Property talk:P1560
Documentation
equivalent name (with respect to the meaning of the name) in the same language: female version of a male first name, male version of a female first name. Add primarily the closest matching one
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1560#Type Q202444, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1560#Item P407, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1560#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1560#mandatory qualifier, SPARQL
avoid using this property for given names used by both genders but mapped to different Wikidata items (Help)
Violations query:
SELECT ?item ?value ?l { ?item wdt:P1560 ?value . ?item rdfs:label ?l . FILTER(lang(?l)="en") ?value rdfs:label ?l . FILTER( str(?item) > str(?value) ) } LIMIT 100
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1560#value of label is generally different
avoid using multiple languages (Q20923490) as value (Help)
Violations query:
SELECT DISTINCT ?item { ?item p:P1560 [pq:P407 wd:Q20923490] } LIMIT 100
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1560#Value of qualifier P407 should be precise
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
family name version for other gender
editShould we widen the scope of this property to also allow family name version for other gender, e.g. Yarmoshyn (Q26215187)? --Pasleim (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pasleim: agree. Most russian surnames have different female form, that ends with -а, slavic surnames that ends with -ий (-ij — from russian, -yj — from ukrainian) have female form that ends with -а.--Avatar6 (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Yeah making this broader would be better.*Treker (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have a few samples uses where you think that would be applicable? --- Jura 13:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Yes, beyond the cases of the Slavic surnames mentioned above, the same goes for ancient Roman names, which were split up in Praenomen, Nomen, Cognomen and Agnomen, none of which are "given names" in the same sense we have them today. See for example Metellus (Q97739260)/Metella (Q105761955) and Pulcher (Q11739873)/Pulchra (Q106535324).*Treker (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is surname for other gender (P5278). --- Jura 19:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Praenomen, nomen, cognomen and agnomen are not "surnames" either. Why do we have both this item and that one? Having one for all names seem easier.*Treker (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- The P1560 mapping for given names is less trivial than P5278 for surnames. Maybe the later property is the more natural fit for cognomen and possibly the others. --- Jura 11:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I'll contact the Rome project to see what their feelings are. Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome .*Treker (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1, *Treker: Tbh I think that if we have separate properties for first name and last name, then we should have different properties for praenomen/nomen/cognomen, because they are neither first nor last name. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Praenomen, nomen, cognomen and agnomen are not "surnames" either. Why do we have both this item and that one? Having one for all names seem easier.*Treker (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- There is surname for other gender (P5278). --- Jura 19:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Yes, beyond the cases of the Slavic surnames mentioned above, the same goes for ancient Roman names, which were split up in Praenomen, Nomen, Cognomen and Agnomen, none of which are "given names" in the same sense we have them today. See for example Metellus (Q97739260)/Metella (Q105761955) and Pulcher (Q11739873)/Pulchra (Q106535324).*Treker (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
P460 and P407
editI don't understand why property said to be the same as (P460) has to be added. Same for language of work or name (P407).
Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: This looks like an error, can it be removed? Apparently a given name does not need to have other equivalent names in order to be the female version of another.--DarwIn (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do not know to be honest. Any autoconfirmed user can edit the property.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I dropped P460. While there generally would be such values, the suggestion might not be that useful in general.
- I think language of work or name (P407) is needed as given name version for other gender (P1560) is generally language specific. If there are several P1560 values, ideally language of work or name (P407) would also be added as a qualifier. --- Jura 11:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: The restriction is completely unnecessary. With the two examples (P1855) Riccarda (Q18000607) and Luisa (Q18092018) you can see that the users do not know what to do with them. We haven't even given a proper example. Often nothing is entered or something wrong. Wikidata is the wrong place for name research. Using the example of Maria, one would have to enter countless many languages alone. Let's remove the restriction or take care of the rule violations. Or who should do that? --HarryNº2 (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's a suggestion constraint, not a requirement. It helps complete items.
- I added the values for "Luisa" at Q18092018#P1560.
- If you are not sure about the value to use, skip it. It may take more time to find the relevant values for some items than for others. Wikidata was meant to be complete today, we wouldn't be adding to it. --- Jura 12:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure if adding a single value constraint instead and requiring the qualifier for multiple value would be a good alternative. --- Jura 13:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)