Topic on User talk:Ayack

[[Q19860854]] is used on thousands of pages in combination with other instances of building types. I don't understand why you removed it and apparently neither do a lot of other editors. I don't see why use of P5816 excludes use of Q19860854, Wikidata is possibly becoming very Wikipedia user/editor unfriendly.

former building or structure (Q19860854) mixes two notions: the nature of the item and its state of conservation.

In Wikidata, there are two different properties to store it:

• instance of (P31)=architectural structure (Q811979) (or one of its subclasses)
• state of conservation (P5816)=demolished or destroyed (Q56556915).

Can you point me to a discussion where other editors have agreed with you?

I know it has been discussed many times since 2012 especially on Wikidata:Bistro, but since there is no search available, I can only point you to Wikidata:Property proposal/state of conservation.

Should one use [[P576]] ("dissolved, abolished or demolished") for the point in time, or should one add the "point in time" qualifier to Property:P5816?

Good question. P576 is the more common, but using a qualifier to P5816 can make sense if there are several values in P5816 (with applies to part (P518) qualifiers for example)

I'm finding it a bit mysterious to create links to Wikidata pages in this talk page editor, and there is no option to edit code that I have noticed. I think I find editing code easier, or at least I am more used to it.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Ayack on this one.

If we take a building that has been demolished, then valid P31s would seem to be e.g. 'building' covering the period when the building stood, and 'former building' for the period afterwards. If we take a railway station which has closed, P31s are usefully 'railway station' for the period in which it served this function, and 'former railway station' for the period after.

Requiring that we understand that the nature of a thing - its instance value - only via a circumlution through P5816 ("it's a country house, but it has been demolished" is suboptimal.

Qualifiers of start time and end time, and ranking of statements, allow us the luxury of being able to have P31s which reflect ''what the item actually is'', even is that is-ness happens to be a conflation of two notions.

I agree with Ayack point of view.

The redundancy and duplication : « it was a building until X, it's not a building anymore since same X » is less optimal than just « it was a building until X ». It's just common sense and a bit of Occam's Razor.

The, how we say and structure « it was a building until X » there is several possibilities, mainly with a qualifier or with two properties. Here both seems equally good, I have a slight preferences for direct properties (more easily and widely accessible).

I completely agree with Ayack. Their first answer in this thread says it all: by having the state of an object in its instance of (P31), you are mixing two notions. Would you put cadaver (Q48422) in place of human (Q5) in instance of (P31) for dead people?

As an app developer, Ayack's change will make my life so much easier! I want to display all existing objects on a map around the user, and testing for a single property would be so much easier than the current situation (is it a former building? or a former park? or a former road? or a former canal? etc etc)