Property talk:P248

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


stated in
to be used in the references field to refer to the information document or database in which a claim is made; for qualifiers use P805
Associated item
Data typeItem
Usage notesUsing this property indicates that the information is contained in the entity (a book, an article, etc) that's represented by the linked information source. If you want to state that the information comes from the information contained in another Wikidata item, use P3452.
Format and edit filter validationAbuse filter #54
Robot and gadget jobsDeltaBot does the following jobs:
See alsostatement disputed by (P1310), statement is subject of (P805), imported from Wikimedia project (P143), inferred from (P3452), described by source (P1343)
  • Items with no other statements
  • Items with novalue claims
  • Items with unknown value claims
  • Usage history
  • Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P248
  • Database reports/Constraint violations/P248
  • Proposal discussionProposal discussion
    Current uses28,416,744
    Search for values
    [create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
    Scope is: the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P248#scope, SPARQL (new)
    Value type “information (Q11028), work (Q386724): 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 information (Q11028), work (Q386724) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P248#Value type Q11028, Q386724, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Value shouldn't be an item for a date
    use retrieved (P813) or publication date (P577) instead (Help)
    Violations query: SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?p ?value ?valueLabel { ?item ?p [ prov:wasDerivedFrom / pr:P248 ?value ] . ?value wdt:P31 wd:Q47150325 . SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } } LIMIT 100
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P248#Value shouldn't be an item for a date



    How would one use URLs with this property? Does it make sense to create an item for a web page merely to use it for sourcing a statement? Or would a better solution be to have another property identical to this one except that its data type is string? Or if a URL data type is planned to be added, is it best to wait until it's available? Silver hr (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, the way we will use source is still rather unclear. Most webpages would not be acceptable items under wd:Notability, but in most cases, they would not be very good sources either. I think one possibility will be: add the website as the property value (when it is notable enough to be an item), and the exact URL as a qualifier. --Zolo (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    I think there are legitimate cases for sourcing with webpages. I can show you an example. In Q6153452, there is a statement that the owner is Wyndham Worldwide. I think a source of sufficient authority for this statement is Wyndham's website, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes for it to be an item. If I'm interpreting the m:Wikidata/Data model correctly, there should be an IRI datatype which could, when implemented, be used in a source property, right? Silver hr (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, it seems likely that we will need a differnt datatype for such cases, and an IRI datatype is foressen. Another possibility is that we wil not use this property at all, I really dont know. --Zolo (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

    merge this property with Property:P92[edit]

    A discussion about merging this property with P92 (legally estahblished by) is running there Snipre (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

    Receiving Warning on P248[edit]

    Today, I have started getting this error message when setting a reference 'stated in': "An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed. Details Warning: Use imported from (P143) instead."

    First off, I think that it would be a mistake to deprecate this property (P248) in favor of P143. As far as I can tell, discussions for the last two years have clearly indicated that there is a semantical difference between those two. There are reasons for retaining both properties.

    Secondly, if P248 should be deprecated, where is the discussion around this? At least there should have been a reference to such a discussion from this Talk page.

    To top it all off, on Property talk:P143 (and Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Sourcing_requirements_for_bots) there's previously been discussions regarding deprecating P143 (not P248).

    So I really see no valid reason for the error message that I am getting today. At the very least, this should have been discussed thoroughly (and if it has been, it should have been referenced here). Fred Johansen (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

    I have also seen the message on occasions, then spent a good hour trying to find a latest guide and failing. To me, I feel that P143 (imported) is for bots and P248 (stated) is for humans. P143 has been blindly copied, P248 has some thought behind it. Periglio (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

    "Stated in" vs "source of declaration" labels[edit]

    The property clearly need the "source of declaration" label. The example used in the description is Richard III of England:

     place of death: Bosworth field
         P248: Polydore Virgil

    So because "stated in": "Polydore Virgil" makes no sense, the appropriate label is "source of information". That's valid for all languages that use "stated in" translations. I know that there were edits that tried to change that but they are of course not legit. --Ogoorcs (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

    This reference qualifier is supposed to be used with work items as values, not humans or organizations. Seems you’re looking for another reference claim, but please do not touch this one with 26M uses before consensus about changes has been reached. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • For your sample, the value should probably be "Anglica Historia" not the item for its author. --- Jura 19:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    The example above in this page report a human as 'source of information' and that seems correct to me.
    Even the description explicitly says
       to be used in the references field to refer to the information source in which a claim is made; for qualifiers use P805
    There are no indications whatsoever that this property should only be used for works. A property for other items would be redundant and useless. Further, there are lot of statements whose reference urls have 'source of informations' who are notable entities that with a works only restriction wouldn't have any other statements. You can see two example in the property page: references taken from microsoft website and the statement by Polydore Virgil (the fact that the statement was in 'Anglica Historia' does not exclude the case of public available statements not actually present in a 'work', like the ones on Microsoft website).
    Also you have to note that it's your usage that is not the 'default' one, not mine. --Ogoorcs (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    We don't allow original research. A statement by a person needs to materialize in some form to be added to Wikidata. --- Jura 20:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    I never said that; also, in the context of software version statements, the signature of the software author and thus its official website is probably the MOST valid reference for the statement and that not constitute original research. Also statements automatically inferred from other wikidata statements are not original research, when the inference is itself referred.
    In the case of a reference containing a link to a state organization (that is indeed valid), the ref could not point to a precise 'work'. Despite this, that organization is a valid 'source of information'. --Ogoorcs (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    Something that is published by an organization is an „is a valid 'source of information'“. No the organization itself. --Succu (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The property just indicates where the same statement can be found. Help:Sources attempts to explain how various forms are included and which properties to use. If there are cases that aren't covered, maybe this needs a new property. BTW, in the meantime, I made a few items about works for Polydore Vergil. Seems we didn't have any. --- Jura 20:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    So should publisher (P123) or author (P50) and not 'source of information' be used to describe valid references that point to urls that are not works and that belong to humans or organizations?
    EDIT: in the case of a state agency or university, if publisher is limited to 'book, periodicals, games and software', should author be used? --Ogoorcs (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    Use the publication (Q732577) not related stuff. --Succu (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, can you rephrase? @Jura1: @Succu: @MisterSynergy:--Ogoorcs (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)