Wikidata:Property proposal/changed
Changed edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | Changed (or revised/altered/modified) - Anything that has changed at a given point in time |
|---|---|
| Data type | Point in time |
| Allowed units | Same as start time (P580) |
| Example | Kathmandu Valley (Q970717) -> heritage designation (P1435) -> World Heritage Site (Q9259) -> changed -> 2006 (ref) |
| Planned use | UNESCO heritage sites via en:Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata, but there are obviously wider applications |
- Motivation
Unless I'm mistaken, we don't currently seem to have any way to mark that something was changed/modified/altered/revised on a given date. This would seem like a good generic property to add so that we can mark when this happens. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
Question For the provided example, wouldn't it work to use ⟨ Kathmandu Valley (Q970717)? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
⟩ heritage designation (P1435) ⟨ World Heritage Site (Q9259) ⟩
start time (P580) ⟨ 2006 ⟩- @Joshbaumgartner: The start date in this case is 1979; it was then revised in 2006. So the structure you're saying is already in use for the 1979 value (see Kathmandu Valley (Q970717)), but I can't figure out how to indicate the change in 2006. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: Got it. From my quick read it was what UNESCO calls a 'Minor Modification' to the boundaries of the site. It sounds like we need some way of capturing what the change was. What about ⟨ Kathmandu Valley (Q970717)and referencing the UNESCO docs? It is a little tricky capturing a border change when at the moment we aren't capturing the original or current borders. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC) ⟩ significant event (P793) ⟨ Minor Modification ⟩
point in time (P585) ⟨ 2006 ⟩
- @Mike Peel: Got it. From my quick read it was what UNESCO calls a 'Minor Modification' to the boundaries of the site. It sounds like we need some way of capturing what the change was. What about
- @Joshbaumgartner: The start date in this case is 1979; it was then revised in 2006. So the structure you're saying is already in use for the 1979 value (see Kathmandu Valley (Q970717)), but I can't figure out how to indicate the change in 2006. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment Just to know that something changed on a certain date is not really informative. More interesting is to know what changed when. In case of Kathmandu Valley (Q970717) the size of the area was adapted. This could be modelled as follows:- ⟨ Kathmandu Valley (Q970717) ⟩ area (P2046) ⟨ 275, 86 ha ⟩
start time (P580) ⟨ 1979 ⟩
end time (P582) ⟨ 2006 ⟩ - or ⟨ Kathmandu Valley (Q970717)--Pasleim (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC) ⟩ significant event (P793) ⟨ reduction of the property ⟩
point in time (P585) ⟨ 2006 ⟩- @Joshbaumgartner, Pasleim: The logic I was using here was "WHS inscription changed on this date" (which covers the what and the when ;-) ). It seems most natural to place that alongside the start time for that heritage status, as a "change". Defining a new type of significant event would work, but means including that information in a separate property rather than as a qualifier for heritage designation (P1435). Defining what exactly has changed could be ... messy. It may not be trivial to say what the change was in all cases, and also there could be cases where the entry covers *both* the WHS part of the site and the wider area, in which case qualifiers of WHS need to be put everywhere... Perhaps @John Cummings (as Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO) can provide some insight into what could be done here as well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've applied a workaround (Q457174) of ⟨ Kathmandu Valley (Q970717), which is now in use in the infobox, but we should try to find a better solution to this! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC) ⟩ significant event (P793) ⟨ UNESCO World Heritage Site record modification (Q29778318) ⟩
point in time (P585) ⟨ {{{5}}} ⟩
- I've applied a workaround (Q457174) of
- @Joshbaumgartner, Pasleim: The logic I was using here was "WHS inscription changed on this date" (which covers the what and the when ;-) ). It seems most natural to place that alongside the start time for that heritage status, as a "change". Defining a new type of significant event would work, but means including that information in a separate property rather than as a qualifier for heritage designation (P1435). Defining what exactly has changed could be ... messy. It may not be trivial to say what the change was in all cases, and also there could be cases where the entry covers *both* the WHS part of the site and the wider area, in which case qualifiers of WHS need to be put everywhere... Perhaps @John Cummings (as Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO) can provide some insight into what could be done here as well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Use start and end dates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: How, exactly, in the example I've given? It's neither a start nor an end... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Mike Peel, thanks very much for trying to tackle this, I have tried to think about this before with no luck. I had thought about trying to show it through qualifiers in 'has part' being added or taken away at different dates or even by providing different area maps. I think this issue is likely to appear in many other registers where a member has changed over time. If you think this is the best way of doing that then I trust you are correct :) --John Cummings (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've used significant event (P793) this way for historical clothing that has been altered to a later style: ⟨ Layton jacket (Q6759619). - PKM (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC) ⟩ significant event (P793) ⟨ alteration (Q28873693) ⟩
point in time (P585) ⟨ {{{5}}} ⟩
Not done Lack of support.--Micru (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)