Wikidata:Property proposal/amends

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

amends[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Motivation[edit]

A law can be amended, substituted/superseded or repealed without replacement. Such properties are usually in pairs. For example, substitution/supersession can be indicated by replaces (P1365) and replaced by (P1366). Repeal can be indicated by repeals (P3148) and repealed by (P2568). But for amendment, there is only amended by (P2567). The inverse property is required for cross-linking from amending law to principal law. Hrishikes (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

As far as I can see, Wikidata has plenty of paired cross-linking. Like, when son is linked to from father's item, father is also linked to from son's item. replace and replaced by are also paired and the system insists on cross-linking. All personal relationships are also like that. In this case, if principal law is not to be linked to from amending law, how should this matter be shown in the item for the amending law? Hrishikes (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata's goal is not just to be consumed via the Wikidata user interface, it can be used in all sorts of ways by data consumers who can query the data.
Within the Wikidata user interface there's no the relatedItem's gadget that allows users to see inverse items. The existence of that new gadget also coincided with us deprecating a few older inverse relation properties. ChristianKl10:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please to reopen the request and discussion. @ChristianKl, Yair rand, Hrishikes, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, DannyS712:

  •  Support If you do not request deletion of repeals (P3148) as the inverse property to repealed by (P2568), and deletion of at least 188 other inverse properties (94 pairs?), your attitude is inconsistent and disrupts the functioning and quality of the project. Yes, it would have been ideal if "statements" were conceived not as a part of a single item, but as independent elements that can link two items without belonging to one more than the other. However, this concept was not chosen. No usable existing interface has any tool that can display and manage inverse statements for an item that result from a statement in another item. Therefore, the creation of inverse properties and inverse statements should not be blocked, but conversely, for each property that has items as its parameter, an inverse property should be created, and every such statement (or its change) should be immediately mirrored as the inverse property in the target item. Until Wikidata can display one claim in two items complementarily, mirroring should be provided by bots that should immediately create and save an inverse statement to the edited statement. If the concept of Wikidata is changed sometime in the distant future, then it will be possible to simply merge all complementary properties and statements at any time. You can work to get us to this step as soon as possible. For now, however, the complementary statements are indispensable. With the current structure of Wikidata it is necessary to systematically create and maintain inverse statements. --ŠJů (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a process to reopen discussions after three years.
If you a general policy of such bots, this is not the best place to discuss it. ChristianKl02:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the system is set so that when a new request is made for the same matter, it opens the page with the original request. This is quite a common and established procedure on wiki projects, that a repeated (reopened) discussion continues on a subpage of the original (previous) discussion. If some script can't handle it, it should be fixed immediately. It certainly cannot be inferred from this that every hasty and erroneous closure of the discussion should be valid forever without the possibility of reconsideration. Technically, it would certainly be possible to start a new subpage with a distinguishing index, but from a practical point of view, it is advisable to follow up on the arguments from the original discussion without the need to copy them to a new page. Also, it is not appropriate to block the reopening of the discussion by someone whose opinion is to be reconsidered.--ŠJů (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl I agree with ŠJů. Your answer is an example of pure formalism. If there is a rule that old requests cannot be reopened, post a link here. Daniel Baránek (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]