Wikidata:Property proposal/demonym of

demonym of

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

   Done: demonym of (P6271) (Talk and documentation)

Description	demonym for people or things associated with a given place, country and city, etc.
Represents	demonym (Q217438)
Data type	Item
Example	Parisian (en) → Paris (Q90) parizano (eo) → Paris (Q90) Parisien (fr) → Paris (Q90) Parijzenaar (nl) → Paris (Q90)
See also	demonym (P1549)

Motivation

In order to link demonym to the place they describe. Tubezlob (🙋) 07:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Should we have the reverse property (equivalent of demonym (P1549) but with lexeme datatype)? Tubezlob (🙋) 07:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would say definitely not - inverse properties are not essential (either direction can be queried easily enough via SPARQL) and in this case you would have potentially hundreds of statements on the item pointing to the lexemes in different languages. This direction is good. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• This seems to better be a Sense Property. For instance "Pariser" in German is demonym of Paris (Q90) but also used for condom (Q14076) so using it at Lexeme would be misleading. -- JakobVoss (talk)

• @ArthurPSmith, JakobVoss: I agree with both of you, I moved the property proposal. Tubezlob (🙋) 15:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Support But leads to the 'notability' question for Lexemes: do we want all demonyms for all locations in Wikidata? --Denny (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, for the words that exist. But we don't have to create words that don't exist just because it is doable by a bot. Tubezlob (🙋) 18:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sure demonyms for basically all cities exist :) Still begs the question whether we want them in Wikidata. --Denny (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

We want them in Wikidata, but only if they exist. I don't think that there is a denonym in every language for every village of China for example. A demonym exists for each place in local language, but just for famous place in other language (big cities in particular). Tubezlob (🙋) 20:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

We Didn't Start the Fire (Q1448949)! -- JakobVoss (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it involve the related toponym in one way or the other?
  --- Jura 12:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  @Jura1: What do you mean by that? The item of the toponym is precisely the value of the property. Or maybe you're talking about this proposal: demonym (Lexeme). Tubezlob (🙋) 12:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  An item may have several toponyms. Q90 isn't the item for the toponym "Paris", but for the city.
  --- Jura 12:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  Ha OK, you mean to link to a Lexeme item. Good question, but I don't know if we will create a lexeme for each place, like for Q-items. What do you think? Tubezlob (🙋) 14:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  There are several toponyms for each place. So it would several lexemes. We need them for locatives anyways.
  --- Jura 14:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  @Tubezlob, ArthurPSmith, JakobVoss, Denny, Jura1: you mean instead of Parisian (en) → Paris (Q90), linking Parisian(en) → Paris(en) and then (with an other property) Paris(en) → Paris (Q90). If so I entirely approved, could we update the proposal in this way?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by VIGNERON (talk • contribs) at 09:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC).

• I would like to make note of my use case for consideration. In the Finnish Names Archive Wikibase project we have 3 million notes about place names. From those we will extract places as items and place names of those places possibly as lexemes now that they are available. So we will have a structure:
  <place (item)> → some property → <place name (lexeme)>
  <place name (lexeme)> → demonym → (string literal) → source → <place name note> – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Susannaanas: I think demonym in your sample would be another lexeme. BTW I made a lexeme for a place name: Lexeme:L1041.
    --- Jura 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you are right, came to think of it myself. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • For the first part of your usecase, I suggested Wikidata:Property proposal/toponym.
        --- Jura 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Sounds ok. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry I did not check before answering. In our project we need to link from the place item to the toponym item(s). This property is for a lexeme. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I guess this property and the property we would need are then not exactly the same, as this will not point to a toponym. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Maybe it should point to a lexeme of a toponym instead.
        --- Jura 14:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I am ready to cut corners and make the toponym a lexeme. But this property proposal will link directly to the place, right? – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • We can of course do it differently in our project and deal with it at the time of syncing/export. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose it should point from sense to sense. KaMan (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Cwf97 (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I think it would be useful to have one property for linking to the place's item and one property for linking to the place's lexeme (there will probably be all sorts of structural duplication anyway due to etymology and translations of senses and such). Jc86035 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tubezlob, ArthurPSmith, JakobVoss, Denny, Jura1:@VIGNERON, Susannaanas, Jura1, Cwf97, Jc86035: Done--Micru (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)