Property talk:P61

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Documentation

discoverer or inventor
discovered, first described, or invented by
Description Discoverer or inventor of a place, a concept or an object. For work (Q386724), rather use creator (P170) or author (P50).
Represents inventor (Q205375), innovator (Q3492227), discoverer (Q1344452)
Data type Item
Template parameter en:template:infobox planet discoverer
Domain places, objects (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Allowed values mainly persons, but also organizations, projects, travels... (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Example Uranus (Q324)William Herschel (Q14277)
Bathurst Island (Q217369)William Parry (Q437310)
Tracking: same no label (Q42533309)
Tracking: usage Category:Pages using Wikidata property P61 (Q21037782)
See also time of discovery (P575)
Lists
Proposal discussion Property proposal/Archive/1#P61
Current uses 61,563
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Without qualifiers: this property should be used without any qualifiers.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P61#Allowed qualifiers
Value type “human (Q5), facility (Q13226383), robotic spacecraft (Q1378139), astronomical survey (Q550089), exploration (Q6502154): 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 human (Q5), facility (Q13226383), robotic spacecraft (Q1378139), astronomical survey (Q550089), exploration (Q6502154) (or a subclass thereof).
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P61#Value type Q5, Q13226383, Q1378139, Q550089, Q6502154, SPARQL
This property is being used by:

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


Why only for astronomical objects? / Pourquoi uniquement pour les objets astronomiques ?[edit]

--Gloumouth1 (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

When this property was proposed, it was done in the astronomical section. Nevertheless you are right: this property can be used also for other types of items. If there is consensus, I'm agree that it became "general". In this case, of course, we will need to change all the descriptions. --Paperoastro (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Certainly support for things like dinosaurs or archeological objects. And perhaps even for ideas and theories, like "Einstein discovered relativity theory", that may not be the best possible word, but that may me simpler than creating another property. --Zolo (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Move as general property. Snipre (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Be careful if we generalize it completely, it shoud be renamed discoverer or inventor, in order to avoid:
  1. terminolgy discrepencies (e.g. in English, Lascaux was discovered, in French, it was invented)
  2. philosophically undecidable questions (e.g. were natural numbers discovered or invented?)
I think that few generic properties should be preferred to many specialized properties, but I'm not an expert in ontologies, and I'm afraid that there is currently no clear guideline about this.
--Gloumouth1 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support generalization, but please be careful, as per Gloumouth1. --Ricordisamoa 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support This property clearly applies well beyond astronomy. Emw (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support if the label is renamed discovered or inventor --Gloumouth1 (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since there is consensus, I moved this property to generic section and changed labels and descriptions in English and Italian languages following the suggestions of this discussion. --Paperoastro (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Same question / même question[edit]

--Gloumouth1 (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Single value constraint[edit]

This does not make sense. A large part of all minor planet has a group of discoverer! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)