Wikidata:Property proposal/place of disappearance
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
place of disappearance
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
Not done
| Description | last place or location a missing person was seen or otherwise known to be alive |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | person |
| Example 1 | Jimmy Hoffa (Q317638) → Bloomfield Township (Q885364) |
| Example 2 | Amelia Earhart (Q3355) → Pacific Ocean (Q98) |
| Example 3 | Sean Flynn (Q327426) → National Highway 1 (Q1320165) |
| Example 4 | Naomi Uemura (Q1322504) → Denali (Q130018) |
| See also | date of disappearance (P746); place of death (P20) |
Motivation
[edit]Currently, the date of disappearance (P746) property exists, but there is no property describing the last known location a missing person was seen alive. This will ensure that a missing person will have paired parameters, similar to date of death (P570) and place of death (P20). HapHaxion (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Support, if there is a date of disappearance (P746) it makes sense to create a "place of disappearance" or a "last place before the disappearance". — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 17:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment This a valid proposal, but would it be possible to use "location" or this proposed property as a qualifier for "date of disappearance"?. What happens when the people reappear? Can people go missing more than once? Germartin1 (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- People can go missing more than once. However, date of disappearance (P746) is currently an instance of Wikidata property for birth or death (Q18608756), meaning that it should probably be used only when the disappearance is ongoing, and it is not known if the person is dead or alive (likely assumed dead, since it is the only option satisfying this quality other than birth). If the person is found, the property can be removed since their status is now known (if alive, no other action is necessary; if dead, replace the property with place of death (P20)). HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 11:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- In that case wouldn't it make sense to use Property "has quality" or "significant event" with the value "missing" and then use qualifier start and end time. Germartin1 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I feel that has characteristic (P1552) would be appropriate, but only if the person is found. This would confirm either the person is still living, or would be placed with the start and end time qualifiers along with date of death (P570) (since the death was confirmed and not assumed as a virtue of the disappearance). This is just my thought process considering "date of disappearance" appears to be equivalent to "date of death" (they cannot both be present at the same time) in terms of them both being a Wikidata property for birth or death (Q18608756). I hope that makes sense. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 17:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- In that case wouldn't it make sense to use Property "has quality" or "significant event" with the value "missing" and then use qualifier start and end time. Germartin1 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- People can go missing more than once. However, date of disappearance (P746) is currently an instance of Wikidata property for birth or death (Q18608756), meaning that it should probably be used only when the disappearance is ongoing, and it is not known if the person is dead or alive (likely assumed dead, since it is the only option satisfying this quality other than birth). If the person is found, the property can be removed since their status is now known (if alive, no other action is necessary; if dead, replace the property with place of death (P20)). HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 11:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support David (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Use 'location' as a qualifier on 'date of disappearance' or 'signifiant event'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)- Comment I added date of disappearance (P746) to two of the samples above (they were lacking it). I think qualifying that with location would be sufficient. --- Jura 10:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --- Jura 13:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support If date of disappearance (P746) is currently an instance of Wikidata property for birth or death (Q18608756), and we want to keep it that way, then this should follow the pattern for births and deaths and have separate date and place properties. This should not be modeled by using 'location' as a qualifier on 'date of disappearance' because the location is NOT a refinement of or detail about the date. It is about the disappearance. Infomuse (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Further, I would not limit this and date of disappearance (P746) as only applying to persons. One use might be: Shergar (Q2739031). Animals are born, they die, and sometimes they disappear (either by their own sneaky means, by accident, or by foul play). Infomuse (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- would this be a synonymous with "last known location"? 1Veertje (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose +1 to Andy Mabbett description. Amadalvarez (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose In property constraint (P2302) of date of disappearance (P746): required qualifier constraint (Q21510856) + (coordinate location (P625) or location (P276)) + constraint status (P2316) + suggestion constraint (Q62026391). And you can do that with other property. In many cases, a disappearance leads to a search for the missing person and, in essence, this location becomes less important than locations of death or birth. What I mean is that a person (since it is the type constraint) whose precise location of the disappearance is known has a strong chance of no longer being lost. The types in subject type constraint (Q21503250) for date of disappearance (P746) can also be expanded (and desciptions modified). "Draw me a sheep". --Eihel (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
