of Parliament passed in a given Parliamentary session to be kept in the House of Lords Record Office (now the Parliamentary Archives)
RepresentsParliamentary Office number (Q108990292)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainproperty
Allowed values\d{1,3}
Example 1Piracy Act 1721 (Q7197656) → 40
Example 2Privilege of Parliament Act 1512 (Q16933732) → 8
Example 3Item TBC → 259
Planned usefor any Acts of Parliament passed between 1497 and 1902, for which this system is still used
Number of IDs in sourcetens of thousands - they restart from 1 each Parliamentary session, and will need to be paired with part of the series (P179)
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Robot and gadget jobsno - these are kept in two series of contemporary handwritten records kept in the Parliamentary Archives as well as being transcribed on the original Acts themselves

short titleEdit

   Withdrawn
Descriptionthe designated short title of an item of legislation
Representsshort title (Q2470803)
Data typeMonolingual text
Domainproperty
Allowed valuestext
Example 1Theft Act 1968 (Q7777756) [UK Act] → Theft Act 1968
Example 2Official Languages Act (Q481372) [Canadian Act] → Official Languages Act
Example 3Patriot Act (Q221689) [US Act] → Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001
Example 4Civil Procedure Rules (Q1055840) [UK delegated legislation] → Civil Procedure Rules 1998
Example 5Item TBC [Irish delegated legislation] → Judicial Council Act 2019 (Commencement) Order 2021
Example 6Item TBC [UK private Act] → John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe (Marriage Enabling) Act 1987
Planned useFor any items of legislation that have a formally designated short title.
Number of IDs in sourcemillions
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobsno - far too much variation in format and method of designation

long titleEdit

   Withdrawn
Descriptionthe designated long title of an item of legislation
Representslong title (Q105206575)
Data typeMonolingual text
Domainproperty
Allowed valuestext
Example 1Theft Act 1968 (Q7777756) [UK Act] → An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post Office Act 1953 and other enactments; and for other purposes connected therewith.
Example 2Official Languages Act (Q481372) [Canadian Act] → An Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada
Example 3Patriot Act (Q221689) [US Act] → An Act to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and across the globe, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
Example 4Item TBC [UK private Act] → An Act to enable John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe to be married to each other.
Planned useFor any items of legislation that have a formally designated long title.
Number of IDs in sourcemillions
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobsno - far too much variation in format

MotivationEdit

A series of properties primarily focused on UK legislation, but some have applicability in other jurisdictions. The short title is officially designated and is (usually) how most people would refer to an Act, while the long title is (technically) the full title of the Act but rarely sees much use. Neither of these are necessarily the most appropriate title for the item, however (see the Patriot Act example). The "enacted on" date is when legislation becomes law and should be fairly self-explanatory, but it should be differentiated from effective date (P7588) due to the fact that a lot of legislation does not come into effect until a designated later date (or when a specific event occurs). The Parliamentary Archives ID refers to the online database of the Parliamentary Archives, and is often the only place to locate local or private Acts (which may have little to no other online presence). Note that this system is ultimately derived from the National Archives system, so my understanding is that the URLs all contain GB61 to denote that they're at the Parliamentary Archives. Finally, the Parliamentary Office number carries significance in that it was formally designated on Acts for hundreds of years and is usually written on the Act itself, so carries authoritative weight in referencing.

One relatively minor concern that's occurred to me (in relation to data types) is where legislation is formally multilingual with no single language taking precedence (e.g. English/Welsh for Acts of Senedd Cymru or English/French for Acts in Canada). I'm not satisfied with any of the currently-possible workarounds that I can think of: "monolingual text" doesn't seem appropriate for obvious reasons, but neither does "multilingual text" given that it would not be appropriate to translate them into any further languages. Having separate properties for each language is clunky, and also causes any legislation to which this applies to be inconsistently formatted. It would obviously be inappropriate to ignore or give precedence to one or the other. The only solution I can think of is that the short title and long title properties need to be hybrids, where multiple languages can be added if and only if they are both (or all) the text of what was actually enacted. In the short-term, though, I wouldn't want this issue to hold things up. Theknightwho (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment We already have short name (P1813) which has alias "short title", that seems to be exactly what you are proposing here. official name (P1448) would probably be the appropriate property for "long title", if title (P1476) doesn't work for that. I'm not sure on "enacted on" - we already have enacted date (P7589) and effective date (P7588), would this be yet another date or could one of those suffice? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree with you that short name (P1813) is fine. official name (P1448) is a little tricky, as formally the long title is called the "title", but in practice is referred to as the "long title" in order to differentiate it from the short title. I'm inclined to agree that official name (P1448) is the most appropriate, in order to prevent confusion (and for those unusual instances where the common name is neither the short nor the long title).
In relation to "enacted on", I would be fine with modifying this proposal to rename enacted date (P7589) to "enacted on" for two reasons: in modern times, the date of assent of an Act is by definition the date on which the Act is enacted. However, enacted date (P7589) is unnecessarily restrictive as it cannot be used for secondary legislation in the UK (statutory instruments etc.) which don't involve royal assent, or for jurisdictions where assent by a head of state is not part of the process. Secondly, in the distant past, royal assent was not necessarily the last part of the process, as it was sometimes given before a Bill had passed Parliament. In those situations, the Bill wouldn't become an Act (quite literally, to be enacted) until Parliament also assented. However, for Acts to which that applies, the date of royal assent may be unknown, and it's completely irrelevant when compared to the date of enactment as that's the point at which it actually becomes law. Having it as a separate property would invariably cause confusion. effective date (P7588), on the other hand, wouldn't be appropriate for the reasons given in the original proposal. Theknightwho (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I added "(United Kingdom)" to the two proposed identifiers. Otherwise it might not be clear that this is for a UK institution only. BTW we had some "long title" property for Brazilian laws, not sure where it went. --- Jura 14:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have re-ordered the list to put the two withdrawn proposals (short title and long title) at the bottom. Short title can be represented as short name (P1813), and long title can be represented as official name (P1448).
  •   Support, important properties for policy.--Arbnos (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support the two identifiers. For 'enacted on', we have significant event (P793) --Tinker Bell 01:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

project ofEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionproject of creation of a certain type of thing
Representsproject (Q170584)
Data typeItem
DomainQ170584
Example 1
⟨ Aéroport du Grand Ouest (Q140205)      ⟩ project of Search ⟨ airport ⟩
Example 2
⟨ proposed airport (Q44665966)      ⟩ project of Search ⟨ airport ⟩
Example 3
Example 4
⟨ Manhattan Project (Q127050)      ⟩ project of Search ⟨ nuclear weapon ⟩

MotivationEdit

The situation is quite messy concerning the project ontology. We currently have airport projects considered as subclass of airports, for example, which makes project show up in queries. The of (P642)   qualifier or nature of statement (P5102)   are sometime used to indicate it’s a project of some kind, see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q140205&oldid=1247399168 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q44665966&oldid=1486227586#P279 .

I’d like a property to make sure we have a preferred way to model this that does not requires to exclude some results from queries.

Proposed rules associated to the creation of the property:


author  TomT0m / talk page 11:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

See also
Wikidata:Property_proposal/outcome to link the projects to the actual objects and not their types. It can occur that a project has a concrete result that is not of the same kind as the initial goal.

DiscussionEdit

  Comment Hi TomT0m! I'm gathering here that you want to distinguish between an item for a construction project, and the item for the entity it becomes at a later date, with the first being an instance of (some subclass of) "project", and the second being an instance of the type of building that the project is for? So for example we have Penn Station Access (Q16986985) vs Pennsylvania Station (Q54451), the first being a project and the second a railway station. What about using the property facet of (P1269) to link them? If there's no item yet for the planned building or structure, then create a new item (which would be an instance of whatever type of building it is). Does that make sense? ArthurPSmith (talk)
Hi Arthur ! A better thing to do would be a « outcome » property for project items, I guess. :) I’ll launch the proposal. It has the benefit that for abandoned project we can have statements like « outcome: no value Help » . author  TomT0m / talk page 18:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  Done
I replaced the « * » to make items with « : » because the « answer » discussion tool seem not to understand this, it does not show the « reply » button under your comment
To reply more completely, I think that actually creating an item for something that is only planned would be totally defeating the purpose of this proposal. I may understand if it’s a building in building for example, but for something that is just planned with no physical existence I don’t think it’s a good idea. It exists only in our minds … as a project. Which is why I think it’s a good idea to have a « project » item (the project, however, exists). author  TomT0m / talk page 10:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Non-tangible concepts and ideas do exist, and we work with them just like any other. It’s sort-of like the concept of object permanence. A “project” is less ‘real’ than even the planned airport it’s for. The term is also entirely generic, so you’d have to make an effort to add that information. We do of course have items for future events, buildings, and other things, just as we have items for past events and air-ports that no longer exist. A planned airport should have statements for date of official opening (P1619) and/or service entry (P729) with either no value Help or a future date, which you can use to exclude them in your queries.
Now it’s perfectly fine to create items specifically for a construction project if there’s some need for it, in the same way that other aspects are sometimes kept separate and other times not, like an event, the company running it, and its headquarter’s building. Karl Oblique (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What would be the P31 of these? What happens if the project is dealt with on the same item as its outcome? --- Jura 11:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for projects.--Arbnos (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

service hosted byEdit

MotivationEdit

Many nonprofit internet services share who supports hosting their service so a property would be useful to document this. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment Many things (software, services, platforms, and providers themselves nowadays!) are hosted on servers, cloud, etc. maybe it makes sense to make this a broader property as simply "hosted by"? That way many overlapping uses cases like online service (Q19967801) and service on internet (Q1668024) being the traditional generic concepts, as well as cloud computing (Q483639) bringing platform as a service (Q1153767) as a resource for hosting nearly any kind of software or solution stack (Q7558983) and the many subtypes could all conceivably use a property like this, including up and coming virtual spaces upon many metaverse (Q2632041) yet to come to fruition. One day, I likely will be saying: "I own and manage 2 rooms/zones, one is hosted with ZoomWorlds and the other with MetaGlobe". --Thadguidry (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Thadguidry Yeah that's actually the original purpose of this property. It's not limited to just internet services. The limit of this to things that are *electronically* hosted. I didn't want to get it confused with "hosting a party" so that's why it's not called "hosted by". Lectrician1 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose operator (P137) can be used instead with optional object has role (P3831) to note which part of the service is operated by the organisation. Example values for object has role (P3831) would include internet hosting service (Q1210425) and DNS hosting service (Q5205812) (must be a subclass of organization (Q43229)). I'm not opposed to specific sub-properties of operator (P137) for e.g. "DNS hosting provider", "Transit provider", "CDN provider", etc but disagree with needing another generic property duplicating operator (P137). --Dhx1 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Dhx1
    I really don't like using qualifiers here or in-general because potentially creates very inconsistent schemas.
    As you might see from the examples, these services do not explicitly specify which organizations host what parts of their software. Therefore, we might not know who exactly is the DNS hoster of CDN provider. I would like those properties, however in cases like the example above, having a broadened property like what is being proposed is the best case for specifying the organizations the support electronic services. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support BeLucky (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support ~Namita (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

name in Swedish parliamentEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionname form used for people active in the Swedish parliament mostly in older days
Data typeString
Domainproperty
Example 1Sigurd Carlsson (Q5603396) → "Carlsson i Solberga"
Example 2Blenda Björck (Q4939247) → "Björck I Tomelilla"
Example 3Valdemar Berglund (Q5572503) → "Berglund i Arvidsjaur"
Sourcethe name form is shown in books like Tvåkammar-riksdagen 1867-
Planned usedisplay it in the infobox for Swedish PM people also projects like Welfare State Analytics are doing ML and NER on 3 million pages from the Swedish parliament and they need those strings.
Number of IDs in source4500
Expected completeness100%
Wikidata projectWikiProject_every_politician/Sweden (Q100741821)

MotivationEdit

As projects like Welfare State Analytics https://www.westac.se/en/ are Text Mining and Modeling Swedish Politics and doing ML and NER those text strings are important for identify the people in the Swedish Parliament mentioned in the documents. In Sweden it looks like Wikidata is the best electronic source for who has been active in the Swedish parlament so its natural that Wikidata also support those text strings --> makes NER easier and we will get good feedback from the project working with the corpus of the Swedish PM see GITHUB welfare-state-analytics/riksdagen-corpus

The name form was used for nearly every person in the older days. Today we have just found it used 2 times for 2 persons with the same name Jonas Andersson

Another advantage to have a dedicated property for this is that people changed the name used eg. Karl Björkänge (Q5578035) was during one period called Andersson i Björkänge and then changed to Andersson i Lindesberg (source) --> having a dedicated property we could add dates when used...

Salgo60 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Salgo60 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for Sweden.--Arbnos (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose I would rather follow the pattern Jura suggested. ChristianKl❫ 21:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Jura1 and ChristianKl. --Gymnicus (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

process results in qualityEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionquality that this process/activity directly correlates to and produces
Representsprocess (Q3249551)
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Allowed valuesquality (Q1207505)
Example 1cooking (Q38695)cooked (Q104439289)
Example 2decentralization (Q188961)decentralized (Q110433895)
Example 3running (Q105674)fatigue (Q9690)
Example 4freezing (Q108000)frozen (Q75271124)
See also

MotivationEdit

When creating qualities, I noticed we don't have any way to relate qualities with the processes that lead to them.

We have has effect (P1542) but this is used very erroneously. For example, wheat (Q15645384) has effect (P1542) gluten-related disorder (Q1367782) and American Civil War (Q8676) has effect (P1542) Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Q175613). The property proposed seeks to be a subproperty of this specifically for process/activity:resulting-quality relationships.

An inverse property of this could be created if wanted. Please specify whether or not with your feedback.

Lectrician1 (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support, an important property for Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose running to fatigue seems rather random and not precise, might as well result in "sweat" Nepalicoi (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    I would prefer it to remove "running (Q105674) → fatigue (Q9690)" as an example and focus on the relationship inherent in the other examples. Maybe we can change the description to focus on them? ChristianKl❫ 15:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

not compatible withEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthis work, product, object or standard cannot interact with another work, product, object or standard
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1s-boot 4.0 for the GT-I9300 (Q110800808) (The bootloader shipped on the GT-I9300 (Q83637336) ) is incompatible with the Linux kernel (Q14579) (reference: https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/BootloadersIncompatibleWithLinux#Devices-with-the-Exynos-4412, https://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2019/06/14/9)
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useDocumenting nonfree bootloaders incompatibilities: we can already tell a that Linux kernel (Q14579) has some support for the GT-I9300 (Q83637336) through the exynos4412-i9300.dts (Q90612899) device tree (Q16960371) but we can't tell that the stock bootloader can't boot Linux because it's incompatible with it. Since it's not up to Linux to fix it, and that that bootloader can only be fixed by Samsung (it can't be modified by users as it is signed) and that's extremely unlikely to happen (the Galaxy SIII is not sold new anymore since many years now) we need a way to express the incompatibility to avoid users of Wikidata be misslead into thinking that one can simply boot an official Linux kernel and expect it to work on that smartphone.
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsocompatible with (P8956), platform (P400), operating system (P306), readable file format (P1072), writable file format (P1073), intended public (P2360)

MotivationEdit

I already started documenting hardware and software compatibilities with compatible with (P8956), but we also need the inverse property (not compatible with) to handle some problematic situations.

For instance there is some support for the GT-I9300 (Q83637336) in the Linux kernel (Q14579) through the exynos4412-i9300.dts (Q90612899) and various drivers to support its hardware, but users can't boot the Linux kernel (Q14579) on that smartphone.

This is because this smartphone is shipped with a boot loader (Q836795) that is incompatible with the Linux kernel (Q14579). And this bootloader can't be modified by users because the GT-I9300 (Q83637336) only runs software signed by Samsung at boot. So if users were to modify that bootloader, this device won't boot. And the Linux kernel (Q14579) can't accept patches to add support for this bootloader because ARM bootloaders are expected to be compatible with a booting standards and this one isn't.

More generally it could be used to express incompatibilities that can't be fixed, for instance some hardware chip that is incompatible with a protocol, or for cases where users would expect hardware or software to be compatible with other hardware and software but where it is not compatible (due to hardware limitations for instance).

GNUtoo (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

previous property definitionEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionrevid of property page before the property's format was change. Qualify with "end date" (P582) to indicate the date
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainexternal-id properties
Allowed values\d
Example 1SBN author ID (P396)1572819376
qualified with end time (P582)=??
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?oldid=$1
Distinct-values constraintyes

MotivationEdit

Depending on the outcome of Property_talk:P396#Discussion_about_replacing_values_with_a_new_format_or_scheme and similar discussions, we may want to provide a way to versionize property definitions to ensure users can retrieve previous ones. The presence of the property may also allow to determine that they have changed. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 12:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

ChristianKl
ArthurPSmith
d1g
JakobVoss
Jura
Jsamwrites
MisterSynergy
Salgo60
Harshrathod50
Wildly boy
ZI Jony
Ederporto
99of9
Danrok
Eihel
Emw
Fralambert
GZWDer
Ivan A. Krestinin
Jonathan Groß
Joshbaumgartner
Kolja21
Kristbaum
MSGJ
Mattflaschen
MichaelSchoenitzer
Nightwish62
Pablo Busatto
Paperoastro
PinkAmpersand
Srittau
Thierry Caro
Tobias1984
Vennor
Yellowcard
Ivanhercaz
Tinker Bell
Bodhisattwa
Iwan.Aucamp
Cunme
NAH
Gnoeee
The-erinaceous-one
-akko
Mathieu Kappler
Dhx1
Lectrician1
Daniel Mietchen
Luca.favorido
  Notified participants of WikiProject Properties --- Jura 12:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Would this be useful for any property whose scope is broadened, constraints changed significantly, etc.? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Referencing the "oldid" in some way does sound useful, but is this the right way to model it? Perhaps the date should be foremost - property definition changed on this date, and then link with a generic revision id property as a qualifier? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I suppose it's a matter of POV. I had definition in mind. In both cases, revid can be used (e.g.) in wikibase-cli (Q87194660) to load it. A missing date wouldn't matter that much, but the date only is harder to use. --- Jura 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

quality has stateEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionspecific state of a quality. For example, "clean" is a state of the quality "cleanliness"
Data typeItem
Domainquality (Q1207505)
Allowed valuesstate (Q3505845)
Example 1magnitude (Q2091629)maximum (Q10578722), minimum (Q10585806)
Example 2cleanliness (Q692096)clean (Q107998880), dirty (Q107998873)
Example 3orderliness (Q107273991)order (Q12893838), chaos (Q1787424)

MotivationEdit

We do not have a way to relate qualities that can have a range of states with the common states that are possible with them. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment While I can see the issue here, do you have a good guess as to how many statements this would actually be relevant or useful for? And I wonder if the relation would be better in the other direction anyway. And maybe facet of (P1269) suffices for that (not that it's been used that way so far)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with @ArthurPSmith that it would make more sense to have the property in the other direction and thus   Oppose. ChristianKl❫ 06:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support, an important property for connectivity.--Arbnos (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

local education levelEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
Descriptioneducational level expected for this local curriculum or education-related program
Data typeItem
DomainCurriculum, or government education-related program
Example 1lower secondary school in Japan (Q55521176)elementary school in Japan
Example 2Grundschule (Q99460083)Volksschule
Example 3läroverk (Q10572388)elementary school in Sweden
Example 4Junior High School (Q113000893)primary school
Planned useThis property will get contributors to indicate the usefulness of a topic or attribute certain activities and content to an item based on the local education level of the country or state the various local education levels that the content is relevant to. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out how it is used in the test environment Q224504.

MotivationEdit

Many countries have educational levels that are specific to their specific educational systems and may be similar or different from what pertains in other countries. This property will be used to determine the specific educational level based on the jurisdiction of a specific country. For instance; the example “lower secondary school in Japan” specifies an educational level specifically for Japan. This property will help identify the specific educational level that a specific curriculum was created for.

Sometimes we want to indicate if an item, especially educational content, is useful to some local educational level. With this property we will be able to list one or multiple local educational levels. In the examples, under Grundschule (Q99460083) is the local education level for primary schools in Germany. We will use the local names used to identify the local education levels which are lower primary level (key phase 2), upper primary level(key phase 3) junior high school (key phase 4), senior high school (key phase 5) and tertiary. Dnshitobu (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment Please explain further, I don't understand this proposal at all. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith Does this update provide clarity now? I will look forward to your feedback. Thank you. Andrews Lartey (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Andrews Lartey: Not really, no. educational stage (Q18189) is a general class that includes all possible educational stages, so adding this property as a statement on that item would not make sense to me at all. Your property label says "local", so presumably you are trying to add it as a statement on specific educational institutions, or specific programs, that are located in particular states or countries for which "local" would make sense. It makes no sense for this proposed property to be applied to a general class. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    In the new example that I have stated, senior high school is the local name given to Upper Secondary Education (based on ISCED 2011 education scale). The Ghana National Science and Maths Quiz is a national program, local to Ghana, that is for only the senior high school level. Andrews Lartey (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, I think I get the idea, and the example on test.wikidata.org makes sense to me, and I don't think we have a property that covers this right now, so yes we should add this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
      Support Agree with @ArthurPSmith Andrawaag (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a great idea.Alhassan Mohammed Awal (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a great initiative am happy about that Issahiddris (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support This property will help learners with more access to relevant information through local education. It is a good initiative. Abubakari Khadijah (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportSir Amugi (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAbubakar280 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (comment) I hope that the property will not be created before there are working examples in the proposal. 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:7C32:63B7:158E:9F68 23:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportMunkaila Sulemana (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportHasslaebetch (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support This is a great initiative. The educational system here in West Africa is Junior and senior level based, particularly in secondary schools. I believe that creating such property is very key for clarity and genuinity purpose. —Sunkanmi12✉️ 21:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAmuzujoe (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportWarmglow (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportOladipupo193 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support this is a great idea.Jemima2019 (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I approve of the idea but it seems to me like a property like this should be pointing to explicit ISCED levels rather than generic objects in the example. For example primary school (Q9842) can represent different levels in different countries so it doesn't make sense to map local levels to it. Abbe98 (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    The Swedish example adds a little bit of confusion as läroverk (Q10572388) haven't existed in Sweden for the past 50 years. Abbe98 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
    Actually it seems like this proposal overlaps with the education level one. Abbe98 (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

hours per weekEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to show the total number of hours per week.
Data typeQuantity
Domainquantity
Example 1applied mathematics (Q33521) → 15
Example 2geography (Q1071) → 12
Example 3cycling (Q53121) → 30
Example 4meditation (Q108458) → 18
Planned useTo emphasize the hours spent per week. Just using hours or duration (P2047) does not give clarity to whether it is per day, per week or month or per year. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to determine the amount of hours that are spent on a particular subject/course/module in a week by an instructor. This property will help in comparisons such as determining the time spent on one subject against another, or the amount of time spent on a specific subject in different countries. Again, it could be used in other jurisdictions to indicate the number of hours required per week.

This shows a specific measure of time and its occurrence, hours per week. duration (P2047) really works for showing the duration but can get confusing. The user cannot express the occurrence of the activity using just duration (P2047). In this case, this property will allow one to state, the number of hours per week an activity happens for or should happen for and its occurrence. In the examples, applied mathematics is taught or studied for 15 hours per week (relative), Geography is taught for 12 hours per week, Cycling could be 30 hours per week and Meditation is 18 hours per week. Dnshitobu (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment Wouldn't duration (P2047) be sufficient? Abbe98 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

duration (P2047) would be limiting. It does not state the occurrence. This property specifies the occurrence using the 'per week' phrase. Thank you for the comment. It is great. Andrews Lartey (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if a qualifier could do the trick instead to ensure the modeling works for more cases. For your use case one could for example consider curriculums that are based around the total number of hour rather than hours per week(like in Scandinavia). Abbe98 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A qualifier could do the trick. It is worth considering how adding this will change the structure of the model. Please let me know if you have further recommendations whiles I provide update on the changes to the model and its feasibility soon. Andrews Lartey (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Support

education levelEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionThis compares ISCED education level equivalence with the local education level name. This is different from educational stage (Q18189) and the proposed local Education level because it uses the ISCED Level standards.
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1ISCED Level 03 → secondary school (Q159334)
Example 2ISCED Level 02 → middle school (Q149566)
Example 3ISCED Level 01 → Primary School
Planned useWith this the user or machine should get values for both the education level of the subject at the ISCED level and local education level. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to specify the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) equivalent of a specific curriculum. As mentioned in the Local Educational Level property, countries have varied terminologies for specific educational levels that may be similar to or different from other educational levels in other jurisdictions. This property will be used to specify the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) equivalents of the various local educational levels. This will help in comparing various curriculums of various jurisdictions of similar local educational levels. Dnshitobu (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

The relationship should be expressed the other way around. Lectrician1 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lectrician1 It makes a lot of sense, thanks for the suggession Dnshitobu (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
*  Strong supportAmuzujoe (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportWarmglow (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support I believe that creating this property will improve the quality of statements and values added to items from the West African Region. —Sunkanmi12✉️ 23:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportOladipupo193 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportJemima2019 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

time allocationEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionThis property combines(not add) the hours per week and sessions per week values as an indicator of the time committed to the subject. It is also called credit hours per semester or study period
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1teachers' workload (Q628539) → time allocation (hours per week * sessions per week * number of weeks) → (10 * 5 * 2=100hrs)
Example 2This is a tertiary version of course credit (Q782369)
Example 3working time (Q260732)
Planned useKnowing the time allocation of a subject will inform experts, advisors, and other stakeholders on the impacts and outcomes of the subject. This will also allow other educators and education systems to perform comparative analysis. The time allocation combines the hours per week and sessions per week in order to have a snapshot of the efforts of educators.

MotivationEdit

Time allocation as a property will be used to specify the total amount of hours that is spent on a subject/course/module in a specific learning period (term/semester/trimester). It will be determined by multiplying the hours per week by the sessions per week and the number of weeks in the learning period (term/semester/trimester) as per the example above. Time allocation will serve as an indicator for the hours per week and sessions per week for teaching the subject. Visit the data model document WD4E Data Model Document v1.0 to understand the data model and why we are requesting for these properties. Dnshitobu (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

grading systemEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe value indicators used by educators to evaluate the performance of the pupils in exams on the standard particular scales which is based on the points entirely and consist of the grades like A-F or range like 1-10
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1mathematics (Q395) → Letter grading
Example 2Candidates grading system in Basic Education Certificate Examination (Q15917594) → Numeric grading system
Example 3Alpha-numeric
SourceWikipedia list article
Planned useA reference to a grading system. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q224504.

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to specify the grading system that is used for curriculums of specific educational systems. Some educational systems use alphabets-letter grading system (A or A+ for gce) for grading while others use numbers-Numeric grading system (grade 1 for BECE) and others combine alphabets with numbers numbers-alpha-numeric grading system (eg. A1 for Wassce). Each country follows a specific grading system. This property is needed to differentiate between different grading systems. Grading System By Country. Dnshitobu (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I think the relationship should probably be expressed the other way around. For example: WASSCE (Q3308424) -> is a grading system for -> mathematics (Q395). Lectrician1 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback. However, per the guidelines for adding examples to the property requests, it states to use ITEM -> value. Hence, the reason for using this format. So the example is reading: the subject mathematics (Q395) has a grading system WASSCE (Q3308424). The reason is, a particular subject may have one or several grading systems. Per the model that I am working with found here, the grading system (WASSCE) is a property of the Item (Ghana National Curriculum for Senior High School). The inverse is also possible where WASSCE (Q3308424) is the grading system for several subjects - but not for this use case. Andrews Lartey (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Sir Amugi (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAbubakar280 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAmuzujoe (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportWarmglow (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support It is important to have this property created because it opens room for other grading systems to be created. —Sunkanmi12✉️ 23:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportOladipupo193 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportJemima2019 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Rdrg109 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

educational yearEdit

This properties have gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe level a student has reached in their academic pursuit. For example, 3rd grade.
Data typeString
Domainproperty
Example 1American System → Grade 7
Example 2Ghana System→ Junior High School 3
Example 3United Kingdom System→ Year Seven
Planned useRead more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q224561.

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to specify the educational year of a specific curriculum. For instance a JHS 1 mathematics curriculum will have Junior High School (Basic 7) in the Ghanaian system as the value for the property Educational year which will be Year Seven in United Kingdom System.

Dnshitobu (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment are the examples correct? educational year (Q10291405) is a generic class used by more specific educational years... Abbe98 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for prompt. I have corrected them now. Andrews Lartey (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Grades at which people take courses vary WIDELY among schools, districts, programs, and universities. I'm not sure where you're getting this data that these courses are taken specifically during these grades... Lectrician1 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your point is factual. This property will allow one to state the expected grade for which the subject or content is suited for per the standard set by the governing body that developed the content. Hence, the usage of this property should be in consultation with the recommendation of the governing body that set the standards. For example, with AP Capstone, the program is targeted at student who are motivated and prepared for college-level coursework; in this case technically Grade 11 and 12 students are. There may be other regions who will also use the ISCED 2011 standards to determine what courses are meant for what grade level. Andrews Lartey (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

ISCED AttainmentEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) Attainment model. Has two sub qualifiers - code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1primary education in country or region (Q64808627) → 1
Example 2secondary education in country or region (Q64807904) → 2
Example 3higher education in country or region (Q64805944) → 3
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0.Check out how it is used in the test environment Q224201.

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to determine the Isced equivalent of a specific educational level. Isced as an international standard for educational classification has an equivalent for educational levels. For instance, the equivalent of lower secondary education per Isced classification is Isced level 2. This will help in streamlining various educational levels of different countries and also help in making comparisons between different curriculums. Please check International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (from page 25 to page 59) for further details.

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationists can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes. Usually educationists are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate. In the example, the primary education in a country or region under ISCED Attainment is 1 (Primary Education) which can belong to a subcategory of 100(Including recognised successful completion of a lower secondary programme insufficient for level completion or partial level completion). The same applies to the rest. For more information about ISCED check this document Dnshitobu (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

ISCED category orientationEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific ISCED category orientation code and definition.Has two sub qualifiers - code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1lower secondary school (Q57775518) → 24
Example 2upper secondary school (Q57775519) → 34
Example 3upper secondary school (Q57775519) → 35
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0.Check out how it is used in the test environment Q224201.

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to distinguish between the two main categories of orientation according to UNESCO. These orientations are either vocational or general education. Certain curriculums may be specific for vocational or general education. The example above illustrates how the coding is done. The first figure specifies the educational level and the second figure specifies the orientation category (whether general or vocational). The number 4 represents general education while the number 5 represents vocational education. Please check International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (page 14, pages 36-37, pages 41-42, pages, page 50, pages 53-54, page 58, and page 61)

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationists can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes. Usually educationists are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate. In the example, the primary education in a country or region under ISCED category orientation is 24 (lower secondary general education) which can belong to various sub categories such as 241 (Insufficient for level completion or partial level completion, without direct access to upper secondary education), 242(Sufficient for partial level completion, without direct access to upper secondary education), etc. For more information about ISCED check this document. Dnshitobu (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment Please look at other property proposals for what your examples should look like. This doesn't work, and it's not clear what you're proposing without good examples. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. The examples should be clear now. Andrews Lartey (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith This has been fixed. Dnshitobu (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Sir Amugi (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAbubakar280 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAmuzujoe (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportWarmglow (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportOladipupo193 (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

ISCED Broad FieldEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific ISCED broad field. It uses the code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1journalism (Q11030) → Social Sciences, Journalism and Information
Example 2physical sciences (Q14632398) → Natural Sciences, mathematics and statistics
Example 3accounting (Q4116214) → Business, Administration and Law
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to specify the specific field that a curriculum belongs to. Broad fields are bigger than narrow and detailed fields. These classifications will aid in making comparisons and also making observations on how biased curricula of a specific educational level, or country may be towards a specific field of discipline.

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationists can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes. Usually educationists are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate.

In the example,accounting (Q4116214) is categorized in ISCED Broad Field as Business, Administration and Law. The same applies to the rest. For more information about ISCED check this document

Dnshitobu (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

ISCED Narrow FieldEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific ISCED standards under Narrow Field. Has two sub qualifiers - code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1economics (Q12882237) → Social and Behavioural Sciences
Example 2journalism (Q11030) → Journalism and Information
Example 3accounting (Q4116214) → Business and Administration
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0.

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to specify the specific field that a curriculum belongs to. UNESCO fields are classified into broad, narrow and detailed fields. This helps educators to classify specific curriculums into common fields. Narrow fields are broader than the detailed field, however, they are a subset of the broad field. Please check INTERNATIONAL STANDARD CLASSIFICATION OF EDUCATION Fields of education and training 2013 (ISCED-F 2013) –Detailed field descriptions (pages 54-58) for more information.

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationists can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes.

Usually educationists are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate.

In the example, the academic discipline economics (Q12882237) is identified as Social and Behavioral Science under the ISCED Narrow field. The same applies to the rest. For more information about ISCED check this document Dnshitobu (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

ISCED Detailed FieldEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifies the specific ISCED standards under Detailed Field. Has two sub qualifiers - code and label.
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1education (Q8434) → Education Science
Example 2physical sciences (Q14632398) → Earth Sciences
Example 3engineering (Q11023) → Electronics and Automation
Planned useA reference to the ISCED Level. This is part of a project where the curricula is digitized onto Wikidata. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0

MotivationEdit

This property will be used to specify the specific field that a curriculum belongs to. This will be more specific as compared to the broad field and narrow field. Detailed fields are a subset of the narrow field. This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationist can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes.

Usually educationist are able to relate their local education system with a global standard unlike other local standards. Hence, with this addition, an educationist is able to take a look at another local standard and because it has been compared with the ISCED standard, they are able to relate.

In the example, engineering (Q11023) as a broad field has Electronics and Automation as the ISCED Detailed Field. The same applies to the rest. For more information about ISCED check this document

Dnshitobu (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

epigraphy identifierEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionSpecialized thesaurus on Greek and Latin epigraphy in the Near East
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainepigraphy (Q181260)
Allowed values[0-9A-Za-z]{0,1}crt[0-9A-Za-z]{10}
Example 1pebble (Q14673)pcrtiFP3n4F6SP
Example 2slate (Q207079)pcrtpkSqdyJRIB
Example 3basalt (Q43338)pcrtOQccBNS7B1
Sourcehttps://ark.mom.fr/ark:/76609/pcrtiFP3n4F6SP
Formatter URLhttps://ark.mom.fr/ark:/76609/$1/

MotivationEdit

Miled.rousset (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Le thésaurus Epigraphie constitue un réservoir de mots clés très riche. Il est utilisé dans l'indexation de corpus et également dans l'édition numérique. Son intégration à Wikidata permet de l'aligner avec les autres catalogues ou thésaurus et aussi le proposer à d'autres réseaux de s'aligner avec.

DiscussionEdit

Jura
Epìdosis
B20180
llywrch
Jahl de Vautban
Alexmar983
*Treker
Mathieu Kappler
Tolanor
  Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome Epìdosis B20180 Geraki Azertus Alexander Doria Shisma Sp!ros Marcus Cyron Marsupium (observing member) Mrakia Alexmar983 DerHexer Lykos EncycloPetey Jahl de Vautban JBradyK Mathieu Kappler   Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Greece (we badly need a Project Epigraphy btw) --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  •   Comment while interesting the proposal seems a bit rushed ; first example links to an equivalent of Q56316368 instead of pebble (Q14673). Could we have other examples for e.g. cities or typology? I'd also like to have a more specific name for the property, perhaps Opentheso Epigraphy ID or Epigraphy Opentheso ID. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment From the examples, I cannot see what this property will be used for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • ...

competencyEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionStates the competencies one needs to possess after taking up a course or class or a lesson
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier
Example 1geometry (Q8087)problem solving (Q730920)
Example 2journalism (Q11030)critical thinking (Q843894)
Example 3art (Q735)creativity (Q170658)
Planned useA reference to the expected competency. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.

MotivationEdit

After studying any course or programme, learners are expected to gain or acquire certain skills. Some of these skills include critical thinking,problem solving become critical thinkers, problem solvers, creators, innovators, good communicators, collaborators, digitally literate, and

culturally and globally sensitive citizens. In the example above, competencies that learners are expected to acquire in a course such as journalism will be critical thinking (that is, improving their critical thinking skills). A student after studying a geometry (Q8087) module should have acquired a problem solving competence (relative) and another student studying journalism (Q11030) is supposed to come out of that course or subject with critical thinking (Q843894) skills

Dnshitobu (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • @Andrews Lartey: You have proposed many properties recently but in none of them so far are the examples demonstrated properly. For this one, for example, you should find an existing Wikidata item (or propose a new one) that is the subject for each example - presumably it should be some sort of curriculum item since that is what you have been describing. With a clearer illustration it will be possible for others to evaluate your proposals, otherwise it is very unclear what you are trying to do here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for this feedback. I am working on it and I should be done with them soon. Your feedbacks are really helping me here. Andrews Lartey (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment the description for this should be more specific / clearer. This meaning of the term has nothing to do with competence (Q5156288) for example. --Middle river exports (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
    This has been worked on, you can take a look @Middle river exports Dnshitobu (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Sir Amugi (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAbubakar280 (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support This property when granted will show the distinction of the skill set gained by learners of different courses. Alhassan Mohammed Awal (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAmuzujoe (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportWarmglow (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportOladipupo193 (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

sessions per weekEdit

This property has gone through consultation with  curriculum and technical advisors to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project

   Under discussion
DescriptionQualifier to set the number of sessions allocated per week.
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier
Example 1applied mathematics (Q33521) → 4
Example 2geography (Q1071) → 3
Example 3cycling (Q53121) → 2
Example 4meditation (Q108458) → 6
Planned useTo show the frequency of a session per week. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.

MotivationEdit

This property will help us determine the number of sessions/periods/lessons that a particular curriculum is studied in a week. This shows a specific measure of session and its occurrence, sessions per week. duration (P2047) really works for showing the sessions but can get confusing. The user cannot express the occurrence of the activity using just duration (P2047). In this case, this property will allow one to state the number of sessions per week an activity happens for or should happen for and its occurrence.

In the examples, applied mathematics has 4 sessions per week(relative) in a school timetable. Geography has 3 sessions per week. Cycling could be 2 sessions per week and meditation has 6 sessions per week. Dnshitobu (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Strong supportAbubakar280 (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportAmuzujoe (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportWarmglow (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong supportOladipupo193 (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  •   Neutral In some universities, there are courses whose lessons are taught by having one week off. I don't know the English name for this concept, but when I was studying in the university, we had chemistry laboratory in week 1, week 3, week 5, ..., but not in week 2, week 4, nor week 6. This because we were so much students taking that course, and we all couldn't use the same laboratory at the same time, so we were split in two groups, we had that class in the same day of the week at the same hour, but in different weeks. This didn't happen only with this course, it also occurred in some other courses at my university. How would this scenario be handled with this property? Rdrg109 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Indiana State Historical Marker Program numeric IDEdit

   Under discussion
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaincommemorative plaque (Q721747) or subclass
Allowed valuesformat of 21.1966.1 with exception for 02.19??.?, 10.194?.1, 24.19??.?, 71.19??.?, 88.19??.?, and K.Y.1963
Example 1Bailly Homestead (Q111442474) find-historical-markers-by-county/indiana-historical-markers-by-county/bailly-homestead → 64.1949.1
Example 2Fort Ouiatenon (Q111442456) fort-ouiatenon → 79.1998.2
Example 3Maj Gen Ambrose E Burnside 1824-1881 (Q111442451) maj-gen-ambrose-e-burnside-1824-1881 → 81.1963.1
Example 4battle-of-perryville → K.Y.1963
Example 5whitewater-canal → 24.19??.?
Example 6clarksville → 10.194?.1
Sourcehttps://www.in.gov/history/state-historical-markers/find-a-marker/find-historical-markers-by-county/indiana-historical-markers-by-county/
Planned useAdd to Indiana State Historical Marker Program ID (P9546) as part of creation of commemorative plaques.
Number of IDs in sourceequal to number Indiana State Historical Marker Program ID (P9546) IDs
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes

MotivationEdit

Per the proposal for Indiana State Historical Marker Program ID (P9546) ideally the official ID not the URL would be used to identify the markers. Given the ID is not in the URL, but is the most reliable ID of identifying the marker if the URL changes. I'm proposing the use of this numeric ID property to be a required qualifier with any use of Indiana State Historical Marker Program ID (P9546). There is no current formatter URL which is the reason the string not numeric value is the ID currently used via P9546. Wolfgang8741 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support --Trade (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

has groupEdit

MotivationEdit

I would like to use this to model musical unit group (Q18444336) as has subsidiary (P355) which is currently used and is not an appropriate property.

I would also like to use this to model populations.

This will be a subproperty of (P1647) has part(s) (P527) and a superproperty of has subsidiary (P355).

Lectrician1 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

It is somewhat unclear what this is for to me. I read "group some of this group's parts are part of" several times before I understood what you are trying to do. The label is a bit too vague—it sounds more like "belongs to group," but it seems you really want something like "has part which is a group". Is there some reason a value that is a subgroup cannot already be used in has part(s) (P527), though? Dominic (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic I'd particularly like this for musical unit groups because usually has part(s) (P527) is used for listing the members of a group and I don't want to mix the members with the unit groups. For example, see how https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28025953#P527 stores the members of the group and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28025953#P355 stores the unit groups the members are part of (which I want to move to this proposed property). I don't want to mix those things. Separating them will also make querying more accurate. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I don’t fully get it either.
For example in the third example, has part(s) (P527) should be typically used and I don’t understand why it should not be. Everything is made of other things, almost, so everything is a « group » of other things.
I think you imply that every group has a « type », for example a group of person is made of persons, and « subgroups » are parts of this things with the same type ? For example you’d want a property for the case where the group has a « person » part, and a property for the case where the part is itself a group of person ?
(Ironically, this is a very similar structure of instance of (P31) / subclass of (P279) that if I remember correctly you’d like to suppress)
If that is correct, I think the assumption is false for example for the third example. This is a body part made of other body parts, we don’t really know which kind of body parts it is. Is it supposed to be a group of bones or something like a more generic « body parts » which can be anything ? author  TomT0m / talk page 13:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@TomT0m
> For example in the third example, has part or parts (P527) should be typically used and I don’t understand why it should not be.
Because has part(s) (P527) should be vertebra (Q180323) as that those are one of the "main components" along with the sacrum (Q233316) and coccyx (Q193176). Thoracic spine (Q994527), lumbar spine (Q66569716), cervical spine (Q1572320) are clearly the "groups" of the spine. Just look at the diagram linked on the item.
> Everything is made of other things, almost, so everything is a « group » of other things.
Yes, but where groups are specifically defined like musical unit groups, populations grouped in a census, or segment groups of a spine - having a property like this makes sense.
> that if I remember correctly you’d like to suppress
I don't anymore.
> we don’t really know which kind of body parts it is
That's okay. We don't need to know what kind of body part it is. We just need to know that it is a group, regardless if it has parts of the same type or not.
Do you not believe thoracic spine is a group? Lectrician1 (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

CrystalLemonade Xia Redalert2fan Baji Beetricks Lectrician1 Demss22 Daniel Mietchen CMQW EN-Jungwon   Notified participants of WikiProject Korean Entertainment Lectrician1 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  •   Support, an important property for connectivity.--Arbnos (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@EN-Jungwon @ReVeluv02 Consider supporting this? It's a property for KPOP subunits. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support --EN-Jungwon 06:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose part of (P361) seems sufficient. I don't think has part(s) (P527) and has subsidiary (P355) are good examples to follow. They often lead to large numbers of statements on a single item, duplication of data and inconsistent data. - Nikki (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Nikki. Mahir256 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

construction startEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptiondate that a construction project started
Representsconstruction (Q385378)
Data typePoint in time
Example 110 Hudson Yards (Q15264124) → August 2013
Example 2Eiffel Tower (Q243) → 28 January 1887
Example 3Atomium (Q180901) → March 1956
Example 4Aswan Dam (Q38891) → 9 January 1960
Planned useAdding construction start to different buildings
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoProperty proposal/Generic#construction end
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes
Proposed byJoeykentin (talk)

MotivationEdit

Now the only way to and the construction time is to add a significant event property and add construction with the a start time and end time qualifiers.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeykentin (talk • contribs) at 10:51, April 17, 2022‎ (UTC).

DiscussionEdit

  • @Joeykentin: What is wrong with the current approach?   Oppose pending response. Multichill (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Multichill. In my opinion, the current way is very flexible. --Tinker Bell 16:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment Kindly give us a little explanation on it how we can do that .... It will help us understand the situation here. BeLucky (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I've answered on the P571 discussion. --Tinker Bell 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks like there has been a discussion on the same in past with no result in last. Here is the link to the English Translation of the original discussion (Property talk:P571#Qualifiers "start date" and "end date" for this property). - BeLucky (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Lectrician1 is fixing the same here is the discussion: Property talk:P571#1 word inception for 58 different Words. @Joeykentin: @Multichill: @Tinker Bell: --BeLucky (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support "inception" can mean when construction starts, when the building is first proposed, when the building opens, etc. We need specific properties like this in order to clear up this possible conflation. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
      Comment Here I agree with @Lectrician1 .... we could use these properties (construction started & construction ended) to be more specific to somethings and not burdening the significant event (P793) for everything and inception (P571) is already out of the question here. BeLucky (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment not sure to understand the problem, what is wrong with the current situation and how having more properties would solve anything ; and clearly one shouldn't use linguistic (especially not in only one language) to define a property (linguistic could be used to fix the label tho). And a property can always be express by multiples words (and if "construction start" is created it will also have multiple alias). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Lectrician1 @Joeykentin looks like @VIGNERON got too much caught up with the word "linguistic" .... He looks very offended by it. Cheers. -- BeLucky (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    The thing is inception can mean several things like when a project was started (so not the construction but the planning and stuff like that) and the construction. They are totally different things yet they both can be represented by inception Jhowie Nitnek 18:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Joeykentin @Lectrician1 @MasterRus21thCentury & @VIGNERON @Multichill @Tinker Bell Guys we need to agree or disagree on one point that inception/date founded/date formed/creation date/date of establishment/date commenced/inititated/introduced etc can be same/similar/loosely related but any of them can't be construction or incorporation. -- BeLucky (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support ~Namita (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support BeLucky (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no virtue in speciating inception date for each special case someone thinks of - start of constrution, date of incorporation, whataver you come up with next. It's easily possible to represent the meaning of a P571 value by qualifying the statement with e.g. object has role (P3831) taking an appropriate value; and to have multiple qualified P571 statements for any number of inception dates in an item. It's easily possible to represent the construction period - which require an end date conspicuously but puzzlingly absent from this proposal - using significant event (P793) with start & end dates. The clear risk is that we merely move from supposed ambiguity about a single property, to ambiguity and confusion attaching to & between multiple speciated incept properties ... meanwhile, arguably, degrading ease of reporting by requiring report writers to understand that this sort of incept data is found over here, that sort of incept data is found over there; and again arguably degrading the contributor UI insofar as the use now has to choose from a deck of date properties rather than use the single property. And then; for how many occasions will inception and construction start meaningfully differ? And for how many of these cases will there be a robust source of data? To my mind, whilst I see the superficial attraction of more & more detailed properties, my experience of RDF leads me to the view that more & more tends to add all sorts of complexity and confusion without usefully solving any real problem, and instead I'd favour a better & better approach in which we use a using a simple deck of properties and properly qualify statements to convey meaning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Tagishsimon Nobody wants to add qualifiers for a relationship as common as this one. It makes sense to have a property. Lectrician1 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Lectrician1 All I can see is .... wikidata is being held back by few conservative people who held back by some self-imposed beliefs about wikidata not even knowing what is wikidata in first place ... It's common drawback of any open project with public contribution where anyone with any background and from anywhere can come in and edit without fully understanding the project at large and sometimes these users even reaches to higher levels without any hurdles with time. - BeLucky (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    If you mean to imply that Tagishsimon is "holding back Wikidata... not even knowing what is Wikidata" and "without fully understanding the project", you might want to learn more of what you're talking about before putting fingers to keyboard. And if you don't mean that, you need to be more clear about what you do mean. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose keeping the timeline in one place with a series of significant events makes for easier interrogation, especially for buildings with multiple phases. Vicarage (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Vicarage Construction is not at all related to inception. This term (construction start) was there in inception (P571) and has been removed from inception (P571) and now proposed here as separate property. And for lots and lots of items out there construction is more then significant event so it has been proposed here as separate property. - BeLucky (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I work a lot with building items and to be honest, the current usage of inception (P571) on these items is simply mess, as it is frequently used for both start of construction and completition/opening. It is appropriate to distinguish between the two and thus have more specific property.--Jklamo (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
      Comment @Jklamo Thank you for your support. Here is the Property proposal for Construction End: Wikidata:Property_proposal/construction_end - BeLucky (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the above. Use "inception". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Gymnicus (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Gymnicus Reasoning? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Lectrician1: As others have pointed out before me, other statements give us the ability to indicate the beginning and end of the build. Not only about the property inception (P571) but also about the property significant event (P793). so I don't see the need for the proposed properties. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
    Because every building has a construction start date and there are thousands of buildings on Wikidata? We can't expect people to take the annoying time to add significant event (P793) to clarify what they mean so most will just resort to using inception (P571) which could mean a variety of things other than construction start. This degrades data quality over a extreme amount of items about buildings. Lectrician1 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

construction endEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptiondate that a construction project ended
Representsconstruction (Q385378)
Data typePoint in time
Example 110 Hudson Yards (Q15264124) → 31 May 2016
Example 2Eiffel Tower (Q243) → 15 March 1889
Example 3Atomium (Q180901) → 1958
Example 4Aswan Dam (Q38891) → 21 July 1970
Planned useAdding construction start to different buildings
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoProperty proposal/Generic#construction start
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes
Proposed byJoeykentin (talk)

MotivationEdit

Now the only way to and the construction time is to add a significant event property and add construction with the a start time and end time qualifiers.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeykentin (talk • contribs) at 11:00, April 17, 2022‎ (UTC).

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support, an important property for construction.--Arbnos (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose what's wrong with the current way? --Tinker Bell 16:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
      Comment Kindly let us know the current way to help us understand the situation here. BeLucky (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Better if renamed to construction ended. BeLucky (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment see Wikidata:Property proposal/construction start (since they go together, the two proposals should be on the same page to facilitate the discussion by the way). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Strong support ~Namita (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose should be a qualifier of significant event if at all so the timeline is self-contained, and the next significant event implies the end of a previous phase. Clutter to say a building construction ended on 31 March, and it was opened on 1 April. Vicarage (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Vicarage, and as set out at more length in my opposition to the 'construction start' property proposal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Gymnicus (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ECLI court codeEdit

   Under discussion
Representscourt (Q41487)
Data typeString
Allowed values[A-Z][A-Z0-9]{0,6}
Example 1Helsinki Administrative Court -> HELHAO
Example 2European Union Court of Justice -> C
Example 3Stuttgart Regional Court -> LGSTUTT
Example 4German Federal Constitutional Court -> BVerfG
Planned useAdd courts and ECLI court IDs as enumerated here: https://e-justice.europa.eu/175/EN/european_case_law_identifier_ecli
Robot and gadget jobsSadly, the EU does not require its system-using members to submit ECLI codes to a central database; each participating nation's coordinator maintains an unstructured description page. Bots are near impossible for this.
See alsoP3570
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes

MotivationEdit

I would like to add as many of the courts listed on https://e-justice.europa.eu/ as possible. Each participating nation (not all EU members participate) describes how their court IDs are formed. They provide ECLI court IDs along with their respective court names in many languages (which would become Wikidata item labels). Parsonsandrew1 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment Generally, I am in favour of such a property but I would suggest including the jurisdiction's prefix in the value, i.e. BVerfGECLI:DE:BVerfG. What do you think about that? --Nw520 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Nw520 That is a great point. Actually, after I submitted the proposal, I realized that some of the court codes might indeed be duplicates among countries, since they are only unique within the scope or namespace of their respective country. Including the jurisdiction code would provide additional clarity. For example, Czechia uses NS as its supreme court's ECLI code (Nejvyšší soud), and its conceivable that Slovakia would use the same (albeit unclear from their E-Justice page as of now). Of course, those wouldn't actually be collisions, but nonetheless, a little bit ambiguous.
    In no order, here are some other considerations:
    • The ECLI: prefix is a redundant part of the value
    • We would have to rename the property from "ECLI court code" to something akin to "ECLI prefix"
    Alternatively, we could create a second property, "ECLI country code", whereby Q56025 would store both DE and BVerfG as separate values in separate properties. This would enable SPARQL queries like "select courts where ECLI country code equals DE".
    • however, that would essentially duplicate the same information captured in P17 and P1001
    • . . . except that the country code is indeed different from P17 and P1001; it very-nearly but not entirely follows ISO 3166 alpha-2, and non-states can also be assigned a code. Wikipedia entry: [5]
    Frankly, I am indifferent in how it is implemented, so long as we capture this important information! Parsonsandrew1 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

mirror imageEdit

   Under discussion
Representsmirror image (Q2703478)
Data typequalifier?-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Domainproperty
Example 1Q30171963 ("based on")-> designates a left-right mirror flip. This is common in engravings of artworks.
Example 2Most examples of Q179744 (daguerrotypes) are a mirror image compared to real life, so it might be useful here.
Example 3MISSING
Planned useQ110141639 is an obvious option
Expected completenessHard to predict. I'd imagine we can hope for some degree of completeness, but there's always the risk of lost artworks
Robot and gadget jobsProbably not.

MotivationEdit

Felt weird to find the source of an engraving, note it was a copy, but - as engravings often were - mirror flipped, and to have no way to note this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

This seems like a Boolean property you are requesting? Generally I think that would be handled by something like has quality (P1552) mirror image (Q2703478). ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps as a qualifier to the based on (P144) statement. Jheald (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose Per ArthurPSmith's comment.— The Erinaceous One 🦔 05:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

is the author of the works of a personal art exhibition; is the author of the works of a personal photo exhibition; is the subject of a personal exhibitionEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionfor creative personalities who are the authors of collections of their own works of art
Representscreator of (Q78522641)
Data typeProperty
Domainauthor (Q482980); human (Q5)
Allowed valuescreator of (Q78522641)
Example 1Serhiy Vahanov (Q4102175)
Example 2Urs Fischer (Q503641)
Example 3Viktor Pinchuk (Q104033754)
Example 4Andrej Krasulin (Q502306)
Planned usefor personalities, creative people, creators of collections of their own works of art
Robot and gadget jobsno
See alsocontributed to creative work (P3919)

MotivationEdit

Important for some personalities — Виктор Пинчук (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit