Property talk:P143

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search


imported from
source of this claim's value (use only in References section)
Represents Import and export of data (Q6007395)
Data type Item
Domain sources (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Usage notes Useful for bots but not for wikidata: if you can't use "stated in" (P248)
Robot and gadget jobs DeltaBot does the following jobs:
See also stated in (P248)
Proposal discussion Originally created without a formal discussion
Current uses 13,529,715
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Source only: this property can only be used in source.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P143#Source, SPARQL
Value type “communication medium (Q340169): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value communication medium (Q340169) (or a subclass thereof).
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P143#Value type Q340169, SPARQL

relevance ?[edit]

I have left a message to User:Denny Vrandečić (WMDE) to see if we can get more info on sources, but "Wikipedia" does not look like a property to me. A property defines a relation between a thing and another thing. "Wikipedia" does not do that. In the cases for which this property was intended, my guess is that we should have something like source: imported from Italian Wikipedia --Zolo (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the property should be renamed, but I have no other concern with it. Could we call it something like "import source" for now? This property should be viewed as a placeholder, a way of recording where imported data came from in the early stages of the project. Espeso (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It sounds good to me. My point was just that a property name should define the type of relation with the property value, and, less importantly, that it could also be used for imports from non-Wikipedia sources. --Zolo (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too. HenkvD (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I updated the label to "import source", and the description to "source of this claim's value (use only in Sources section)". Feel free to adjust. I used the word "claim" here, which I believe is technically accurate: a claim becomes a "statement" once a source attached. Using this property in Sources makes the whole package a "statement". Espeso (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to change the nl label and desctiption too, but I seem unable. Label "import bron" and description "bron van deze claim (gebruik alleen in Bronnen sectie)" HenkvD (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably a bug. Did you try to add "www." to the URL.
I have changed the label to "imported from". I think it sounds more natural, this is already in a "source" field.
I think the description should be something like "used in the source section, to mean that the data was automatically imported from the following website or database". "source of this claim's value " is rather vague, and could be used for any type of "source property". --Zolo (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed I need www.wikidata.... HenkvD (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source?[edit]

Why should Wikipedia be considered a source, when an Wikipedia article itself is a synthesis of information from different sources found across the internet, books, etc.? The problem with this is that when a claim is supported by a Wikipedia article, the source (the Wikipedia article) is not stable and can have information deleted from it any time. This will very well result in circular referencing, as Wikidata will be feeding information to Wikipedia in the future. --Wylve (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess a Wikipedia source can only be temporary. To me this property means something like: "the claim was made on Wikipedia in some language, please check there if the claim has better references". In any case, there is a lengthy discussion on the issue at Wikidata:Project_chat#Proposal:_preventive_control_of_imported_data_correctness. --Zolo (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It can't be a source never ever, even temporary. All unsourced data should be removed immidiately. Who will clean up the mess numerous bots are doing? --Matthiasb (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Wikimedia source (as any other source) could be permanent and with a deprecated rank in order to prevent re-entry of incorrect data but it is almost always better to fix the text. d1g (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a problem. We can use the qualifier "imported from": (P143) to give "Wikipedia in <language>", but we cannot link its source article correctly (except by using the ugly qualifier "URL", which is URL-encoded and forces the choice of the HTTP or HTTPS protocol and server name).
I tried to add the additional qualifier "subject of" (Property:P805) to specify the Wikidata item that should contains the link to the article on that subject.
But there's still no relevant qualifier to indicate the relevant anchor. For that we should have another qualifier "anchor" (Property: ???) to give the anchor name within that article. For now I used the qualifier "section, verse, or paragraph" (Property:P958), by setting the value as "#<section-id>" but as this is free text it is too much permissive and we should have better qualifiers for anchors in Wikipedia articles (and those anchors could then be checked by bots if the articles are modified or the section headings are edited, changing their default ID). That additional "anchor" property will be relevant only for the Wikipedia language edition specified in "imported from:".
May be we should also have a new qualifier for the "article version ID" (notably on Wikipedia editions whose articles are reviewed), which should be preferable to the indication of the date of the import. It will more easily identify also the authors of the article in question. Verdy p (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For Commons too ?[edit]

Is this property is useful for the files from Commons? For example, see the item Q535 (Victor Hugo) who has a signature which is a file from Commons. I just want to know if we use this property to indicate that the source is from Commons in this case, or no. Thanks by advance. Automatik (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Any property that can have a file attached to it is going to use a Commons file. So stating that the "Commons media file" is from Commons is redundant and unnecessary. :) Espeso (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
So no source is necessary in this case? Automatik (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No. Any source information for the image/file itself should reside on the file's Commons page. Espeso (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Automatik (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


This property should be avoided: use instead stated in (P248). Current use is still allowed in order to give teh time to change the source information. More information about sourcing policy in Help:Sources. If you don't know how to use the current properties or if you have a problem to use them please add a comment on the talk page. Snipre (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. This property is still very useful for bots who import statements from Wikipedia but is unable to verify them using the sources in Wikipedia. It is also better than stated in (P248) for claims that only exists in Wikipedia like Commons category (P373). /Esquilo (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment the use of this property there. Snipre (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh geez, yet another guideline discussion. I doubt I'll ever find my way around here at Wikidata. /Esquilo (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus there, that this property should be deprecated at this point – P143 may probably be used to indicate source of trivial statements, such as XXX is a man/woman. I think it should not be changed before the end of the RfC. Littledogboy (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a consensus to source statements with external sources, please see [[1]] and Help:Sources: there is no mention of imported from (P143) so if the term of deprecated is not appropriated, there is at least a strong discussion about the use of this property and the correct behaviour is to stop to use it until the RfC Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sourcing requirements for bots is closed. Snipre (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Like Esquilo said: imported from (P143) is very useful for bots. For example: Imported form English Wikipedia. stated in (P248) would be irritating since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But we need a documentation: Please use with qualifier retrieved (P813) etc. --Kolja21 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Useful for bots but not for wikidata: several wps have already anounced their opposition to use wikidata if no proper references are available. imported from (P143) is typically the type of indication with no interest: who takes care of information coming from Russina or Chinese wikipedia ? Too few persons can read these wp articles to retrieve the good sources. So what is the purpose of WD: make bots happy or to see the data from WD used in WPs ? The problem is not coming from opposition between stated in (P248) or imported from (P143): if you can't use stated in (P248), this means that your data is not sourced. Snipre (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Use only for unreliable source[edit]

Is it correct to assume that all sources referenced by this property are unreliable, and that P143 exists primarily as an equivalent of stated in (P248) for generally unusable sources? --Yair rand (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No. This property was initially used to source data from Wikipedia only. For all others cases we should use the model described in Help:sources. P143 will be deleted in the future when all statements will be correctly sourced. Snipre (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
So, should this property never have any value other than a Wikipedia? --Yair rand (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say yes, this was the only value accepted at the beginning. Using this property as a regular property for sources will be a mess when extracting source data so don't used it in another case. Snipre (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
If the plan is to deprecate the property, there should be some signal to people not to use it. Having this appear on tens of thousands of items makes it really confusing if the idea is to get rid of it. --I9606 (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)