Wikidata:Property proposal/outcome

outcome

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	this project has produced the object as outcome
Data type	Item
Domain	project (Q170584)
Allowed values	physical object, companies, laws, …
Example 1	⟨ Aéroport du Grand Ouest (Q140205)    ⟩ outcome Search no value Help
Example 2	Penn Station Access (Q16986985) → Pennsylvania Station (Q54451)
Example 3	Manhattan Project (Q127050) → Trinity (Q207342)
Example 4	⟨ 2019-20 French pension reform (Q84390099)    ⟩ outcome Search no value Help

Motivation

It seems useful to link projects to their produced object. I don’t see any clearer and well defined way to do this with current Wikidata model.

author  TomT0m / talk page 19:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support Hmm, I'm not sure I like this (English) label, but I think the general idea is something we are missing right now, yes. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I feel that main subject (P921) is the best way to convey this sense of "what the project is for". However, I think that there's also an element of has effect (P1542) at play. These may sometimes be the same thing, but there may also be important outcomes from projects that weren't the focus of the project itself. Off the top of my head (and this may not be the best example), Manhattan Project (Q127050) main subject (P921) nuclear bomb (Q650051) is different from Manhattan Project (Q127050) has effect (P1542) atomic bombing of Hiroshima (Q703203). Theknightwho (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Theknightwho:

    sujet ou thème principal (P921) is intended to be used on works, not on processes. This property is more intended to be used on the production processes of these works, if relevant. Now that I think about it, it’s related to the notion of corporate purpose (Q2498417). It’s also related to the property studies Search that links a science to the objects it is about.

    has effect (P1542) is way harder to use in practice. Project Manhattan did not actually decide the bombing … it made it possible. The executive and military decided the bombing, the soldiers executed the orders, the precise positioning of the material in the object and the programmed sequence of events caused the bomb to explode. Each of these links can be seen as a cause/consequence relationships if we want to but … are deeply different. I don’t think we do a great job in just putting « cause » in each cases. Politics, physics, engineering, theorical sciences are all evolved in some way, yet the causal chain can be very different according to the point of view of each of the discipline. That’s why I think we need to do better than a generic « cause / effect » relationship that will be difficult to source. It does not capture the complexities involved. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

    I think there may be some confusion in the translation of main subject (P921), as I interpreted it more broadly. Would has goal (P3712) fit? I agree that has effect (P1542) isn't ideal, and I think there are major ontological problems with that property in general to be honest; I was more just using it in a contrasting sense, as "outcome" in English is ambiguous, and suggests "consequence" (i.e. has effect (P1542)) rather than the reason for doing something, even though they're often the same thing when it comes to projects. How would you suggest we handle unintended outcomes? Theknightwho (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment for film projects, the "publication date" is a fairly clear way to distinguish projects from their outcomes. Obviously, we can't move sitelinks and other content between two items for the same film. How would the above have worked for Berlin Brandenburg Airport (Q160556)? --- Jura 20:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not obvious at all that we can’t technically. All we need is a more powerful « move » gadget … Just look at the item history you pointed … It’s a mess https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q160556&type=revision&diff=1451556430&oldid=1451555366&diffmode=source . author  TomT0m / talk page 21:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Fixed that. Anyways, so you would move sitelinks and statements back and forth? --- Jura 21:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

== Active users == ValterVB LydiaPintscher Ermanon Mushroom Queryzo Danrok Rogi Mbch331 Jobu0101 putnik AmaryllisGardener Andreasmperu U+1F350 Bodhisattwa Shisma Wolverène Tris T7 Antoine2711 CptViraj ʂɤɲ Trivialist 2le2im-bdc Sotiale Wallacegromit1, mostly focus on media historiography and works from the Global South M2k~dewiki Rockpeterson Mathieu Kappler Sidohayder Spinster Gnoeee Ranjithsiji Ontogon Supaplex Carlinmack Haseeb Demadrend Jakeob9000 RealityBites Sriveenkat Keplersj dseomn Fuzheado BeLucky

Notified participants of WikiProject Movies

 Oppose given the discussion and open question above. It doesn't seem practical to create 2 items for each film: one for before it's being released and another afterwards. --- Jura 11:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - no consensus to create --DannyS712 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)