Wikidata talk:Property proposal/Generic

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Time-property (variant)[edit]

I think there is some need to describe to/from time in the meaning (a,b) ie. between a and b, but not a and b. This in contrast to [a,b] from a (and including) to b (and including).

What I need is the possibility to write: [a,b): from a (and including) to b (not including). This would look like a "instance of" A <"from" 1975-12-31><"to (but not including)" 1980-12-31>

This has to do with the definition of a Swedish urban area. The census is normally one specific date. And an urban area is defined as an urban area if it fulfill special specifications that specific date. And the urban area is regarded as an urban area until the next Census, even if it technically isn't defined for any other date than the census-date. If an urban area failes to fullfill the specifications at the Census 1980-12-31, it is no longer an urban area. Writing "to 1980-12-30" instead, looks a little wrong to me, since there were no Census that date.

Opinions? -- Lavallen (block) 13:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could specify both date and time, like "until 1980-12-31 00:00, timezone UTC+1" Byrial (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am more interested in describing "until the following Census", than a specific moment in the timeline. -- Lavallen (block) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Useless information storage: if you correctly source your statement, you can retrieve the start of application of the value from the "date of publication" of the source and the end of the intervalle is defined by the same property but by the most recent source. Snipre (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. What I am trying to avoid is:
"instance of" "urban area in Sweden"
	as of 1960-12-31
		source1
"instance of" "urban area in Sweden"
	as of 1965-12-31
		source2
"instance of" "urban area in Sweden"
	as of 1970-12-31
		source3
"instance of" "not an urban area"
	as of 1975-12-31
		source4
or
"instance of" "urban area in Sweden"
	as of 1960-12-31
	as of 1965-12-31
	as of 1970-12-31
		source1
		source2
		source3
"instance of" "not an urban area"
	as of 1975-12-31
		source4
and instead write:
"instance of" "urban area in Sweden"
	from 1960-12-31
	to (but not included) 1975-12-31
		source1
		source2
		source3
		source4
(All Censuses are not per december 31, but that is my example.)
Other facts from the Census have to include a number of other claims.
"instance of" "not an urban area" is something I would like to avoid, even if I can add a source for such claims.
-- Lavallen (block) 13:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogue number[edit]

It has been proposed for a while on WD:Property proposal/Creative work but can actually be used in other domains, like astronomy. --Zolo (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is against the trend of defining a property per database in order to specify the database/catalog ID. Better start a general discussion in order to choose a system (several specific ID properties or one general ID property with qualifier to identify the database/catalog). Snipre (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually catalogue number already exists as catalog code (P528), it only lacks a qualifier to make it explicit, which catalogue it referes to.
I is true that it goes against the current trend toward creating one property per database. I think this property is meant for the cases where we the catalogue either is not online or is not really structured as a standalone database. I'll try to create an RFC if that seems useful. --Zolo (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Was in" proposal[edit]

Recently I've been reading about Lewis and Clark's exploration of the North American continent. They kept a detailed diary and we have exact knowledge of where each person was on each day. Similarly, we know exactly when President Obama or Pope Francis makes trips to most locations. I propose a property that joins some entity (likely a person or group of people) with a place and time. For example:

Not only does this allow us to automatically build timelines and maps for journeys, but it also allows us to query for which notable people or groups were in a given location (in general, or at a specific time). This proposal specifically is meant for entities that move, or could move, and not to replace "is in" or "part of" relationships. There's good academic work underlying this sort of idea (for instance, see http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1039827.1039830 by Terveen and others).

And of course this doesn't really have to be limited to people in places (though that was my motivation), but non-person entities can be in places as well, but this is relevant only if they move. I'm thinking of objects where location is really a key part of their identity, such as the Elgin Marbles archeological finds.

This is a concept that concerns a very large number of entities, so I wanted to put it up for discussion before a formal proposal. Runner1928 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @Runner1928: It does not really make sense in the case of wikidata to have a property in the past sence, the correct way to do this is to use the standard location property with a date qualifier (and a normal rank). The date qualifier means the statement is true at that date.
⟨ Lewis and Clark Expedition (Q505802)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ location (P276) View with SQID ⟨ Camp Dubois (Q2935211)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
start time (P580) View with SQID ⟨ 1803-12-12 ⟩
end time (P582) View with SQID ⟨ 1804-04-014 ⟩
TomT0m (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TomT0m (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per above. Just use location (P276). Mushroom (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Location should work. Perhaps this could be added to the documentation of that property though? Ajraddatz (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Use property significant event (P793) and qualifiers to specify dates, location and persons. Snipre (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Per Above. --Casper Tinan (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, everyone. I will work with the qualified location property on Lewis and Clark Expedition (Q505802). @Snipre: I'm unsure if location (P276) or significant event (P793) is best here. Runner1928 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official website in <language>[edit]

Hi all,

English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage, all have a link to http://www.louvre.fr/en (the English index of the official website of the Louvre museum).

It would make sense to host this URL on Wikidata.

official website (P856) is a different URL http://www.louvre.fr as this is a French museum.

So how about a proposal to create an "official website in English" property? Or is there a more generic way to implement this, that would be usable for any language? At leat Wikivoyage is looking at storing this URL in Wikidata. Thanks! Syced (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can add language of work or name (P407) as a qualifier, I think that is more convenient than creating a property for each language. Then it is rather straightforward to code a module that gives precedence some languages over others. --Zolo (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
language of work or name (P407) applies to an item, not to an item's property, right? How to express that Louvre Museum (Q19675)'s official English website is http://www.louvre.fr/en and its official Chinese website is http://www.louvre.fr/zh?
You can add more than one value to property, and then for each value you can add qualifier with corresponding language code. The rules about using properties are only suggestions. Nothing prevents from using language of work or name (P407) (and others) for any reasonable purpose. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I added both http://www.nact.jp/english and http://www.nact.jp as official websites to National Art Center, Tokyo (Q1362638). To the former I added a reference language of work=English and to the former I added a reference language of work=Japanese. Sounds like a good solution to me, I did not know references could be used for this. Does that solution sound like the best way to express what I wanted to express? I guess there is no need for a new property after all :-) Thanks to both of you for your help! Syced (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched those to "language of work" as a qualifier, not "reference language". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WT? price[edit]

Why was the entry on price deleted rather than archived? This should be added to the archive, right? User:Tobias1984, please explain your action. --Elvey (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: Yes, it should be in the archive. Probably a failed page-save or a problem with my internet connection. In any case I forgot to check if it arrived in the archive. Thanks for alerting. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: Actually it seems to be in the archive. See template box: Property_talk:P2284 --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias1984 - Huh? I don't see the discussion archived here: Property_talk:P2284. All I see is that you deleted it without so much as an edit summary. No edit summary is an issue that an internet connection problem can't cause. And why archive the discussion anyway? What is the status of the property? I'm a wikidata newbie, but looking here (for the first time?) I guess you created the property and it's now usable for medicine or anything else. Yes? So no big deal, but worth resolving. --Elvey (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it was properly archived by Tobias1984 to Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/39#P2284. The link to archive #39 you find in the last line of the template box on Property talk:P2284. --Pasleim (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We archive discussions because leaving closed proposals on the property proposal pages would result in gigantic pages where nobody can find the things which are currently being proposed. It's the same idea as the archiving of old discussions that happens in other Wikimedia projects. :) - Nikki (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and kudos for your patience with a newbie, folks. Sorry for the confusion. I see the link and archive now. (I meant to ask why archive a discussion that didn't seem to be over. I get it now, and thanks for patiently answering the question I did ask.)--Elvey (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wine wishlist[edit]

Hi there. I'd like to see a property for wine varietals. The majority of wineries - regardless of country - specializes in specific wine varietals. For example, Emeritus Vineyards in California produces Pinot Noir only when Château Lafite Rothschild in France makes Cabernet Sauvignon. Some make a few more - Gloria Ferrer Caves & Vineyards in Sonoma, California, makes sparkling wine from Pinot Noir and Chardonnay.

I'd also like to see a way to list the type of wines made. Gloria Ferrer produces mainly sparkling wine with a few still wines. When Breathless Wines in California makes ONLY sparkling wine.

Finally, wine appellation. While we can use location, not all wineries are located in an AVA, for example, wineries in San Francisco. It would be nice to also have an appellation property perhaps, to state that the winery makes wines from specific AVAs or DOCs, etc. (i.e. Emeritus Vineyards makes wines from the Green Valley of Russian River Valley AVA (Q1544659) and Sonoma Valley AVA (Q826340)

So in summary: When adding wineries to Wikidata I'd like to have three things: have a property for the type of wine made (i.e. still, sparkling wine, port/dessert wine), the varietals produced (i.e. Pinot Noir), and the AVAs/DOC/Region.

Ideas on how to develop these in order to create proposals relevant to these ideas? Or what the properties should be called? Varietal makes sense, but wine type? Type of wine? etc

Thanks for your thoughts! Missvain (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should be separate properties. However, often enough property proposals other than for databases meet with much resistance. For example, Wikidata does not have a property to list the ingredients used in preparing a dish, or a cocktail, although this is a very common situation. So, proceed with caution. - Brya (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Museum with no frontiers[edit]

Hello, do you think there could b a property for this database of art? http://www.museumwnf.org/ Dominikmatus (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What values will it have? --Juandev (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dominikmatus: (5311 entries) After a quick overview, it's possible, but there is many URL (so the external identifier (datatype) will surely be an URL, in my opinion). An opinion of the whole community will give you approval or not for the creation of this property. For that, it is here that it happens. If you are not comfortable, I can make the proposal. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, could you do that? I made an proposal just once. Dominikmatus (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Dominikmatus: on Wikidata:Property proposal/mwnf —Eihel (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Widing the use of property[edit]

How to propose a property for wider use? E.g. there is a property used only for references, how to propose that property to be also used elsewhere? --Juandev (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2019 (0UTC)

@Juandev: Hi. Yes, there is a way to use a Property in several places on a page. Do you have an example where you want to use a Property somewhere else in a page? Is it in a proposal or directly on an existing Property? —Eihel (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
last update (P5017) --Juandev (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Dear Juandev,
In this case, the choice of this restriction of use was made during the debate of the proposition of the Property by User:Pintoch and followed by other contributors, including the proposer, User:Sj. Following its creation, a Property can be modified, but a Property can not change drastically to no longer correspond to the original proposal. Whether Label and aliases, datatype, description or constraints, important changes must be discussed, as explained on this page. (As an aside, the datatype change also deserves an additional step.) This specificity has been ratified by vote, so initial vote participants can express their views on this change. The rest of the community can also give an opinion on your request. Which means that a debate must be held on the Talk Page of the Property. You have not given me the sense of your need: in which Item should this change be? Or rather, where will this Property be located? Your request should have a valid reason. The initial debate of the property was made here. About your future request (if you made it), the possible property scope constraint (Q53869507) are:

property constraint
Normal rank property scope constraint edit
property scope as main value
as qualifier
as reference
0 references
add reference


add value


If all "fields" are applicable, the constraint can be removed. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you four your detailed and clear reply. I am pretty new to Wikidata processes. In this case, I was in need of a property which would indicate an update for digital works such as articles or blog posts, which usually have the date of creation, but also the date of an update. So I have arrived to last update (P5017) and figured out it is just for references.
Before I left the question on the WikiProject Periodicals (the project seems to me not to be so active at the moment) and a question with a proposal on the propertie's talk page. --Juandev (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal not showing up in main section[edit]

My proposal Wikidata:Property_proposal/handled,_mitigated,_or_managed_by is currently not showing up in the main section (as 2.58), even though it was transcluded. Anybody knows why? Zhenqinli (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is still going on. @ArthurPSmith: - BeLucky (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl Kindly look into it. - BeLucky (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeLucky, Zhenqinli: proposal has been closed as done! Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhenqinli @ZI Jony The issue is still going on with current list. Kindly look at the end of the page. List is piling up at bottom of the page. - BeLucky (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeLucky As I now understand, this particular problem is due to too many earlier discussion threads being stuck and included in this huge proposal page, causing an overflow and failure of newer proposals being rendered. It seems to be treated by the community as a known nuisance and tech debt rather than a high-priority bug that needs to be fixed. --Zhenqinli (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically it means that if you want new threads to move forward, it's a good idea to do work to move the existing threads on the page further along. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I am seeing many of the older proposals sitting in the page for many months without being able to make tangible progress. Perhaps a cutoff (say 6-months) can be implemented, that a proposal staying beyond the given time cutoff without reaching consensus should automatically expire and be archived? @BeLucky My impression is that moving your proposal to another category instead of Generic (e.g. Wikidata:Property_proposal/Organization, if appropriate) could make it be processed faster. --Zhenqinli (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

translatewiki.net message group ID? Worth requesting?[edit]

See Wikidata talk:Property proposal/translation management URL. Not sure how to proceed and if it is worth doing so. Cheers [[kgh]] (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Property_proposal/Generic&oldid=1923598842"