Wikidata:Property proposal/all

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 2018/12.

Contents


Generic properties[edit]

preparation instructions[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptioninstructions for the recipe
Representscooking (Q38695)
Data typeMultilingual text (not available yet)
DomainWikibook recipes
Example 1Warm Black Bean Salad with Kale and Tomatoes (Q59862818) → "In a medium saucepan, heat oil over medium heat for 2-3 minutes. Add onion, garlic, and a pinch of salt into the pan. Cook and stir 2-3 minutes or until onion is tender." (en)
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING

Motivation[edit]

This way we can make Cookbook recipes more machine readable. NMaia (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

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)

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)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would only want to have store times in a proper datatype for it. ChristianKl❫ 10:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl: I think time index (P4895) could be used for the same intended purposes, so this property might not be necessary even if the other property is created. Jc86035 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 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)

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)
    @Jura1: So link to https://127.0.0.1/$1.php is also good to go for you?! These subproperties without a defined target for them one-per-one are nowadays problem introducer instead of useful, that's why I won't nominate to have a property for Japanese Telegraph code "電報略号", even I know that that serves an item. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    I don't understand what make you conclude that. The proposed datatype isn't URL, but identifier as ISO 3166-2 code (P300). It's also unclear what problem that would introduce. LHR needn't be mixed with London Heathrow. --- Jura 17:05, 18 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)
  • Should this be used as a source property rather than a qualifier? (This applies to states as as well, I suppose.) --Yair rand (talk) 01:51, 26 November 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
Benjamenta

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)
  • Given that Douglas Adams (Q42) and Nelson Mandela (Q8023) are item that's violate our rules, I don't think it does a reasonable job to present them as a model item and pretend they are best practice. If we have model items they shouldn't conform to our policies. The fact that you have a 50% rate of examples that violate our rules which might be a lot higher then the average rate of items that violate our rules, make me question the concept a bit. ChristianKl❫ 17:32, 25 November 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) > 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
Nomen ad hoc
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)

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

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)
One problem with having the country as a qualifier value is that it means one can't use further qualifiers like identity of object in context (P4626), which can be necessary sometimes. --Yair rand (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Pardon me but looking at the examples I don’t really understand why we don’t use the value of identity of object in context (P4626) as the main value of the statement ?? author  TomT0m / talk page 13:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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)
    • And yet there is Category:Specific-source templates (Q7104987), and I'm sure I can find a fair number of cross-wiki items there (I mean, I only needed less than one minute to find Template:NewGrove2001 (Q14407303)). In Fr:, you can even have more than one template connecting these (in different form) through the reference: namespace, e.g. Q4378679 is the work for templates Q22776598 and currently unitemized fr:Modèle:Grimal. Circeus (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
    • If some wikis don't use it, this doesn't matter. --- Jura 07:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how the fact that "some wikis" work in a way and otehrs in a different way is supposed to be relevant. Circeus (talk) 17:47, 12 October 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 5Q17630524 → 95 % (2018)
Example 6Q2945692 → 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)
    You don't have a Wikipedia that you can fully control and where you have the power to decide how an interlanguage link extension gets installed. ChristianKl❫ 14:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wouldn't this be specific to each Wikipedia? --- Jura 20:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Redirects solve the problem and we had the RfC for allowing them. Additionally, it's specific to the individual Wikipedia. ChristianKl❫ 14:21, 12 December 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)
    @ChristianKl: Why not? For some items, particularly if there is to be a complex import for a subset of items which can't be defined through a trivial SPARQL query and which are edited frequently, it may be useful to temporarily add a tag to an item, regardless of whether or not the tag indicates incompletion. The name should be agreed upon, although perhaps it would be useful to have that discussion in a more visible place, since there is consensus for the property but the discussion has stalled. Jc86035 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    If you can define such a query you can simply have a page with the list of items that have a particular incompletion. I don't see why such a list isn't doing the job. Anybody who actually looks at the item will be able to see themsevles that it's incomplete.ChristianKl❫ 17:35, 17 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)

  • The examples suggest that there a reasonable way to think about a price conversation without units on both sids of the equation and a time when the conversion happened to be true. I don't thin that's the case. ChristianKl❫ 11:04, 25 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 its name at some point and using the label could cause an anachronism)
Representsexonym (Q81639)
Data typemonolingual text or lexeme-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
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)

see also
a discussion in Project chat Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2018/11#Questions_about_names_:_«_unofficial_»_names_given_by_foreigners_and_the_future_of_names_in_the_lexeme_era ( pinging participants @Jmabel, AnonMoos: ) author  TomT0m / talk page 09:15, 14 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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree it should be lexeme related property. KaMan (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Answer @KaMan, ArthurPSmith: Actually I would have sweared I had putted « monolingual text or lexeme » as datatype in the proposal but it seems I did not /o\ Done now

(also Ash Crow
Dereckson
Harmonia Amanda
Hsarrazin
Jura
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў
Sascha
Joxemai
Place Clichy
Branthecan
Azertus
ToJack
Jon Harald Søby
PKM
Pmt
Sight Contamination
MaksOttoVonStirlitz
BeatrixBelibaste
ajayi adeniyi
Moebeus
Dcflyer
Looniverse
Aya Reyad
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Names author  TomT0m / talk page 09:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, support as lexeme-valued property. Even though there are a lot of examples on the link you give, it would be nice to see some examples laid out explicitly the way you would like them done (also maybe one or two not in English). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment name (P2561) could generally be used. It avoids debating if the name is an exonym or not. --- Jura 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1: I’m unconfortable with this solution in this case, there is at least a need to discriminate between several kind of names and the generic property is not enough. A solution to define an exonym could anyway to create a mandatory qualifier « name given by », after all it’s a ternary relationship as an exonym is associated to an entity that gives the name, always. But it could also fit on the lexeme if we use the lexeme datatype which is the consensus at this point - another difference with this property. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    What about name (P2561) with qualifier issued by (P2378)? --Pasleim (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @TomT0m: Please put in the examples in the way the property is supposed to be used. That information clarifies the proposed semantics of a proposed property. ChristianKl❫ 23:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

measured by (KPI),key performance indicator,indicator,KPI[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionTarget, is measured by this (key performance) indicator
Representsperformance indicator (Q860554)
Data typeItem
DomainAll KPIS
Example 1Target 1.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q50254181) is measured by Indicator 1.1.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595345)
Example 2Target 5.4 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57590789) is measured by Indicator 5.4.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595472)
Example 3Target 16.b of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57590935) is measured by Indicator 16.b.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595665)
Format and edit filter validation7368361
Sourcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ; https://www.bernardmarr.com/default.asp?contentID=1346
Planned useupdate all sustainable development targets with ~200 indicators, and more to come.
Number of IDs in source~200
Robot and gadget jobsno
See alsodiscovery method (P1046) is only for planets

Motivation[edit]

I want to compare different indicators measuring the same targets in different countries / companies. Michael Cieslik (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do you have some examples of how this could be used outside of the Sustainable Development goals? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course, you can compare the different metrics if best football team, by the Total FIFA World Ranking points on one hand and Total World Cup Points on the other hand. These are two different KPIs. Or compare the "education performance per country" (a good education through indicators, e.g. PISA study Programme for International Student Assessment (Q323481).) Michael Cieslik (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, though I'm not sure if "KPI" needs to be in the label --- Jura 09:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

administrated by the administrative territorial entity[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe item is administrated by the following administrative entity.
Data typeItem
Domaingeographical object (Q618123)
Example 1West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area (Q48928408)Shenzhen (Q15174)
Example 2Tomb of Suleyman Shah (Q7818644)Turkey (Q43)
Example 3Canadian National Vimy Memorial (Q2561040)Canada (Q16)

Motivation[edit]

Some people misunderstand the definition of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). The present "protected" version of West Kowloon Station Mainland Port Area (Q48928408) is swearing black is white.

The description of location (P276) stated that: "In case of an administrative entity use P131". It is clear that the Mainland Port Area is an administrative entity, and it is a common knowledge that the Mainland Port Area is located in the Hong Kong SAR.

With reference to previous discussion in project chat, create a new property is the solution. 210.3.92.226 04:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]


The High Court of Hong Kong has made a judgement on 13 December 2018. According to paragraph 64 of the Judgement, Judge Anderson Chow said:

It is not in dispute that the Mainland Port Area falls with the territory of Hong Kong under the “Order of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China No 221” dated 1 July 1997, which was promulgated in accordance with the “Decision of the National People’s Congress on the Establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress on 4 April 1990.

223.17.64.233 14:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

stored as lexeme[edit]

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) lexeme version of monolingual text
Data typeSense
Domainall names stored in Q-items as Monoligual text which represent notable lexemes
Example 1Bombyx mori (Q134747) taxon common name (P1843) Polish: jedwabnik morwowy → "stored as lexeme" jedwabnik morwowy (L38523-S1)
Example 2Slovakia (Q214) demonym (P1549) Polish: Słowak applies to part (P518) masculine (Q499327) → "stored as lexeme" Słowak (L38296-S1)
Example 3English (Q1860) native label (P1705) English: English → "stored as lexeme" English (L35189-S1)
Example 4Germany (Q183) short name (P1813) French: Allemagne → "stored as lexeme" Allemagne (L22302-S1)
See also

Motivation[edit]

Now, when we have lexemes in Wikidata, some monolingual texts could be replaced by lexeme datatype. This however is not easy step. This property could simplify in the future transition by providing direct link to lexeme and its sense. KaMan (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Linking to senses would probably be hard to do automatically, I think this is a great idea. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful linkage, and valuable step for any future transition. Jheald (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose proposed label seems inconsistent with others at Wikidata. Usual naming could be "subject of lexeme" --- Jura 06:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1: Could you please give plenty of examples of these "others at Wikidata"? I don't think there is many from one namespace to another. KaMan (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you have any property label that follows the proposed naming? Any property value is obviously "stored" at Wikidata. Comparing to print dictionaries, one might think it's interesting to repeat, but it's implied once you are at Wikidata. Possibly it's a translation issue from Polish. --- Jura 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: "subject of" makes sense when we are referring to a regular property on an item, but this proposal is for a qualifier, so a different context. "subject of lexeme" certainly does not seem right to me to describe a piece of monolingual text that is some value for a statement on an item. "stored as lexeme" makes sense, but there may be a better label. "subject of lexeme" is not better though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • it's the qualifier value that is the subject of the lexeme. It probably doesn't even need to be limited to use as a qualifier, as some names have items for themselves. --- Jura 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Can you give an example? I don't see how that would work with Wikidata's multilinguality. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

measured by (KPI)[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionTarget, is measured by this (key performance) indicator
RepresentsTarget 1.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q50254181) is measured by Indicator 1.1.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595345)
Data typeItem
DomainAll KPIS
Example 1Target 1.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q50254181) is measured by Indicator 1.1.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595345)
Example 2Target 5.4 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57590789) is measured by Indicator 5.4.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595472)
Example 3Target 16.b of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57590935) is measured by Indicator 16.b.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595665)
Format and edit filter validation7368361
Sourcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_indicator ; https://www.bernardmarr.com/default.asp?contentID=1346
Planned useupdate all sustainable development targets with ~200 indicators, and more to come.
Number of IDs in source~200
Robot and gadget jobsno
See alsodiscovery method (P1046) is only for planets

Motivation[edit]

I want to compare different indicators measuring the same targets in different countries / companies. Michael Cieslik (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Buried in this place[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionPeople or even non-human animals buried in the specific place. Mainly for graveyard items, as an inverse for Property:P119.
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Allowed valuesWikidata itens only for humans and non-human animals
Example 1Père Lachaise Cemetery (Q311) → values --> Gustave Doré (Q6682); Jim Morrison (Q44301) etc.
Example 2Israeli Cemetery of Butantã (Q20056195) → values --> Vladimir Herzog (Q7938366) etc.
Example 3Jalalpur Sharif (Q3696271) → values --> Bucephalus (Q201598) etc.
See alsoProperty:P119 and Property:P1791

Motivation[edit]

People or even non-human animals buried in a specific place. Mainly for graveyard items as an inverse for Property:P119. It would be good to allow that information directly at the graveyard item, as it may be used inside Wikidata infoboxes. Sturm (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Unnecessary inverses cause duplication, things falling out of sync, extra work to input things, and inaccurate and incomplete data. --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your fast response, @Yair rand:. But pls, allow me do argue and ask. There are many inverse properties here inside Wikidata, so, what is your definition of "unnecessary inverses"? Talking about "things falling out of sync, extra work to input things"... well, there is this relevant news on Meta. Finally, the risk of "insert inaccurate and incomplete data" is absolutly the same for most of the properties. Regards, Sturm (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as this helps to model the inverse relation to place of burial (P119). Ederporto (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It would make it possible to then show that information in infoboxes. Mike Peel (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can we instead of proposing inverses work on getting developer support for Lua to provide easy access to inverses? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Unnecessary inverse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnecessary.--Micru (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Minimum wage[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionlowest wage which can be paid legally in a state for working
Representsminimum wage (Q186228)
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Domaincountries or their subdivisions
Allowed values\d+
Allowed unitsitems with instance of (P31) = currency (Q8142)
Example 1Ukraine (Q212) → 3723 hryvnia (Q81893) [ valid in period (P1264) = month (Q5151) ]
Example 2Belarus (Q184) → 330 Belarusian ruble (Q160680) [ valid in period (P1264) = month (Q5151) ]
Example 3Germany (Q183) → 1498 euro (Q4916) [ valid in period (P1264) = month (Q5151) ]
Example 4California (Q99) → 11 United States dollar (Q4917) [ valid in period (P1264) = hour (Q25235) ]
Format and edit filter validationnone
Planned useputting that property into items about countries and then incorporating them into infoboxes
See alsomedian income (P3529)

Motivation[edit]

Important economical information that should be in every item about country alongside median income (P3529). --Tohaomg (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • valid in period (P1264) as a qualifier would mean something very different than the examples use it to mean. I recommend either using a different unit ("dollars per hour" and such, perhaps), or using a different qualifier. --Yair rand (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As it’s likely we already have items for these, for example SMIC (Q751095) View with Reasonator View with SQID I’d say it’s probably a good idea to use an item datatype and to use a more generic property for the numerical value of it. It would avoid to bloat the item of the country as there may be many different values over time.

Proposition:

  • < France > minimum wage search < Q751095 >
  • < SMIC (Q751095) View with Reasonator View with SQID > amount search < 1 498,47 €/month >
    start time (P580) View with SQID < 1 Janvier 2018 >
    /
    < SMIC (Q751095) View with Reasonator View with SQID > amount search < 9,88 € / hour >
    start time (P580) View with SQID < 1 Janvier 2018 >
    . It could also be two properties for the hourly and the monthly value to make stuff clearer, this represents different realities. There is also subteleties with the net and gross salaries … I think all this needs a little thought actually author  TomT0m / talk page 20:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Parliament of South Africa ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifier of a person on the Parliament of South Africa website
RepresentsParliament of South Africa (Q2185780)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values[1-9][0-9]*
Example 1Beverley Abrahams (Q47529725)1226
Example 2Beauty Dambuza (Q16744388)4343
Example 3Evelyn Wilson (Q47529709)1686
Example 4Patrick Maloyi (Q16744503)4303
Sourcehttps://www.parliament.gov.za/group-details/0
Mix'n'match2063
Planned useReference members of the South African National Assembly to their corresponding official page
Number of IDs in source443+
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.parliament.gov.za/person-details/$1

Motivation[edit]

At the moment, members of the National Assembly of South Africa are not linked to their corresponding pages on the Parliament's official website except by the use of described at URL (P973) statements. These could be replaced by a more structured property. jacksonj04 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Gerwoman (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: analogical property was approved - Wikidata:Property proposal/Verkhovna Rada MP id --Tohaomg (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Are these IDs persistent once the person leaves office? To take one example, the described at URL (P973) to the official website provided on Vuyokazi Ketabahle (Q47529718) no longer seems to be valid. The current preference is to only create new properties for parliament websites if the ID continues to be useful after leaving office — i.e there is at least one valid formatter URL (P1630) even for ex-members. --Oravrattas (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I haven't found an example of an identifier being reused, but the page disappearing is definitely an issue to take into consideration. --jacksonj04 (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral until the pages aren't perennial. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as the IDs are only temporary. The existing use of described at URL (P973) seems more suitable in this case. --Oravrattas (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

co-director[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionco-director(s) of film
Representsco-director (Q24387718)
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesinstances of human (Q5)
Example 1Finding Nemo (Q132863)Lee Unkrich (Q380920) (IMDb)
Example 2Inside Out (Q6144664)Ronnie del Carmen (Q7366035) (IMDb)
Example 3Slumdog Millionaire (Q125076)Loveleen Tandan (Q3837845) (IMDb)

Motivation[edit]

Different from director because co-director usually didn't eligible for film awards. Usually used by Pixar films (see en:List of Pixar films). Hddty. (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

maintenance method[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionoperation that maintains, cleans up or repairs this item and lenghtens its lifespan
Representsmaintenance, repair and overhaul (Q1043452)
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesactivity (Q1914636)
Example 1car (Q1420)auto maintenance (Q3055308)
Example 2footwear (Q161928)Repair of footwear and leather goods (Q29586102)
Example 3tooth (Q553)tooth brushing (Q93935)
See alsofabrication method (P2079), test method (P4988)

Motivation[edit]

It would be nice if we could have this. Thierry Caro (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Authority control[edit]

See also Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending for approved items awaiting the deployment of currently unavailable datatypes
Already approved properties: list

Flickr tag[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionTag used on Flickr to indicate images relating to a particular item
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameterTemplate:Flickr tag inline link (Q21619988)
Domainany
Allowed values[^\s\/]+
Example 1England Delineated (5th edition) (Q52230303) -> sysnum000033859
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Sourcehttps://www.flickr.com
Planned useto add to items for British Library "Mechanical Curator" image sources; but the property would also be useful for images uploaded to Flickr in projects by eg the Internet Archive, Biodiversity History Library, Smithsonian, etc, etc.
Number of IDs in sourcePerhaps 100,000 for institutional projects, maybe more. But probably only a certain proportion of these would actually be added to items.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/$1

Motivation

A number of digitisation projects have uploaded images to Flickr, using Flickr tags to group images from particular sources or relating to particular subjects. It would be useful to record these, and provide easy linking to the corresponding images. Jheald (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Proposed. Jheald (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose seems to be the wrong datatype if not limited to the British Library tags. String is what we use for similar (e.g. Twitter tags). If the use wont be limited to a single item, it shouldn't be an external identifier either (compare with some other classifications).
    --- Jura 18:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: It's an identifier, it's external => it ought to have an external identifier type. Much better for it to appear below the fold than cluttering up the main section of statements on an item. If you want to record whether it is generally 1-to-1 or not (and, yes, it's probably not, if one starts going beyond institutional tagging), that's what constraint statements on property pages are for. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, but that's not the conclusion from the discussion about the string datatype conversion. Besides, mere GUI things can be changed otherwise. So to be consistent with others, it should use string datatype.
      --- Jura 18:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: A particular aspect of our GUI could be changed, but in this case its unlikely -- how should the GUI distinguish string-valued statements for genuine strings that ought to appear above the fold, from string-valued statements for external identifiers, which ought to appear below the fold. Much better to make all external identifiers external-identifier valued.
Even more difficult, how are external applications supposed to recognise strings that refer to external identifers, if they are not external-identifier valued? For example, Reasonator. The value of this property ought to be in Reasonator's external links box in the right-hand column. But how is eg Reasonator supposed to know that, if the property is string-valued rather than external-identifier valued?
If other properties have been given unhelpful types, the place to start changing that is here and now. So I stand firm for making this external-identifier valued, because it is an external identifier, and I believe it is helpful to external applications to mark it as such. We should remember that "consensus can change". If external identifiers haven't been given external-identifier type, that nonsense has gone on long enough, and we should end it. :::Can you give a link to the earlier discussion on this? What were supposed to be the conclusive benefits of giving external identifiers a type other than external-identifier? Is any application in the wild relying on this distinction (as opposed to being degraded by it, like Reasonator) ? And if this is about reasonably consistent single-valuedness, why is that not more effectively indicated by the explicit constraint statements on |the property? Jheald (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It's just not the outcome of the discussion. Datatype alone isn't necessarily a good indicator for GUI construction. Currently this mixes social media accounts of a person with third party identifiers. Depending on the presentation, this can look bad. I asked our developers to look into some of the GUI issues at Wikidata. Obviously, interface things are always top priority for them ;)
--- Jura 07:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
So for example England Delineated (5th edition) (Q52230303) -> sysnum000033859.
There's scope for perhaps up to 100,000 such categories on Commons, maybe more. Jheald (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Some background about the machine tags at https://www.flickr.com/groups/51035612836@N01/discuss/72157594497877875/ .
Not sure if we should even link to Flickr in the example. Shouldn't all these images just be on Commons? Multichill (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: 1. Stats: We currently have about 40,000 images on Commons from the BL scans, out of about 1 million on Flickr. For images scanned from Internet Archive books, we have about 480,000 images, out of about 5.25 million on Flickr. We have about about 250,000 images from the BHL, out of an unknown number, mostly linked directly to the BHL website, though copies may exist on Flickr via the IA.
The issue with these pix (and the reason for those counts) is that metadata for these images is generally very very weak, generally extending no further than title, author, publisher, and date of the book the image was extracted from -- ie most usually nothing about what might be actually depicted in the image. Also, many of the images frankly aren't very interesting or of very high quality. For that reason the Commons community originally outright vetoed a bulk upload of all the BL images; instead those that have been uploaded have been uploaded selectively, and hand-curated by editors as they went along. Regarding the IA images, Fae has systematically uploaded those above a certain size, and left the rest. So that's why, in both of these cases, there are a lot more images still on Flickr than those so far copied to Commons.
Should we copy over the rest, particularly in view of Flickr's recent change of ownership, previous precarious financial position, and the recent repositioning of some other image platforms to turn against Commons images? Perhaps, but in the case of both the IA and the BL, we know where these images came from, we are on good terms with the institutions, and we could almost certainly obtain the images on hard drives if anything calamitous did happen at Flickr. So there is probably no pressing reason to change existing Commons practice. (Though I do still hope to upload 50,000 of the BL images that depict maps, for which currently underway). But it would be useful to be able to systematically link to the corresponding image-sets on Flickr, from Commons categories for books, to see what other images may be available.
2. Machine tags. Is there a Dutch translation of the English Q7691305? Perhaps with a nice informative illustrative painting by Jan Steen (Q205863) ? :-)
Yes, I know what machine tags are. The metadata improvement project for the map images has even been systematically adding them. But there are a number of problems with them, the first being that they are hardly used, so Flickr doesn't really care about making sure that software updates don't break them. There are a number of ways of constructing Flickr URLs with them that one would feel ought to work, but then strangely don't. Even if a URL template can be made to work this year, that's no guarantee as to whether it would still work next year. In contrast the simpler regular tags tend to be more bulletproof. Also the machine tags and/or the searches for them munge spaces and punctuation in various ways, making it difficult to use many existing identifiers as machine tags.
But the real point is that, for what I really want, namely to return all the images from a particular book, the images already have tags for this, systematically added by the BL and the IA when the images were uploaded, so those are the tags I'm interested in. Nobody is going to take the time and bandwidth to add machine tags to 6.25 million images, simply to duplicate information that is already there. It's the current established regular tags for books and book-volumes from the BL and the IA that one would want to link to. Jheald (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by analogy with other tag properties created and proposed, though it is very clearly evident that concerns about their creation overlap greatly at least when it comes to their datatype and their general worthiness of inclusion. On this former point, until we all agree to recast Twitter hashtag (P2572) as an external identifier, I support this property's creation as a string; on the worthiness of its inclusion, I sometimes wonder, given many of the examples presented here and elsewhere, whether a single unified 'tag' property is in order, seeing as most of them pertain to exactly the same topic whether viewed on Twitter, Instagram, Gfycat, or Flickr. Mahir256 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm a bit unsure: this is very similar to Twitter hashtag (P2572) but there are differences. Tags are no identifiers, so the datatype should be string, but tags serve a similar purpose like identifiers. Flickr tags were one of the first popular instances of folksonomy (Q494291), that's why I support this proposal. There are several more tagging applications, (e.g. see https://www.librarything.com/tag/archaeology) and we don't want properties for all of them but this must be decided case by case. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Benefit of the doubt, doesn't harm imo so:
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm a mergist, but tendency in occasion as this include Klaas `Z4␟` V:  20:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cwf97 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

CETAF specimen ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionpersistent identifier URL for a taxonomic specimen, compliant with the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities Stable Identifier Initiative
Data typeURL
Domaintaxon type specimens (+other notable specimens, if any)
Example 1item for the type specimen of Cinnamomum bejolghota (Q2972821)http://herbarium.bgbm.org/object/B100277113
Example 2item for the type specimen of Harpagoxenus sublaevis (Q309349)http://id.luomus.fi/GL.749
Example 3item for the type specimen of Carabus lusitanicus brevis (Q5037464)https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/ec/item/ec32
SourceConsortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (Q5163385)
Number of IDs in sourcemany thousands, eventually millions
Expected completenesseventually complete

Motivation

As noted on Wikispecies:

the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities has created a system of persistent identifiers for type specimens (https://cetaf.org/cetaf-stable-identifiers). The intension is that the URI to the specimen will remain stable indefinitely, so we can link to type specimens without fear that the link will break.

The CETAF initiative creates "a joint Linked Open Data (LOD) compliant identifier system". The particpating institutions include the Royal Botanic Garden of Edinburgh, the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, The Natural History Museum, London, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Royal Museum for Central Africa. Additional information can be found at the CETAF Stable Identifier Initiative Wiki.

AIUI, the intention is that data about type specimens should be stored on an item about the specimen, not the item about the taxon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

99of9
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
Enwebb
Manojk
Tris T7
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Biology -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Symbol support vote.svg SupportTom.Reding (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - better to use links to the actual specimen in the holding museum, not a third party. Most holding museums are major organisations with stable websites. This is adding an extra step for mistakes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • CETAF IDs are in fact exactly what you advocate i.e. links to the specimens in the holding museum not a third party. CETAF is acting more as a standardisation body to get the museums to produce URLs with similar behaviours - basically Linked Data URIs with some agreed metadata attached. RogerHyam (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
      • No they are not, they are an unreviewed third party and this is problematic in nomenclature which requires serious review and checking prior to publication, ie peer review. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Faendalimas: The three examples given above are:

  1. http://herbarium.bgbm.org/object/B100277113
  2. http://id.luomus.fi/GL.749
  3. https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/ec/item/ec32

For each of those three cases, please tell us which "third party" is being linked to? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not say linked to, I said obtained from, and that it is a non reviewed assessment hence unchecked by scientific rigor. In anycase the first one has a second url on the page which is the museum whether its the correct specimen I do not know, the second is possibly linking to the correct specimen without evidence to show its correct, the third is a dead link for me so I cannot tell what its supposed to do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: What you said was "better to use links to the actual specimen in the holding museum, not a third party". Furthermore, when told "CETAF IDs are in fact exactly what you advocate i.e. links to the specimens in the holding museum... CETAF is acting more as a standardisation body to get the museums to produce URLs with similar behaviours - basically Linked Data URIs with some agreed metadata attached.", you replied "No they are not". [I've fixed the third link, in my comment; it was always correct in the proposal template.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not have an issue with the links. Its the authority of the information. I meant not "from" a third party. (If you copy and pasted my previous statement, I did not look, I must have left that word out, apologies for that). As in not obtaining the information from a third party. Rather than from the source. What I am getting at is that the information needs to be peer reviewed which online resources are not. I did figure there was a mistake in the url above I assumed you would fix it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this proposal needs some thorough investigations. According to CETAF Stable Identifiers the following 15 CETAF institutions implemented this kind

  1. Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem (Q163255)
  2. Finnish Museum of Natural History (Q3329689)
  3. Institute of Botany (Q30255205)
  4. Museum of Natural History Berlin (Q233098)
  5. Muséum national d'histoire naturelle (Q838691)
  6. Naturalis (Q641676)
  7. Natural History Museum (Q309388)
  8. Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo (Q1840963)
  9. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (Q1807521)
  10. Kew Gardens (Q188617)
  11. State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart (Q2324612)
  12. Bavarian Natural History Collections (Q2324459)
  13. Museum Koenig (Q510343)
  14. Meise Botanic Garden (Q3052500)
  15. Royal Museum for Central Africa (Q779703)

So how could we restrict this URI to this institutions. Most of the URIs will not represent a type specimen (Q51255340). How to use this URIs here? Next week I will try to have a closer look to the 5,5 million URIs provided by the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle. --Succu (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In the current MNHN dataset of ca. 5.5 million specimens 107,867 have a "typeStatus": type (Q3707858) = 27,277; syntype (Q719822) = 18,148; holotype (Q1061403) = 14,454; isosyntype (Q55195195) = 2,798; lectotype (Q2439719) = 2,521. --Succu (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Some problems with the current MNHN dataset I observed:
The dataset contains holotypes for family names
The dataset has multiple holotypes for a taxon, e.g. Cyathea rouhaniana (Q17037631) = P00411818 to P00411823
The dataset uses "decimalLatitude" and "decimalLongitude" without "coordinatePrecision". "verbatimCoordinates" or "verbatimLatitude" and "verbatimLongitude" are not given. --Succu (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
--Succu (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Excited by this. Would be willing to help with automated populating property. --RogerHyam (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roger, nice to see you here. If I understand the proposal right, it involves the creation of items to get taxonomic type (P427) working. So we need to define how to map the metadata values to our properties. I created P01069419 (Q55196248), P01069417 (Q55197790) and holotype of Ouratea sipaliwiniensis (Q55200035) as a base for discussions. --Succu (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather not get into recreating nomenclature. It is a intellectual exercise akin to the jigsaw puzzle in Laura & Hardy "Me and My Pal" (YouTube) - We will be at each others throats and the biodiversity of the world destroyed before we finish the task. Really a type relationship has to include literature and a lot of complexity that is of use to a small specialist audience and just confuses everyone else. If someone wants to know the type of a taxon they can read the literature in the Taxon Name (Property:P225).
It appears Wikidata is building a single consensus taxonomy. If we had a single property that was "has Voucher Specimen" or similar then we could add properties to taxa based on the identifications by experts in museums. e.g. Q557928 "has Voucher Specimen" http://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00590786 would be possible. Perhaps I should be proposing a different property but I'm new to the wikidata thing. RogerHyam (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata is not building a single consensus taxonomy. The contrary is true. A lot of users have difficulties to accept this. ;) --Succu (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Succu. Could you give an examples of multiple taxa (taxon concepts) with the same full scientific name in Wikidata. I'm a bit ignorant on this and need to understand how it is being represented. RogerHyam (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
E.g. we implemented APG I to IV. See the references for parent taxon (P171) at Cactaceae (Q14560): Maybe this is not exactly what you expected. Please note note this discussion too. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure that the name of the property is good. It may be better to have it as "Museum Specimen ID" or "Voucher Specimen ID" and then have a recommendation that these are CETAF compliant URIs. This way we can have stable links to many specimens that have been determined to belong to a taxon by experts and, if people are good with their data markup, most of these will be expandable into images and geolocations etc. RogerHyam (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment that this is already so confused shows why this is not a good idea in concept. You cannot call the type specimen a voucher specimen or a museum specimen per se. Yes a type is both of those but so are many other specimens. The type is a special case of a voucher or museum specimen as it is the only specimen that the available name of a taxon is attached to. No other specimen has this. It is the specimen upon which the name is established. It has major import. I agree it is only of major interest to a specialist minority, ie taxonomists mostly, but you cannot undervalue it, nor have it proposed in a way that any museum specimen or voucher could be called this. Only the original description or a peer reviewed taxonomic review should be used as the reference of the type specimen. As such they should be listed with reference to these articles and only this way. Then there is a clear reference. Online resources are not reviewed as such and are not reliable when it comes to types. This will introduce potential error in this area of nomenclature that is extremely exacting. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I created P01069419 (Q55196248) from the details given in Novitates neocaledonicae V: Eugenia plurinervia N. Snow, Munzinger & Callm. (Myrtaceae), a new threatened species with distinct leaves (Q55196032) ("Typus: New Caledonia. Prov. Nord: Ouazangou-Taom, Onajiele, 165 m, 20°46’43’’S 164°27’59’’E, 20.III.2016, Munzinger (leg. Scopetra) 7530 (holo- : P [P01069419]! ; iso- : G [G00341659]!, MO!, MPU [MPU310532]!, NOU [NOU054468]!, NSW!, P [P01069420]!)"). The applied changes by Mr. Mabbett now give the impression the data are taken form the MNHN record. --Succu (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
If you don't give references when you make claims, don't complain when someone else adds a valid citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The item was created to discuss mappings (= data model). If you had checked your reference you should have noticed some differences. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The item was created without citations. I added them. If you think I acted improperly, you know where the admin noticeboard is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I corrected my omission. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
But it was reverted with the comment o restore coordinates, as previsouly?! --Succu (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No; it was reverted with the comment "to restore coordinates, as previously"; and that was because, as well as your declared reason for editing, you also - yet again - re-added coordinates saying that the object is in New Caledonia, on the opposite side of the planet to its actual current location. Hence Wikidata:Project_chat#Coordinates_of_objects_in_museums. None of which, of course, has anything to do with the proposal at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You proposed this change. Im OK with this. --Succu (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You are moving a bit fast for me to keep up, so please forgive my request for clarifications. Also, please forgive my lack is wiki etiquet if this is the wrong place for these comments.

It would be fantastic to load up all our typification information from the Meise Botanic Garden to Wikidata, but can you point me to a place that describes how?
In this property proposal there are no authority names. This is essential due to homonyms, but where possible they should be linked to people somewhere. However, does this cause problems when linking these data to other Latin names in Wikis that don't use authorities?
I’m sure there are errors in the data, such as there being two holotypes, fixing these is a motivation to expose the data. Does this work for you?
There also needs to be a field that tells you what sort of type it is holo-, lecto, iso, para, neo, etc. Do you want a full list?
The National Botanic Garden of Belgium changed its name a while ago, can I just edited this wikidata entry?

Qgroom (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I wish there was an easy answer to this. I would love to see a proposal that actually did types the way they should be, with all the appropriate metadata included, utilising the correct terminology as accepted in the science and discipline of taxonomy and nomenclature. Alas we do not get this we get rather hit and miss efforts. If someone wants to try and create a property with all the needed attributes, obtaining data from reliable resources I would be happy to help. The same types of properties I create already in museum databases as a museum curator. The same ones I already use as highly published taxonomist and a nomenclatural specialist. You want us to use this material at Wikispecies Andy?? then do it right. I would support this if it was done correctly Andy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think there are a few people in the CETAF community who could help get this right. Though personally I find it difficult to discuss these things in a chat page and I'm not sure how decisions are made here. Nevertheless, I'd really like to make this happen. Qgroom (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"I would love to see a proposal that actually did types the way they should be, with all the appropriate metadata included" Then you are in the wrong place. This is a proposal to create a property to hold one type of identifier-URL. The only arguments you have presented about it are either easily refuted (see "third party links" discussion, above. or are merely vague hand -waving and appeals to authority, with no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
My comment here was a generalized one only brought up in reference to the above comment. Its not a direct reference to the proposal here at hand. So yes I know this is not the right place. I think the whole structure of how types are presented is inadequate. My point was that unfortunately many proposals are attempts to gather information from online resources for ease of mass import with no respect to the exacting nature of taxonomic data and metadata permitting potential mistakes. These online resources are not authorities on the taxonomy of species. What is the point of data if there is no evidence inherit that demonstrates it has been tested for accuracy. For taxonomic data I want to see us produce useful information not page upon page of unreliable rubbish. Your difficulty Andy is you do not use this information. You are presenting it, but not using it. Much of the informatics being presented, not necessarily by you I am generalizing now, has no guarantee, therefore it has no use in taxonomy. So what is it then except page upon page of what exactly? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Qgroom: for "a field that tells you what sort of type it is", please see P01069419 (Q55196248); but note also the issues with that data model, which I have raised here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I get it. So in your example P01069419 (Q55196248) you would replace the URL (P2699) with this proposed CETAF specimen ID property.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qgroom (talk • contribs) at 15:29, 27 June 2018‎ (UTC).
@Qgroom: Precisely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Could you please explain why this substitution is useful? What we (=Wikidata) gain from this change? --Succu (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose the question is why we need a subcategory of URL that is specific to CETAF specimen ID. Well from my point of view, which is quite ignorant of the workings of Wikidata, having the distinction is useful because the CETAF specimen ID points to a great level of stability and functionality than a standard URL. I'm not certain this is entirely necessary, however, it is particularly useful to have one URI that uniquely represents the digital representation of the physical specimen. People could link to many different image files or website all representing that specimen. These might be labelled in all sorts of ways and be derived from all sorts of places. Yet it is much better that there is only one standard way to refer to the physical specimen. Qgroom (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Scott. --Succu (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It's about a lot unanswered questions raised above. --Succu (talk)

missing VIAF components[edit]

Go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Authority_control#Breakdown_of_VIAF_Links_per_Source, sort by col "property" and look for "!!!". This shows VIAF sources that don't have corresponding WD properties (which should be marked as VIAF component (Q26921380)).

This includes:

  • National Library of Luxembourg
  • National Library of Estonia
  • National Library of Lebanon
  • National Library of Morocco
  • National Library of Iceland (NULI)
  • Perseus (ancient places)
  • Syriac Reference Portal
  • Flemish Public Libraries

The total number of ids is about 250k. I haven't researched whether these authority datasest are available online. Do you think we should create properties for them? Any volunteers to help me with the research?

Also: do you think we should add col "code" to WD in some way? A few of these are available as third-party formatter URL (P3303), but most aren't. It took me a few hours to correlate all VIAF-component sources against WD, and it wasn't fun.

--Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikibase Registry ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionQ-ID in the Wikibase Registry
RepresentsWikibase registry (Q55339228)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1OpenStreetMap Wiki (Q18635431)26
Example 2Wikidata (Q2013)2
Example 3Wikibase registry (Q55339228)4
Number of IDs in source25
Formatter URLhttps://wikibase-registry.wmflabs.org/wiki/Item:Q$1

Motivation[edit]

NMaia (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support How many do we have so far though? Hopefully the number will grow... ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems to be just a repeat of Wikidata --David (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sure what this and how it is useful, but 25 items don't justify a property. Germartin1 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It may be useful if there are growing number of Wikibase instances. John Samuel (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cwf97 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Isn't this competition:) Nepalicoi (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Still very low activity there Nepalicoi (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I thought I saw a graph of wikibase instances from the Force2018 conference that showed many more than these 25 or so. In the long run I think it would be useful to have this property, but maybe not ready yet? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I think more examples are needed. John Samuel (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ChristianKl❫ 13:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ANZSRC FoR ID[edit]

   Done
DescriptionAustralia and New Zealand Standard Research Classification 2008 identifier for a field of research
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainresearch topics
Allowed values[1-9]\d{1,5}
Example 1medical and health science (Q56679322) → 11
Example 2dentistry (Q12128) → 1105
Example 3oral and maxillofacial surgery (Q504033) → 110504
Sourcehttp://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6BB427AB9696C225CA2574180004463E?opendocument
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)

Motivation[edit]

Requested by delegates at the Australasian Research Management Society Conference: "two- and four-digit Fields of Research (FoRs) codes as identified in the Australia and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) 2008 released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand. The ANZSRC provides 22 two-digit FoR codes, 157 four-digit FoR codes, and an extensive range of six-digit codes." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 02:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Løøv classification[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionclassification system for Sami works
RepresentsLøøv classification (Q56686338)
Data typeString
Domainwork (Q386724)
Allowed values([01]\d|2[01])[a-k](1[ab]|[1-7])?
Example 1oai:urm_publish:99000073873470220111d3, 04e
Example 2oai:urm_publish:99000149748470220115a, 15i
Example 3oai:urm_publish:99000150010470220108b
Sourcehttps://www.nb.no/baser/samisk/klassifikasjon.html ; http://bibsys.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/oai/47BIBSYS_NETWORK/request?verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix=marc21&set=samisk
Planned useI will use this when importing the Sami bibliography (around 26,000 works) to Wikidata
Robot and gadget jobsAll works with this classification will be added by bot

Motivering/begrunnelse[edit]

I am working on importing the Sami bibliography from the Norwegian National Library (around 26,000 works) to Wikidata. Almost all of the works use this classification system in addition to Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036), so I think it would be good to have this as its own property to get as much completeness as possible to the imported items. Since I haven't started the import yet, the examples don't link to existing items, but to the entries for books from the bibliography in their API. Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cwf97 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pmt (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Waiting for Qids in the examples to create the property. (Also, was a bot request filed for these 26,000 works? Or any other sign of consensus for inclusion?) − Pintoch (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jon Harald Søby (WMNO): marking as not ready − Pintoch (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Pintoch: Sorry, I forgot to reply here when you first posted. I've been waiting to start a bot request until this property is created, because then everything would be ready for the script to start importing. But I can work around that and create some test items without this property included, so I will start a bot request shortly. Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap wiki ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionQ-ID in the OpenStreetMap wikibase
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem, property
Allowed valuesQ[1-9]\d*
Example 1bridge (Q12280)Q103
Example 2brewery (Q131734)Q102
Example 3ferry (Q25653)Q273
Sourcehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:AllPages?from=&to=&namespace=120
Expected completenesseventually complete
Formatter URLhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:$1
See alsoOSM tag or key (P1282)

Motivation[edit]

--Mfchris84 (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment should this replace OSM tag or key (P1282) as it probably would be available for any of them? --- Jura 16:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral @Jura1: As I can see now, the OSM wikibase contains only key and tag values (up to now?). Before there is no further development at OpenStreetMap e.g. to include other entities in their wikibase, it probably make less sense to create a new wikidata property, except of an advantages in a multilingual use case. Mfchris84 (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support NMaia (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment about Property:P1282, not understand why duplicate here... Please explain.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krauss (talk • contribs) at 01:48, 2 October 2018‎ (UTC).
@Krauss: as i explained above, unless osm wikibase contains other items/concepts than tags or keys, this property isn't useful. Mfchris84 (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment SPARQL federation might be a better way to integrate them: Wikidata:SPARQL_federation_input. --- Jura 17:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cwf97 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. --- Jura 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves ZEOs ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionunique ID for the Zamenhof-Esperanto objects included in Wiki Loves ZEOs' list
RepresentsWiki Loves ZEOs (Q56703611)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainZamenhof-Esperanto object (Q75762)
Example 1Zamenhofstraat (Q18950696) → nl-001
Example 2Esperanto memorial (Q12347248) → at-008
Example 3Bona Espero (Q201017) → br-002
SourceCommons:Commons:Wiki Loves ZEOs 2018/Lists
See alsoWiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186)

NMaia (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

MIAR ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier of a journal in MIAR
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainmagazine->magazine (Q41298)
Allowed valuesthe value is the same that ISSN
Example 1Comunicar (Q30002251) -> ISSN = 1134-3478 -> MIAR = http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1134-3478
Example 2RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia (Q50814551) -> ISSN = 1578-7680 -> MIAR = http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1578-7680
Example 3Revista de Educación Inclusiva (Q50667863) -> ISSN = 1989-4643 -> MIAR = http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1989-4643
Sourcehttp://miar.ub.edu/issn/
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useI have a bot, i'll put the MIAR ID in the magazines
Formatter URLhttp://miar.ub.edu/issn/$1

Motivación[edit]

In eswiki we have a template to put the MIAR external link, but we are deleting this kind of templates to put all of them inside Template:Authority control. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is apparently the very same situation as in Directory of Open Access Journals ID (P5115) (that one was OK, why?). No, it's not enough assigning that url in P236 because not every periodical with a ISSN is indexed in MIAR. I'm not a big fan of the P5115 solution, but people pushed for it, probably because they want a clickable link here (?). You can always store the fact of a journal being indexed in MIAR this way (catalog (P972)-> MIAR (Q24033617)) and fix the module to use that data in wikipedia combined with P236 value. strakhov (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can use it as source for ISSN:
RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia (Q50814551) -> ISSN = 1578-7680 -> S854 = http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1578-7680
See for example Q57315347
--Gerwoman (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
But I don't understand why DOAJ can have its own Directory of Open Access Journals ID (P5115), and MIAR cannot. Why some repositories do, and others do not. Some have a statement and others are entered as a source. There isn't uniform criterion for these decisions. Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

New York Times article ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionshort URL for a New York Times article
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed valuesregex [a-zA-Z0-9]+
Example 1I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration (Q56488792)2CyF3Jh
Example 2Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader. (Q48342255)2EIbKzZ
Example 3The Slut-Shaming of Nikki Haley (Q48344584)2FtInln
Example 4Barack Obama and Me (Q58450190)2hJcqMP
SourceHTML of nytimes.com
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://nyti.ms/$1
See alsoNYT topic ID (P3221)

Motivation[edit]

The New York Times is, by most measures, one of the most important newspapers in the world.

While online NYT articles seem to have at least two internal identifiers other than the long URL (the op-ed also has QXJ0aWNsZTpueXQ6Ly9hcnRpY2xlLzM4MGM0MGZhLWU5ZGYtNTg3Mi05NTcxLWUzMmUyZDBjNjYxMw==.legacy), this one seems to be the most useful for Wikidata to record since it forms a working URL.

Presumably this property would be used on items about NYT articles themselves (or within references), and the items would be notable as a result of being used as sources on other items. Jc86035 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About how many NY Times articles have wikidata items? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per w:en:URL shortening#Shortcomings and meta:Spam blacklist#URL shorteners. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Visite fortuitement prolongée, Pigsonthewing: Most of the concerns in the article don't actually apply, since nyti.ms isn't a public URL shortening service and presumably nyti.ms URLs are only generated by the New York Times for its own articles; most numeric and alphanumeric identifier systems obscure their subjects; .ms is the TLD for Montserrat, a British overseas territory (censorship unlikely); Wikidata can choose not to block the domain (and it doesn't); and the domain is registered under the New York Times Company. I would only be worried about the durability of the identifiers, but that is a concern for basically any URL. The domain is apparently run by bit.ly (or at least it was in 2009), but it has also lasted more than nine years so far and the domain is owned by the NYT itself. I don't think it's that different to other external IDs in Wikidata. Jc86035 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Visite fortuitement prolongée. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, seems fine to me, especially to link to over 2000 items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did not know that the New York Times was based in Montserrat. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Visite fortuitement prolongée: I meant that the domain had been registered with the TLD/country code for Montserrat, and it seems overseas companies are generally allowed to register .ms domains. Jc86035 (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why create a property for shortened URL and not use URL (P2699) or full work available at (P953)? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC), 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Visite fortuitement prolongée: It really depends on whether we think this is worth storing. The short URLs are potentially more durable than the longer URLs, and it's possible that either set of links could be broken in the future. Other news sites might assign their articles a numerical ID and stick a bunch of keywords into the URL for SEO, so that links with other text before/after the number redirect correctly to the article; in those cases it might also be beneficial to store the ID separately. There are definitely more than 200 NYT articles so it seems reasonable to create a property for it, particularly since NYT articles may be published elsewhere (e.g. articles with PubMed identifiers; syndicated articles by news agencies). Jc86035 (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    Surely the URL property can take more than one value, so I am unclear why this couldn't be added there. Or, if it is useful to distinguish, should there be a general property for an item's short url, if that's the issue? Dominic (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Guardian article ID (P6085), the equivalent to this property for The Guardian (Q11148), has been created. Jc86035 (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Does NYT refer to this anywhere as an identifier, or is it purely a string found in the URLs and we are inferring it is used as an identifier? Is there evidence this string unlikely to change or go away in the same way as unique identifier? At the very least, I am uncomfortable inventing a name for an identifier that is not used as such in the real world, and would call this "New York Times short URL code" or something like that. Dominic (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Dominic: As with The Guardian article ID (P6085), if both the short URLs and long URLs work correctly, I would think that they are equally valid as identifiers. The 2009 article announcing the launch of the short URLs doesn't refer to them as stable identifiers, although if the links continue to function then they will obviously remain unique. Jc86035 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, I get that. I think there is a difference in meaning between a randomly generated code used in generating short URLs and an identifier in the authority control sense (which is how this seems to be proposed). Technically, every web property's URLs are unique, since that's how the web operates. But that does not make them identifiers. Dominic (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Dominic: Is there much of a technical distinction between this and, say, ASIN (P5749) or YouTube video ID (P1651), other than that the others don't redirect? Almost all numerical/hexadecimal identifiers on Wikidata are either randomly or chronologically assigned; and the NYT servers that operate the short URLs could arguably be called (and would probably have to contain) a database. Jc86035 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Url's are good enough for the purpose and I don't see the need to add article ID urls for all sorts of newswebsites. ChristianKl❫ 13:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl: ... so should The Guardian article ID (P6085) be proposed for deletion? Jc86035 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think that property should exist either. ChristianKl❫ 14:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Work ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for published work in Microsoft Academic
RepresentsMicrosoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaincreative work (Q17537576)
Allowed values[1-9]\d{7,9}
Example 1Computational analysis of deposition and translocation of inhaled nicotine and acrolein in the human body with e-cigarette puffing topographies (Q58132177)2792937454
Example 2Doping silica beyond limits with laser plasma for active photonic materials (Q58420606)2206799855
Example 3Networks, Complexity and Internet Regulation (Q58622482)1498221862
Sourcehttps://academic.microsoft.com/
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source209,792,741
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See alsoproposals for Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671)

Motivation[edit]

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 05:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support having distinct identifiers is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 07:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I hadn't noticed that the formatter URL is the same for all 4 proposed ID's - I think it would make some sense to combine them, even though as Pintoch notes above there are some downsides. I'd be ok either way. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The proposal is intended to be for "paper" - do you think this is the correct scope for a property?. It would be helpful if you would state which identifiers are not covered by the proposals if you think it is necessary to discuss them at this time. Would this lack of coverage be a problem if we just made a single identifier as you suggested above? Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 21:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • If you do a single property, all of their entity types are covered. --- Jura 08:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Good point. I think complete coverage of the entity types does make a single property a better option than the four properties I proposed. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Source ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a academic journal, book series or conference proceedings in Microsoft Academic
RepresentsMicrosoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpublication (Q732577)
Allowed values\d{8,10}
Example 1Nature (Q180445)137773608
Example 2PLoS ONE (Q564954)202381698
Example 3Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Q924044)106296714
Example 4International Conference on Communications (Q6049597)1130451194
Sourcehttps://academic.microsoft.com/
Number of IDs in source48,647 Journals, 4,336 Conferences
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See alsoproposals for Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671)
VIAF ID (P214)

Motivation[edit]

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 06:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support having distinct identifiers is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks like the website is having issues - all the examples lead to error pages for me (for a few days at least) − Pintoch (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is this what they call "venues" (=journals, conference series) or also "events" (conference instances)? From the frequencies, "venues" seems likely. What happens with events? --- Jura 11:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is proposed as an identifier for journals and conferences series. Conference instances would be handled like journal volumes i.e. the volume (or instance) number and date of occurrence would be stored in the metadata of each paper published in the conference series. How would this be modelled if we have only a single identifier? Can you provide an example of the constraints that could be applied please? Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 21:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • In their logic, each conference has an identifier. This way the item for the conference can hold the identifier. A single property has the advantage that single-value constraint and distinct-value constraints can be applied reliably. Similarly, if we split VIAF into several Wikidata properties, we couldn't be sure that the same identifier isn't used in several properties. --- Jura 08:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Author ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for authors in Microsoft Academic
RepresentsMicrosoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values\d{8,10}
Example 1Paul Emery (Q19859634)2144675545
Example 2Jürgen Habermas (Q76357)2038147313
Example 3Noam Chomsky (Q9049)2049461923
Sourcehttps://academic.microsoft.com/
Number of IDs in source253,401,752 authors
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See alsoproposals for

Motivation[edit]

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 06:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support having distinct identifiers is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 07:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks like the website is having issues - all the examples lead to error pages for me (for a few days at least) − Pintoch (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Institution ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an institution in Microsoft Academic
RepresentsMicrosoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainorganization (Q43229)
Allowed values\d{8,10}
Example 1University of Leeds (Q503424)130828816
Example 2Goethe University Frankfurt (Q50662)114090438
Example 3Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Q49108)63966007
Example 4IBM (Q37156)1341412227
Sourcehttps://academic.microsoft.com/
Number of IDs in source25,431 institutions
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See alsoproposals for

Motivation[edit]

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 06:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I didn't know they had such id's, that sounds useful. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very interested to see how this compares with our existing institution ids for scholarly affiliations. Having distinct identifiers for each type is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks like the website is having issues - all the examples lead to error pages for me (for a few days at least) − Pintoch (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Power of Semantic Search: between the Top 10 Institutions in Philosophy, Bosch is the 6th and Siemens the 7th. --Gerwoman (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

HABS ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier assigned by the Historic American Buildings Survey
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed valuestext
Example 1Georgetown Car Barn (Q57231557)DC-125
Example 2Healy Hall (Q4269513)DC-248
Example 3NY-4-16-C
Sourcehttp://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also

Motivation[edit]

The Historic American Building Survey is useful because it provides detailed information about historic buildings and sites throughout the United States. It is also authoritative, as the information was compiled by experts working for the National Park Service. It is useful to have the HABS number assigned to buildings and sites to allow editors to retrieve information from the survey. Ergo Sum (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you provide links for your examples, please? --Gerwoman (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gerwoman: Added links. These are not to the HABS inventory itself because, as far as I know, there's no single compendium of the surveys; the closest thing is the database maintained by the Library of Congress, so that's what I've linked to. Ergo Sum (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this use the identifier datatype? --Yair rand (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I was trying to create a MnM catalog, but it's difficult for me to find any correlation between the HABS id and the control id assigned by the LoC:
  • --Gerwoman (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ergo Sum: could you add Qids for your examples? See Wikidata:Property proposal/OeBL 1815-1950 ID for an example of a proposal that does this − Pintoch (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pintoch: I've added Qids for two of them; the third does not have a Wikidata entry. Ergo Sum (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is this the same as Wikidata:Property proposal/HABS building ID ? --- Jura 09:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

HAER ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier assigned by the Historic American Engineering Record
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed valuestext
Example 1AK,20-MCAR,1--145 (CT)
Example 2AK,20-MCAR,1--12
Example 3WY-102-3
Sourcehttp://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also

Motivation[edit]

The Historic American Engineering Record is useful because it provides detailed information about historic infrastructure throughout the United States. It is also authoritative, as the information was compiled by experts working for the National Park Service, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Library of Congress. It is useful to have the HAER number assigned to objects to allow editors to retrieve information from the record.

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • These seem to be identifiers for individual photographs, not the infrastructure objects. What items do you expect these would be assigned to? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Is it a problem to import item-level collection data, and not just authority files? Or are you just commenting on the fact that there are not yet any items in Wikidata to which this property could be applied in practice? Dominic (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmm - I read the proposal description as ultimately being about the infrastructure, not the images (though it's a bit vaguely worded). Is the plan actually to create an item for every photograph in the catalogue? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @Andrew Gray: Yes the id would correlate with the infrastructure, not the photo. It just so happens that the way the id is currently being used by the Library of Congress is in its photo catalogue. For instance, there are some ids that correspond to more than one architectural or infrastructural item (perhaps because it was assigned to the batch of objects photographed at one tie). Ergo Sum (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is this the same as Wikidata:Property proposal/HAER building ID ? --- Jura 09:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

NARA record group number and NARA collection identifier[edit]

NARA record group number
   Under discussion
Descriptionthe unique number assigned to a National Archives and Records Administration record group
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainonly items that are instances of collection (Q2668072)
Allowed values[1-9]\d{0,2} (for now)
Example 1Records of District Courts of the United States (Q59296199) → 21
Example 2Records of the Patent and Trademark Office (Q59405143) → 241
Example 3Records of U.S. Strategic Command (Q59408145) → 535
Sourcehttps://catalog.archives.gov
Planned useI will add the complete set of numbers to their items.
Number of IDs in source568
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also
NARA collection identifier
   Under discussion
Descriptionthe unique identifier assigned to a National Archives and Records Administration collection
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainonly items that are instances of collection (Q2668072)
Allowed values.{1,10} - any string of up to 10 characters is allowable (all current identifiers appear to contain some combination of letters, numbers, a space, and/or a hyphen)
Example 1Korean War Collection (Q59480206) → HST-KWC
Example 2Douglas MacArthur Papers (Q59480207) → DDE-1294
Example 3Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Small Manuscripts Collection (Q59480209) → DDE-1207
Sourcehttps://catalog.archives.gov
Planned useI will add the complete set of identifiers to their items.
Number of IDs in source4545
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)

Motivation[edit]

There are over 22 million catalog records in the US National Archives catalog, but just 568 of them describe a record group (Q59294700) and 4545 describe a collection (Q59294612). These are the top-level record groupings to which all the other records in the catalog belong (as either children, children of children, or children of children of children). Because of their significance, they all have their own identifiers, separate from the general US National Archives Identifier (P1225) (which is used for all entities in the catalog, including descriptions, authorities, and terms), so that they can also be listed and identified within their own set.

The record group number is a set of sequential integers from 1 to 568 that represent the order in which they were established (more here). I have recently created items for all of these record groups, but have been unable to add their actual numbers to those items yet. The collection identifier is an alphanumeric string (sometimes with hyphens or spaces in it), which, similarly, represent the top-level groupings. I am also going to add all collection descriptions to Wikidata and would similarly like them to use NARA collection identifiers.

A record group is a grouping of records with a shared provenance (in practice, based on the US federal agency the records come from), while a collection is an artificial grouping based on some other shared characteristic (generally, these are donated or presidential materials). I am combining these two proposals because they are very similar concepts, just two different NARA identifier sets. Dominic (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Dominic: Please make examples links David (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @Multichill: Is the first one different from the ones we deleted some time ago (see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2016/Properties/1#P1223)? Unfortunately, property talk pages of these were deleted, so it's hard to tell what they were about. --- Jura 10:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • More info at User_talk:Dominic#NARA_properties. Names of the old properties: NARA person ID (P1222), NARA organization ID (P1223), NARA geographic ID (P1224) & NARA specific records type ID (P1226). Multichill (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • NARA used to have many different catalog identifiers (for different types of authorities as well as the descriptions), but these were all unified into a single set. This is different from the ones being proposed here, which are used independently of (and predate) the catalog system. Dominic (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Are the numbers of the first identifier proposed above included in US National Archives Identifier (P1225) or one of the deleted properties? --- Jura 14:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: No, these identifiers are unrelated. If you look at the NARA catalog record for the first example, you will see that it has both a NAID (P1225), which is also in the catalog URL, and a record group number. The record group number is a separate identifier which is used only to identify and designate the order of the record groups. the other deleted properties you are talking about were just from when the multiple catalog identifiers were merged into one unique ID. Dominic (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Ok. --- Jura 09:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WordLift ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionWordLift ID, a Linked Open Data permanent ID of publicly available entities curated by online publishers and distributed in various formats.
Data typeURL
Example 1WordLift (Q31998763)http://data.wordlift.io/wl0215/entity/wordlift
Example 2Salzburg (Q43325)http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland
Example 3cryptocurrency (Q13479982)http://data.thenextweb.com/tnw/entity/cryptocurrency
Example 4bilingualism (Q10779529)http://data.wordlift.io/wl0472/entity/bilinguismo_2
Example 5Audible.com (Q366651)http://data.wordlift.io/wl0826/entity/audible
Example 6Microsoft (Q2283)http://data.windowsreport.com/windowsreport/entity/microsoft
Number of IDs in source107,910

Motivation[edit]

WordLift ID refers to 5 stars linked data with permanent URIs publicly available online. WordLift's datasets are also published on the LOD Cloud and interlinked with other public datasets. Devbug (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Cyberandy 11:21, 06 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks useful enough to me - Edei 14:10, 06 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and useful Content - Mreichh 14:22, 06 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Positive - Gencuo
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Devbug: Your examples are incomplete - properties relate a wikidata item to a value, so what are the wikidata items associated with the URL values you've listed in your examples? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: The property expresses the value of the permanent URI of equivalent entities according to the Linked Data principles, e.g. http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland is the ID of the Salzburgerland region in Austria same as 2766823 on GeoNames or Q43325 on Wikidata. Maybe external-id is more appropriate as type and format value can be set to URL. --Devbug (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I've updated the proposal to external-id with allowed values of URL. --Devbug (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, I think URL was fine as a datatype here. What's missing are the QID's associated with these URL's - please add them to the examples. Look at other property proposals to see how it's done. ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Got it, I reverted to url data type and added the QID's. --Devbug (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This can be very useful - Domus.aurea999 10:41, 07 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks great to me Mark 14:27, 07 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would be a great addition Julian 15:41, 07 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions: How is this different from a generic linked data URI? Is this part of a proprietary system? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I've a strong feeling that some of the support votes above might be (sock/meat)puppets, given that their votes here are the only contributions of theirs on Wikidata and the comments attached to them seem a bit sketchy. Mahir256 (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mahir256: I myself am David Riccitelli (Q32000705). I believe @Multichill: can vouch for me, having met at SEMANTiCS 2018 (Q50349922) where he introduced me to the property proposal process. --Devbug (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mahir256: I expect there was some canvassing at least. However, good linked data tools are a good thing in principle. According to en:WordLift this is from a company founded a little less than 2 years ago. @Devbug: Can you describe how this approach differs from other WordPress solutions, for example the PoolParty plugin? Asserting that a given entity only has one linked data URL seems to require some sort of centralized management, no? Where is that coming from, what are the licensing rules etc? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I do think, however, that we should consider striking the votes of the two people immediately above your initial comment and the three votes right below David's support vote for being socks. Mahir256 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: WordLift (Q31998763) started in 2011 within the IKS project of the European Framework Program 7 (FP7). It officially opened to the public in 2017. WordLift is the only solution for WordPress (Q13166) (as far as I know) that fully complies with the Linked data principles and the 5 stars of Linked data. In fact datasets are listed in the LOD Cloud diagram. Entity management is decentralized and happens within WordPress (Q13166), structured data is pushed to Apache Marmotta. WordLift provides also interlinking with other datasets (including but not limited to Wikidata (Q2013), DBpedia (Q465), GeoNames (Q830106), ..., by means of owl:sameAs and schema:sameAs) which is the 5th rule of Linked data "Link your data to other people's data to provide context" (and a requirement to be listed among the 1,231 datasets of the LOD Cloud). --Devbug (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Devbug: Not sure what you mean by "deceentralized" here. There's one Marmotta installation that WordLift is using, right? So every valid URI must be listed in that central location? Anyway, it sounds like (given the "owl:sameAs" comment) you must allow multiple URI's for the same entity, so it's not really an ID either, is it? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: By decentralized I mean that the actual content is managed and stored in various WordPress instances as semi-structured data (title, content, meta fields). Because WordPress is unable to provide a performant and effective triple store, we copy the contents in the form of triples to Marmotta (which may provide also additional features, e.g. SPARQL, ldpath). I am not sure I understand the question about the ID, I'll try to give an example: http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland is the ID for Salzburgerland like Salzburg (Q43325) in Wikidata, 2766823 in GeoNames, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Salzburg_(state) in DBpedia. Wikidata uses GeoNames ID (P1566) to state GeoNames ID and GeoNames uses the pseudo language code "wkdt" to state Wikidata's QID. --Devbug (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Devbug: Sorry, "not an ID" is not the right way to express what I was thinking. But just to be clear, for your Salzburg (Q43325) example there would be at least 2 (salzburgland and dbpedia) and maybe 3 (including geonames) or more (?) correct values for this proposed "WordLift ID"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Ah, no, the correct value for "WordLift ID" would be http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland just like 2766823 is for GeoNames ID (P1566), Salzburg-state is for Quora topic ID (P3417), etc. --Devbug (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
And the central service is deciding what those special URI's are, ok. Is there any mechanism to confirm (a lookup service?) that somebody has set the right URI? We might want to treat this as an external ID with a formatter URL if there's something that works for that... ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Currently there's no lookup service, but we could provide several, e.g. one that validates a URI, one that autocompletes a URI, ... can you point me to examples of other lookup services? Initially I looked at the formatter, I am not sure it's fit, because the hostname part of the URI may be variable, i.e. by default we use http://data.wordlift.io/datasetname as base URI, however