Wikidata:Property proposal/Category for people deaths by this disease
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Category for people deaths by this disease[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
Description | link to Wikimedia category for people deaths by this disease. |
---|---|
Represents | disease (Q12136) |
Data type | Item |
Allowed values | Wikimedia category (Q4167836) |
Example | |
Source | from User:Mr. Ibrahem/disease |
See also | category for people who died here (P1465) |
- Motivation
I want to add the categories to many items so I can use it for autocategorization Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Oppose The inverse category combines topics (P971) is sufficient. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- How I can use category combines topics (P971) in tuberculosis (Q12204) to do that? --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Izno, Pigsonthewing: It's not like what you think.
- I can use category combines topics (P971) in Category:Deaths from tuberculosis (Q7214827), but I want to use new property in tuberculosis (Q12204) with value Category:Deaths from tuberculosis (Q7214827) .. --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, we understood that you want to make a link from TB to its deaths category. We're suggesting that if you change the category item instead you can still perform your work sufficiently--a query can get the union of all people who have died from a particular disease, the category which represents those people, and the pages which I presume are uncategorized on your local wiki. WD:Request a query is available if you do not know how to write that query, but I expect that once you have one such query provided, you can figure out the rest. --Izno (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support I don't know how can we use category combines topics (P971) to auto categorization as @Izno: suggested, and seems that the new property will make it easier. What encourages me it similar to category for people who died here (P1465). --FShbib (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- We should avoid continuing to (ab)use the frankly-bad category structure. --Izno (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support--عدنان حليم (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this is the right thing to do. We can't keep adding new properties every time someone wants to autocategorise pages in a new way. I've brought it up at Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#Autocategorisation. I can only find around 200 categories for deaths from a specific disease. With such a low number of categories, you could store the mapping between diseases and categories locally for now. - Nikki (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikki: Well, what about a new property with name "Related Categories" just like website account on (P553), We can use it to do any type of autocategorise with specific item in the qualifier.
- for example I will create new item with name "Category for people deaths by this disease" and I will use it in the qualifiers with property: applies to jurisdiction (P1001). and this way can work on award holders, deaths places, births places, and may things.?--Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I support this latter suggestion, except that the property used as a qualifier should not be applies to jurisdiction (P1001). Thierry Caro (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment
Maybe a new property for properties would work ("stroke" (Q12202) > "Property for autocategorization" > "Cause of death" (P509)). A qualifier on that could link to the applicable category ("Category:Deaths from stroke (Q6509490)").So if an infobox an article relates to an item with P509:Q12202, it could add the article into the category found on Q6509490. This is similar to what some wikis do based on date/place of birth/death.
--- Jura 13:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, the other way round categorization might be easier. A statement linking to the category and possibly a qualifier to indicate the property.
--- Jura 16:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The other reason "auto-categorization" confuses me (besides my above oppose) is that we should be relying on humans with their actual causes of death filled here. --Izno (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- This actually makes categorization rely on that. Which can be seen as a step forward compared to suggestions to query Wikidata and than add "manually" categories.
--- Jura 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)- Then it's not necessary per my original oppose. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can you provide us with a proof of concept? You can use any article on any wiki (with P509 set) to illustrate how your approach can work (either in LUA or with #property).
--- Jura 18:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)- That seems clearly not to be the user's intent. Even if it were, I would disagree with that as a useful scope for Wikidata. Propping up the shitty category system is not our goal at Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can you provide us with a proof of concept? You can use any article on any wiki (with P509 set) to illustrate how your approach can work (either in LUA or with #property).
- I think from the proposal alone it's not entirely clear what they were looking for. I assume that you agree they couldn't use P971 to categorize articles at Wikipedia and a new property (in one way or the other) would be needed. Personally, I think it works well for cawiki and a few others.
--- Jura 18:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then it's not necessary per my original oppose. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- This actually makes categorization rely on that. Which can be seen as a step forward compared to suggestions to query Wikidata and than add "manually" categories.
- Can any one make a decision! --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done This property is not aligned with the principles of WD. If you want to find the people who died by a certain disease, then use a query. Besides for such a low number of categories it is not worth it. @Mr. Ibrahem, Izno, Pigsonthewing, عدنان حليم, Thierry Caro:--Micru (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)