Wikidata:Property proposal/intended subject

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

intended subject[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) this statement is deprecated as it is actually about another subject
Data typeItem
Example 1See refers to different subject (Q28091153)
Example 2See applies to other person (Q35773207)
Example 3See applies to other chemical entity (Q51734763)


This is a proposed solution of Wikidata:Project chat#How to show the correct item if a statement is deprecated with 'applies to other...' reason?. GZWDer (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support if we don't have any other established way to do this. Also – if created – this should be an universally allowed qualifier (cf. phabricator ticket). Wostr (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • {{Status oppose3}} It is a cause that is part of list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174). The property concerned is reason for deprecation (P2241) : it is not a creation of property. That said I am for the creation of an element "intended subject" which is not listed and which can contain the rest of the causes, depending on the subject of the discussion in Project Chat, I notify the user concerned. A discussion in this sense is already underway here. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Eihel: I'm really trying, but can't understand what you're trying to say here. It is about creation a property (i.e. qualifier) to be able to do something like this Wostr (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
CAS Registry Number
Normal rank 30724-02-8 Arbcom ru editing.svg edit
reason for deprecation applies to other chemical entity
intended subject Qxxx
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference

+ add value
  • Sadly, you've edited this page after my replay, but you haven't dispelled the doubts, I am almost certain that this is your misinterpretation of the proposal as this has nothing to do with list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174) or stated discussion. Wostr (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Sorry, I got confused with Phab's task above. And sorry for the late modification, I was looking at the feasibility. —Eihel (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't we already have the information noted by having a statement on the item of the other person? ChristianKl❫ 13:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree with that. Most likely there with a reference that didn't mix it up. I think one should avoid using statements from the wrong item instead. --- Jura 15:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)