Property talk:P576
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Legowerewolf in topic Support instance type 'project'?
Documentation
- Start a query
- Current uses
- With precision and calendarmodel
- Statistics by class
- By century
- Date precision
- Calendar models
- List of qualifiers
- Count
dissolved, abolished or demolished date
point in time at which the subject (organisation, building) ceased to exist; see "date of official closure" (P3999) for closing a facility, "service retirement" (P730) for retiring equipment, "discontinued date" (P2669) for stopping a product
point in time at which the subject (organisation, building) ceased to exist; see "date of official closure" (P3999) for closing a facility, "service retirement" (P730) for retiring equipment, "discontinued date" (P2669) for stopping a product
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Difference with “inception (P571)” within range [0, 10000]: the difference with property “inception (P571)” should be in the range from “0” to “10000”. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P576#Diff within range, hourly updated report
Single best value: this property generally contains a single value. If there are several, one would have preferred rank (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P576#single best value, SPARQL
Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P576#Scope, SPARQL
Type “organization (Q43229), administrative territorial entity (Q56061), concrete object (Q4406616), recurring event (Q15275719), position (Q4164871), human-geographic territorial entity (Q15642541), fictional entity (Q14897293), marriage (Q8445), content rating category (Q23649976), rule (Q1151067), award (Q618779), database (Q8513), website (Q35127), sport rivalry (Q63981919), physical structure (Q15710813), former entity (Q15893266), periodical (Q1002697), artificial object (Q16686448), competition (Q476300), group of humans (Q16334295), legal concept (Q2135465), transport service itinerary (Q1067164), project (Q170584)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)” with classes “organization (Q43229), administrative territorial entity (Q56061), concrete object (Q4406616), recurring event (Q15275719), position (Q4164871), human-geographic territorial entity (Q15642541), fictional entity (Q14897293), marriage (Q8445), content rating category (Q23649976), rule (Q1151067), award (Q618779), database (Q8513), website (Q35127), sport rivalry (Q63981919), physical structure (Q15710813), former entity (Q15893266), periodical (Q1002697), artificial object (Q16686448), competition (Q476300), group of humans (Q16334295), legal concept (Q2135465), transport service itinerary (Q1067164), project (Q170584)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P576#Type Q43229, Q56061, Q4406616, Q15275719, Q4164871, Q15642541, Q14897293, Q8445, Q23649976, Q1151067, Q618779, Q8513, Q35127, Q63981919, Q15710813, Q15893266, Q1002697, Q16686448, Q476300, Q16334295, Q2135465, Q1067164, Q170584, SPARQL
Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P576#Entity types
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
|
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Destruction
editBeing a counterpart of inception (P571) I suggest to extent the meaning of this property to destruction:
date of dissolution/destruction
date on which the organisation/object was dissolved/destoyed
--Spischot (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, why not merging with date of death (P570)? --Ricordisamoa 05:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is hard to make common label for these events at least in russian. For person it must be named "дата смерти", for organization "дата прекращения существования". Term "смерть" is not applicable for organizations and "прекращение существования" is not applicable for person. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Change description/domain in accordance with inception (P571)?
editHi,
I wonder if this property here should apply to objects in general (when there is no better, more specialized property that can be used)? In contrast inception (P571) says for the English description: " when the organization/object was founded/created" and "Domain: organization or object". Example why I would find such a change useful: I could use this property in 2009–10 ACB season (Q2736322) for indicating on what date that sports season started/ended. Though one must admit that a sports season is not a physical object, but what kind of object is meant here anyway? --Bthfan (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- For time spans like sport seasons, rather use start time (P580) and end time (P582) directly. LaddΩ chat ;) 11:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- start time (P580) and end time (P582) say that they should be used as qualifiers only normally though? Anyway, someone over at Wikidata:Project_chat (actually I told people to discuss this here ;) suggested to use significant event (P793) with two new events "season start or opening ceremony"/"season end or closing ceremony" together with "point in time" as qualifier. I think using the same domain on inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) still makes sense. --Bthfan (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Changes because religions
editI've extended the scope of this property to "disappearance" with a range of 10000 years, in order to use it with religions. — nojhan (✐) 18:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop using this property to depict building demolition
editWe have currently 2 ways to define that a building was destroyed:
- significant event (P793) = demolition (Q331483), qualified with point in time (P585).
- dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576)
The main problem is about dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) which doesn't have in its label (at least in English, German French and Spanish) any hint for the use of the property for building description. significant event (P793) by definition is more flexible and then perhaps less explicit but there is no risk of creating non-sense like dissoultion of building or abolition of building. I propose then to promote the only use of significant event (P793) as structure for building demolition. This means changing the labels/description of dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) and the use constraints before curating the bad use of this property mainly by solving the violation constraints. Snipre (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Snipre: Speaking as someone who often extracts information from Wikidata via SPARQL, I am very sympathetic to the argument that we should (whenever possible) avoid having multiple ways to express the same fact. Unfortunately, the need to support not only efficient manual curation but also expressive representation means that it is not always possible to achieve this.
- The phenomenon we have here is sometimes described as "skipping the event". If the end of an entity is simple and uninteresting, then we can simply record its time with a simple predicate such as "end time" or "dissolution". When we want to say more about the event (such as place of death, cause of death, agent of demolition, reason for demolition, etc.) we either find ourselves adding more and more properties for describing the aspects of the end event directly on the item being ended, or we reify an end event, and use more generic properties on it. Wikidata has a convenient halfway-house for this whereby we can add a "significant event" pointing to a collection (such as demolition) with properties as qualifiers without trouble to reify the event explicitly. A third way to represent it would be to reify the destruction of the building as an individual event (e.g. Implosion of Radio Network House (Q3149446)). Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Bovlb Step by step: do you agree to stop the use of dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) as a way to mention that a building was destroyed ? That's the main question even if you can have a long list of qualifiers to add. Is dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) correctly formulated to describe the end of the existence of a material thing ? Can we use dissolve or abolish when speaking about a material thing ? Only a semantic question, we forget about Wikidata for the moment. Snipre (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I question the achievability of "only one way to say it", and pointing out that you're actually dealing with three ways here. But I don't oppose a proposal to narrow the applicability of dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576). I note that P576 has no Wikidata item of this property (P1629) assertion (which, despite the name, defines a restriction on the _object_ of a property), which would have helped to resolve its applicability. Bovlb (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Bovlb Step by step: do you agree to stop the use of dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) as a way to mention that a building was destroyed ? That's the main question even if you can have a long list of qualifiers to add. Is dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) correctly formulated to describe the end of the existence of a material thing ? Can we use dissolve or abolish when speaking about a material thing ? Only a semantic question, we forget about Wikidata for the moment. Snipre (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm favoring significant event (P793) as it is for everybody clear what you mean with it. dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) on a building I would personally interpret as the time when the last people moved out of a building and the building started to be uninhabited. --Pasleim (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- This argument is based on the assumption that a building only can cease to exist by demolition (Q331483). A building can also be destroyed by conflagration (Q168983), but a fire does not necessarily destroy a building. I believe that this property should be applied to buildings to specify at what date they ceased to exist regardless in what manner it was destroyed and service retirement (P730) should be used to specify when it stopped being used. /ℇsquilo 15:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- A disused building is still a building. Destroyed buildings are basically no longer buildings, but ruins. Date of destruction for a building that's not subsequently repaired is the time of fire, or earthquake, not the time that the ruins were cleared up, and the cause of destruction is fire or earthquake, not demolition. Ghouston (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- This argument is based on the assumption that a building only can cease to exist by demolition (Q331483). A building can also be destroyed by conflagration (Q168983), but a fire does not necessarily destroy a building. I believe that this property should be applied to buildings to specify at what date they ceased to exist regardless in what manner it was destroyed and service retirement (P730) should be used to specify when it stopped being used. /ℇsquilo 15:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
removal of Q1002697 as scope of the property
editAs UWashPrincipalCataloger was kind enough to let me know, periodical (Q1002697) is currently a scope of this property. However, a periodical is nothing more than a product, and the property discontinued date (P2669) is intended for a product. Therefore, I would be in favor of removing the data object periodical (Q1002697) as scope of the property. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- As for East-Slavian languages, discontinued date (P2669) includes the word "support" which is OK for software but nonsense for publications. So I would keep P576 for them. --Infovarius (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Infovarius: Such language differences are unfortunately unavoidable in a multilingual project like Wikidata. That's why I can also reply to your statement that the property dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) in the German language for periodicals makes no sense. Because periodicals are neither dissolved, shut down, destroyed or demolished. Periodicals are discontinued. Therefore, from the point of view of the German language and probably also from the point of view of the English language – but this would have to be verified by a native speaker – it is clear to use discontinued date (P2669). --Gymnicus (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Why do you refer to "dissolved, shut down, destroyed or demolished"? Isn't it English label? Doesn't "Auflösung" include any cease of existance? Even in English it sounds not bad to me to say "newspaper was shut down"... --Infovarius (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Infovarius: Such language differences are unfortunately unavoidable in a multilingual project like Wikidata. That's why I can also reply to your statement that the property dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) in the German language for periodicals makes no sense. Because periodicals are neither dissolved, shut down, destroyed or demolished. Periodicals are discontinued. Therefore, from the point of view of the German language and probably also from the point of view of the English language – but this would have to be verified by a native speaker – it is clear to use discontinued date (P2669). --Gymnicus (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Inception after abolishment?
editQ28122896 are a type of rural municipalities for which there is no clear date for historical establishment, then they were abolished in 1950 and restored in 1991. How should this be described? If I define just the 1950 and 1991 dates, there is, obviously, an error message. What would be a better way? --Ehitaja (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
" should not have statements for both 'end time' and dissolved, abolished or demolished date"
editActually why not? This happened many time in wars: the unit is wiped out once, but officially dissolved days or weeks later. There is no specific event entity for the former, just a date (end time) - so "significant event" is not applicable. Retired electrician (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Support instance type 'project'?
editThe Commons app uses this property to filter out things that no longer exist. Some projects that've been cancelled (thinking of Sidewalk Toronto) but never got far enough to be a construction could use this property to be filtered properly. Legowerewolf (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)