Shortcuts: WD:PP/GEN, WD:PP/Generic

Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

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

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 (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 2018/11.

Contents

Generic properties[edit]

reference has role[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionrole, or specific nature, of the given reference
Representsreference (Q121769)
Data typeItem
Domainreferences
Allowed valueslimited list of allowed values
ExampleAS PART OF REFERENCE → first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864)
Robot and gadget jobsconvert existing uses of P31 as a reference to use the new property
See also

Motivation[edit]

We currently have about 50,000 cases where instance of (P31) is used as a property in a reference, rather than as a main statement. See queries: tinyurl.com/y78odkdu (counts of values), tinyurl.com/y8owabzc (examples). The use on e.g. Q101538#P225 is typical.

In my opinion, use of P31 in this way is ugly and confusing -- IMO it would be better if P31 was only used for its main purpose, as a direct statement on an item giving its nature.

Use of P31-on-references is similar to the way P31 once used also to be used as a qualifier. But those uses have now everywhere been removed and replaced with subject has role (P2868) and object has role (P3831).

P31-on-references is currently doing some important work. In particular, the #1 value of P31-on-references, first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864), to be able to indicate that the reference in question contained the first description and definition of a taxon is extremely valuable and important to be able to highlight for taxonomic references.

To me it therefore makes sense to propose a new drop-in replacement "reference has role" for P31-on-references, as a specific property to take over this function, which is different from the normal use of P31; and which would allow a constraint to limit acceptable values to an agreed controlled vocabulary. -- Jheald (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

99of9
Abbe98
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
MargaretRDonald
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Tubezlob
RaboKarbakian
Circeus
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy -- Jheald (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Appears to me, a relatively inexperienced Wikidata-er, to fill a niche role. If/when created, could instance of (P31) be software-restricted from being placed in references, to avoid confusion & accidental placement? —Tom.Reding (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The software wouldn't completely prevent it, but it would register a constraint violation, and place a warning error sign next to it. Jheald (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is not an isolated proposal: publication in which this scientific name was established also deals with this issue, but proposes to move this to a statement. Since there are so many cases for this, and likely to become more, a separate property (making this a statement) seems well justified. The qualifier "first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864)," looks quite awkward to me (also wrong: it is the establishing of a name that matters here, not the description): if there are three references listed, will the software that reads in data be able to determine what reference this qualifier belongs to? A separate property would make this unnecessary. - Brya (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Brya: I don't see the two proposals as necessarily in conflict. Firstly, there are other reasons why one might want to annotate a reference: establishing a taxon is only one example. Secondly, even if there was a separate statement for when the scientific statement was established, one might still want to note of a reference that it was the originating paper, or the statement that redefined the taxon, or some other notable thing about the paper. But it would be a good thing to get rid of the current P31s.
As to your technical question, the annotation becomes part of the reference (as the present uses of P31 do). It is therefore uniquely associated with a single reference, just as much as the properties "stated in" or "volume" or "page" would be. There is no danger of crosstalk with any other reference. Jheald (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, on this last point, I had realized that the danger of software reading it out wrong was quite limited. It will still be confusing to the reader. - Brya (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brya, I think this proposal makes queries like that a little bit more understandable. I'm not really happy with the creation of publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326). --Succu (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Succu, I understand that switching to publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326) would involve a lot of edits (some fifty thousand items being involved). But there is an even larger number of items involved which don't yet have an original publication attached (much, much larger), so it is worth taking time to reconsider before taking on that larger number. Having a property like P5326 is much more user-friendly. - Brya (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
This add (made by Jheald) would be a perfect usage of type of reference (P3865). For my concerns please see below (type <> role). --Succu (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864) seems to me qualitatively different from our existing usage of type of reference (P3865). ChristianKl❫ 21:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

API endpoint[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionbase URL of a web service
Data typeURL
Domaindata set (Q1172284), web service (Q193424)
Example 1Wikidata (Q2013)https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php (no standard protocol)
Example 2Library of Congress (Q131454) → "unknown"
qualifier described at URL (P973) https://libraryofcongress.github.io/data-exploration/
Example 3Library of Congress (Q131454)http://lx2.loc.gov:210/LCDB
qualifier protocol (P2700) Search/Retrieve via URL (Q337367)
Example 4GitHub (Q364)https://api.github.com/graphql
qualifier protocol (P2700)
qualifier described at URL (P973) https://developer.github.com/v4/
Example 5GitHub (Q364) API → https://api.github.com (no standard protocol)
qualifier file format (P2701) JavaScript Object Notation (Q2063)
Sourcewebsites of each item and third-party directories such as https://www.programmableweb.com/apis/directory
See alsoSPARQL endpoint (P5305), web feed URL (P1019), URL (P2699)

Motivation

Specify API endpoints to access databases via web services. Standard protocols can be added with qualifier protocol (P2700) and link to API documentation with qualifier described at URL (P973). This property was also discussed as part of Wikidata:Property proposal/SPARQL endpoint. API endpoints can already be specified with URL (P2699) and qualifier protocol (P2700) but many endpoints don't follow a standard protocol and it's more convenient to query endpoints without qualifier. -- JakobVoss (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Symbol support vote.svg Support (but please don't support your own proposal - it makes it clearer to assess at a glance if there is consensus) − Pintoch (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose duplicates the existing property proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/48#P2699. I don't think it can work work as intended by the proposer ("it's more convenient to query endpoints without qualifier."). Maybe it's just that the use case isn't specified.
--- Jura 06:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me: you just argued the opposite at Wikidata:Property proposal/SPARQL endpoint -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think I did, but it's possible that I just don't understand your usecase. As you haven't given it, that seems normal. So what do you want to do with this property that you can't do with the one proposed for the same at Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/48#P2699. Please include a sample query and application.
    --- Jura 04:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support - Bit sad that we already have SPARQL endpoint (P5305), because this seems to be much more versatile. Husky (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support - I actually like that we have SPARQL endpoint (P5305) as well, because I think that a SPARQL endpoint has particularly strong relevance for people working with Wikidata. But I do think this property is a useful distinction over generic URL (P2699) -- an API for data extraction is a very specific sort of URL, that it is useful to separate from other sorts of URLs the site may offer; and the API URL statements are already going to be quite complicated, with quite a lot of potential qualifiers flying around. It's a lot cleaner to be able to consider them separately, without them being muddled together with all sorts of other URLs, with all sorts of other role-specific qualifiers. Jheald (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As noted above, this duplicates URL (P2699), whose documentation should be clarified. It may, though, be useful to have a new property with an $1 component. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: More accurately, it's a specialisation of P2699 rather than a duplication. This property is proposed to segregate off a specific subset of things currently loaded on the reserve backstop property URL (P2699). Jheald (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 07:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support API endpoints are offered by web services to interact with or extract information, and it's specialized as feed URL or SPARQL endpoint --Sabas88 (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Worldm99 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

date of release[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe date that something became available to a wider audience in some way
Representspublication (Q732577), sort of
Data typePoint in time
Domainartificial entity (Q16686448)?
Example 1Portal 2 (Q279446) → 19 April 2011
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useI'm not doing this for myself; that's not how it's supposed to work
See alsopublication date (P577)

Motivation

Yes, I know, publication date (P577) already exists.

publication date (P577) is currently used for both real dates (when the secondary sources say a film was released) and made-up dates (the date on the cover of the magazine, which is actually incorrect because half the articles were published on their website the month before). This property would be for the real dates. This would be useful for data analysis, information published in magazines and journals (see my comments at Wikidata:Project chat#Modelling a publication schedule), and biological classification (see EncycloPetey's comments at Wikidata:Project chat#publication date vs inception (in general)). In short, having the actual date information was disseminated instead of a made-up date is useful sometimes because one of them is factual, and occasionally some other information (like the naming of a species) depends on the small difference between those dates.

This would replace or duplicate publication date (P577) where it is verified with secondary sources that the date is real, and would be added alongside publication date (P577) where it is verified that the stated date is not real. Jc86035 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I question what is meant by "real" dates here. publication date (P577) is necessary for the stated date of publication of a work even if the stated date is not the actual date. While issues of priority in biological classification rely upon the actual releases date, bibliographical needs require the stated date of publication printed on the materials. We can't says that one property supplants the other. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: For brevity and at the risk of making the proposal seem a bit incoherent, a "real" date for the purposes of those two paragraphs is one which is set in reality – the "actual" release date. I misused "supplant"; I meant "supplement". Jc86035 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Extra granulated item[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionExtra granulated item
RepresentsWikimedia page outside the main knowledge tree (Q17379835)
Data typeItem
Example 1Abbotsbury (Q306685)Abbotsbury (Q24665923)
Example 2Melle (Q20177)Melle (Q30027441)
Example 3UFO (Q225344)Ufo (Q12340062)
Planned usemainly for Ljsbot articles that make an unusual distinction
Robot and gadget jobsBots can start by changing from duplicate or said to be the same.
See alsosaid to be the same as (P460)

Motivation

So that over granular item aren't marked as Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) or said to be the same as (P460), see User talk:Jheald#Lsjbot and Wikimedia duplicated page and search the project chant for cebwiki. This avoids cluttering them up with the "complete" duplicates. While it is clear in this example one if for the settlement and one for the unit, most other projects just have 1 article. Lucywood (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think I understand the intent here, but I'm not sure how this really improves the situation - is the idea to have some mechanism for distinguishing items we might want to keep from duplicate items that are basically irrelevant that we should try to remove (by merging on cebwiki for instance)? We do have things like facet of (P1269) or part of (P361) if one is somehow contained in the other. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    The intention here is mainly for items that we generally don't have 2 separate items for but we have to because 1 project makes a distinction (like the UFO DAB page for example). It wasn't just to get rid of ceb articles, of which many should be kept but some are non notable or even don't really exist. Lucywood (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I can quote a different noncebuano example! All languages treat the Winnipeg Jets (now Manitoba Moose (Q1474448)) and Montréal Canadiens (now Laval Rocket (Q27527454)) version of the St. John's IceCaps (Q2297053) as the same franchise, except for French and german, who spin out the Canadiens version as St. John’s IceCaps (2015–2017) (Q19951423). Circeus (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've run into a few cases of this. While some instances may be good matches for partially coincident with (P1382) instead, not all of them are, and having this to deal with the specific case of a wiki or two granulating differently seems a good idea. Circeus (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

lexeme of property constraint[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to define a property constraint in combination with P2302
Data typeLexeme
Examplesimilar to P2305
See alsoitem of property constraint (P2305): qualifier to define a property constraint in combination with P2302

exception to constraint (lexeme)[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionlexeme that is an exception to the constraint, qualifier to define a property constraint in combination with P2302
Data typeLexeme
Examplesimilar to P2303
See alsoexception to constraint (P2303): item that is an exception to the constraint, qualifier to define a property constraint in combination with P2302


Motivation

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) – work account, mainly for development discussions
Jarekt - mostly interested in properties related to Commons
MisterSynergy
John Samuel
Sannita
Yair rand
Jon Harald Søby
Pasleim
Jura
PKM
ChristianKl
Sjoerddebruin
Salgo60
Fralambert
Manu1400
Was a bee
Malore
Ivanhercaz
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Pizza1016
Ogoorcs
CennoxX
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

Supposedly we would need to adapt to the new namespace. Forms might need the same. Feel free to add above.
--- Jura 09:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment a lexeme version of exception to constraint (P2303) could make sense, but do you have any uses in mind for “lexeme of property constraint”? Lexemes as constraint parameters? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Cold you add these constraint to some property? This makes debugging more simple. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I implemented these constraints, but have no time to execute full testing. Please notify me if something goes wrong. The nearest update is in progress already. It will fail with "unsupported constraint" error. The next update must produce appropriate result. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, why are the labels of those constraint types so inconsistent both with each other (“lexeme requires” vs. “required by this lexeme”) and with all other constraint types (typically end in “… constraint”)? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ivan A. Krestinin, Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Thanks! I will check the reports once updated.
    (a) For both, I think several values should be possible, especially as they can easily evolve. In the meantime, I also added the second constraint to Han character in this lexeme (P5425) with two values.
    (b) The check could easily apply to statements added on forms (or senses once available). It might take some time to dig up samples.
    The labels should indeed be improved, especially as all other values include "constraint" in the English label ;)
    --- Jura 13:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ it works! on constraint reports. There are currently five properties using it. Thanks.
    --- Jura 23:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

relative time[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionsigned time difference between two entities, the other entity being the one indicated by the [ID OF THE OTHER PROPERTY] statement with the same rank and qualifiers (negative value indicates the other entity occurs later)
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Allowed unitsany time units
Example 1Easter − 47 days (Q14914941) → −47 days
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useaddition to the Easter ±n days items
See alsopoint in time (P585), [ID OF THE OTHER PROPERTY]

Motivation

See the section below; this property does not make any sense without the other. Jc86035 (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

reference time[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe entity with which [ID OF THE OTHER PROPERTY], with the same rank and qualifiers, indicates a time difference
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesitem that has a point in time, or item with a Wikidata property (P1687) statement (in reference to the statement(s) for that property)
Example 1Easter − 47 days (Q14914941)date of Easter (Q51224536)
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useaddition to the Easter ±n days items
See alsopoint in time (P585), [ID OF THE OTHER PROPERTY]

Motivation

Currently the items listed at Help:Easter related dates are not actually formally linked. This and future subproperties could be useful for other recurring things like record charts, but I didn't want to propose lots of relative equivalents to existing date properties without any consensus that there should be relative time properties. The reasons two properties are needed are because two different value datatypes are needed (the time and the other item), and to ensure that relationships can also be stated with both properties as qualifiers. Jc86035 (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it should be a qualifier of your proposing "relative time" property, because there can be mulitiple relative date in one item. And the name can be simply "reference date". --Okkn (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not use the general property relative to (P2210)?--GZWDer (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@GZWDer, Okkn: If relative to (P2210) were used, it wouldn't be possible to use relative date/time properties as qualifiers themselves, because qualifiers can't have their own qualifiers. I would be fine with calling the second property "reference date"/"reference time". If there are multiple "relative times", then presumably they are distinguished using properties, qualifiers and rank, so there could be one matching "reference time" for each statement or qualifier; if a "relative start time" property were to be created, it would need a matching "start time reference time". Jc86035 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think "time index" works fine for this.
    --- Jura 16:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nepalicoi (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

copyright status[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptioncopyright status for any work of art or intellectual creation
Representscopyright status (Q50424085)
Data typeItem
DomainAll elements under creative work (Q17537576) e.g. photograph (Q125191), painting (Q3305213), literary work (Q7725634), etc.
Allowed valuespublic domain (Q19652) / copyrighted (Q50423863)
Example 1Atomic Cloud Rises Over Nagasaki (Q55437339)public domain (Q19652)
Example 2One Thousand and One Nights (Q8258)public domain (Q19652)
Example 3Guernica (Q175036)copyrighted (Q50423863)
Example 4Mona Lisa (Q12418)public domain (Q19652)
Example 5Gutenberg Bible (Q158075)public domain (Q19652)
Example 6Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q102438)copyrighted (Q50423863)

Motivation

Currently license (P275) is used, but public domain (Q19652) is not a license. Neither is copyrighted (Q50423863). There was a failed proposal before: Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/48#Copyright status. There is also a (stalled) discussion on Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings#Shall we introduce properties indicating copyright status. Yann (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Multichill (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC), focus on the Netherlands Husky (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) - Cool, i'd like to focus on building tools to visualise progress. Spinster (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Happy to help with manual finetuning that can't be done by bots, and anything else on the 'soft/wet' side of this project. I'm dreaming of complete artists' oeuvres on Wikidata! Rich Farmbrough (talk) Time to learn2Wikidata Jheald (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Kippelboy (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan paintings (subdivision of Spain) Mushroom (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) work on Dutch 17th-century paintings and landscapes of Haarlem; Most recently, the sum of all "attributed" paintings by Frans Hals, which is nearly done Missvain (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Zolo (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Swiss heritage institutions) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) KRLS (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan area museums) DivadH (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ,happy to help out with any questions in regards to the Europeana API, how to best query it, and/or our metadata Xcia0069 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Work on data related to Gianlorenzo Bernini and Artemisia Gentileschi. Work at Europeana too ! Susannaanas (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Fabrice Florin (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I can help in California later this year. Vaughn88 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I can help! Raymond Ellis (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Hsarrazin (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - will give a hand with Creators and AC :) louis-garden (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) for italian paintings (XIIe-XVIIe) Olivier (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Kopiersperre (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC) ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Micru (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Geraki (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (Focus on Greece) PatHadley (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Working to get data from the University of Oxford (Q34433) and its component institutions shared on Wikidata. Pablísima (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Carl Ha (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Shani Evenstein (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Nasty nas (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Sarasays (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Thierry Caro (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) John Samuel 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Reosarevok (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Subsublibrary (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Martingggg (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Argentine and Hispanic America Kruusamägi (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia SIryn (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC), focus on moving metadata from Commons to Wikidata Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject sum of all paintings - Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h
PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Elena moz
Oa01 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidelo (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Dick Bos (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Harshrathod50
 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)
Louize5 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Viztor (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books - User:Zolo
Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Vincent Steenberg
User:Kippelboy
User:Shonagon
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Martingggg
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
User:7samurais
User:mrtngrsbch
User:Buccalon
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think there's a little too much overlap with license (P275) here, and essentially this is just adding a Boolean field to that, which isn't terribly helpful in my opinion. Also in general we have avoided "status"-like properties as they inherently have a present-time bias, but time passes and "status" changes, which necessitates updates to every such property as time goes by. I think better than a "status" would be a date property - "copyright expiry date" perhaps (which may need to be qualified by jurisdiction). I would support a date-related property for this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There is overlap only because license (P275) is badly used. In many cases, as examples I cited above, license (P275) is absolutely not suitable to indicate the copyright status. A license indicates rights or permission given by the copyright owner. It should not be used when there isn't any copyright owner, or worse, for elements created before the concept of copyright was created. "copyright expiry date" would be a qualifier of the proposed property, but the date is often unknown, and/or irrelevant. Examples: what date would you use for One Thousand and One Nights (Q8258) or Mahabharata (Q8276)? As for the changing state of a status, we need a way to update automatically some data (with a bot?) when the status changes. Incompleteness of the system should not be a reason not to create a useful property, otherwise we are blocked in a chicken-and-egg circle. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You could use the same date as the publication date for old works, for example "10. century" for One Thousand and One Nights (Q8258). However, copyright generally applies not to the work as a whole but to particular editions or translations - Le Mille ed una Notti (Q18913375) was published in 1852 so the copyright expiry for that (or another edition in the language of your choice) is probably a more relevant question. Automatically changing a status doesn't address the issue of how one can use the database to determine copyright status at a particular point in time (before or after present), so a date-based property is more generally useful than a status one. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Yann, a date-based property needs computation (which is totally useless for old works, which could just be indicated as Public Domain). Also, "copyright expiry date" is alright for US-type "copyright", but is not applicable for works by still living people according to EU regulations or '"author's rights". A status type like "Author's death+70 year" would be clearer, and allow for automatic retrieving of the authors P570, when they are added. Also, if regulations change (to prolong the delay) it would be easier to apply to all authors concerned by it. It would be very useful for wikisource to easily know which writers rise to Public Domain every January 1st. --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Will we mark the individual copyright status of the work for each and every country? Laws differ considerably in each nation.
We'd also have to have a means of differentiating the status of content within a volume. Sometimes the text is in public domain, but the illustrations are still under copyright. Or a volume may contain multiple works, some of which are under copyright and some of which are not. Sometimes the primary work is free of copyright, but the annotations, or the introduction are copyrighted. We'd have to have a system that indicates the status of individual components of a work before we can handle copyright issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
of course, you can put the copyright status on work items, instead of the "book" item. Thus, allowing to know the status of each part. But not all editions are composite. Most are single works. and you do not "have to"... it would "allow to" which is quite different. --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
« Most are single works. » Is it? Composition is quite common, paratext being the most common editing. For instance, most recent editions have a cover who are works with their own rights. And translation are edition (per FRBR at least) who have a translator with -again- its own rights. Their is a lot of other examples. If we create this property, I feel it would be easier to put it only on editions and not on works.
I totally agree for the "allow to" and not "have to", indicating the status of text in French according to laws of France, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland and other francophone country make sense and could be useful/relevant, adding the status of a text in Japanese according to the law of Lichtenstein could be done if needed but doesn't have to.
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I still have a major concern about updating (document entering or leaving the public domain). How this property could deal with it? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

⧼Vote⧽[edit]

Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Implementation does not allow marking which locations have a particular copyright status. A book may be under copyright in the UK, but not in the US. Or may be PD in Canada, but copyrighted in the US. It is also possible that individual portions of a book are copyrighted, such as the illustrations, the annotations, or the introduction, while the main text is free of copyright. We also need to be able to mark the status of individual poems within a collected volume, or the individual stories in a magazine. Sometimes a work is in public domain, but a translation of that work is not. We can't handle all these situations under the current proposal. A great deal of work will be required first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but all the things you listed seem possible with this proposal: For the location, use applies to jurisdiction (P1001) as a qualifier. When it only applies to a part of the work, use applies to part (P518) as a qualifier. Translations, individual poems and individual stories in a magazine would already need their own items anyway to enter titles, authors, creation dates, etc - the copyright status can be added the individual items. - Nikki (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Re: "can be added the individual items": You're missing how WikiProject:Books has book data items structured. A magazine is a simple example compared to a book. If we have a book containing 12 short stories, that's a minimum of 26 data items, provided the book has only a single edition: there will be one data item for the "work", one for each story as a "work", and one additional data item each for the particular "edition" of the book and story. For each additional edition, there will be an additional 13 data items. Can we be sure that the copyright status will be the same for the editions as for the original work? No. Each edition can have editorial changes that warrant a separate copyright status. Each edition can have a foreword, introduction, or notes that are copyrighted. Each edition can have new illustrations that are copyrighted.
      • When we add new items to Wikisource, it often involves long and complicated research for a single edition and a community discussion to decide whether a particular work is (a) copyrighted in the US, and (b) copyrighted in its country of origin. To add every individual nation's copyright status on top of that will generate millions of discussions to resolve and track.
      • For a novel that was serialized in a magazine initially, then published as a book in the US/UK simultaneously, then multiple additional editions, we have to track the status of the original story separately from each and every edition, because each edition may or may not have additional copyrighted material, and we have to have the copyright status on every individual edition, with no guarantee that they are the same. And for a poem, there won't be just one data item; there will be a data item for each and every time that poem was published, each of which will have individual copyright status depending on when and where it was published and whether or not that edition had editorial changes, notes, or other associated material that falls under copyright. Popular poems can run into the hundreds of different editions to track. And once you add to that the translations and any illustrations that may or may not have appeared under the edition, I don't see how we can hope to track it all.
      • And Wikiproject:Books is now in a discussion to decide what data structure we need for our purposes, so we don't even have a set model yet on which to add copyright status.
      • And once the copyright status is added, is it a static value? No. The copyright status is time dependent, and subject to changes in law. The current proposal offers no means to track changes that happen as the result of the passage of time, or to indicate which law and what registration affects the current status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
        • None of these is a valid reason not to create this property. Anyway it is not just because it can't be used in some cases, that it should not be created, as it is useful in other cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
          • It is a valid reason if the proposal is not designed to handle these situations, and the proposal clearly isn't capable of doing so. The proposal is a naive implementation that assumes a single data item for a book, with two possible settings. The situations I've described cannot be handled under the proposal as it was submitted. A proposal that purports to handle copyright status, that isn't even designed to handle a book is not going to be useful, and will create more problems than it solves. The proposal should be voted down, and a new proposal that can handle the needs of Wikidata should be drafted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
            • The proposition is not a 2-possible settings one. It allows for adding specific qualifiers for specific values, and to create more possible values than "copyrighted" or "public domain". Moreover, it allows for adding info on "work" items, not only on "edition" items. The mere notion of "book" items is a nightmaire chimera, that should be divided into the previous two types of items. Being able to know, for each "work" whether it is or not PD, is a progress to being able to know if a specific edition is or not, considering each part, including foreword, preface, etc. could have the info "as a work". --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm looking at the proposal as it's given above. All six examples have only one of two values, and that's all. The proposal lists only two allowed values, so it is clearly a two-settings proposal. I'm evaluating the proposal as it is stated, not as I imagine it might be and not as other people imagine it might be. I cannot evaluate people's imagination, only the proposal as it was stated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per EncycloPetey. Mahir256 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposechanged to Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment isn't public domain date (P3893) enough and even better as more perennial (per EncycloPetey (talkcontribslogs) last point). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @VIGNERON: for old work (19th century of before), you would need to give a date which means nothing, or would be difficult to compute. how would you propose to do in those cases ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Hsarrazin: why would the date means nothing? or why would it means more (or less) than the proposed property? And old publications are obviously in the public domain (except for few strange cases like Peter Pan or posthumous editions). My concern is that for edition entering in the public domain now, it would means that we would need to monitor and change the data on thousands of items, meanwhile a date doesn't have to be changed (again, with exceptions). By the way, "work" is not really an appropriate term here, a work is intangible so it's never under copyright law, legally it's never under copyright or in the public domain, only publications are. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: I disagree with you about work. You know as well as me that in French (and European) law, works are protected from their inception, whether they are published or not. And that the period of protection does not run from edition, but from the death of the author. When a work is PD, all its editions (if there is not added work, translation, illustration, etc.) is automatically PD too ^^ --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: Well, law is complicated. It depends on what we call "work" and "inception", as long as it is intangible (for instance still in someone mind), it's not protected (idea are free), but true as soon as it's written down (published or not) it's protected. The duration of protection is not always PMA, not even in France (it's not the case for posthumous works for instance). And no, not all editions of a "PD work" are automatically PD (not if there is addition or modifications). Anyway, why not just use public domain date (P3893)? (especially as it can be in the future, which could be very useful for Wikisources ;) ) Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • and using "no value" (combined with public domain date (P3893)) for those works that were never under copyright? strakhov (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Strakhov: yes, it could work. That said, qualifiers would still be needed. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Strakhov: While I initially thought it could work, I see 3 problems with that: 1. "no value" means "there is no value for the date of accession to public domain", and is not equivalent to "being in the public domain". It can be interpreted as "it will never enter in the public domain". 2. Copyright is quite complex, and determining if a document is in the public domain today is sometimes complicated. Knowing when it entered the public domain is even worse, and useless as a practical matter. I don't see any reason to make things even more difficult than they are. 3. If the author is still alive, we can't give a date when the work will enter in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose better to extend license (P275) usages instead. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: do you mean inputing public domain (Q19652) in license (P275) ? - this value would have to be explicitely authorized, then, and a redefinition of license (P275) to be accepted. --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: By simply searching "Q19652" I found 845 items that are having license (P275)  public domain (Q19652) e.g. Mahabharata (Q8276). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
indeed, but this is not considered proper for now, see this discussion — what counts for me is that it is possible to use this value somewhere. If it was agreed to extend and rename P275, it would be ok for me :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I proposed a more generic property: Wikidata:Property proposal/legal status.--GZWDer (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like GZWDer's legal status as it's more generic --Sabas88 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Clarifies existing data. "Legal status" is incredibly vague, it could mean anything from immigration statuses to tax statuses. The only think I would change is that this property should be called "intellectual property status" or something like that.Mr. Guye (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
That kind of thing shematically represented by :
Property "author's rights" :
public domain (Q19652) or
copyrighted (Q50423863)
all rights reserved (Q1752207) or
license (Q79719)
→license needed

or

Property "author's rights" :
public domain (Q19652) or
all rights reserved (Q1752207) or
license (Q79719)
→license needed
The second solution is better IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: I don't think "author's rights" properly captures many common issues with copyright - the right originates with the author, yes, but it can be transferred to another owner. The copyright owner may provide content under a variety of different licenses - more than one license can apply to given content at one time, it may for instance vary by legal jurisdiction. Not that this proposal for a "copyright status" property is quite right either - copyright is unfortunately quite complicated. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Note that by author's rights, I mean the "the rights of the owner of the author's rights". That was implicit. But indeed, that is quite complicated. It also depend here on how you want to display it, of course inside a specific said jurisdiction. I mean if you have the publication date + the place of publication then you just need ()a query(ies) to determine if a work is in PD in USA or/and in it's country of origin. A solution is maybe to talk about specific jurisdictions, two concept are specially interesting : "status of the rights related to intellectual property concerning this artwork in U.S.A." and "status of the rights related to intellectual property concerning this artwork in its country of origin" Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On another side, there is widely enough work for the Wikimedia Commons volunteers to check/control the file's copyright status or claims about these statuses, we must avoid extending this problem on another project(s). What to do when the copyright status will be definite in a different way in Wikidata and in Wikimedia Commons? who will have the last word, where will it be discussed? Don't we have enough job in Commons? The license tags or (PD tags) are/will be stored in Wikibase (and it is well like that), therefore of what is firstly needed are items for those tags, then you have to define the needed properties for those items. Items for the tags is the only thing we need, the the rest will come from itself Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

legal status[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionlegal status of an entity
Data typeItem
Example 1One Thousand and One Nights (Q8258)public domain (Q19652) (from Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status)
Example 2Guernica (Q175036)copyrighted (Q50423863) (from Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status)
Example 3Richey Edwards (Q436648)death in absentia (Q693726) (since Nov 23, 2008)
Example 4Virtue Party (Q1399162)ban (Q621608) (since Jun 22, 2001) - Note we possibly need a new item "banned"
Example 5Julian Assange (Q360) → under arrest warrant (November 2010 - 19 May 2017; applies to jurisdiction (P1001)=Sweden (Q34))
These following three examples are additional usage of the property, and probably do not meet the final property scope:
Example 6Jundallah (Q1048651)terrorist organization (Q17127659) (applies to jurisdiction (P1001)=United States of America (Q30)) - This may replace designated as terrorist by (P3461), but I don't know whether it is appropriate
Example 7same-sex marriage (Q17422)civil union (Q41075) (applies to jurisdiction (P1001)=Germany (Q183)) - see Wikidata:Property proposal/Same-sex marriage
Example 8acetaminophen (Q57055)General sales list (UK) (Q26715239) (applies to jurisdiction (P1001)=United Kingdom (Q145)) - possibly reuse the current property of legal status (medicine) (P3493)

Motivation[edit]

This is a more general property than Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status. Note I have include many possible usage of this property, but I also think this proposal in current form is a bit vague (probably not all are appropriate to be represented in one property) and needs further discussion. GZWDer (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In this more general form it actually makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for proposing it! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could it also be used for disputed territories --Sabas88 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This is far too broad and ambiguous, and could lead to statements that can't be reliably interpreted. Additionally, many such items would certainly develop too many statements, as every single jurisdiction would need a separate statement in the item. A generic "legal-related has-attribute" is problematic. For some of these issues, I'd favor a more precise (but not unnecessarily specific) property to be used from the item for the law/ruling/executive order/resolution that set the status. For many of the person-related ones, use significant event (P793). "Legal status" is bad modelling. --Yair rand (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm not sure about this one... I can see the value of a Property that is flexible and can handle edge cases and obscure circumstances that don't really have a precise-definition property. However, that could also make it more confusing and thus create difficulty rather than simplicity. For example, a person could theoretically have several simultaneous 'legal status' statements about all sorts of different things: legal status -> Married; legal status -> Adopted; legal status -> missing presumed dead; legal status -> bankrupt; legal status -> on parole; legal status -> stateless.... Wittylama (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose we already have dedicated properties for some of the uses cases. If other proposals are too broad to be edited efficiently, I doubt this would work out for this one. It seems that the proposer doesn't intend to use it anyways ..
    --- Jura 16:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong oppose. As I said on the copyright proposal, this is ludicrously vague. There are so many different things that are referred to as legal statuses; immigration status, status of legislation, marital status, many different tax statuses, customs status, etc. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    • We should create properties for many of the examples. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Morse code[edit]

   Not done
Descriptioncode for a letter or number
Representsmorse code (Q79897)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitems for letters and numbers
Allowed values[.-]++
Example 1A (Q9659).-
Example 2E (Q9907).
Example 3H (Q9914)....
Example 4I (Q9893)..
Example 55 (Q203).....
Planned useadd to relevant items

Motivation[edit]

(Add your motivation for this property here.)
--- Jura 00:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • @Jura1:The examples are unclear and not IDs! --David (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • They should match the regex. If you have suggestions for a better formatting, I'm interested. The code should uniquely identify a letter/number, thus the choice of external-id.
      --- Jura 09:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (intended to forestall this property's creation per Arthur's comments; will come back to this with more detail after some thought Mahir256 (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)) @Jura1: even the generic motivations that User:Thierry Caro gives for his property proposals are immensely better than no express motivation given at all. Mahir256 (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Somehow I followed GZW's sample. As any property I propose, I intend to add it to the relevant items. (I just added that in the proposal above).
      --- Jura 19:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I support the property, but the choice of datatype is exotic. Is the usage only for letters and digits? Not for any phrases or signals such as SOS? That affects the choice of datatype. I also appreciate writing it out. Will support after. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I guess it's all there already. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment (edited - see below) too few items would benefit from this property. It could be an interesting property (like a transcription) for lexemes perhaps though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No need. With this property on items, it could be calculated.
      --- Jura 12:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Alternatively, one could use code (P3295) with qualifier encoding (P3294) as for example in [1]. --Pasleim (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Didn't notice the values. Yes. A dedicated property would make it easier to ensure that they are unique and we don't miss some of them.
        --- Jura 20:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: With an import of Chinese characters coming along, and the existence of Chinese telegraph code (Q5100952), I'm not so sure about "too few"; also it'd be interesting to use this property for importing the contents of various telegraph code books somehow. Mahir256 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (Second thoughts. Lymantria (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)) The possible use extends the (indeed) limited items it directly applies to, as it can be a calculated property for words, longer codes, etc. Lymantria (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Jura1, Lymantria, Mahir256, Pasleim: So two more things that I feel need to be clarified here:
  • Are the spaces in the code significant? The regex (which as written is invalid by the way - the '-' should be first) allows space, dot, and dash characters. In the examples above there is a space between each dot or dash. I would have thought that, if anything, spaces should only appear between distinct character codes (for example if we are to add them for Chinese telegraph codes, you would need a space between the codes for each digit). Is there a standard that can be referenced to describe how this is traditionally done in plain text? To call it an "external id" we need to have a single universally agreed string format for the codes, you can't have various alternatives with different spacings etc.
  • We really need to pin down the domain. The international standard (ITU) Morse code only applies to the (capital) letters A-Z and digits 0-9. Do we intend to allow other characters or not? The enwiki page lists various extensions for punctuation and accented characters. Chinese has been suggested here, presumably a qualifier would be required to indicate the upper encoding. Are there other cases like this?
I think I could support it if it applied to significantly more than just the 36 standard ITU characters, but the proposal so far isn't clear on either of these questions. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries. I noted your oppose earlier about the proposal in its present form. Chinese telegraph codes wont work with the proposal in it's present form and they shouldn't.
    --- Jura 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose then. But even so, you still haven't addressed the first question just above - why do you allow space in the regex (and have spaces in your examples) if you don't intend to allow this to be applied to anything other than the 36 characters? No morse code converter that I can find on the internet translates single characters to strings that have spaces, they are simple spaceless '...', '.-', etc. with the space character used to separate the code for one letter from another in a multi-letter string. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment thanks for your feedback. I think there is sufficient support for this property to be created. I don't see a point in including [0-9] for Chinese codes, but except the opposer, I don't think any does. If there are problems with implementing it, we can discuss it later/improve the format.
    --- Jura 20:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: you are being overeager with a poorly prepared proposal. @Mahir256, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Susannaanas, Pasleim, Lymantria: this is CLEARLY not ready as far as I can see, can one of you please comment in regard to the issues I've raised. And note that a very simple SPARQL query already returns the Morse code values for the letters (MINUS the spaces Jura inserted) - See tinyurl.com/y75euhhh . ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I think that just illustrates the need for a separate property. We don't want Wikidata to be website with half the list.
        --- Jura 20:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
        • @Jura1: I was slightly disappointed that you didn't react to the spaces-question by ArthurPSmith, but I see below you have removed the spaces in the proposal. Thanks for that. Perhaps you could enlighten ArthurPSmith and myself to show benefit of this proposal in the use of for instance racon signal (P3994), as the signals this property is about are in fact morse codes. Initially I thought your proposal would allow us to add the morse code as qualifier to values of this property, that would make sense to me. I'm starting to doubt about the usefulness. Lymantria (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
            • @Lymantria: It's a point that was there from the beginning and had been discussed, we could continue to debate if the spaces should be there, small, smaller, large, etc. Anyways, with this property, a query should allow to convert the P3994 value to Morse. If the current list wasn't incomplete and we had checks in place to ensure it's robustness, it could also be done with the P3295/4 version. Unfortunately the current approach is somewhat unsatisfactory.
              Chinese codes could use the same to convert into Morse signals.
              --- Jura 05:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
              • @Jura1: What I was thinking of is
                < Ölands södra grund (Q10727264) View with Reasonator View with SQID > racon signal (P3994) View with SQID < OE >
                morse search < --- . >
                . Seems not intended by your proposal (and needs a space in the regex). Lymantria (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
                • @Lymantria: Yes, I understood that. For simple lookup. it might be easier to link the items with the code. If there is interest, we could have another property that transcribes texts into morse.
                  --- Jura 06:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Qualifiers for locations within pdfs, djvu etc[edit]

preface page number[edit]

(added 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of a preface is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

table of contents page number[edit]

(added 15:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of the table of contents is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

alphabetical index page number[edit]

(added 15:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of the alphabetical index is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

persons index page number[edit]

(added 15:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of the index of names of people is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

place name index page number[edit]

(added 15:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of the index of names of geographic place names is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

table of illustrations page number[edit]

(added 15:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of the table of illustrations is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

end notes page number[edit]

(added 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of end notes is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

glossary page number[edit]

(added 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of the glossary is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

bibliography page number[edit]

(added 6 December 2017 (UTC))

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of the glossary is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

appendix page number[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the first page of a appendix is located
Data typeQuantity
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
Example

title or cover page number[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptioncreated as title page number (P4714) qualifier to indicate the number of the page of a document in which the title page is located
Data typeQuantity
Template parameter"Cover image", in Wikisource indexes
DomainCommons documents (pdf, djvu etc), URLs to pdfs/djvu
Allowed valuesnumbers
ExampleFile:Relatório ao governador do estado de Alagoas (1929-1930).pdf4
Motivation

This is useful for Wikisource and the upcoming integration of Wikibase into Commons. ~nmaia d 18:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Given some of the comments below, rephrased the initial proposal for a "cover page" property as a qualifier for pdf/djvu files and completed it with a few other qualifiers that can (if applicable), but don't have to be used. Datatype "number" should be quantity. These could be used independently of Commons.
    --- Jura 16:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h
PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Elena moz
Oa01 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidelo (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Dick Bos (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Harshrathod50
 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)
Louize5 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Viztor (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jarekt (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is this a qualifier for either Wikisource index page (P1957) or scanned file on Wikimedia Commons (P996)? It seems that as a property on its own it has to refer to some particular edition or scan of a book. Sam Wilson 00:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Neither, this would be used directly as a statement for a document file on Commons. Or for specific editions with Wikidata entries, like you mentioned. ~nmaia d 02:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
      • But individual files on Commons don't get individual WD items. For example, The Nether World (Q23308118) has three scanned files and therefore 3 cover pages. How would this property be used for that sort of item? (Sorry if I'm misunderstanding things.) Sam Wilson 07:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Correct, but Commons is getting a Wikidata backend very soon, which means files will be able to be described using our properties; it's not common but possible that this property can be used on Wikidata too, in a specific edition of a work, when the accompanying pdf is present. Regarding your second question, The Nether World (Q23308118) has three covers because it has three volumes: we can add this property to each volume on Commons, to make it more accurate. In my opinion, using image (P18) with page(s) (P304) is not a very satisfying solution, as it doesn't necessarily make it clear to reusers that it's the cover image being shown. ~nmaia d 11:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is this a statement for direct cover image from c:Category:Book covers category? Skim (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • No, I've reworded the label according to @Maxlath's suggestion to make it clearer (thanks!) ~nmaia d 11:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could the property label be more explicit? Something like "cover page number"? As such, I first thought this property was to link to the media file displaying the cover image. -- Maxlath (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Done, cheers! ~nmaia d 11:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I also thought that would be a commons file. We also do need "cover page number" for PDF/DjVu files, but that should be a qualifier of scanned file on Wikimedia Commons (P996) as even 2 different scans of the same book might be off by a page or two. This property does not make sense if not paired up with a specific file. --Jarekt (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is it somewhere documented that the Wikibase backend for Commons will use the same properties as Wikidata? My current understanding was that it will have its own properties. --Pasleim (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, in that case it seems this property would be most useful in Commons. However some people here in the discussion see value in it as a qualifier, so I'll leave it up to them to argue for it. ~nmaia d 16:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question An other possibility for the range would be to have something like "my book cover.jpg" or "my book.djvu/2". But the second syntax is not supported yet by the "commons media" datatype (but it should be possible to add support of it). Tpt (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support if this a a qualifier for the scanned file on Wikimedia Commons (P996) property. It would have not meaning in another context... --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support in this case too. Skim (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment why shouldn't this be stored directly at Commons?
    --- Jura 15:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • because Commons is not the main user, but wikisource(s) ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think Commons Wikibase wont be accessible from Wikisource.
      --- Jura 16:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've marked this as not ready and I don't believe it will work in wikidata until I actually see a concrete example of an item where this property could be added, or a statement where it could be used as a qualifier. The example in the current proposal is invalid - the "File" linked is not a wikidata item with a Q ID. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with ArthurPSmith that it would be nice to have a proper example. ChristianKl (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Aubrey
Viswaprabha (talk)
Micru
Tpt
EugeneZelenko
User:Jarekt
Maximilianklein (talk)
Don-kun
VIGNERON (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Kolja21
arashtitan
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
JakobVoss
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Accurimbono
Mushroom
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
maxlath
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Epìdosis
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h
PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Timmy_Finnegan
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Andreasmperu
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Emeritus
Ankry
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Elena moz
Oa01 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidelo (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Dick Bos (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Harshrathod50
 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)
Louize5 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Viztor (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books @NMaia: Can you provide an example? ChristianKl (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Throughout the discussions I was convinced this was more suitable as a Commons property, but since others saw potential in it, I let the discussion happen on its own. ~nmaia d 21:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in its current form, but if this were to be a qualifier for scanned file on Wikimedia Commons (P996) and were renamed "title page number" as that seems to be what it's actually representing. A "cover page" I think is the actual cover of a book, whereas this is (I think) about the title page (Q1339862). Sam Wilson 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as title page number qualifier for scanned file on Wikimedia Commons (P996). It should be possible to get this information from statements here. Additional qualifiers for table of contents, place name index, etc. would be helpful.
    --- Jura 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: If you support it in that form, can you provide an example of how you would want it to be used and edit the description to express the new scope? ChristianKl () 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • sure, I added above accordingly, including some other qualifiers.
      --- Jura 15:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, this is now a completely revised proposal for 8(?) new properties; I believe (A) it should start over from scratch to avoid the confusion of the above discussion about a quite different proposal, and (B) all of these seem much more appropriate for discussion as Commons properties rather than as Wikidata properties - on Commons there would be no need to limit these to being just qualifiers. So I'd recommend we table this proposal until the Commons structured data implementation is close, and then introduce these as proposed properties there specifically for Commons. I don't see that they add much useful to have them within Wikidata itself. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not really aware of what Commons is doing, intends to do or might eventually have done. It's not really relevant to these proposals. The problem is that Commons and other archives host pdfs and similar files and Wikidata links to them, but these are generally not structured. Some files are transcribed at Wikisource, but not all of them. As we can't do statements on statements, we need specific qualifiers. As the initial proposal was for a title page and the qualifier approach has support, I'm marking the first one as ready.
    --- Jura 20:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done the first one as title page number (P4714): @NMaia, Jarekt, Mauricio V. Genta, Hsarrazin, Skim, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: please make good use of it.
    --- Jura 11:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks like this got accidentally archived.
    --- Jura 06:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment fixed again.
    --- Jura 13:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @NMaia: I guess I should reiterate my earlier comment - P4714 has been around for almost a year, and has 8 uses. Commons integration is coming up soon - the other suggested new properties make sense to me as useful properties for direct statements on commons files, rather than attaching them as qualifiers to wikidata item statements. This proposal is over a year old now, and is unlikely to have any further useful discussion. I strongly recommend retiring this proposal (with "not done" on the proposals that were not done) and starting fresh. Perhaps it could be boiled down to a single property for Commons files - "significant page" say, with qualifier to indicate what's on that page. Or separate properties if that really seems necessary. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan Railways station code[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptioncode to identify a railway station operated by Pakistan Railways
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameter"code" in en:Template:Infobox station
Domainrailway station (Q55488)'s in Pakistan (Q843)
Allowed values[A-Z]+
Example 1Karachi City Station (Q4373381) → KYC
Example 2Peshawar Cantonment railway station (Q7171369) → PSC
Example 3Lahore Junction railway station (Q3695748) → LHR
Example 4Islamabad railway station (Q15228858) → MGLA
Sourcevarious Wikipedia articles and references from the Pakistani government as may be found regarding this property
Planned useadd this to items for stations (especially a great deal which only have sitelinks to urwiki)
Number of IDs in sourceas many as there have been railway stations in Pakistan—around 1200, according to some estimates I found
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Robot and gadget jobsnot yet, though this is surely possible
See alsoIndian Railways station code (P5696), Amtrak station code (P4803), ESR station code (P2815), China railway TMIS station code (P1378)

Motivation[edit]

The presence of this identifier is motivated by similar identifiers for the United States (Amtrak station code (P4803)), Russia/the USSR (ESR station code (P2815)), China (China railway TMIS station code (P1378)), and most recently India (Indian Railways station code (P5696)). Mahir256 (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

@Thierry Caro, BukhariSaeed, Obaid Raza: who might find this interesting.

Why can't be used station code (P296) with a qualifier? --Sabas88 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sabas88: If you would like to propose the deletion of the other four properties I mentioned (plus more of the sort), you are welcome to do so, but in the meantime having a separate property for this large collection of stations has its benefits, including the ability to easily define formatter URLs for each country on each country's respective property. Mahir256 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now, if there are reasons that how codes in this country are used in URL schemes, I would change to support. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nepalicoi (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Nepalicoi: Supporting just by adding such template is a pain in the ass, that won't help anyone to know how the potential new property will be helpful for us. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Mahir256: Please can you cite your sentenses such as "various Wikipedia articles and references from the Pakistani government as may be found regarding this property" with proper bibliographical references? Without references, I'm afraid that your sentenses can be mostly empty sentenses. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Liuxinyu970226: There are items for rail stations in Pakistan, such as Lahore Junction railway station (Q3695748) (hey, you edited that item!) that presently have a station code (P296) (derived from their respective enwiki articles) which could be converted to use this property. One can also derive lists of codes from old versions of the Pakistan Railways site (this does not mean that the codes are unused presently!--see page 6 here of a recent timetable). Mahir256 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now, unless there's a use of this in URLs; at the moment, I can't find any uses of these codes in URLs anywhere on the web, not even on https://www.pakrail.gov.pk . As others say above, there is already a generic solution for when a custom formatter is not needed, and the data could be transferred very easily to a new property created for this purpose if this were the case. -- The Anome (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support consistent with others. There is no requirement for external-id properties to have a formatter url. --- Jura 05:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

subject stated as, predicate stated as[edit]

subject stated as[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionhow the subject was given in the source (only use as qualifier)
Data typeString
Example 1Antoine Chazal (Q2853791) Benezit ID (P2843) B00036491 <subject stated as> Antoine Toussaint de Chazal
Example 2(deprecated) Balkans (Q23522) GeoNames ID (P1566) 783759 <subject stated as> Balkan Peninisula
Example 3MISSING
Robot and gadget jobsBot to move all qualifiers stated as (P1932) of identifier properties to this property
See alsostated as (P1932)

predicate stated as[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionhow the predicate (property) was given in the source (only use as qualifier)
Data typeString
Example 1So Dear to My Heart (Q2090255) musical conductor (P3300) Ken Darby (Q2316737) <predicate stated as> Vocal director
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
See alsostated as (P1932), object has role (P3831) (used if there're specific items for this)

Motivation[edit]

Currently stated as (P1932) has description "use as qualifier to indicate how the value was given in the source", but is also used to indicate how subject or predicate was given. It is confusing, so we should split the property, leaving stated as (P1932) for "object stated as" only. GZWDer (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support These make sense to me, although there has been some confusion among wikidata users about the terms "subject" and "predicate" so better labels might be helpful (could we say "item" and "property" here?). Also - should this be of type "monolingual string" (specifying a language) rather than just "string"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
If it is a monolingual string stated as (P1932) should be a monolingual string too; though most uses of stated as (P1932) are author names which have no language in itself.--GZWDer (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @GZWDer: Standard procedure currently is to use named as (P1810) to record how the subject of the property was stated --it is widely used as a qualifier on external IDs; stated as (P1932) should normally only be used for the value of a statement. Not sure how wide a need there is for "predicate stated as". Jheald (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

tuition fee[edit]

   Done. tuition fee (P5894) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionthe tuition fee at an educational instition (default duration:1 year, use duration qualifier to specify)
Representstuition fee (Q538104)
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Domaineducational institution (Q2385804)
Example 1Heidelberg University (Q151510) → 1500€ (duration: 1 semester (Q3955006); applies to part: Non-EU/EEA Citizen (Q56508358))
Example 2Heidelberg University (Q151510) → 650€ (duration: 1 semester (Q3955006); applies to part: second studies (Q243765)
Example 3Harvard University (Q13371) → 46340$ (time: 2018)
Example 4University of Oxford (Q34433) → 9250£ (applies to part: EU/EEA Citizen (Q56508363); time: 2019) reference
Example 5University of Copenhagen (Q186285) → 55000DKK (duration: 1 semester (Q3955006); applies to part: Non-EU/EEA Citizen (Q56508358),computer science (Q21198),Master of Science (Q950900)
Example 6University of Copenhagen (Q186285) → novalue (applies to part: EU/EEA Citizen (Q56508363))
See alsofee (P2555)

Discussion[edit]

✓ Done --Micru (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

semester fee[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionsemester fee (6 months) for a university in Germany, Austria, Switzerland
Representssemester fee (Q1386894)
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Domaineducational institution (Q2385804)
Example 1Heidelberg University (Q151510) → 152.30€ (time: April 2018)
Example 2University of Göttingen (Q152838) → 348.40€ (time: Oct 2018)
Example 3Technical University of Berlin (Q51985) → 306.99€ (start time: April 2018)
See alsofee (P2555)

Motivation[edit]

I'm proposing adding tuition fee and semester fee. These are two different fees. Tuition fee describes the cost for tuition usually as an annual fee for the cost of teaching. Semester fee applies to German universities and covers administrative costs, which mostly do not have tuition fees. German universities may have a tuition fee for non-EU citizens additional to the semester fee. Please see my example. Germartin1 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both David (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would fee (P2555) with an appropriate qualifier be suitable for this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ArthurPSmith: It is possible, but I think fee is too general and as you can see I'm already using a lot of qualifiers with multiple values. Eventually it will become confusing. I think fee is meant for one-time payments (for an entrance or a ferry trip) Germartin1 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
In the original property proposal, it was pointed out by Joshbaumgartner that the scope of this property should be wider than its current descriptions indicate. I agree and I have proposed to do this at Property_talk:P2555.− Pintoch (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ··· Rachmat04 · 02:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I also think it would be worth working on generalizing fee (P2555) and creating the appropriate qualifier properties to make its use more precise. This property has already been used on university items to indicate the tuition or application fee, see University of Copenhagen (Q186285) or Harvard University (Q13371) for instance. There are a lot of different types of fees, we probably do not want to create a property for each of them. Typically the "semester fee" proposal seems too country-specific to me. − Pintoch (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I added those statements, but I realized that I will become to confusing Germartin1 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I support the tuition fees. I agree with User talk:Pintoch since different countries may follow different schemes: yearly, semester, trimester etc. Do we use of (P642) as a scope qualifier? John Samuel (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jsamwrites: I agree that of (P642) would be a good qualifier for the type of fee, but I think all universities in the US, Canada, UK, etc. charge on a yearly basis. So which qualifier do you propose for the duration? Germartin1 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Germartin1: You can make use of qualifiers like start time (P580) and end time (P582) to specify the validity of duration of fees. John Samuel (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jsamwrites: Agreed, but how about the duration (per year, per semester), is duration (P2047) appropriate, i.e. 1 annum, 6 months, 4 months? Germartin1 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Germartin1: Yes for specifying the total duration of the fees structure. But if fees structure changes, start time (P580) and end time (P582) can be used (for ancient fee structure). John Samuel (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Germartin1: please do not mark the proposal as ready at this stage, given the ongoing discussion. Changing my comment to an Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose vote to clarify that.Pintoch (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: I'm sorry I didn't see the additional comments earlier today Germartin1 (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Pintoch:,@ArthurPSmith:,@Jsamwrites: I support the broadening of Property_talk:P2555 fee property, ie. I think application fee should be within Property "fee" with a qualifier "of" "application fee".However, I believe that packing everything under fee will be confusing, because tuition and semester fee can have many values (usually the fee changes every year) and can have a bunch of qualifiers, depending on the year of study, subject, student's nationality, new student/second studies student. Those are already 5 qualifiers (including point of time). Semester fee is country specific, but they're thousands of universities within Germany alone, so I don't understand why it matters. However, if you guys don't agree, I would like to ask you if we can create an example of using the "fee" property, so everyone will know how to use it in future. Another question, is it possible to add statements to a country when for example all public universities have the same fee, using qualifiers "applies to part" "public universities". Germartin1 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch: It's been two days, any more comments? I'd like to conclude this discussion soon. Germartin1 (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Germartin1: fine with me then. Looks like the first proposal is well supported, still not sure about the second one. But note that "two days" is really not much for property proposals, given the low activity in this area of Wikidata. It is normal that it takes time to build consensus for these sort of properties (identifiers are more straightforward). − Pintoch (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


Pintoch
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
ArthurPSmith
Vladimir Alexiev (talk)
Toniher
Runner1928
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Satpal Dandiwal (talk)
danielt998
Sush_0809 (talk)
John Samuel Nomen ad hoc
OdileB(talk)
Ivanhercaz
Mlemusrojas
Jjfloyd
Kippelboy
Germartin1

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Universities

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ArthurPSmith, Nepalicoi, Germartin1, Pintoch, Worldm99: @Rachmat04: ✓ Done: tuition fee (P5894). − Pintoch (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Micru (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Semester fee is still not resolved Germartin1 (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose use tuition fee. --- Jura 17:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

model item for[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionDefines which item is a best practice example of modelling a subject, which is described by the value of this property
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesItems which are classes
Example 1Douglas Adams (Q42)human (Q5)
Example 2Nelson Mandela (Q8023)politician (Q82955)
Example 3Zootopia (Q15270647)animated film (Q202866)
Example 4Mona Lisa (Q12418) -> painting (Q3305213)
Planned useRecord model items for all of the most used classes on Wikidata, then gradually expand over time to include more granular concepts
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoWikidata :Property proposal/Model item

Motivation[edit]

Defines which item is a best practice example of modelling a subject, which is described by the value of this property. Providing best practice examples linked from the subject will make it much easier for people to understand how to model types of items, especially new people. The main hope is that this will lead to more consistent modelling of items rather than different editors making up their own structure. It will also allow a central place to decide how to model certain kinds of items.

By modelling this within the structure of Wikidata rather than in Wikiprojects the structure is multilingual. Also looking at where the model item refers to the concept we can run a standard query that will work for most cases to find all the items that the model applies to, this is not limited to ‘instance of’. This could be used to check which items do and do not have high importance statements, e.g authors without a date of birth.

This could later be complemented with another property which defines the schema for a class of item (e.g author or politician)

This property requires that the inverse property Model item also be accepted to be most useful.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - NavinoEvans (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jane023 (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good idea, but Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment what is the intended extent? should all classes have a model or just the upper classes? I see animated film (Q202866) in the example but wouldn't film (Q11424) be better? (both way are fine, but too many model would probably end up as confusing as no model at all) Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much @VIGNERON:, I don't think these items will define the schema for that class, just act as good practice examples for people to copy. I'm currently working on an idea for schema modelling using a new property. My guess is having model items for more granular items like 'author' or 'animated film' will be helpful and that you'd want for people to be specific, modelling authors from the model item for 'human' would probably mean people miss out a lot of the author specific details. Same for animated film, e.g animators, software used, rendering engine, voice actors (by language version) etc are all specific to animated films (and some specific to computer modelled animated films even). I don't know how granular you would want to go though, do we want a model item for '16th Century Welsh poets'? I think that's a community decision. --John Cummings (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1:, I suggest that both are needed to help people navigate, they're not exactly inverse properties of each other as a model item could be the model for several subjects e.g Douglas Adams could be the model for 20th Century British authors and 20th Century British Playwrights. Having both will be more valuable than only having one of them. --John Cummings (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I rather debate on the talk page of "20th Century British authors" about the model status of Q42 than the inverse. --- Jura 12:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion, do you mean you want to have a discussion on the schema for '20th Century British authors' on the item for '20th Century British Authors'? If so then I assume there is some way of setting up a bot that adds a note to the talk page for model items (e.g Douglas Adams) that directs you to the correct location (e.g item for 20th century British authors). I also think this this unlikely to be an issue once we've implemented some way of describing schemas within the items. --John Cummings (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
We already have. So even more so. You can always query it. --- Jura 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Pasleim:, when you say enough, for which use cases do you mean? --John Cummings (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
It is enough because all the statements can be inferred from Wikidata:Property proposal/Model item. For new users, for whom this property is mainly, it will make most sense to create a list of all model items. To create such a list you only need one of the two properties. If you have both properties you don't gain anything but your maintenance work will be doubled. --Pasleim (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Better to point in the other direction. --Yair rand (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand:, can you explain why only one direction is better? Surely having two directions will help people to find useful items? These properties are not exactly inverse of each other because an item can be a model item for more than one class. --John Cummings (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is actually not relevant information about Douglas Adam. --- Jura 08:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @John Cummings: I don't see how being a model item for more than one class would make it not an exact inverse. If there's a statement going one way, there would be a statement going the other way. (That is, if X is a model item for both Y and Z, this property would point from X to both, and the inverse would point both to X from both Y and Z.) With both directions, we have two versions of the data, which are not automatically in sync. If someone changes one statement but does not change the other statement, one version will be incomplete. Requiring two actions for each change will cause the data to be less reliable. --Yair rand (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand:, thanks. I think this is an issue that needs resolving, that inverse properties are very useful for querying and finding items but are problematic for staying in sync, do you know if anyone has proposed a bot or any other solution to keep them in sync? Not having inverse properties feels like throwing the baby out with the bath water... I will do some looking around at possible solutions John Cummings (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Germartin1:, could you explain why you think we shouldn't have this property? Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
First of all, it's an inverse of your other proposal, hence redundant according to Wikidata principles. Personally, I don't see how it adds any kind of value to an item. Germartin1 (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Germartin1: I don't fully understand why this is against Wikidata principles? Is there a guideline or info page you can point? We have around 100 inverse property pairs at the moment. For example, template's main topic (P1423) and topic's main template (P1424) ... or ... is a list of (P360) and has list (P2354). NavinoEvans (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful, particularly with inverse property. See no harm in using both in supporting developing best practice and some kind of consistency. Stinglehammer (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yeah, can see this being helpful. Lirazelf (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very useful Jason.nlw (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nepalicoi (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Nepalicoi:, can you explain why you oppose the proposal? Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Logically implies (necessary condition)[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionNecessary condition, i.e. logical consequence of a mathematical statement
RepresentsLogical consequence (Q374182), requirement (Q774228)
Data typeMathematical expression
DomainMaxwell's equations (Q51501)
Allowed valuesMathematical theorems (or other mathematical laws e.g. from theoretical physics)
ExampleMaxwell's equations (Q51501) =>(P?) Coulomb's law (Q83152)
Sourcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence
Planned useconnect physics theorems / axioms by logical relation to annotate constraints / necessary conditions
Robot and gadget jobsshould be allowed

Motivation

My vision is to enable creating a logically structured semantic network of mathematical theorems (starting with theoretical physics). This would allow researchers to quickly grasp the constraints of the formulae (Wikidata items) they are working on, the framework they are working in. A theorem / formula (Wikidata item) is falsified already if one of its necessary conditions turns out to be falsified. Thus it is vital to know them, in order to prevent mathematical researchers from wasting their time working on something that may be invalid.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by PhilMINT (talk • contribs) at February 19, 2018‎ (UTC).

Discussion

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @PhilMINT: This is an interesting proposal - unfortunate that it seems to have gotten lost. I believe the datatype should be item, not "formula" (your example follows that pattern). I don't particularly like the parenthetical label - you can add that as an alias. Perhaps to be clearer the main English label should be "logically implies"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Symbol support vote.svg Support. I agree that the datatype should be item. I think this property could be useful, although I don't know how many interesting theorems imply other interesting theorems outright, rather than imply in the context of plausible background assumptions. The "source" will be different secondary and textbook sources depending on the relation claimed. "Domain" is another field that seems to be filled in incorrectly: the domain of this property should be something like mathematical object (Q246672) or proposition (Q108163): we need a clear decision on what the domain will be. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment(s) I also included this in Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science in the maths section. Interesting proposal. I’d propose to add qualifiers to add the necessary axiom and logic in which the implication is valid (eg. some implications are true under ZFC but fot in ZF, or true in first order logic but not in a substructural one). But this needs more development : Banach–Tarski paradox (Q737851) is a logical consequence of ZFC, ie. it is a theorem of ZFC. Specifically, commenting your example, if we consider Maxwell equation an axiomatic system, does not this simply state that Coulomb’s law are a theorem of the Maxwell theory in first order logic ? This is what a logician would tell. In that spirit, I’d complete the proposal with the following properties and/or qualifier that might be needed in a context of mathematical logic like the refinement around the different logics and axiom-set. Please feel free to discuss the best models for the different combinations. For example it might be better to create a « theorem of » property with a theory range « Coulomb's law theorem of Maxwell equation (in first order logic) » considering maxwell equation as a logical theory. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

logic and axiom system[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionNecessary condition, i.e. logical consequence of a mathematical statement
Representslogical system (Q17488292) View with Reasonator View with SQID -- or specifically the set of rule of inference (Q1068763) (resp. rule of inference (Q1068763) - the set of axiom or logical theory)
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier of « implies » statement (the previous proposal), maybe useful elsewhere
Allowed valueslogical system (Q17488292) View with Reasonator View with SQID (resp rule of inference (Q1068763) - the set of axiom or logical theory)
Example 1
< Banach–Tarski paradox (Q737851) View with Reasonator View with SQID > theorem of search < ZFC set theory >
logic search < Q4055684 >
Example 2Something with a higher order logic theorem : Courcelle's theorem (Q5178114). What is the best way to model ?
Example 3Something with a weaker logic : Markov's principle (Q3922074) that is true in a weaker logic than classical logic but is not obvious. What is the best way to model ? This article discusses the different axioms we can choose in an intuitionistic logic : http://math.fau.edu/lubarsky/Separating%20LLPO.pdf
Robot and gadget jobsshould be allowed
discussion[edit]

These properties or qualifiers are useful to model en:Deductive_system used to derive the theorems, but there may be terminology issues and different way to model this, so this is only a proposition starting point that needs to be discussed and amended. Taking into account the axiom and inference rules leads to the difficulty that complete logical systems includes the two and that items topic often implies the inference rules used. We already have some properties for logic like admissible in search to link inference rules to logic, for example, but it’s not enough obviously) author  TomT0m / talk page 14:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter, ArthurPSmith, PhilMINT: Opensofias
Tobias1984
Micru
Arthur Rubin
Cuvwb
TomT0m
Tylas
Physikerwelt
Lymantria
Bigbossfarin
Infovarius
Helder
PhilMINT
Malore
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Mathematics author  TomT0m / talk page 14:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't have any strong opinion on this. How many different logic/axiom systems are there? And aren't those two different things anyway? Maybe we already have a qualifier that can capture this appropriately? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

restriction of[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionfile format A is a restriction of file format B if all instances of A are also instances of B, but instances of B are not necessarily instances of A.
Data typeItem
Template parameteren:Template:Infobox file format extended from
Domainfile format (Q235557)
Allowed valuesfile format (Q235557)
Example 1GeoTIFF (Q1502796)Tag Image File Format (Q215106)
Example 2EPUB 3 (Q27196933)ZIP (Q136218)
Example 3Portable Document Format/Archive, version 1 Basic (Q26543628)Portable Document Format, version 1.4 (Q26085326)
Sourcehttp://hul.harvard.edu/gdfr/documents/GDFR-Format-Model-and-Relationship-1_0_7.rtf
Planned usePopulate this property with information from the extended_from infobox parameter (after careful examination, because the meaning of this parameter is often misunderstood).
See alsobased on (P144)

Motivation[edit]

This proposal is derived from a rejected "extension of" property proposal.

For digital preservation, we need to know when a file of format A is also a valid instance of format B (see http://hul.harvard.edu/gdfr/documents/GDFR-Format-Model-and-Relationship-1_0_7.rtf, section 3.2). The property based on (P144) is related but broader (for example, EPUB 3 (Q27196933) is a restriction of ZIP (Q136218), but it is also based on (P144) Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Q166074) and Cascading Style Sheets (Q46441).  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dipsode87 (talk • contribs) at 10:24, September 13, 2018‎ (UTC).

Discussion[edit]

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Fractaler
Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Diaz
FabC
Jasc PL
Malore
putnik
Dhx1
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Toto256 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and clear proposal, thanks. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support John Samuel (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment as this seems to be meant for file formats, I added that in the description. --- Jura 10:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would be helpful if the label was more specific, to avoid misuse. --Yair rand (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dhx1 (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment_It seems to me that subclass of (P279) can definitely do the trick. If all files within a subformat are also valid superformat files, then if any file which conforms to the format is an instance of it the restricted subformat is definitely a subclass of its parent. This make sense if you consider the definition of the format as a « class expression » that defines the properties shared by its instances. So I’d tend to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Note that the definition is the same than subclass of (P279) and we should not multiply the number of typing properties. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

parties (public international law subjects who consented to be bound by the treaty)[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionThis property is intended to list the parties (countries or international organizations) of the treaty. It should allow adding several values.
Data typeItem
Domaintreaty (Q131569)
Allowed valuescountry (Q6256), international organization (Q484652)
Example 1Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Q239768)Nigeria (Q1033)
Example 2Treaty on International Civil Law of 1889 (Q40449446)Bolivia (Q750)
Example 3Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Q277072)Sweden (Q34)
Robot and gadget jobsno
See alsosignatory (P1891) (previous step in the process of adoption of a treaty) depositor (P2058) (after a treaty was ratified by a country, this country sends the instrument to the depositary)

Motivación[edit]

This property is needed, because currently Wikidata can show which subjects signed a treaty by property signatory (P1891), but there is no corresponding property to know if any of the signatories consented to be bound by the treaty.

The property should work as this:

 <P> parties/consented to be bound:    <Q> country/int org
                                              <qualifier> mean                              <Q> ratification, acceptance, approval, accession, ...
                                              <qualifier> date approved                     <date> YYYY-MM-DD (date when the country consented to be bound, such as when parliament voted for it)
                                              <qualifier> approved by law* (if aṕpropriate) <Q>/<text> number or name of the law
                                              <qualifier> date deposited                    <date> YYYY-MM-DD (date when instrument was deposited to the depositary)
                                            <references>

                                       <Q> country/int org 2...
                                              <qualifier> mean                              <Q> ratification, acceptance, approval, accession, ...
                                              <qualifier> date approved                     <date> YYYY-MM-DD 
                                              <qualifier> approved by law* (if aṕpropriate) <Q>/<text> number or name of the law
                                              <qualifier> date deposited                    <date> YYYY-MM-DD 
                                            <references>
* or approved by signature, etc.

Should also be taken in account to add end date, when the treaty is not binding to the country anymore due to withdrawal of the treaty. Zerabat (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this specifically for international agreements, or could it also be used for, say, agreements between organizations? --Yair rand (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This could be for agreements between any subject of international law: between states, between states and other interantional law subjets (e.g. international organizations), and between other international law subjects themselves. --Zerabat (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
      • @Zerabat: any reason this would be restricted to international law ? And not generalized to signed agreements like contracts or anything ? It seem similar to a contract in spirit, it bounds the different signers. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Even if signatory (P1891) may be both for private law and international law, I don't think you need to "approve" a contract signed previously between two persons. In that case, the signature means approval or agreement. But in international law usually is commitment first and then obligation. --Zerabat (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
          • @Zerabat: Just checked fr:Traité_(droit_international_public) and it seem that the adoption procedure and is way more complicated than this : there is steps « negociation first, then adoption, authentication (formal) / signature / ratification (in french or english) / entry into force / and optionally adhesion for countrys that joins afterward (it seems they are then engaged after the signing) ». My first thought is « rename the property « ratified by ».
            It seems that in some countries (« dualist » one) there even is an afterward step to include the rules into the common law of the country (by opposition of « monist » one for which the ratification of a treaty makes it automatically included into the rules). I think this property is intended to register the countries in which the treaty has been ratified ?
            . We could also think of a property to register the status of the treaty like « adoption status » with possible values « negociation / adoption / ratification … ». Also I think we could create a property specific for signature as it seems to be a different thing, as you say, as a traditional contract signature. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment after a bit more thinking, I’d propose to model with significant event (P793) View with SQID, to make each step of adoption atomic and move the dates out of the qualifiers.
Your property would nethertheless be useful to list all the country in which the treaty is fully active, with start/stop date and appropriate ranks. This is because I think the Wikidata way is not to « update » a statement about the status of a country but to use rank to make the most recent statuses be used in infoboxes and put an end date and normal rank to statuses that was valid at some date (per Help:Ranking, if the temperature change we don’t update the statement, we create a new one with a different date and change the rank, I think we should do something consistent for evolving statuses). For example we list the bound country after the step of « entry into force », qualified with a begin date, or after the adhesion step for the appropriate country, and we forget the other qualifiers (date approved and date deposited mostly). author  TomT0m / talk page 15:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Depósito Legal ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a publication in Spain
Representsno label (Q56650972)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainwork (Q386724)
Example 1Diccionari biogràfic d'Olot (Q56650936) → "Gi. 1590-2015"
Example 2El Pintor Ivo Pascual → "GE-923/83"
Example 3Diccionario Català – Alemany → "B. 30.238-1997"
Example 4Gramàtica de la llengua catalana → "B 21836-2016"
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoOCLC control number (P243), ISBN-13 (P212), ISBN-10 (P957)

Motivation[edit]

I would create an property for the Depósito Legal No or Depósito Legal ID (DL ID) of publications in Spain. Each publication in Spain must have this ID called „Número de depósito legal“ (even if they have no ISBN). I believe it’s analog to the DPLA ID (P760) in USA. There is a big adventage working with publications which have no International Standard Book Number (Q33057) and no OCLC control number (P243) like many art catalogues. I would reference some such works with biografical informations of artists. For example: I would assign the object Diccionari biogràfic d'Olot (Q56650936) the property Depósito Legal ID "Gi. 1590-2015". Unfortunately this book has not a unique ISBN. The Editors has used the ISBN for two different books. The DL-No is unique.

Examples (also historical examples of the Depósito Legal ID)
"GE-923/83" → El Pintor Ivo Pascual (GE for Gerona, 83 for 1983)
"Gi. 1590-2015" → Diccionari biogràfic d‘Olot (Gi. for Girona)
"B. 30.238-1997" → Diccionari Català – Alemany (Batlle et al.; B. for Barcelona, 1997)
"B 21836-2016" → Gramàtica de la llengua catalana (B for Barcelona, 2016)

Only the last No. is formally total correct. But I would show, which forms are possible in reality.

Thanks to all --Nasobema lyricum (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Property proposal assisted by MisterSynergy (talk) after request at Wikidata:Forum.

@Nasobema lyricum, MisterSynergy: Q56650972 has been deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Arkanosis: it is not clear to me what happened here − if I interpret the deletion reason correctly, it means that these legal deposit ids do not exist? Are the examples above made up? − Pintoch (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure… The deletion was requested by its creator Nasobema lyricum on the 20th of September. It wasn't linked to anything and had a single revision. Do any of you want me to restore it?
Best regards — Arkanosis 09:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

reference template for this work[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe reference template that matches to this work or part of it.
RepresentsWikimedia template (Q11266439) (actually a new subclass Wikimedia reference template)
Data typeItem
DomainI think publication (Q732577)?
Allowed valuesitems with instance of Wikimedia template (Q11266439)/the new instance
Example 1Auctarium ad Synopsim Methodicam Stirpium Horti Reg. Taurinensis (Q5711347)species:Template:Allioni, 1774
Example 2A revision of the Solanum elaeagnifolium clade (Elaeagnifolium clade; subgenus Leptostemonum, Solanaceae). (Q42258482)species:Template:Knapp et al., 2017
Example 3A revision of the Old World Black Nightshades (Morelloid clade of Solanum L., Solanaceae) (Q56119440)species:Template:Särkinen et al., 2018

Motivation[edit]

This property (possibly with a converse used on template items) would connect works and existing reference templates that are used to represent them. Currently some items (e.g. examples 2 and 3 above) make them directly connected, but it seems like a poor representation of what is going on. It also cannot be used whenever both a template and a page (i.e. Auctarium ad Synopsim Methodicam Stirpium Horti Reg. Taurinensis (Q5711347)), or more than one template (i.e. templates for volumes or other specific parts) exist. Since template's main topic (P1423) doesn't seem to work, I'm proposing a new property. Circeus (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are wikis that doesn't use this kind of "particular use" templates (a template for a single reference) and instead use more generic reference templates like "Cite Web", "Cite Book"... with parameters. --Zerabat (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question how about topic's main template (P1424) ? --- Jura 17:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I was under the clear impression that topic's main template (P1424) is intended for navigational templates (it does say "topic", whereas this treats the object as a reference). Furthermore, it's also plausible for a work to have both a navigational and a source template. Circeus (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Good point. Reading the English description of that template, that seems correct. I tend to add template's main topic (P1423) to items for templates for references (which seems consistent with its description) and then @Pasleim:'s bot adds topic's main template (P1424) to the item for the work (or website). --- Jura 07:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

does not have quality[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionIndicate that a certain quality is absent
Data typeItem
Domainitems, lexemes, forms
Example 1see does not have part (P3113) on ealli (L25088)
Example 2dark energy (Q18343) Does not have quality gravitational mass (Q1076402) (currently using does not have part (P3113))
Example 3prisoner (Q1862087) Does not have quality freedom of movement (Q1344824) (currently using does not have part (P3113))<
See alsodoes not have part (P3113)

Motivation[edit]

The same as does not have part (P3113), but for qualities. I wasn't sure if it was needed even after a discussion about ealli (L25088) and the use of does not have part (P3113). However, I needed only a minute to find use cases this would replace, hence this proposalCirceus (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Use has quality (P1552), with a value of "no value". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pigsonthewing: I do not understand your example, could you elaborate? where can one put the value if you already put "no value" Germartin1 (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
      • My mistake: I read "gravitational mass" as being a property, not an item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Pigsonthewing: No problem, do you still oppose it though? I'd like to know your opinion as you have the most experience. I think there should be fundamental question of negative values, because many qualifiers could have a negative counterpart, ex: valid in place (P3005) -> valid not in place (valid in all places except), etc. Germartin1 (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree, this does not work. This is to state the abscence of a quality expected for an object of this kind, so there necessary is a value author  TomT0m / talk page 13:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like this proposal, but for these examples one could use as well "has quality" and then use the opposite. Example: prisoner "has quality" captivity (Q2920296); dark energy (Q18343) has quality inertial mass (Q843816) Germartin1 (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Circeus: I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support for now, but I'm still waiting for your reply Germartin1 (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Because there's not always an opposite (what's the opposite of consonant gradation?). Also, dark energy is not even a quality of dark matter to begin with, it's a theoretical explanation to an entirely different phenomenon: dark matter explains otherwise inconsistent gravitational effects, dark matter has to do with the Universe's accelerated rate of expansion. Circeus (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment does not have part (P3113) has been proposed for deletion though I think on invalid grounds; I wonder if it would be better to generalize it to include this case? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

internal change of state of[edit]

Note
Property renamed, was happened to
   Under discussion
Descriptionthis event is an internal change of state of that entity. Alias : « occurs in »
Data typeItem
Domainevents that occurs to something
Example 1
< French Revolution (Q6534) View with Reasonator View with SQID >  Wikidata property  < France (Q142) >
Example 2
< death of Diomedes Díaz (Q24943895) View with Reasonator View with SQID >  Wikidata property  < Diomedes Díaz (Q5256493) >
Example 3
< Big Bang (Q323) View with Reasonator View with SQID >  Wikidata property  < Universe (Q1) >
See alsosignificant event (P793), participant (P710), facet of (P1269)

Motivation[edit]

(Ajoutez ici vos motivations pour la création de cette propriété) I think we need a property for items whose topic is an event that happens to change the internal state of some real world entity, to link . This is different from participant (P710) View with SQID as this property is for events like sport competition that involves several entities but the entities themselves remains the same after the event. On the other hand, a birth, a constitutional change, a disease someone happens to catch involves a single actor who is changed by the event. This property is intended only for those latter cases, and not a meeting event or other event involving several actors (sport competition, wars, …). For example the french revolution happened to the france country administration, technically, and had many participants. It changed the french political regime (the change in the state of the entity) but it did not change the actors themselves (although some actors might have a change in their own life/death status in the process). author  TomT0m / talk page 12:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So this would be an inverse of significant event (P793) ? Do we need both? Jheald (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Jheald: Not really, it seems to me that « key event » is way more broadly used and that in many case it could be an inverse of participant (P710) View with SQID or some other property. Maybe incorrectly, but pragmatically it seems that it’s used in many other usecases (and it’s hard to catch the possible misuse, if it’s actually supposed to be used only in the circonstances of my proposal, it’s hard to catch by constraints). Just sample a few results of this query that just checks subject and objects of key event and you’ll understand what I mean. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    To complete, this could work if, like in BFO and OBO, we had a way to know that an event type is tight to a type of entity (a death event or birth event is uniquely tight to a living entity, for example, but a war usually involves several actors). Then if we have a class « event tight to an individual », that « death » (for example) and all such event classes are a subclass of it, and that the key event value is an instance of such class, then we can compute the equivalent as the result of a query. But in Wikidata it’s a bit hard to know this from the class tree imho, and it’s still not an inverse property because « significant or notable events associated with the subject » is not a suitable description (even if this was the initial intension, don’t really remember, and if it is we went way out of the road). author  TomT0m / talk page 18:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment French Revolution (Q6534) has already a property "location"; death of Diomedes Díaz (Q24943895) P31 death of (P642): Diomedes Díaz (Q5256493). Big Bang (Q323) can also use "of" qualifier. Germartin1 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Germartin1: « location » definitely miss the point. The death of someone can occur on some place, this does not mean that the place is dead. That and event about france took place in france is not exactly surprising, but that it took place in france does not mean the revolution is a change of the french regime. I mentioned the « of » qualifier in my proposal, please comment on the reason I think it’s not an ideal solution. Besides, I think for a death it’s clear what « of » mean, but for other situations the qualifier might not be so clear. Imagine a heart attack of someone ? This makes barely sense in english, imagine for other kind of events. Besides it’s highly ambiguous, see its usage for a specific event as a qualifier of « instance of » in : Second plague pandemic (Q18341002) (found in the first results of this query, so really not hard to find unless I’m very lucky : this is a totally different meaning ! a consistent use would imply that the pandemia occured in a human group, like a death happens to someone, here it’s used to say which kind of disease it’s a pandemia of … Terrible solution. author  TomT0m / talk page 21:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this duplicates participant (P710). The English description of that property seems to have a larger scope than the French one. --- Jura 09:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: The descriptions and name may need to be better chosen or clarified. Nevertheless the motivation for this property specifically mentions why it’s different from « participant ». A person do not « participate » in its own death like he would participate in a sport competition, it’s an event that happens to himself and only himself, profoundly change him (its « state ») (euphemism for a death). The universe do not « participate » in the « big bang », it is a change in the state of itself. (besides, it seems that the universe is not in the scope of the constraint of « participant », who is restricted to stuffs like sport competition according to current constraints). author  TomT0m / talk page 09:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      • At first it may seem so, but if you qualify the statement correctly ("object has role"), it doesn't (for example #2). I'm not really sure what's the added benefit of this somewhat vague property in other cases. We already have other general properties that can be used: facet of (P1269), significant event (P793). --- Jura 11:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Jura1: It’s definitely not « vague », or you should say this to one of the most rigorous modelling frameworks ever creators, BFO and OBO :) On the other hand please read the description of « object has role » : « role or generic identity of subject (the item that the statement is on) in a certain context. » Seriously wtf ? What should be the role of the big bang in the universe in « a certain context » (meaning what, in the context of the statement that the big bang is a key event for the universe)? You mean an item whose title is « the object is an internal change of state of the subject ? » This is becoming to be especially abstruse. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Sorry if it wasn't clear: I just inserted "(for example #2)" in my previous comment. --- Jura 11:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
            • @Jura1: Sorry but I see nothing in Diomedes Díaz (Q5256493). In example 1 there is even no « key event » statement in the item of france - and we can understand why, it would bloat the item. It could be that « french revolution » is part of « history of france », but I’m afraid history of France (Q7778) is an aspect of « history of europe » both with an aspect of france, good luck to sort out the meaning of both, this is a mess. And indeed, « aspect of » is a vague property, it does not explain the nature of the relation and people uses it as a vague property, unsurprisingly. Maybe you can recover your stuffs by a query « this is the history of a country, let find the country listed if the « aspect of » statement, it’s likely to be the good one. Then any part of this history is likely to have happen to that country". Good luck if you have two « aspect of » statements to countries. This is trading a clear property by way more complicated ways to do the link. (I emphasize the plural to emphasize this imply how inconsistenly and unpredictably we model similar relations) author  TomT0m / talk page
            • @Jura1: Oh, I realized you may refer to the addition of the « of » qualifier with another account (?) Then you did not answer on the fact that the « of » qualifier has many meaning and usages, even on events item which lead to ambiguities. How do you sort out all this ? author  TomT0m / talk page 13:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment_this inspires me another argument, the risk to bloat the item with « key event » for items for which happens a lot of events should motivate us to create the property. This is a functional property, each event has at most one value for it, whereas in the sense « subject -> internal change event » we have many values in one item. Such consideration made us creating no inverse property of « subclass of », because a class has less subclass than superclass (usually). Here it’s used in the other way, we should favor many statements in one item other one statement in many items ? author  TomT0m / talk page 12:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Use participant (P710). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    • _@Pigsonthewing: Do you « participate » in your own death ? author  TomT0m / talk page 08:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Not for a while I hope, but I'll be very disappointed if it happens when I'm not there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Pigsonthewing: :) More seriously, there is a difference into a football game, a meeting event on one hand, in which several entities joins the same place to do something, but that something is external to themselves, and a heart attack, or the inflation of the universe, in which something internal happens to an entity. Using « participant » cannot reflect that difference in nature. There is probably items for which the two stuffs could be mixed up, for example imagine the modification of a forest from wild state to human engineered and exploited one. The forest itself is modified, but external entities participate in the process, humans, companies … The forest do not participate in its « artificialisation », it’s a change of its state, however. In the latter case, we can’t use « participant ». author  TomT0m / talk page 11:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The various uses are already covered more specifically by other properties. --Yair rand (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Yair rand: I don’t agree ( what fits for the « Big Bang » ? ) None of these « ad hoc » « specific » solutions are exempt of defaults - see the problems exposed in my other answers) It should be seen (imho) as a problem that a very similar relationship in nature has many inconsistent and imperfect ways to be modelled on Wikidata. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @TomT0m: I think it would be helpful if you could provide more examples. We already have Universe (Q1) significant event (P793) Big Bang (Q323), but it sounds like you're getting at the issue of this being a particular subset of types of events? If so, couldn't the target items just be placed into a "change of state" (or something like that) class tree to indicate that? (Btw, the English label of P793 is "significant event", not "key event". You might want to use {{P}} when referencing it, to avoid confusion.) --Yair rand (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @Yair rand: I don’t really want to repeat myself forever, so please see my answers to similar questions from the participants above (the page is small enough for this not to be a big issue). But if only one more reason if I the others are not enough, what if an event has its own item but is not judged « significant » enough to bloat the item it happens to ? author  TomT0m / talk page 16:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

storage capacity (ROM)[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe storage capacity of a device or hard drive
Representsread-only memory (Q160710)
Data typeQuantity
Domaindata storage (Q193395)
Allowed valuesbyte (Q8799) and derivatives (see other property)
Example 1Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Q50283450) → 128gigabyte (Q79738)
Example 2iPhone 8 Plus (Q39598190) → 64gigabyte (Q79738) and 256gigabyte (Q79738)
Example 3Fairphone 2 (Q21000819) → 32gigabyte (Q79738)
See alsomemory capacity (P2928),maximum size or capacity (P3559)

Motivation[edit]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about memory capacity (P2928) as it has wrong translations in other languages and therefore some people see it as ROM and some as RAM. As memory capacity (P2928) is meant to refer to RAM. I'm hereby proposing the storage capacity of ROM. Germartin1 (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Germartin1: Are you referring to en:Read-only memory? But your examples are not about that. In any case, I don't think memory capacity (P2928) was ever intended to be limited to RAM, it should be applicable to hard drives, tapes, CD's, any form of data storage. If you have several different storage types on one device, then add applies to part (P518) qualifiers to clarify what type it refers to. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: Yes, Read-only memory. Ok thank you for clarifying it. In that case I'm proposing to seperate RAM and ROM to avoid confusion, or to put a constraint to memory capacity (P2928) to use applies to part (P518) for every value. Germartin1 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • But the 64 GB in an iPhone 8 plus, for example, is not ROM, but en:Flash memory, as you will see from the infobox for en:iPhone. So technically your examples are NOT what you say you are asking for. There are so many different information storage technologies in use these days that I don't think it makes any sense to have a separate property for each one. The existing property is fine. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @ArthurPSmith: You have a good point, although flash memory can be seen as a kind of ROM. In case I don't find support, would you be fine with a mandatory qualifier? Germartin1 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
          • I don't think I've ever heard flash referred to as ROM. It is a form of non-volatile memory - like tapes and hard drives. So if your intent is to distinguish volatile from non-volatile then perhaps that's a logical criterion here. But even a single device can have several distinct classes of each type (volatile and non-volatile) memory, so I think qualifiers to indicate the specific storage technology are the best approach here. I'm not sure about mandatory but I think the qualifier should be recommended. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better to have two properties, I guess Nepalicoi (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Screen width[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe screen width of a device
Data typeQuantity
Allowed valuespixel (Q355198), millimeter (Q174789)
Example 1Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Q50283450) → 1080 pixel (Q355198)
Example 2Fairphone 2 (Q21000819) → 1080 pixel (Q355198)
Example 3Nokia 3310 (Q219691) → 48pixel (Q355198)
See alsowidth (P2049)

Screen height[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe screen height of a device
Data typeQuantity
Example 1Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Q50283450) → 1920 pixel (Q355198)
Example 2Fairphone 2 (Q21000819) → 1920 pixel (Q355198)
Example 3Nokia 3310 (Q219691) → 84 pixel (Q355198)

Motivation[edit]

based on a previous proposal, which didn't get through because nobody bothered to find another solution. The resolution has width and height, I don't know if it should be restricted to pixels or allow others as well (inches, meter, cm, mm, etc.). I'm open to ideas considering that screens may not be rectangular in the future, but also round or curvy. Germartin1 (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC

Discussion[edit]

satisfaction rate[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionLe taux de satisfaction est le pourcentage d'utilisateurs d'un bien, d'un service, d'un lieu, d'un équipement satisfaits. (fr) – (Please translate this into English.)
Representscontentment (Q352126)
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Domainproduct (Q2424752), service (Q7406919), network (Q15993745), geographical object (Q618123), organization (Q43229)
Allowed unitsdefault: % (percent)
Example 1Paris Métro (Q50716) → 87 % (2004)
Example 2Rennes Metro (Q366979) → 81 % (2014)
Example 3Disneyland Paris (Q206521) → 78,3 % (2008)
Example 4Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (Q46280) → 86 % (2013)
Example 5no label (Q17630524) → 95 % (2018)
Example 6no label (Q2945692) → 98 % (2014)
Example 7STRAN buses (Q3250965) -> 49 % (2009) source
Example 8STRAN buses (Q3250965) -> 38 % (2011) source
Planned useunknown
Robot and gadget jobsno
See alsoreview score (P444)

Motivation[edit]

Français : C'est un indicateur important concernant un service. Il est généralement cité. Il permet de suivre l'évolution de satisfaction des usagers/clients. Ainsi que de comparer la satisfaction entre plusieurs entreprises ou services.

Manu1400 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

date of opening[edit]

   Under discussion
Representsopening (Q15051339)
Data typePoint in time
Example 1Aldwych tube station (Q990658) → 30 November 1907
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING

Motivation[edit]

Sometimes date of official opening (P1619) might be used for the date of the opening ceremony, rather than the date of the actual opening. A separation would help. (Alternatively the new property could be the date of the opening ceremony, but I'm not sure.) Jc86035 (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

also display sitelinks for[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionvalue's sitelinks should also be displayed by this item's sitelinks
Data typeItem
Example 1thermal solar power station (Q285927)concentrated solar power (Q56761669) (and vice versa)
Example 2Bonnie and Clyde (Q219937)Bonnie Parker (Q2319886) and Clyde Barrow (Q3320282)
Example 3Clyde Barrow (Q3320282)Bonnie and Clyde (Q219937)

Motivation[edit]

For a not-insignificant number of items, some Wikipedias have an article for a closely related topic but not that topic itself. Wikipedia editors often complain about these topics not being sitelinked to each other. This property would link those groups of items as a temporary measure while it is not possible to natively link them this way in MediaWiki, similar to how permanent duplicated item (P2959) links alternate-script articles to their main item. (I'm not sure about the property name – maybe it should be changed?) Jc86035 (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

TomT0m ArthurPSmith Place Clichy Daniel Mietchen DavRosen Dipsacus fullonum Sj Pintoch Malore

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Cross Items Interwikis

  • Not convinced. I your example the more precise item is probably a subclass of the more generic one, so you already can recover the sitelink following subclass of (P279). Why would you need another property for this ? (also valid for " Bonny and Clyde, but with « part of ». see WD:XLINK for more examples. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @TomT0m: Sometimes the relationship isn't obvious. For the first example, the former item is about a type of power station, whereas the latter item is about a class of electricity generation. The sitelinks generally discuss the same topic but frame it in a different way; one is not a subclass of or part of the other (and the "type of power station" German Wikipedia article is slightly broader in its scope). However, I am only aware of this example due to Rainald62's comments at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Wikidata/Allow non one-to-one correspondence relationship in wikidata and display them in interlanguage link. Jc86035 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jc86035: I just see there is an facet of (P1269) View with SQID statement beetween the two items, another extremely vague property … is not that enough, seriously ? We will end up with more vague properties to bake half bake solutions with meaningless relationship than relationships with meaning. Really this is something I do not want to encourage. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jc86035: how does P2959 work for this? I haven't seen that in action - are there some wikipedia's with a gadget that supports it, or is it natively supported somehow? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: I don't know, although it should be possible with a Lua module (at least for articles on the same wiki). w:hak:台灣 uses a manual hatnote template to link to w:hak:Thòi-vân, but the two groups of interwiki links are separate. Jc86035 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't really expect there to be any gadgets or modules for ameliorating the multiple-nonconvertible-varieties problem, since the Wikipedias that have this issue are largely on the tiny side. Jc86035 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most likely you need to said to be the same as (P460) or exact match (P2888) David (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about linking Wikipedia articles in umbrella items using instance of (P31)  Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471)?--Malore (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No indication that the property would be used by Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    I would certainly use it, for example. We have many cases where articles have few exact matches, but many other languages where the same topic is covered in articles from a different Wikidata item. If you just look at the article it looks (wrongly) like the topic would have poor coverage in other languages. --mfb (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wouldn't this be specific to each Wikipedia? --- Jura 20:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

this should be fixed / maintenance tag[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionrelevant maintenance issue for this entity or statement (create a new item for the issue if an appropriate one does not exist)
Data typeItem
Example 1Thriller (Q380825) → [new item for "this item incorrectly conflates a music track and a composition"@en]
Example 2[some statement] → [new item for "this statement may be factually incorrect"@en; or Template:Dubious (Q5618578)]
Example 3Love, Simon (Q29169280) → [new item for "this item for a creative work does not have all release/publication dates"@en]
Example 4I Will Always Love You (Q666856) → [new items for "this item's singles chronology or singles chronologies should be in qualifiers to P179 statements on an item for the single"@en, "this item incorrectly conflates a music track and a composition"@en, "this item incorrectly conflates multiple music tracks (live recordings, remixes and cover versions should have their own items)"@en, "this item combines data for different creative works, which should be separated into distinct items"@en, "this item incorrectly conflates a song/track with its music video"@en, and "this item incorrectly conflates a music track with a single (singles are regarded like albums even if they only have one track)"@en]
Example 5American Idiot (Q151714) → [new items for "this item has data which applies only to individual versions or editions of this creative work, which should be separated into different items" and "items should exist for this item's versions or editions"@en]

Motivation[edit]

(Inspired by Geertivp's comment at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Wikidata/Improvements to the reliability of Wikidata.)

It is not possible to manually add maintenance tags like Wikipedia's "citation needed" tags. A standard way to add issues to items and statements (e.g. "this item needs to be updated" or "this statement (date/geocoordinate) could be made more precise" or "this item for a creative work does not have all release/publication dates") would be very helpful. Property constraints cannot substitute for all of those issues.

Currently the only realistic way to get input for some odd issue is to post on the project chat, and if no one replies the issue will be forgotten in the archives; and for some tasks (e.g. example 1) it is currently much, much easier to automatically add a maintenance tag than it is to automatically fix the problem. It may also be difficult for Wikipedia editors to know how to correct information that is transcluded to articles.

This property would be analogous to OpenStreetMap's "fixme" key. I have proposed the "item" datatype rather than the "string" datatype because this way it will be easier to manage and translate issues. Jc86035 (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

(If a script or gadget is indeed written for registered Wikipedia editors to add these statements directly from infoboxes, I would favour having the tool post custom/other issues at a centralized page, rather than create a new property with datatype string for issues which aren't in the list of options.) Jc86035 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I understand your point, but wouldn't it be better to just fix it or write it in the talk page. Can't queries be used to find out which items lack statements? Germartin1 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    The idea behind the "fix-me button" is that the person that sees the faulty/doubtful entry does not necessarily/easily know the correct value for the Statement without substantial analysis. Just being able to hightlight the potential quality problem can invite other, more capable, users to fix the problem (either edit or delete after analysis of finding additional sources). Also the Reasonator or the Wikipedia infobox filling algorithm could further ignore doubtful information. Geertivp (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Just the other day I was thinking how nice it would be if Wikidata had a "citation needed" mechanism, and was even contemplating a property proposal for that! You could add this as a qualifier to a particular statement to indicate it needed a supporting citation (or some other issue fixed), I assume? The examples you have are for more general issues at the entire entity level where it could be a regular statement. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith: Yes; it's just that I haven't noticed any statements recently where this would be appropriate and which I didn't fix. There are probably lots of small islands where the coordinates aren't accurate enough to indicate which island the item is actually about, for instance, but I haven't gone searching for them. Jc86035 (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    Citation needed doesn't really need a new property though--we just need to use something like the item for mainspace [citation needed] or make one and to put that in the reference list for a particular claim. So this isn't all that strong a case for a tag like this. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Izno: I don't think it should go in the reference list. If an existing property is used in references, then a bunch of items have to be checked for by the Wikidata-related Lua modules and their statements removed from the reference list, which makes it more difficult to transclude sources and filter unsourced statements. (And if the new property is used in references, then the new property… also has to be checked for by the Lua modules.) Jc86035 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah that's probably a decent reason not to deal with it in references. Qualifiers? Might be cool for e.g. a Lua module on a wiki to see the Q number that is assigned to citation needed and say "oh, that's a citation needed: I should display my template for citation needed". --Izno (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wostr (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Conflating can be a rough case to deal with since you need to add multiple items possibly (which are the conflating ones?). So maybe that should get its own property "conflates" or similar? --Izno (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Izno: I'm not sure how useful it would be, other than as a subproperty of this one; and maybe that would overcomplicate the use of this property. Usually (as far as I'm aware) if an item's sitelinks discuss two or more topics (e.g. audio/composition, library/building, taxon/species, word/concept, work/book, locality/district/government, group/people) then either the item should only be about one of those things, or there should be items or lexemes created to represent the individual topics. Jc86035 (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jheald (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose given the proposed scope: marking items as incomplete just seems nonsense. See notably sample 3= Q29169280 → [new item for "this item for a creative work does not have all release/publication dates"]). --- Jura 18:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: Where was this proposed to be used for "marking items as incomplete"? All wikidata items will always be incomplete, so that really wouldn't be a useful label. This is for specific problems that can be seen but can't be immediately solved. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Have look at sample 3 and similar items. Then, maybe compare with the number of publications dates found at other sources. The suggested reason applies to most if not all film items. Merely tagging stuff isn't really helpful. --- Jura 19:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
        • If it's not useful then people won't use it for that, but this doesn't seem like "nonsense" to me - for that example the list of publication dates could be known to be complete or incomplete and it certainly makes sense to have a way to denote that specific fact directly on the item. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Here you just supported a proposal that does that. Marking items as complete or incomplete is probably something that is needed, but I don't think we should start adding tons of statements marking items or some of their statements as incomplete. This can be done with constraints. --- Jura 08:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Secondly, another problem with the above is that it combines questions about the validity of statements with structural issues. We already have ranks (and some properties) that are meant to deal with the first ones and I don't think this should be mixed into this problem as well. --- Jura 08:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) – work account, mainly for development discussions
Jarekt - mostly interested in properties related to Commons
MisterSynergy
John Samuel
Sannita
Yair rand
Jon Harald Søby
Pasleim
Jura
PKM
ChristianKl
Sjoerddebruin
Salgo60
Fralambert
Manu1400
Was a bee
Malore
Ivanhercaz
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Pizza1016
Ogoorcs
CennoxX
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints@Ivan A. Krestinin:

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment thirdly, I think part of the above maintenance issues already surface with standard or complex property constraints. The first are being made available on query server. As such, I don't think they should be repeated as statements. I'm curious what the participants of WikiProject Property Constraints think about it. --- Jura 08:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1: For some of those issues I have actually used property constraints on the related identifiers (e.g. MusicBrainz release group ID (P436)), but it can be ambiguous as to exactly why the constraint is there, and sometimes complex constraints are required (i.e. no one is going to know about the issue because the constraint doesn't show up on the item).
    I don't think combining those types of issues into one property would be problematic. Many Wikipedias use one master template or CSS class to make all of their page issue templates, for instance, and Wikidata doesn't need to have a distinction between inline issue templates and page issue templates. Jc86035 (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jura1; further thoughts: (1) those claims would be about the item itself, not about the entity described by the item; (2) we don’t keep up with covi list maintenance, and this one would be probably much worse as the targeted fixes are typically much more complex than constraint violations; (3) even fixme items with lengthy descriptive labels are often unsuitable to exactly describe the problem, so users might be confused, rather than motivated to fix something; (4) tagging with templates on item talk pages seems more appropriate. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    @MisterSynergy: I think using item talk pages would be a reasonable alternative, but it might not be very useful unless the issues are shown on the item itself with a gadget or script. Jc86035 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    I do not think that random item page visitors would contribute to fix the tagged problems to any measurable extent. Unlike Wikipedias, our data users (readers) do not typically browse items in a browser where they could see the tags. You would have to collect the tags anyway, and list them on a maintenance page akin to Ivan's covi lists. Petscan can perfectly do this with template tags on item talk pages, and this can also be automatically transferred to a suitable wiki page by bot. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    @MisterSynergy: Also, the "create a talk page" approach for statements might result in issues that are never marked as resolved even after the statement's correction, and would be much harder to transclude to Wikipedias which might want to know that the data being used is potentially bad.
    While random people visiting Wikidata items probably don't contribute measurably, I wonder what would happen if a Wikipedia decided to start automatically displaying "citation needed" tags for all unreferenced statements in Wikidata infoboxes. Presumably the same visibility would also be helpful for specific issues. (I assume that Wikipedias might prefer that situation over having more aesthetically pleasing but citation-less and unverified infobox data?)
    (in reply to your point 1) I think it's reasonable to have a meta-property for items, since there are already meta-properties for properties (and permanent duplicated item (P2959) is arguably also a meta-property). Jc86035 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    (1) The problem of forgotten tags exists for a statement-based approach as well. (2) From my experience, mainly at dewiki, Wikipedias tend to avoid using any (potentially) “problematic” statement at all; many even ignore all unreferenced statements; I don’t think we can or should expose such rather complex problems to Wikipedia readers on a large scale. (3) I don’t like most of the other meta statement properties as well; this one seems particularly dangerous. (4, new) We would need to define policies how to deal with controversial tags; at Wikipedias, editors fight a lot about the question whether a particular tag (template) is appropriate in a page or not; I’m glad we don’t have this yet at Wikidata. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    @MisterSynergy: Using item talk pages works if the issue is a problem with the item as a whole, but it doesn't help to identify individual statements that might be problematic - unless you can think of a way to do that with a template? I can imagine a template highlighting specific properties that should be checked more carefully, for example. Also I haven't ever run across an item with such a template in Wikidata, are there some existing examples? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    As far as I know, we do not have this yet in Wikidata. A statement-based approach might work for items and statements, but not for qualifiers and references, and probably also not well for ranking and snaktype issues. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support for the big challenge of Wikidata mapping external concepts. In Sweden I start seeing the problem when external concept should be matched that doesnt have mapping relation type (P4390) SKOS exact match (Q39893449). Then we inside Wikidata needs to define
I feel this is a complex process and we need to have more examples/ discussions internally and als externally to start understand how this need to be done. Marking objects were we see this challenge is an excellent start. We can today see a challenge what we inside WIkidata map as a church and the Swedish National heritage creates 2 objects for a church: One is just the building and the other is a container object for all objects next to the church. I guess in Wikipedia a church is a church but when we tries to match more specialist domains we will see that we maybe doesnt have the same granularity...and I guess WIkidata as a World wide site we will meet a lot of challenges....
I would also like to be able to combine this with a Phabricator ticket number... so issues/discussions can be tracked - Salgo60 (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We are already tagging some issues like instance of (P31)  statement with Gregorian date earlier than 1584 (Q26961029), but it would be better to have designated property for this. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol wait.svg Wait I think the general concept makes sense but we need to have more discussion about the optimal name. I also agree that incompletion shouldn't be ground for adding this tag. ChristianKl❫ 19:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I think we should define some kind of workflow/tools to be used as this is complex. I created an EPIC T202530 "Feedback processes and tools for data-providers" to gather questions/thoughts like this in e.g. user stories - Salgo60 (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

uses capitalization for[edit]

Descriptionlexical classes and subclasses of words as well as other uses in the language where the first letter is written as a capital letter. Sample: English: place names
Representscapitalization (Q425951)
Data typeItem
Domainlanguages, languoids
Allowed valuesitems describing applicable uses. For English, see list at w:Capitalization_in_English
Example 1English (Q1860)personal name (Q1071027)
Example 2English (Q1860)toponym (Q7884789)
Example 3French (Q150)proper noun (Q147276)
Example 4English (Q1860)calendar month (Q47018901)
Planned useattempt to check consistency with forms for some of the values
Robot and gadget jobscomplexe constraints for lexemes could use this
See alsohas grammatical gender (P5109)

Motivation[edit]

@Infovarius, Tobias1984, J budissin, Paweł Ziemian, Милан Јелисавчић: @Чаховіч Уладзіслаў, Arbnos, Lymantria, Andreasmperu, SMP: @NMaia, Apalsola, ZxxZxxZ, Matěj Suchánek, T.seppelt, Fnielsen:

Similar to Wikidata:Property proposal/has grammatical gender. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 12:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question how would this work with items like June (Q120)? For example, in English it’s "June" and in Spanish "junio". Lewis Hulbert (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Any estimate of how many items this property would be applicable for? Some languages don't have a capital/lowercase distinction, so it would be less than the number of languages... ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I'd estimate that this would be in line with other similar properties (see also). --- Jura 15:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Fnielsen, ArthurPSmith, Lewis Hulbert:✓ Done Now uses capitalization for (P6106). --Lymantria (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Newseum newspaper front page ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifier for newspapers at the Newseum's front page gallery
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainnewspaper (Q11032)
Allowed values^([A-Z]{2})(|[A-Z]{1,2}|A\^[A-Z]{2}|TAR)_([A-Z]{2,6}|[A-Z]\d{1,2})(|\d)$
Example 1The New York Times (Q9684)NY_NYT
Example 2The Wall Street Journal (Q164746)WSJ
Example 3The Guardian (Q11148)UK_TG
Example 4China Daily (Q851422)CHI_CD
Sourcehttp://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Mix'n'match1979, 1980
Number of IDs in source842
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttp://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/?tfp_id=$1
See alsoChronicling America newspaper ID (P4898), USNPL ID (P5454)

Motivation[edit]

The Newseum (Q1519128) website includes a gallery of the current front pages of hundreds of newspapers; this identifier is for a specific newspaper's page. Trivialist (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment +fr Trivialist. Regards. --Eihel (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Trivialist:, according to this list, there can be numbers in the ID too. I see this RegEx: ^([A-Z]{2})(|[A-Z]{1,2}|A\^[A-Z]{2}|TAR)_([A-Z]{2,6}|[A-Z]\d{1,2})(|\d)$. Test here. A great idea this ID Face-wink.svg. Regards. --Eihel (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

exchange rate[edit]

   Under discussion
Data typeQuantity
Example 1Japanese yen (Q8146) → 113.79
Example 2Vietnamese dong (Q192090) → 23290
Example 3New Taiwan dollar (Q208526) → 30.77

Motivation[edit]

Exchange rates are usually quoted in direct quotation, aka price quotation, opposite of how rates are quoted for various currencies using price (P2284). Hence a conversion is necessary. The proposed property would eliminate this need. Szqecs (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • @Szqecs: Is this different to the reciprocal of price (P2284), or the value of price (P2284) on the other currency's item? Jc86035 (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It is exactly that. However with price (P2284), there is no way to accurately enter data as given from sources. You cannot enter the value 1/113.79 USD for JPY. As for price (P2284) on the other item, the property only allows a handful of currencies as the unit. Szqecs (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      @Szqecs: Anyone can add more currencies to the list of allowed units (Property:P2284#P2302). I guess if only 113.79 were provided by a source and not the reciprocal then you would only add the value to one item, and the data consumer would then look at both items to get the values for the exchange rate (or you would round the calculated value to have the same number of significant digits as the original). Having data on only one item works fine for properties without inverses like modified version of (P5059), so I don't see why this would absolutely necessitate the creation of a new property. Jc86035 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Szqecs:There are two quotation methods forms - see here. I propose to use price with a qualifier indicating the method of quotation. What sources would you use and how granular should be the data? Datawiki30 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

exonym[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionname given to an entity in a language that is not the official language of the place or country of this entity (useful if the entity changed his name at some point and using the label could cause an anachronism)
Representsexonym (Q81639)
Data typeMonolingual text
Domainplaces, organizations
Example 1Examples can be found for example here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_renaming#Exonyms_and_endonyms
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useavoid anachronism in infoboxes, per community demands
See alsoofficial name (P1448) View with SQID

Motivation[edit]

As stated in the description, some entity change their names. We handle this with official name (P1448) View with SQID in the native language of the entity, but we don’t have an equivalent for names in different countries. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would you consider having this as a Lexeme-valued property, rather than monolingual text? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)