Property talk:P571

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Representsdate of establishment (Q3406134)
Data typePoint in time
Template parameteren:Template:Infobox company : |founded=
ExampleSociety of Jesus (Q36380)
Dracula (Q41542) → 1890s
date QS:P,+1890-00-00T00:00:00Z/8

Church of Saint Michael (Q1076187) → package.lua:80: module 'Module:Ordinal-cd' not found
date QS:P,+1350-00-00T00:00:00Z/7
Tracking: sameno label (Q32085204)
Tracking: differencesno label (Q22013004)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P571 (Q22013005)
Tracking: local yes, WD noCategory:Inception not in Wikidata, but available on Wikipedia (Q22013003)
See alsoservice entry (P729), date of official opening (P1619), location of creation (P1071), dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576), publication date (P577), production date (P2754), date of commercialization (P5204), discontinued date (P2669), start time (P580)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses1,846,067
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Single best value: this property generally contains a single value. If there are several, one would have preferred rank (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Known exceptions: Italian National Society (Q3487466)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P571#single best value, SPARQL (new)
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), Wikimedia category (Q4167836), Wikimedia list article (Q13406463): 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/P571#Conflicts with P31, 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/P571#scope, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): film festival edition (Q27787439): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P571#Conflicts with P31, hourly updated report, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): human (Q5): 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/P571#Conflicts with P31, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia template (Q11266439): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P571#Conflicts with P31, hourly updated report, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Inverted month/day on items with 2 dates
Items with 2 dates, day of the first date = month number of the second date, month of of first = day of the second. To fix, set on to preferred or deprecated rank (Help)
Violations query: SELECT * { ?item wdt:P571 ?d1 ; wdt:P571 ?d2 . FILTER( ?d1 < ?d2 && MONTH(?d1) = DAY(?d2) && DAY(?d1) = MONTH(?d2) && YEAR(?d1) = YEAR(?d2) && DAY(?d1) != DAY(?d2) ) } LIMIT 10
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P571#Inverted month/day on items with 2 dates
This property is being used by:

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



I think this property is so general, lacking enough accuracy for data extraction queries turn out. It includes a wide range of place domains: cities, sport clubs, organizations, shops, airports, etc. and maybe domains which are not considered as a place. As well as, it includes a wide range of time domains from millisecond to century. I propose to pick it into several properties. And the next and more delicate point is that the label is so vague if it is used for cities (meaning establishment), stores (meaning opening) and so on. — دوستدار ایران بزرگ (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Qual è la differenza tra "creation date" (Property:P571) e "start date" (Property:P580)? -- 02:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I seem to remember the original purpose of this property was quite narrow: foundation date or establishment date, in the formal sense. In the case of a modern company this would be the date that appears on the company's registration documents. Danrok (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


I think this property needs qualifiers. Stockholm was founded as an urban area 1960 (Swedish urban areas in it's modern definition are never older than that.), was founded as municipality 1971, founded as city-municipality 1863, as town/city 1463 and as settlement 1252.

It would also be nice to show how it was founded. -- Lavallentalk(block) 04:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I notice that some old organizations in the UK were founded by a Pope, and then re-founded by a King or Queen, after the creation of the Anglican Church, and a the move away from the Catholic Church in England. Danrok (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought that this property is a qualifier, or it needs splitting to be a number of things that have a start and end date.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add some thougts about Lavallens example. First, let's consider what the item Stockholm (Q1754) actually is. Is it a urban area? No, Stockholm urban area (Q94385) is. Is it a municipality? No, that is Stockholm Municipality (Q506250). Is it the city-municipality? No, we've got Stockholm City (Q10680648) for that. Is it about the town/city? Yes it is! But the fact that it was granted town privileges in 1463 was only a formal recognition of its status. The city/town/settlement was already there and it was already there in 1252 when Birger jarl wrote his letter granting privileges for Fogdö kloster. That letter just happens to be the oldest written record mentioning Stockholm. But Birger jarl wrote the letter in Stockholm and also wrote in the letter that it was from Stockholm. That indicates that there already was a settlement there noticable enough to be mentioned by the Jarl. The only source available stating the exact year for the foundation of Stockholm is Visby Franciscan chronicles (Q10716064) and that says it was founded in 1187. /ℇsquilo 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

ISO 8601[edit]

Kial ne estas uzita [Q50101|ISO 8601]] do: JJJJ-MM-TT ekzemple 2013-10-12 sed estas "oktobro 12 2013"? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Kie vi vidas tion? --AVRS (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Ĉie. Ekzemple: Q143 (interfaco pl, eo, en). Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The data is stored as "+00000002013-10-15T13:09:40Z". It's the User Interface that writes everything in wrong order. -- Lavallen (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
La dato estas montrata en la formo difinita ie por la unua lingvo en la listo de "Helpaj lingvoj" sur la paĝo "Redaktado" de oniaj preferoj.
The date is rendered as specified somewhere for the first language on the "Editing" page of the user preferences .
--AVRS (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dankon. Estas bone. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Q10893166#date of foundation or creation (P571)[edit]

Please see Talk:Q10893166#date of foundation or creation (P571). --Jeremyb-phone (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Are there any plans to restrict the domain of this property to organizations? Or the intended domain is an artifact? If not, I see no sense in keeping that property, since Property:P580 has the same meaning. -- Apohllo 14 January 2015, 16:57

animal race[edit]

Would you say this property can be used to record when an animal race was first created (by crossing two other races), for example in Swabian-Hall Swine (Q769449) inception (P571) 1820? —DSGalaktos (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


It seems that Nativity of St. John the Baptist (Q18602467) was painted in the years 1633-1635. Which year should be used in this case? And what about the precision value if it is not exactly in a certain year but 'decade' would be too imprecise? Bever (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bever: I think start time (P580) and end time (P582) are intended for this use-case, so
⟨ Nativity of St. John the Baptist (Q18602467) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ inception (P571) View with SQID ⟨ 1630s ⟩
start time (P580) View with SQID ⟨  1633 ⟩
end time (P582) View with SQID ⟨  1635 ⟩
. Or perhaps earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326), but I think those are intended for cases where the exact date is unknown, which isn’t the case here. —DSGalaktos (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The renaming of this property without discussion[edit]

I don't see any discussion about the renaming of this property. The single word inception is misleading when the main component of this is that it is a date or a time, not the concept of wikt:inception. Can we please have the element of the time component added back.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Counter-argument: one “inception” statement can be used not only to record the time at which the inception occurred, but also other things. For example, see P:P1191, which is “first performance”, not “date of first performance”, since it’s often also qualified with location (P276), performer (P175), etc. – these qualifiers make more sense when you read them as “location of first performance”, not “location of date of first performance”. (For examples, see The Blue Danube (Q482621) and Symphony No. 9 (Q11989).) (However, in this particular case, I’m not sure if that argument applies – I haven’t seen many qualified inception (P571) statements.) —DSGalaktos (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Difference to date of official opening (P1619) ?[edit]

Please see Property_talk:P1619#Relation_to_inception_.28P571.29_.3F. --- Jura 08:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

First half or quarter of a century[edit]

How should the first half of the 18th century be indicated? And how the first quarter of the 18th century? Or beginning of the 18th century? Romaine (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As 18th century (precision: 100 years), with qualifiers earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326), I think. —Galaktos (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that the new-ish qualifier refine date (P4241) supports this directly. - PKM (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Qualifiers "start date" and "end date" for this property[edit]

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?inception ?start ?end ?instanceofLabel 
  hint:Query hint:optimizer "None" .
  ?item p:P571 ?statement .
  ?statement pq:P580 ?start . 
  ?statement pq:P582 ?end . 
  ?statement ps:P571 ?inception . 
  ?item wdt:P31 ?instanceof 
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }

Try it!

There is some discussion about it on French project chat (Topic:U8ugv72dm20md1is).
--- Jura 11:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

How to proceed when there is more than one creation date?[edit]

I am working on Rouillon bridge (Q3397110), a bridge which has been destroyed 3 times, and reconstructed 4 times. Both inception (P571) and date of official opening (P1619) only allows one date for this property. How should I note these multiple dates in this element? Should I:

Dirac (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have the same problem with the closing and reopening of a professional association (Q33037862).--Hienafant (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Use for countries and criterion used (P1013)[edit]

Following the discussion with @Llywelyn2000: at property proposal, here are a few items that can be used for the qualifier criterion used (P1013):

Sample use with actual dates for Mexico in the sandbox.

Obviously, for some countries criteria could be different/some not applicable. Please list them here. --- Jura 07:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Two dates of P571[edit]

The system gives an error, you cannot put two dates of creation. This restriction is not correct. Exemple: Q61767271 is an abbey created in 12th century and closed during the French Revolution. It was reopened in 1898. I don't find anyway to put this two dates in de wikidatafile, though they are both correct. I know a lot of other examples.--Flamenc (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Objects created between two dates[edit]

Is there a way to indicate that an object was created between two dates (when the precise date of its creation is unknown (examples in: Q11765908; Q1142058)?--Braaark (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Braaark:, here's one way to do this using "earliest date" and "latest date" as qualifiers: Tunic with Frontal Figures (Q60756150). - PKM (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
PKM: thank you for answering. However, this method, which is the one I used in the two examples I provided, does not work for Wikipedia infoboxes.--Braaark (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Nature of statement" as qualifier[edit]

Is there any objection to adding nature of statement (P5102) as a valid qualifier for this property? - PKM (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Have often dates, that a inception (P571) is before a date. In 1470 there is a mill, but inception (P571) is before... How to define? Regards, Conny (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC).

  • with the "latest"-qualifier? --- Jura 16:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Use as date of a photograph[edit]

I notice that a bot is now routinely using this property on Commons for the date on which a photograph was taken, e.g.,_Oregon_-_Wallace_Building_(former_J.C._Penney).jpg&diff=390006982&oldid=265512026 . Is that actually the intention of this property? (If answering, please ping me, I don't keep a watchlist on Wikidata, thanks in advance.) - Jmabel (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)