Property talk:P398

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

child astronomical body
minor body that belongs to the item
Descriptionminor body that "belongs" to the item. It is not a physical property, but a hierarchical classification followed by astronomers. Opposite of parent astronomical body (P397).
Representssecondary body (Q15731960)
Data typeItem
Template parameteren:template:Infobox planet satellites
Domain
According to this template: astronomic bodies - astronomical object (Q6999)
According to statements in the property:
astronomical object (Q6999), fictional astronomical object (Q15831598), astronomical object type (Q17444909), universe (Q36906466) or hypothetical astronomical object (Q5961257)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed valuesastronomical object (Q6999) (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
ExamplePluto (Q339) → Charon (Q6604)
Earth (Q2) → Moon (Q405)
Sourcehttp://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/Pages/data_hierarchy.htx
Robot and gadget jobsDeltaBot does the following jobs:
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P398 (Q26250072)
Lists
  • 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
  • By value of property
  • Items with no other statements
  • Most recently created items
  • Items with novalue claims
  • Items with unknown value claims
  • Usage history (total)
  • Chart by item creation date
  • Database reports/Constraint violations/P398
  • Map
  • Random list
    • Proposal discussionProposal discussion
    Current uses
    Total6,673
    Main statement6,669>99.9% of uses
    Qualifier2<0.1% of uses
    Reference2<0.1% of uses
    Search for values
    [create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: Comet Swift–Tuttle (Q126026), C/1861 G1 (Thatcher) (Q3235375)
    List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P398#Value type Q6999, Q15831598, Q17444909, Q5961257, Q26540, Q26529, Q105000, SPARQL
    Inverse property of “parent astronomical body (P397)”:
    if [item A] has this property (child astronomical body (P398)) linked to [item B],
    then [item B] should also have property “parent astronomical body (P397)” linked to [item A]. (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: planet (Q634)
    List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P398#inverse, SPARQL
    Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
    List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P398#Scope, hourly updated report, SPARQL
    Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
    List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P398#Entity types
    Astronomical objects properties
    Main
    Asteroids
    Stars
    Galaxies
    Extrasolar planets
    Relations
    Discovery and name
    Other
     
    Wikidata properties related to tree (Q223655)
    This template lists some major properties which can be used to digitizing tree-shaped data. For techniques about creating tree, see Help:Tree
    ↕Vertical relations↕
    ↔Horizontal relations↔
    Other
    Items
    Wikimedia template

    "children body"[edit]

    Is this gramatically sound? Shouldn't it be "child body"? - Soulkeeper (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You are right: I made an oversight! here it is used "child" as singular and "children" as plural. I corrected the English name of the property. Thanks! --Paperoastro (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In portuguese saying child body (corpo filho) sounds bad, so I used "é orbitado por" (it's orbited by) until someone provides me a better translation. May I use this title for the property? - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle for me there is not problem, but some people in past discussions pointed out to me the ambiguos significance of "orbited by" (see also my answer below)! Also in Italian I have the same problem: I translated "oggetto astronomico figlio", that sound strange, but avoid misunderstandings. If you have no notification against your translation, you can use it, but it is better add a description that explain this property is used only for hierarchical purpose. --Paperoastro (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Choice of name[edit]

    Is this name often used in the literature? Why not simply "orbited by" for this property and "orbits" for P397? --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Parent body" and "childred body" are used by SIMBAD database, one of the most important professional astronomical databases. I preferred to use these names instead of "orbited by" and "orbits" to avoid to give to P397 and P398 a physical significance: is some cases (for example Pluto and Charon) is ambiguos establish which body orbits the other one, and in general bodies orbits around the common center of mass. Some contributors had pointed out to me these questions in past discussions. --Paperoastro (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But on which basis do we then consider Pluto to be the "parent body"? Typically, the common centre of mass is well within the larger object, if not; we're approaching e.g. binary systems. So far, the use of this property seems to be completely compatible with who orbits whom, except from borderline cases (in which case it could still make sense to say that one object orbits the other if the common centre of mass is significantly closer to one of the two bodies). --Njardarlogar (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I found inspiration from the classification proposed by SIMBAD and I tried to create a small group of properties more general as possible. "Orbited by" could be useful for planet "around" star, satellites "around" major bodies, but P398 can be used also to indicate stars in globular or open clusters, or asterisms, galaxies in clusters and clusters in super clusters where the concept of orbits is not so clear. --Paperoastro (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC) P.S.: International Astronomical Union defined Pluto as "dwarf planet", and Charon as "satellite" of Pluto, so Pluto is the "parent body" and Charon the "child body ;-)[reply]

    consistency gadget[edit]

    Added to User:JonnyJD/consistency_check.js --JonnyJD (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why property that may have millions or billlions of values is considered as a good idea?[edit]

    Property:P398 in Q525 currently has limited number of values but it may easily grow into millions. If I understand Wikidata:Notability right, then there is nothing stopping anybody to generate millions of wikidata entries for asteroids and adding them as values.

    It would make entry for Sun nearly uneditable, it already lags on opening the page. Would it not be enough to add just parent astronomical body (Property:P397)?

    Similar reciprocal property P150 (contains administrative territorial entity) was proposed for deletion but was kept as it was marked as in use by Wikipedias.

    Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • We can add a constraint that allows only for a limited number of values. So Earth > Moon would still be possible, but not One > All. We would probably need to stop DeltaBot on that number of values. @Pasleim:
      --- Jura 19:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jura1: Allowing a property if it has only a limited number of values and deleting statements if this threshold is crossed doesn't make sense. The more we know about our world, the more statements we would delete. 6Q0B44E (Q649587) which was discovered last year, is likely to have parent astronomical body (P397) Earth (Q2). So then we should delete Earth (Q2) child astronomical body (P398) Moon (Q405)? People who use our data in their application need to know a reliable way to get the data. Either we tell them to do queries on parent astronomical body (P397) or we change the domain of this property to classes of astronomical objects instead of instances. --Pasleim (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It might not make sense for Wikidata, but it does for Wikipedia infoboxes.
    --- Jura 08:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mateusz Konieczny, Jura1, Pasleim: I feel this is still an issue worth discussing, even if this comment is a bit belated. Currently, Sun (Q525) has 1,354 entries of child astronomical body (P398). This is ridiculous, and in my opinion, isn't a good use of an inverse property—is it possible for the additions of this to either be curtailed, or for this property's scope to be changed so this can't become a reoccurring issue? Perryprog (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited Q525#P398. I think a limited list is sufficient there. --- Jura 16:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jura1, thank you. That's certainly at least better, although I am admittedly dubious as to if this property is beneficial at all. Regardless—DeltaBot won't auto-add back in the inverse properties now that they've been removed, right? Perryprog (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently it does. You'd need to ask an admin to block it first, then remove the statements again. --- Jura 18:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to block DeltaBot but you can simply remove the job in User:DeltaBot/fixClaims/jobs. Regarding this property, I would vote to delete it. --Pasleim (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P398&oldid=1967894289"