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

  Done:binding of software library(P1372) (Talk and documentation)

Description	the subject is a software binding allowing to use the object software library in another programming language
Data type	Item
Template parameter	indiquez ici les attributs d'infobox de Wikipédia correspondants, s'il en existe, par exemple : « population » dansfr:Modèle:Infobox Subdivision administrative
Domain	language binding(Q510878)
Allowed values	software library(Q188860)
Example	⟨ PyGObject(Q16948079) ⟩binding ofSearch⟨ Q605962 ⟩
Format and edit filter validation	(exemple : 7 chiffres peuvent être validés avec le filtre d'éditionSpecial:AbuseFilter/17)
Proposed by	TomT0m(talk)

Other property :Target programming language

for the language which is allowed to use the library (Python in the example). (programming languages may not apply here because it may be several programming languages and only one target language)

Discussion

Needed to model software library bindings.TomT0m^(talk)18:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support--Micru (talk)11:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support -Tobias1984 (talk)18:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• @TomT0m,Micru,Tobias1984: Done --Jakob (talk)18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Makes it easier to integrate links in Wikipedia. ---Jura11:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: "Massgeblich für dasTheaterlexikon online ist die gedruckte Buchausgabe." So we might better usestated in(P248) (or "Further reading", see above): edition (still missing) ofTheaterlexikon der Schweiz(Q2416247). --Kolja21 (talk)14:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that might mean that both should be identical (content still dates from 2005). I guess there could be people reading an offline version of Wikipedia (or Wikidata) who have the print version available: these people might be better served by your suggestion. For full referencing, the volume and pages of the print edition could be added as qualifier to this property. ---Jura16:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• The book edition data (volume, page etc.) is cleary stated in the online edition, so I don't see much of a problem in just referencing the online edition ID. --AndreasPraefcke (talk)09:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support for the online edition ID. For the other parameters inTemplate:Theaterlexikon(Q15853033) usestated in(P248),has edition or translation(P747),volume(P478),author(P50),original language of film or TV show(P364),page(s)(P304) --Pasleim (talk)11:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As areference (stated in(P248)) one hasTheaterlexikon der Schweiz(Q2416247) together with the entry number aschapter(P792) (or equivalently a combination ofcatalog code(P528) andcatalog(P972)) and additionally the URL of the online version of the entry could be explicitly noted usingreference URL(P854). Clearly a lot of work and a solution like forLexicon istoric retic ID(P886) (found atWikidata:List of properties/Others/en#Source properties) is to be preferred, whichalso likeHDS ID(P902) (not found atWikidata:List of properties/Generic#Authority control but most reference sources which are predominantly perceived as "online database" seem to be listed there) can be used as propertydirectly attached to an item. Do we need special precautions in case the online and print versions start to become different in content? I.e. should we statenow that the proposed property stands for one of the versions and supports the other only as far as appliccable? --Gymel (talk)07:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

   Comment Sorry, I just now noticed that one is supposed to cite the work with page numberspage(s)(P304) but online access is only possible by means of the wiki page name. Thus there is no 'ID' and especially only a tuple(page, lemma) like in wikipedia templates could serve all the needs. Does this imply we have to wait for complex datatypes before we can proceed? --Gymel (talk)07:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

   Comment Maybe I should have added this to another subpage. As the print and online edition are meant to be identical, it has become primarily an online database. The online edition seems stable despite its wiki format. ---Jura17:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

   Comment The online edition wil _not_ start to become different in content. It is just an online edition of a 2005 three-volume book, and not more. It uses MediaWiki as content management system, but it is not a real Wiki. --AndreasPraefcke (talk)12:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done AsTheaterlexikon der Schweiz ID(P1362). Notification:Jura,AndreasPraefcke,Pasleim,Gymel.--Micru (talk)11:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

•  Support I like how these new properties reach to organize a season for a sport league. Two questions: 1)game won ormatch won? 2) Exist a property for the points? --Paperoastro (talk)08:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Matches won is probably more generic and avoids confusion with tennis games. Name changed.Filceolaire (talk)21:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment If the goal of those new properties is to record all properties in a league table, we may need to record the number of points a team got (and which usually also is relevant for the final ranking in the league table). Example why the number of points might be relevant: 1) We don't know what specific mapping is used for number of wins/draws/defeats to points (although this could be stored somewhere) 2) The number of points might be different from the calculated "mapping". Some (real) example on this: A team failed to comply with certain rules by the league they play in. As penalty the league subtracted two points from their calculated number of points (so for example instead of 10 points for 5 wins they only have 8 points). --Bthfan (talk)22:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I overlooked the "Points for"/"points against" properties :) in the end we probably cannot calculate from most league entries the final ranking anyway (is this a goal?!) as Wikidata would need to store every final game result (in case two teams have the same number of points and we need the head-to-head record). Or we just order the teams via the index property. --Bthfan (talk)12:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

We can usewinner(P1346) to create an additional statement noting which team won.Filceolaire (talk)22:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --AmaryllisGardener^talk19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Casper Tinan (talk)21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Done --Jakob (talk)22:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

•  Support --Paperoastro (talk)08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --AmaryllisGardener^talk19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Casper Tinan (talk)21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Done --Jakob (talk)22:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

•  Support --Paperoastro (talk)08:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Could the newnumber of points/goals/set scored(P1351) property do double duty - for individual matches and for league tables?Filceolaire (talk)20:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: I thinknumber of points/goals/set scored(P1351) is sufficient to register the total of goals or points scored by the team ("GF" in the thisexample). But we need an other property for league points ("Pts" in the above mentioned example) to avoid confusion between both concepts.Casper Tinan (talk)22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Casper. I have edited the description above to make this clear.Filceolaire (talk)08:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --AmaryllisGardener^talk19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Casper Tinan (talk)21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Filceolaire,Paperoastro,AmaryllisGardener,Casper Tinan: Done --Jakob (talk)22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The many aliases ofpart of(P361) make it clear to me it is not intended for use with concepts and events, and a way to connect subevents seem more than appropriate for sports, and war-related articles, amongst others.Circeus (talk)21:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose, can you provide more argument about whypart of(P361) is bad for concepts/events?GranD (talk)09:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 OpposeDanrok (talk)19:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Circeus,GranD,Danrok: Not done --Jakob (talk)20:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

ValterVB I think this needs a little more thought - or maybe just a different label in English.

Colline Novaresi(Q1109662) is adenominazione di origine controllata(Q654824). That tells us thatColline Novaresi(Q1109662) is a quality mark for wine (as well as being a place) and thatdenominazione di origine controllata(Q654824) is the type of quality mark. SimilarlyDouble Gloucester cheese(Q174539), at least in the EU, is a restricted term andprotected geographical indication(Q13533432) is the type of restricted term.

Under the TTIP treaty, if it ever gets passed, cheese makers in the USA would not be allowed to call their cheeseDouble Gloucester cheese(Q174539) because it isn't made from milk produced in the area near Gloucester defined in theprotected geographical indication(Q13533432) standard forDouble Gloucester cheese(Q174539).

Wouldsubclass of(P279) do the job better? Would infoboxes still be able to find the information if we usedsubclass of(P279) instead?Filceolaire (talk)13:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support I would prefer to call this property "product certification". In any case I don't see that much of a problem, we can use qualifiers to delimit to which places it applies (applies to part(P518) or a new one "applies to location:European Union"?). If US cheese-makers are not allowed to produce that cheese, then they are producing something a "subclass of" it for sure. Our items should make the distinction even if Wikipedias put the two concepts together. Alternatively consideraward received(P166), but it seems to stretch the property too much.--Micru (talk)15:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Just realized that it can be qualified withapplies to jurisdiction(P1001), no need for a new qualifier.--Micru (talk)09:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Rippitippi (talk)12:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• @ValterVB,Filceolaire,Micru,Rippitippi: Done --Jakob (talk)20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

replaces would be the complementary property ofreplaced by.

 Support --Capmo (talk)21:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support, but only for building and structure. For persons, organizations and etc. nominate separate properties please. —Ivan A. Krestinin (talk)18:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support--GZWDer (talk)16:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

* Not done @GZWDer,Ivan A. Krestinin,Capmo: Just realized that there is alreadyfollows(P155). --Jakob (talk)17:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment Jakec,follows(P155) makes a pair withfollowed by(P156), not withstructure replaced by(P167). Are you implicitly suggesting thatfollowed by(P156) andstructure replaced by(P167) should be merged?Capmo (talk)18:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that seems like a good idea. --Jakob (talk)19:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, replaced by is not the same as succeeded by, in this context. Thestructure replaced by(P167) property has very specific use, it is not a generic "replaced by" property. Let's not muddle and mix-up data.Danrok (talk)12:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merger, especially if you consider books and films, canfollowed by(P156) also be used for people, e.g. director of a museum?--Oursana (talk)11:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose the description given in the proposal is a copy/paste of the description of an existing property. Proposal lacks a clear objective.Danrok (talk)15:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support. Preceded by/Succeded by was created for TV episodes and books and albums - cases where the new item is in addition to the existing item. It has ben extended to cases such as political offices, administrative regions where the new item does replace the existing. I think we need this new "Replaces" property for structures and for political offices and for administrative regions and for all other cases where the new item replaces the old item. See the discussions atreplaces/succeded by where @GZWDer: commented that "there're no Chinese word that means both 'replaced by' and 'following item' ".Filceolaire (talk)14:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Similarly I thinkstructure replaced by(P167) should be made more general so it can be used for politicians, Kings, administrative regions and all cases where one item is replaced by another item. I'm not sure why @Ivan A. Krestinin: opposes this. Why Ivan?Filceolaire (talk)15:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Oursana (talk)11:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Capmo,Ivan A. Krestinin,GZWDer,Danrok,Oursana,Filceolaire: Done I see where the supporters are coming from now. --Jakob (talk)15:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Geographical objects in Russia should have number in state catalog of geographical names. These objects are: settlements, mountains, rivers, islands and others. Geographical objects can have alternative names - indication of number in state catalog of geographical names can helps us to discover different articles about one object. Settlements in Russia have properties OKATO code (P721) and OKTMO code (P764). Also settlements have numbers in state catalog of geographical names. Other geographical objects (mountains, rivers, islands) also have such property.
P. S. I'm not sure, that did this proposal ideally - so, please, fix my mistakes, if my proposal contains them.Dinamik (talk)09:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

А собственно зачем этот код нужен? Как планируется его использовать? Какие ресурсы используют данные коды?Мастер теней(master of shadows)23:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Например, по номеру можно проверять название при возникновении сомнений в его корректности. Можно находить разные статьи, написанные об одном и том же объекте, и проверять наличие статей об объектах. Как бы то ни было, этот номер - характеристика географического объекта в России, причём более общая, чем ОКАТО и ОКТМО, т. к. присуща не только населённых пунктам, но и объектам физической географии.Dinamik (talk)11:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Пока что это просто некие числа, идентифицирующие объекты в конкретном каталоге. Большого смысла отображать их в карточках статей не вижу.Мастер теней(master of shadows)23:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Обязательно ли отображать все имеющиеся свойства в карточке? Если отображение номера в каталоге в карточке будет признано нецелесообразным, его можно будет не отображать.Dinamik (talk)11:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

 Done AsState Catalogue of Geographical Names (Russia) ID(P1397). Notification:Dinamik,Мастер теней,Jura.--Micru (talk)21:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Micru:: try the ping-template for notification to work. ---Jura18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jura: thanks, I'll do that. I get notifications even when "ping" is not used, I thought everyone did.--Micru (talk)18:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but{{Ping}} is quicker to type than a userpage link. --Jakob (talk)18:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jakob, I never typed a userpage in my life, I just copy and paste it from the signature :)--Micru (talk)18:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We want to create German official parts of municipalities from "Amtlichen Ortsverzeichnissen" (Amtliches Ortsverzeichnis für Bayern (1991)(Q15707237),Amtliches Ortsverzeichnis für Bayern (1978)(Q15715309), ...) and for this purpose create the Gemeindeteilschlüssel, too.Balû (talk)06:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Not enough support. Notification:Balû.--Micru (talk)08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Needed for classical music.--Micru (talk)15:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 SupportAndy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits13:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Eurodyne (talk)01:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Micru,Pigsonthewing,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)21:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

To be able to document relationship between softwares, when a software A depends of a software BDereckson (talk)16:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support Useful forfront and back endsOkki (talk)16:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Eurodyne (talk)22:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Dereckson,Okki,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)00:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Motivation: seeWikidata talk:WikiProject MoviesPamputt (talk)20:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support Used on a lot of wiki (seeTemplate:AllMovie title(Q6676293)). --ValterVB (talk)20:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support Sure. --Eurodyne (talk)22:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Pamputt,ValterVB,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)22:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Many museums have online databases for artworks in their collections. We can link to it usingdescribed at URL(P973) but using dedicated properties would have several benefits:

• more explicit about what the link is, which should me reuse easier. For instance, it would be easier to create a "description on the museum's website" link in Wikipedia if there were those specialized properties.
• better for maintenance, eg use autolist to find artworks in the Metropolitan museum with no link to the Metropolitan museum's database.
• for mulitlingual databases, we can adapt the link according to ther user's language usingMediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl.js.

One downside of those links is that we are not always sure that the artworks's ID are stable in the long run. But we would have the same issue if we useddescribed at URL(P973) instead. And if the URL of the database changes but the IDs remain the same, it easy to update.

Note that we already haveAtlas ID(P1212) for the Louvre (and the database of the Louvre is really not among the best that exist).

Notifiedparticipants of WikiProject Visual arts

As the number of potential properties is high, I would propose to decide it is ok to create them without discussion. I guess we could start with those that already have their templates on Commons, seeCommons:Category:Museum database templates. --Zolo (talk)17:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I support this, though as you say it means potentially a huge number of properties - one for each collection. Is there really no other way? I am thinking of a property that can take a url slug and feed it into another property that holds the rest of the url and the institution name.Jane023 (talk)21:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zolo: How many properties do you think we're talking about? --AmaryllisGardener^talk00:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: There are 61 in the category that Zolo linked to. @Zolo: Are there any databases in that category that already have properties? If so, could you list them here so that the closing admin/property creator doesn't accidentally create duplicate properties? --Jakob (talk)01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jane023:: Different institutions use different URL formats, so that adapting one property to several museums seems more complicated than having several properties. I have seen thatuser:Multichill has been usingHandle ID(P1184) for links to the Rijksmuseum (seeThe Milkmaid(Q167605)). I do not really understand what handle is about. Does this mean the main URL about the object in the website in the institution in charge of maintaining it. If so, that sounds useful as well, but perhaps more as a complement than a substitute for these properties.

@AmaryllisGardener,Jakec: I have done a bit of cleanup in the commons category. We now have around 50 databases. I guess we could have a few hundreds. The only one for which there appears to exist a property isCommons:Template:Louvre online. --Zolo (talk)05:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well as I see it, museums are holders ofmoveable heritage, but their databases hold more or less the same thing as the databases ofimmoveable cultural heritage (the Wiki Loves Monuments listholders). The most basic info is just a number and a short description, but some institutions include whole stories about collection items, and there can be up to 20 fields per item with data stored with anything from restoration records to archival data on ownership. The easiest and best thing to do is to use the inventory number property in combination with the collection name per item. That said, I would really like to offer readers a link to the object in the listholder database, so if this means a property per institution, then fine.Jane023 (talk)07:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zolo: It would be nice to see some usage statistics and select first the most used ones. Some of those templates have only a couple of transclusions.--Micru (talk)11:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Micru: Some of these template have been more systematically used than others }} and most artworks described at Commons currently do not have an item, so current usage may not be a reliable guide of their potential use. A look at Wikipedia categories andcollection(P195) for the most obvious candidates suggests: more than 300 items for the Uffizi, at least 250 for the British Museum and the Musée d'Orsay and the British Museum, about 200 for the Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya, about 150 for the Metropolitan Museum, about 70 for the National Palace Musuem of Taipei. For the Uffizi and the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, database ID corresponds to theinventory number(P217), but for readibility's and consistency's sake, I think a separate property would also make sense in this case.

Of course if we import data from Commons or from somewhere else, property usage could get much higher. See the imports from Europeana byBotMultichill. --Zolo (talk)12:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Like @Jane023: I see parallels toinventory number(P217), especially with the proposed application for instances ofheritage register(Q15097084). All these scenarios have in common that literally hundreds or thousands of in practice mutually exclusive properties would have to be administered and therefore alternative approaches should be preferred which shift these multitudes away from properties to items.Also I deem a variant ofdescribed at URL(P973) as demonstrated inThe Milkmaid(Q167605)) as quite appropriate. Maybe the point of the current proposal is not the fact "museum database" but rather "official address of the official description by the current entity in control of the object" which also could include references to printed catalogs or electronic identifiers likeHandle ID(P1184) differing fromreference URL(P854). Thisthorough and official object description would allow qualifiers similar to any citation (bibliographic reference or electronic identifier), but in addition a qualifier denoting the publication or database as a wikipedia item would be mandatory and these must fulfill adequate constraints (likeis a museum database). --Gymel (talk)13:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gymel:. "Shifting these multitudes away from properties" would require the use of qualifiers and such, making the structure significantly more complex. Using dedicated properties makes for much simpler statements. All they keys to understand these properties can need only be given in one place ("property X = url Y = museum Z"). And with the arrival of statements on properties, this place will probably be the property itself.

"official address of the official description by the current entity in control of the object" seems to imply that there is just one possible such description. A database might sometimes contradict the institution's own printed catalogues. I think it is fine to usecatalog(P972) for catalogues published by the museum.

As for Handle, as I said I do not fully understand what it means, much less how it works. To me, there are two necessary conditions for using Handle instead of the ID in the museum's database:

• there is a only one Handle per object
• Handles are relatively easy to get from the URL of the database entry

There are also conditions that are not really necessary, but still desirable:

Handle is at least as stable as the database ID (the database entry's ID may be more stable than the whole URL, because the object's ID may remain the same when the structure of the museum's URLs change. If I understand it right, the Handle points to a unique URL, so that would not work for them)

A simple function can transform the Handle into a localized link (that is a link to the English version of the database for an English user and a Dutch version for a Dutch user).

If these criteria are met, I would be fine with using only Handle instead of a museum-specific property. If they are met only for some institutions, I would propose to use Handle for them, and use dedicated properties for instititions that do not yet support nice Handle manipulation. --Zolo (talk)13:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Zolo, it is easier for me to talk about this with a specific example. I was just going through some Commons engravings and I needed to repair a link to the Fitzwilliam museum websitehere. This is a similar case as what the Dutch RKD went through with their RKDartists database which runs on something called Adlib -suddenly all the urls changed from "something//priref=xxx" to "something//explore//xxx". Is this url change the handle? Or is the xxx the handle? Neither has anything to do with the actual inventory number of the object. Note that the Fitzwilliam doesn't just give their inventory number, but also the Lugt number for the engraving - we should probably make aen:Frits Lugt property too. Given your answer here above, what would your solution be for the Fitzwilliam?Jane023 (talk)16:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said I don't know how Handle works, but it is not the xxx (seeThe Night Watch(Q219831)). With a "Fitzwilliam Museum ID" property, you would only need to change the URL pattern from "something//priref" to ""something//explore//" in one page for all items (with the curreny system this page would beMediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl.js‎). That said the page provides yes another URL: "Permanent Identifier:http://data.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/id/object/149708". This is probably the one we want to use.

Ok I got it (I am not surprised that they have yet another url as a permanent marker). ThxJane023 (talk)17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

About Lugt, we can create a new property, or we can usecatalog(P972)+described at URL(P973). One of the benefits of specific properties over the genericcatalog(P972) is that it makes external-linking easier, but in this case there does not to be any freely available online version of the catalogue, so it is less useful. --Zolo (talk)16:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the lugt number can just be a catalog entry, no website, so no need for a property.Jane023 (talk)17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This property, which looks likeCycling Archives cyclist ID(P1409), could help to improve items about cyclists.15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)13:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support It does seem like we do have a good list of cyclists here. This could be useful as Mathieudu68 stated. --Eurodyne (talk)01:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Mathieudu68,Micru,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)12:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Yamaha5 (talk)20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support--Çalak_talk20:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support –ebraminio^talk20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Yamaha5,Calak,Ebraminio: Done

Discussion

Yamaha5 (talk)20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support--Çalak_talk20:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support –ebraminio^talk20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Yamaha5,Calak,Ebraminio: Done

Discussion

Yamaha5 (talk)20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support--Çalak_talk20:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support –ebraminio^talk20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Yamaha5,Calak,Ebraminio: Done

Discussion

All federal Executive Orders in the United States are ordered sequentially, and this is a finite dataset that could be added to Wikidata. Currently, there is no way to signify the number outside of the title.Dominic (talk)14:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support.Emw (talk)00:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Eurodyne (talk)19:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Dominic,Emw,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)21:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Provides access to the authority control data of mathematicians in a human-readable form, consensus was reached on ru.wp side (WikiProject Mathematics) to use it as a template parameter inru:Шаблон:Внешние ссылки.Danneks (talk)20:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support; zbmath is a first class database of mathematicians, and we should keep links with zbmath for each item where its applicable,Bezik (talk)21:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. --Vlsergey (talk)09:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Eurodyne (talk)00:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Danneks,Bezik,Vlsergey,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)21:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Suggested to me by a Mexican digital humanities student. Site has ca. 5,000 authors, stable IDs, relevant. The site and dataset are mainted by theMexican National Council for Culture and Arts.Magnus Manske (talk)11:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Kolja21 (talk)04:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support Per nom.Eurodyne (talk)00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske,Kolja21,Eurodyne:: done. --Zolo (talk)10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 Comment - Qualifier for location of intersection would be useful. We might have this already, I'm not sure. --Jakob(Scream aboutthe things I've broken)00:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 Support per nom.Joshbaumgartner (talk)11:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment When/where do you think this information would be used?Macadamia1472 (talk)08:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What is "notable"? --Rschen775419:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose until we have a definition of notable. --Rschen775421:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable means it has its own item already. --Jakob(Scream aboutthe things I've broken)21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What would you do for something likew:en:Interstate 5 in California, however? --Rschen775421:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I have not been watching this page, which is why it took me this long to get back. Items for pages like the one you mentioned would not use this property. --Jakob(Scream aboutthe things I've broken)17:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't support this until something more concrete is nailed down. --Rschen775418:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Rschen7754: Seems pretty concrete to me. @Macadamia1472: This might be useful in the mileage tables. --Jakob (talk)01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comment The information that interstate 80 intersect with interstate 81 somewhere on its 2500 miles seems useless for me. Do you not want to say where they intersect? The infobox inen:Interstate_80 shows major junctions with information where they intersect and the order might be important as well. Maybe, one could think of a property that a "place lies on/near the road" and/or a "road goes trough/nearby a place". An intersection between two roads would then be a place with two or more of these properties. --Zuphilip (talk)12:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I imagined we would have something likeInterstate 80(Q94873) intersectsInterstate 81(Q94877) atcoordinate location(P625) 41.045958,-76.013775. --Jakob (talk)13:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Still oppose; where's the constraints? --Rschen775414:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • @Rschen7754: How about, must at the level of state highway or above? Not every little road that crosses a highway will be added. --Jakob (talk)15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
      • @Jakec: But what aboutw:en:California State Route 1? --Rschen775408:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
        • @Rschen7754: If your asking about concurrences, these could be tagged with a qualifier likeinstance of(P31) --> concurrence. --Jakob (talk)09:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
          • @Jakec: have you noticed how many junctions would have to be included on such an item? --Rschen775410:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
            • @Rschen7754: Maybe 50-ish at most? I realized that national-level highways are more of a concern here, so perhaps they should only be linked to other national-level highways, not state-level highways (state-level highways can still be linked to national-level ones). --Jakob (talk)16:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Certainly more than 50, and California State Route 1 is certainlynot a national highway. --Rschen775418:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
                • @Rschen7754: I know that."Certainly more than 50" - OK, about 60. Most highways won't have nearly as many, and can thus use this easily. For instance,Pennsylvania Route 487(Q1339535) has only 14, as doesPennsylvania Route 42(Q1052748). --Jakob (talk)21:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
                  • What aboutw:en:California State Route 33?w:en:California State Route 99?w:en:U.S. Route 101 in California?w:en:Interstate 5 in California? You're clearly not thinking this through. --Rschen775422:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
                    • The first two only have a few dozen intersections. The last two are national-level highways, so intersections to state-level highways wouldn't be mentioned. --Jakob (talk)23:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
                      • But really, when we've done this for the infobox on enwiki, we had to put in a hard limit of 10 junctions, because people would keep adding in their favorite junctions. And I never knew that U.S. Route 101in California and Interstate 5in California were national articles... --Rschen775400:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support. Clearly useful for roads. Seems reasonably constrained; I don't see any massive room for misuse, especially given the provisional definition of 'notable' above.Emw (talk)02:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose. I think this might be going too far in the way of simply duplicating large amounts of OSM data. --Yair rand (talk)02:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the data used for creating a diagram of a highway so I think it's okay that it duplicates OSM data. SupportFilceolaire (talk)14:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Jakob,Macadamia1472,Joshbaumgartner,Rs,Zuphilip,Emw,Yair rand,Filceolaire, regarding the limits. What do you think of calling this property "notable intersections" and only allowing as many values as are used by the infoboxes linked to the item?--Micru (talk)09:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, but on en.wikipedia there is a hard limit of 10 junctions, while on de.wikipedia they list every junction... --Rschen775410:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754, can you provide some examples of articles with a high number of junctions?--Micru (talk)10:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I already have above:w:en:California State Route 1,w:en:California State Route 99,w:en:California State Route 33,w:en:Interstate 5 in California... --Rschen775410:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754, I was referring to the junctions in the infobox. Those articles contain all the junctions, but in the infobox there are only major junctions. I'm seeing that dewiki is not listing them all either.--Micru (talk)11:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comparew:de:California State Route 52 andw:en:California State Route 52. --Rschen775411:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rschen7754, what is the problem? Each wikipedia can use a different criteria for selecting their major junctions, it is just a matter of qualifying them withstated in(P248) orcriterion used(P1013). Later on it is possible to filter them accordingly with a lua script.--Micru (talk)11:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen: Is your main objection that items could become overloaded with statements and become impossible to view without crashing browsers, or is it something else? --Jakob (talk)00:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Partially, and because of the years of work it would take to transfer data over here. Also, on the English Wikipedia I have seen dozens of editors revert warring over the tiniest details of a junction list. I don't want to transfer those edit wars over here. (Keep in mind that I've been working with road junction lists and road infoboxes since 2006). --Rschen775400:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Want a buttload of junctions on a state-level highway?w:en:Kentucky Route 80#Major intersections. --NE2 (talk)19:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose at this time, as the ins and outs are not determined, and the current proposal presents the possibility of hundreds of items being added for some routes, or the possibility of meddling with standards that differ between wikis. Now, on the other hand, if WikiData adds the option for arrays, I can see this allowing us to add data for complete junction tables (mileage, locations, intersections and exit numbers... everything but notes) to a single item. -Floydian (talk)20:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose for now. Basically per Floydian.20:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose, would likely contain indiscriminate amounts of data. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]20:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Question,Rschen7754, was it really necessary to engage incanvassing? We are supposed to be a plural project that has to accommodate the wishes of several communities. If one community doesn't want to use certain data, nobody is forcing them to, they can just ignore it.--Micru (talk)21:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It was a neutral notification, because I was genuinely unsure if the solution would fit our needs. As the English Wikipedia has the most highway articles on Wikimedia, and the most organized road editor community, it made sense that their needs should be considered. Of course, you are welcome to ask for their thoughts as well. Remember, Wikidata is here to serve the needs of the projects, including the English Wikipedia. Also, keep in mind that two of the "canvassed" commenters are local admins here. --Rschen775423:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose at this time. The proposal needs to be refined significantly to be useful for Wikipedia articles. 01:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Probably can be solved with queries.--Micru (talk)08:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• If this "might not always be a number", thenNumber (not available yet) is the wrong datatype, isn't it? --Yair rand (talk)02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Lacking support.--Micru (talk)08:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Does this relate to railway line in the sense of a portion of track within the network or does it mean a train service running on this portion? In german, "Eisenbahnstrecke" und "Eisenbahnlinie" are two different things. Ridership numbers, rolling stock and depot are typical info about a service, while electrification or gauge describe the track portion. There is no 1:1 relation between the two and it might be reasonable to treat them as a separate type of objects. --Rudolph Buch (talk)10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

infrastructure and service should be split. -Gonioul (talk)16:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 Comment - I think it is typical for every country to have railway districts that differ from other subdivisions. You could change the property so it works for every country. Would something like "is in railway district"? The railway districts can be sorted using "subclass of". --Tobias1984 (talk)15:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Comment - I do not know about other countries, incl. Ukraine, but in Russia 99% of railways areadministratively divided into 16 railway companies (e.g.en:Moscow Railway), which are subdivided into several departments or regions (e.g.ru:Московско-Курский регион Московской железной дороги). However,logistically railways form several "networks" (e.g.ru:Московский железнодорожный узел), which are subdivided into "directions", e.g.ru:Горьковское направление Московской железной дороги, parts of which may be administered by one department and parts by another, and these "directions" can possess several "branches" (e.g.ru:Железнодорожная ветка Кривандино — Рязановка). So the structure is no less complicated than with settlements, and I am at loss on how to name all this.YLSS (talk)13:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support, it is needed for infoboxes. —Ivan A. Krestinin (talk)16:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahonc,Tobias1984,YLSS,Ivan A. Krestinin: Recently we had approved the propertyapplies to jurisdiction(P1001), I think it could be used for this case too. If there are no concerns about using p1001 for this, I will close this proposal.--Micru (talk)18:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

applies to jurisdiction(P1001) is inverse. —Ivan A. Krestinin (talk)19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ivan A. Krestinin: True, what about "contains jurisdiction"?--Micru (talk)19:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mix different trees of subdivision. A typical place belongs to a political district, postal district, voting district, police district, military district. Of course all of these could be but into one property with a qualifier asking for the "type of jurisdiction" - But I'm not sure that is the current paradigm, also because of the inability to do constraint violations within qualifiers at the moment. --Tobias1984 (talk)15:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Lacking support and probably too domain specific.--Micru (talk)08:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support. Seems useful!Jakob, please provide a proper description.Emw (talk)13:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Micru (talk)19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose: It seems quite subjective, though maybe there's something I'm missing here. Based on a reading ofStrahler number, the number appears to be relative to whatever data set a person is working on at the time. Having one coordinate for the first headwater only establishes where one of the order 1 streams is. Wouldn't one have to make subjective decisions about every ditch feeding into every tributary of the system to decide where whether each contributing tributary's mouth has a particular Strahler number when it joins? --Closeapple (talk)14:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Closeapple: If I am not mistaken, the Strahler number only considers (officially) named tributaries, so that would solve that issue. --Jakob (talk)14:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec: Who would determine that though? For example, in the U.S., USGS GNIS is continuously added to, and that's handled by a different group that the one that maintains the National Hydrography Database; one state agency might have names for things that it has determined through research, while another does not. (I'm thinking of maybe a conservation agency vs. the transportation/highway department that puts signs up for river bridges.) The chances of the Strahler number from one source for one flow correctly meshing into a tributary's Strahler number from another source seems very low — it might even change with new editions of a source. It almost seems more stable if it were numbered backwards: Counting the tributary level upwards from the lowest mouth would lead to a more stable order number; but maybe that defeats whatever purpose people would use the Strahler number for. (Whatwould someone use this number from Wikidata for, anyway?) --Closeapple (talk)15:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We could use multiple values and set ranks for them. If we also have multiple Strahler numbers, that might make things a bit messy though, so perhaps this property should refer to the highest Strahler number (i.e. the one at the mouth). --Jakob (talk)15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Support. A bit fuzzy, but let's give it a try. ---Jura22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Per Jura. --Eurodyne (talk)04:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Micru,Closeapple,Jura1,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)01:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

(About 30,000 monuments are registered in Iran (here) and have a unique ID. All of them have articles in persian wikipedia.)Monfie (talk)13:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@مانفی: You should improve your exemple, I can't help you if I have not a proper link. --Fralambert (talk)02:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I did correct my example.Monfie (talk)09:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for bad news. The property you are requesting for is already createdProperty:P1369. You can add a Persian label forthat --دوستدار ایران بزرگ (talk)17:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Withdraw. I don't understand what is bad news!! If it is already exist it is good news that we can use it and the only problem was the creator did not add it to the list (I added now) so I proposed it again.Monfie (talk)07:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Not done Property already exists. Is there a list of properties atWikidata:WikiProject Iranian Persian? -Tobias1984 (talk)09:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

GZWDer (talk)06:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Per nom.Eurodyne (talk)05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support But the linked example doesn't work. --Micru (talk)09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• @GZWDer,Eurodyne,Micru: Done --Jakob (talk)18:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

SeeNIS code(Q614874)

Could not find the conventional English translation (if any).Zolo (talk)07:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support Seem usefull. --Fralambert (talk)21:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)09:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Zolo,Fralambert,Micru: Done --Jakob (talk)18:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Author ID for legal free-to-listen music website, wildly used in ru-wiki.Vlsergey (talk)14:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support--Micru (talk)09:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Eurodyne (talk)00:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Vlsergey,Micru,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

N.B. Not to be confused withtaxon author(P405).Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would seem more logical to me to add a sitelink from the Wikidata item for the taxon author to the wikispecies page for the person. Regards,Dipsacus fullonum (talk)23:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's a separate issue. See below.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose. Sitelink to Wikispecies should be used. —Wylve (talk)02:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not going to happen for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, we can use an ordinary property, comparable withCommons category(P373), or with a link to non-Wikimedia database likeVIAF cluster ID(P214). Once sitelinks are available, then we can get a bot to swap them over.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support ---Jura22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Wylve. --Eurodyne (talk)04:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Eurodyne: Please explain how a sitelink to Wikispecies can be used.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @Pigsonthewing: Perhaps through the "Pages on other sites linked to this item" section on items. --Jakob (talk)19:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Jakec: Please can you do that for the author given in the proposal, Joseph-Étienne Giraud, by way of example? It's not working for me.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits20:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I was mistaken. That function seems to only work for Wikidata. --Jakob (talk)17:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done To be solved by sitelinks.--Micru (talk)10:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Country-alike parameter from sport infoboxes.Vlsergey (talk)06:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't these need to be associated with particular instances of participation? If so, it would probably be a qualifier, in which case it could just as well use "country". OTOH, maybe not, as the represented area isn't always a country. --Yair rand (talk)07:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Yair rand: When used for event entity it could be used as qualifier of person as well, but primary goal is person infoboxes. --Vlsergey (talk)08:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support. --putnik11:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support.DonRumata (talk)12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support. It's all the same to me but I want a quick fix.Сидик из ПТУ (talk)17:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Vlsergey,Yair rand,Putnik,DonRumata,Сидик из ПТУ: Done --Jakob (talk)11:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Provides a simple way to link the two items together. ---Jura18:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support---Jura08:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support--Harmonia Amanda (talk)19:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
•  SupportMichiel1972 (talk)09:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Jura1,Harmonia Amanda,Michiel1972: Done --Jakob (talk)11:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Likesignature(P109) for monograms. Some people have only a signature or monogram, but some have both. --putnik12:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support ---Jura22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Eurodyne (talk)22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Putnik,Jura1,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)23:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The last common parameter from ruwiki infoboxes.Vlsergey (talk)14:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 Comment If we want this property, it should be more generic. E. g. for books we need the name in original language too. --putnik16:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@putnik: book already haveP357(P357). You can get it from entity or from original usingedition or translation of(P629) for translations. --Vlsergey (talk)16:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vlsergey: Ok, books haveP357(P357). But what about cities and other geographic features? --putnik16:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, may be it's shall be applicable to them as well. But it's hard to decide what language shall we calling "native" for cities, for example forJerusalem(Q1218). --Vlsergey (talk)16:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For places (specifically GLAM instutitions for{{Institution/wrapper}}) I have been told to use theofficial name(P1448) property, which was quite recently created.Jheald (talk)07:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. If all other entities already have a property for the native language name, then Support. --putnik20:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

 Strong support - the only way to store it safely…, and it is absolutely necessary each time the person's name is used in a language that does not use the same writing (not only Russian, all of them) :) --Hsarrazin (talk)18:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Vlsergey,Jheald,Putnik,Hsarrazin: Done --Jakob (talk)21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Vlsergey,Putnik: Please emphasize the difference between this property andbirth name(P1477). --Infovarius (talk)21:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Allows cross-referencing them. ---Jura18:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support even though this wouldn't be used on an item about a person. --AmaryllisGardener^talk18:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Neutral personal and family names currently is a mess due to complicated translation problems, it will just increase it along with original research (because any given sources will be about single language item, not multilanguage "entity" introduced by Wikidata) --Vlsergey (talk)22:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Vlsergey::WD:WikiProject Names is working on cleaning up that mess. If you look at a few of the most frequent given names, you will notice that the items are in much better shape than they were just 2 or 3 months ago.
    To evaluate this property proposal, I think one should check how it could work on the sample item, not any random item that hasn't been cleaned up yet. ---Jura04:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: So, would you mind to provide the source for given example? Also, considering given example, are you sure thatRiccardo(Q15720880) is a real first name ofRichard I of England(Q42305)? --Vlsergey (talk)04:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Vlsergey: For the sample item, please seeit:Riccardo#Varianti "Femminili".
        The second question isn't directly related to the sample items/this proposal, but the point is explained atWD:WikiProject Names. The item you mention should also haveRichard(Q1249148) in P735. ---Jura04:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @Jura1: thank you for the source, it seems that it is really possible to create reliable names ontology. Sadly, current status of such ontology and links to Q-items is not in good shape. I just checked the first name in the list (John(Q4925477)) and foundJohn Paul II(Q989) as it's holder. Well... I can only hope someone would not only introduce those properties but will be able to track them and add appropriate sources and clean the existed mess. Somehow. No idea how to do it now, considering requirement to preserve interwiki. Good luck to you. --Vlsergey (talk</spamaran>)05:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, there is indeed much to do and it will take some time. BTW, would you reconsider your initial vote? ---Jura07:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support : much better than considering male and female version as thesame item, when they are objectively written differently - obviously, this is only needed in languages where the names have different endings according to gender ;) --Hsarrazin (talk)18:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Vlsergey,Jura1,AmaryllisGardener,Hsarrazin: Done --Jakob (talk)21:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Every vehicle has a mass therefore we should have a matching property. Also the themplate has a mass propertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_fictional_vehicle194.121.90.16313:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Mass is a generic property, not specific to transport. Shouldn't this be discussed more widely?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits14:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • is there a category for physical units like mass, torque etc? --194.121.90.16312:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • TryWikidata:Property proposal/Unsorted.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits20:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

duplicate of the already approved but pending propertyWikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2#Mass_2 --Pasleim (talk)20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• See:en:Template:Infobox aircraft

 Comment I think we should replace all of these with the 'technical specification' property (see at the end of the page) with 'dimension' qualifier.Filceolaire (talk)17:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Unique properties are best for many of these because it will make both entry and access of data easier and work better with qualifiers. More detail added to the discussion below.Joshbaumgartner (talk)06:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Support but lets make the description an actual description of aspect ratio (a very specific measurement).Joshbaumgartner (talk)06:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• @Joshbaumgartner: Can you add an example that only has one number. I can't assess which ratio makes more sense. --Tobias1984 (talk)20:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment - Force will be a generic property. A qualifier might be more appropriate. --Tobias1984 (talk)14:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 Comment - Can't this be calculated from the glide ratio? --Tobias1984 (talk)14:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Answer - no. Minimal sink occurs at a lower speed than best glide, but how much lower depends on how flat the polar of the aircraft in question is. See alsoen:Polar curve.Poul G (talk)10:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support common and useful data point for engines.Joshbaumgartner (talk)07:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Support--Konggaru (talk)09:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support common defined data point for engines.Joshbaumgartner (talk)07:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Better propose a similar property like thesignificant event(P793) property but for elements of an intem with a qualifier "dimension".

Ex.:

Opel X25XE(Q8041641) (item)

Element (property):stroke(Q671554) (property value)

Dimension (qualifier): 79.6 (qualifier value)

Element (property):engine configuration(Q2576663) (property value)

Dimension (qualifier): XX (qualifier value)

Element (property):bore(Q245657) (property value)

Dimension (qualifier): 81.6 (qualifier value)

Snipre (talk)18:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Snipre, i agree with you! Below i write my new proposal. Tell me what do you think and if it's clear.LucaBiondi (talk)21:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Support I find distinct properties much easier to use, they allow for more use of qualifiers, and will be easier for article writers to access the data in future phases of the project.Joshbaumgartner (talk)07:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Example:

Opel X25XE(Q8041641) (item)

technical specification (property):engine configuration(Q2576663) (property value)

instance of(P31) (qualifier):V6(Q10856569) (qualifier value type item)

technical specification (property):stroke(Q671554) (property value)

Dimension (qualifier): 79.6 mm (qualifier value type number+dimension)

technical specification (property):bore(Q245657) (property value)

Dimension (qualifier): 81.6 mm (qualifier value type number with dimension)

Discussion

I've rewritten your example because I found the previous version a bit confusing. Please revert if I misunderstood something.

The 'Dimension' qualifier needs a separate property proposal from that for 'technical specification' so I've added that below.Filceolaire (talk)13:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Support as rewritten.Filceolaire (talk)13:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Support Thanks Filceolaire for rewrite my example, I agree with youLucaBiondi (talk)21:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Comment this one we need to solve, but there are some issues. Some specific products on wikipedia have their own dedicated article. Other products share an article with variant products, so more than one set of specifications appears in the article. I've looked at vehicles before, and it seems like a big headache because the the Wikipedia articles are in a form which doesn't match the structure of automotive design. The articles are a closer match to automotive marketing, i.e. based more on branding, than tech specs. --Danrok (talk)01:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't think it is wise to make the database more vertical like this. Since, at least currently, we cannot add qualifiers to qualifiers, I think it is better to have each specification as its own property, leaving us free to add qualifiers to the value. For example:

R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone(Q786848) (item) :power output (property) :2200 HP (value) :engine speed (qualifier) :2800 RPM (qualifier value)

but if we bury it a level deeper per this proposal, we lose that option:

R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone(Q786848) (item) :technical specification (property) :power output (value) :measurement (qualifier) :2200 HP (qualifier value) :engine speed (qualifier) :2800 RPM (qualifier value)

obviously the engine speed qualifier has to be dropped because we can't nest qualifiers.Joshbaumgartner (talk)07:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I presume you want to specify that the power output quoted was measured at that rpm. You don't need to nest the qualifiers for this - you just have two qualifiers.

Where you have two values for output power measured at two different speeds you still don't need to nest qualifiers. You just have to havepower output value twice, each with it's own qualifiers.Filceolaire (talk)21:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support as proposerFilceolaire (talk)13:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Support as proposed by FilceolaireLucaBiondi (talk)21:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Support but not merely as a qualifier for technical specification, but as a broadly useable qualifier for a great many properties. It should probably not be limited to positive numbers either. In fact there may be a generic property proposal of the same title already.Joshbaumgartner (talk)07:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose "Dimension" is too generic. Instead it would be better to have a "heigth", "width" and "depth".--Micru (talk)20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support Per'jetspecs' infobox.Joshbaumgartner (talk)02:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment As per Danrok's comments on 'turbine' below, this may be better as an item data type.Joshbaumgartner (talk)00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I would create an item for annular combustor. You can always give that item the statement "made from = stainless steel". I don't anything about the topic, but I'm speculating that the material itself is not unusual. Otherwise you would need a few items like "annular ceramic combustor", or use qualifiers to highlight special alloys of specific turbines. --Tobias1984 (talk)14:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support Per'jetspecs' infobox.Joshbaumgartner (talk)02:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment might it be better if this was an item data type? We could then create items such assingle-stage axial, that would help standardize the text, and allow for different languages. --Danrok (talk)13:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I would be fine with that. We can see if anyone has ideas on it, but I'm fine with it either way.Joshbaumgartner (talk)00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Should be item datatype. But we also already havepowered by(P516). Am I misreading the example? --Tobias1984 (talk)14:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support Per'jetspecs' infobox.Joshbaumgartner (talk)02:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Again I would prefer the ratios expressed as a single number in relation to one. --Tobias1984 (talk)14:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 with Tobias1984Snipre (talk)20:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We havepublication date(P577), but the première of a work may be months ahead of its commercial release. We havestart time(P580), but a work may be written or made months before its première. The Rondo given as an example above was written in 1865, first performed (premièred) in 1984 (over 100 years later), and first published in 1985.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support For broadcasting addition tooriginal broadcaster(P449). --Kolja21 (talk)01:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)09:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Mike Linksvayer (talk)19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done @Pigsonthewing,Kolja21,Mike Linksvayer: --Micru (talk)16:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note:Deleted. Dub ofdate of first performance(P1191). --Kolja21 (talk)22:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We have no Korean library catalog yet. This union catalog contains books we won't find anywhere else. (Please replace the above example if you know a useful work from Korean or Japan.)Kolja21 (talk)07:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Micru (talk)16:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support -Tobias1984 (talk)16:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done @Tobias1984,Kolja21: --Micru (talk)17:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

GA-Numbers are very common for New Testament manuskripts. The number provides access to the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung Münster database which is the most important source for all data concerning the manuscripts, provides photos or scans and transcriptions of the greek texts. The GA number is enough to source all statements of an item you can think of. There are many articles named after the GA Number asPapyrus 66(Q666654),Uncial 070(Q695524),Minuscule 69(Q1128804),Lectionary 1681(Q1816555) and so on.Giftzwerg 88 (talk)17:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Giftzwerg 88: Why not to usecatalog code(P528) with qualifiercatalog(P972)?--Micru (talk)09:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

GA-Numbers are used since 1908. Gregory´s proposals were given to more than 100 famous scolars all around the globe and allmost all of them agreed and cherished this system of numbering of manuskripts.Have a look on this publications (German). The whole world uses this numbers since Gregory´s book. GA numbers then were used in all critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The first editions ofNovum Testamentum Gce(Q746704) used an different numbering, but changed to GA Numbers very soon, and made them poular in all publications. This numbers are older thanKurt Aland(Q61806) who as able to identifiy different fragmants with different GA- numbers that belonged to one manuskript, so he reformed and enhanced the list of Gregory with new numbers for some more manuskripts Gregory did not know about. At last Aland founded the Instituft für Neutestamentliche Forschung and handed over the authority of numbering of new Manuscripts to the institute. But this numbers are some 50 years older than INTF and the cataloge of the INTF.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk)12:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I need this number badly for infoboxes used in articles concerning New Testament manuskripts. I just cant use wikidata items to fill the infobox, because there are no GA-Numbers to fill in, so the manuscript is nameless. The infobox is multilingual in its contents and can be used in every language, it is just the header that may be needed to translate. You can find this box for example in this articleshttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papirus_66https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papirus_Bodmer_II, the box is allmost the same in all languages and all of them contain the GA-Number P66 in the header or elsewhere in the box. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk)20:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Whats the issue with this proposal? Please put a vote or ask your questions or give comments to this proposal.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk)14:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support These IDs appear to we widely used, and, if I understand correctly, new IDs can be attributed, even when no new edition ofDie griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments(Q1218457). So it seems akin to other "authority controls" and a dedicated property seems like the simplest solution. --Zolo (talk)16:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Why monolingual text for an identifier? Usually we use string-datatype for that. -Tobias1984 (talk)07:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Identifiers don´t have a language. I just thougt about identifiers are the same in any language. Changed to datatype string. Thank you for your valued comment.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk)07:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support Looks good now. -Tobias1984 (talk)09:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done -Tobias1984 (talk)09:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

-Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

•  SupportSnipre (talk)16:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
•  SupportKopiersperre (talk)20:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I think string-datatype would be more appropriate. -Tobias1984 (talk)11:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Done -Tobias1984 (talk)16:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

-Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

•  SupportSnipre (talk)16:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
•  SupportEurodyne (talk)17:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment We are probably not doing any calculations with these numbers, so datatype string would be more appropriate. -Tobias1984 (talk)22:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would we do that, when the validation is "positive integers"?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits12:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • A string can consist of 0 to 9 and we can easily check for that. Using integer numbers will mean that they will be converted for languages that use different numbers. -Tobias1984 (talk)18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, happy with that explanation. Thank you.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy;Andy's edits16:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -Tobias1984 (talk)16:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
•  Done -Tobias1984 (talk)16:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I was propmpted to propose this byfr:Modèle:Infobox Solide de Johnson. I do not feel knowledgeable enough to have an opinion about whether it makes sense to use the same property for number of edges in a geometric figures and number of edges in a graph (@TomT0m: ?). --Zolo (talk)18:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support -Tobias1984 (talk)17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support --Eurodyne (talk)00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Zolo,Tobias1984,Eurodyne: Done --Jakob (talk)18:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Notifiedparticipants of WikiProject Mathematics

@Zolo: and Support I made a ping-template for WikiProject Mathematics now. -Tobias1984 (talk)17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Support --opensofias (talk)17:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Zolo,Tobias1984,Opensofias: Done --Jakob (talk)18:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)