Property talk:P166

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


award received
award or recognition received by a person, organisation or creative work
DescriptionNotable awards attributed to the subject. Qualify with point in time (P585), if possible.
Representsaward (Q618779), category of award (Q56738506)
Data typeItem
Template parameteren:Template:Infobox person (awards)
Domainperson, organisation or creative work (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Allowed valuesaward (Q618779) (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
ExampleJehan Sadat (Q212190)Pearl S. Buck Award (Q20879923)
Aaron Swartz (Q302817)EFF Pioneer Award (Q31323)
Rolf Stengård (Q22676744)Prix Europa (Q1421817)
Panikos Krystallis (Q7131158)Cypriot First Division top goalscorers (Q16327504)
Saint Petersburg (Q656)Hero City (Q159438)
SourceIMDB, Nobel Prize website, Olympics website etc. (note: this information should be moved to a property statement; use property source website for the property (P1896))
Tracking: sameno label (Q42533369)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P166 (Q22911624)
Tracking: local yes, WD nono label (Q32764792)
See alsonominated for (P1411), winner (P1346), together with (P1706), for work (P1686), trophy awarded (P4622)
Proposal discussionProperty proposal/Archive/2#P166
Current uses361,888
Search for values
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Value type “award (Q618779), order of chivalry (Q2003221), class of award (Q38033430): 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 award (Q618779), order of chivalry (Q2003221), class of award (Q38033430) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P166#Value type Q618779, Q2003221, Q38033430, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Qualifiers “follows (P155), followed by (P156), location (P276), start time (P580), end time (P582), point in time (P585), field of work (P101), statement is subject of (P805), conferred by (P1027), for work (P1686), together with (P1706), winner (P1346), series ordinal (P1545), prize money (P2121), image (P18), character role (P453): 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/P166#Allowed qualifiers, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Item “instance of (P31): Items with this property should also have “instance of (P31)”. (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P166#Item P31, hourly updated report, search, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

"subclass of" or "instance of" "award"?[edit]

The property documentation says that the value type of this property should be "subclass of" "award". Now almost all awards currently seem to use "instance of" "award" though, which I think is not actually wrong. After all an award like the Nobel Prize in Chemistry is a concrete object. Maybe one could argue there is an addional "layer" below with a subject receiving an "instance" of that award, that way you could argue for such awards being a "subclass of award". --Bthfan (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

See and for the two item lists of instance of/subclass of. --Bthfan (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
On top of that most of the awarded items are actually ceremonies and not awards. Like BRIT Awards is an item about the ceremony and should be a subclass of award ceremony. Should it also be a subclass of music award so that it can be awarded? Can it/should it be a subclass of both? RolandBeck (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I changed the relation in the constraint from "subclass" to "instance" as it is more natural to look at an award like the Nobel Prize in Chemistry as a concrete object with several receivers than a class. --Pasleim (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Standardizing statements[edit]

For the Nobel prizes, we generally have an item about each years award. Currently we have at least three different ways of stating that someone has been awarded one:

  1. One statement with one qualifier:
  2. One statement with two qualifiers:
  3. Two statements:

Could we try to agree on one standard? While 1 is a bit lacking, both 2 and 3 both seem like valid ways of describing the same information. In number 2, however, "point in time (P585) 2012" will be stated both in 2012 Nobel Peace Prize (Q4626364) itself and in the qualifier used with award received (P166). Thus, number 3 seems like the more elegant and fail prone solution to me. Danmichaelo (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there has already been somewhere a discussion and that solution 2) was favored. In any case, this is what I would support, because this can be easily applied to all awards while 3) is awkward in many cases (it would require items like "1949 edition of teenywiny village entertainer prize, and seems hard to apply to awards that are not periodical, like military decorations). It is easier to use in clients without too much reprocessing. Actually, the fact that the date given in the awardee item seems like a good thing. For example, {{Timeline|Q43179}} mentions that she got the Indira Gandhi Prize, but not the Nobel prize, because the template does not get fetch dates from linked items (and enabling that wihout creating a lot of nonsense may actually be rather tricky).

: birth in Monrovia
-: studies at College of West Africa
-: marriage
: lives at United States of America
-: studies at Harvard University, Cambridge
-: studies at University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder
-: works for Citibank
: lives at Nairobi
-: works for United Nations Development Programme
: honorary doctorate
-: President of Liberia
: Presidential Medal of Freedom
: honorary doctorate
: honorary doctorate
: honorary doctorate
: Nobel Peace Prize
: honorary doctorate
: Indira Gandhi Prize
: Global Economy Prize
: 100 Women
: Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership

  • I believe first AND second variants are both good. The difference between 1 and 2 is additional optional qualifier. Third variant is not good because it would be very hard to select entities for all years. Also third variant (as said before) implies creation of award-by-year entries. -- Vlsergey (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Vlsergey. Option 1 with option 2 as an enhancement where additional info is available. Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Pop up of qualifier NOT "point in time" in initial list[edit]

Can someone please explain to me the qualifier pop-ups. Usually the pop-ups when a qualifier is added are those expected to be added, yet for me the "point in time" (a mandatory component) isn't in the initial presented list, it only appears when halfway into the word. Is there a means to have the mandatory qualifiers appear first?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Revocation date[edit]

Would there be any way to notice the revocation date of an award? Let's say some person received a medal from an institution and some years later that same institution considers them unfittable for whatsoever reason... --Toniher (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Toniher: start and end time qualifiers define events in past
we can adjust constraints. d1g (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Awards awarded for a previous period[edit]

Sometimes, an award is awarded for a previous period of time, like an awarded given in March 2016 for the best movie of 2015. How should we deal with that ? I have created Wikidata:Property proposal/Awarded for period. --Zolo (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

add 'field of work' and 'for work' as allowed qualifiers?[edit]

I've been working on the WD item for this year's most prominent winner of the Ig Nobel prize - and therefore using this property. I've come across two constraint violations in the process which I think shouldn't be violations field of work (P101) and for work (P1686).
My example case: Q40728819#P166. The two qualifiers, in this example, are field of work (P101) -> physics (Q413) and for work (P1686) -> On the rheology of cats (Q43085371).
Could these two be added to the list of allowed qualifiers, or someone suggest an alternative? Thanks, Wittylama (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

quantity not allowed as qualifier for awards received[edit]

The wikibase gives an error when a statement of award received (P166) is combined with quantity (P1114). Example: Parkheuvel (Q1814421)

award received (P166) Michelin star (Q20824563)
quantity (P1114): 1
start time (P580): 1990

With the Michelin star (Q20824563) prizes the number of stars is important. There are two ways to solve this:

  1. quantity (P1114) is accepted as qualifier for award received (P166), then the items can stay the same.
  2. For the Michelin star (Q20824563) prizes, for 1 star, 2 stars, and 3 stars each a separate items is created and used instead of Michelin star (Q20824563).

Or maybe another solution? Romaine (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say to create separate items for each star category as a subclass. --Hannolans (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

point in time (P585) should not be mandatory[edit]

Very often, there are sources which state that someone has received an award (for example a military decoration), but do not mention the date. So this qualifier should not be considered as mandatory. BrightRaven (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • If you don't haven't, just skip it. Someone else may eventually complete it. For people born with the award, maybe DOB could be used.
    --- Jura 12:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    Having it mandatory generates constraint violations. Constraint violations should be for signalling data inconsistencies, not missing/unavailable information information. In some case, getting to know the date when the award was given is original research. BrightRaven (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have delete this. Becausse there are often awards, that are given for a special time. So for example Q31777238 or Q1632037. They need P580 and P582, not P585. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There should be a possibility to require certain constraints only for specific statements. So e.g. no label (Q31777238) should require P580, but e.g. Officer's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany (Q10905334) should require P585. But I guess this is (currently) not possible?! Steak (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad it's gone, because awards with start and end times like on Tommy Morrison (Q467409) no longer need a duplicate "point in time" qualifier. Ghouston (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

serial number (P2598) as valid qualifier[edit]

Please allow serial number (P2598) as valid qualifier. At least it make sense for Soviet orders. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

A case with honorary doctorate (Q11415564)[edit]

@Paju~wikidatawiki: There is a case with honorary doctorate (Q11415564) here [1]. award received (P166) is used with organizations in the main statement and honorary doctorate (Q11415564) as a qualifier. This seems not right to me. I think that honorary doctorate (Q11415564) should be the main statement, or we should subclass honorary doctorate (Q11415564) for the individual institutions. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I see the approach I argued for is used in, e.g., Günter Grass (Q6538). — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Honorary doctorates are a bit of a mess, actually there are several ways they are done. There are items like Honorary doctor of the Harvard University (Q39384825) and also Doctor of Science (honorary) (Q17403163). I like Doctor of Science (honorary) (Q17403163) because it can be used like on Mathew Alpern (Q20704249) to declare both the type of doctorate and the conferring institution, but it isn't used much, and items don't exist for all possible doctorates. Ghouston (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)