Property talk:P1028
Documentation
person or organization who donated the object
Represents | donation (Q1124860) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Data type | Item | ||||||||||||
Domain | physical object (Q223557), award (Q618779), collection (Q2668072), type of work of art (Q116474095) or work (Q386724) | ||||||||||||
Example | Another Sioux Chief (Q18691633) → Sharron and Delbert Lewis (Q18691638) | ||||||||||||
Tracking: usage | Category:Pages using Wikidata property P1028 (Q126375192) | ||||||||||||
See also | conferred by (P1027), founded by (P112) | ||||||||||||
Lists |
| ||||||||||||
Proposal discussion | Proposal discussion | ||||||||||||
Current uses |
| ||||||||||||
Search for values |
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1028#Type Q223557, Q618779, Q2668072, Q116474095, Q386724, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1028#Value type Q5, Q43229, Q16334295, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1028#mandatory qualifier, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1028#Target required claim P31, SPARQL, SPARQL (by value)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1028#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1028#Scope, SPARQL
Object/subject in descriptions
[edit]@Laddo, Micru: In the descriptions I think it should read "subject", not "object" or omit both not to cause confusion!? --Marsupium (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Marsupium: Using "this item" could be more general. You have some examples where "object" does not fit? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 01:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Single value is wrong
[edit]I've stumbled upon this "condition" in examples of literary/musical/cultural awards. By far the most of them in Germany have two or more donors. So I'm completely opposed to this wikidata fixation on "Single value". It obviously doesn't represent real life conditions /reality. Please let us cancel this fixation. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Seconding this recommendation. It makes no sense for anything which can be donated by more than one entity. For example, archival and museum collections may have multiple donors. One person may donate a selection of their papers during their lifetime and their child may donate remaining papers after their death. All these papers end up in the same collection with two donation statements at two points in time, e.g. 1997 and 2015. But even in simple cases, it doesn't really make sense. A friend and I pooled our money to donate a baby gift. Therefore it has two donors. We're not a single corporate entity, just friends. That happens all the time. As said above, this constraint doesn't reflect reality. Ruthbrarian (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This property makes no sense without more data
[edit]I don't understand how this property works as a main statement on an item? Surely it should be a qualifier to an owned by (P127) statement otherwise it's kind of meaningless? --SilentSpike (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pages with invalid language codes
- All Properties
- Properties with wikibase-item-datatype
- Properties used on 10000+ items
- Properties with constraints on type
- Properties with required qualifiers constraints
- Properties with target required claim constraints
- Properties with entity type constraints
- Properties with scope constraints