Property talk:P3373
Documentation
the subject and the object have at least one common parent (brother, sister, etc. including half-siblings); use "relative" (P1038) for siblings-in-law (brother-in-law, sister-in-law, etc.) and step-siblings (step-brothers, step-sisters, etc.)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3373#Value type Q215627, Q95074, Q21070598, Q4271324, Q178885, Q26843, Q57812611, Q876500, Q36341, Q144, Q726, Q839769, Q301676, Q26401003, Q26513, Q24577840, Q2345820, Q115537581, Q16979650, Q795052, Q117463454, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3373#Type Q5, Q95074, Q21070598, Q4271324, Q178885, Q64520857, Q21070568, Q64643615, Q75855169, Q57812611, Q26513, Q110224119, Q14514600, Q795052, Q16979650, Q115537581, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3373#Item P21, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3373#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3373#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3373#Symmetric, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3373#Entity types
Items with at least one statement also in P1038. FIXME: remove redundant P1038 or fix P3373 (Help)
Violations query:
SELECT ?item ?value ?qualifierP1039value WHERE { ?item p:P1038 ?claim . ?claim ps:P1038 ?value . ?item wdt:P3373 ?value . OPTIONAL { ?claim pq:P1039 ?qualifierP1039value } } LIMIT 200
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P3373#Prefer over P1038
Items with parents should share at least one parent. FIXME: check items for parents, correct/create item for common parent if needed (Help)
Violations query:
SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?s WHERE { ?item wdt:P3373 ?s . MINUS { ?item wdt:P22/^wdt:P22 ?s } MINUS { ?item wdt:P25/^wdt:P25 ?s } OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P22 \u007C wdt:P25 ?p1 } OPTIONAL { ?s wdt:P22 \u007C wdt:P25 ?p2 } FILTER ( BOUND(?p2) && BOUND(?p1) ) } LIMIT 10000
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P3373#Common parent
Two people who share the same parents, should be siblings by definition. For half-siblings, we could do a similar report. (Help)
Violations query:
SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?item2 WHERE { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5. ?item2 wdt:P31 wd:Q5. ?item wdt:P25/^wdt:P25 ?item2. ?item wdt:P22/^wdt:P22 ?item2. FILTER(?item != ?item2) MINUS { ?item wdt:P3373 ?item2. } MINUS { ?item2 wdt:P3373 ?item. } MINUS { ?item wdt:P460 ?item2. } } LIMIT 10000
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P3373#People with same parents should be siblings
Items that seem to have multiple statements about the same sibling. User:KrBot might remove them. (Help)
Violations query:
SELECT ?item ?ps1 WHERE { ?item p:P3373 ?statement1 . ?statement1 ps:P3373 ?ps1 . ?item p:P3373 ?statement2 . ?statement2 ps:P3373 ?ps1 . FILTER (?statement1 != ?statement2 ) } LIMIT 1000
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P3373#Duplicate statements
Items that are siblings but with birthdate more than 100 years away. (Help)
Violations query:
SELECT * WHERE { ?item wdt:P3373 ?item2 ; wdt:P569 ?date1. ?item2 wdt:P3373 ?item ; wdt:P569 ?date2. filter (abs(?date1 - ?date2) > 36500 ) }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P3373#Birthdates too far away
A person can never be a sibling of himself/herself (Help)
Violations query:
SELECT * WHERE { ?item wdt:P3373 ?item . }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P3373#Sibling is the person self
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
|
Summary
editNumber of siblings
edit
|
Discussion
editLabel/alias of P7/P9
editI added the labels and aliases from these as alias here.
--- Jura 08:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Common parent
edit«Items with parents should share at least one parent. FIXME: check items for parents, correct/create item for common parent if needed.»
Siblings with only one same parent doesn't always be a notable parent, and he or she can also be parent for only one and not all of those children. Best regards Migrant (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- An item for a parent can be created and added merely because they are known, not because they are notable by themselves ("structural need"). Most Wikipedia articles mention the names of parents.
- The query is currently limited to items where both items have some parent included. So it should be possible to figure out the common parent. At least that's what I thought: what I checked had some other mixup (they weren't siblings in the first place).
--- Jura 13:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Now that the data is in a single property, it seems much easier to determine how much it is a mess .. or .. high quality.
--- Jura 11:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Half-siblings ?
editWhere do we put relatives that are only sharing one of their parents ? Best regards Migrant (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would do it like this:
- Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. Best regards Migrant (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- The Chinese groups with 20+ siblings mostly use P3373.
--- Jura 22:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)- Should we keep it like that? I think relative (P1038) would be a better location. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- What would be the advantages?
--- Jura 11:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)- Is a half-sibling the same as a sibling? Wiktionary defines the word "sibling" as "a person who shares same parents". Half-siblings don't share the same parents, just one, so adding them under this property would be incorrect. Should we extend the scope of the property or should we include them under another property (kinship to subject (P1039))? An advantage of adding them under another property would be that this property would be fully symmetric. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- w:sibling matches the current use (linked from the proposal and the property). It shouldn't have any impact on the symmetric constraint. So I don't see these as advantages. Are there any other?
--- Jura 03:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)- It looks like w:sibling and wikt:sibling describe it differently. I am not sure which definition is considered correct.
- And I think it would have an impact on the symmetricity of the siblings, look at the following example:
- F1 and M1 have the child C1.
- F1 and M2 have the child C2.
- F2 and M2 have the child C3.
- C1 and C2 are half-siblings and C2 and C3 are half-siblings, but C1 and C3 are not half-siblings, they don't share any parent and are totally unrelated.
- Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- You are correct here, Robin van der Vliet, but C1 and C3 could share step-parents ? This is mostly theory, but then again it could be valid in some very few Wikidata-families. BTW. I do not supporting half-siblings to be added to this property, P3373. Best regards Migrant (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's correct as explained, but it doesn't impact
{{Constraint:Symmetric}}
. The constraint only checks if C2 has C1 if C1 has C2. Another problem with changing this is that it isn't in line with the incremental growth nature of Wikidata: we may now that two persons are siblings, because they have the same father. Requiring both parents to be known beforehand wouldn't allows us to grow Wikidata as we do now.
If you look at the larger sibling groups, it's fairly clear that they are siblings as they have the same father, but the name of mother might be somewhat random.
--- Jura 23:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jura1: If we also allow half-siblings, then we should mention this in the description of this property. Currently the description doesn't really include half-siblings and this was also not mentioned in the original proposal. We should at least save the data consistently, now some are added with relative (P1038) and some with sibling (P3373). And what about siblings-in-law and step-siblings? Should we also save them here? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the issue. What language are you looking at? Maybe it's just not in sync with English.
--- Jura 08:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)- I mean that the current English description doesn't mention that it also supports half-siblings: subject has the object(s) as their sibling(s): brother, sister, etc. For siblings-in-law, such as brother-in-law, use "relative" (P1038). For step-sisters/step-brothers, use "relative" (P1038).. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I guess it could mention full-siblings and half-siblings, but it's already somewhat long. Maybe translations do need the detail. Feel free to include it there.
--- Jura 07:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I guess it could mention full-siblings and half-siblings, but it's already somewhat long. Maybe translations do need the detail. Feel free to include it there.
- I mean that the current English description doesn't mention that it also supports half-siblings: subject has the object(s) as their sibling(s): brother, sister, etc. For siblings-in-law, such as brother-in-law, use "relative" (P1038). For step-sisters/step-brothers, use "relative" (P1038).. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the issue. What language are you looking at? Maybe it's just not in sync with English.
- @Jura1: If we also allow half-siblings, then we should mention this in the description of this property. Currently the description doesn't really include half-siblings and this was also not mentioned in the original proposal. We should at least save the data consistently, now some are added with relative (P1038) and some with sibling (P3373). And what about siblings-in-law and step-siblings? Should we also save them here? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- What would be the advantages?
- Should we keep it like that? I think relative (P1038) would be a better location. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm editing the descriptions in english and a few other languages to include half-siblings. Until now it was contradictory with the descriptions in some other languages including french, german, and italian, and with the example of Elizabeth I and Mary I of England. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Interlink all siblings?
editIf a couple has 8 famous children, all with a Wikipedia article, should I set 8*7=56 properties to interlink them all? Syced (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
class=animal
editclass (P2308) = animal (Q729): discussion here. Palotabarát (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
allowed qualifiers constraint: exception to constraint: Lisa Simpson?
editI decided to remove the item Lisa Simpson (Q5846) from the listing because I don't see why this specific fictional character would be named here. StarTrekker (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Transitivity
editI removed the statement that this is a transitive property for two reasons. First, it would imply that anyone with a sibling is their own sibling by way of symmetry: R(A B) -(symmetry)-> R(B A) -(transitivity)-> R(A A). Second, the description says that this relation holds for half-siblings. If A shares a mother but not a father with B, and B shares a father but not a mother with C, we have R(A B) and R(B C) but not R(A C). Mortee (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- First argument is not vaid - reflexivity (Q54933018) is not a consequence of transitivity. Second argument is valid, so yes, this property is not transitive. --Infovarius (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)