Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wikidata/Corresponding properties

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Corresponding properties

  • Problem: The software prompts users to make a corresponding edit in another item. This refers to pairs like father/child, Husband/Wife, but also to P1889 (item that is different from another item, with which it is often confused).
  • Proposed solution: Add a button "Yes do as proposed"
  • Who would benefit: Everyone
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Bahnmoeller (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • This sounds similar to the 2019 proposal Automatically add inverse properties, but without the automatic aspect. There's also T209559 Inverse statements duplicate work, data, and may be out of sync, which is of interest — but I can't find any exactly matching Phabricator task. In general, it sounds like it'd work on statements of properties that have an inverse property (P1696). SWilson (WMF) (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those suggestions likely come from the constraints system on wikidata, it defines how an property is supposed to be used. Each constraint is explained on the chat page of the property in question.--Snævar (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to have some inverse relation for all properties that could have them. For instance, P9664 says that a place is mentioned in a map, good. But another P(9664^-1) saying in what maps a place is mentioned would be even better help. B25es (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a good tool that allows to check, and add reverse properties in a click d:User:Frettie/consistency check add.js - I've used it for years now, and it really simplifies the work... - But an automatic prompt would clearly be simpler --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get what's being asked here. What kind of "corresponding edit" do you mean? If by that you mean a statement with an inverse property (where one is defined), I'll repeat my comment from the "Accessing items with particular statements via Lua" suggestion: "Having manually defined inverse properties is redundant (in a bad way) and unsustainable. Conceptually, every property defines its own inverse automatically. If performance is the problem, then the solution should be at a low level--for example, the system could define a hidden entry for a property inverse and maintain a cache automatically, and none of this should be visible to the user." Silver hr (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly; this proposal risks amplifying the problem which "Accessing items with particular statements via Lua" is meant to address. Still, I often find myself adding those inverse claims merely to silence the "suggested edits" flags, as that is currently considered best practice. --SM5POR (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting