Property talk:P1855

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

Wikidata property example
example where this Wikidata property is used; target item is one that would use this property, with qualifier the property being described given the associated value
Associated item
Data typeItem
Template parameter|example= in {{Property documentation}}
DomainWikidata property (Q18616576)
Exampleposition held (P39)Barack Obama (Q76)
participant of (P1344)John F. Kennedy (Q9696)
Robot and gadget jobsRead from existing {{Property documentation}}
See alsoWikidata property example for properties (P2271), Wikidata property example for lexemes (P5192), Wikidata property example for forms (P5193), Wikidata property example for senses (P5977)
Lists
Proposal discussionProperty proposal/Archive/30#P1855
Current uses5,342
Search for values
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Type “Wikidata property (Q18616576): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “Wikidata property (Q18616576)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1855#Type Q18616576, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Allowed entity types are Wikibase property (Q29934218): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1855#allowed entity types, hourly updated report, SPARQL (new)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Non-existent examples
Properties with examples that do not exist at the target items (Help)
Violations query: SELECT DISTINCT ?item WHERE { ?item p:P1855 ?example; wikibase:claim ?p; wikibase:statementProperty ?ps; wikibase:qualifier ?pq . MINUS { ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q18720640 } . ?example ps:P1855 ?targetitem; ?pq ?value . MINUS { ?targetitem ?p ?statement . ?statement ?ps ?value } . } ORDER BY ?item
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1855#Non-existent examples

Which qualifiers?[edit]

Shouldn't we make the use of the qualifiers such as "P1859 (P1859)" mandatory?

If we start using regular properties as qualifiers for this property, the database gets less consistent. --- Jura 11:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That was my initial plan, but regular properties seem better suited. I don't see how that causes "less consistency". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As a sample: category for films shot at this location (P1740) is used as a property on items directly. If we re-use it on the sample, it will be used as a qualifier as well.
This is why I prefer your initial plan. --- Jura 14:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Why would using it as a qualifier present any problem? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not consistent with the other uses. I don't see how this property could be used as a qualifier in any other case. --- Jura 14:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing, Jura1: Still can not give an example with qualifiers using this property? --Almondega (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a bit hard to do that on Property:P1855. You might want to look at Property:P10#P1855 or Property:P9#P1855 instead.
      In the meantime, the qualifiers were listed for deletion, see Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Wikidata_example_properties. --- Jura 14:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Deletion debate was closed with "keep": Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2015/Properties/1#Wikidata_example_properties. --- Jura 16:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
        • No, it was not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Well, it was kept, as there are was no consensus to delete them and replace them with other properties. Thus, I don't agree to change the sample above. --- Jura 17:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm glad you agree it should not be changed; I've restored it to the version before it was recently, and incorrectly, changed - which is also how it was from the day the property was created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
              • I don't think you understood this. I removed the double "ORCID" mention. I also removed the somewhat unclear "allowed value" part (In the way you apply it, that was never part of the property proposal and somewhat contradicted by the qualifiers you created yourself). Pigonsthewing: if you need help with defining properties, don't hesitate to ask and seek advice from other users. I'm sure some are happy to help, even if some question your entire pattern of edits. Clearly these series of property creations hasn't gone as you may have intended and you should probably refrain from creating your own proposals going forward. I agree with Succu on this. Obviously, it's not productive to merely revert other contributors. As you had work for OCR, you should probably use a sample that can't be seen as one promoting it. --- Jura 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
                • I understood perfectly well, and I do not need your "help", so please keep your derogatory - and fallacious - remarks, about the like of which you were recently warned by User:Izno, to yourself. I've restored your unwarranted deletion from the property documentation; stop being disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Links not included[edit]

Can someone fix / add the links?

--Kolja21 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Multi or single value?[edit]

This property has a multiple value constraint. I see User:Pigsonthewing removing a second value for example here (note the comment), here, here, and here. We (apart from the two of us, also User:Thryduulf) had some "discussion" which shows that he has a preferably one example policy. He states that "superfluous" examples are annoying for beginning editors. Please, share your opinions. Thanks, Lymantria (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

More examples is better in my mind, though they ideally should demonstrate the range of uses of a property rather than all being essentially the same. I'm trying to comprehend how multiple examples could be confusing to a new wikidata user. They see a property and the examples are among the statements about the property - could somebody think the way to add statements about items is as wikidata property examples on the property rather than on the items themselves? I don't see how else this could be confusing, or how two examples makes it worse than one. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
number of representatives in an organization/legislature (P1410) is used both in items about political parties and in items about elections. Then one example is probably not enough. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In reasonable cases it is appropriate to have more examples. But I see no purpose in having 3+ essentially the same examples, also it encourages users to add even more unnecessary examples. --Jklamo (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
As long as the examples are not duplicative or excessive (and 3 is almost certainly never going to be) then I think multiple examples are going to be harmless at worst and strongly beneficial at best. I'm really struggling to grasp how multiple examples could be confusing - have we ever had a case where this has happened? Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Giving three examples usually means being duplicative; twice. I have already explained the harm to you - and told you that I have seen it happen while training - once; and do so again, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
We should use as many examples as are required to show different, significant patterns of usage. Most times, one will suffice. The exceptions are things like Metacritic ID (P1712), where we have one example for each type. Adding multiple examples is cruft, and will be confusing (I did not use the term "annoying", and object to being egregiously misquoted) for inexperienced editors who are tying to work out how properties or indeed Wikidata as a whole) work - something that's not easy for them in the first place, as I have seen first hand when delivering training sessions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Your experience seems contrary to my 26 year of teaching experience. Two examples are preferred, one for understanding, one for confirmation. And more if there are exceptions. Not cruft. Lymantria (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have that level of experience, but multiple examples have always been helpful when I've been teaching and more particularly when I've been learning. Also, you have not actually done any explaining of why it was found confusing - you have simply said that it was confusing (on several occasions) without giving any explanation, details or evidence. What exactly was the confusions? Why was it confusing? How would fewer examples have helped this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I would agree, that 2 examples are OK. If Andy can show/tell, why that is confusing for not experienced editors, then we can have a more constructive talk about this. --Edgars2007 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Links to good examples, are probably more useful than the use of this property in the P-namespace. The examples in P-namespace can be confusing even to me. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder why multiple examples could be bad. Bad examples are bad but more good examples are better than only one examples. Furthermore properties can have meaning that cannot be covered by one example alone. For instance at edition or translation of (P629) I'd expect one example of an edition and one of a translation. -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
+1. It is probably most often sufficient with only one example but there are most likely cases where more are needed. --Averater (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As qualifier[edit]

How would you use Wikidata property example (P1855) to indicate that something needs to be used as a qualifier?. Specifically how to model

< Rök Runestone (Q472975) View with Reasonator View with SQID > Cultural heritage database in Sweden ID (P1260) View with SQID < raa/fmi/10048200010001 >
RAÄ number (P1262) View with SQID < Rök 1:1 >

for the sake of providing a Wikidata property example (P1855) in RAÄ number (P1262). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think right now someone can set somewhere (maybe in talk page) that a property can only be used as qualifier, but this information is not visible in property page, so I think you can just follow the same rule applied to other qualifiers, as in dedicated article or of (setting RAÄ number (P1262) as instance of (P31) Wikidata qualifier (Q15720608) and using a multiqualifier example). --Ogoorcs (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I've now updated it's examples. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)