Property talk:P571: Difference between revisions

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Blanked the page
Tags: Blanking Reverted possible vandalism Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
= {{Capitalize | {{Int discussion}} }} =
== Comment ==
I think this property is so general, lacking enough accuracy for data extraction queries turn out. It includes a wide range of place domains: cities, sport clubs, organizations, shops, airports, etc. and maybe domains which are not considered as a place. As well as, it includes a wide range of time domains from millisecond to century. I propose to pick it into several properties. And the next and more delicate point is that the label is so vague if it is used for cities (meaning establishment), stores (meaning opening) and so on. — [[User:Doostdar|دوستدار ایران بزرگ]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|talk]]) 14:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
:Qual è la differenza tra "creation date" ([[Property:P571]]) e "start date" ([[Property:P580]])? --[[Special:Contributions/95.141.31.5|95.141.31.5]] 02:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

:I seem to remember the original purpose of this property was quite narrow: foundation date or establishment date, in the formal sense. In the case of a modern company this would be the date that appears on the company's registration documents. [[User:Danrok|Danrok]] ([[User talk:Danrok|talk]]) 20:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

== Qualifiers... ==

I think this property needs qualifiers. Stockholm was founded as an urban area 1960 (Swedish urban areas in it's modern definition are never older than that.), was founded as municipality 1971, founded as city-municipality 1863, as town/city 1463 and as settlement 1252.

It would also be nice to show ''how'' it was founded. -- [[User:Lavallen|Lavallen]]<sup>[[User_talk:Lavallen|talk]]</sup>([[Special:Block/Lavallen|block]]) 04:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

:I agree, I notice that some old organizations in the UK were founded by a Pope, and then re-founded by a King or Queen, after the creation of the Anglican Church, and a the move away from the Catholic Church in England. [[User:Danrok|Danrok]] ([[User talk:Danrok|talk]]) 02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

::I would have thought that this property is a qualifier, or it needs splitting to be a number of things that have a start and end date. &nbsp;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:::I would like to add some thougts about [[User:Lavallen|Lavallen]]s example. First, let's consider what the item {{Q|1754}} actually is. Is it a urban area? No, {{Q|94385}} is. Is it a municipality? No, that is {{Q|506250}}. Is it the city-municipality? No, we've got {{Q|10680648}} for that. Is it about the town/city? Yes it is! But the fact that it was granted town privileges in 1463 was only a formal recognition of its status. The city/town/settlement was already there and it was already there in 1252 when Birger jarl wrote his letter granting privileges for Fogdö kloster. That letter just happens to be the oldest written record mentioning Stockholm. But Birger jarl wrote the letter in Stockholm and also wrote ''in'' the letter that it was from Stockholm. That indicates that there already was a settlement there noticable enough to be mentioned by the Jarl. The only source available stating the exact year for the foundation of Stockholm is {{Q|10716064}} and that says it was founded in 1187. /[[User:Esquilo|ℇsquilo]] 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

== ISO 8601 ==
Kial ne estas uzita [Q50101|ISO 8601]] do: JJJJ-MM-TT ekzemple 2013-10-12 sed estas "oktobro 12 2013"? [[User:Marek Mazurkiewicz|Marek Mazurkiewicz]] ([[User talk:Marek Mazurkiewicz|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 21:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
: Kie vi vidas tion? --[[User:AVRS|AVRS]] ([[User talk:AVRS|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 20:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:: Ĉie. Ekzemple: [[Q143]] (interfaco pl, eo, en). [[User:Marek Mazurkiewicz|Marek Mazurkiewicz]] ([[User talk:Marek Mazurkiewicz|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::The data is stored as "+00000002013-10-15T13:09:40Z". It's the User Interface that writes everything in wrong order. -- [[User:Lavallen|Lavallen]] ([[User talk:Lavallen|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::: La dato estas montrata en la formo difinita ie por la unua lingvo en la listo de "Helpaj lingvoj" sur la paĝo "Redaktado" de oniaj [[Special:Preferences|preferoj]].
::: The date is rendered as specified somewhere for the first language on the "Editing" page of [[Special:Preferences|the user preferences]] .
::: --[[User:AVRS|AVRS]] ([[User talk:AVRS|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 17:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:Dankon. Estas bone. [[User:Marek Mazurkiewicz|Marek Mazurkiewicz]] ([[User talk:Marek Mazurkiewicz|{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}]]) 23:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

== [[Talk:Q10893166#date of foundation or creation (P571)]] ==

Please see [[Talk:Q10893166#date of foundation or creation (P571)]]. --[[User:Jeremyb-phone|Jeremyb-phone]] ([[User talk:Jeremyb-phone|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

== Domain ==

Are there any plans to restrict the domain of this property to organizations? Or the intended domain is an artifact? If not, I see no sense in keeping that property, since [[Property:P580]] has the same meaning. -- [[User:Apohllo|Apohllo]] 14 January 2015, 16:57

== animal race ==

Would you say this property can be used to record when an animal race was first created (by crossing two other races), for example in {{Q|769449}} {{P|571}} 1820? —[[User:DSGalaktos|DSGalaktos]] ([[User talk:DSGalaktos|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

== Precision ==

It seems that {{Q|Q18602467}} was painted in the years 1633-1635. Which year should be used in this case? And what about the precision value if it is not exactly in a certain year but 'decade' would be too imprecise? [[User:Bever|Bever]] ([[User talk:Bever|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Bever}} I think {{P|580}} and {{P|582}} are intended for this use-case, so {{C|Q18602467|P571|1630s|P580| 1633|P582| 1635}}. Or perhaps {{P|P1319}} and {{P|1326}}, but I think those are intended for cases where the exact date is unknown, which isn’t the case here. —[[User:DSGalaktos|DSGalaktos]] ([[User talk:DSGalaktos|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

== The renaming of this property without discussion ==

I don't see any discussion about the renaming of this property. The single word inception is misleading when the main component of this is that it is a date or a time, not the concept of [[wikt:inception]]. Can we please have the element of the time component added back. &nbsp;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
: Counter-argument: one “inception” statement can be used not only to record the time at which the inception occurred, but also other things. For example, see [[P:P1191]], which is “first performance”, not “date of first performance”, since it’s often also qualified with {{P|276}}, {{P|175}}, etc. – these qualifiers make more sense when you read them as “location of first performance”, not “location of date of first performance”. (For examples, see {{Q|482621}} and {{Q|11989}}.) (However, in this particular case, I’m not sure if that argument applies – I haven’t seen many qualified {{P|571}} statements.) —[[User:DSGalaktos|DSGalaktos]] ([[User talk:DSGalaktos|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


== Difference to {{P|1619}} ? ==

Please see [[Property_talk:P1619#Relation_to_inception_.28P571.29_.3F]]. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 08:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

== First half or quarter of a century ==

How should the first half of the 18th century be indicated? And how the first quarter of the 18th century? Or beginning of the 18th century? [[User:Romaine|Romaine]] ([[User talk:Romaine|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
:As 18th century (precision: 100 years), with qualifiers {{P|1319}} and {{P|1326}}, I think. —[[User:Galaktos|Galaktos]] ([[User talk:Galaktos|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
::Note that the new-ish qualifier {{P|P4241}} supports this directly. - [[User:PKM|PKM]] ([[User talk:PKM|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


== Qualifiers "start date" and "end date" for this property ==
{{SPARQL|query=SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?inception ?start ?end ?instanceofLabel
WHERE
{
hint:Query hint:optimizer "None" .
?item p:P571 ?statement .
?statement pq:P580 ?start .
?statement pq:P582 ?end .
?statement ps:P571 ?inception .
?item wdt:P31 ?instanceof
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
}}

There is some discussion about it on French project chat ([[Topic:U8ugv72dm20md1is]]). <br/>--- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 11:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Pierre Martins}} {{ping|Jura1}} {{ping|VIGNERON}} inception can't have {{p|580}} and {{p|582}}. {{ping|TomT0m}} is completely right here ([[Topic:U8ugv72dm20md1is]]). <br> <br> Plus he is also right that {{p|571}} can't be used for "date of construction" or anything related to construction. Good news is that we started to cleanup the mess with {{p|571}} and here are the new property proposals: [[Wikidata:Property_proposal/construction_start]] & [[Wikidata:Property_proposal/construction_end]] for construction realted mass of {{p|571}}. <br> <br> For a one time event's 'start' and 'end' dates you could use {{p|793}}. Plus if there is any recurring event then we can use {{p|837}}.
:
{{Statement+
|P={{P-|793}}
|V={{Q-|529711}}
|q1.p={{P-|585}}
|q1.v1=1991
|P={{P-|793}}
|V2={{Q-|12769393}}
|V2.q1.p={{P-|585}}
|V2.q1.v1=1993
}}
:
:If anyone came across better method of doing it, kindly let us know too.
:-- [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

== How to proceed when there is more than one creation date? ==

I am working on {{Q|3397110}}, a bridge which has been destroyed 3 times, and reconstructed 4 times. Both {{P|571}} and {{P|1619}} only allows one date for this property. How should I note these multiple dates in this element? Should I:
* ignore the warning and go ahead with multiple entries for this property?
* use {{P|793}} = {{Q|331483}}, qualified with {{P|585}} as suggested in [[Property_talk:P576#Stop_using_this_property_to_depict_building_demolition|Property_talk:P576]] ?
[[User:Dirac|Dirac]] ([[User talk:Dirac|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have the same problem with the closing and reopening of a professional association ([[Q33037862]]).--[[User:Hienafant|Hienafant]] ([[User talk:Hienafant|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

: I would regard the bridge being being built four times as four separate instances, four separate incarnations, so there are four entities, each of them with a different inception date, and all of which {{P|31}} {{Q|3397110}}. --&nbsp;[[User:Kai_Burghardt|𝒦]] ([[User_talk:Kai_Burghardt|🗪]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kai_Burghardt|🖹]]) 13:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

== Use for countries and {{P|1013}} ==

Following the discussion with {{ping|Llywelyn2000}} at [[Wikidata:Property_proposal/gained_independence_from|property proposal]], here are a few items that can be used for the qualifier {{P|1013}}:
*{{Q+|Q1464916}}
*{{Q+|Q60024336}}
*{{Q+|Q60024485}}
*{{Q+|Q60021702}}

[https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q13406268&oldid=816613411#P571 Sample use with actual dates for Mexico in the sandbox].
*{{P|805}} is used to link country specific items about the event: {{Q|Q1145411}}, {{Q|Q1131780}}, {{Q|Q767450}}
*{{P|807}} links to the country it separate from (Spain).
*{{P|2868}} could be used to link {{Q|Q3624078}} at the applicable date (when is that?)
*The statement with the {{Q|Q767450}} has [[Help:Ranking#Deprecated rank|deprecated rank]] as it was signed, but not ratified by Spain.

Obviously, for some countries criteria could be different/some not applicable. Please list them here. --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 07:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

== Two dates of P571 ==

The system gives an error, you cannot put two dates of creation. This restriction is not correct. Exemple: Q61767271 is an abbey created in 12th century and closed during the French Revolution. It was reopened in 1898. I don't find anyway to put this two dates in de wikidatafile, though they are both correct. I know a lot of other examples.--[[User:Flamenc|Flamenc]] ([[User talk:Flamenc|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

== Objects created between two dates ==

Is there a way to indicate that an object was created between two dates (when the precise date of its creation is unknown (examples in: [[Q11765908]]; [[Q1142058]])?--[[User:Braaark|Braaark]] ([[User talk:Braaark|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Braaark}}, here's one way to do this using "earliest date" and "latest date" as qualifiers: {{Q|Q60756150}}. - [[User:PKM|PKM]] ([[User talk:PKM|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
::[[User:PKM|PKM]]: thank you for answering. However, this method, which is the one I used in the two examples I provided, does not work for Wikipedia infoboxes.--[[User:Braaark|Braaark]] ([[User talk:Braaark|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

== "Nature of statement" as qualifier ==

Is there any objection to adding {{Q|P5102 }} as a valid qualifier for this property? - [[User:PKM|PKM]] ([[User talk:PKM|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

== before... ==

Have often dates, that a {{P|571}} is before a date. In 1470 there is a mill, but {{P|571}} is before... How to define? Regards, [[User:Conny|Conny]] ([[User talk:Conny|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC).
*with the "latest"-qualifier? --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 16:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

== Use as date of a photograph ==

I notice that a bot is now routinely using this property on Commons for the date on which a photograph was taken, e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Albany,_Oregon_-_Wallace_Building_(former_J.C._Penney).jpg&diff=390006982&oldid=265512026 . Is that actually the intention of this property? (If answering, please ping me, I don't keep a watchlist on Wikidata, thanks in advance.) - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ([[User talk:Jmabel|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
:+1, same question. {{ping|Multichill}} as the owner of BotMultichill. I don't think this is the intention of this property. {{ping|Jmabel}} --[[User:Herzi Pinki|Herzi Pinki]] ([[User talk:Herzi Pinki|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
::I have the same question.
::Also, why is the hidden category "Taken on missing SDC inception" always entered when using the <nowiki>{{Taken on}}</nowiki> template?
::-- [[User:F. Riedelio|F. Riedelio]] • [[User_talk:F. Riedelio|Diskussion]] • [mailto:f.haag@wikipedia.de| &#9993;] 18:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
:::@[[User:F. Riedelio|F. Riedelio]] I think you should discuss this on Commons. --- [[User talk:Jura1|<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-8deg);-moz-transform:rotate(-8deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-8deg);-o-transform:rotate(-8deg);">Jura</span>]] 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
::::{{Done|Thanks for the hint}} [[User:F. Riedelio|F. Riedelio]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:F. Riedelio|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]] 08:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

== Removing {{P|P1696}} ==

I don't think it's appropriate to say that {{St|P571|P1696|P576}}, as the property currently does. The documentation for {{P|P1696}} makes it clear that "inverse" is not here a synonym of opposite, but in the sense of {{Q|Q191884}}: the {{P|P1696}} is making the claim that {{St|Q2013|P571|29 October 2012}} implies that {{St|29 October 2012|P576|Q2013}}, which is nonsensical. What we really need to properly model the relationship is to create an equivalent to {{P|P461}} for properties, but as there aren't very many properties with clear opposites, this might not be worthwhile.

Since I already made this change and got reverted, I want to see whether this line of reasoning makes sense to others.

[[User:Vahurzpu|Vahurzpu]] ([[User talk:Vahurzpu|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Vahurzpu}} Sorry, I haven’t checked the documentation for {{P|P1696}}, I just saw that you removed this property, then added {{P|P461}}, then removed that again, so I thought that you just forgot to readd P1696. Feel free to revert my revert. (By the way, if I move some data from one property to another, I always first add the new one, and only after that do I remove the old one, in case anything stops me from finishing my edits—my browser crashes, I have to go to the toilet instantly, my house gets on fire etc.—, the data is still there. If you’ve edited in this order, it would have been much less suspicious for me.) —[[User:Tacsipacsi|Tacsipacsi]] ([[User talk:Tacsipacsi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

== not dated paintings ==

How to add "not dated" for paintings? --[[User:Villy Fink Isaksen|Villy Fink Isaksen]] ([[User talk:Villy Fink Isaksen|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Statement+
|left=5em
|width=50%
|P={{Font color|red|yellow|{{P-|571}} }}
|V={{Font color|red|yellow|{{unknown value}} }}
}}
--[[User:Matthias Winkelmann|Matthias Winkelmann]] ([[User talk:Matthias Winkelmann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

== Approximate dates ==

I have a department at the University of Washington whose web page states that it was established "about 1961". Not sure how best to record an approximate date. For now I did this:

''inception'': 1961
qualified with: ''stated as'': about 1961

Is that the best way to do this, or is there another way to include an approximate date as the value for inception? --- [[User talk:UWashPrincipalCataloger|Adam Schiff]] 19:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
:See [[Help:Dates#Inexact_dates]], specifically "Qualifier for circa". --- [[User talk:Jura1|Jura]] 18:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

* Thank you!! [[User talk:UWashPrincipalCataloger|Adam Schiff]] 20:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

== Wiktionary ==

It would be interesting include somewhere a link to the Wiktionary definition of inception, for more information. --[[User:BoldLuis|BoldLuis]] ([[User talk:BoldLuis|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

== property constraint (P2302): allowed entity types constraint (Q52004125): Wikibase lexeme (Q51885771) ==

I added this because some neologism's date of invention is known, like [[L:L2019|covfefe]]. [[User:EdwardAlexanderCrowley|EdwardAlexanderCrowley]] ([[User talk:EdwardAlexanderCrowley|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

== Two parallel properties for location ==

I noticed that this property is equivalent to both [https://schema.org/dateCreated dateCreated] and [https://schema.org/foundingDate foundingDate] on Schema.org, the first of which is for works and the second for organizations. But the parallel Schema.org properties for location, [https://schema.org/locationCreated locationCreated] and [https://schema.org/foundingLocation foundingLocation], have separate equivalents on Wikidata: {{P|1071}} and {{P|740}} respectively. Will this property be split/the other two be merged, or will this remain this way (since I was going to propose to use some of these properties in certain ontologies)? Thanks. [[User:Knr5|Knr5]] ([[User talk:Knr5|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Knr5}} Unfortunately without proposal from an interested party and following community consensus nothing will change. Personally I find properties that have a conditional meaning (i.e. the meaning changes depending on the subject item) tend to be a "bad data smell" and think it would be a reasonable idea to create sub properties in this instance. You may want to share this discussion to the project chat to seek further input (or if feeling bold create property proposals explaining the reasoning). --[[User:SilentSpike|SilentSpike]] ([[User talk:SilentSpike|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks! (I noticed at least one issue that I had overlooked earlier, with {{P|1071}}. I may start there.) [[User:Knr5|Knr5]] ([[User talk:Knr5|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

== Require citation ==

I think this property should have a {{Q|Q54554025}}.

I am trying to clean up improper usages of this property and move them to alternative and more-specific properties. Checking what the provided value means and even if it is valid is very tedious and concerning when it is very-often not sourced.

This property and all date properties are important and making sure they have a citation I'd consider very important.

Please let me know your thoughts. [[User:Lectrician1|Lectrician1]] ([[User talk:Lectrician1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:Seems fair to me, thought I think most properties should have that constraint by default. [[User:SilentSpike|SilentSpike]] ([[User talk:SilentSpike|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

== When does something begin? ==

@[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?diff=1579678648&oldid=1579071554&title=Property:P571 Revision]. I don't think for most items the time it begins is specific. For example, is the time a building begins when the building is first drafted? Is it when it is first decided to be built? Is it when construction starts? Is it when construction ends? Is it when the building opens?

There are a lot of options and this problem exists with about every item. I think it's fair to ask the user to try to use a more specific propety, especially since I've seen this property being misused for things that aren't exactly the start date of something. For example, when a music artist debuts. [[User:Lectrician1|Lectrician1]] ([[User talk:Lectrician1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

:The relation to start_time and end_time for planned events is unclear too. Is the inception of the London Olympics when the nebulous plan to hold it started, the 2003 bid submission date, the 2005 date when it won, or 2012 when it was held? All are useful, but any value other than 2012 will surprise. Is it better to advise the omission of inception for events in favour of the clear start and end times? [[User:Vicarage|Vicarage]] ([[User talk:Vicarage|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Vicarage|Vicarage]] Yes, it is advised to use a more specific property or state specifically what event is being described by using {{P|793}}. [[User:Lectrician1|Lectrician1]] ([[User talk:Lectrician1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

== 1 word inception for 58 different Words ==

# date founded
# date created
# incorporated
# foundation
# created
# date of foundation
# date of creation
# established
# establishment date
# foundation date
# creation date
# incorporation date
# date incorporated
# date of incorporation
# date of establishment
# founding date
# date of founding
# date formed
# formation date
# formed on date
# founded on date
# incorporated on date
# established on date
# created on date
# commencement date
# date commenced
# commenced on date
# date of commencement
# time of foundation or creation
# date of foundation or creation
# written on date
# time of inception
# year founded
# year created
# year incorporated
# year written
# year commenced
# year established
# date constructed
# construction date
# constructed
# inititated
# formation
# dedication date
# formed in
# formed at
# inaugurated
# launch date
# introduced
# introduction
# completed
# first issue
# built
# foundation / creation date
# founded
# launched
# founded in
# broke ground

58 words represent 1 word inception. It's totally wrong and highly massed-up. I am purposing we need to break this property into 3 at-least. And we need to move some to [[Property:P1619]] (date of official opening) too.

We need to knowledge the fact that inception/foundation and official opening/inauguration and construction(started/ended) related terms are 3 totally different things.

-- [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

:@[[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] It is already known that this is a problem. Start a property proposal and we can begin the process of fixing the mess. [[User:Lectrician1|Lectrician1]] ([[User talk:Lectrician1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Lectrician1|Lectrician1]] Nice to hear that someone already realized the same and fixing it. [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
::Just formatted and defined everything here for everyone's convenience:
::<code>
::: inception (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inception) the beginning of something
::: time of inception
::: <br />
::: founded (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/found)
::: date founded
::: date of foundation
::: foundation date
::: foundation
::: founding date
::: date of founding
::: founded on date
::: year founded
::: founded in
::: <br />
::: date formed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/form)
::: formation date
::: formed on date
::: formed in
::: formed at
::: formation
::: <br />
::: date created (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/create)
::: created
::: date of creation
::: creation date
::: created on date
::: year created
::: <br />
::: time of foundation or creation
::: date of foundation or creation
::: foundation /creation date
::: <br />
::: established (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/establishment)
::: establishment date
::: date of establishment
::: established on date
::: year established
::: <br />
::: incorporated (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/incorporate) [ Need another property ] (incorporated) [[Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated]]
::: incorporation date [ Need another property ] (incorporated) [[Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated]]
::: date incorporated [ Need another property ] (incorporated) [[Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated]]
::: date of incorporation [ Need another property ] (incorporated) [[Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated]]
::: incorporated on date [ Need another property ] (incorporated) [[Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated]]
::: year incorporated [ Need another property ] (incorporated) [[Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated]]
::: <br />
::: commencement date (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/commencement)
::: date commenced
::: commenced on date
::: date of commencement
::: year commenced
::: <br />
::: written on date
::: year written
::: <br />
::: date constructed [ Need another property ] (construction ended [[Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end]])
::: construction date [ Need another property ] (construction ended [[Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end]])
::: constructed [ Need another property ] (construction ended [[Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end]])
::: <br />
::: broke ground [ Need another property ] (construction started [[Wikidata:Property proposal/construction start]])
::: <br />
::: built [ Need another property ] (construction ended [[Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end]])
::: <br />
::: inititated
::: <br />
::: dedication date [ Need another property ]
::: <br />
::: inaugurated ---->> moved to {{P|1619}}
::: launch date ---->> moved to {{P|1619}}
::: launched ---->> moved to {{P|1619}}
::: <br />
::: introduced
::: introduction
::: <br />
::: completed [ Need another property ] (construction ended [[Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end]])
::: <br />
::: first issue [ Need another property ]
::</code> [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
* I agree that this property is very confusing, but we don't need to split it in a lot of Date-type properties for many events. We have {{P|793}} to link to any important event in the history of the item. We can use {{P|580}} and {{P|582}} qualifiers to indicate the start and end of the events (or {{P|585}} if is an event with a single date). {{Q|3075355}}, {{Q|385378}} for a infrastructure construction, {{Q|331483}} for a demolition, {{Q|1417098}} for inauguration event, {{Q|15051339}} for the actual date an object starts its operations, and so on, there are a lot of things that could happen to an item, and if the event you are looking for doesn't have a Wikidata item, it can be easily created. IMHO, I think it would be better deprecating {{P|571}} and migrate to {{P|793}}. --<span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px purple">[[User:Tinker Bell|Tinker Bell]] [[User_talk:Tinker Bell|<span style="color:#ed428d;font-size:1.4em">★</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Tinker Bell|<span style="color:#ed428d;font-size:1.1em">♥</span>]]</span> 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Tinker Bell|Tinker Bell]] We are not splitting it. Just removing the words those doesn't belong to inception at all. We are gonna remove "incorporated" and related (6) terms, construction related (6) terms. Moved inauguration related (3) terms to P1619 and 2 more words need to be looked after .... Rest is staying here. There were 58 terms now it will be 41 terms .... 17 terms are not at all related to inception which we are thinking of moving elsewhere. It's very kind of you to point us in the right direction that we can use the significant event (P793) property for founding (Q3075355), construction (Q385378), demolition (Q331483), inauguration (Q1417098), opening (Q15051339) with start time (P580) and end time (P582) where-ever necessary. And definitely that's good general practice and everyone gonna keep on doing that. And about {{ping|Joeykentin}}'s two property proposals (construction start & construction end) .... His point is that those two can be used for exceptional cases like wonders of the world etc. Lets see what he has to say about those or if he wanna withdraw those two if we all agree to use significant event (P793) property as explained by you. IMHO we could use those two. I hope this makes our good intentions clear here. With Regards. [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Tinker Bell|Tinker Bell]] Really, I hate date properties and think we should migrate them ''all of them'' to {{P|793}}. That's probably not going to happen though lol. [[User:Lectrician1|Lectrician1]] ([[User talk:Lectrician1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

:{{comment}} {{ping|Lectrician1}} Moved terms ''incorporated'', ''incorporation date'', ''date incorporated'', ''date of incorporation'', ''incorporated on date'' and ''year incorporated'' out of the {{P|571}} here: [[Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated]] -- [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

{{comment}} 58 words *in English* (which is only one of the 400+ languages of Wikidata, please don't be anglo-centric) and a large number of alias is a good thing, it helps navigation and discoverability. 58 (49 now since aliases have been removed before the end of the discussion) is not that high {{P|131}} have 101 aliases in Chinese. Plus Wikidata is not about linguistic, it's about semantic (linguistic is useful to find the best label but not to define a property). Cheers, [[User:VIGNERON|VIGNERON]] ([[User talk:VIGNERON|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

:@[[User:VIGNERON|VIGNERON]] It's not about alias. Just tell me how construction or incorporation can be inception. And it's all done by proper discussion in property proposals. And some few other proposals. Some words were not at all related to inception just moved them to proper properties. That's all we have done. -- [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:VIGNERON|VIGNERON]] If all this were about linguistics .... I would have made 58 to 5 or 8. But it's not about that. Rest of 41 makes sense to be with inception and we get it and we respect that. Just needed to say this as you are taking it too far in linguistic and all. -- [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:VIGNERON|VIGNERON]] Consider it like this: you are roll-backer, we are organizers and mess cleaner .... we both are on same side here to make this better. -- [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|BeLucky}} dont focus too much about "inception" it's just the current label in one language. Maybe the solution would be to change the label (we could for instance go back to the orginal label "foundation/creation date", see previous discussions). And yes, a property can encompass a lot of loosely related words, as long as the meaning can be infered all is good (see for instance {{P|6}} which goes from cities - mayor - to states - president/prime minister). Properties (as most thing) should follow the occam razor: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Cheers, [[User:VIGNERON|VIGNERON]] ([[User talk:VIGNERON|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
:::{{tick}} Totally agree. -- [[User:BeLucky|BeLucky]] ([[User talk:BeLucky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

== Ambiguous instructions for buildings ==

It's not clear from the instructions how this property should be used for buildings. {{p|P1619}} is for the opening ceremony, but is this property for the announcement date (which would also be {{P|P6949}}), the groundbreaking date, the date construction was completed, or something else? Additional clarification is needed. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 19:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

:This vagueness is true of so many things. For buildings, {{P|729}} seems preferable because its likely to be accurate to year level, and closest to what people expect. [[User:Vicarage|Vicarage]] ([[User talk:Vicarage|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:I believe that we should deprecate this property for buildings and require the use of more descriptive, specific properties for each stage. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::Deprecating is not good. For many historical buildings we have information in sources like ''Building from 1869''. This probably means year of starting use, but for many historical buildings it can be also (the same) year of founding.
::''Building'' is very ambiguous, it can mean little niche chapel or big nuclear powerplant... [[User:JAn Dudík|JAn Dudík]] ([[User talk:JAn Dudík|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

== SASHAQAT ==

. [[User:Sashaqat|Sashaqat]] ([[User talk:Sashaqat|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:26, 4 January 2024

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P571&oldid=2044962557"