Wikidata:Property proposal/place of baptism

place of baptism edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Not done

Description	the place where a person is baptized
Data type	Item
Domain	people
Example 1	MISSING
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING
See also	date of baptism (P1636), place of birth (P19)

Motivation

In the current time it is common to register where someone has been born. In previous eras this was in large parts of the world not that common, as then people were first registered at there baptism in church. As not every town had a church, people had to travel to the nearest church. This means for Wikidata that adding the property place of birth (P19) is not right, as the place of birth had been different from the place of baptism.

In line with date of birth (P569) - place of birth (P19), and date of baptism (P1636), a place of baptism is needed and hereby requested. Thank you. Romaine (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Question What isn't working well with the current handling significant event (P793)=baptism (Q35856) like in Q297#P793 or Q5478989#P793 ? --Pasleim (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the dates and place are going to be used, this can't be done easily by just extracting the place of baptism directly. Also I think that such an important moment, like birth and death, also baptism was a major one, and serves as an alternative if the birth place was not known due the circumstances I described above. Romaine (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we do have place of marriage (P2842) and place of burial (P119) so this would be a similar property I guess. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about qualifying date of baptism (P1636) with "location"?
--- Jura 08:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are there examples where place of baptism is known, but not date? Argotechnica (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of similarities with place of birth/place of marriage. It's useful to have a specific property for it to have automated search. ChristianKl (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no property for "date of mariage". If there was, we could use the qualifier "location" as well.
  --- Jura 20:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I use point in time, or start/finish as a qualifier to the spouse. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, judging from your explanation @Romaine, this property seems relevant to me. African Hope (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment above.
--- Jura 07:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it should be a qualifier to date of baptism (P1636), with the use of location (P276) should be adequate for the purpose. I have had no issue doing quite a few that way. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Oppose. I find the argument that location (P276) is enough convincing. ChristianKl (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith, Romaine: Can you please explain how and why location as a qualifier to the date isn't sufficient. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* doing it via a qualifier seems fine to me too. It would be very rare that we would know the place but not the date (for example if it was recorded in a particular church register but somehow the date was left off) and even then a rough date - at least within a few years - should be clear from the context. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@billinghurst: The place of baptism was in the time before birth registers the place where someone was registered for the first time. This was not uncommonly not the place where someone was born (people had to travel to the most nearby church). Sure it is possible to add a location to a date, but that serves as qualifier that gives some specification, instead of as a separate characteristic of someone. If Wikidata is used for infoboxes or external websites/apps, the place of baptism serves as the alternative if no place of birth is available. If it is just a location next to a date, this data that serves as an alternative birth date is not used and not easy accessible. (Not to mention all the variances location (P276) / located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) / coordinate location (P625), or that the church is entered as location instead of the town (while the date needs to be pure the town/city to be able to be used properly). Also the places of baptism can get next to the town their own qualifier for indicating the church. By not having a separate property for the place of baptism, the data can't easily be retrieved, can't serve as alternative date for when someone came on Earth, can't have a qualifier itself, the data is less pure, and by having it it only as location it is less useful. Romaine (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine: I well understand about what baptisms are and their recording, and I didn't ask about why you wish to record a location. I specifically asked how the the addition of location as a qualifer to the date of baptism didn't meet the needs.

To your points, I believe that you are mistaken, as the date of baptism is there and can be pulled, a qualified place is attached to the date and can be pulled, as well as other qualifiers on the date. Further, if someone was baptised twice (not unknown) under your scheme there will be two dates of baptism, and then there were would be two separate places of baptism, how would you be able to easily associate the pairing? By suggested means of a qualifier that is already done, and with no additional properties. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@billinghurst: I think it is useful to mark the background of the request, as that may answer a part of the question. But I see in your question a similar situation elsewhere, and still there two properties have been created. There are people of which the precise birth date is not known or there are multiple sources for different dates. Also there the place of birth can differ. How would the pairing be done in such case? Romaine (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine: Not certain that this is the place for a tutorial about use of data, and especially not be an unexpert like me. However, each item allows for multiple entries for an event, and then one can set certain to be preferred or deprecated, see Help:Ranking. With your examples, a person is only born once (to the best of my knowledge), so any multiples about birth dates or birth places are clearly "OR" choices. For events that can be multiples that simply does not work. (With regard to "others that have been created" along similar lines that is a pointless argument without examples, as all I can say is that "they were obviously different", or "they were incorrect and shouldn't have been" as a vacuous response.)

Again the point that I ask is "Why do you see that the use of location (P276) as a qualifier to the date of baptism (P1636) does not work for your uses?" — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@billinghurst: You basically answered the question you asked me regarding how it can be paired. That a person can be born only once I would believe, but the registering systems of when and where someone has been born are not that well working all the time during the past 2000 years. I have seen many cases of known people of which multiple quality sources say someone was born on different dates. For people born in the early days this happened a lot: two birth dates available, 2 places of birth as well. With multiple events the first place and date of baptism can be marked with priority. Also it is possible to add to the place of baptism a qualifier that specifies to which it belongs.

There are multiple cases that just the location as qualifier will not work. One of those is when there is a source indicating a location, and then I need to specify the sourcing circumstances (P1480). It is not possible to add a qualifier to another qualifier. This means if I do not want to add a sourcing circumstances (P1480) to the date of baptism (P1636), but to the place of baptism, this is not possible. - I have seen other cases in which a location as qualifier will not work, but have to find them back. Romaine (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, every person is born, so we either know when, or presume when (choice 1). We know that the birth took place at a place with a level of certainty (choice 2). These can be independent as they are once-off events, and have no requirement to be tied in data means. [We are never going to get them as one being a qualifer of another, and having that argument is pointless]. Again birth happened once, so multiple dates have to be OR; multiple places are OR. Baptisms are can be single or multiple events. Anyway, I am not sure that this argument helps or clouds this discussion.

By your schema we would not know whether we have one or two baptisms, and then we would not know which date was aligned with which place, so they have to be qualified to clearly state this. If you have two records of date of baptism with different places, you add each date, each qualified with place, place a ranking and with the sourcing circumstances to reflect that the location is questioned (sourcing circumstances used properly should be able to indicate that it isn't the date being queried, plus you can use it multiple times as a qualifier). — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@billinghurst, Jura1, Argotechnica, ArthurPSmith, Pasleim, Romaine: Not done. No consensus for creation of the property and you can use location (P276) as qualifier for date of baptism (P1636). Or use significant event (P793) if you want another kind of baptism. ChristianKl (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]