Property talk:P106

as "Exploration" as it would for the English Wikipedia (explorer redirects to exploration). A multi-language string is probably a better choice. Espeso (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• • Agreed. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Agreed, he property is very important. It should be an item, as proposed. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note: see also Property:P101 (field of work). SPQRobin (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done --ThorstenX1 (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's necessary to create item for all the occupation? --ValterVB (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think yes. I've started a list here: Wikidata talk:Notability#Occupation. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

If we use this property for professional sports people, we need items for every sport (e.g. football player, volleyball player), but Wikipedia usually has articles for the sports only. The alternative would be to link to the sport, e.g. Occupation: volleyball. How should we solve this problem? --MSchnitzler2000 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

See thread above. --Kolja21 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The thread above doesn't answer my question. If we create e.g. an item "volleyball player", we don't have Wikipedia articles which we could add to this item because at least in the big Wikipedias en, de, fr, it and es, there is no such article. They only have articles for "volleyball", but not for "volleyball player". --MSchnitzler2000 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was also thinking this. There is articles about for "tennis", but not for "tennis player", so we have little problem. Maybe we should make a different property for sports people. --Stryn (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The problem isn't only for Sport people but for all the occupation --ValterVB (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

@MSchnitzler2000: Nochmal auf Deutsch, um die Analogie klar zu machen. Wir haben die Einträge Bildhauerei und Skulptur, aber der Beruf Bildhauer fehlt. Sport ist also kein Sonderfall, sondern es handelt sich um ein generelles Problem. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

We often have categories for sports person, e.g. en:Category:Fencers. Could it be reasonable to add a category as the property profession? -- Köllner (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

you can use sportsperson, and add a qualifier with the concerned sport :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please, take a look at this discussion here --Viscontino (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are "Saint" and "Hermit" occupations, or are thoses "instances of" a person? Both are not professions. Saintity is a quality that is given, often posthumously. Hermit is a denominator for a self-chosen lifestyle. Longbow4u (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I tried to add journalist to Irene Villa but it was not able to work. --LauraHale (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand how there can be 108k violations when the most frequent disallowed value has 300 occurrences. Maybe some of those items are marked as instances of something that is not subclass of anything? Also, what sense does it make that athlete (Q2066131) is subclass of occupation (Q13516667)? AFAIK that would mean Dejen Gebremeskel (Q1672) is an instance of occupation (Q13516667), obviously incorrect; yet it's what seems to be currently checked. --Nemo 09:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the following constraint above: "Type "person (Q215627)": element must contain property instance of (P31) with class person (Q215627) or its subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)) Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P106#Type Q215627"

Is this still true/valid? Description for Q215627 says: "being, e.g. a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood (not for use with "instance of" [P31], instead use "human" [Q5])". So should that constraint rather check for human?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bthfan (talk • contribs).

• It is valid. human (Q5) is subclass of person (Q215627). — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Doh! Somehow totally missed that... :) --Bthfan (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way that we also define femine gender for occupation. Slavic languages have different words for occupations performed by female or male. For example, for Adele there should be pevka and kantavtorica instead of pevec (d:Q177220) and kantavtor (d:Q488205)? There is possibility to put this into "Other names" section, but I don't like this because other names are like synonyms and there can be a lot of them. Our Infobox Person now looks unusual for women. --Pinky sl (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some ideas: label pevec/pevka can be used for items. Infobox can replace it to more concrete term if sex or gender (P21) is specified. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Maybe a new (or already existing) monolingual string property. --- Jura 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the second idea, because the first one needs additional work with strings, on the other hand it would be easirer to repair just labels for occupation and do some coding. --Pinky sl (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I floated it on Wikidata:Property_proposal/Unsorted#Female_form_of_label_.28string.29. --- Jura 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

the simplest system is to manage gender words by template on the concerned wikipedia. Doing it in all languages on wikidata is really too complicated. Besides, on wikipedia, there is less risk that somebody who does not know the language will accidentally break it ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let's see where it goes: Help:Female form of label.
--- Jura 10:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Occupation is usually what someone has as a job, that is a regular activity performed for payment. This property is now used for any kind of activity a person has ever done, no matter if (s)he receives a payment for that activity or not. That is wrong, it should only be used to describe the persons job. Jeblad (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jeblad:

You are right: "occupation is usually what someone has as a job". However, the notion of payment is not a factor in defining occupations (see the definition below). occupation (P106) is conceptually quite different from position held (P39). A position held (P39) statement can only exist in relation to a specific employer. occupation (P106) doesn't. --Fjjulien (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Constraint on value type occupation (Q13516667) is much to broad, it should be work (Q268378). Jeblad (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Given the constraint on value type occupation (Q13516667) the property could contain such things as «eating», «sexual intercourse», «singing in the rain», … basically it does not make sense. Jeblad (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the data is structured, there should be clear definitions somewhere, maybe there are definitions somewhere. As english is not my native language I cannot say anything to this. (But Oxford advanced learner's dictionary in my bookshelf could say something).--Urjanhai (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Urjanhai:

The International Standard Classification of Occupations-08 defines occupation thusly:

Occupation refers to the kind of work performed in a job. The concept of occupation is defined as a “set of jobs whose main tasks and duties are characterized by a high degree of similarity”. A person may be associated with an occupation through the main job currently held, a second job, a future job or a job previously held.

ISOC caracterizes and groups occupations by skill levels (which is defined in part by the level of formal education required) and by skill specialization.

I agree with you, this kind of definition should be made readily available in order to help Wikidata users make the distinction between occupation (P106) and position held (P39).

--Fjjulien (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is some discussion about it at Topic:Uik5nvr4t1ntj0dx.
--- Jura 00:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I don't think this is a suitable property for that. Rather, I would suggest using owner of (P1830)/owned by (P127) to link each of the slaveowner/slave items, and use a statement on the slave item to indicate that status (Joice Heth (Q4413239) uses social classification (P3716) enslaved person (Q12773225), which seems to fit), so that it could be queried as such. --Yair rand (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That seems to address a different usecase. In general, I don't think they all have items or even known by name (to Wikidata/Wikipedia). --- Jura 21:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I need Keynote Speaker to qualify as an occupation. Dprophitjr (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

How come fi:Kirkkoherra is not an fi:ammatti (en:occupation)? @susannaanas:--Urjanhai (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I'll try "position held". It sounds like wikidata.--Urjanhai (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

But if "professori" (professor) is accepted as occupation /ammatti, why not kirkkoherra as well? Some researchers and teachers at the university are professors and some are not (and this may change trough time), just like some priests are "kirkkoherra" and some are not (and this may change rough time). I doubt that the original translation of "occupation" as "ammatti" from english to finnish must be somehow unclear.--Urjanhai (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I changed the en:occupation / fi:ammatti into en:position held / fi:virka tai tehtävä for both kirkkohrerra and professori. But if there comes an error message for "kirkkoherra" why does it not come error message for "professori"? --Urjanhai (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

How to handle the precision of the given occupation? An interesting approach is this deprecation of an comparably imprecise occupation (actor) though deprecation isn't the right way here, rather preferred statements. Notably ULAN handles it the other way round: "Preferred types are more generic/uniform (e.g. the most populous type "artists (visual artists)" is usually preferred), while non-preferred types are more specific/granular (e.g. "batik artists", "collagists", etc)"[1] and often the broader terms might indeed be preferable in possible use cases of our data. Any ideas on this topic? (Pings appreciated) --Marsupium (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

should we use this property for hobbies? --Loominade (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Loominade: Even if this question was more than a year ago, I would still like to answer it. Another property can be used for hobbies. For example, with the data object Charlene, Princess of Monaco (Q208466) it is implemented as follows: Charlene, Princess of Monaco (Q208466)interested in (P2650)surfing (Q159992)object of statement has role (P3831)hobby (Q47728) --Gymnicus (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've designed a new template {{Generic queries for occupations}}. The template is automatically included in {{Item documentation}} for occupations. Feedback and contributions are welcome. PAC2 (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

As User:Epìdosis pointed out on my talk page, many values are fields of occupations and not occupations. I expanded his query to count them:

SELECT ?field ?fieldLabel ?occupation ?occupationLabel (COUNT(?person) as ?count)
WHERE
{
  ?person wdt:P106 ?field .
  ?field wdt:P3095 ?occupation .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
GROUP BY ?field ?fieldLabel ?occupation ?occupationLabel

Try it!

Beyond a few oddities in the result, there seem to be two, maybe three types:

• 1. fields that only have one linked occupation
• 2. fields that have (or should have) several linked occupations

I'd add {{Autofix}} for the first and "none-of" constraints for the second.

A third type could be values that are already added as occupations as well, these could probably be removed directly. Maybe in a one time run or a period bot run.

SELECT ?person ?personLabel ?field ?fieldLabel ?occupation ?occupationLabel
{
  ?person wdt:P106 ?field , ?occupation .
  ?field wdt:P3095 ?occupation .
}

Try it!

Complex constraints could monitor #3. Maybe #1 and #2 are already found with regular ones.

@Epìdosis: hope that answers your question. --- Jura 12:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: Of course! Thanks very much, --Epìdosis 13:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: There is no objection so far: could you add the {{Autofix}} for the first case? --Epìdosis 12:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

See discussion. --Epìdosis 18:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why? Jesuit (Q12319698) is a valid occupation (P106) and should not be deleted without replacement. See https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q123244658&oldid=2000950655 Piecesofuk (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since I got no response here I posted a question at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Why_are_bots_allowed_to_delete_valid_referenced_statements? where I suggested that if there are no objections that I would remove the "autofix" tags where the value is a subclass of occupation (P106) Piecesofuk (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Piecesofuk:! In the example you show P106 wasn't removed without replacement, as you can see the same exact statement present in P106 has just been transferred (with its two references) to P611 with these edits by KrBot. I added this autofix, and all the other autofixes for Catholic religous occupations, in April 2022 according to the consensus obtained in this discussion (

Nojhan Yair rand Runner1928 TomT0m Capankajsmilyo ArthurPSmith John Carter Tris T7 Epìdosis Peter17 Bargioni Geogast Clifford Anderson Bello Na'im Mathieu Kappler Maxime StarTrekker Amqui Loft-ind

  Notified participants of WikiProject Religions; BTW, I always suggest to ping the pertinent WikiProject, on to write in the WikiProject talk page, so that all the interested users can easily note discussions in which they could be interested). As I wrote in that discussion, moving all occupations related to being a member of a certain Catholic order from occupation (P106) to the pertinent value of religious order (P611) has the main goal of avoiding that the same information is either divided between two properties or duplicated in two properties. Since we have to avoid both inconsistent modeling (i.e. having some items with occupation (P106)Jesuit (Q12319698) and some other items with religious order (P611)Society of Jesus (Q36380)) and redundant modeling (i.e. items having both occupation (P106)Jesuit (Q12319698) and religious order (P611)Society of Jesus (Q36380)), I think the autofixes of Catholic religious occupations from P106 to P611 are fundamental to keep our modeling coherent and I   strongly oppose removing them. For more context about the issue of inconsistent modeling, you can see Wikidata:Events/Data Quality Days 2022/Modeling data (and the imminent Wikidata:Events/Data Modelling Days 2023). Of course if you disagree with my view we can discuss how to improve our modeling of religious occupations in a different way without both falling into inconsisntent modeling or redundant modeling; I think that such discussions are very much beneficial for our data quality. --Epìdosis 14:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. I thought it more appropriate to reply fully in the Project Chat rather than here. Piecesofuk (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should this field be applied to concepts like "serial killer"? DS (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is KrBot replacing P106 by P97. There's quite a difference between a person having a noble title and the title of a medieval ruler. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Roelof Hendrickx: It is due to Autofix templates added by Bob08. See the property documentation above. Samoasambia ✎ 12:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply