Property talk:P398
Documentation
minor body that belongs to the item
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P398#Value type Q6999, Q15831598, Q17444909, Q5961257, Q26540, Q26529, Q105000, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (child astronomical body (P398)) linked to [item B],
then [item B] should also have property “parent astronomical body (P397)” linked to [item A]. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P398#inverse, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P398#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.) |
|
|
"children body"
editIs this gramatically sound? Shouldn't it be "child body"? - Soulkeeper (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are right: I made an oversight! here it is used "child" as singular and "children" as plural. I corrected the English name of the property. Thanks! --Paperoastro (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- In portuguese saying child body (corpo filho) sounds bad, so I used "é orbitado por" (it's orbited by) until someone provides me a better translation. May I use this title for the property? - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- In principle for me there is not problem, but some people in past discussions pointed out to me the ambiguos significance of "orbited by" (see also my answer below)! Also in Italian I have the same problem: I translated "oggetto astronomico figlio", that sound strange, but avoid misunderstandings. If you have no notification against your translation, you can use it, but it is better add a description that explain this property is used only for hierarchical purpose. --Paperoastro (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- In portuguese saying child body (corpo filho) sounds bad, so I used "é orbitado por" (it's orbited by) until someone provides me a better translation. May I use this title for the property? - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Choice of name
editIs this name often used in the literature? Why not simply "orbited by" for this property and "orbits" for P397? --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Parent body" and "childred body" are used by SIMBAD database, one of the most important professional astronomical databases. I preferred to use these names instead of "orbited by" and "orbits" to avoid to give to P397 and P398 a physical significance: is some cases (for example Pluto and Charon) is ambiguos establish which body orbits the other one, and in general bodies orbits around the common center of mass. Some contributors had pointed out to me these questions in past discussions. --Paperoastro (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- But on which basis do we then consider Pluto to be the "parent body"? Typically, the common centre of mass is well within the larger object, if not; we're approaching e.g. binary systems. So far, the use of this property seems to be completely compatible with who orbits whom, except from borderline cases (in which case it could still make sense to say that one object orbits the other if the common centre of mass is significantly closer to one of the two bodies). --Njardarlogar (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I found inspiration from the classification proposed by SIMBAD and I tried to create a small group of properties more general as possible. "Orbited by" could be useful for planet "around" star, satellites "around" major bodies, but P398 can be used also to indicate stars in globular or open clusters, or asterisms, galaxies in clusters and clusters in super clusters where the concept of orbits is not so clear. --Paperoastro (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC) P.S.: International Astronomical Union defined Pluto as "dwarf planet", and Charon as "satellite" of Pluto, so Pluto is the "parent body" and Charon the "child body ;-)
- But on which basis do we then consider Pluto to be the "parent body"? Typically, the common centre of mass is well within the larger object, if not; we're approaching e.g. binary systems. So far, the use of this property seems to be completely compatible with who orbits whom, except from borderline cases (in which case it could still make sense to say that one object orbits the other if the common centre of mass is significantly closer to one of the two bodies). --Njardarlogar (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
consistency gadget
editAdded to User:JonnyJD/consistency_check.js --JonnyJD (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Why property that may have millions or billlions of values is considered as a good idea?
editProperty:P398 in Q525 currently has limited number of values but it may easily grow into millions. If I understand Wikidata:Notability right, then there is nothing stopping anybody to generate millions of wikidata entries for asteroids and adding them as values.
It would make entry for Sun nearly uneditable, it already lags on opening the page. Would it not be enough to add just parent astronomical body (Property:P397)?
Similar reciprocal property P150 (contains administrative territorial entity) was proposed for deletion but was kept as it was marked as in use by Wikipedias.
Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- We can add a constraint that allows only for a limited number of values. So Earth > Moon would still be possible, but not One > All. We would probably need to stop DeltaBot on that number of values. @Pasleim:
--- Jura 19:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Allowing a property if it has only a limited number of values and deleting statements if this threshold is crossed doesn't make sense. The more we know about our world, the more statements we would delete. 6Q0B44E (Q649587) which was discovered last year, is likely to have parent astronomical body (P397) Earth (Q2). So then we should delete Earth (Q2) child astronomical body (P398) Moon (Q405)? People who use our data in their application need to know a reliable way to get the data. Either we tell them to do queries on parent astronomical body (P397) or we change the domain of this property to classes of astronomical objects instead of instances. --Pasleim (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- It might not make sense for Wikidata, but it does for Wikipedia infoboxes.
--- Jura 08:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- It might not make sense for Wikidata, but it does for Wikipedia infoboxes.
- @Jura1: Allowing a property if it has only a limited number of values and deleting statements if this threshold is crossed doesn't make sense. The more we know about our world, the more statements we would delete. 6Q0B44E (Q649587) which was discovered last year, is likely to have parent astronomical body (P397) Earth (Q2). So then we should delete Earth (Q2) child astronomical body (P398) Moon (Q405)? People who use our data in their application need to know a reliable way to get the data. Either we tell them to do queries on parent astronomical body (P397) or we change the domain of this property to classes of astronomical objects instead of instances. --Pasleim (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Mateusz Konieczny, Jura1, Pasleim: I feel this is still an issue worth discussing, even if this comment is a bit belated. Currently, Sun (Q525) has 1,354 entries of child astronomical body (P398). This is ridiculous, and in my opinion, isn't a good use of an inverse property—is it possible for the additions of this to either be curtailed, or for this property's scope to be changed so this can't become a reoccurring issue? Perryprog (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I edited Q525#P398. I think a limited list is sufficient there. --- Jura 16:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jura1, thank you. That's certainly at least better, although I am admittedly dubious as to if this property is beneficial at all. Regardless—DeltaBot won't auto-add back in the inverse properties now that they've been removed, right? Perryprog (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently it does. You'd need to ask an admin to block it first, then remove the statements again. --- Jura 18:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- You don't need to block DeltaBot but you can simply remove the job in User:DeltaBot/fixClaims/jobs. Regarding this property, I would vote to delete it. --Pasleim (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently it does. You'd need to ask an admin to block it first, then remove the statements again. --- Jura 18:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jura1, thank you. That's certainly at least better, although I am admittedly dubious as to if this property is beneficial at all. Regardless—DeltaBot won't auto-add back in the inverse properties now that they've been removed, right? Perryprog (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- I edited Q525#P398. I think a limited list is sufficient there. --- Jura 16:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)