Property talk:P40

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


subject has the object in their family as their offspring son or daughter (independently of their age)
Descriptionthe subject is parent of the linked object, which is its child. The child should have a reverse property, either father (P22) or mother (P25).
Representsoffspring (Q239526)
Data typeItem
Template parameteren:Template:Infobox_person (children).
Domainperson (Q215627), fictional character (Q95074), mythical character (Q4271324), animal (Q729), deity (Q178885), mythical animal (Q24334299) and character that may be fictional (Q21070598)
ExampleKirk Douglas (Q104027)Michael Douglas (Q119798)
Virgin Mary (Q345)Jesus Christ (Q302)
Zeus (Q34201)Athena (Q37122)
Lord Byron (Q5679)Ada Lovelace (Q7259)
Charles II of England (Q122553)James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth (Q140235)
Robot and gadget jobsThe consistency check gadget (see code) checks if the linked objects are linking back to the analyzed page as father or mother (asymmetric reciprocal relations), but does currently not discover if links are missing from the analyzed page to objects that are linking to it.
Tracking: sameno label (Q42533370)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P40 (Q23908975)
See alsonumber of children (P1971), sibling (P3373)
Proposal discussion[not applicable Proposal discussion]
Current uses176,185
Search for values
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), family name (Q101352), male given name (Q12308941), female given name (Q11879590), unisex given name (Q3409032), given name (Q202444), year (Q577): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Conflicts with P31, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Property “sex or gender (P21)” declared by target items of “child (P40): If [item A] has this property with value [item B], [item B] is required to have property “sex or gender (P21)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Target required claim P21, SPARQL, SPARQL (by value), SPARQL (new)
Item “sex or gender (P21): Items with this property should also have “sex or gender (P21)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Item P21, search, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Qualifiers “type of kinship (P1039), series ordinal (P1545), mother (P25), father (P22), sourcing circumstances (P1480), nature of statement (P5102), present in work (P1441), birthday (P3150), date of birth (P569): 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/P40#Allowed qualifiers, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Scope is as main value (Q54828448): 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/P40#scope, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
None of 1 (Q199), 2 (Q200), 3 (Q201), 4 (Q202): value must not be any of the specified items. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#none of, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
if [item A] has this property (child (P40)) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Known exceptions: Louis X of France (Q8384), Jan Kanty Moszyński (Q1681922), George I, Duke of Pomerania (Q314810)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P40#Contemporary, 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.)


I've changed this from "Children" to "child", since all the other properties are phrased as singular. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We probably need to talk about this somewhere else, but I think it looks more natural to use plural for properties like children, as we often have several of them, and singular for those we have usually just one (like death place). --Zolo (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The parameter name is "children", så I added that as alias. Mange01 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete / Replace?[edit]

We have relatives properties in pairs like Sister/Brother, Father/Mother, so I would advocate to have Daughter/Son as well instead of Child(ren).

Danny B. 17:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Personnally, I would rather do it the other way round: merge sister and brother, as it is simpler, and avoids problem with the case when a child changes sex (admittedly not a very common case, but that happens) --Zolo (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Also a possibility. I was aiming for consistency and chosed assimilation to majority. Any solution, which is consistent is better than this inconsistency.
Danny B. 06:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Should be this property used for stepchild/stepchildren? Or we need to create separate one? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've held off using child for step-children, only adding child to biological parents, because of the comments here and here. I couldn't find any information about qualifiers so I don't know how/when that will be implemented. I don't know if there has been a discussion on Project Chat about the use family properties like there has been for geographical subdivisions, maybe this should be settled properly now bots are starting to run through lists of people? /Ch1902 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Qualifier instance of (P31) can be used to specify the type of child - step, adopted, in-laws. Filceolaire (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe type of kinship (P1039) can specify the type of relationship, such as adopted son / daughter. Aude (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
type of kinship (P1039) seems perfect here. I'll add an example. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Done (one for illegitimate, one for step), with an example on sibling (P3373) as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Based on the use other relationship properties (notably the inverse properties father (P22) and mother (P25)), we might rather want to use relative (P1038). There it can also be qualified with type of kinship (P1039), so no information is lost.
--- Jura 14:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

consistency check gadget[edit]

Included and working in User:JonnyJD/consistency_check.js (together with related father,mother,stepfather etc.). The script currently doesn't require a stepchild to be listed as child. --JonnyJD (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Group of children[edit]

I think instances of sibling group (Q16979650) (and its subclasses) should be accepted values. For example "Lot (Q40574) : child (P40)Q7056503". -Ash Crow (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(independently of their age)[edit]

What is "independently of their age"? Independent of the age of the child or independent of the age of the parent? Why do we need this parenthetical reminder? --RAN (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): this was added by Verdy p (Special:Diff/318691770, Special:Diff/318691777), I can't find a discussion about that and I don't see the reason either. I suggest to remove this uneccesary precision or at the very least to rewrite it to be clear. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow, I am glad you found what I was talking about, I just now realized I left no link to an example. Thanks. --RAN (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming the idea is that it means "X can be categorised as a child of Y even if X is too old to be called "a child".". But I'd agree we don't need it. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I guess that makes a little bit of sense. The English property would probably be better as "offspring" and "number of offspring" as opposed to child" and "number of children" ... what do you think? Or do you think just one person was confused? --RAN (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I would leave it as "children". It's much better to stick with the more commonly used term. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)