Property talk:P156

Documentation

followed by
immediately following item in a series of which the subject is a part, preferably use as qualifier of P179 [if the subject has been replaced, e.g. political offices, use "replaced by" (P1366)]

Description

Item that comes after the current one, in a sequence, e.g. for series/sequels of books or films. Can be used as qualifier on a statement describing a series. Use in combination with follows (P155). See also replaces (P1365) and replaced by (P1366).

Represents

followed by (Q24575113)

Data type

Item

Template parameter

en:template:Infobox Book (followed_by)

Domain

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

Allowed values

item of the same nature (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Example

According to this template:

qualifier followed by (P156) => Barack Obama (Q76)

According to statements in the property:
March (Q110) → April (Q118)
The Fellowship of the Ring (Q208002) → The Two Towers (Q332388)
Category:2018 deaths (Q10209346) → Category:2019 deaths (Q10209383)
Répertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Âge, vol. 1, A-I (1905) (Q110622406) → Répertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Âge, vol. 2, I-Z (1907) (Q110622437)

When possible, data should only be stored as statements

Robot and gadget jobs

DeltaBot does the following jobs:

Move source to qualifier

Tracking: same

no label (Q42533273)

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P156 (Q23908993)

Original creation discussion

Film

"Preceded by" (P155) and "Followed by" (P156)

--Nizil Shah (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced: better add the number of the serie and the name of the serie. Snipre (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not only for numbering series but to make series navigate easily and to make people know of series as in above example.--Nizil Shah (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, it would be much simpler to find prequel and sequel with a direct link. A number in the series might also be good. SilkyShark (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that series order is not always simple - LibraryThing implemented a similar system, and had major disputes over the "right order" for some series ("this is the seventh book, but it's set before all the others"; "yes, but you should read book five first", etc). Andrew Gray (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering also presupposed a Hollywood style "Name of Movie II" titling. I work more on the documentary side at En Wiki and there are series of films in which no so such titling is used. So I would support the preceded by and followed by proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per my comment above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Needs to be clear exactly what is meant (I'm assuming publication date order). Danrok (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where there is a dispute as to what follows what then this property can appear twice with suitable Qualifiers. Filceolaire (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Shouldn't it be easier to make Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or whatever series have a sublist of installments? --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added "precedido por" (Property:P155), but the property has not been used yet. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Property:P156: "seguido por". I'm not sure if these properties are meant for works or for persons. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These properties are for work and not for people, help simplify the search for successors and predecessors of movies, TV series and books Lucasdj⁹⁸_talk 13:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support so long as we make it clear that this is for a series of some kind and not just films by director, which will need to be dealt with separately, I imagine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in Wikidata:Project chat#Properties preceded by and followed by

There is a discussion ongoing about this property here - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived to WD:Project chat/Archive/2013/04#Properties preceded by and followed by. --Yair rand (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Successor states

Moved from Property talk:P155. --Yair rand (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that I've been using this and followed by for successor states. It seems to be a good fit (of course you often need to use more than one entry when a state breaks up), but if people disagree, I can request a new property. Superm401 - Talk 23:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that using a separate property would be preferable. Using just "preceded by" and "followed by" is too ambiguous, in my opinion. --Yair rand (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid ambiguity these should be used as qualifiers to statements. For states there is is usually one state per wikidata page so there is less ambiguity and these can be used as main properties. Filceolaire (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the constraint to creative work

Moved from Property talk:P155. --Yair rand (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just collecting the previous discussions on this.

I have the feeling that this is used successfully not only for creative work, and I am unsure why it should be constrained to creative works only. Successor states, people following in an office, etc. seem very reasonable as well. As you can see from the previous discussions, it was meant by several editors intuitively to be used wider than just creative works. Furthermore, there are indeed many pages in the Wikipedias that could use this kind of data, think about the navboxes, or about the Infoboxes (e.g. the ones used for popes which list successor and predecessor). And don't tell me it's too complicated for something else than creative works -- if we can figure out whether Clone Wars or Attack of the Clones precedes Revenge of the Sith, and whether the latter is succeeded by A New Hope or by Star Wars VII, we can also figure out that Benedict XVI is the successor John Paul I. --Denny (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but benedict xvi is also the successor of Bernardin Gantin, Sebastiano Baggio, Franjo Šeper and Julius Döpfner. persons do different things, and can be in a list of persons for everything they did. it should be possible to use this property as qualifier/together with qualifiers, but to say that benedict xvi is the successor of john paul i, without mentioning "pope" is just not correct. (in general i'm pro opening this prop for uses beside creative works)--Akkakk 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Successor and predecessor should be derived from the list of elements. Better define successor and predecessor from a query used to define the list and then looking for the rank of the main item.

Successor and predecessor are not a characteristic of an item but of a serie or a position so better avoid mixing data. Snipre (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Successor and predecessor are not a characteristic of an item but of a position so they should be used as qualifier to a statement describing a position (job, political office etc.) Filceolaire (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it should not be restricted to creative work, and that it should be used as a qualifier when possible (in part of the series (P179) for most creative works). But there are cases where using it as a main property seems the most natural option, like for the "successor state" mentionned above. --Zolo (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing that B XVI is also the successor of all these people -- but if you look at the actual Wikipedia infobox on him, you will find the simple line "predecessor" and "successor". It seems that it is quite obvious in those case. Also, I actually do not want to debate the merit of using it in this particular case, but rather in simply dropping the constraint to creative work. I don't think creative work are any easier than the rest of the world, and thus I don't see the advantage of constraining it. In the case of B16, one could add the office as a qualifier of the successor statement, if disambiguation is required (this is something especially useful for politicians).

Also, regarding the query - the query is not only computationally heavy, but also not as useful as an explicitly stated successor statement. Between two popes there can be a considerable amount of time (up to years). With the successor statement you know that there is no other person between the two office holders. If you just make a query and display the results, you never have this information explicit. Otherwise you will never know the information is complete. --Denny (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have been using this for the geologic time scale (e.g. Carboniferous (Q133738) as a main property. I find the new restriction a little odd to. Do I need to use a qualifier to say that the series is the geologic time scale? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems obvious, I would recommend to use follows (P155) and followed by (P156) as qualifiers even for items like this. Let's have a look on Permian (Q76402): We can state the order as a qualifier to instance of (P31) > period (Q392928) and in this case we can add follows (P155) > Carboniferous (Q133738) and followed by (P156) > Triassic (Q47158). But we can also state the order as a qualifier to part of (P361) > Paleozoic (Q75507) (not subclass of (P279) as it is misdefined now), and in this case we only can add follows (P155), since Permian (Q76402) is the last period of Paleozoic (Q75507). In the case of geological we can actually have both type of sequences defined on Wikidata and let the users (Wikipedias) decide, which one is more useful for them.--Shlomo (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good pattern. --Denny (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes actually it is probably better if we can always make things explicit. Can I add "should usually be used as a qualifier in the description" ? --Zolo (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agree for creative works to use P155 and P156 as qualifiers, because could be more than one list, but in other cases I would let these properties as "main property", for Tobias1984 and other types of lists i.e. asteroids, chemical elements... --Paperoastro (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The 'creative work' constraint is indicative of a larger problem the Wikidata community has in wanting to unnecessarily restrict the domain of broadly-applicable properties. I support dropping the 'creative work' constraint. Emw (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion, I am making the change. --Denny (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Directing to use as a qualifier?

Shouldn't we be specific about the use of this property? The preceded by/succeeded by combination only really work as a qualifier to the particular instance. For example, album B was preceded by album A, and succeeded by album C. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@billinghurst:. Each album has it's own item so this is a property of that item, not a qualifier.

Politicians typically have a number of different offices over the years and we do not have a separate item for each incumbancy. In those cases the preceded by, suceded by properties are qualifiers to the 'office held' property, listing other politicians who have held that office, along with start date/end date properties so we can track what order the subject of that item held his various offices.

OK? Filceolaire (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should only be used as a qualifier, but there are currently almost a quarter million uses as a straight property, and only about eight thousand uses as a qualifier. --Yair rand (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

consistency gadget

I added this property to my User:JonnyJD/consistency_check.js (symmetry/inverse). --JonnyJD (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new property replaces (P1365)

Moved from Property talk:P155. --Yair rand (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Property replaces (P1365) has now been created for those cases where an item is replaced by a previous item so I have changed the label for P155 from "preceded by' to 'followed' to reduce confusion with P1365 and I have rewritten the description.

follows (P155) should be used where new items don't replace old items. e.g.

books
tv programs
albums from a band

replaces (P1365) should be used where the previous item is replaced e.g.

political offices
hereditary titles
states and administrative entities

For asteroids, we can continue to use P155/P156? --Paperoastro (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use only as a qualifier or other use too?

Moved from Property talk:P155. --Yair rand (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any needs to use it not as a qualifier? The Example item and value The Two Towers (Q332388) part of the series (P179) => The Lord of the Rings (Q15228) • The Two Towers (Q332388) follows (P155) => The Fellowship of the Ring (Q208002) may be useful, but now it was changed to the more specific The Two Towers (Q332388) published in (P1433) => The Lord of the Rings (Q15228) qualifier follows (P155) => The Fellowship of the Ring (Q208002). --Diwas (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Diwas: I heartily agree that this should only be used as a qualifier. I just added a constraint to this and followed by (P156) that they should not be used on people (because that makes no goddamn sense whatsoever and is utterly worthless), and fail to see any cases where this should be used as a property proper and not just as a qualifier. So I would really like to make it a qualifier-only property. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Using P155 (and 156) as a property proper is extremely unclear and vague for people, but i think that for creative works as well.--Jklamo (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly (and understandably) these properties are used for different types of sovereigns. They clearly lay in sequence. And this information is used in infoboxes. So, at least, before deleting this info should be kept in some form. --Infovarius (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The most logical approach should be changing the infoboxes to try to take it first as a qualifier and then as a property itself and adding the constraint to check that it only is used as a qualifier, because even in the cases where the object itself is part of a sequence of items it should be specified of which sequence that item takes part. Not using this property as a qualifier can generate confusion when the item takes part in more than one sequence (as for example, the politicians which had more than one position). -- Agabi10 (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this. On a tv series each episode is followed by the next. But is the final episode in season 1 followed by the first episode of season two? For the whole series this is true, but for the season it's not. If Wikidata should be machine readable this distinction is important. For a human it's easy to see what is intended but not for a machine. This distinction also could be important in infoboxes to make it clear how the next episode follows this. --Pajn (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main problem with this "migration" is that we can not completely do it with bots. Bots can change from the statement to the qualifier of the serie, but if more than one serie is defined we can't do the same way. Anyway it can make inconsistencies like the one mentioned of moving the first episode of the second season to the serie "First Season of...." to the last episode. -- Agabi10 (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we add a restriction to not create new statements with it and then clean up the old ones over time? --Pajn (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I've added a constraint to the property so that it should only be used as a qualifier. --Yair rand (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too concur that P155/P156 are best as qualifiers as they each have a relative context. A book can be written by an author, published by a publisher, illustrated by an author; be part of a series; all of these are a context which can be qualified. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drop constraint to single value for (at least) musical works

Moved from Property talk:P155. --Yair rand (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Huominen on huomenna (Q15896835): it has two values for both follows (P155) and followed by (P156) as there are two values for performer (P175), as it is done regularly on Wikipedia. So I think that the constraint to single value should be dropped for (at least) musical works. What do you think? --★ → A ir on 90 10:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support multiple orders are quite possible, we should allow them with additional qualifiers. d1g (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment followed by should be as a qualifier, not at the root level. It should be qualifying how it follows something else, it simply needs more specificity to how it follows. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Without a parent statement for context, the statement is essentially meaningless. --Yair rand (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support since both a television series episode (Q21191270) and the two-part episode (Q21664088) episode could have its own entity the following episode must have two preceding episodes. Also an episode could follow another one according to production or broadcasting order. --Shisma (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to drop the constraint to define exceptions. Besides, in this case, I think we could define a separator (P4155).
--- Jura 15:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was just adding P155 to governmental ministeries/departments, and sometimes they are split – so this constraint doesn't make too much sense from my point of view. --Jcornelius (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's also bad for awards, which may be issued to multiple winners in some years. E.g., Kurt Koffka Medal (Q56007530) on Karen Adolph (Q28122418). Due to the support expressed above, I think I'll delete the constraint soon. Ghouston (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ghouston (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghouston: See Wikidata:Project chat#Classification of songs / compositions. Since there now seems to be consensus (albeit between only a few editors) that songs (creative work) should be separate entities from singles (release), perhaps song items shouldn't use the two properties at all (though there are tens of thousands of items that are now incorrect). I've been using P156 and P155 as qualifiers for part of the series (P179) → [artist's singles discography] on items for singles (example), and removing P156 and P155 on items for songs. Jc86035 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion about song items, I don't remember ever editing one. These properties are used in various situations, and not all of them will be simple linear chains. Ghouston (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current statistics

Use in statements: on 329713 items, 335013 statements
Use as qualifier: on 54303 items(?), 54411 statements

Top classes/instances in statements:

wd:Q482994 album 60562 instance of
wd:Q134556 single 40214 instance of
wd:Q3863 asteroid 39316 instance of
wd:Q19389637 biographical article 25833 instance of
wd:Q17329259 encyclopedic article 20763 instance of

as of today.
--- Jura 12:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Followed by two events

X-posted at Talk:Paleozoic (Q75507). If the Paleozoic (Q75507) cannot be followed by (P156) both Mesozoic (Q83222) and Permian-Triassic extinction event (Q141118), then what is the relation (if any) to both or either of these items? Thanks. - Trilotat (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps end cause (P1534) should point to Permian-Triassic extinction event (Q141118)? --Yair rand (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constraint

Hi there, may I suggest discussing here MovieFex and Mahir256 about the property constraint (P2302)? Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 21:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouzinac: Sure. A warning implies that there is a better solution and you can correct it. But this isn't given in many cases. So a constraint is created without possibility to fix a violation. -- MovieFex (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting the constraint, and a path towards this

I was asked to provide some suggestions for migrating statement uses of P155/P156 to qualifiers. Below are some of these, ordered in decreasing order of the number of items with certain (groups of) P31s. Most of these follow similar threads, and can be expanded to include other sequences using the same properties as those noted in the suggestions. (Note that the use counts are for follows (P155) only, on the assumption that a similar quantity of uses of followed by (P156) are also present.)

There are ~225k uses on items with P31/P279* minor planet (Q1022867). Most of these are due to the numbering given by the Minor Planet Center (Q522039), but there are still minor planets with only provisional designations which are excluded as a result. These uses could be migrated to qualifiers on Minor Planet Center body ID (P5736), catalog code (P528) (given that other astronomical bodies have varied, appropriately qualified values for this property; @Ghuron: for opinions on this point), or even part of the series (P179) "Minor Planet Center numbered planets".
There are ~105k uses on items with P31 album (Q482994). As my album example in the Project chat thread highlights, and as is seen on an album like Ben (Q44185), the statements could be moved to qualifiers on part of (P361) (artist's albums in chronological order) for each album artist for which such an ordering is appropriate (@Moebeus, Jc86035: on whether expanding the number of chronological order items is appropriate, or whether these could directly qualify performer (P175), or something else).
- A similar set of changes can be made to items with P31 single (Q134556) (~54k uses), song (Q7366) (~11k uses), live album (Q209939) (~9k uses), and compilation album (Q222910) (~8k uses).
There are ~80k uses on items with P31/P279* sporting event (Q16510064). As my sporting event example in the Project chat thread higlights, many of these may be part of different distinct series of events, but in any case qualifying the instance of (P31)/part of (P361) value for a particular named event (such as 2019 Mutua Madrid Open (Q63058073)'s instance of (P31) Madrid Open (tennis) (Q1161519) or part of (P361) 2019 ATP Tour Masters 1000 (Q61862380)) removes any possible ambiguity as to what sequence is referenced by P155/P156.
- It appears that ~56k of these uses pertain to badminton events (@Florentyna: on this point).
There are ~46k uses on items with P31 biographical article (Q19389637). These are usually published in specific collections (such as Liszt, Franz Ritter (BLKÖ) (Q20204505) published in (P1433) Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich (Q665807)), with respect to which an actual order within those collections may be discerned, and so qualifying published in (P1433) makes the relationship between the ordering and the collection clearer than before.
- A similar set of changes can be made to items with P31 encyclopedia article (Q13433827) (~34k uses), Q96323920 (~10k uses), and cross-reference (Q1302249) (~8k uses).
  - Comment For Q96323920, @維基小霸王, Midleading:. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are ~56k uses on items with P31/P279* Wikimedia category (Q4167836). These should (if they don't already) have any of category combines topics (P971), category contains (P4224), and category's main topic (P301), which do not necessarily have to coincide, and so qualifying any of these makes the scope to which the P155/P156 values applies clearer than before.
- A similar set of changes can be made to items with P31 Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) (~9k uses). These should (if they don't already) have is a list of (P360), and more often than not these can be qualified to reduce ambiguity.
There are ~62k uses on items with P31/P279* season (Q20852192). These are usually seasons of a specific team (such as 1996 Seattle Seahawks season (Q4591679) season of club or team (P5138) Seattle Seahawks (Q221878)) or of a specific league (such as 2016–17 Cypriot First Division (Q23756432) sports season of league or competition (P3450) Cypriot First Division (Q155965)) or of some other clearly defined series which is clearly marked on appropriate items using a specific property, and on all of those items (as is shown in the latter of my examples) qualifying the season of club or team (P5138)/sports season of league or competition (P3450)/etc. property eliminates ambiguity.
There are ~51k uses on items with P31 television series episode (Q21191270). As my episode example in the Project chat thread highlights, and as is seen on an episode like Project Daedalus (Q56605474), the statements could be moved to qualifiers on either part of the series (P179) for the show as a whole or season (P4908) for the specific season of which the episode is a part.
There are ~27k uses on items with P31 events in a specific year or time period (Q18340514). These generally can be moved to qualifiers on facet of (P1269), as might be done on 1985 in the United States (Q2812912), since the targets of such uses differ from their origin primarily in the date covered and far less so on the facet covered.
There are ~3k uses on items with P31/P279* August 12 (Q2777), which can be adjusted in a similar fashion to my date example in the Project chat thread.

Let me know if I should elaborate on any of these a bit more than is done here, or whether I should explicitly consider other cases not otherwise covered under the umbrellas above; I believe the majority of uses (~798k/~1015k) of P155/P156 have been addressed in the preceding bullet points. Mahir256 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not really working with minor planet (Q1022867). Both approaches work from SPARQL point of view Ghuron (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are also having P155/P156 usages (perhaps more than 300k?) on transport infrastructures (interchanges, junctions, service/parking areas, bus stops, etc.), IIRC mainly in Japan, UK and Tailand, wondering if who should be informed by this section. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: You're off by two orders of magnitude. Mahir256 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahir256:

Oppose off, as I also used to edit the affected items and use both, I agree that the current diplomatic relations between China and India are fairly bad, but I can't believe that how and why can this be a reason I must "off" from a thread opened by an Indian user. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: sigh I had meant to say that rather than there being ~300k uses of P155/P156 on transportation infrastructure, a query returned only ~3k uses of that property. My apologies for not recognizing your level of comprehension of English. Plus I'm not Indian, as my enwiki user page should indicate. Mahir256 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this example, I would try @フォット, DavidMar86hdf, B.O.B. jp, Tomtom3309, AT:@本日晴天: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are nearly 10k usages that are affecting softwares and/or licenses, e.g. MediaWiki 1.31 (Q44808744)follows (P155)MediaWiki 1.30 (Q29887153), MediaWiki 1.31 (Q44808744)followed by (P156)MediaWiki 1.32 (Q53410631)...

WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Mahir256: I have seen someone come along and add follows/followed by to biographical article items for the work Thom's Irish Who's Who (Q67202875), example at Abraham, Lieut.-Col. James Johnston (Q67202946). I am guessing that they should be qualifiers for published in (P1433). Would need to confirm that and provide an example somewhere. I not even certain how desired that is, though whatever rocks someones boat. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P156

Contents

Documentation

Original creation discussion

Film

"Preceded by" (P155) and "Followed by" (P156)

Discussion in Wikidata:Project chat#Properties preceded by and followed by

Successor states

Drop the constraint to creative work

Directing to use as a qualifier?

consistency gadget

new property replaces (P1365)

Use only as a qualifier or other use too?

Drop constraint to single value for (at least) musical works

Current statistics

Followed by two events

Constraint

Reinserting the constraint, and a path towards this

Navigation menu

Property talk:P156

Documentation

Original creation discussion

Film

"Preceded by" (P155) and "Followed by" (P156)

Discussion in Wikidata:Project chat#Properties preceded by and followed by

Successor states

Drop the constraint to creative work

Directing to use as a qualifier?

consistency gadget

new property replaces (P1365)

Use only as a qualifier or other use too?

Drop constraint to single value for (at least) musical works

Current statistics

Followed by two events

Constraint

Reinserting the constraint, and a path towards this

Navigation menu

Search