Property talk:P1114

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

Representsnumber of objects (Q41792217)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameterfor example, "current_number" in en:Template:Infobox_subdivision_type
Domainall (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Allowed valuesmost likely: positive integers (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Allowed unitsnot applicable
Examplestate of the United States (Q35657) → 50
Cities in Russia: Encyclopedia (Q28442534) → 50,000
Fabergé egg (Q331225) → 71
Robot and gadget jobsDeltaBot does the following jobs:
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P1114 (Q21037774)
See alsocollection or exhibition size (P1436), number of works (P3740), proportion (P1107)
Lists
  • <search Commons for files with depicts-statement and this property as qualifier>
  • <items with the most statements of this property>
  • Count of items by number of statements (chart)
  • Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart)
  • Items with the most identifier properties
  • Items with no other statements
  • <most recently created items>
  • Items with novalue claims
  • Items with unknown value claims
  • Usage history
  • Chart by item creation date
  • <Items with highest numeric value>
  • <Items with lowest numeric value>
  • User:Laboramus/Units/P1114 (Units used)
  • Database reports/Constraint violations/P1114
  • <random list>
  • Proposal discussionProposal discussion
    Current uses68,763
    [create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
    Qualifiers “end time (P582), start time (P580), point in time (P585), statement is subject of (P805), sourcing circumstances (P1480), including (P1012), excluding (P1011), nature of statement (P5102), announcement date (P6949): this property should be used only with the listed qualifiers. (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1114#Allowed qualifiers, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
    Units: “novalue”: value unit must be one of listed. (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1114#Units, SPARQL (new)
    Integer: values should be integers (ie. they shouldn't have a fractional part) (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1114#integer, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
    Range from “0” to “1e+18”: values should be in the range from “0” to “1e+18”. (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1114#Range, SPARQL (new)

    Generalizing this property[edit]

    As per discussions about the need of a property to indicate the number of parts in a system, it has been suggested to generalize this property. The suggested label is "number of elements". If there are no objections I will change the label in a couple of days. See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#number_of_parts.--Micru (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

    I support the generalization (actually I thought the property could and was already used for that) but I am not sure "element" is very clear. It seem that train X number of elements five could be used to mean that the train is made of 5 carriages. I have no better suggestion for a label though. --Zolo (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Zolo: That is not a problem because you can use qualifiers, for instance: <train> has part <carriage> with qualifier number of elements <5>. If you just say <train> number of elements <5>, it means that there are 5 trains.--Micru (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Micru:. I understand it is what is intended, but I am not sure that the word "element" makes it perfectly clear. "number of element of train X" seems to mean how many parts there are in a typical train X not how many instances of train X there are. . --Zolo (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Zolo: If you have any other suggestion I'll be glad to hear it. It could also be just "quantity" (in German it is already called "Anzahl", and we have it as alias now).--Micru (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Micru: Yes, perhaps simply "quantity" or even "number" as quantity might imply a measurement unit. --Zolo (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    I agree that dropping "of elements" is best. Like Zolo, I think "number" or "quantity" would be better, with the former being slightly better than the latter. Micru, thanks for taking the initiative on this! Emw (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've changed it to "quantity" because "number" is too ambiguous. The statement "number: 5" can be interpreted as this is the fifth of someting. /ℇsquilo 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    Good point, thanks. Emw (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

    Using for a quantity of a medication[edit]

    It has been proposed that we use this "quantity" for the "dose" of a medication.[1]

    I am fine with that but we will need to remove the constraint for "integer constraint" and allow units like milligrams

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

    • Symbol support vote.svg Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is a good idea. The property is already suboptimal when not used as qualifier.
    "quantity" is primarily a datatype .. so let's use it accordingly. --- Jura 12:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Jura1: For the record, it was meant to be used as a qualifier at proposal times, if I recall (but the creation discussion seems lost, actually). As the description states, it was primarily meant to represent the number of existing instances for a class (like human (Q5)) at a certain point in time (around 7 billions right now). It seems to have been renamed to « quantity » in english afterwards. Funny enough, there is a « quantity » proposal just below the proposal for this one that was rejected … weird mixup. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
    It seems that the proposals were somewhat linked. Maybe some clean-up on current uses is needed. --- Jura 15:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)