This page is an archive.Please do not modify it. Use thecurrent page, even to continue an old discussion.

Discussion

Can be used byLatvian Wikipedia(Q728945).Kolja21 (talk)20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --SERutherford (talk)01:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This, along with the properties below, can define the limits of a map showing the place. Having coordinates is better than just having a value for the northern extent, because the algorithm defining the map can take account of the distortions due to map projections when mapping large places. Also there seems to be a lot of tourist interest in the extreme points of islands/continents (these places often have signs celebrating these facts) so this could be of use in other ways.Filceolaire (talk)15:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not have a single property "furtherstmost point" or "extremity" or similar, and use put the direction as a qualifier, e.g.direction(P560)→north(Q659) -Evad37 [talk]23:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In general I prefer properties that will give some info even without the qualifier.Filceolaire (talk)10:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support all 4. Easier to manage with four distinct properties. ---Jura04:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support all four.Filceolaire, please provide examples for these proposed properties. Thanks,Emw (talk)19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Filceolaire,Evad37,Evad37,Emw: Done and examples already given for all four. --Jakob (talk)22:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Jakob, no, "sample items that would use that property, with proposed values; example: universe (Q1) => Earth (Q2)" is the placeholder text for the 'example' field. It's used in all four proposal templates. It is not an actual example of how these properties would be used.Emw (talk)22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Emw: Perhaps that was poor wording on my part. What I meant was that I added the properties into an item. --Jakob (talk)22:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

SeeColumbia County(Q488693). Thanks Jakec.Filceolaire (talk)11:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

See above.Filceolaire (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Done --Jakob (talk)22:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

See above.Filceolaire (talk)15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Done --Jakob (talk)22:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

See above.Filceolaire (talk)15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Done --Jakob (talk)22:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Useful supplement. Especially forSerbo-Croatian Wikipedia(Q58679) andCroatian Wikipedia(Q203488). --Kolja21 (talk)01:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --SERutherford (talk)01:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Vlsergey (talk)23:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Kolja21,SERutherford,Vlsergey: Done --Jakob (talk)23:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.Magnus Manske (talk)15:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support If asked, I would have assumed we had this already. For each artist there is a page with artworks, many still in copyright, and so not available on Commons.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support}. At[1] about 300 are matched againstGND ID(P227), most of them should have an item here I suppose. --Gymel (talk)08:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Notification:Magnus Manske,Andy Mabbett,Gymel.--Micru (talk)09:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Honorary titles are not suitable foraward received(P166).Милан Јелисавчић (talk)08:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Question Why is that ? Could you please elaborate on this ?Casper Tinan (talk)12:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Added alias toaward received(P166). Notification:Милан Јелисавчић,Casper Tinan.--Micru (talk)09:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.We havestudent(P802)student of(P1066) for personal relation only, but we also need the inverse ofeducated at(P69)Oursana (talk)10:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Why do we need an inverse foreducated at(P69)? —Wylve (talk)11:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The same reason we need an inverse for anything else. --Jakob (talk)12:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The inverse ofeducated at(P69) is necessary to express famous students of a certain university. Without this property we cannot show this--Oursana (talk)13:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In some weeks queries will arrive. Then it will be possible to express exactly such things without having a new property. --Pasleim (talk)14:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Support Comment This property seems useful but it should not be called "student", sincestudent(P802) already has that label.Oursana, I would support this property if you changed the label to "studied at".Emw (talk)01:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done thank you--Oursana (talk)01:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oursana, sorry, that was a dumb suggestion from me. "Studied at" should obviously be an alias of "alma mater", not the label for its inverse property. Could we change the label of this property to "attendee", or something to that effect?Emw (talk)03:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've updated my vote to oppose, per Kolja. Inverse properties make sense when there is usually a 1:1 relation (or 1:n, where n is small), but here, n can be almost 13,000. Having that many statements in one item (e.g.Harvard University(Q13371)) is a bad idea.Emw (talk)12:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 CommentHarvard University(Q13371) is linked 12.909 times. As the inverse ofeducated at(P69) I wouldn't support this property. Imho it only makes sense if it is used for a reasonable selection. --Kolja21 (talk)01:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata has well over 20,000,000 statements; an extra 13,000 statements would be a drop in the bucket -- 0.00065% more statements. The added convenience for users would vastly exceed the negligible extra space and time needed to handle this property.Emw (talk)03:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that 13,000 statements in one item will be more convenience than having a simple query: Show me all items witheducated at(P69)=Harvard University(Q13371) --Pasleim (talk)11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I misread again, thanks for clarifying. Good point, Kolja, Pasleim.Emw (talk)12:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose since I do not think that inverse properties are useful if the value range for one object is much bigger for the inverse property than for the original property as Kolja and Emw pointed out. If you have in mind with "famous student" a range other than all students at an educational institute (who have an item) and want to highlight only "especially famous" students this would neither seem necessary to me nor a clean solution. LG, --Marsupium (talk)21:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Oursana,Wylve,Pasleim,Kolja21,Emw,Marsupium: Not done - no support. --Jakob (talk)16:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

To import from above infoboxes. ---Jura11:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment I like the idea, but wouldn't it be better just to useblue-green(Q646964) in the example you gave? --Jakob (talk)12:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Eye colors don't necessarily correspond to hex codes .. We could useen:blue eyes, but it's just a redirect to a section. ---Jura13:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Interesting property of physical anthropology.Emw (talk)01:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Of cause there are a lot of interesting things. But Wikidata is not an NSA project. --Kolja21 (talk)01:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your argument. What is the relation to the property proposal for common storage for the French and English Wikipedia infoboxes? Aren't you simply in disagreement with Wikipedia editorial choices? ---Jura14:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jura: No, theen:Template:Infobox model is only for models and every Wikipedia can decide if they want to implement it. Wikidata is a powerful tool, therefore WD has higher demands on privacy.biometrics(Q177765) is the domain of medicine and public authorities and should be handled with care in open databases. --Kolja21 (talk)20:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Kolja, eye color is no more private or "biometric" than a photograph of a person's face. It is a very non-private piece of information about a person. It is certainly of less interest to the NSA and other modern-day bogeymen thanmother(P25),father(P22),P7(P7),P9(P9),child(P40),kinship to subject(P1039),sex or gender(P21),place of birth(P19),date of birth(P569),native language(P103),religion or worldview(P140),ethnic group(P172),ancestral home(P66),sexual orientation(P91),medical condition(P1050),residence(P551),P1298(P1298),employer(P108),website account on(P553) andwebsite username or ID(P554). Your claim that "WD has higher demands on privacy" seems to be your personal preference, and is unsupported by any actual Wikidata policy as far as I can tell. The listed properties show that there is ample precedent for this kind of property.Emw (talk)02:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What you call my "personal preference" are the basics ofen:Information privacy anden:Human rights. Of cause WD has gone with properties likesexual orientation(P91) already a questionable way. (If P91 would be used in a neutral way we would have at least the same number of heterosexual than homosexual persons. De facto this property is used to stigmatize a group.) So please don't make your personal indifference to the basic of Wikidata. --Kolja21 (talk)03:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kolja, can you cite any source about eye color being protected information? And how do you respond to the fact that eye color is trivially determinable from a photograph of a person's face? Do you support putting special protections on photographs of people? If not, then what is your basis for opposing this property? I realize that eye color has been a basis of discrimination, but to claim that privacy about eye color is a basic element of human rights and information privacy seems unfounded and very unconventional. Most of the properties listed above have also been a basis of discrimination, but that doesn't mean Wikidata forbids structured data on them.Emw (talk)04:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you know enough about databases that you know the difference between a single photo and facts that can be automatically read out and further processed. But since you like questions: What would be a property that you would reject? Can you exclude that Wikidata will be misused in future? And if not, do you care? --Kolja21 (talk)04:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Kolja, no, I obviously cannot exclude the possibility that Wikidata might be misused. But opposing properties on the broad premise that Wikidata could be misused is a paralyzing standard. By that logic we should do away with almost all Wikidata properties. It's easy to imagine scenarios where properties likemother(P25) and other family relation properties,religion or worldview(P140),sex or gender(P21), etc., etc. are used for evil -- and many are more likely than "eye color" to be misused -- but that is not a legitimate argument to ban those properties. To answer your question about properties I would reject: I would certainly reject properties like "payment card number", "Social Security number" (an ID which is considered very private in the United States), "private key" and "password". All of those have clear vectors for evil acts and are not determinable through ubiquitous things like photographs. While I don't oppose the property itself, I would also reject usages of properties likecoordinate location(P625) to track the precise location of people on a pervasive, minute-by-minute basis.

How exactly do you see an "eye color" property being misused? The potential for evil with this property is much, much more remote than most of the 20 person properties listed above, and is also not substantially obstructed by the lack of a property on Wikidata. Do you think that an entity that would purvey such evil would face a significant roadblock by not having a property like "eye color"? Writing a decent automatic classifier for eye color based on public photographs is a weekend project for a decent and motivated programmer. The vector for evil is also quite abstract. What exactly would we be guarding against by not having an "eye color" property? A racist eugenics group that knows enough about technology to query Wikidata but lacks the technical savvy to automatically crop photos and find color, and plug that into downstream analysis? Any protection to human rights afforded by not having this property seems vanishingly thin.

On the other hand, having this property would help answer interesting questions, perhaps some that have positive ends towards human rights. What color were Abraham Lincoln's eyes? What proportion of European heads of state, or American CEOs or actors or television broadcasters (or models) have blue eyes? Some of these queries might actually helpreveal and quantify subtle discrimination, or at least noteworthy trends and, of course, trivial factoids of passing interest.Emw (talk)04:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed answer. We agree that any information that can be used also can be misused. Of cause "eye color" itself looks harmless. The problem is "eye color"plus more that 1300 properties. All I'm saying is that we should limit the properties to the main facts that are uncontroversial. Later when we have privacy or other regulations we can increase the coverage. The other way around first collection everything and later delete properties that are already in use won't work. --Kolja21 (talk)19:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Comment The idea to add information on persons' eye colour sounds interesting to me. However, the information could already be expressed by the current properties I think. Adopting the example it would be:

⟨ Linda Evangelista(Q192171)    ⟩color(P462)⟨ blue-green(Q16939403)    ⟩
applies to part(P518)⟨ iris(Q178748)    ⟩

applies to part(P518) <eye color(Q23786)> as a qualifier might also be possible. --Marsupium (talk)21:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support. Some infoboxes use this and I really don't want wikidata staying that Linda Evangelist is coloured blue-green, no matter how it is qualified.Filceolaire (talk)15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --^talk16:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Jura1,Kolja21,Emw,Marsupium,Filceolaire,AmaryllisGardener: Done, there is sufficient support for creation now. To expand upon Filceolaire's comment, querying qualifiers can't be done, so a query for the color of a person would (in the example) return blue-green, which won't be good for obvious reasons. --Jakob (talk)16:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Various infoboxes about sportsperson have acurrent ranking field. If we could store these information here on Wikidata a lot of tedious edits in the locals WPs could be saved.Pasleim (talk)11:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support. See alsoProperties for deletion.Filceolaire (talk)15:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)06:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Pasleim,Filceolaire,Micru: Done --Jakob (talk)16:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The proprety will be used to import the (free accessibly) monthly world ranking list of ITTF. --Pasleim (talk)10:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support at least to reference the identifier. ---Jura11:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Automatic TT rankings are used in nl-WP too:nl:Sjabloon:Infobox tafeltennisser. --Tsor (talk)16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Notification:Pasleim,Jura,Tsor.World Table Tennis player ID(P1364).--Micru (talk)08:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.Jean-François Clet (talk)19:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Il existe une propriété "nommé selon" qui permet d'inscrire l'éponyme : pourquoi pas l'inverse ? aisi il serait par exemple possible de préciser que la planète Mars à reçu le nom du dieu romain Mars, que le Mont Evrest fut nommé en honneur du britaniqueGeorge Everest, que le nom de Hertz ne vient pas de la fréquence des battements du coeur humain, mais du savant allemandHeinrich Rudolf Hertz.... etc etc

--Jean-François Clet (talk)19:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose. I'm not sure if this the inverse of or a duplicate ofnamed after(P138). Either way I don't think we need it.Filceolaire (talk)15:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Redundant. Notification:Jean-François Clet,Filceolaire.--Micru (talk)08:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Similar toUS Congress Bio ID(P1157),MEP directory ID(P1186). ---Jura06:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Innocent bystander (talk)(The user previously known as Lavallen)12:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support.Emw (talk)02:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Jura1Innocent bystanderEmw Done --Jakob (talk)02:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 Oppose Seems redundant withTeam caps for local leagues andTotal leagues caps. By the way, the description does not match with the proposed data type : the value for this property would be an integer not a list.Casper Tinan (talk)11:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Redundant. Notification:Random knowledge donator,Casper Tinan.--Micru (talk)08:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: Should only be used for self-identified users, or those with public profiles in reliable sources, who already meet Wikidata notability criteria. No "outing" should be done. Multiple values should be allowed, for those with declared alternative accounts. A qualifier should indicate the primary account.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits14:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment Is this just another attempt to sneak your user page into Wikidata? --Jakob (talk)14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Redundant towebsite account on(P553) andwebsite username or ID(P554)

--Lavallen (talk)14:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Are Wikimedia projects social media?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good q, but if it in this matter cannot be considered as one, I do not see that such a property can be included to this project. I know that it has been proposed that the account of Jimbo Wales should use this property for his userpage on enwp, but I cannot see any such statement today. --Lavallen (talk)14:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing,Lavallen: I have renamed P553 and P554.--GZWDer (talk)11:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Also @Jakec:--GZWDer (talk)11:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? That's not helpful; and it's especially unhelpful to mix data types (URLs and user names) in one property.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that P554 was intended to have the account name and not a URL as the value, so calling it "website address" could be misleading. --Yair rand (talk)14:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

+1 forwebsite account on(P553) andwebsite username or ID(P554) for such purposes. There is a lot of services where user creates his own account, manages it, create/post/shares content. The feature of "friendship" is only small function of "social media", so even without direct support of such function Wikipedia can be considered as good value forwebsite account on(P553) property (and account name -- as value forwebsite username or ID(P554)). --Vlsergey (talk)15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Redundant withwebsite account on(P553) andwebsite username or ID(P554).--Micru (talk)08:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that the changes towebsite account on(P553) andwebsite username or ID(P554) in this regard are disputed above, and the challenges to them remain unanswered.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits09:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I see that the concerns about the label have been addressed. If there is anything open, please, specify what it is.--Micru (talk)18:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Inverse property tokilled by(P157). If the killer is living, only use with strong sourcing, obviously. --Jakob (talk)21:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Why do we need an inverse property for killed by? We can query killed by to generate a list of people killed by a specific person. —Wylve (talk)09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wylve,Yair rand: For the same reason we have any other inverse property. This is a textbook case where this would work because there is often a 1:1 or a few:1 relationship with notable victims and assasins. --Jakob (talk)00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec:: Honestly, I do not see a reason for any inverse property, since we will be able to get information through queries. Victims can havekilled by(P157), which links them to their killer. There's no new information added to the database with the proposed property. With items depicting the victim of a particular killer, we can satisfy the few-to-one model. —Wylve (talk)14:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support ---Jura13:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose, per Wylve. --Yair rand (talk)00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus not reached. Notification:Jakob,Wylve,Jura,Yair rand.--Micru (talk)08:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.Digipoke (talk)22:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment 6000+ is not a valid value for the number data type.Danrok (talk)13:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.Digipoke (talk)12:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 SupportDanrok (talk)10:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 SupportFilceolaire (talk)13:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Digipoke,Danrok,Filceolaire: Done

Discussion

This is evidently an important aspect of any competition, and its value cannot be inferenced from other items' properties.GranD (talk)08:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 SupportFilceolaire (talk)13:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 SupportZellfaze (talk)23:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• @GranD,Filceolaire,Zellfaze: Done --Jakob (talk)01:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

to record details of sports matches.Filceolaire (talk)20:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment for the date of the match, probably the right property already exists. Usually seasons match are grouped per match day: what do you think about a property for specifying the number (1, 2, 3...) of match day? A property that specify the referees can be also useful? --Paperoastro (talk)08:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

For the referee we can saymember of sports team(P54):[match officials] with qualifierposition played on team / speciality(P413):[referee].Filceolaire (talk)21:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Paperoastro (talk)08:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Basically the same comment as on assisted by: Should this be a soccer-specific property? I fear someone will one day import sports games with lots of points, don't think Wikidata should be sports database with too many details (a few details are of course ok). Though I see how in some cases such data could be useful. --Bthfan (talk)23:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  Depend on the sport: for soccer but also for rugby (see for example2013 Six Nations Championship) it is usual to have this kind of information. For others, as basket, no. --Paperoastro (talk)23:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support It would be useful also in other team sports too, it doesn't need to be used only for football/soccer. On the contrary, keeping note of the points scored during a, say, basketball match, will help us in keeping better stats. --Sannita -not just another it.wiki sysop10:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Filceolaire,Paperoastro,Bthfan,Sannita: Done (and personally, I think that the more details, the better). --Jakob (talk)18:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Just another external ID to link with, wildly used in ru-wiki.Vlsergey (talk)10:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support.Hausratte (talk)12:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
•  QuestionVlsergey, why not to use just one property instead of five? It seems that there are no differences in the link, and "what the item is" can be inferred from other properties. Or am I missing something?--Micru (talk)14:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Micru, the links are different, as far as i can see (anime.php, people.php, manga.php, company.php, release.php). Did i mistype and put same link twice somewhere? --213.87.133.2 14:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC) --Vlsergey (talk)12:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Vlsergey: no, you didn't miss anything. I am just thinking that "anime.php?id=49" could be used as the whole identifier, like we do with Rottentomatoes or IMDB.--Micru (talk)12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Micru: Well, it should be then something like "anime49" or "a49" AND not something with ".php" and "?id=" -- not a good idea to include different parts of URI into ID. IMDB has "nm" prefix inside his own identifier, we did not create it out of the air. Also, i don't prefer more strict properties, because we can enforce more restrictions (like onlyanime(Q1107) for this property), for bot and script-enforced checks. --Vlsergey (talk)14:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Vlsergey, good idea! I have created a generic property, please fill out the documentation with the prefixes that you prefer to use. --Micru (talk)11:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done As generic property to be used with a prefix. Notification:Vlsergey,Hausratte >>P1361(P1361).--Micru (talk)11:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Can be used as a statement for non-succesful candidates for a public office with further information as qualifiers. Can also be used as a qualifier withposition held(P39) for the succesful candidates. And can also be used for political parties running for particular elections.Shlomo (talk)23:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This would be just the reverse ofcandidate(P726)? (I wouldn't recommend using either of these yet, btw. Elections are complicated, and we need a full data model instead of putting things together piece by piece. See discussion atWikidata talk:Politics infoboxs task force#Election complications.) --Yair rand (talk)23:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Is there a reason why we would need to reciprocatecandidate(P726)? To me, a list of candidates, in an election item seems to be the logical way to cover this. We can find out what elections a person was selected for by queryingcandidate(P726).Danrok (talk)16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Notification:Shlomo,Yair rand,Danrok. Redundant withcandidate(P726).--Micru (talk)08:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.GZWDer (talk)16:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@GZWDer: I don't understand what the difference tofollowed by(P156) /structure replaced by(P167) is. --Tobias1984 (talk)17:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There're no Chinese word to show both relation of1(Q199)=>2(Q200), and that above.--GZWDer (talk)17:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this is not a semantic problem, but a grammatical one. --Wylve (talk)10:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

:: Oppose. The current property is pretty much exclusively used for cases where one item replaced another. If a new property is needed then it should be for the case where a party was not replaced.

It sounds like the Chinese translation of 'Preceded by' and 'succeded by' is in error.

If you are arguing that the description offollowed by(P156) in English should be changed to make clear it is only used where an item is replaced then that does not need a property proposal. Just change the description.

If you are arguing that the label or the description in chinese don't match those in English and other languages then change the Chinese label and description on theproperty page and discuss it on theproperty talk page.

OK?Filceolaire (talk)19:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support. I have changed my mind. It seems there is widespread use offollowed by(P156) for series of books, albums from bands etc where this distinction does apply. See the discussion atProperty_talk:P155#Drop_the_constraint_to_creative_work where it was agreed this property could do both duties.This is not a grammatical difference. It is a real semantic difference. Obama replaced Bush but The Lord of the Rings did not replace The Hobbit. They both followed but followed has different meanings in these two cases.Filceolaire (talk)20:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it really depends on how you define 'replacement'. The Hobbit replaced The Lord of the Rings as the newest franchise/film in the Lord of the Rings universe. Obama replaced Bush as the current president of the United States. Both examples can be seen as replacements. —Wylve (talk)17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we extend this beyond persons to successor states and other thing that replaced something? Any objection?Filceolaire (talk)21:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we change the name of this property toReplaced by with 'Suceeded by' as an alias?Filceolaire (talk)20:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: Weren't you the one to suggest the current solution withfollowed by(P156) as qualifier for e.g.position held(P39) as can be studied inBenedict XVI(Q2494)? Sorry but I cannot see any difference between presidents and popes with respect to succession in office. --Gymel (talk)21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I was but I think GZWDer has made a valid case for having two properties - one for books and albums and TV shows, where the previous item is not replaced, and another for politicians and administrative entities, where the previous item is replaced.Filceolaire (talk)16:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No idea, where GZWDer did make that remark. Succeeding albums may "replace" each other with respect to "being the most recent album" of that band - that is trivial. And books in a series may never "replace" each other beacause some no. #25 is published well after #27: But in this case they also do not "suceeed" each other: Simply being enumerated does imply "succession" only in the most general sense of succeeding each other with respect to the numbering system given. Therefore I do not see a difference between "succession with replacement" vs. "succession without replacement" however I acknowledge that "succession" perhaps should not bethe generic property modeling any kind of enumerated sequence and should rather be restricted to cases where a temporal component is involved. --Gymel (talk)23:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Asreplaces(P1365)/replaced by(P1366), I changed the label to "predecessor"/"successor" because it is more clear and hopefully it won't cause confusion with "followed by". Notification:GZWDer,Tobias1984,Gymel,Filceolaire,Wylve.--Micru (talk)08:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.GZWDer (talk)16:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@GZWDer: Can you choose an example that shows why we need this property? --Tobias1984 (talk)17:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support See discussion above.Filceolaire (talk)20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

But can we change the name toReplaced with 'preceded by' as an alias?Filceolaire (talk)20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Micru (talk)08:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.GZWDer (talk)14:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't this always be the same as the label? What would be the point? --Yair rand (talk)17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The label is hard to add a source or qualifier to.

One question from me is: what is "common spelling"? Of "Elisabeth", "Elisabet" or "Eliseba", one of them is probably more common than the other in one language, but at least in Swedish, is no form of spelling of names "wrong", it's a choice of the bearer of the name, or hir parents. --Lavallen (talk)07:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where this could be useful? --Yair rand (talk)17:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose. --Yair rand (talk)00:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support. Should be used as a qualifier to "Official name" (approved property awaiting monolingual datatype) and other name properties. @Yair rand: Lots of things have more than one name and each has a transliteration associated with it. Using aliases doesn't let us tie the transliterations to the names. This does. Putting it in a qualifier clearly distinguishes the official name from the unofficial, crowd sourced transliterations.Filceolaire (talk)15:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment I see one problem hereMuhammad(Q5837762) is in Swedish often spelled differently if it has origin from North Africa or from the Middle East. --Lavallen (talk)16:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Then it can have two transliterations.Filceolaire (talk)13:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose - use labels/aliases. --Jakob (talk)08:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment The items for first names don't strike me as particularly useful. They tend to amalgamate first names that are similar and display odd results depending on the language settings one uses. Maybe items for first name should have the same label in all languages and connect to other items for first names based on similarities. ---Jura09:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It might be interesting to reopen the discussion once the monolingual datatype is available. Notification:GZWDer,Lavallen,Yair rand,Filceolaire,Jakob, [User talk:Jura1|Jura]]. --Micru (talk)08:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

So we can record league tables.Filceolaire (talk)19:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Paperoastro (talk)08:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Bthfan (talk)22:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener^talk19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Casper Tinan (talk)21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Done --Jakob (talk)22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

So we can record league tables.Filceolaire (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC). EdittedFilceolaire (talk)08:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Paperoastro (talk)08:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener^talk19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Filceolaire,Paperoastro,AmaryllisGardener: Done --Jakob (talk)20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Border crossings should be listed into XXX border items.Милан Јелисавчић (talk)12:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Weak support This could cause style issues with borders that have many crossings i.e. US-Mexico. Alternatively,and without creating a new property, each individual border crossing could have the claim: <"">is a <border crossing>[of: (...) ] i.e. using qualifiers.Macadamia1472 (talk)08:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Милан Јелисавчић,Macadamia1472: Not done, not enough support. --Jakob (talk)10:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

It's really useful number. For example if the number is lower, the heritage has been registered sooner.Amir (talk)18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support ---Jura07:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
•  SupportFilceolaire (talk)13:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Notification:Amir,Jura,Filceolaire.--Micru (talk)14:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

For those with a more mathematical / set theory inclination, this property would be for the intersection of sets A and B, where A is notpart of(P361) B and B is notpart of(P361) A (Venn diagram).

This is a more generalised proposal than my previous property proposal, which was only for road routes on named roads. This propoerty would probably needs to be used with a qualifier, such asapplies to part(P518), in most cases. Thanks to @Closeapple: for the suggestion.Evad37 [talk]04:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support per the discussion on the earlier withdrawn#route number. This is for circumstances where one thing is not entirelypart of(P361) another, but overlap. In most cases this property will be symmetrical. --Closeapple (talk)01:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Rschen775420:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Evad37,Closeapple,Rschen7754: Done --Jakob (talk)21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.code IHSI(Q15623818).Xapitoun (talk)16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I corrected the domain. Can you give a source for your example? French wikipediafr:Pestel_(Haïti) lacks also a real source for the statement. I guess thatInstitut Haïtien de Statistique et d'Informatique(Q15624083) is responsible for the codes. Right? --Zuphilip (talk)19:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You can look at thefr:Code_ihsi.Xapitoun (talk)18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Question: Arecode IHSI(Q15623818) andQ16627844 the same item? --Closeapple (talk)08:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, they were. I merged them.--Micru (talk)15:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Notification:Xapitoun,Zuphilip,Closeapple.--Micru (talk)15:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a property to identify Indian monuments and would assist the work done by theWikidata:Cultural_heritage_task_force. This property is analogous toNRHP reference number(P649) andKulturminne ID(P758). One possible concern may be that the ASI itself only explicitly provides the last two components of the identifier, while the other components are prefixed to make the identifier unique. For example, although item 28 in the Agra Circle in the Uttar Pradesh Section of the ASI's monument list is the Taj Mahal, searching for N-UP-A28 in a search engine does not result in any references to the Taj Mahal on non-wikimedia sites. If this is not preferred, an alternate approach may be to have separate properties for the components of the identifier.Blademasterx (talk)20:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support. Thanks for the thorough documentation,Blademasterx.Emw (talk)20:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Notification:Blademasterx,Emw.--Micru (talk)15:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.Chjohnson39 (talk)23:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support --SERutherford (talk)23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)08:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Chjohnson39,SERutherford,Micru: Done --Jakob (talk)14:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

==> Subsequently deleted, duplicate ofOxford Dictionary of National Biography ID(P1415) --LaddΩchat;)01:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Make it easier to reference it. ---Jura07:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support --SERutherford (talk)01:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)08:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Jura1,SERutherford,Micru: Done --Jakob (talk)14:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This exists and is currently in use in infoboxes.Zellfaze (talk)11:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support apparently in use in JP Wikipedia. Item for above sample seems to beIno Business High School(Q11672444). ---Jura21:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)08:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Zellfaze,Jura1,Micru: Done --Jakob (talk)14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps it would require multiple properties for Titles, Creators, Characters, Groups, Story Arcs, Publishers, Imprints, Podcasts, Awards, etc.DunDunDunt (talk)19:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Another good thing that could come of this would be a level of verification, which is messy without some form of authority method, to comic related items likeSwagman(Q16205031). Or, more importantly, aid things like Sally Acorn from Archie Comics' Sonic the Hedgehog which, as of writing this, has no main entry; but, instead has two entries in foreign languagesPrincess Sally Acorn(Q6030387) &Princess Sally Acorn(Q16602112). We need to add a method of verifiability to the comics subject, especially for cataloging purposes, curated sites like ComicBookDB and Grand Comics Database would be perfect for that.DunDunDunt (talk)18:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)08:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Supportπr² (t • c)17:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @DunDunDunt,Micru,PiRSquared17: Done --Jakob (talk)20:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support as nominator -- Viceroys are a key position in the governments of colonies, Commonwealth countries, and the provinces/states of Canada and Australia. They rank in-between the head of state and head of government in monarchies. Right now we have them included alongside the head of state (eg, on the pageCanada(Q16)), but that's not quite accurate, and it will be confusing if we want to include all past holders of the office in that field. --Arctic.gnome (talk)21:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• This is one potential solution of many to this issue. Alternatively, suppose one were to add a viceroy as ahead of state(P35), using a qualifier to indicate the specific position asGovernor General of Canada(Q390776), for example, along with the item for the position holding the property ofsubclass of(P279)viceroy(Q244741). This would supply all the necessary data, I would think. However, I think it would be better to avoid things likehead of state(P35), where we duplicate a lot of data by using an unspecific property, as opposed to simply indicating in the item of the holder of the office that the holder is eitherinstance of(P31) orposition held(P39) that office. --Yair rand (talk)06:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the idea of grouping viceroys with heads of state. First, because it's technically inacurate. Second, because head of state should either have a single value, in which case the viceroy would trigger a property constraint, or it should list all of the past heads of state, in which case we would have two overlapping lists of people in the same property. --Arctic.gnome (talk)17:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

All nations do not always have only one "head of state". --Lavallen (talk)11:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Useposition held(P39) as you have in your examples. If you want to state thatGovernor of New South Wales(Q1528895) (for example) is an example of a viceroy then usesubclass of(P279)=viceroy(Q244741). Or I have I misunderstood what you are proposing?Filceolaire (talk)22:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked again and I think I get it. This property would be sort of the inverse property ofposition held(P39) in that it would link from the place to the person. I'm afraid I am still opposed though. Usehead of state(P35) with a qualifier - that is what qualifiers are for.Filceolaire (talk)22:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Arctic.gnome,Filceolaire,Yair rand,Lavallen: what do you think of creating a more generic property like "proxy" with qualifierP642(P642)?--Micru (talk)15:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Works for me. Although I would use it the other way around: head of state -> Elizabeth II -> proxy -> David Johnston. --Arctic.gnome (talk)04:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, changed the description. If there are no opposes, I will create it in a couple of days.--Micru (talk)19:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done It can be qualified withapplies to jurisdiction(P1001). Notification:Arctic.gnome,Filceolaire,Yair rand,Lavallen.--Micru (talk)09:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone think to count how many "proxies", past and present, there are for Elizabeth II? This isn't the right way to go about this, and this proposal has very little support so far.Danrok (talk)15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This property would be theinverse ofcapital(P36), and provide a more appropriate property thaninstance of(P31) for describing that the municipality is a capital. Unlikecapital(P36), which is generally one-to-one, this property can sometimes be one-to-many. For example, a city can be the capital of a state and a county within that state;Boston(Q100) can be considered the capital of bothMassachusetts(Q771) andSuffolk County(Q54072) -- the latter being an administrative subdivision of the former. In these cases, the 'capital of' claim for the larger administrative subdivision would bepreferred.

GZWDer,Zuphilip,Holger1959,Paperoastro,Pasleim,Izno,TomT0m,Lavallen,Arctic.gnome,Felix Reimann,Yair rand,Zolo,Jacob,Michiel1972,Bever, others -- what do you think?Emw (talk)13:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• seeWikidata:Property proposal/Archive/8#of item.--GZWDer (talk)13:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  I have concerns about using an 'of' qualifier as a general purpose mechanism to introduceinverse semantics on a property instance. If we ever want to export to OWL, or use W3C query recommendations likeSPARQL, orreasoning engines, then the 'of' qualifier will likely require us to jump through hoops to represent properties and compute on them as the rest of the Semantic Web does.Emw (talk)13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if it solves the problem of identifying whatkind of capital we have. In Swedish we have different words for them, not depending on what kind of administrative level they are capital, but on it's purpose. A Swedish county-capital has for example a residence for the governor, while the municipality-capital(s) have an administrative office. --Lavallen (talk)14:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  Lavallen, you're right, 'capital of' does not solve the problem of identifying what kind of capital we have. The proposed property does one thing: it defines that the subject is a capital of the object. Like Sweden, the United States also uses a different word for county "capitals" and capitals of states and the country. County capitals are calledcounty seats; counties are much more heterogeneous than states. But I think county seats are still capitals. Do you think it would be OK to use 'capital of' for county seats and other kinds of capital for now, and leave it to later users to refine statements with asubproperty of 'capital of' if they deem it appropriate?Emw (talk)04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Neutral I can see a case both for using this property and for usinginstance of(P31) -->capital city(Q5119)(P642(P642) -->United States(Q30)) (for example). --Jakob (talk)14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  Jakob, such usage of P31 is an antipattern. With that approach, it's easy to see how we could delete all item properties and simply use P31 and P279 with qualifiers. But as Zuphilip notes below and I note above, that is not a good idea: qualifiers are not supported in W3C standards. Using qualifiers to change fundamental meaning in a property -- whichP642(P642) does byinverting a property -- will likely make it difficult or impossible to use effectively query. We should not use 'of' in that fashion: if a property requires an inverse, then a new property should be created and bedeclared an inverse in its property documentation.Emw (talk)04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

   Weak support This is starting to make sense to me. --Jakob (talk)15:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Question: there isheadquarters location(P159). can municipalities, districts etc. be regarded as organisations too?Holger1959 (talk)22:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  Holger, no, not conventionally. Organizations and administrative subdivisions have certain similarities but typically neither is treated as a subclass of the other. Thus 'capital of' would not be a subproperty of 'headquarters location' (and even it were, it would be very reasonable to keep such a 'capital of' subproperty; it's used in many third-party ontologies).Emw (talk)04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I (currently) don't like qualifiers because there are no query tools and qualifiers are ignored in the constraint violation templates. Thus, I prefer to have a seperate inverse property. But I am not sure if we even need this. It is easy in SPARQL to ask for the subject or object of a statement. Can/Should we not try to show all data about an entity on its page, even it is was entered on another page? Let us have a look atBerlin in dbpedia and we see "dbpedia:Berlin is dbpedia-owl:capital of dbpedia:Germany" along with 7 other statements in this block. The quoted statement is occuring on the page about Berlin as well as on the page about Germany. If you imagine that all these statements may also have some starting and ending date as qualifiers, then the complexity increases. And it is almost impossible to held such information accurate and consistent over 9 different pages. --Zuphilip (talk)22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  Zuphilip, my goal for this property is to pare down the use ofinstance of(P31) as a container for this information, to avoid the acutely redundant bloat in rdf:type seen in e.g.http://dbpedia.org/page/Berlin. (40 rdf:type claims!? rdf:type Thing!? Even the dbpedia-owl rdf:type claims are incredibly redundant -- PopulatedPlace is surely and subclass of Place, as are AdministrativeRegion and Region, etc.)

  I see two options: delete 'instance of: capital' claims, or move them to 'capital of' claims with this new property. I agree that both are redundant -- they could be inferred by 'Germany capital: Berlin' etc. -- but the latter seems more palatable to me. The scalability implications of using inverse properties (which are fundamentally redundant) is a larger question for Wikidata; I don't think 'capital of' would going to be a major contributor to that.Emw (talk)04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support This is an intrinsic characteristic of a city, so I'm right to use a new property instead of P31. --Paperoastro (talk)14:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Completely redundant. We should also, imo, remove theinstance of(P31)capital city(Q5119) statements. A city's usage as the location of the government of a subdivision, country, or international organization does not need to be duplicated on the item for the city itself. --Yair rand (talk)21:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Yair_rand, all inverse properties are completely redundant. So do you oppose all inverse properties? If not, why, and why not permit this one?Emw (talk)22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  In general, I oppose inverse properties. Having duplicated statements means it takes longer to add or remove a statement, and will probably result in less complete data, and less accurate data. I could see having an exception for preceded by/followed by, and maybe also for mother/father/child, but in general, I think inverse properties are a bad idea. --Yair rand (talk)20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• My feeling with regard to the property however is that it should not be added, not necessarily because it is an inverse, but because it is an inverse of a one-to-one property, while capital of would be a one-to-many property. In most cases, I will usually oppose a transitive property which is not constrained by the number of instances its inverse claims are made. (For perspective and this reason, I would oppose the creation of "has subclasses"/"has instances", "has children" [I didn't get around to opposing this one!], and so forth.)

  Property opposition aside, someone come poke me in a week, as I have to poke Emw for some comments he's made here and elsewhere that I've been feeling opposed to. --Izno (talk)00:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  Izno, in practice, 'capital of' would almost always be one-to-one, and very occasionally be one-to-few. Compare this tocontains the administrative territorial entity(P150), the inverse oflocated in the administrative territorial entity(P131). P150 is indeed one-to-many; seeUnited States(Q30), which can barely load because of P150. The reason to oppose properties that tend to be 1-to-10+ is scalability. Since 'capital of' would almost always be 1-to-1, virtually always be 1-to-2 or -3 or less, and extremely rarely be 1-to-4 or more, I do not think this property can be reasonably opposed because of scalability concerns. Unless one is willing to nominatecontains the administrative territorial entity(P150) for deletion, I do not see how this property can be reasonably opposed.

  As a side note, contrary to what you suggest above, 'capital of' would not be transitive. Utah is part of the United States, but Washington DC is not the capital of Utah.Emw (talk)12:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  Re transitive, I have no idea why that's the word I chose. I hope the rest of that sentence makes sense with that word stricken....

  As for P150, that's anad hominem argument: whether I would have or would not have proposed a separate property which I disagree with is irrelevant to the case at hand, especially when those properties are not particularly related. (That aside, the reason I havenot nominated it for deletion is because I've been letting the most recent deletion nomination sit a while.)

  You then acknowledge that 1-1 is much preferred to 1-n and that this property would be a 1-n property which is the inverse of a 1-1 property, which as I expressed duplicates the data (in this case) unnecessarily. (I will allow that there may be some cases where it may be desirable to have an inverse property which will typically be 1-n. I can't think of one.) --Izno (talk)20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Izno, the point I was trying to make was that, when weighing the worth of a 1-to-n inverse property, we should look deeper than the fact that n > 1 in some cases before disqualifying it. If n is 1 in roughly 98% of cases, 2 in 1.5% of cases, and >= 3 in 0.5% of cases -- as would likely be the case with 'capital of', then that has vastly different implications for performance than if n is > 10 in 50% of cases -- as is likely the case with 'contains administrative subdivision'. With 'capital of', n is not always 1, but will trend very strongly toward 1. So the scalability costs of this property would be small.

The benefits of 'capital of' would be large. In items where it applies, 'capital of' is usually the most salient piece of information about the subject; it is the first statement in those items' articles -- "Berlin is the capital city of Germany", "Boston is the capital and largest city of the state of Massachusetts", etc. It's something that users would want to see directly on the item about Berlin, and not have to run through an inference engine to find out. Having the bidirectional link afforded by this kind of inverse property would also ease navigation if someone wants to use Wikidata as the basis forLinked Data applications. Additionally,this property is used by DBpedia andothers -- so having 'capital of' available on Wikidata would also make interoperating with those outside projects easier.Emw (talk)04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Emw, no you are at least wrong what dbpedia is doing, please look carefully at that page! They usehttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/capital as a property connecting for example Germany with Berlin. But this (one) statement is shown at both pages:Germany ->capital ->Berlin andBerlin <- iscapital of <-Germany. They don't use an inverse property "is capitol of". By the way, there are 10 statements in this example and in wikidata I would suggest to add qualifiers and sources as well for all of these statements, which will I doubt can be kept consistent for two inverse properties. --Zuphilip (talk)11:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Redundancy (@Yair rand) can be OK if the advantages are larger than the costs. In this case, I think it is certainly useful when a user can see immediately that a place is a capital. This can probably be used in infoboxes.

The main problem of redundancy are inconsistencies, statements can contradict each other. Also, when there is no «capital of» statement for New York, is that because nobody took care to add this property to the item, or is it really not a capital at all? ;-) So you still have to do a search if New York pops up as a target item in acapital(P36) claim anywhere.

This problem can be diminished if the server would add the «capital of» property automatically each time someone adds or changes acapital(P36) statement. Another solution would be that the wikibase had an index for both sides of the relationship for all item-to-item properties (for all items where a certain property is added and for all items which are mentioned in those claims, or for the subject/source and object/target items if I may say so). It seems to me that this would be in line with the OWL definition EMW pointed to. I think that I read rumours somewhere that this question is on the developers’ to-do-list.

Another problem mentioned above (byIzno) is that extra properties, especially if they come with more at once, slow the loading time very much. In fact the loading time of the standard interface is already too slow so addingany property would be bad in that respect. Lydia Pintscher assured us that this is a high priority for the developers so I hope they will find a solution soon.

Regarding the «capital of» proposal specifically: the proposal says that when a place has more than one capital function, “the 'capital of' claim for the larger administrative subdivision would be preferred.” It appears I misunderstood this (it was about ranking the statements, not about which statements to add), but to be sure, I would like to note that being a capital of a larger unit does not always mean that a place is also capital of the smaller unit it is in. For example, Amsterdam is capital of the Netherlands but not the province it belongs to.

Finally,Lavallen's remarks about how to indicate whatkind of capital we talk about (for example the residence of the governor or the meeting place for the representative council). I must say that I do not completely understand Lavallen's description of the Swedish situation. If all units of the same kind (for example, all municipalities in a certain country) have the same kind of capital, it does not matter that other units have other kinds of capitals. But Lavallen's remarks could apply, for example, to South Africa, which has spread the three branches of power (legislature, executive, and judiciary) over three different capitals. I can imagine that there are many properties where we would like to add information on what it exactly means in an individual case. This could be done with qualifiers. Perhaps, no specific properties for such qualifiers are needed: for thesex or gender(P21) property, theinstance of(P31) property is beginning to be used as a qualifier, see for exampleChelsea Manning(Q298423). Best regards,Bever (talk)02:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Poland also have some cases where the Governors office and the Parlament is in different cities, and therefor have two capitals. (The municipality-parlaments in Sweden can be anywhere. The municipality I am subject of have it's parlament in different locations every month.)

@Bever: To make my issue more clear: What you name "county seat" in U.S. in English is translated differently for different states of U.S. in Swedish, since the function of the county looks different in different states. Therefor is it maybe difficult to implement what I talked about. We need maybe items like "county seats in Kansas" to make it work in both languages. And that is maybe to farfetched. --Lavallen (talk)08:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support —Ivan A. Krestinin (talk)18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• I think this needs rewording so that a broader range of relations cases be included, such as U.S. County seats, French chefs-lieus of cantons and departments etc.Circeus (talk)

Circeus, those are all types ofadministrative territorial entity(Q56061), which is included in the description, and noted in the 'domain' field. I've tweaked the wording and added some of your examples to make this clearer.Emw (talk)02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done ascapital of(P1376). While neither the arguments for creation, nor the arguments for non-creation are very strong, I have just followed the utility principle. It is useful to replace "instance of:capital", with "capital of:X" as it conveys more meaning. Whatever decision is supposed to make someone unhappy, but at least having "capital of" seems more useful than not having it. Notification:Emw,GZWDer,Lavallen,Jakob,Zuphilip,Paperoastro,Yair rand,Izno,Circeus,Ivan A. Krestinin.--Micru (talk)19:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comments: Allowed in road infoboxes for countries AUS, GBR, IRL, MYS, NZL, IND.Danrok (talk)18:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason that this isn't allowed for the U.S. is because this parameter was abused, with people adding their favorite towns with no regard for selectivity. Is there some sort of mechanism to prevent this from happening here? --Rschen775423:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that, in time, there will be need for plenty of controls on wikidata on just about all properties, and that controls should be easier to code and implement on wikidata due to its more structured form. My understanding is that this an essential part of this project - to improve control and management of information and statistics.Danrok (talk)00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Fully documented property.Mange01 (talk)20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support What constitutes aprimary destination will remain a topic of dispute, but standards can be decided on. They will have to reflect the type of route, length of route, etc., but the community can develop those parameters over time as the property is put into use.Joshbaumgartner (talk)
• Oppose because this property will be unverifiable. I see no indication that this property would be verifiable with the documentation on en:T:Infobox road. --Izno (talk)22:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, in some countries it is verifiable, because the government has specified them. --Rschen775422:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment Would have to be careful in reminding people that it is only for roads i.e. not the Top 10 destinations of LAX.Macadamia1472 (talk)06:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support, in places like the UK this is a verifiable property of a road that is designated by the relevant government authority.Thryduulf (talk:local |en.wp |en.wikt)12:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Danrok,Rschen7754,Joshbaumgartner,Mange01,Izno,Macadamia1472: @Thryduulf: Done --Jakob (talk)11:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Something likepart of(P361) won't work, as sometimes the numbered route runs along part of a named road only – ie where the numbered route ispart of(P361) the named road's length. As far as I understand, infoboxes would need a single property/value to match to an infobox field. Some sort of qualifier, specifying the section of road that the route applies to, would be needed. It could perhaps be done with twoterminus location(P609) qualifers, asapplies to part(P518) only has items as allowed values, not free text. -Evad37 [talk]17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. I think the <qualifier> you're looking for above isapplies to part(P518).
2. Perhaps this should property should be named something like "concurrency" or "partial concurrency" or "concurrent with" or "coincident with" or "overlaps": it seems like it is describing something likeconcurrency(Q5159092), and would be a symmetrical property. This could also be expanded to indicate any kind of entities that form a partial union or overlap: for example, municipalities in the central United States have borders unbound by townships or counties, so often an entire municipality isn'tpart of(P361)/has part(s)(P527) a county or township, but happens to be only partially overlapping.
3. In contrast, "road number" or "route number" sounds like a string that contains only the base part of the route designation (which I was actually searching for as a property just now), i.e.:Interstate 74(Q94667) "route number" => "74";M1(Q6713658) "route number" => "M1";Florida State Road A1A(Q2433285) "route number" => "A1A".

Neither of the concepts in #2 and #3 appear to be Wikidata properties right now. Maybe I'm putting too much thought into it. --Closeapple (talk)21:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Closeapple:, thanks for your comments!

1. The allowed values forapplies to part(P518) is "any item", while the qualification needed is "between this location (item) and that location (another item)"
2. I like your idea of generalising to anything that forms a partial union or overlap, and I think that "coincident with" seems like the best label (with the others suitable for 'Also known as' terms). I knew route number was a bit narrow, but couldn't myself think of how to make it more general.
3. Perhaps using "road route" and "designation" would have been clearer than including the word "number" in the proposed label, but it's probably a moot point now, given that the concept can now be generalised beyond roads -Evad37 [talk]13:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Withdrawn in favour of the more general "coincident with" proposal – unless anyone can see how something likeInterstate 74(Q94667) "route number" => "74" would be useful. -Evad37 [talk]04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support -----Jura10:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support.Emw (talk)02:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 DoneJakob,Jura,Emw.--Micru (talk)20:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support -----Jura10:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support.Emw (talk)02:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 DoneJakob,Jura,Emw.--Micru (talk)20:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support but should merely be 'ridership'. Qualifiers can be used to identify the specifics, as some may publish daily ridership, others may be monthly, etc.Joshbaumgartner (talk)04:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support --B.Zsolt (talk)12:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Is there a way to create or source directly comparable statistics for all lines? Where the same method is used to come up with the figure.Danrok (talk)02:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree but I am sure there is some standard (probably annual ridership / 365 as this would take into account seasonal variation.)

 Oppose We need a more general property not only for transportation but for number of visitors for building (seebelow.Snipre (talk)13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Support--Konggaru (talk)09:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Support. but it should be a property for a service not a track/route.Filceolaire (talk)21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support. "Number of visitors" seems more suitable for static "locations". -----Jura10:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Joshbaumgartner,B.Zsolt,Danrok,Snipre,콩가루,Filceolaire: @Jura1: Done --Jakob (talk)18:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems to have gone off track. It has been created and specifically says for buses, not all types of transport. 'Ridership'? What an ugly creation, and hardly a word in common usage, I believe that the word is 'patronage'.  —billinghurstsDrewth13:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Addendum. We should also be adding something to indicate that it is an average figure. I don't believe that we are specifying actual tallies.  —billinghurstsDrewth13:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Migrate data inProperty:P296. SeeWikidata:Properties for deletion.Liangent (talk)21:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose. Usesubclass of(P279)station code(P296) with qualifierinstance of(P31):'MTR station code'.Filceolaire (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC). Sorry. I meant P296.Filceolaire (talk)14:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support, How cansubclass of(P279) hold string?--GZWDer (talk)04:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 SupportA.Bernhard (talk)05:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose untill consensus is reached atWikidata:Properties_for_deletions#Bahnhofscode_.28P296.29 --Pasleim (talk)21:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Support —Ivan A. Krestinin (talk)16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support. Needed for infobox -----Jura10:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 DoneLiangent,Filceolaire,GZWDer,A.Bernhard, [[User:Ivan A. Krestinin|Ivan A. Krestinin],Pasleim,Jura.--Micru (talk)20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Migrate data inProperty:P296. SeeWikidata:Properties for deletion.Liangent (talk)21:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose. Usesubclass of(P279)station code(P296) with qualifierinstance of(P31):'TMIS station code'. This way all stations can import their station code from property P279 with the qualifiers adding precision where required, rather than each railway having to have a different infobox.Filceolaire (talk)22:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about how you see that working out. This is numerical data. --Izno (talk)02:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant P296 not P279.86.6.107.22920:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support --A.Bernhard (talk)02:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 Support--GZWDer (talk)04:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose until consensus is reached atWikidata:Properties_for_deletions#Bahnhofscode_.28P296.29 --Pasleim (talk)21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Support —Ivan A. Krestinin (talk)16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support. Needed for infobox -----Jura10:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 DoneLiangent,Filceolaire,A.Bernhard,GZWDer,Ivan A. Krestinin, --Micru (talk)20:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation.GZWDer (talk)11:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Q340406 --Lavallen (talk)11:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment How many basin articles (likeYangtze River basin(Q15758768)) we have? I think only for very large rivers. So we need create thousands items without articles for category linking. —Ivan A. Krestinin (talk)18:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Question: Cancategory for the water basin(P1200) (Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/20#Category of river water basin) be generalized for this? That would at least solve article-style items pointing to article-style items. I don't know if there are Wikidata guidelines for property links from an article-item to different category-item (that is, those that don't have a directcategory's main topic(P301)/topic's main category(P910) relationship. Is pointing to a category item allowed when an article-style item doesn't exist for the concept? Since categories are always marked asinstance of(P31) ->Wikimedia category(Q4167836), I wouldn't think this would be a problem. --Closeapple (talk)09:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose. Uselocated in/on physical feature(P706) instead.Filceolaire (talk)14:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Question (#2): Is this intended to link a single river to its basin item, or as a property for all rivers in a basin? If it's the former, this might be unique. If it's the latter, then Filceolaire's suggestion of usinglocated in/on physical feature(P706) is more appropriate. --Closeapple (talk)01:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per comments uselocated in/on physical feature(P706). Notification:GZWDer,Lavallen,Ivan A. Krestinin,Filceolaire,Closeapple,--Micru (talk)21:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

In the long runGerman municipality key(P439) is replaced by this new key and therefore we need this new property.Archer90 (talk)11:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Pasleim (talk)17:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 Support--Micru (talk)21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Archer90,Pasleim,Micru: Done --Jakob (talk)23:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We already add coordinates to articles, but Wikimapia gives the exact surroundings of a specific object on a map which is considered valuable information.http://wikimapia.org The links are added to articles already like onhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malate_Church <>http://wikimapia.org/156598/Malate-Church-Our-Lady-of-Remedies-Parish-Church Wikipedia articles link to Wikimapia and Wikimapia links back to Wikipedia. We like to use this information on more Wikipedias.Romaine (talk)15:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose I think we shouldn't have a property for each small internet project. We have alreadyOpenStreetMap relation ID(P402) and I can see no advantage for Wikidata if we integrate Wikimapia also. --Archer90 (talk)16:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimapia is not really a "small internet project". --Jakob (talk)17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Compared with other projects like OpenStreetMap it is a small project and has a bad coverage.OSM StatsWikimapia Statistics Nevertheless I don't likeOpenStreetMap relation ID(P402) also. --Archer90 (talk)15:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the exact surroundings"?

What are the copyright terms for Wikimapia? Is it CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or is wikimapia the only ones allowed to use the info? It's not clear I prefer to work with projects who use sharealike licenses.Filceolaire (talk)10:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

TheirTerms of Service say CC BY-SA 3.0. But it seems unclear if they are even allowed what they're doing because they trace aerial images from Google and the terms from Google don't allow that. See thisthread orWikipedia --Archer90 (talk)15:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Not enough support. Notification:Romaine,Archer90,Filceolaire.--Micru (talk)21:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Property to list the settlements that belong to a municipality from the lowest level of administrative division.contains the administrative territorial entity(P150) can't be used because of constraint violation.has part(s)(P527) is not true because is not the inverse ofpart of(P361) but rather is the inverse ofapplies to jurisdiction(P1001). It applies to Romania and many other countries. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk)22:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Good idea! --Archer90 (talk)12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support--Micru (talk)19:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• @JulesWinnfield-hu,Archer90,Micru: Done --Jakob (talk)21:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The values for the "years1" (years2, years2, ...) fields inen:template:Infobox basketball biography is usually either one or two dates (for example: "2011-2012" or "2012"). Usually the first one means that a basketball player has played for a certain team (stored in "team1") in the 2011/2012 season.start time(P580) andend time(P582) can be used as qualifiers formember of sports team(P54) to store this information. The problem is that there are sometimes exceptions from this rule. For example what does "2012" mean, does it mean the player has played in the 2011/2012 season for that team or in the 2012/2013 season for that team? Also there are sports seasons that only take place during the year and don't span over two different years. There's also a template in the English Wikipedia that uses this information to create links to the corresponding Wikipedia articles on the individual NBA seasons, seeen:template:nbay, for a real world example seethis English wikipedia page under "years2" in the template. So to keep this information, we need such a property.Bthfan (talk)12:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to retract my property proposal. After additional discussion it looks like this property would not solve all problems or might even create new ones. SeeWikidata:Project_chat#Yet_another_sports_persons_tagging_problem for related discussion on that. --Bthfan (talk)11:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Retracted.--Micru (talk)11:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The values for the "years1" (years2, years2, ...) fields inen:template:Infobox basketball biography is usually either one or two dates (for example: "2011-2012" or "2012"). Usually the first one means that a basketball player has played for a certain team (stored in "team1") in the 2011/2012 season.start time(P580) andend time(P582) can be used as qualifiers formember of sports team(P54) to store this information. The problem is that there are sometimes exceptions from this rule. For example what does "2012" mean, does it mean the player has played in the 2011/2012 season for that team or in the 2012/2013 season for that team? Also there are sports seasons that only take place during the year and don't span over two different years. There's also a template in the English Wikipedia that uses this information to create links to the corresponding Wikipedia articles on the individual NBA seasons, seeen:template:nbay, for a real world example seethis English wikipedia page under "years2" in the template. So to keep this information, we need such a property.

Also seeWikidata:Property_proposal/Person#first_season on this.Bthfan (talk)12:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to retract my property proposal. After additional discussion it looks like this property would not solve all problems or might even create new ones. SeeWikidata:Project_chat#Yet_another_sports_persons_tagging_problem for related discussion on that. --Bthfan (talk)11:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Retracted. Notification:Bthfan--Micru (talk)11:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support--Micru (talk)09:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support I have proposed this one before. Definitely needed and useful.Danrok (talk)15:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• User:Airon90,User:Micru,User:Danrok, Done --Jakob (talk)13:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

to record details of sports matches.Filceolaire (talk)20:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Paperoastro (talk)08:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Note that a bot (or a human) needs to get the order right when using this property/qualifier. After all two goals could be scored in the same minute, so if we want to keep the order, the claim index needs to be correct (at least when two or more goals have the same value for this property). --Bthfan (talk)20:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Sounds good.^{talk★contribs}07:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• I have changed the title to "match time of score" so it doesn't get confused with "Duration. OTOH, wouldn't it be better to make this a generic property like "significant point in time after start"? That way it could be used for everything not just sports.--Micru (talk)07:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Filceolaire,Paperoastro,Bthfan,Jianhui67,Micru: Done. I don't think a generic property would work becuase the units would have to be adjustable (one event could have a significant point in time after 2 seconds and another could have it after 2 years). --Jakob (talk)20:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This would be nice to have, and useful.πr² (t • c)19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Would there be some way to indicate the language name according to Glottolog?πr² (t • c)20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)08:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --AmaryllisGardener^talk14:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• @PiRSquared17,Micru,AmaryllisGardener: Done --Jakob (talk)13:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This would especially be useful for dialects with no ISO 639 code.πr² (t • c)20:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)08:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --AmaryllisGardener^talk18:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --SERutherford (talk)01:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• @PiRSquared17,Micru,AmaryllisGardener,SERutherford: Done --Jakob (talk)21:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)