Wikidata

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties/Team example

< Wikidata talk:WikiProject Association football
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Xaris333 in topic association football club (Q476028) vs association football team (Q15944511)

association football club (Q476028) vs association football team (Q15944511) edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago44 comments3 people in discussion

  Notified participants of WikiProject Association football

Hi, I come here following @Unnited meta:'s recommanation after a double reversion in FC Barcelona (Q7156). I have no doubt that your decission about a the No-National teams must have instance of (P31) = always and only association football club (Q476028) has a wide consensus. However,

  1. when does association football team (Q15944511) must be used ?.
  2. What about with the almost one thousand items that have P31= association football team (Q15944511) ?.
  3. If the team of football FC Barcelona (Q7156) has to be consider a association football club (Q476028), what's the correct P31 for FC Barcelona (Q3091261), a "club" with several football teams (and other sports) ?.

I'll appreciatte a raesonable answer. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply


Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/01#Football teams. Maybe that helps. It's not clear to me either. Xaris333 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Xaris333:, After reading it, I do not understand how do you conclude that "all" football team should be "club". Anyway.
It seems there are two confused concepts in the discussion:
  1. The different meanings of "football" (european football, soccer, australian footbal,...)
  2. Having or not differents classes of teams.
Let me talk, by now, just about association football (Q2736), the european football, the FIFA sport.
No one article describes "team" as 11 players. It's too simple. A team has the player, the reserve players, technical support people, etc. When team is the unique activity for club or club is amateur, etc. probably also have president and administrator, because it has no organisational structure. This has been the starting point for all the clubs sometime and, in that moment, the common language speaks of a club or team indistinctly and everybody understands it without worrying about the accuracy of the concepts. However, when club grows up the structure is unique and shared for all their teams and the team just gather sport related people.
In my opinion:
  • the clubs with more than one team (doesn't matter if the sport are the same), must have different item for the club and for each team (sport, class, gender or whatever).
  • Otherwise, clubs with just one team can be described as you wish: club or team.... or better: should have both of them in P31. In fact, its functions and roles are probabley little differentiated.
Thanks for your collaboration and opinions. Amadalvarez (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. Xaris333 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Xaris333:, I thought you setup the guidelines for that :) . @Amadalvarez: Here is another discussion on it which will give more clarity - look at comments from @MisterSynergy: Wikidata:WikiProject_Association_football/Discussion_about_properties/Competitions#P641.
The proposal suggests to use each team as club since that is how they are called/considered with every name associated with FC. Very few consider it to be Barcelona main team, it is mostly looked as Barcelona club. So chances are higher that you will add Kevin-Prince Boateng as member of Barcelona F.C rather than Barcelona main team. Anyways the lines between reserve teams and main teams are so bleak, you could have players coming back from injury playing in the reserve team and some under-21 players eligible to play for main team etc.
So it is proposed to have the same instance of club but differentiate them using class. The only scenario it feels odd is when you consider Barcelona U-19 team to be instance of a football club but the class here helps to differentiate it. Most women teams I think are also considered as WFC.
Please suggest scenarios where we need to differentiate them as club and team that can't be done using this structure. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unnited meta (talk • contribs).
Very interesting, @Unnited meta:. I agree with the gender and age consideration in order to avoid create new sports that are, by its rules, exactly equal. It is a good practice while the rules doesn't change. I understand that, if tomorrow the rules/characteristics for women football would change (I mean dramatically), for instance, they "can take the ball with hands for no more than 3 steps", we will have to create a new sport as happens with Australian rules football (Q50776). Anyway, I just to be sure if I understood the concept as you.
Regarding the main topic of this discussion, I think that the reasoning about sport-gender-age does not apply in the case of club-team. Club and team are not equivalent, as museum should not be confused with the building where it is housed, although ordinary people see it as one thing. A club is an organitzation to manage a team(s). Obviously, as I explained above, a mono-team club is easier to be treated as sinonimous. That's why I pourposed to give -to this cases- P31= club of... & team of....
This is my scenario because acomplish with the real life using the natural properties and without broke any aspect of the ontology. Why do you ask to me to apply sport-gender-age critera to the club-team when it is totally different ?. Why do we need "force" the meaning of competition class (P2094) ?, remember it is "official classification by a regulating body under which the subject qualifies for inclusion"; in your scenario what would be the competition class (P2094) for FC Barcelona (Q7156) or FC Bayern München AG (Q1386924) ?.
Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
As per the guidelines this is how it would look for the two main Barcelona club-teams FC Barcelona (Q7156) and FC Barcelona Femení (Q522899)
*
*
*
*
*
*
If we think of FC Barcelona (Q7156) as a team then will we have another item to represent the club? Also what are the statements that we are expecting in the separate team item that will be different from the club item. Would like to know how would your suggested approach work for any one of the clubs FC Barcelona (Q7156) or FC Bayern Munich (Q15789) .
I don't think we can have different rules for mono-team single sport club and multi-team single sport club, having a standard set of rules will help in the long run. Like for eg: a lower league team may not have relevant multiple teams but on promotion they may become relevant. Unnited meta (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Unnited meta: Thanks again for your information. Excuse me, I used a wrong ID in my last question:
..... what would be the competition class (P2094) for FC Barcelona (Q7156) ....., should be for FC Barcelona (Q3091261), the club, not the team.
My concern with teams is because the guidelines assign the same denomination to the team and its club. So, understanding that there are currently a guidelines, I try to reason that some aspects can be improved. Following your example, my proposal would be:
*
*
*
*
* Initially, I proposed Q15944511 (team of males), now defined by P2094
*
*
*
*
*
It is not mandatory to me, but permissible, have different rules for mono-teams and multi-teams. In fact, we already have this situation now, "with the current guidelines". We have 268 teams depending from a parent club (P831), it means two (or more) different items, and more than 33.000 teams with just one item, called club.
To summarized: my pourpose on this point is
a) call "team" to all the teams
b) call "club" to all the clubs
c) if the item is unique for both concepts (it means 33.000), I suggested to have both values as P31, because, really, the subject is making the both rols.
Thank you for your time and your great explanations. Amadalvarez (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Amadalvarez:
*
*
This does not work
when an item becomes an instance of (P31) of multisports club (Q13580678) it is expected to be associated with multiple sports.
When an item becomes an instance of (P31) of association football club (Q476028) it is expected to be associated with only association football club (Q476028).
So the same item cannot be both. In the guideline this works and there are separate items for each. Later
has subsidiary (P355) instead of part of (P361) sounds good, since part of (P361) is generic.
FC Barcelona (Q7156) cant be instance of (P31) of football team (Q28083137), I think you mean instance of (P31) of association football team (Q15944511) which is specific to soccer/football
Hope you agree till now. What do you think will be the statements for any item that is an instance of (P31) of association football team (Q15944511). Also what will be considered as a team. The FC Barcelona squad that is eligible to play Champions League could be different to one eligible to play LaLiga this year. Will they be considered separate teams?
Unnited meta (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Unnited meta:
  • In FCB case, it sounds reasonable use only , but no in another [just football] club with more than one team (female, sub-19, etc.)
  • In [present] guidelines it seems forbidden to assign "football team" under any circumstances, and I think we must be able to differentiate the club concept from the team concept, because there are two different things that we often mix, but may be different, when we need.
  • I think you mean parent club (P831) instead of part of (P361); yes, it's more specific for sports.
  • Yes, the association football team (Q15944511) is my pourpose (sorry, but as the catalan label is the same, I got crazy!).
  • Last point: 1) a team plays by seasons. 2) in a season, each sport can have differents competitions (league, cup, etc.). 3) each team has (will have) an item for each season linked with team item by season of club or team (P5138) and linked with competition item (of the sport in this season) by sports competition competed at (P5249). The squad is variable and, I'm not completely sure, should by described by the participation of the player in each competition. But the "team concept" is unique for sport + class (gender + age); not by the lineup/squad of each competiton/match. In relation with this and some other topic, I started a discussion to try to draw the full ontology of relationship competitions-season-teams, not only for football, but for team's sport (basket, handball, etc.). Now it's paussed awaiting the end of this discussion, because affects to the final draw. I invite you to participate, take a glance to the draw (not updated with last comments of MisterSynergy), make your contributions in order to identify the best possible structure of a segment of the ontology that has not yet been developed, which may involve making changes in previous decisions. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Amadalvarez:
With what you are suggesting, every club will have at least two items, one which is instance of (P31) association football club (Q476028) and other which is instance of (P31) association football team (Q15944511). Clubs like FCB will have an additional item to represent instance of (P31) multisports club (Q13580678). So in the diagram that you suggested you will have to add another level to represent the team. multi-sports club ->> football club ->> football team – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unnited meta (talk • contribs).
@Unnited meta: Not really. Remember my pourpose to have a unique item with two P31 for club mono-team. So, for FCB we'll need two (or more) items: the multisport club + the team(s); and for mono-team clubs, just one item with P31= club and team of... On the other hand, the diagram is a draft while the (other) discussion is alive, because the club-team topic were in this discussion. I mean, when we agree here the affaire club-team, I'll update diagram with the final version. What else do you need to test my pourpose to CHANGE present guidelines ?. Thanks,Amadalvarez (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Amadalvarez: Yes I already disagreed on that part, we can't have two P31 statements. So, for FCB we'll need three (or more) items: the multisport club + the association football club + the team(s); and for mono-team clubs, two items with P31= club and another P31= team. A multi sport club will be an item on its own and can't be treated as an instance of both multi sport club and football club. In case of FCB since football is dominant maybe you see both as a single item but that may not be the case in rest of the world. The multi sport club will be the parent while the individual sport club will be the subsidiary.
*
*
*
* - Unnited meta (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Unnited meta: Excuse me, you say "we can't have two P31 statements". Really ?. Who forbids to have two values at P31?. The P31 describes "what the item is", and items can be more than one thing at a time. Probably, some of present multiple P31 are incorrect, but most others are correct. Please, do not tell me "present guidelines", because, this long discussion is oriented to "change this guidelines". Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Amadalvarez: Wow! I mentioned that because I have already explained it in our earlier conversation
"when an item becomes an instance of (P31) of multi-sport club (Q13580678) it is expected to be associated with multiple sports.
When an item becomes an instance of (P31) of association football club (Q476028) it is expected to be associated with only association football club (Q476028)"
So it can't be both, you will see that the multi-sport club will have statements like sport to provide information related to the different sports that it is associated with while in an association football club the sport can't be anything other than football. Similarly the revenue stream for a multi-sport club will have combined revenue for all sports but association football club will only have the revenue related to the football club. Hope that explains things better - Unnited meta (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Unnited meta: Look. We have write so much for and back, repeating arguments and making non-voluntaries mistakes with confusing definitions, that I got lost. So, I'm going to prepare a comparative ontology that I propose in order to have a base to discuss. But, in meanwhile, I invite you to try to answer the 3 questions that I ask to start this discussion (specially #1 & #2). Instead of being answered in that moment, I received a news lectures of old discussions not always linked with my questions. So, please, try to answer -strictly- them and you will discover the contradictory decission you did when created present guidelines. As always, thanks for your cooperation, Amadalvarez (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Amadalvarez: I am not totally against everything you are proposing but some of them do not fit, hence the discussions.
when does association football team (Q15944511) must be used ?. - as per past discussions it was decided to have a single association football club to represent both the team and the organization. Now if we follow what you propose and split it we need to create a new item which will be instance of association football team. So in case of FCB you will need to create a new item to represent the association football team and add statements specific to association football team.
What about with the almost one thousand items that have P31 = association football team (Q15944511) ? - if we follow what you propose each will need another item which will be instance of association football club. Otherwise follow the guidelines and have them considered as association football club.
If the team of football FC Barcelona (Q7156) has to be consider a association football club (Q476028), what's the correct P31 for FC Barcelona (Q3091261), a "club" with several football teams (and other sports) ?
*
*
* <new FC Barcelona item> which will have P31 = association football team (Q15944511)
@Xaris333: - please add your comments as well - Unnited meta (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply


I may not help you with that problem. Is really confusing.

I remember that users explained to me that association football club (Q476028) was about a football club-organization that have many departments (men's team, U19 team, U17 team, women's team) and association football team (Q15944511) was about that single teams. With this explanation, the parent club must be only a football club.

Olympiacos CFP (Q12396315) is a sport club. Olympiacos is parent to a number of different competitive departments, including Football, Basketball, Volleyball... It has football teams (male, female, academies), basketball teams (male, female, academies). volleyball (male, female, academies) etc. So, Olympiacos F.C. (Q19628) is a association football team (Q15944511) (U19 team is a different team in my example, like women's team). (Sometimes, for example, the Greek names of the teams are written to English with "FC" at the end, following the English teams' names. But FC in not actually a real translation of teams name).

If Olympiacos CFP (Q12396315) was only a football club, if it was parent only to football teams (male, female, U19 etc), we could have:

Of course, this is just a thought. I know is wrong. Olympiacos F.C. (Q19628) is association football club (Q476028). Is an organization. I think the main problem is: what is the different of association football team (Q15944511) and association football club (Q476028). Only five Wikipedia have articles for both. A user that speaks one of that language may help us understand the difference. If that two items are about the same thing, that simplifies everything. But, according to the previous discussion in Project Chat, they are not the same thing. Still, I am not sure about the different. Talk:Q15944511, Talk:Q476028.

Another issue: Is there an official connection between Arsenal W.F.C. (Q1775265) and Arsenal F.C. (Q9617)? Is there a parent club? Does FC Barcelona (Q3091261) really exist as a parent club? Only three Wikipedia have an article (the Greek one is more like a list of departments of... Barcelona, not about a parent club).

I think we must clear first the different betwween association football team (Q15944511) and association football club (Q476028).

Xaris333 (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Xaris333, Unnited meta: Sorry to pause the discussion so long time. Thanks Xaris333 for the work done. I agree with your Olympiakos example. It's coincident not only with my description in this discussion, but also with Ghouston in Talk:Q15944511 and Pasleim in 2016 chat. The team plays, the club manages.
You asked: Does FC Barcelona (Q3091261) really exist as a parent club?. Absolutely, yes !. The name (Futbol club Barcelona) and the way of naming it in colloquial language (sometimes the futbol team, sometimes the futbol club), should not be confused with the fact that they are two structures that respond to different facts and, therefore, have different characteristics (properties). Again, the team plays, the club manages.
Regarding the case of a mono-team (it is, also mono-sport), I do not propose to have 2 items (club+team). It seems excessive. In my opinion, when the club and the team are the same thing (the initial situation of all of them), we must have just 1 item with 2 values for P31: club of.... and team of.... Why two values ?. Because the queries will be easier: if we want "teams" just ask for P31=team and it will return all the teams under a club + all the mono-team club; Asking for P31=club, we'll have all the multisport club + all the mono-team club.
I know that this is different to the present guidelines, but nothing is forever. In addition, we here talk about football, but the same ontology should be used on any other "sport team" situation (handball, basketball or whatever). Certainly, most of the multisport clubs started with the football and it is the main team. However, if a basketball club wants to create a new section for handball, for instance, the structure defined will runs well. I hope @Unnited meta: agree with you too. Thanks. Amadalvarez (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amadalvarez: Can you write the example of Olympiakos with your propose structure? Xaris333 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Xaris333: Is coincident with yours example. Just two [optional] considerations: 1) The P31 for parent club could be sports club (Q847017) or multisports club (Q13580678), as well. 2) the teams must have P361 or, better, P831, but no both. I understand you use both in order to chose. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply


@Amadalvarez: So,

Do you have an example with P31 -> association football team (Q15944511)? Xaris333 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Xaris333: I made a couple of corrections. Examples:
Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amadalvarez: But Olympiacos F.C. (Q19628) is not just the team that plays. Is also a football club that manages. Xaris333 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Xaris333: NO. This has been the point of discussion from the 1st minute. Olympiacos CFP (Q12396315) is the club, and Olympiacos F.C. (Q19628) is one of its teams, probable the first, the main, the oldest, the "first team", etc. but the concept of club multisport DO NOT HAVE players, it manage the teams which have the players. Look how do you define in your example. I agree because you define as team not as a club. We must not confuse the data structure with "ordinary speaking"; if you ask a fan of Olympiakos, probably he does not distingues between club and team, and probably he talk about "his club" instead of his team. But we here are talking about data information entities, and are differents. Amadalvarez (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amadalvarez: So we have 3 cases:

a) A multisports club (Q13580678) is an organization for the purpose of playing multi-sports. The multi-sport club has (or had the same time) different competitive departments for more that one sports like football, basketball, volleyball. It can not have (or had) different competitive departments for only one sport. multisports club (Q13580678) is a parent club (for example) for a football mens team, a football wonens team, a basketball team, a volleyball team etc. multisports club (Q13580678) is not a parent club for a football club, a basketball club, a volleyball club etc

b) A association football club (Q476028) is a sports club devoted to association football. It don't have a parent club. It is the parent club. It has more than one competitive departments for association football: (for example) men association football team, women association football team, academies teams.

c) A association football team (Q15944511) is a sports team that plays association football. It may has a parent club (which is an instance of multisports club (Q13580678) or association football club (Q476028)). It is not a parent club. It is only one team. For example, a men association football team. There is not (or there was not the same time) a women association football team or academies team.

If I am correct, I have some more questions. Xaris333 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Xaris333: Good synthesis of P31.
a), OK
b), changing It has more than one competitive departments for association football for "It has one or more competitive...."
c) is OK + if it does not have parent club, it must have P31= association football club (Q476028), in addition of Q15944511.
The different combinations of them gives these results:
Elemental club-teams (mono-sport, beginners, smalls, ...)
or, acceptable because it fit in the structure of the two other situations, but not mandatory to avoid duplicate items:
Mono-sport club with several teams (men, women, academies,..)
Multi-sport club with several teams (men/women, basketball, handball,..)
Look that the structure for mono and multi-sport are the same and just change the value of club's P31.
Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply


@Amadalvarez: Ok, I understand now. I have 5 questions:

1) You wrote b), changing It has more than one competitive departments for association football for "It has one or more competitive....". Why? If it has only one competitive football team, is just a association football team (Q15944511), not a association football club (Q476028). Oh, wait. You mean that every association football team (Q15944511) is always a association football club (Q476028) if there is not a parent club? And if there is an "only football" parent club, association football team (Q15944511) have as parent club an istance of a association football club (Q476028) (in that case the team has P31->association football team (Q15944511) only). And if there is a mutli-sports parent club, association football team (Q15944511) have as parent club an istance of a multisports club (Q13580678) (also in that case the team has P31->association football team (Q15944511) only).

So association football team (Q15944511) is using in every case, for all teams the plays football. And association football club (Q476028) is not using in the case of a multi-sport parent club. Xaris333 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

-->> Wow !. Finally, Is it a question or answer ? haha. Really, I think you're right. The change of your original sentence make sense in the context of having a "precise description" for Q476028. But the really important is the deploy of situations, and I think you got it. Amadalvarez (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

2) What about sports club (Q847017)? The description is "organization for the purpose of playing one or more sports".

-->> I did not see that Q13580678 were subclasse of Q847017, this suggests that using multisports club (Q13580678) is better for multisport parent clubs. Amadalvarez (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

3)

So

and

These are the correct relations?

-->> Yes Amadalvarez (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

4) sports team (Q12973014) description: 'individual team that plays sports". Is it wrong? Maybe the correct one is "individual team that plays sport" Just one sport.

-->> Why not. I understand that, in this case, the plural is to generalize to "any kind of team sports", but singular may save missunderstanding. Amadalvarez (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

5) If Zeusss is a men football team and no other team exist (for example female one), then Zeusss is a association football team (Q15944511). If Zeusss ia a men football team and there is an academy for this team, what Zeuss is? An academy may have U19 team etc. Do we need another item for Zeeusss as a club? I am asking because is usually for a team to have only the main team and academy for one or more ages.

-->> I don't know very well the football rules. For instance, do the academy clubs play official competitions (that may generate a association football team season (Q26887310)), as example? or are some kind of school/repository of players for the main club ?. If academy club is a B-team that plays in a secondary league, for instance, it should be a "ordinary team" and yes, we'll need a new item for club with two teams: the main and the academy. Amadalvarez (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Xaris333 (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Xaris333: Thanks ! Amadalvarez (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amadalvarez: Ok. For me is clear now. I suggest to write them down and then start a disscusion to project chat, so the community will say their opinion. Or maybe to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Sports and tag the members of the wikiprojects like football, basketball etc. Xaris333 (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply


An example we can present to other users:

There are 3 cases of sports organizations:

a) A multi-sport organization (for the example: Mars). An organization that for the purpose of playing multi-sports (more than one). That organization is a parent culb for many teams (not clubs).

The structure is:









b) A mono-sport organization (for the example: Poseidon). An organization that for the purpose of playing one sport. That organization is a parent club for many teams (not clubs) that all playing the same sports. In the example, that sport is association football.

The structure is:






c) A single team (for the example: Hermes). Is just a single team. It's not a part of a parent club. There are not other teams with the same name that are part to the same organization. The team has no B or U19 etc team.

The structure is:

Please make corrections if needed. And has subsidiary (P355) is wrong. It's inverse is parent organization (P749), not parent club (P831). Xaris333 (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree, has subsidiary (P355) can only be used between a multisport club and football club. So in your case
⟨ Mars ⟩ has subsidiary (P355)   ⟨ Poseidon ⟩
works. Also the reserve team may also need a specific competition class since that seems to be the criteria to differentiate between different types of teams -- Unnited meta (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Unnited meta: In my example Mars has no relation with Poseidon. multisports club (Q13580678) has no relation with association football club (Q476028)... I don't think that the reverse team need a specific competition class. We can use men's association football (Q35554451) or women's association football (Q606060). For example, Real Madrid Castilla (Q12217) plays in Segunda División A (Q751826) with other teams that are the main teams of their clubs. Xaris333 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank, @Xaris333: for this excellent work.
Regarding inverse, I thing that the concept of "organitzation" in P355 definition (subsidiary of a company or organization) is wide to be accepted. I suggest to propose a dual inverse as happen with child (P40) or participant in (P1344). It make no sense have an inverse for "organizations" that exclude the clubs –a kind of organitzation– because that use P831. Lately, the inverse properties are in discussion because are a source of inconsistences in values. Then, some people created bots to generate the inverse automatically which produced thousands of multi-value entries in items as Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya (Q861252) because the inverse of owned by (P127) (present in all the masterpieces the museum has) generate a large multivalue of owner of (P1830) in the museum item. I mean, that inverse is something to do not concern too much about, because may be questionned.
I'm not sure to understand the discussion on competition class in reserve team. It must exist at least for differentiate gender and sport, but, not necessarily for age division. Is it ?. Thanks, again, Amadalvarez (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply


@Amadalvarez: Yes, competition class in reserve team it must exist at least for differentiate gender and sport, but, not necessarily for age division. For other teams, like U19 teams we also need differentiate gender, sport and age. Like men's U19 association football (Q44408003)... I have one more question. If a multi-sport club used to have a football and basketball deparments, but now is only have football departments,:

(Inverse property: see Wikidata:Project chat#Inverse of P831. Xaris333 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Xaris333: Mmmmm. I'll answer you with a question: If you say "used to", but "now only football", i assume that basketball "was" in the past, so we should have a P355 for basketball team with deprecated or with qualifiers of old date. Therefore, I would choose the first option. Amadalvarez (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amadalvarez: Ok. Should we open a discussion about our conclusion to Project Chat or somewhere else now? It's up to you where. Xaris333 (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Xaris333: Don't mind. Personally, I go to chat to ask specific doubts, but I do not used to discuss a criteria, because is too much open. I rather to go to project pages because the people are more interested and with more opinion on the topic. But, you choose. I'll follow and apport/response wherever you want. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Amadalvarez: We can't just aplly the structure. Maybe there are different opinions. Ok, we can open discussion to Wikidata:WikiProject Sports and tag the members of Wikidata:WikiProject Association football, Wikidata:WikiProject Basketball etc. Xaris333 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Sports#Structure of sports organizations/clubs/teams Xaris333 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Association_football/Discussion_about_properties/Team_example&oldid=872702787"
Return to the project page "WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties/Team example".