This property was previously considered for deletion but kept.

Documentation

has part(s)
part of this subject; inverse property of "part of" (P361). See also "has parts of the class" (P2670).

Description

Object is a part of this subject. Opposite of part of (P361).

Represents

has part (Q24575087), consist of (Q55692548), meronymy (Q837495)

Data type

Item

Domain

Any (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Allowed values

Any (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Usage notes

1. Do not apply qualifiers that can be given as main statements on the item belonging to the part. 2. Please use P921 (main subject) for Q21484471 (Wikipedia article covering multiple topics) instead. 3. For more information, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Basic_membership_properties

Example

United States Congress (Q11268) → United States Senate (Q66096)
United States House of Representatives (Q11701)
Solar System (Q544) → Mercury (Q308)
Venus (Q313)
Earth (Q2)
Mars (Q111)
human (Q5)
Eurasia (Q5401) → Europe (Q46)
Asia (Q48)
Bible (Q1845) → Old Testament (Q19786)
New Testament (Q18813)
Biblical apocrypha (Q170207)
Sergeanne Golon (Q4066510) → Anne Golon (Q263213)
Serge Golon (Q2338056)
triathlon (Q10980) → running (Q105674)
road bicycle racing (Q3609)
swimming (Q31920)
Herrengasse and Bierjodlgasse (Q15815413) → Herrengasse (Q110305192)
Bierjodlgasse (Q110305207)
Great Lakes (Q7347) → Lake Superior (Q1066)
Lake Ontario (Q1062)
Lake Erie (Q5492)
Lake Michigan (Q1169)
Lake Huron (Q1383)
Albert Einstein (Q937) → Albert Einstein's brain (Q2464312)

Robot and gadget jobs

DeltaBot does the following jobs:

Add inverse statements from P361

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P527 (Q23909038)

does not have part (P3113)

Usage note

Usage is detailed in Help:Basic membership properties.

Discussion

Documentation

This page really needs a good outline of when to use this property and when made from material (P186) should be used. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're similar, but not the same. Perhaps the two could be merged, but we'd have to use qualifiers, otherwise we'd have buildings consisting of all kinds of unexpected things like carpets, and wallpaper. The main structural materials would become lost in a long list. Danrok (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocal property

I think this property is quite well fitting as a reciprocal property to Property:P279 (subclass of). Example: Q5119 (capital) consists of Q134626 (district capital) and Q62049 (county seat).--Brühl (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the inverse of this property is part of (P361). The inverse property of 'subclass of' would be 'has subclass'. For how this property differs from P279, I'd point interested readers to Help:Basic membership properties. Emw (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to create such property 'has subclass'? --Brühl (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

consists of -> has part

This property's defining feature seems to be that it's the inverse of part of (P361). However, this isn't obvious from the current label ("consists of"). Literature and ontologies that refer to this property tend to label it "hasPart": see here, here here, etc. Labeling this property "has part" (which is already an alias) would not only immediately clarify the property's proper usage, it would also be in line with a broader naming pattern that could be applied to properties and their inverses: "x of" for the property, and "has x" for its inverse. What are others' thoughts on changing this property's label from "consists of" to "has part"? Emw (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think changing the english would be better. I am actually concern on the translation to other language that already translated the label to the original language, then they still am stuck with misinterpreting the property. --Napoleon.tan (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is more simple to understand. --Paperoastro (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) P.S.: in Italian language there is already, as alias, the translation of "has part". ;-)[reply]

Support We should strive for compatibility. I suspect the current label is such because it is closer to natural language usage, but it can always be made an alias. Silver hr (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the label per above (diff). Emw (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Used as "has members"

I've seen this property used as "has members" on items representing affiliations or organisations, like Top International Managers in Engineering (Q1351882). Is this type of usage correct? --Wylve (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

constraint report relating to Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410)

If instance of (P31) is a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) the presence of has part(s) (P527) is prohibited

see: Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) with consists of (P527) . Usualy there might be two possibilities:

a) please identify the non - ambiguation page (WD item) where the property consists of should be moved;
"normally" no other statements should be left at the disambiguation page;
it can happen that a set of properties should be moved to another (a second) WD item, another set to a third WD item etc.

b) verify which language is a disambiguation page and separate it from the rest; please use Gadget-labelLister.js ^{can be activated at preferences#gadgets} to remove all faulty descriptions after the disambiguation page is separated (the languages are de, en, fr, es, pt, pt-br, ru, sv and possibly some others).

Thanks in advance! gangLeri לערי ריינהארט (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Class has part non-class

By my understanding, this property has three accepted uses:

Class X has part class Y: This means that every instance of X has [a] corresponding part[s] which is/are [an] instance[s] of Y.
Non-class X has part class Y: X has an unspecified number of instances of Y as parts.
Non-class X has part non-class Y: Simple. Y is part of X. Inverse of Y part of X.

However, there are some 3000 uses of a fourth way: Class X has part non-class Y. See this query. Would it be correct to assume that all of these are mistakes in the data? --Yair rand (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yair rand: in a lot of cases, it looks as if Y in fact should be a class, but doesn't yet have a P279 to say so (or Y has been mistakenly marked as a instance of (P31) instead).

I'm not entirely convinced you are right that everything in your fourth way is a mistake, though. For example, how would you analyse trivium (Q205186) has part(s) (P527) rhetoric (Q81009), which appears on your list? Should 'rhetoric' have been made into a class (are, or could there be, different kinds of rhetoric?), or is it appropriate to leave it as rhetoric (Q81009) instance of (P31) academic discipline (Q11862829) ?

Fundamentally, it seems you want to exclude cases where has part(s) (P527) is being used as an inverse of instance of (P31) tinyurl.com/ntbm4dv (and probably also cases where it is being used as an inverse of subclass of (P279): tinyurl.com/pmut35j)

I think I do see why you want to do this, because it does conflict with your notion (1), making the property at the very least ambiguous or unclear in its definition as things stand.

At the same time, there is a usefulness in having a property to denumerate a closed list of elements or subdivisions that a larger class contains, eg to be able to say

class tropic (Q149273) "contains" Tropic of Capricorn (Q177440), Tropic of Cancer (Q176635) (only); or

class Muse (Q66016) "contains" Clio (Q103968), Calliope (Q103975) ... etc; or

class nucleon (Q102165) "contains" classes proton (Q2294), neutron (Q2348)

The latter is indeed not compatible with your definition (1) above; and I do think this does need to be cleaned up, so that when one reads eg the statement baryon (Q159731) has part(s) (P527) quark (Q6718), one can know that it is intended to say that "every baryon contains a quark", rather than "each quark is a kind of baryon" (incorrect).

However, until a property exists that such lists can be put into, for the time being it may be best not to delete such statements that currently (mis?)use the property has part(s) (P527).

For some promising work towards such a new property, perhaps to be called "union of", see Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#.28Disjoint.29UnionOf_.28or_any_better_name.29, particularly the later comments. But until that is in place, it may be better not to delete some of these uses of P527. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

синонимы

состоит из = подмножества: --Fractaler (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

subproperty of

=superset: ? --Fractaler (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No because P527 is not used to define relations between properties, but either between classes, or between objects/instances of these classses.

There's a limited (discusable) use also of P527 to define relations between classes and their instances. It is bad in my opinion as instances may be subclassified, creating multiple (unlimited) class parents for the same instance.

But in a limited usage, it is possibly arguable to link with P527 a class and its instances, provided that such class is final (i.e. not subclassed to another class applicable also to the instance) and the set of instances is wellknown and finished. For all other relations between instances and parent subclasses, it is best to use the transitivity of parent classes (this will minimize the number of P257 declarations needed, the final class enumerating all possible instances). Verdy p (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

consists of equal parts of

P527 - for equal parts or not? --Fractaler (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English label

The English label for this property was recently changed from "has part" to "has as part", apparently without any discussion. This property is called "has part" in several existing ontologies, e.g. [1], [2], [3], so I don't see why we should call it differently. @Thierry Caro: I have reverted your edit pending discussion; what is the rationale for the label change? Mushroom (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it sounds better, but it might differentiate it better from has part(s) of the class (P2670).
--- Jura 17:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "has part" sounds better than "has as part". --Yair rand (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parts = equal parts? Or not? Parts = parts with separation (Q18511800), has (their own) parts, divisibility (subset (Q177646)) or not (element (Q379825), indivisibility)? --Fractaler (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw the change, I thought it was vandalism because it sounded so weird and unnatural to me. I also agree that "has part" is better. - Nikki (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subclasses

The description of this property was changed to include "valuable subclass or exemplar", which directly contradicts its status as inverse of P361 and makes the property more or less unusable for its previous purpose. I think it's generally agreed that there's no need for an inverse of subclass of (P279), especially since union of (P2737) and disjoint union of (P2738) were created. Even if there were such a need, it wouldn't be this property.

Would there be any objection to reverting the description change? --Yair rand (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If use set theory (Q12482) (subset->set->superset), then no problem. Problems - when subclass, class, superclass, union and so on. --Fractaler (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fractaler: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase that? --Yair rand (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean: instead of subclass, class, superclass, union and so on use the method of set theory (Q12482) (subset->set->superset). Now it is impossible. --Fractaler (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fractaler: I'm not sure I understand what the distinction between the two is, or what they have to do with whether P527 applies to subclass relationships. --Yair rand (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fractaler: I'm not sure we're understanding the property in the same way. "has part" means something like Eurasia (Q5401) has part(s) (P527) Europe (Q46), as I understand it, which doesn't have much to do with classes or sets at all. P527 is the inverse of part of (P361). --Yair rand (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia (Q5401) - "continental landmass comprising Europe and Asia". Set Eurasia (Q5401) = subset "Europe (Q46) (continental landmass)" + subset "Asia (Q48) (continental landmass)". Not necessary "has part", subclass, class, superclass and so on. --Fractaler (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use?

Is this an acceptable use of this property? Q6259215#P527 --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, especially since the querying systems now have a specific way to deal with client-wiki categories. Seems redundant. --Yair rand (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yair rand: Can you link that feature? Is that feature accessible from Wikibase Lua modules? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Valerio Bozzolan: Sorry for the late reply. The feature is detailed at mw:Wikidata query service/User Manual/MWAPI, using "categorymembers". It is not yet available via Lua as far as I know. --Yair rand (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polygons and polyhedra

So now, after deleting P1569 and P1570, relation "have n vertices and m edges" is modelled by P527. But this property requires inverse relation to P361. Should we put all polygons and polyhedra to the items side (Q26382) and vertex (Q26401)? --Infovarius (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifiers P1114 (quantity) and P1107 (proportion)

Should the qualifiers quantity (P1114) and proportion (P1107) be removed from the list of accepted qualifiers for this property? Is there any situation where such uses shouldn't be using has part(s) of the class (P2670) instead of P527? --Yair rand (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yair rand: Qualifier proportion (P1107) is currently used 36 times tinyurl.com/yc62ulzm, mostly proportions of ingredients in recipes, elements in alloys, etc -- not countable sets of things. For these sorts of things the continued use of has part(s) (P527) seems entirely appropriate.

Qualifier quantity (P1114) is currently used 4066 times tinyurl.com/y722foch. Some of the uses should definitely be switched to has part(s) of the class (P2670). On the other hand in a lot of cases the quantity is 1, which seems entirely acceptable. I'd also be happy with continued use of P527 where the number of items is say 2, eg as in the discussion on Reliquaries at Project Chat,

Holy Thorn Reliquary (Q3932379) -> has part(s) (P527) -> spinose structure (Q201851) ; of (P642) -> Crown of thorns (Q1127583) / quantity (P1114) -> 2

For myself, I think the most valuable use of has part(s) of the class (P2670) is for making statements about classes: so one has the parallel

Class A -> has part(s) of the class (P2670) -> Class X

(eg: reliquary (Q722604) -> has part(s) of the class (P2670) -> relic (Q187616))

Member a of class A -> has part(s) (P527) -> Member x of class X

(eg: Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506) -> has part(s) (P527) -> tooth (Q553))

But I accept that P2670 is also used for single items that have large numbers of parts of a single class. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jheald: Hm, my understanding was that P2670 was to be used whenever the target item was a class, regardless of whether the subject is one, but I see from the PC discussion that it's not so clear. I would think that since spinose structure (Q201851) is a class, the property there should be P2670.

I'd like there to be some constraints to make a clear separation between P527 and P2670, but we need some consensus on how this property is used first. If the example you gave of has part(s) (P527) -> spinose structure (Q201851) is valid, that means the inverse constraint on this property is incorrect. If subject items shouldn't be classes for P527, there could be a constraint against P279. If it should only be used when the quantity is within a certain range, perhaps a complex constraint could work. --Yair rand (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Band members in timelines: allow qualifiers "instrument" and "pseudonym"

Working towards a use case that would enable us to construct band member timelines from Wikidata, thus avoiding the language-vs-language discrepancies that we currently see in w:en:Voivod_(band)#Members (8 members over time) and w:fr:Voivod#Chronologie (10 members over time), and the laborious manual markup. To do so, however, we need to consider allowing more qualifiers on P527. For this specific use case, we need "instrument" and "pseudonym". The item for a specific band member might list all of the instruments they play, but their participation in a given band might be limited to a single instrument. Similarly, we see band members using specific aliases when they participate in different bands.

I added the two qualifiers to the one band member in Voivod's WD item as an example.

An alternate approach would be to propose a new property, similar to cast member (P161), and then migrating the ~1,500 uses of P527 on instances of rock band (haven't calculated the total across all musical ensembles) to the new property. Dan scott (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I generally dislike inverse properties, I would support creating a dedicated inverse property for band members here because people are already creating inverse statements and a dedicated property would allow us to have better constraints. - Nikki (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

applies to part, aspect, or form (P518), collection (P195)

for polyptychs we need IMHO this qualifiers, see example The Pilgrimage of Life Triptych (Q29002011) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oursana (talk • contribs) at 00:03, 23 març 2018 (UTC).

Support. I add them. If somebody disagree, please discuss here. @Oursana: Amadalvarez (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add an inverse constraint to this property

While part of (P361) is an inverse in principle, in practice we do not want it applied symmetrically: for items that are parts of thousands or more of other items, only this property (has part(s) (P527)) should be used, not part of (P361) in the reverse direction. See also this discussion on Project Chat. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: I don't think that use would be correct, even ignoring practicality of holding thousands of statements. For classes, (every instance of X has part instance(s) of Y) does not always imply that (every instance of class Y is part of an instance of X). All carbon dioxide contains carbon, but not all carbon is part of carbon dioxide. However, it is true that (non-class X has part non-class Y) implies (Y part of X) and vice-versa. Also, (every instance of class Y is part of non-class X) implies (X has parts of the class Y), assuming Y is not an empty class (is that a thing?). The reverse is implied if "has parts of the class" in taken to mean "X includes every instance of class Y among its parts or components", as it's defined on this page, but not if it's understood to mean "X includes some number of instances of class Y among its parts".

Perhaps some of this can be solved with a complex constraint? --Yair rand (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

house with special roof

Is the usage right in these ways - f. e.: [4], [5]? Regards, Conny (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Former band members

Should former band members be added with P527?

According to Wikidata, the band Kiss (Q124179) has seven members.

-abbedabb^talk 10:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion: yes, qualified with start time (Q24575110)/end time (Q24575125). -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't add that, but I could add start time (P580) and end time (P582).

Now it says:

has part(s) (P527)
- Eric Singer (Q313854)
  - start time (P580)
    - 1991
    - 2001
    - 2004
  - end time (P582)
    - 1996
    - 2002

I guess that will do for now. Thanks for the help!

-abbedabb^talk 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@abbedabb: You might want to split the start/end dates over multiple statements... --Yair rand (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yair rand: I tried that, but when my edit is saved, all the dates are grouped into two groups, (start time (P580) and end time (P582)). -abbedabb^talk 11:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change of English label

@Verdy p: why did you change the English label for this property without any discussion? The property was approved as “has part” and should have that label. - PKM (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, please undo. Also the label matches the one of "has parts of the class" (P2670). --- Jura 00:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hospital XYZ" has part "helipad"

See Help_talk:Basic_membership_properties#"Hospital_XYZ"_has_part_"helipad". --- Jura 14:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parent organization versus part of

I started a discussion about the relation between this property and has subsidiary (P355) at Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2021/01#Parent organization versus part of, please comment there. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has part and has quality for sailboats

See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Sailing#Has_part_and_has_quality. --- Jura 21:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

place_"part_of"_(P361)_the_"list_of_333_places_to_visit"

Please see Help_talk:Basic_membership_properties#place_"part_of"_(P361)_the_"list_of_333_places_to_visit" --- Jura 08:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samples from Help:Basic_membership_properties added

It's probably preferable to list them here as well. Better ones may be found, but let's keep them in sync. --- Jura 22:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing English label to "has part or parts"

I used to think one difference between has part(s) (P527) and has part(s) of the class (P2670) (until recently labeled "has parts of the class") was the number of parts involved: for one part, use the former, for multiple parts, use the latter. I recently learned (see Help:Basic membership properties) that the intended difference has nothing to do with the number of parts, and everything to do with the type of entities involved: if the item and value are both instances, use has part(s) (P527); if the item is an instance and the value is a class, use has part(s) of the class (P2670); if the item and the value are both classes, use has part(s) (P527). Importantly, both properties can be used for one or more parts. To prevent other editors from making the same, probably very common, misunderstanding I made, I think the label of has part(s) (P527) should be changed to "has part or parts" (and the equivalent in other languages). Swpb (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb Right now the difference between the properties is a mess that needs to be solved but nobody really knows how. Please see this discussion. Lectrician1 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that discussion and I understand there are some unresolved questions on usage, but I don't see any suggestion that the difference is about the number of entities involved, as opposed to the types of the subject and object entities (instance vs class). I think this proposed label change neatly solves one source of confusion without weighing in on the other, thornier one. The label might change again as the domain/codomain question is settled, but I don't see why that should prevent us from making it clearer in the mean time. The aliases already confirm that this property can be used for one or more parts; the main label should reflect that. Swpb (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a month with no further comment, and it seems clearer than ever that including the plural in the label is most appropriate. Implemented. Swpb (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this change is making things more complicated. An item is not "an instance" or "a class" without context. Depending on the context many items are both instances and classes. "has part" is a general way the relationship is called also outside of Wikidata and should be kept. I think the error that people use has part(s) (P527) when they should use has part(s) of the class (P2670) already happens enough and this change only makes that mroe likely.

If there are parts A_1, A_2 and a part A_3 then there's automatically a A_x class. "has part" would be used for A_1, A_2 and A_3 and "has part of the class" would be used for A_x. Depending on the context we might not have individual items for A_1, A_2 and A_3 or not have an Item for A_x and thus use only one of the relations at the item. At the same time quantity implies that there are multiple things that share a class and thus has part(s) of the class (P2670) should be used. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl, Lectrician1: With respect, there have been weeks of discussion (first here and mostly here) about what these two properties mean, with the current consensus being that items using has part(s) of the class (P2670) should be in some sense instances (even if they are also classes in another sense) and that it is this distinction, not the number of parts involved, that determines which property should be used. A crawl space (Q4010360) may have one or more crawl space vent (Q5182957)s, but it does not use has part(s) of the class (P2670) because crawl space (Q4010360) is not an instance (except in the trivial sense that all classes are instances of classes). So, it has to either use has part(s) (P527) (in which case has part(s) (P527) should have a label indicating multiple parts are allowed), or the entire established consensus has to be reversed, so that the difference between the properties is about the number of parts involved and nothing else, Help:Basic membership properties needs to be rewritten, "instance" needs to be taken out of the label of has part(s) of the class (P2670), and the property guidance and constraints of both properties need to be revised. I prefer the former, largely because it involves way less work, but I could accept the latter – what I really want is a formal closure of this matter one way or the other, so we can stop wasting everyone's bandwidth rehashing. Swpb (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: The basic is indeed about the basic nature of the relationship. It's just that this implies things.

It seems to me like you made a change to a central part of the ontonolgy without notifiying the corresponding Wikiproject that exists to manage ontology. We generally have made property creation centralized to not have someone just create or change properties because they want the change. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ontology. Note though, it's not at all clear which properties can have their uses refined through property talk page consensus, and which ones WikiProject Ontology expects to be involved in, and that's something I'd like clarified in the future. Swpb (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the English label from 'has part or parts' to 'has part(s)', and then noticed this discussion. I think this change doesn't go against previous discussions here, it just makes the label shorter. Hope that's OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible misuse of this property

Hi, one of our local volunteers here in Tuscany has used this property in items such as war memorial in Camaiore (Q111039624) or Monument to two partisans shot in Capolona (Q110939524) to described the architectural elements appearing in some artworks and monuments. Such use is wrong and we are looking into the alternatives in order to fix it asap. I will probably link to another discussion soon, we need to adapt some properties.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: At first sight the statements look okay to me. Can you say more about what the problem is that you see? Is it that the statement values are for generic types of thing, rather for specific unique objects ? Jheald (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald yes, the examples are clear here, you can link to a specific concept, not a generic one. The correct P could be has facility (P912) but its domain is too specific. So we are thinking to enlarge the aplication of P912.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done. Let's discuss here. Which P is the best one? Which one should be adapted? We have 100s of these cases.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For cases of generic types of thing I would enlarge the use of has facility (P912) instead of has part(s) (P527). --Epìdosis 15:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I now see that per current guidance such uses were indeed incorrect. Per current guidance, the property that should have been used would appear to be has part(s) of the class (P2670) not has part(s) (P527) (and not has facility (P912)).

This guidance is given specifically on the property page here in the examples, in reference to Albert Einstein (Q937)has part(s) of the class (P2670)human brain (Q492038); and also at Help:Basic_membership_properties#has_part_or_parts_(P527)_vs._has_part(s)_of_the_class_(P2670).

To assess how widespread this issue is, here's a query https://w.wiki/56G8 that samples current uses of P527 to find the most frequently occurring values that are classes, if the statement subject is not a class. The chemical cases are a bit odd, and are perhaps best taken as highlighting an anomaly that if an element like Carbon is going to a class, then probably a molecule like morphine should be too. The space (Q380933) (ie a typographical one) being a class whereas eg José Luis (Q20856658) is an instance also seems to be a modelling issue. But if we are to go with the guidance, it would seem that there are values such as majority opinion (Q6738447), photograph (Q125191), Upper Lusation house with two log construction rooms (Q63400242), façade (Q183061), stairs (Q12511), half-hip roof (Q2296755), that should (mostly -- individual checking needed!) be changed to be values of has part(s) of the class (P2670) rather than has part(s) (P527).

Note that this current guidance seems to be a development in the meaning of has part(s) of the class (P2670) from its original meaning at least as I understood it. My understanding was that initially P2670 was that it was to be used when an item contained multiple instances of the object class, not just one. That distinction appears currently to have been dropped, but we might wish to consider whether there is a case for it being restored. Jheald (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems reasonable. So to summarize:

has part(s) (P527) should be used for specific parts (not generic parts) of an entity, but is widely misused also for generic parts
has part(s) of the class (P2670) should be originally be used for multiple instances of generic parts, but effectively is used also for single instances of generic parts
has facility (P912) is currently outside Help:Basic membership properties

I tend to agree that we can probably accept officially the current use of has part(s) of the class (P2670) and solve the problem in this way; this would imply adding at least one or two examples to P2670 in order to sanction this use for single instances of generic parts and moving some incorrect uses of P527 to P2670. We can proceed in this way, maybe just waiting a few days if further opinions arise. --Epìdosis 17:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never really believed in the idea to enlarge P912 (mostly, because it's link to OSM as a specific domain was already established) so I am fine with the proposal of using P2670 in this scenario. the best way is to add few examples in that direction and therefore opening a discussion there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the WikiProject International (Digital) Dura-Europos Archive (Q114241199) and wonder if my work documenting buildings may be helpful here. Here is the building data model I have been using/developing (still a work in progress and any feedback is greatly appreciated!!):

- has facility (P912) for facilities built into house (ex: doorway, benches built into structure)
- has part(s) of the class (P2670) for specialized rooms with specific uses (ex: courtyard, waiting room)
- archaeological site of (P9047) to identify objects/artifacts found within building that have their own wikidata Q# and pages (typically with inventory numbers)
- contains (P4330) for non specific objects/artifacts (ex: jar, coin, sculpture)
- has characteristic (P1552) for architectural details (ex: column, cornice, tile)
- has part(s) (P527) for specific rooms or buildings within a building that have their own specific Q# (see Block D5, Dura-Europos (Q116621953))

Referring specifically to the wikidata pages linked in the first post:

- I think the property for base depends on the context. In my previous documentation, I have been using has facility (P912) for bases that are anchored as part of a room. (Specifically because the archeological bases I have been documenting have specific non decorative purposes that I qualify ex: cooking.) However, I would use a contains (P4330) statement if the base is not connected permanently to the structure. If the base is an architectural component I would maybe use has characteristic (P1552) but I am not sure if that fits. I would only use has part(s) of the class (P2670) if the base exists as a specific component of the building itself, rather than a structure within it (however has characteristic (P1552) may still be a better fit for this example). If base relates to the architectural/structural "base" of a building, perhaps finding a Q# for "foundation" may be a better fit?
- I would use contains (P4330) = statue (Q179700) , stele (Q178743) , bas-relief (Q14562306) , chain (Q2397485) , tombstone (Q203443)
  - - If specific Q# can be found/made , then I would prefer to use those specific Q#
    - However, if the stele (Q178743) and bas-relief (Q14562306) are part of the structure (ex: built into the walls), then I would use has characteristic (P1552) instead
- I would use has characteristic (P1552) = monolith (Q653208) if a monolith is a part of the building/structure, or instance of (P31) = monolith (Q653208) if the entire structure is a monolith

I don't know if any of this will be helpful but I still wanted to share! Ln3645 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a big discussion here that settled these use questions. Swpb (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with podcast

conflicts-with constraint

An entity should not have a statement for has part(s) if it also has a statement for instance of with value podcast.

Why? I added that the podcast Projeto Humanos (Q97186495) has part Projeto Humanos: O Caso Evandro (Q110580192), which is a season of it. There isn't a "has seasons" property for creative works, for the other way around there only seems to be part of the series (P179) which I saw that I could maybe use after checking Twin Peaks, season 1 (Q3465830). –Guttitto (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't the podcast episode property P527 (has part(s) (P527) be used for podcasts? A podcast, just like a TV series, consists of episodes (We even have Q61855877) and seasons. @Trade: could you explain? [6] Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We dont use P527 for television shows either Trade (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot seasons exist so i removed the constraint again Trade (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"We dont use P527 for television shows" - How to save what episodes a television shows consists of? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology#Transitivity_of_part_of_(P361)_and_has_part(s)_(P527)

See discussion. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should allow "has part(s)" with Wikimedia disambiguation pages

See: Governor Hughes (Q5589569) where we do not allow Wikimedia disambiguation pages to use "has part(s)", I think it would be useful to have the disambiguation within Wikidata. We have more entries of people to disambiguate than Wikipedia has. I want to change it so "has part(s)" is allowed. While we most likely have an entry for every governor, mayors/generals are severely limited in English Wikipedia. There was a purge of mayors from locations with less than 50,000 inhabitants from English Wikipedia over the years. RAN (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P527

Documentation

Usage note

Contents

Discussion

Documentation

Reciprocal property

consists of -> has part

Used as "has members"

constraint report relating to Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410)

Class has part non-class

синонимы

subproperty of

consists of equal parts of

English label

Subclasses

Proper use?

Polygons and polyhedra

Qualifiers P1114 (quantity) and P1107 (proportion)

Band members in timelines: allow qualifiers "instrument" and "pseudonym"

applies to part, aspect, or form (P518), collection (P195)

Please don't add an inverse constraint to this property

house with special roof

Former band members

Change of English label

"Hospital XYZ" has part "helipad"

Parent organization versus part of

Has part and has quality for sailboats

place_"part_of"_(P361)_the_"list_of_333_places_to_visit"

Samples from Help:Basic_membership_properties added

Changing English label to "has part or parts"

Possible misuse of this property

Conflict with podcast

conflicts-with constraint

Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology#Transitivity_of_part_of_(P361)_and_has_part(s)_(P527)

We should allow "has part(s)" with Wikimedia disambiguation pages

Navigation menu

Property talk:P527

Documentation

Usage note

Discussion

Documentation

Reciprocal property

consists of -> has part

Used as "has members"

constraint report relating to Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410)

Class has part non-class

синонимы

subproperty of

consists of equal parts of

English label

Subclasses

Proper use?

Polygons and polyhedra

Qualifiers P1114 (quantity) and P1107 (proportion)

Band members in timelines: allow qualifiers "instrument" and "pseudonym"

applies to part, aspect, or form (P518), collection (P195)

Please don't add an inverse constraint to this property

house with special roof

Former band members

Change of English label

"Hospital XYZ" has part "helipad"

Parent organization versus part of

Has part and has quality for sailboats

place_"part_of"_(P361)_the_"list_of_333_places_to_visit"

Samples from Help:Basic_membership_properties added

Changing English label to "has part or parts"

Possible misuse of this property

Conflict with podcast

conflicts-with constraint

Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology#Transitivity_of_part_of_(P361)_and_has_part(s)_(P527)

We should allow "has part(s)" with Wikimedia disambiguation pages

Navigation menu

Search