Shortcut: WD:PP/P

Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Lexeme Wikimedia Commons

See also[edit]

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See steps when creating properties.

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2020/06.

Person[edit]

historic first[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionachievement or position held by subject as first of their social group
Representshistoric first (Q64510815)
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed valuesvalue and all qualifier combined (except point in time/sourcing circumstances) should determine the historic first
Example 1Wentworth Cheswell (Q7983013)elected person (Q16060143)
qualified with ethnic group (P172)=African Americans (Q49085), country (P17)=United States of America (Q30)
Example 2Susanna M. Salter (Q3631124)mayor (Q30185)
qualified with sex or gender (P21)=female (Q6581072), country (P17)=United States of America (Q30)
Example 3Karolina Widerström (Q4110625)physician (Q39631)
qualified with sex or gender (P21)=female (Q6581072), country of citizenship (P27)=Sweden (Q34)

Motivation[edit]

The idea is provide a way to model a historic first (Q64510815), especially firsts for historically underrepresented social groups. The property statement is placed on a human's item, the value is their achievement or position, and qualifiers are used to specify the social circumstances under which they count as a "first". Note that while the first female prime minister of a country would of course be queryable by other means, as all prime ministers are notable on Wikidata, the same is not at all true for physicians and similar.Pharos (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I approve of the basic idea wholeheartedly, but I don't see anything near an actually functional implementation in the proposal. this sort of complex description is just not really possible in the Wikidata model IMO. It's likely that creating items with instance of (P31) historic first (Q64510815) (e.g. something titled "first election of an African-American to public office in the United States"), and linking those to the people through significant event (P793) is a more efficient approach. Circeus (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    I don't believe creating many new items like "first election of an African-American to public office in the United States" would be at all scalable. Consider how many items we'd have to create just for "first licensed female physician in X place", for example, and the myriad other professions and positions. Not to mention that the second and third female physicians are often notable too, and this can also be expressed with qualifiers.--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Circeus, Pharos: I reformatted the samples a bit. Maybe it's a bit clearer now. I think they should be feasible. Supposedly, it could work also without any qualifier? Eve > historic first > female. --- Jura 13:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it could work without a qualifier. Just wanted to explain the harder and more common case first.--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this approach better then the significant event (P793) one. ChristianKl❫ 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment maybe we should mention in the description that qualifiers (except "point in time" and sourcing circumstances) need to be read as cumulative conditions. --- Jura 15:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment in the first sample, elected person (Q16060143) might be better than elected office (Q17279032), and country (P17) or applies to jurisdiction (P1001) than country of citizenship (P27). Supposedly an American could have be elected to an office in another country. --- Jura 15:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed, these seem like reasonable changes to me.--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Circeus. --Tinker Bell 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pharos: are you still interested in this? If so, could you attempt to address the comments. --- Jura 13:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Pharos: I updated the proposal per discussion. --- Jura 14:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose I like the idea of being able to record this, and I think the revised proposal is pretty good, but I would still prefer using significant event (P793) and appropriate qualifiers. However, I don't think we would need to create a lot of single-use items as per Circeus's suggestion- we could combine the two approaches and use eg/ significant event (P793):first person, and qualifiers as above (ethnic group, gender, country) plus has quality (P1552):elected person (Q16060143) (or is there a better qualifier?).
The other reason for using significant event (P793) is that "historic first" is important, but so is "historic last" (albeit it's rarer). For example, Alessandro Moreschi (Q504969) is famous for being the last castrato musician, Teruo Nakamura (Q700512) was the last Japanese soldier to surrender (in 1974!), and there are quite a few items linked from w:Category:Last living survivors. There are also occasional cases where "only person" is notable, and it might not be appropriate to use "first" (since it's something not expected to happen again). I am sure there are other things we might want to treat as historic records in the same way. It also seems to be more appropriate to express things like "second person to do X" using significant event (P793) than by recording it under a property called "first".
Creating multiple different properties for last/only/etc is certainly possible, but it seems more straightforward to use significant event (P793) and then use an item to say first/last/only, with qualifiers to give the context as proposed above. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. I think we should try to find a solution for "historic last" as well. @Pharos: what do you think?
    Creating new, likely unique, items for each in P793 doesn't seem practical, especially as then each item would need to include statements to provide the information in a structured way.
    A disadvantage of including a few general values in P793 could be that a separate way to read the qualifiers of such values is likely needed (and these may need to be excluded when trying to retrieve the others). --- Jura 07:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Andrew_Gray: you make good points. Would you please show the modeling of what you propose to illustrate your points? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Shouldn't we be able to discern historic firsts from the existing data? For example, doing a query for all African American mayors sorted by date? Adding these historic first properties seems like redundant work, plus, from my experience, claims of being "firsts" have a low rate of accuracy. I imagine this would lead to unnecessary edit wars in some cases. Kaldari (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • We can't do this as we don't know whether or not we have all African American mayors in our database. ChristianKl❫ 18:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • We will not have every mayor in a given country our database, and even more so we will not have every lawyer or physician. It is often the case that someone has a Wikipedia article in large part because they have been attributed a historic "first", and it's important this be reflected in Wikidata. Of course statements can and should have qualifiers, depending on their provenance and reliability.--Pharos (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Expressible with has quality (P1552) = earliest recorded instance (Q63971158) with qualifier of (P642) or subject has role (P2868), and further qualifiers to narrow the criteria – see e.g. Conrad Heyer (Q20859406) or Orville Wright (Q494455). The proposed property may be a bit cleaner though, as a matter of taste. Per Circeus and Andrew Gray, I hope we can reach a consensus for how to express this kind of information, whether the proposed property is it or not. Swpb (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

sex[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionBiological sex of an animal or person
Representssex (Q290)
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5) or animal (Q729)
Allowed valuesmale (Q6581097), female (Q6581072), intersex (Q1097630), male organism (Q44148), female organism (Q43445)
Example 1Kitty Anderson (Q59160028)intersex (Q1097630)
Example 2Dolly (Q171433)female organism (Q43445)
Example 3Alex (Q24628)male organism (Q44148)
Planned useThis property would be used for all individual animals with a known sex and for individual humans when their sex is notable (see Motivation below). Note that the existing sex or gender (P21) is being changed to just "gender" per consensus.
Robot and gadget jobsa bot will be written to migrate male organism (Q44148) and female organism (Q43445) claims from sex or gender (P21).
See alsosex or gender (P21) (which is being changed to just "gender"), property that may violate privacy (Q44601380)

Motivation[edit]

After many years of debate and discussion, consensus was reached to split sex or gender (P21) into two separate properties. sex or gender (P21) will be renamed "gender" and a new "sex" property will be created to handle animal sex and the rare cases where a human's sex is notable separately from their gender. For example, Kitty Anderson (Q59160028) is a notable intersex (Q1097630) activist, but her gender is female (Q6581072). Previously, sex or gender (P21) had to be overloaded for both uses. In some previous discussions, concerns were raised about whether or not certain languages (especially Japanese and Chinese) had separate words for "sex" and "gender". It has been confirmed that both of those languages have separate words for the two concepts, and even if a language doesn't have separate words, they can still be disambiguated by the description. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • A discussion from 2013 closed in 2019? I wonder if any of the participant are still active in Wikidata .. --- Jura 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose use sex or gender (P21) with qualifiers. --- Jura 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are some benefits to split this unrelated to the explanation given above. --- Jura 01:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose. On one hand it always made intuitive sense to me to split it for the sake of modularity and precision. On the other hand, it may become a "fun" battleground for people who will insist on setting the sex value of transgender people to what they were assigned at birth, and I'm not quite sure it's totally good. It may work well if a very clear and strongly enforced policy is defined for dealing with such cases in a way that presents precise information and is respectful to the subjects of the items. I'm not sure what this policy should actually be, though. I haven't seen a description of such a policy in the current proposals and discussions, but maybe I haven't searched well. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think there should be a policy, that it should only be added to a person if and only if they have stated it themself publicly and unambiguously, otherwise we should only indicate gender. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, that could be a possibility. As I said, the distinction generally makes sense, and I'll be happy to support it if there's a policy that will prevent the misuse of this property in unhelpful and transphobic ways. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion we may keep current P21 for "(biological) sex" and create a new property "gender identity".--GZWDer (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it makes more sense to do it the other way around, as the currently existing property is mostly used for persons to indicate their gender. Very few uses are for non-human animals in comparison to humans. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Agree with Robin, the current uses of P21 are mostly to indicate people's gender, so it would make the most sense to leave that one as the gender property. Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
        Fully agree, P21 must be gender and not sex. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I think it makes sense to seperate gender from sex, but there should be a proper policy to avoid harassment of trans people. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This distinction is needed. Amir (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support subject to the policy statements related on privacy of individuals stated in Wikidata:Living people. John Samuel (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I oppose if the proposal means that a human's sex will be classified as "gender." "Sex" and "gender" are sometimes distinguished for valid reasons, and I don't think distinguishing them should only apply to "to handl[ing] animal sex and the rare cases where a human's sex is notable separately from their gender." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    A human's gender will be classified as "gender". A human's sex will be classified as "sex", but if and only if it's publicly known and relevant, and in compliance with Wikidata:Living people. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Kind of, but what concerns me is how do you define "relevant" in a way that won't be abused. The current situation at Sam Bettens (Q274154), for example, doesn't look optimal. It currently says:
    sex or gender:
    1. female / end time: 18 May 2019
    2. transgender male / start time: 18 May 2019; nature of statement: coming out
    I'm not transgender, so please do tell me if I'm saying something wrong and dumb, but from what I heard, transgender people usually feel that they've always been their gender, so saying that Sam Bettens was female until 18 May 2019 is probably not entirely correct.
    Should this be changed? Probably. Saying that he is male is probably correct, and saying that he's transgender is probably correct and relevant, too. Mentioning the coming out date is probably relevant, too.
    But here's the most important part for this discussion: Is it correct and relevant that his sex is female? I honestly don't know, but I suspect that it may not be. I'd love to have something better, but I'm afraid that without very, very clear policy this can be misused.
    Maybe for humans we can have a policy that only allows specifying gender and an indication of being transgender, we use "sex" only for non-humans, and statements that don't conform to this are speedily deleted. But there may be problems with this approach, too. Again, I just don't quite know. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think some of this is overthinking the issue. The most important point is that sex is rarely a relevant attribute for a human, whereas gender is. That is true of transgender people as well. And, rather than attempting to generalize at all about how transgender people work, we should instead rely on the subject's own self-identification, or reputable sources. But the current usage of P21 has been to signify the subject's gender, not sex, and there is no suggestion that once this property is implemented we would need to go in and determine everyone's sex as well. Just because most humans have a sex does not mean Wikidata needs to concern itself with describing that for every subject—just like we do not describe all of their street addresses even though there is such a property. The only relevant property for almost all humans should be gender. Sex should only be appropriate in exceedingly rare cases, and that can be explained in the property's usage guidelines, or even enforced with a constraint. Dominic (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    The most important point is that sex is rarely a relevant attribute for a human - this.
    there is no suggestion that once this property is implemented we would need to go in and determine everyone's sex as well - this, too. However, I suspect that some people will start saying that we do need to determine everyone's sex. They will be wrong, and this should be prevented as early as possible by policies.
    Sex should only be appropriate in exceedingly rare cases - yes, and maybe even never. This should be defined. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Does this answer your question Amir? Amir (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    User:Ladsgroup - Yeah, mostly, thanks. It's not totally explicit there, but as far as I can see, it suggests using "sex" for non-humans and for intersex people. This makes sense, although maybe it should be more explicit.
    Can anyone think of reasons to use "sex" for non-intersex humans? Whatever the answer is, it should probably be explicit. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    "The most important point is that sex is rarely a relevant attribute for a human." Not true, as is clear by health aspects such as sex differences in medicine. Regardless of how one identifies, sex (rather than gender) differences matter when it comes to medicine. As for "most humans have a sex", what humans do not have a sex? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    This is relevant for a private conversation with a person's own doctor and family, and not so much on this public website.
    If a person's being transgender is verifiable and relevant as public information, it can be stated in another appropriate property, as proposed in Wikidata:WikiProject_LGBT/gender. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT there is a directory of discussions at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender which demonstrate the ongoing difficulty of having a property for sex or gender. I support the split and also I support this proposed method for the split. I sympathize with the oppose votes who wish to avoid having sex and gender being repeated fields for biographies. Over years of discussion this has been a sticking point, and what is new right now is that our community has matured to the point of having enough people be able to have conversations about property proposals on Wikidata. I think now is the right time to make the switch, and even a few months ago would have been premature. The most challenging part of this change is not a Wikidata property proposal, but coming to understand that by doing this we are changing our language such that the terms "sex" and "gender" are going to have specific meanings in the Wiki community drawing from LGBT+ discussions on the topic. I encourage anyone to have conversations anywhere, but if anyone sees a conversation, please consider listing it at that LGBT+ page with the others. Also edit the LGBT+ gender page to develop the guideline. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I am thinking more about how we are going to assign either sex or gender to people, and when this will be original research. We have consensus to do gender assignments as original research on almost every human. We will do this based on some evaluation, presumably including whether their name is gendered, and their physical appearance often based on one photo, and then in much rarer cases when there is additional context, like the sort of information which would go into a Wikipedia article.
I am sure that I support a split of sex and gender. Sex seems natural to have; this is the property for marking what external sex organ a person has. We usually will not have that information, and instead probably will label most biographies by gender presentation which we determine by original research. Hmmm! Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Yep, you get it. As a non-binary trans person I've been dealing with these issues in daily life as well as online for years. It gives me a real headache but it is important to get it right. Funcrunch (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support from a purely semantic position, these are two different concepts, which require two different properties to meaningfully describe them. This is fairly obvious with some simple thought experiments, such as "Are there any subjects where the values would not be the same?" or "Are there subjects where one property would be appropriate, but the other would not be?". As a general rule, we do not combine distinct attributes into a single property and then distinguish which one is meant with a qualifier. So, something must be done about it.

    I would also point out that the idea that sex and gender can be represented as a single property means Wikidata is itself using fairly loaded language on a huge number of items, including sensitive ones. We have a practice of referring to certain people as, for example "transgender female," but do not generally identify people as "cisgender male". A person's gender should be reflected in a property with a value consisting only of their gender—regardless of what that is—without reference to their genitalia or sex. The fact that we only take this approach of conflating distinct concepts with a single property for sex/gender is troubling. To me, this seems important not only out of respect for the subjects we describe, but also to be a welcoming editor community for all who would want to participate and could be rightfully put off by how we talk about gender currently. Dominic (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dominic, though as a trans person I am concerned as others have mentioned that some editors will still unnecessarily add differing "sex" attributes to trans people, insisting that our birth-assigned sexes be listed even though our genders differ from these. ETA: Most trans people prefer to avoid the term "biological sex", which is often used to invalidate our genders. Though "assigned sex" might not be appropriate in the case of non-human animals, another term should be considered for the description of this property. Funcrunch (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too late. sex or gender (P21) is already used in hundreds of templates in 100+ languages, changing anything now is just a very bad idea.--Jklamo (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    That's not a valid reason, We deprecated a property that was used in millions of places (P106 IIRC). This is definitely smaller change than that one. Amir (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Jklamo: Only about 10,000 existing uses of sex or gender (P21) would need to be migrated. Kaldari (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    It is. Are going to go through all templates using sex or gender (P21) (in 100+ languages) and distinguish if it is appropriate to use "genderfied" sex or gender (P21) on new property (even for languages, that do not differentiate gender and sex at all)? Widely used properties need to be as stable as possible.--Jklamo (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dominic; this would correct a very visible departure from the general "items and properties should not conflate distinct entities" ethos. Also, this would make it easier for tools to accidentally do the right thing with regards to gender, handling transgender females as females and transgender males as males unless there was some need to specifically query sex. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sex and gender are different concepts, so we should have properties for both. MBH (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose So is the purpose of this to give harassers an avenue to call trans women "male organisms", or is that just an acceptable side effect? There is no reason to distinguish "biological sex" and "gender" for people unless you think documenting people's genitalia or chromosomes is relevant and not an extreme invasion of privacy. Please don't respond to this if it's just to tell me "but you are a male organism".--Alexandra IDVtalk 16:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    User:Alexandra IDV, this is my concern as well, but see User:Ladsgroup's response above. It mostly addresses this problem, although I think it should be more explicit. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "consensus was reached" That's not how consensus works. I'm surprised to see such an attempt. Hence oppose, at least until there is a meaningful discussion on the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support But biological gender need to be at birth, and gender must be current.46.188.23.100 17:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    What is “biological gender” supposed to be? Can you clarify what you mean? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support They are different concepts. As someone said above, following the recommendations laid here Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender would be important. Scann (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This concept is to complex to be described with such tools as our properties. To describe all the shades and tints of this, you have to use text. So no, out of scope! 62 etc (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    Certainly it’s complex, but we can try to do the best we can with the tools we have. Do you think a split into separate “gender” and “sex” properties would be worse than the current situation where they’re conflated in a single “sex or gender” property? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    "the best we can" will not even be close to good, as soon as we go outside the non-binary. Not even the biological thing is easy to describe here as soon as we reach outside of the binary. But in those cases we can at least describe them in terms of medical conditions. 62 etc (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for split. sex or gender (P21) should stay for distingusih, if object is male or female sex (Q290) (at birth) - majority of uses. The new property should be for storing information, that someone feels as female, but according chromosomes is male, somebody is transsexual and other weird uses (gender (Q48277) (minority of uses). JAn Dudík (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    What do you mean by “majority of uses”? All of the wiki projects I’m aware of primarily refer to trans and nonbinary people by their gender, not their sex. (Also, in the spirit of assuming good faith, I should let you know that your comment reads as very transphobic to me, whether intentional or not, and if that was not the intention I suggest you clarify it and avoid phrases like weird uses.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - while we need to acknowledge "those" types of people, at this point I feel as if they are still debating amongst themselves with what the proper terminology should be. Therefore it would be premature for institutions to make changes. Quakewoody (talk)
After reading continual comments from others, I can't help but want to repeat myself - at this point I feel as if they are still debating amongst themselves with what the proper terminology should be. Therefore it would be premature for institutions to make changes. And I can't help but point out 2 things.
  1. A major US city decided on 31 pronouns which angered the activists who wanted at least 101.
  2. The entire point of being "fluid" instead of being binary is not just to prevent falling into a "category" (which exactly what we are trying to do here, forcing them to be a label), but it is also changeable at a moment's notice - like a river, the river itself will always be there but it will never be the same water because it is constantly changing, aka fluid
So, for us, what exactly are we trying to do? Label something that doesn't want to be labeled. Name something that can be renamed before we even finish naming it. Quakewoody (talk)
@Quakewoody: regarding that first point… would you mind clarifying how it’s at all relevant to this proposal? And which city is this supposed to have been – do you have a source for this story? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I’m confused by the Motivation section of this proposal. It correctly notes that there have been many years and debate and discussion, which I’ve sadly not been very active in (though I believe it picked up around Wikimania this year?) – but then why does it only link to a discussion that had no new comments since 2013? Other people here have already linked to Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender – is there a reason why this was not mentioned in the proposal from the beginning? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Mainly just because that page wasn't as fleshed out at the time. Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How would trans people be modeled once this property exists and Property:P21 has been adjusted accordingly? Would a trans woman have gender female (Q6581072) and sex male (Q6581097)? Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender assumes the existence of a “transgender status” property, but I haven’t seen a property proposal for that yet.
More specifically, I’m not convinced that using “sex” in that way would be correct. I believe some people argue that “biological sex”, as a collection of multiple features (not limited to chromosomes), also changes over the course of transition: hormone replacement therapy may change a person’s hormonal balance and, over time, their secondary sex characteristics (e. g. trans women growing breasts and trans men’s voice dropping), and gender confirmation surgery may alter their primary or secondary sex organs as well. The current form of this proposal doesn’t make it clear to me how (or whether at all) this would be represented. (Changing the property to “birth sex” would resolve that question, but would fail to account for intersex people who only discover their condition later in life, I think.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC) (Same disclaimer as Amir E. Aharoni above – please let me know if I’ve written something stupid or insensitive, that was not my intention.)
@Lucas Werkmeister: Those are great questions. The currently proposed data model at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender (which this proposal is related to), suggests that a trans woman would have gender female (Q6581072), but no "sex" property set unless for some reason it was notable and verifiable. I admit that there is some uncertainty about how that would actually play out, and we will need to create some guidelines around it to make sure that it isn't used in ways that are disrespectful to trans folks. Also, you are correct that there is not yet a proposal for a "transgender status" property, mainly just because it's easier to manage one proposal at a time, but anyone is welcome to make such a proposal at any time. My hope is that if we can introduce a "transgender status" property, people will use that rather than trying to use the "sex" property to indicate that someone is transgender. Hope that answers some of your questions, and feel free to propose improvements to the data model. Any constructive input is welcome. Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support since this is a generally sensible proposal, but I’d like to upgrade it to {{Support}} or {{Strong support}} once my questions above have been answered. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support new property “sex”, but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose renaming of sex or gender (P21). Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A separate, new property “gender” should be created, with suggested uses in something like the following fashion:
    sex or gender (P21) to be kept or used for statements stemming from cultural contexts where there is or was no clear distinction between sex and gender in the modern-day anglophone Western sense (if there are, or should arise, other sex-and-gender-related properties that are more culturally relevant on a case-by-case basis, these could of course be used as well); as well as in the case of unreferenced statements that make it impossible to discern whether sex or gender was intended, or where references exist but have not (yet) been followed up to confirm.
    The new “gender” property to be used in contexts and with intents that clearly distinguish between sex and gender in the senses implied here.
    BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My language (swedish) does not have separate words for "sex" and "gender", both are "kön" (unless "sex" is a verb, then it is "sex" in swedish too). We get along just fine without any distinction between the two. /ℇsquilo 12:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    In Russian it's unclear too. "Пол" (sex) and "гендер" (gender) are believed to be synonymic. As the term of "гендер" is actively pushing by feminist activists as the replacement for "пол", "гендер" is sometimes perceived with some irony (I'm not sharing this). The language problem is important. Not all not non-English-speaking users are using Wikidata with their local languages, but some people do, and may have a confusion. --Wolverène (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Sex and gender are synonymic in every language, because for the many people, gender is how you represent your sex. The term ‘гендер’ is perfectly valid term in Russian social science to describe everything that ‘пол’ can’t. Transphobia associated with it in colloquial usage is nothing to be concerned about in Wikidata or any other encyclopaedic project. I agree that adding ‘пол’ (sex) property might be really bad if it is allowed for usage for most humans, however. stjn[ru] 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Esquilo: I think we in Swedish have "kön" and "könsidentitet". But I doubt there is a 1:1-fit to the English words sex and gender here. 62 etc (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    Judging by the description of "sex" and "gender" in English, the distinction is totally different. If we introduce this property as it is described, it will have to replace sex or gender (P21) in 99,99% of all objects where it is used. /ℇsquilo 07:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    There is a Russian word that is forgotten in this discussion, and it is relevant for other languages, too. In English, "gender" has been used for a long time mostly for grammatical gender—a linguistic property that is sometimes, but not always, related to biological sex. The Russian language has a separate word for it: род.
    In recent decades, "gender" in English began to be used for the social and psychological concept of gender, which may be different from what a person is assigned at birth according to how their body looks like. This word is also used as a loanword neologism in some languages, including Russian, and then it may be associated with a certain narrative that not everyone understands, and with which not everyone agrees.
    In practice, I could find two actual uses for the sex/gender property, at least as far as it concerns humans:
    1. Using the correct word according to the gender, if the language requires is. This may apply to English, too, for example actor/actress, and in many other languages it is needed in many more words. This is totally related to the grammatical gender sense.
    2. Running queries for people who appear on Wikidata and have a certain occupation, live in a certain country, have or don't have a Wikipedia article, and sorting them by gender. An often-repeated example is "What is the biggest city in the world the mayor of which is a woman?". This is useful for statistics, editathons, verifying data integrity, etc. Here, a human's sex is also irrelevant, and a gender-only propoerty can do this job perfectly. If someone wants to look up transgender mayors, this can be covered by another property, as already proposed in Wikidata:WikiProject_LGBT/gender. (It makes sense to me to also cover intersex people in a separate property, so neither gender nor sex would be used for that, although I might be wrong.)
    There may be other use cases, but I cannot think of any at the moment.
    So, one solution to translate the name of the property unambigusly can be to use the word that is used for describing grammatical gender.
    For languages in which this doesn't work well, perhaps gender could be translated as something like "human sex" or "social sex" and "sex" could be something like "animal sex" or "biological sex". However, this would further strengthen the requirement to not use "sex" for humans at all. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose if it will be something that would be applied to everyone, because it will just be a lot of WD:BLP violations, an area where Wikidata is already very lax right now and the open invitation to bigots wouldn’t discourage it one bit. Support the renaming of ‘sex or gender’ into ‘gender’ and splitting off a separate ‘sex’ property for animals. As for problems when dealing with intersex people, I think the more kind solution is to do something like gender: female / biological trait: intersex (and maybe even gender: female / biological trait: transgender) or use the same schema trans people currently use. stjn[ru] 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's not clear how do we define "sex" for someone without access to their medical records. What if they are intersex but aren't aware of that? People are not routinely karyotyped. If we become suddenly very interested in whether a person is intersex or not, every male confessing to have hypospadias will be assigned "intersex" sex without any practical reason whatsoever etc. It is also unclear why do we need to state the sex altogether since Wikipedia is not a medical data library. Le Loy (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikidata is partly a medical data library. We host a lot of data that's of interest to the medical community. Wikidata generally works in a way to allow different people to use it for different purposes. ChristianKl❫ 11:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
What if they are intersex but aren’t aware of that? Then we have no statement. This property is, per the motivation section, for cases where the sex is notably different from the gender, which to me presupposes that the two are known to differ. If someone goes through their entire life without being aware of being intersex, I’d say their sex isn’t notable and we don’t need a statement for it. As for hypospadias, I’m not familiar with the condition, but enwiki says the presence of hypospadias alone is not enough to classify a person as intersex, so I don’t see why that would constitute a “sex” statement either. (I suppose it would be a medical condition (P1050), if publicly known, notable and not in conflict with WD:BLP.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am afraid, there is one big misunderstanding. In many languages is primary meaning of sex or gender (P21) in biological sense (male, female). And the word gender have the psycho-sociological meaning (trans- and others). English maybe now prefer word gender for the first case, but majority of non-english speakers means this word for second case.

It seems to me, there is support for splitting this property, but P21 should stay binary (and biological) (male, female, hermaphrodite) and the new one should be for other cases (trans*, neutral, intersex, genderqueer, etc..) Do you agree? JAn Dudík (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Most Western languages do mean gender in the social sense. Whether you use "he" or "she" to refer to a person is about how you interact with them in a sociological sense. It's important that a data user like Siri can deduce the gender of a person to use the right grammatical forms when speaking about a person. This is an important usecase that any solution shouldn't break. ChristianKl❫ 11:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is clearly a well-intentioned proposal, but I think creating a mechanism to say that someone has sex A but gender B is actually a mistake and a step backward. This proposal fails the most important criterion for a a wiki system, it is not idiot-proof (Q12981895) and would invite abuse. See a much more amenable propsal at Property talk:P21#New proposal, which is I think 80% of where we want to get to.--Pharos (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same meaning in too many Asian languages, if there are some little languages who consider both as different, better to use qualifiers to handle. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support We can't stop to add data because some people thinks that it could be subject of harassment, or because some languages don't have right words for describing the property. --Tinker Bell 04:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose in favour of several more specific properties or community-recommended property-qualifier combination patterns, and possible restriction to nonhumans as discussed above. Both humans and nonhumans have many measurements that collectively constitute sex, and these can contradict or even have little to do with one another (karyotypes were mentioned, but there are also sex-linked genes on the autosomal chromosomes for which sequencing or genotyping is the test, and there are macroanatomical measures as well such as the configuration of genitalia). I concur with the sentiment mentioned that ultimately the number of entities for which any of those measurements would be useful/appropriate for publication is limited (which is not in and of itself a reason to deny property creation, since that presents an opportunity for exhaustive documentation; but is important to keep in mind during discussion). Arlo Barnes (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. While we need to have a certain level of cultural sensitivity towards those cultures which place priority on gender identity and consider biological sex to be a private and mostly irrelevant matter, we can't reasonably duplicate the entire P21 dataset of millions of statements, nor can we just prohibit all data on gender identity or otherwise limit our work to one cultural viewpoint. We can't just take the approach of blood type (P1853) (where part of the world considers it a basic fact about the person, and the rest consider it a private medical matter). Situations where the proposed property would add differences are sufficiently unusual that which we're able to handle with one property without difficulty. The close of a small six-year-old thread does not make consensus, or override all the much larger discussions on the topic since. --Yair rand (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Yair rand: There would not be a need to duplicate the P21 dataset. P21 would simply be renamed "gender", and "sex" would only be used in rare circumstances (notable individual animals, intersex persons, etc.). What larger discussions on this topic would this proposal override? Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Just as the fact that some cultures consider gender to be significant means that we can't universally omit that data, the fact that many cultures consider sex to be significant means that we can't universally omit that data either. We've had endless discussion of this, including much from the discussions surrounding the original change from P21 being labelled just "sex" to "sex or gender". --Yair rand (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose In Polish (Q809) there is no clear distinction between the "gender" and "sex" nouns when it comes to describing person's gender or sex. Simillar to @Esquilo, Wolverène: I do not see how this would help this community. Nadzik (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I am also not sure if discussion with only few opinions (last comment being from 2013) and closed in 2019 counts as en:Consensus decision-making Nadzik (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • We should also remember that splitting "gender" and "sex" may allow trolls to harass intersex people on Wikidata. It would just require to assign to an intersex person this property with "male organism" or "female organism". Nadzik (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nadzik: I don't think your assertion is correct. While there is no native Polish term for gender, it seems the Polish language has borrowed the English term in order to establish such a distinction. Polish Wikipedia has separate articles for pl:Gender and pl:Płeć, and it's easy to find websites in Polish that discuss the difference between the two concepts, such as this. In fact, it seems that the University of Warsaw named "gender" the Word of the Year back in 2013: http://www.slowanaczasie.uw.edu.pl/slowo-roku-2013/. Kaldari (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nadzik: leaving aside the question of whether Polish really has no way to express this distinction (see Kaldari’s comment above), or whether it will stay that way (languages evolve, after all): I don’t think this is a valid argument against the property proposal. Just because Polish, or any language for that matter, doesn’t have separate terms for two concepts, doesn’t mean that we can’t be allowed to distinguish between these concepts at all. For instance, English does not distinguish between human and animal/plant sexes; but because some languages do (see archived discussion), Wikidata has separate items for male (Q6581097) and male organism (Q44148), as well as for female (Q6581072) and female organism (Q43445), even though their English labels can only express that difference by tacking an additional descriptor (“organism”) onto the same base word (“male”/“female”). --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I think the current property is ambigious. It should align with what the source says (or implies) in the cultural context of the source. For better or worse, English speakers have two ways to describe what may be the same thing in other languages. If that is the case, they can pick whichever one is most appropriate. U+1F360 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThis proposal starts with an entirely incorrect premise: that "consensus was reached" in the discussion at Property_talk:P21#Separate_fields_for_'sex'_and_'gender'. However that discussion with only about five participants took place not 'in many years', but in October and November 2013. At that time, P21 was just about 'sex', whatever that meant. In the meantime, there was a much longer discussion at Property_talk:P21#Transgender_.2F_Cisgender_changes with more participants, many viewpoints and aspects and a clear conclusion in Januari 2014, hence after the above, to combine bots aspects in one property P21 named 'gender or sex'. It is I think this proposal has a false start, so I am inclined to vote Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because Kaldari didn't address the issues brought up earlier. The proposal should go back to the talk page. Bever (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I undid the 'closing' of a discussion which was long overdue. Also, I think I agree more with the arguments contra than pro. Certainly agreeing that a sensible way of getting along with this issue is needed, I am not convinced that a new property is the right way.
    1. What was actually wrong with having more than 1 value for a person in one property, using qualifiers, like discussed here and already possible (although a constraint violation message pops up).
    2. Having two properties is not 'foolproof', as somebody above already warned, as many users will confuse both properties and put the data at the wrong place. Also note that other languages than English often use the same word in both meanings, using adjectives or compound nouns when needed. Also I fear that having two properties makes Wikidata more vulnerable for vandalism by people opposing the 'gender ideology' as they call it.
    3. The idea seems to be to use the new property only for people where having different values for sex and gender would be relevant. Not only this could be achieved with qualifiers in P21 as well, it means emphasizing transgender and intersex people as an exception, so it is not a step forward for gender diversity, although it is meant that way. See also this remark at Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT/gender: "that notability criterion would seem to easily skew toward notability of transness and non-notability of cisness".
    4. When a historical person gave birth to a child, it is reasonable to conclude that she was a woman, biologically. The gender identity (as far as that aspect did aspect at the time) might be unknown. For people in recent time, it might be the other way around. Therefore the property 'sex or gender' combines both, so it can be filled for most people.
    5. In fact there are even more than 2 sides to 'sex/gender': gender identification, gender expression, legal gender, chromosomal sex, birth sex, hormonal sex, and having certain organs. Therefore I still tend to think using more than one value (when needed) in one property is the best choice. Bever (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support: No rename. A long transition period would be needed. While we are at it, it might make sense for them to be "sex" and "gender identity". I think we would need a more detailed proposal and guidelines before doing this, hence the weak support. This topic is highly controversial nowadays, and going for it without decent guidelines would result in infinite warring. --MarioGom (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

status of mortal remains[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionstatus of the mortal remains of a assumed dead person
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5); fictional character (Q95074); organism (Q7239); person (Q215627); legendary figure (Q13002315)
Allowed valuesdisappeared (Q83978538); dead (Q83978562) or others, if they appear.
Example 1Almir Custódio de Lima (Q63069565)disappeared (Q83978538) with ref
Example 2Daniel José de Carvalho (Q17413814)disappeared (Q83978538) with ref
Example 3Maria Lúcia Petit (Q10326010) → deprecated: disappeared (Q83978538); normal rank: dead (Q83978562) all with ref
Planned useAll the 430 disappeared and dead people from the Brazilian dictatorship.

Motivation[edit]

This property is important because it points out the situation of the remains of a dead individual (or assumed to be dead individual). Several databases that I have worked on have this information expressed in one way or another, as seen in the examples. Some cases where this is useful are:

  • Individual A has their remains kidnapped from their grave;
  • Individual B fighting against a dictatorship was killed by the Government, that fails to return their mortal remains to the family.

Ederporto (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Status of mortal remains" = "dead" doesn't seem to make sense. Also: how this correlates with cases were individual was buried in X, then relocated to Y, and eventually finally to a mausoleum in Z? And with cases where mortal remains are distributed by a series of places? And presumed to be (also?) in place W?--DarwIn (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Arbnos (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with the complaint about "dead" not making sense for human remains. I mean all human remains are dead (is this a translation issue?)... What other values other than disappeared are we anticipating here?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrokenSegue (talk • contribs) at 16:44, 15 March 2020‎ (UTC).
  • Could we use place of burial (P119)disappeared (Q83978538)? Maybe P119 should get revision, because it is currently called "burial", when instead it could be "location of mortal remains". Burial and cremation often end with mortal remains going to some location. If we talked about location of mortal remains, we could also include more abstract concepts, like (person in sunken)→(location of mortal remains)→(some ocean). I agree that we should have a place to note where bodies go, but I am unsure if we need a new property when perhaps our current one would work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


number of home cases[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionnumber of home cases during a pandemic with self- or mandated quarantine
Data typeQuantity
DomainWikidata:Property proposal/number of home cases
Allowed valuesNon-negative integers (^\d)
Example 12020 COVID-19 pandemic in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (Q87143769) → 3582 (at 2020-03-26)
Example 22020 COVID-19 pandemic in Hauts-de-France (Q87144163) → 1854 (at 2020-03-26)
Example 3MISSING
Robot and gadget jobsnumber of cases (P1603), number of deaths (P1120), number of recoveries (P8010),Wikidata:Property proposal/number of clinical tests

Motivation[edit]

France (SpF) will no longer give, from 26 March 2020, the P1603 number of "total cases" (hospitalised + home) by region every day, but probably only once a week.

while waiting France (SpF) only give every day the number of "hospitalized cases" (number of people hospitalized in hospital).

what do I use as a property in "number of cases" P1603 to attach them?

quantity (P1114) with criteria used (P1013) ?

Or do I have to apply for two new properties :

-number of hospitalized cases -number of home cases--Viruscorona2020 (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--So9q (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment wouldn't the number of home cases the result of number of cases (P1603) minus a propably created property of the number of hospitalized cases? --Mfchris84 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment (but I guess I slightly Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose). It is a good idea, but I also believe that number of cases (P1603) + a qualifier suffices. Perhaps just the qualifier of (P642) pointing to the item home care (Q1642542) or similar would be enough to capture such information. TiagoLubiana (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Mfchris84 and @TiagoLubiana please go to show Q83873593#P1603 thanks--Viruscorona2020 (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not really convinced that starting to use restrictive qualifier (Q61719275) on number of cases (P1603) is a good idea, given the weay the other properties for this have been defined. Using number of cases (P1603) is likely to end up giving users incorrectly contextualized data. --- Jura 06:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: I agree that number of cases (P1603) might get confused and end up being misused. But still on the subject, does this property pass the status for notability? I do not know of sources reporting "home cases". Actually, even official case numbers are not accurate, so perhaps there should be a space for case estimates? number of cases (P1603) nowadays serves both "extimated" and "confirmed" definitions. All these specifics that might be of interest in some cases, but not in others, could be specified in qualifiers. Otherwise we could have a lot of different properties, and I am not sure which one is best. I personally think that the qualifier-based might be more flexible. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
        • @Jura (je traduirai en anglais dès que j'aurais du temps) : oui, si j'ai demandé le "home cases", c'est parce que les sources données par SpF gvt parlent de "retour à domicile" et "retour à la maison" que j'ai traduit en "home cases" peut-être improprement, mais on peut changer en "back to home cases" ou autre. Mais bon, au jour d'aujourd'hui leurs données sont placés dans la propriété "nombre de guérisons" car Jérôme Salomon et Olivier Verlant décrivent le plus souvent les chiffres de rad avec le terme de guérison, alors que certains patients sont rentrés chez eux finir de guérir. --Viruscorona2020 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


number of social media followers[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionnumber of subscribers as indicated on the website, qualify with "point in time" (P) and property for account. For Twitter, use numeric id.
Data typeQuantity
Allowed valuesintegers >1000. Generally, one value per media and calendar year, not more than one per quarter.
Allowed unitsnone
Example 1
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
SourceMedia. If another source is used, add a reference to the statement

Motivation[edit]

It seems that the previous discussions (notably Wikidata:Property proposal/subscribers) haven't really resolved this and we still have problems with storing this data. A series of options are mentioned in Wikidata:Property proposal/subscribers. This is an additional one.

A problem we currently have is that repairs of previous attempts lead to continuous edits of statements that should essentially be static. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 09:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel, OsamaK, Gereon K., SilentSpike, Maxlath: involved in recent discussions/data additions. --- Jura 09:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Should we use string datatype for this? Values would generally be integers and quantity datatype at Wikidata involves substantially more overhead/complications for edits. --- Jura 09:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know if this is a perfect solution, but it's certainly better than the current situation and I'm all for incremental improvement. This solves the most problematic piece of data we currently store as a qualifier on social media statements (really as much as I hate it we almost do just need items for social media accounts if we're going to qualify the qualifiers). It's a pity there's no property constraint for exclusive mandatory qualifiers so we could specify a set of social media identifiers of which one must be added. Also I think it should remain a quantity. --SilentSpike (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you, Jura for pushing things forward. I agree with SilentSpike. This solution provides a neat incremental improvement. I also agree with the proposed once-a-year update frequency.--OsamaK (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Given that this data is frequently changing I would prefer tabular data for it. ChristianKl❫ 16:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @ChristianKl: how would such tables look/work given the granularity of the data, current update patterns and use on the associated item? --- Jura 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I would have one column per social media statement. One row for the type of social media account. One row for the username. One row for each update of the value. This allows for updates for lots of items without producing edits in Wikidata which compete with resources for other edits for the query service. Editing a commons table is a lot cheaper. It could even allow for monthly updates of the values if that's desired. ChristianKl❫ 10:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
        • @ChristianKl: With one table per item (person)? I'm not sure if this is really easier to update (probably not manually) and it wont be queryiable. --- Jura 10:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
          • Updating it doesn't touch Wikidata and while Wikidata is not easily scaleable a file store like WikiCommons is easily scaleable. ChristianKl❫ 11:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
            • The question is how a user from Wikipedia would go about adding that there (about whoever they are interested) and how it's queried. If your argument is just one of theoretical possibility, it's something we can bear in mind for future plans. --- Jura 11:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm interested in this approach also, however I'm not sure one table per item would suffice. You may need one per account with each row reflecting a new point in time at which some piece of data has changed (in this way you could also track changing of verified status, changing of username, etc.). --SilentSpike (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I think it could work for a more limited universe with regular or absent updates. Here people update one or several datapoints at irregular intervals from different sources, typically what Wikidata was designed for. --- Jura 14:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Identifier[edit]

madhhab[edit]

   Under discussion

Motivation[edit]

This is my first time i suggest a property, maybe a Muslim user or any interested user can help me. Ruwaym (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This property, if I understand where you're going with this, seems similar to movement (P135), although that property does not seem to be used with religious subgroups. Perhaps the scope of this property can be readjusted to allow for use with other religious schools of thought? Mahir256 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Please provide examples. Otherwise, why aren't the schools of thoughts values for religion (P140)? ChristianKl❫ 08:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I have added the examples as requested. Thoughts? --Trade (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I explained her. About "why aren't the schools of thoughts values for religion", If you mean we put "maddhab" on same property under religion, (like Q67180122), I guess It is not standard. For example a Muslim religion is "Islam", his maddhab can be "Hanafism", his movement can be "Islamic modernism". I ping @باسم: from Arabic Wikipedia, he knows better. --Ruwaym (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Madhhab should go under Religion naturally, particularly under Islam, like @Ruwaym: said. For Example: A Person's religion would be Islam, his sect would be Sunni, his madhab would be Hanafism.
movement (P135), in Islam, would be to discribe if he is a Salafi or Ash'ari, in other words is to show what theological school or movement he / she belongs toباسم (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@باسم: Most items uses religion (P140) to describe if someone is a salafi or sufi. Do you want this changed? To @Ruwaym:, do you want this property to be limited to persons? Or do you think it should be used on countries, organizations and madrassas as well? --Trade (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Trade you mentioned a good point, Maddhab is all about education ,Traditional at madrassahs, Modern days at universities. So, you changed my mind, This property also can be used for madrassahs, and other Islamic educational institutions. About countries can be used too, like Iran mentioned in it's constitution The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja'farî school [in usul al-Dîn and fiqh], and this principle will remain eternally immutable. Your examples are good, however not famous ones. Also remember for this property, One is not enough, many scholars changed their maddhabs, or madrassahs for all madhhabs. --Ruwaym (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: It's not correct to describe Salafism or Sufism as a religion as in religion (P140). They are not even sects in Islam like Sunnism and Shi'ism, they are schools of thought, so they would fit better with movement (P135), or with their own seperate property. Bestباسم (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@باسم: I'm not saying they are religions, i'm just pointing out how people currently are using the property. We might start a discussion on the project chat about the scope of the 'Religion' property. @Ruwaym:, i have tried to update the proposal to include more famous scholars. --Trade (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
In the Christian context it's common to see subsets of Christianity like Mormonism (Q747802) as being religions. It seems to me like the relationship between Sunni Islam and Islam as a whole is comparable to that of Christianity and Mormonism (Q747802). Do you consider that to be a qualitatively different relationship? If so, what's the nature of the difference?
Enwiki seems to consider Ibadi (Q243551) to be a valid value for the religion of Said bin Sultan (Q506193). In the examples here that is suggested as the mathab of Sulaiman al-Barouni (Q2440021) but not of that of Said bin Sultan (Q506193). What kinds of problems do you see with that modelling decision of enwiki? ChristianKl❫ 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl:I do not know why i added Ẓāhirī (Q140592) as a a valid value for the madhab of Said bin Sultan (Q506193). Since it seems to be wrong i've decided to replace him with someone better known. @باسم: and @Ruwaym: you might wanna view his comment. --Trade (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Differences between Madhhab in Islam and Christian denominations? Well, I can show this map and this article. @Trade:, I can help you for more famous scholar for each maddhab: Muhammad al-Shaybani (Q293612) for Hanafi, Al-Mawardi (Q335635) for Shafi'i, Abu Dawood (Q336558) for Hanbali, Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (Q2973730) for Ja'fari, Idris Imad al-Din (Q7660476) for Isma'ilism and Jābir ibn Zayd (Q6035355) for Ibadi .--Ruwaym (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that the "Sects in the Islamic World" article supports the claim that no correspondence exists here. It says "The principal difference between a madhhab and a denomination as the concept is normally understood (and as denominations exist in theWest) is that a madhhab is not really an organized body."
When we speak about Christian denominations in their role as subclasses of Christianity we are not focusing on them being organized bodies. ChristianKl❫ 13:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: Hey, how is this property feels?!--Ruwaym (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll be okay with it as long as it can be a qualifier to religion (P140) --Trade (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support okay because it not similar to religion (P140)--NEHAOUA (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The religion property solves the use-case well enough and should not be read to be very narrow. ChristianKl❫ 09:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

UEFA referee ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an association football referee at UEFA.com
Representsassociation football referee (Q859528)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainWikidata property for authority control for people (Q19595382), Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637), Wikidata property related to association football (Q23661205)
Allowed values[1-9]\d{0,8}
Example 1Alberto Undiano Mallenco (Q310662)277056
Example 2Daniele Orsato (Q602462)1905010
Example 3Cüneyt Çakır (Q321572)283117
Example 4Szymon Marciniak (Q7665089)250019292
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/coaches/coach=$1/profile/index.html
See alsoTransfermarkt referee ID (P3699), EU-Football.info referee ID (P7435), WorldReferee.com referee ID (P7436), WorldFootball.net referee ID (P6314), Soccerbase referee ID (P7465), PlaymakerStats.com referee ID (P6315)

Motivation[edit]

Provides useful historical information on referees in all UEFA competitions. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I think having two types of persons in the same property would only add confusion. If someone saw the property UEFA coach ID (P7360) on a referee, they might be inclined to remove it thinking it is not meant for a referee. Also, having separate properties allows for a constraint for only association football referee (Q859528). S.A. Julio (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
We have the practice of not making separate properties for the same IDs: Wikidata:Property proposal/BDFutbol manager ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Soccerway coach ID. We only need to rename the property to UEFA person ID and delete separate coaches property. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like Сидик из ПТУ. we need to rename P7360 and use it for referees too. - yona b (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Riksdagen person guid[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a Riksdagen member or other person on riksdagen.se with format UUID
RepresentsSwedish Riksdag database (Q21592569)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5), primarily members of Riksdagen, Swedish MEP
Allowed values[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12} (Universally Unique Identifier (Q195284))
Example 1Stefan Löfven (Q2740012)ac737989-5fa0-44bc-ad69-c1a0ddba71bb
Example 2Carl Bildt (Q52922)d7c317f1-83e4-11d4-ae60-0050040c9b55
Example 3Fredrik Reinfeldt (Q52920)d7c31d61-83e4-11d4-ae60-0050040c9b55
Sourcehttp://data.riksdagen.se/personlista
Planned useits used today in Riksdagen person-ID (P1214) and will be used in the future in the same way
Number of IDs in sourceits all Swedish Parlament members since 1971, ca. 5000 people
Expected completeness100%
Formatter URLhttp://data.riksdagen.se/personlista/?iid=$1&utformat=html
See alsoRiksdagen person-ID (P1214) with format \d{10,13}

Motivation[edit]

the Swedish Government are changing identifiers to a guid and told us to update Wikidata see task T235521. My intention is to convert the old ids to the new using the old property Riksdagen person-ID (P1214) see alsoT235521. If that is not ok we need a new property thats why this request...

I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose creating this property and suggest that we should just change values on Riksdagen person-ID (P1214) (see T235521 and discussion Property_talk:P1214) but user @Jura1: insits so lets take the discussion here. Let me know what you decide. @Larske, Yger: do you have a second opinion - Salgo60 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lavallen set up Riksdagen person-ID (P1214) five years ago and this has since been made available here. As most of his contributions these have proven to be sound. The data isn't "wrong" and shouldn't be deleted, merely because the original website is no longer available. --- Jura 00:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The original website is available and will be so I guess as long as Sweden (Q34) exists (see xml with oldid in <intressent_id> ? 0622185335615 and new id in <sourceid> d7c317f1-83e4-11d4-ae60-0050040c9b55 ), but the original website had a technical debt using short ids and is now moving into guids... they will support both ids for the next 2-3 years. For me it doesnt matter more than I have to write this proposal and wait some weeks for decision. Maybe we need to change some templates using WD properties...- Salgo60 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

JakobVoss (talk) ClaudiaMuellerBirn (talk) Criscod (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Pintoch (talk) Ettorerizza (talk) Ls1g (talk) Pasleim (talk) Hjfocs (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC) PKM (talk) 2le2im-bdc (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC) ElanHR (talk) User:Epìdosis (talk) Tris T7 TT me UJung (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Envlh (talk) SixTwoEight (talk) User:SCIdude (talk)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Data Quality do you have any philosophy/opinions if we should always create new identifiers when a system is changing identifiers - Salgo60 (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me a relatively pragmatic issue: Is there a stakeholder that benefits from retaining the old IDs? If yes they should obviously stay, if no, I would see it as sensible to drop/overwrite them, to avoid future confusions, and not clutter Wikidata with irrelevant content. Ls1g (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Adding a value with the new GUID makes sense. And we should set the other value as deprecated. Ainali (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Unless the identifier was irrelevant in the first place, I think it should be preserved. Users who did use it can continue to use it to find equivalents or lookup pages in the internet archive. We don't delete or overwrite identifiers because Google or some government takes content offline. --- Jura 17:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree with the comments mentioned above, and using the rank to signal the validity of the values is very useful. Cristina Sarasua (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree. We just need to bear in mind that Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank doesn't support deprecation in the case here. --- Jura 10:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --- Jura 16:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Artprice artist ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionID of an artist in Artprice
RepresentsArtprice (Q2865858)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman
Allowed values\d+/[a-z-]+
Example 1Mary Jane Derby (Q88119550)195700/mary-jane-derby
Example 2Vincent van Gogh (Q5582)11598/vincent-gogh-van
Example 3Erwin Olaf (Q1241051)46838/erwin-olaf
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source730359
Formatter URLhttps://www.artprice.com/artist/$1
Robot and gadget jobspotentially Mix'n'Match

Motivation[edit]

This website provides a biography for each people, example

Previous proposal: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/43#Artprice_artist_ID GZWDer (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Geneanet URL(s)[edit]

Geneanet is one of the most popular French-speaking genealogical websites; hence VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC).

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment not opposed but not convinced yet. We already have Geneastar person ID (P8094) (a sub-base of Geneanet for known people, this property is largely unused by the way), do we really need this property? And is this really an identifier? The url looks more like search results. Finally, is Geneanet really a "worthy" and serious source? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    Hello VIGNERON. Indeed we've Geneastar; but I think it may be useful having a broader database too (for less-known but nevertheless notable people, e. g.).
    We also have properties with URL datatypes, that doesn't strictly correspond to an "identifier": just think to Academia.edu profile URL (P5715) (@Thierry Caro: who initiated it).
    Regarding reliability, I would say that it depends on the genealogist's rigour (for instance Christophe de Montvallon, owner "Wikifrat", always cites his sources). But no more, and no less, than Geneastar person ID (P8094), WikiTree person ID (P2949), Roglo person ID (P7929) (and so on).
    Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Vingeron ; particularly, the url examples are not identifiers, but queries. I don't think this is stable enough to fill a property. Plus, two other questions : 1. Is it normal to have several entries (de Lesquen example)? 2. On which "instance of" (P31) items this property should apply ? only human beings or also families, family names, etc.? GAllegre (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    Hi GAllegre, see above for VIGNERON's comments.
    Even if their scheme is quite unusual, URLs seem perennial.
    Yes it is, given that there is one entry per family tree. And this person is present on several ones.
    Lastly, this applies only to individuals (as far as I know).
    Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC).
    Thanks for your answer, but for Academia.edu profile URL (P5715), even if it's an URL, it seems more a permanent one than a query like your examples with Geneanet. On my second question, I assume you want to apply this property strictly on persons. I'm not used to Geneanet, but I think a bit difficult to use it if there's no identifier strictly speaking, and particularly no single entry for a given person. GAllegre (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

ChristianKl (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Melderick (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton Jklamo (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Sam Wilson Gap9551 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Jrm03063 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Salgo60 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Egbe Eugene (talk) Eugene233 (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc Gamaliel (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Pablo Busatto (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Theklan (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC) SM5POR (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Genealogy. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

BioLexSOE ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a person in the Biographical Dictionary of the History of South-Eastern Europe (Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas)
RepresentsBiographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas (Q33599511)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameterde:vorlage:BioLexSOE
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Vlad Tepes (Q43715)[3]
Example 2Skanderbeg (Q160614)[4]
Example 3Mehmed the Conqueror (Q34503)[5]
Example 4Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall (Q89546)[6]
Sourcehttps://biolex.ios-regensburg.de/
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useAdding IDs to Wikidata through Quickstatements, comparing source and Wikidata entries, using IDs for histropedia visualization
Number of IDs in source1526
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.biolex.ios-regensburg.de/BioLexViewview.php?ID=$1
See alsoP7902

Motivation[edit]

SORRY! PLEASE SUPPORT [7]. Unfortunately I pressed the Publish button.

Das Biographische Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas ist das einzige grenzüberschreitende biographische Referenzwerk für Personen der südosteuropäischen Nationen vom Bosporus bis zur Slowakei insbesondere auch Persönlichkeiten der drei historischen südosteuropäischen Reiche (Byzanz, Osmanisches Reich, Habsburgermonarchie). Es enthält zertifizierte Biogramme zu Akteuren vom Mittelalter bis 1945. Der direkte Zugriff von Wikidata auf die Informationen des mittlerweile als biographische Datenbank vorliegenden Lexikons wäre sehr hilfreich für alle an Ost- und Südosteuropa Interessierten und würde sicher spannende Vergleichsmöglichkeiten zu anderen biographischen Ressourcen ermöglichen.

The Biographical Dictionary of the History of Southeastern Europe is the only cross-border biographical reference work for persons of the Southeast European nations from the Bosporus to Slovakia, in particular also for personalities of the three historical Southeast European empires (Byzantium, Ottoman Empire, Habsburg Monarchy). It contains certified biographies of actors from the Middle Ages to 1945. The direct access from Wikidata to the information of the source, now available as a biographical database, would be very helpful for all those interested in Eastern and Southeastern Europe and would certainly provide exciting opportunities for comparison with other (biographical) resources. Hans (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

ID Prix de Lausanne[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionPrix de Lausanne candidate number
RepresentsPrix de Lausanne (Q673014)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaininstance of (P31) - human (Q5) + participant in (P1344) - Prix de Lausanne (Q673014)
Allowed valuesannée de participation + numéro de dossard
Example 1Carlos Acosta (Q932718) -> 1990-000 (à compléter par le bon numéro)
Example 2Gillian Murphy (Q445292) -> 1995-000 (à compléter par le bon numéro)
Example 3Miyako Yoshida (Q3069737) -> 1983-000 (à compléter par le bon numéro)
Example 4Frédéric Olivieri (Q91617005) -> 1977-000 (à compléter par le bon numéro)
Sourcehttps://www.prixdelausanne.org/
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.prixdelausanne.org/winners/$1 à voir avec le Prix de Lausanne si c'est possible de remplacer par https://www.prixdelausanne.org/candidates/$1

Motivation[edit]

Demande en cours de travail, on doit affiner la forme des ID et voir comment compléter les URL avec tou·te·s les participant·e·s (et pas seulement les Winners).

Les lauréat·e·s du concours de danse du Prix de Lausanne sont listé·e·s sur la page web du Prix de Lausanne (https://www.prixdelausanne.org/community/prize-winners/) avec un petit descriptif. Comme d'autres systèmes (photos, vidéos) doivent interagir avec ces données, nous aimerions compléter les données de Wikidata relatives à ces personnes en ajoutant leur identifiant de participation. Cet identifiant aura la forme de l'année de participation, suivie du numéro de dossard. Gilliane (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Absolute Games person ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a person at the Absolute Games website
RepresentsAbsolute Games (Q3918839)
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values[a-z\-\d]+
Example 1Jesper Kyd (Q316449)jesper-kyd
Example 2Dan Houser (Q935340)dan-houser
Example 3Cris Velasco (Q5185888)cris-velasco
Example 4Leslie Benzies (Q6530643)leslie-benzies
Sourcehttps://ag.ru/creators
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://ag.ru/creators/$1
See alsoProperty proposal/Absolute Games game ID, Property proposal/Absolute Games developer and publisher IDs

Motivation[edit]

A video game online database. One of the most famous and comprehensive Russian-language websites of this kind. INS Pirat (t | c) 20:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Trade (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I actually overlooked that it's now just a Russian replica of English-language https://rawg.io. Though, that website doesn't have own Wikidata properties as well, and the team of its developers is Russian. The "old" AG.ru game database (it includes some 34,000 games, and no pages on companies or people) was archived here. So what should be done to these property proposals, what do you think, Trade? --INS Pirat (t | c) 21:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ΛΧΣ21 Vacation9 John F. Lewis (talk) Bene* talk #Reaper (talk) Josve05a (talk) Chris Mason (talk) FunPika Arthena (talk) Wangxuan8331800 (talk) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) Nicereddy (talk) Syum90 (talk) DrakeCaiman (talk) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) Andreasburmeister (talk) Danrok (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Macrike (talk) Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Mohammed Adam (T) SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ZebaX2010 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Sight Contamination (talk) Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Santer (talk) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Diggr (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Cwf97 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Esteban16 (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Peterchanws Brasig Le Yota de Mars YotaMoteuchi (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Coloradohusky CptViraj BugWarp ʂɤɲ User:Nw520 Cynde Moya Dexxor PaulGorduiz106 Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Video games --Misc (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Cwf97 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2020 (EST)

ModelHub ID[edit]

   Done: Modelhub ID (P8280) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionidentifier for a porn performer or erotic model on ModelHub
RepresentsModelhub (Q84862536)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpornographic actor (Q488111)
ExampleNSFW:
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Formatter URLhttps://www.modelhub.com/$1
Motivation

ModelHub is a PornHub spin-off that allows pornographic actors and adult models to share and sell pictures directly to their fanbase

This site is very popular with pornographic actors and would improve our coverage of the adult industry--Trade (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

AusStage person ID[edit]

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for a person at AusStage
RepresentsAusStage (Q4822836)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Edward Albee (Q219420)488
Example 2Alan Ayckbourn (Q712848)132
Example 3Neil Armfield (Q6988244)308
Example 4Robyn Archer (Q7353572)774
Sourcehttps://www.ausstage.edu.au/pages/browse/contributors/
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source5,121
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.ausstage.edu.au/pages/contributor/$1
See alsoProperty proposal/AusStage venue ID, Property proposal/AusStage organization ID, Property proposal/AusStage work ID

Motivation[edit]

The Australian Live Performance Database funded by the Australian Research Council. INS Pirat (t | c) 07:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(See also Australian Live Performance Database ID (Q68102725). I suppose the item was created erroneously, on the assumption that it could serve as a property) --INS Pirat (t | c) 08:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

OnlyFans ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a person on OnlyFans
Representshuman (Q5)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainOnlyFans (Q61707579)
ExampleNSFW:
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Formatter URLhttps://www.onlyfans(.)com/$1
Motivation

subscription content service used by more than 20 million people. Mostly used by adult actors and internet personalities.

To create the property we would have to get OnlyFans removed from the global blacklist. At least while the property is being created. Basically the same thing we did when we created the Pornhub ID--Trade (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@billinghurst:--Trade (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Some technical notes: creation of the property only (without adding the formatter) does not require modifying spam blacklist. Adding a working formatter URL does not require modifying spam blacklist either, but some trick on formatter would be used. See testwikidata:Property:P95442.--GZWDer (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I# that how we did it with the Pornhub ID?--Trade (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Not certain why I am pinged, I have no interest in the property.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Emmys person ID[edit]

   Under discussion
RepresentsEmmy Award (Q123737)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values[a-z\-]+
Example 1Cher (Q12003)cher
Example 2Betty White (Q373895)betty-white
Example 3Julie Giroux (Q6308195)julie-giroux
Example 4Robert Halmi Sr. (Q23562833)robert-halmi-sr
Sourcehttps://www.emmys.com/awards/nominations/award-search
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source30,000+
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.emmys.com/bios/$1

Motivation[edit]

Besides the nominations, some pages also include the biographical notes (see examples 2 and 4). INS Pirat (t | c) 14:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Archivio Storico Ricordi person ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier of a person in the Archivio Storico Ricordi digital collection
Representshuman (Q5)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpeople
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Giuseppe Verdi (Q7317)1
Example 2Vincenzo Bellini (Q170209)424
Example 3Nicola Tacchinardi (Q644420)1645
Example 4Margherita Zenoni (Q64876003)2635
Sourcehttps://www.digitalarchivioricordi.com/it/people/A
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.digitalarchivioricordi.com/it/people/display/$1

Motivation[edit]

Airon90 ValterVB Alexmar983 Epìdosis Pietro Jura Beta16 Yiyi Sannita Camelia Massimo Sentruper Pierpao Marcok CristianNX Daniele Pugliesi (WMIT) AttoRenato Parma1983 Aborruso Sabas88 Lalupa DnaX Fausta Samaritani AlessioMela Patafisik Malore Jtorquy Nicholas Gemini Civvì Devbug Afnecors Susanna Giaccai FabC FeltriaUrbsPicta Horcrux Uomovariabile TriggerOne Luckyz

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Italy Archive database regarding Italian personalities by Archivio Storico Ricordi (Q3621644), a famous archive regarding music, now starting a GLAM project. Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course, great database! I will try to prepare the Mix'n'match catalog. --Epìdosis 20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: very useful --Sentruper (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Geneanet genealogist ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a genealogist (whether professional or not) on Geneanet
RepresentsGeneanet (Q3100478)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Julien Cassaigne (Q46994780)cassaigne
Example 2Gwendal Rannou (Q78161745)gwnrnn
Example 3MISSING
Planned use 
Formatter URLhttps://www.geneanet.org/profil//$1


92.184.98.227 18:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Brest ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki-Brest
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Q69664766Hyacinthe_Martin_Bizet,_Maire_de_Brest
Example 2Victor Pierre Le Gorgeu (Q3557509)Victor_Le_Gorgeu
Example 3Nathalie Lemel (Q2706181)Nathalie_Le_Mel
Formatter URLhttp://www.wiki-brest.net/index.php/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Wiki-Narbonne ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki-Narbonne
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Louis Madaule (Q3262578)Louis_MADAULE
Example 2Michel Moynier (Q3310421)Michel_MOYNIER
Example 3Hubert Mouly (Q3142073)Hubert_MOULY
Formatter URLhttp://www.wiki-narbonne.fr/index.php?title=$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Les pages les plus populaires de ce site n'ont pas de description. Les autres pages observées tiennent du bric à brac en terme de contenu. Une unique modification durant les 30 derniers jours. Le site contient 1 693 "véritables articles" d'après les statistiques du site. La page d'accueil mentionne "Le site est propriétaire exclusif de la structure et du contenu." alors que le footer contient une licence libre. Pas possibilité de contribuer (impossible de se créer un compte). Un petit wiki, avec une version de MediaWiki qui date du 30 avril 2007, bientôt mort ? Manu1400 (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Manu (in a nutshell : too small and not enough activity). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Niort ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki-Niort
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1André Texier (Q95874071)Andr%C3%A9_TEXIER
Example 2Arthur Taire (Q95874859)TAIRE_Arthur_(Ancien_Mus%C3%A9e_de_Niort)
Example 3Pierre Moinot (Q1235443)MOINOT_Pierre
Formatter URLhttp://www.wiki-niort.fr/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Manu1400 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Pas-de-Calais ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki Pas-de-Calais
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Jules Catoire (Q3188475)Jules_Catoire
Example 2Nicolas François Enlart (Q24090900)Nicolas_Enlart_(1760-1842)
Example 3Bernard Chochoy (Q2897686)[8]
Formatter URLhttp://www.wikipasdecalais.fr/index.php?title=$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Wiki-Rennes ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki-Rennes
RepresentsWiki-Rennes (Q69029593)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Nathalie Appéré (Q2920825)Nathalie_App%C3%A9r%C3%A9
Example 2Henri Fréville (Q3131134)Henri_Fr%C3%A9ville
Example 3Daniel Delaveau (Q3013924)Daniel_Delaveau
Formatter URLhttp://www.wiki-rennes.fr/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

  • Hesitating between Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral and Symbol support vote.svg Support. See also comment by Manu on Wikidata:Property proposal/Wiki-Narbonne ID, Wiki-Brest is bigger but not really active these day. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment is "external id" the correct datatype for this? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pymouss (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Those are Mediawiki title pages, not permanent IDs. They can be renamed without warning. -Ash Crow (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikimanche ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wikimanche
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Philippe Gosselin (Q3379940)Philippe_Gosselin
Example 2Stéphane Travert (Q3502105)St%C3%A9phane_Travert
Example 3Bertrand Sorre (Q30390636)Bertrand_Sorre
Formatter URLhttps://www.wikimanche.fr/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

  • Hesitating between Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral and Symbol support vote.svg Support. See also comment by Manu on Wikidata:Property proposal/Wiki-Narbonne ID, Wiki-Brest is bigger but not really active these day. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment is "external id" the correct datatype for this? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Anjou ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on Wiki-Anjou
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainall
Example 1Augustine Girault-Lesourd (Q95879252)Augustine_Girault-Lesourd
Example 2Ludovic Alleaume (Q3266100)Ludovic_Alleaume
Example 3Germaine Canonne (Q95878750)Germaine_Canonne
Formatter URLhttps://www.wiki-anjou.fr/index.php/$1

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

  • Hesitating between Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral and Symbol support vote.svg Support. See also comment by Manu on Wikidata:Property proposal/Wiki-Narbonne ID, Wiki-Brest is bigger but not really active these day. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment is "external id" the correct datatype for this? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Scholars Strategy Network ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a person in the Scholars Strategy Network
RepresentsScholars Strategy Network (Q17092920)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values[a-z\-]+
Example 1Alex Piquero (Q27058048)alex-piquero
Example 2Keith Humphreys (Q43401810)keith-humphreys
Example 3Joshua Inwood (Q81283729)joshua-inwood
Example 4Samara Klar (Q91596548)samara-klar
Sourcehttps://scholars.org/connect-scholar
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source1800+
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://scholars.org/scholar/$1

Motivation[edit]

An academic association. Among other things, the profile pages include the mass media publications. INS Pirat (t | c) 22:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

ICP artist ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an artist at the International Center of Photography
RepresentsInternational Center of Photography (Q636942)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainphotographer (Q33231)
Allowed values[\p{Ll}\-]+
Example 1Ansel Adams (Q60809)ansel-adams
Example 2André Kertész (Q241754)andré-kertész
Example 3Gertrude Käsebier (Q271918)gertrude-käsebier
Example 4Brassaï (Q354804)brassaï-gyula-halász
Sourcehttps://www.icp.org/artists,
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source400+
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/$1

Motivation[edit]

There are 401 entries with biographies (listed in the source provided above) and maybe up to 2,000 or more of others (e.g., [9], [10], [11]). INS Pirat (t | c) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Name[edit]

Profession[edit]