Shortcut: WD:PP/WORKWikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Property proposal: | Generic | Authority control | Person | Organization |
| Creative work | Place | Sports | Sister projects | |
| Transportation | Natural science | Computing | Lexeme |
See also[edit]
- Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending – properties which have been approved but which are on hold waiting for the appropriate datatype to be made available
- Wikidata:Properties for deletion – proposals for the deletion of properties
- Wikidata:External identifiers – statements to add when creating properties for external IDs
- Wikidata:Lexicographical data – information and discussion about lexicographic data on Wikidata
This page is for the proposal of new properties.
Before proposing a property
- Search if the property already exists.
- Search if the property has already been proposed.
- Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
- Select the right datatype for the property.
- Read Wikidata:Creating a property proposal for guidelines you should follow when proposing new property.
- Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below by editing the two templates at the top of the page to add proposal details.
Creating the property
- Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
- Creation can be done 1 week after the creation of the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
- See property creation policy.
 |
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/05. |
Cultural heritage[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Cultural heritage, Wikidata:WikiProject Intangible Cultural Heritage
- Other related projects: Category:Cultural heritage WikiProjects
National Historical Museums of Sweden object ID[edit]
On hold
| Description | authority identification for an object in the collections of the National Historical Museums of Sweden |
|---|---|
| Data type | External identifier |
| Allowed values | [0-9A-Z]{8}-[0-9A-Z]{4}-[0-9A-Z]{4}-[0-9A-Z]{4}-[0-9A-Z]{12} |
| Example 1 | Streiff (Q10681657) → https://samlingar.shm.se/object/A4B754D2-5CB6-4FA1-997A-970250E32044 |
| Example 2 | Mosjömadonnan (Q10589526) → https://samlingar.shm.se/object/7C505995-EBF5-4106-BBEE-17F52BB3EA83 |
| Example 3 | Elizabeth Reliquary (Q26253636) → https://samlingar.shm.se/object/8BA2743C-5065-438B-9FAA-D854606DB716 |
| Source | https://samlingar.shm.se |
| Planned use | Matching and creating items in the collection that are depicted on Wikimedia Commons |
| Number of IDs in source | 1 300 000 |
| Expected completeness | no label (Q21873886 (always incomplete)) |
| Formatter URL | https://samlingar.shm.se/object/$1 |
| See also | Nationalmuseum Sweden artwork ID (P2539) |
| Single-value constraint | yes |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
Motivation[edit]
Needed to be able to matching and creating items on Wikidata that are objects in the collection of NHM and that are depicted in images on Wikimedia Commons, for example. / LinneaKarlberg (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Support Azad Karimi (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support LinneaKarlberg (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Eva L Vedin (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Elinor Rajka (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Azad Karimi (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment @LinneaKarlberg:, @Eva L Vedin:, @Elinor Rajka:, @Azad Karimi: coordinating support votes with ones colleagues is not helpful, the property proposal process is in place for a reason. Abbe98 (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, we did not know. LinneaKarlberg (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Considering that National Historical Museums of Sweden ID (P9495) exists and that other properties from SHM are likely to be proposed in the future(places, events, heritage sites, ect) maybe there should only be one property? As far as I'm aware the UUIDs are unique across the various types and even if that wouldn't be the case one could include the type prefix in the id. Abbe98 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Abbe98: Sure, that would probably work. Do you have an example of another external identifier that includes several different types so I can check how it works? Is it possible then to change the name and details of P9495? LinneaKarlberg (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Europeana entity (P7704) would be one example. I would imagine migrating/generalizing National Historical Museums of Sweden ID (P9495) by: 1. updating the formatter URL 2. adding the agent prefix to existing values 3. updating the label/description of the property Abbe98 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Abbe98: Sure, that would probably work. Do you have an example of another external identifier that includes several different types so I can check how it works? Is it possible then to change the name and details of P9495? LinneaKarlberg (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Per the discussion above, I would suggest generalizing National Historical Museums of Sweden ID (P9495) rather than creating a new property for each type. I cave created a section on the discussion page. Abbe98 (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Abbe98
, It would then be necessary to differentiate "agents" from "object". How would you like to do? (incorporate it into the identifier as a general property? or use an external URL formatter?) We can also consider that each property will be dedicated to the type (less errors with dedicated constraints). It would be necessary to recontact those who have already voted, as well as the voters of the other property, to find out if your idea appeals to them, but with more information. I don't see a URL leading directly to the correct page without using the type (with only the UUID). Example: type:UUID. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)- Hi! I would imagine we would use one of the seven possible prefixes like agent/<UUID> and object/<UUID>. We could also use a generic resolver but there isn't an official one so I think such a solution is less optimal. Abbe98 (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Abbe98: @Eihel: @LinneaKarlberg: We just had a discussion about this with the Wikidata team at the National Historical Museums of Sweden. Our conclusion is that this property should not be created, and Abbe98's solution (using prefixes) is better. This will include us (WMSE is supporting the museum in their Wikidata work) generalizing National Historical Museums of Sweden ID (P9495) and removing
/person/from the formatter URL and then adding the person prefix to all the existing uses of the property. --Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)- @Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) I have pinged all the people who voted on National Historical Museums of Sweden ID (P9495). I think we should leave it over the weekend at least but then if there are no one oposing this I can migrate it early next week. Abbe98 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- We at NHM are all on board with this approach instead of several Properties. LinneaKarlberg (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like an excellent idea. Many thanks Abbe98 . /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone, I've started re-defining National Historical Museums of Sweden ID (P9495) and will migrate the existing items using it. --Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like an excellent idea. Many thanks Abbe98 . /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- We at NHM are all on board with this approach instead of several Properties. LinneaKarlberg (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) I have pinged all the people who voted on National Historical Museums of Sweden ID (P9495). I think we should leave it over the weekend at least but then if there are no one oposing this I can migrate it early next week. Abbe98 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Abbe98: @Eihel: @LinneaKarlberg: We just had a discussion about this with the Wikidata team at the National Historical Museums of Sweden. Our conclusion is that this property should not be created, and Abbe98's solution (using prefixes) is better. This will include us (WMSE is supporting the museum in their Wikidata work) generalizing National Historical Museums of Sweden ID (P9495) and removing
- Hi! I would imagine we would use one of the seven possible prefixes like agent/<UUID> and object/<UUID>. We could also use a generic resolver but there isn't an official one so I think such a solution is less optimal. Abbe98 (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Abbe98
National Archives of Sweden persistent identifier[edit]
On hold
| Description | persistent identifier for objects in the National Archives of Sweden main archival database |
|---|---|
| Represents | National Archives of Sweden (Q1724971) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | archival resource (Q106815942), document (Q49848), work (Q386724) |
| Allowed values | Base62-encoded UUID |
| Example 1 | No 2. Elbing. (Q111517198) → eYHMeAFOm4sNVmxKK3M5L2 |
| Example 2 | No 3. Elbing (Q111517379) → 0zDW3BS0Gw9Haap2yUVspE |
| Example 3 | No 4. Danzigk wir es Eltere und newer werck (Q111519390) → zmQwWNi2ag9DQGJxnSVmD0 |
| Implied notability | Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) |
| Formatter URL | https://sok.riksarkivet.se/arkiv/$1 |
| See also | Swedish National Archive reference code (P5324) |
| Applicable "stated in"-value | National Archives of Sweden (Q117288060) |
| Single-value constraint | yes |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
Motivation[edit]
Wikidata-objekt med denna egenskapen kan också ha Nationell Arkivdatabas Referenskod (P5324), men den persistenta identifieraren är enklare att använda för att skapa webbsides-URLer och länkad data-URIer. Nils Weinander (Riksarkivet Sverige) (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- Comment Hi - could you fix your examples to look more like other property proposals (should look like: item → id) ? Also it would be useful to have formatter URL and some of the other template parameters filled out if possible. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! This is my first property proposal so I am very unsure of how to do things. I have reformatted the examples, added URL format and a see also reference. Nils Weinander (Riksarkivet Sverige) (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support Ok, looks good to me now! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support Jneubert (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment are the above examples also the canonical URIs? Considering that the RA has quite a lot of identifiers, could there be a less generic name/description? "primary database" doesn't say much to the average user. Abbe98 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support, Notified participants of WikiProject Sweden —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
It has been created as Swedish National Archive agent ID (P9713) se discussion - Salgo60 (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not the same as I understand. This proposal is for objects in archives (maybe even archives or series, though I struggle to come up with a case where they would have a wikidata item). The property you link is for an agent (Swedish: arkivbildare). Belteshassar (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Belteshassar, Nils Weinander (Riksarkivet Sverige), Abbe98: Dont we make it more complex than needed. Formatter url is the same
https://sok.riksarkivet.se/agent/$1
- My suggestion change the name on Swedish National Archive agent ID (P9713) to be both... I have used (maybe wrongly) both for the "person agent" and the "archive agent"
- 1) List examples nota bene August Strindberg seems to have more person identifiers at the National Archive looks like something that needs to be cleaned at "the National Archive"...
- Having 2 different properties is like if someone should connect with Wikidata and add new properties for every type of instance instance of (P31) Wikidata has... ?
- Also Swedish National Archive reference code (P5324) is used for both persons and archives
- - Salgo60 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment, I think this would be useful, perhaps also on commons. I’m not sure how many entries in NAD reference individual works, as I understand the purpose of the proposal, and to what degree those works are notable for Wikidata. Perhaps the creator of the proposal could enlighten me. Belteshassar (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- pushed the question also to github.com/Riksarkivet/dataplattform - Salgo60 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment read the thoughts over at the National Archive - Salgo60 (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Writing as the original author of this propopsal, I would like to put this on hold for the moment. I realize that this should probably be the RDF URI rather than just the PID. I have to think this over and if I do end up with wanting the RDF URI, there are issues to clear with the format of this. - Nils Weinander (Riksarkivet Sverige) (talk) 11:26, 28 Mars 2023 (UTC)
- FYI: Nils is working at the Swedish National Archives with this - Salgo60 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
writing technique[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | technique used for writing on stone, paper or other support |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Example 1 | EDR 092763 (Q124815019) -> chiselling (Q125418433) |
| Example 2 | Alexamenos graffito (Q577890) -> scratching (Q125653002) |
| Example 3 | Saint Clement and Sisinnius inscription (Q15157527) -> painted writing (Q125653482) |
| See also | fabrication method (P2079) |
Motivation[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Epigraphy As in the case of height of letters (P12549), indicating the writing technique (Q125400578) is a useful part of the description of an inscription (e.g. this detail is present in the entries of Epigraphic Database Roma (Q124541686)). --Epìdosis 17:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- Should we limit the type of techniques we could specify? On EDR looking over, I've seen these: scalpro, caelo and signaculo Men (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think that all entities having instance of (P31)writing technique (Q125400578) are valid values for this property. EDR recognizes 18 possible values, listed in the manual at page 15. Epìdosis 23:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Looking for "technique" returned fabrication method (P2079) − can you briefly explain why this would not be a good fit? Jean-Fred (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Jean-Frédéric: firstly thanks for pointing to fabrication method (P2079), I hadn't noticed it; effectively writing technique (Q125400578) wouldn't fit bad in it; I'm now uncertain if we effectively need this new property, although I can still see some potential advantages: a new property "writing technique", which would be a subproperty of "fabrication method", would apply more specifically to the field of epigraphy, and potentially an item regarding an inscription could have both a value of "fabrication method" for processes related to its fabrication as object and a value of "writing technique" for processes related specifically to how it has been inscribed (anyway, these two values could also go, with no particular concern, both in "fabrication method"). I leave the proposal open to collect other opinions if we need a new property or if using P2079 is just fine. --Epìdosis 08:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Cinematography[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Movies
- Other relevant projects: Category:Movie WikiProjects
Television[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Movies
Anime and manga[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Anime and Manga
Music[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Music
- Other relevant projects: Category:Music WikiProjects
Video game[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Video games
- Other relevant projects: Category:Video game WikiProjects
TheLegacy ID[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | ID matching a TheLegacy entry |
|---|---|
| Represents | TheLegacy (Q1597115) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Allowed values | \d+ |
| Example 1 | Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders (Q144559)→5937 |
| Example 2 | M.U.L.E. (Q1284570)→6820 |
| Example 3 | 1942 (Q55532)→3539 |
| External links | Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt]. |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
| Formatter URL | https://web.archive.org/web/20170627234010/http://www.thelegacy.de/Museum/$1 |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
| Wikidata project | WikiProject Video games (Q8485882) |
Motivation[edit]
It was a popular site back then, with links now vanishing from German Wikipedia (Q48183). I doubt it will return, but it is archived by the Wayback Machine (Q648266). It was linked by Kultboy (Q112344357) and still is by C64-Wiki.de (Q114419873). Matthias M. (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Video games Matthias M. (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support, Yes, absolutely! This was on my todo for a long while − I kept delaying creating properties for "dead" websites, but that was on the very top of the list for if/when to do that. Thanks for proposing this! Jean-Fred (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Grand Theft Wiki[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | identifier for an subject in the Grand Theft Wiki |
|---|---|
| Represents | Grand Theft Wiki (Q125824564) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Example 1 | Grand Theft Auto V (Q17452)→Grand_Theft_Auto_V |
| Example 2 | Carl Johnson (Q376682)→Carl_Johnson |
| Example 3 | Liberty City (Q64025661)→Liberty_City_in_GTA_1 |
| Example 4 | Liberty City (Q723271)→Liberty_City_in_GTA_IV_Era |
| Example 5 | Flashback 95.6 (Q81007633)→Flashback_FM |
| Example 6 | Rockstar Games (Q94912)→Rockstar_Games |
| Example 7 | RenderWare (Q1377750)→RenderWare |
| Example 8 | Dan Houser (Q935340)→Dan_Houser |
| Example 9 | television (Q289)→Television |
| Source | https://www.grandtheftwiki.com/Special:AllPages?from=&to=&namespace=0&hideredirects=1 |
| External links | Use in sister projects: [https://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=grandtheftwiki.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt]. |
| Number of IDs in source | 10,039 |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Formatter URL | https://www.grandtheftwiki.com/$1 |
| Wikidata project | WikiProject Video games (Q8485882) |
Motivation[edit]
--Trade (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Video games Matthias M. (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Matthias M. (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Websites ~ RampantSpirit (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Interwiki ~ RampantSpirit (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support! ~ RampantSpirit (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
GOG product ID[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | numerical GOG.com ID |
|---|---|
| Represents | GOG Galaxy (Q125176943) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Allowed values | \d+ |
| Example 1 | Manor Lords (Q111273244)→1361243432 |
| Example 2 | Cyberpunk 2077 (Q3182559)→2093619782 |
| Example 3 | Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis (Q74401)→1207666293 |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Formatter URL | https://www.gogdb.org/product/$1 |
| See also | GOG application ID (P2725) |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
| Wikidata project | WikiProject Video games (Q8485882) |
Motivation[edit]
This is part of the official GOG Galaxy (Q125176943) API [1] with GOG Database (Q111496432) as a possible formatter. Matthias M. (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Video games Matthias M. (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a good identifier. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 21:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
WiiG.de developer ID[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | identifier for a video game developer on WiiG.de |
|---|---|
| Represents | WiiG.de (Q108001673) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Example 1 | Ubisoft Montreal (Q903621)→160 |
| Example 2 | Eurocom (Q2411797)→48 |
| Example 3 | Platinum Games (Q1576758)→526 |
| Example 4 | Treyarch (Q382543)→155 |
| Example 5 | Nostatic Software (Q125754293)→1108 |
| Source | http://wiig.de/show/Erweiterte-Suche/ |
| External links | Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt]. |
| Number of IDs in source | Unknown |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Formatter URL | http://wiig.de/developer/$1 |
| Wikidata project | WikiProject Video games (Q8485882) |
Motivation[edit]
--Trade (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- Notified participants of WikiProject Video games --Trade (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Matthias M. (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
WiiG.de publisher ID[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | identifier for a video game publisher on WiiG.de |
|---|---|
| Represents | WiiG.de (Q108001673) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Example 1 | AlphaDream (Q1985279)→316 |
| Example 2 | Sega (Q122741)→125 |
| Example 3 | Take-Two Interactive (Q94933)→177 |
| Example 4 | Activision Publishing (Q200491)→6 |
| Example 5 | Nostatic Software (Q125754293)→564 |
| Source | http://wiig.de/show/Erweiterte-Suche/ |
| External links | Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt]. |
| Number of IDs in source | Unknown |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Formatter URL | http://wiig.de/publisher/$1 |
| Wikidata project | WikiProject Video games (Q8485882) |
Motivation[edit]
--Trade (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- Notified participants of WikiProject Video games--Trade (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support Matthias M. (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Literature[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Books
- Other relevant projects: Category:Book WikiProjects
BD Gest' work ID[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | numerical identifier for a comic book on the BD Gest' website |
|---|---|
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | comic book album (Q2831984) |
| Example 1 | Fruit Of Knowledge (Q86676432) → 285525 |
| Example 2 | Q125629008 → 309134 |
| Example 3 | Gods in Chaos (Q2261631) → 10982 |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Formatter URL | https://www.bedetheque.com/BD--$1.html |
| Single-value constraint | yes |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
Motivation[edit]
We already have BD Gest' author ID (P5491) and BD Gest' series ID (P8619). I think having the labels referring to "work" (fr: "œuvre") is preferable to "comic book" (fr: "BD"), in anticipation of a possible future property to identify editions.
Ping people involved in those previous properties @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Nomen ad hoc, Thierry Caro, Kokonino, Ayack, Eru:
-- Maxlath (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Video[edit]
Image[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts
Podcast[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Podcasts
Theatre[edit]
Fiction[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Fictional universes, Wikidata:WikiProject Narration
- For projects about specific universes, see: Category:Fiction WikiProjects
canon status[edit]
Under discussion
Motivation[edit]
This would open up more far possibilies when modeling fictional entities and works both as a statement but also as a qualifier
We might or might not want to have a mandatory applies to work (P10663) qualifier but i'll leave that decision up to the community. Same applies to unconfirmed canon (Q124162270) and disputed canon (Q124162276) being allowed values--Trade (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- @Valentina.Anitnelav:--Trade (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Notified participants of WikiProject Narration --Trade (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Notified participants of WikiProject Fictional universes--Trade (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support extracanonically and unconditionally save one: that the label and description together clarify that this property isn't for religious texts or other works not attempting to serve as fiction (such as [un]authorised memoirs). Arlo Barnes (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why not also use it for religious texts?– Shisma (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because it's a different kind of canonicity. One relates a work to its status within a fictional universe (Q559618), the other within a doctrine (Q117850). A fictional work can have an unambiguous 'authority' such as a publisher, whereas religious texts are more often contested. Arlo Barnes (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with this limitation. So long as the work specifies what canon it is relating to I don't see why this property should be exclusive to works of fiction. For example, Gospel of Peter (Q762054) could set this property to non-canon (Q99841874) with a qualifier that the canon status applies to Catholic Bible (Q591016). This could be valuable in instances such as the Book of Mormon (Q459842) only being canon in the standard works (Q3847515), but not canon in other Christian canons such as Catholic Bible (Q591016). Keplersj (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support, with the suggested exception of not using it for religious texts. This is a different usage. Lijil (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with this limitation. So long as the work specifies what canon it is relating to I don't see why this property should be exclusive to works of fiction. For example, Gospel of Peter (Q762054) could set this property to non-canon (Q99841874) with a qualifier that the canon status applies to Catholic Bible (Q591016). This could be valuable in instances such as the Book of Mormon (Q459842) only being canon in the standard works (Q3847515), but not canon in other Christian canons such as Catholic Bible (Q591016). Keplersj (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because it's a different kind of canonicity. One relates a work to its status within a fictional universe (Q559618), the other within a doctrine (Q117850). A fictional work can have an unambiguous 'authority' such as a publisher, whereas religious texts are more often contested. Arlo Barnes (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done Trade (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why not also use it for religious texts?– Shisma (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. --Wolverène (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't know. Can't a work be part of multiple canons? there are things that exist in mulitple universes. That's why I consered a canon as a seperate entity. For instance:
- All star trek episodes and films are part of Star Trek canon (Q3500963)
- All star trek episodes and films and every licensed Star Trek work (novel, video game, comic…) is part of the informal Beta canon (Q123436716)
- I'm not an expert on this but there is also Star Fleet Universe (Q7600715) in which I think only Star Trek: The Original Series (Q1077) and Star Trek: The Animated Series (Q20922) are canon for licensing reasons
- so canonicity doesn't seem to be a boolian value–Shisma (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing to stop a work from having multiple canons Trade (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This would mean adding a "canon: yes" statement to pretty much every existing item for a canonical subject in a work, which is needless bloat IMO. Also, as mentioned above, there's the matter of things existing in multiple canons. One of the proposed examples is for Star Wars, which has its regular canon and also "Legends". I think the idea behind this is good but there are just a lot of problems I can see in trying to implement it in practice. OmegaFallon (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is the Star Wars example wrong?--Trade (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade, Arlo Barnes, Keplersj, Wolverène: I created an alternative proposal under Wikidata:Property proposal/is part of canon –Shisma (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Support. Preferring this one over Shisma's alternate for reasons stated in there. -- Kurzov (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose I’m not 100% sure (as I would need to think way more about this), but my gut feeling is that canonicity is something that is inherently contextual − which canon are we talking about? «Official StarWars» vs « Legends » come to mind − and thus needs to live as a qualifier on something, not as a main statement. Would it then work to have it qualify takes place in fictional universe (P1434)? or media franchise (P8345)? Or is canon something orthogonal to both the universe and the franchise, and needs a separate proposal entirely (Perhaps Shisma’s alternative proposal aligns better with my thoughts) Jean-Fred (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I’m also not sure what’s the relationship to continuity (Q2141130)/timelines − for example, the Tomb Raider games are divided in 4 continuities − but my understanding is that each game is canon within each continuity (there also a bunch of side-stories / spin-offs, some of which I guess may be assigned to a particular subseries, but which may not be canon). Jean-Fred (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I feel like example 3 already adresses this Trade (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
is part of canon[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | canon status for this creative work, episode or fictional entity in it's respective narrative universe |
|---|---|
| Represents | canon (Q53815) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | creative work (Q17537576) |
| Allowed values | instances of canon (Q53815) |
| Example 1 | Radioactive Man (Q1953829)→The Simpsons canon (Q124206593) |
| Example 2 | Treehouse of Horror VII (Q1087745)→unknown (not part of any known canon) |
| Example 3 | Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (Q17738)→Star Wars canon (Q3648466) |
| Example 4 | Star Wars: Rebel Assault (Q55259)→Star Wars Legends (Q3551295) (canon should probably have its own item) |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Distinct-values constraint | no |
Motivation[edit]
This proposal is an alternative proposal for Wikidata:Property proposal/Canonicity.
- This is a subproperty of part of (P361).
- The subject of this property must be a work (Q386724).
- The object of this property must be a canon (Q53815)
- The property may be used in reference statements, if the object of the reference has no wikidata item. For instance if it is merely a url.
The truthfullness of statements should be evaluated using references. Conflicting statements of non-work entities should be ranked with
preferred- reason for preferred rank (P7452) → at least one source is considered canonical (Q106831793) (example)
depricated- reason for deprecated rank (P2241) → source is not considered canonical (Q124173200) (example)
Non-conflicting, statements should not be qualified with any canonicity evaluations. Instead a reference statement with stated in (P248) should be present. The object of stated in (P248) should itself have a is part of canon statement. This way a user can query which statements are relevant for a particular canon.
A statement without a reference statement should not be considered canonical – Shisma (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- Notified participants of WikiProject Narration Notified participants of WikiProject Fictional universes –Shisma (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment Why are we not allowed to use this on fictional entities?--Trade (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- you could qualify almost every statement of a fictional entity with with whether it is canon or not but that would be:
- a lot of work
- a lot of redundancy
- because the question can be answerd purely on the fact if the information is taken from a work that is part of the body of a canon or if it isn't. thats why I propose only qualify conflicting statements with existing properties. It is a common misconception that an information or statement can be canon. A canon is a collection of works – Shisma (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I literally said nothing about statements Trade (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand. do you have an example? – Shisma (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- ah, you mean like a character? – Shisma (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah Trade (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- so you mean statements like:
- Professor Moriarty (Q283111)is part of canoncanon of Sherlock Holmes (Q2316684)
- I think it would be more correct and straightforward forward to say:
- Professor Moriarty (Q283111)present in work (P1441)The Final Problem (Q228119) + The Final Problem (Q228119)is part of canoncanon of Sherlock Holmes (Q2316684)
- But I'd be fine with the former too. Other opinions? – Shisma (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah Trade (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- ah, you mean like a character? – Shisma (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand. do you have an example? – Shisma (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I literally said nothing about statements Trade (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support, an important property for fiction.--Arbnos (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support I have a slight preference for this one. But Trade's proposal has the advantage that it is possible to make it explicit that something is not part of a certain canon (using canon status:non-canon, restricted to the canon using applies to work (P10663), for instance). With this property we can only express that something is not part of a certain canon if we are complete with respect to that canon. We can use <no value> if there is really no canon this work belongs to, but couldn't there be a Simpsons-Sherlock-Holmes-Crossover that is considered part of the Simpsons canon but not part of the Sherlock Holmes canon? (I could not think of a real example and I'm not sure if this is a likely scenario). How would we express this? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose proving that something is not part of any canon is like proving that something doesn't exist. Maybe it is part of my headcanon that I published on my entirely irrelevant weblog in the late 90s. There would also be an infinite number of works that are not part of a canon. For instance: every Episode of the Simpsons is not in the Sherlock Holmes Canon. I'd say we can add unknown if we don't have a complete catalog of canon items. – Shisma (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- In general you're right. I was just thinking of cases where one would expect that a work is part of a canon but it is not. E.g. for every episode of The Simpsons (Q886) it may be expected that it is part of The Simpsons canon (or I would expect that), but Treehouse of Horror II (Q2376730) is not. It is somehow more interesting that an episode of The Simpsons (Q886) is not part of The Simpsons canon than that it is part of the canon. It is somehow similar to does not have part (P3113) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Valentina.Anitnelav: you mean like not found in (P9660) (opposite of described by source (P1343))? – Shisma (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, or like this (depending on how you think of the relationship between a canon and its "parts"). On the other hand I think my Simpsons-Holmes-expample (where we could not use <no value>) would be very, very rare. Probably we can just forget about it. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, lets keep in mind that is not part of canon could be useful in the future for edge cases – Shisma (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, or like this (depending on how you think of the relationship between a canon and its "parts"). On the other hand I think my Simpsons-Holmes-expample (where we could not use <no value>) would be very, very rare. Probably we can just forget about it. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Valentina.Anitnelav: you mean like not found in (P9660) (opposite of described by source (P1343))? – Shisma (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- In general you're right. I was just thinking of cases where one would expect that a work is part of a canon but it is not. E.g. for every episode of The Simpsons (Q886) it may be expected that it is part of The Simpsons canon (or I would expect that), but Treehouse of Horror II (Q2376730) is not. It is somehow more interesting that an episode of The Simpsons (Q886) is not part of The Simpsons canon than that it is part of the canon. It is somehow similar to does not have part (P3113) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose proving that something is not part of any canon is like proving that something doesn't exist. Maybe it is part of my headcanon that I published on my entirely irrelevant weblog in the late 90s. There would also be an infinite number of works that are not part of a canon. For instance: every Episode of the Simpsons is not in the Sherlock Holmes Canon. I'd say we can add unknown if we don't have a complete catalog of canon items. – Shisma (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Weak support - Weak support. Preferring Trade's proposal. My focus (admittedly I've been on a bit of a wiki-break lately due to IRL priorities) around here has been with works such as the Touhou Project, where canonicity can be fuzzy at times, thanks to the series mostly being the work of just one developer. The first five games in the series were made for the Japanese PC-98 computer in the late '90s. After the PC-98 was discontinued around the turn of the millennium, the series "started over" with 2002's Touhou Koumakyou: the Embodiment of Scarlet Devil, featuring Reimu and Marisa (the deuteragonists) but none of the other characters from the PC-98 games. Only two PC-98 characters (Yuuka Kazami and Alice Margatroid) have ever reappeared in a later Windows game, with both having been redesigned to some degree. When asked about the PC-98 games' canonicity, ZUN (the sole creator) has stated multiple times that (paraphrased) "PC-98 canon applies as long as Windows canon doesn't conflict with it." However ZUN doesn't always section everything off, and the fans are left with "Is this still canon or is this decanonized?" type-of-questions. (For example, Yuuka Kazami had a big mansion-esque building in Touhou 4 (a PC-98 game). She (eventually) reappeared in Touhou 9 (a Windows game)... just in a big flower field, with no sign of a mansion. Did it get removed (decanonized) and replaced with the flower field? Did we just not see it in Touhou 9? Who knows! So would "stuff" (I use the term loosely) discarded in such a manner - never outright stated to have been decanonized, but partially overwritten and otherwise not brought up again - be considered part of a "canon of X" item, or do they not? Or would they be part of a separate "canon of X (old)" item? -- Kurzov (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know any particulars of this franchise. But here's my interpretation and how I suppose the proposed property would apply: There is apperently a work that "is part of a canon" and another work that is "(only partially) part of a canon". Sorry for repeating myself: this property is only concerned with works, not anyone's interpretation of what can be seen in them. In short, i'd model this with the qualifier: nature of statement (P5102) partially (Q100349848) –Shisma (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- We could probably use an item named "loose canon" for this. Trade (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know any particulars of this franchise. But here's my interpretation and how I suppose the proposed property would apply: There is apperently a work that "is part of a canon" and another work that is "(only partially) part of a canon". Sorry for repeating myself: this property is only concerned with works, not anyone's interpretation of what can be seen in them. In short, i'd model this with the qualifier: nature of statement (P5102) partially (Q100349848) –Shisma (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
last appearance[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | last work featuring a fictional character or item |
|---|---|
| Represents | last appearance (Q125686982) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Example 1 | Mary Camden (Q125682212)→…And Thank You (Q114523400) |
| Example 2 | Dane Vogel (Q56613123)→Saints Row: Gat out of Hell (Q17911588) |
| Example 3 | Victor Vance (Q2469911)→Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (Q94671) |
| Example 4 | Troy McClure (Q1504550)→Bart the Mother (Q2617345) |
| Example 5 | Mermaid Man (Q93186548)→Patrick-Man! (Q29566244) |
| Example 6 | Leonard Burton (Q107024611)→The Hundred Year Play (Q109677017) |
| Example 7 | Bulldog (Q60649159)→Saints Row IV (Q13060351) |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Wikidata project | WikiProject Video games (Q8485882) |
Motivation[edit]
This seemed needed--Trade (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Notified participants of WikiProject Narration Notified participants of WikiProject Fictional universes--Trade (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Notified participants of WikiProject Video games--Trade (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- Support some implementation of this but we should consider how to minimise data staleness if a new addition to a franchise is released (perhaps unexpectedly). This isn't a problem with first appearance (P4584). Arlo Barnes (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- number of episodes (P1113) would be a better example Trade (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Question I think this is doable in a different way, by present in work (P1441) 
we get an appearance on works, by publication date (P577) we get the publication date of the work. We can always sort by publication date to get the last appearance, doable in sparql and in lua both. If the point is to mark that it is known that it won't appear again (or is now forgotten) why not adding a qualifier ⟨ The Adventures of Tintin (Q744536)or something like that
⟩ present in work (P1441) ⟨ Tintin and the Picaros (Q612595) ⟩
followed by (P156) ⟨ no value Help ⟩- What would be the issue with that ? Too complicated ? Do not cover all cases ? author TomT0m / talk page 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The only way we would be able to infer this would be if the vast majority of items about works and episodic works had a complete dataset. And you would still all of said items that a character have appeared in to be linked to them or vice versa which is even more rare Trade (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Using P1441 with qualifiers as TomT0m said should be enough. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't much of a benefit unless one consider the existence of new non-identifier properties to be actively harmful to the project. --Trade (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support This property is widely used in infoboxes of fictional characters on many wikipedias (enwiki, a couple on ruwiki). It will be difficult if not impossible to output the value of P1441 with the latest date to this param. Also, TV series characters often have a last episode listed, and there is no practice on WD to list dozens/hundreds of episodes in the character's P1441. Solidest (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would even say that P1441 itself needs to be redesigned. Filling in all kinds of media, individual works, episodes of works, series of works of one media, series of works of cross-media (franchise) - this is all bad practice, because of which there are now difficulties with tuning infoboxes. Solidest (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is not on the data model, but in the infoboxes. We shouldn't model the data considering only Wikipedia usecases, Wikidata does not exist only to fullfill Wikipedia infoboxes and tables. The real problem is that now there isn't a way to make SPARQL queries from Lua templates for query data that has complex relationships. Changing the data model will not fix that. There is no problem on the way P1441 is used, because all of these uses express the same relationship, and SPARQL can be used to get further data, based in whether the predicate is a franchise, collection or a single creative work. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate? I am confused what the issue you are referring to is Trade (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would even say that P1441 itself needs to be redesigned. Filling in all kinds of media, individual works, episodes of works, series of works of one media, series of works of cross-media (franchise) - this is all bad practice, because of which there are now difficulties with tuning infoboxes. Solidest (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Creative work[edit]
- See also: Wikidata:WikiProject Infoboxes/works
- Software products and brands, see: Wikidata:WikiProject Infoboxes/terms
- Books, see: Wikidata:WikiProject Books
is fake of[edit]
Under discussion
| Description | the kind (class) of elements this item falsifies / is a fake for |
|---|---|
| Represents | fake (Q22959676) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | forgery (Q1332286) feint (Q427117) forgery (Q1332286) … all kind of fakes |
| Allowed values | class (Q16889133) |
| Example 1 | |
| Example 2 | |
| Example 3 | |
| See also | forgery after (P1778)  simulates (P12328) |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
Motivation[edit]
We need a model for modeling fakes, forgery or feints, this is an attempt to advance in this field. Not top priority of course but nice to have I think. author TomT0m / talk page 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- Support I can see how this would be useful in a number of entries. --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Some overlap with simulates (P12328)? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Wd-Ryan I did not know about this property, thanks. Maybe yes, but the "trickery/deception" dimension seems absent of "simulate". Nobody would say that a special effect in a movie.
- There also seems to be a fundamental difference between something that simulates a situation (truck simulator) in a virtual world and something that is intended to replace by fulfilling the same function, and a virtual simulation with no consequence in the real world besides learning and entropy increase. author TomT0m / talk page 08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think there's enough difference from simulates (P12328) to justify a new property. That the purpose of a particular simulation may be to trick or deceive can be stated separately, with e.g. has goal (P3712), where relevant. Likewise for the physical/virtual nature of the simulation, which will in most cases be established by the basic membership properties. Swpb (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb I think the "artificial heart" is not a question of physical nature or not, it's a question of "fulfills the role of", it's not at all like an exercise. It's the same difference as a drône that would fulfils the same role as a soldier in a battlefield, we would not say that the drone "simulates" a soldier. It would just be a weapon.
- for objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) I think usually just using instance of (P31) / subclass of (P279) is usually enough, for example play-action (Q1734020) is just a kind of pass play disguised.
- I also still thinks that the (trickery) intention is not trivial to infer. If it's a subclass of "fake" it may be queried like this but … objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) : trickery is convoluted and not a better model, and also there might be a lot of inconsistent ways to express this information. Maybe using several properties in an unclear way to convoy a well identify nuance in the meaning to spare the existence of a property is not a good tradeoff. author TomT0m / talk page 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- In your reply to wd-Ryan, it seemed to me you were looking to use a physical vs. virtual distinction to separate this proposal from simulates (P12328). If you want to express that something is intended to take the role of something else, I'd use replaces (P1365). As to the purpose of trickery, you're right that P31/P279 will generally be enough to infer trickery, without resorting to has goal (P3712) – but to me, that strengthens the case against a new "is fake of" property, since the presence of a P31/P279 statement implying trickery removes the need to express that nefarious intent with a property that is otherwise the same as simulates (P12328). To me, the reason why you are simulating something – to replace something, to teach someone, to trick someone, etc. – is a separate bit of information from what you are simulating, and trying to capture them in the same property is not good modeling. Swpb (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb No, I don't think so. Think that you can fake something in a sport simulation video game … It's actually two different dimensions.
- "Replaces" is definitely not a good property for that. Imagine if a fake doctor replaces your real doctor for a while ? author TomT0m / talk page 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- With replaces (P1365), I was thinking of your drone/soldier example. At this point I don't understand what case you are making for this proposal; I need to see specific examples where you think the existing properties are not sufficient. Swpb (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- In your reply to wd-Ryan, it seemed to me you were looking to use a physical vs. virtual distinction to separate this proposal from simulates (P12328). If you want to express that something is intended to take the role of something else, I'd use replaces (P1365). As to the purpose of trickery, you're right that P31/P279 will generally be enough to infer trickery, without resorting to has goal (P3712) – but to me, that strengthens the case against a new "is fake of" property, since the presence of a P31/P279 statement implying trickery removes the need to express that nefarious intent with a property that is otherwise the same as simulates (P12328). To me, the reason why you are simulating something – to replace something, to teach someone, to trick someone, etc. – is a separate bit of information from what you are simulating, and trying to capture them in the same property is not good modeling. Swpb (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see the distinction between this and simulates. Almost all (if not all) types of fakery in a sporting sense is when someone simulates doing something, but does something else. (Hidden ball trick, diving, etc.) Have you got any examples of something where "simulates" doesn't cover it? Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski : my problem is actually, how do you convey the trickery sense with simulates. A fire truck simulation is not a trickery, but could also use the property you propose. But the intension behind the truck simulation is totally genuine. That's the nuance I want to convey and I did not see yet a simple way to express it.
- A more convoluted way could be with queries and inferences :
if the action is a subclass of run play but simulates a pass play and "an action cannot be at the same time a run play and a pass play" …(we can do the last one using "disjoint union of") or by classifying as both a subclass of "fake / trickery" and "run play" at the same time, but none of these models are simple. - (also reading about this hidden ball trick it seems it can involve the simple masking of the player to confuse the defense about where it is going, it's then not necessarily a trickery about simulating a kind of action by another kind of action, it can be the same action in a different direction ? You simulate a pass but you actually do a pass ? ) author TomT0m / talk page 14:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)