Property talk:P3085
Documentation
this event qualifies for that event
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3085#Type Q841654, Q623109, Q27020041, Q34542757, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3085#Value type Q841654, Q27020041, Q16510064, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3085#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3085#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3085#Scope, SPARQL
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
Discussion
editUsage
editMoved here from Wikidata:Property proposal/team qualified for continental competition. --Srittau (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau, Pasleim: Please check 1962–63 Cypriot First Division (Q2635672). I have added qualifies for event (P3085) with 1963–64 European Cup (Q500084). Do I must to use Anorthosis Famagusta FC (Q141688) to show that the team which qualifies for that event was Anorthosis Famagusta FC (Q141688)? Xaris333 (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Xaris333: Looks good to me. --Srittau (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: Can you check the same property at 1964–65 Cypriot First Division (Q2635725)? I have used it with a different way. Instead of league or competition (P118) we could use a qualifier name "to" Wikidata:Property proposal/at. The same way we are using promoted (P2881) and relegated (P2882). Xaris333 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- That is the wrong way around. This way we can not - for example - mark the qualification of an upcoming or ongoing event or league. It's basically supposed to be event or leaguequalifies for event (P3085)another event
winner (P1346)winning team , where the qualifier is optional. --Srittau (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. The qualifier winner (P1346) is a little problem. I can't think something else. Xaris333 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC) ΄
@Srittau: How about this way [1]? Xaris333 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: Pls check this way [2]. Xaris333 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Question about the property restriction
editI have a question regarding the limitation of this property. Personally, I don't understand why the "value type" property restriction exists twice? The second use brings from my point of view unnecessary trouble. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Correct, I fixed it. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks --Gymnicus (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)