Property talk:P460

Documentation

said to be the same as
this item is said to be the same as that item, though this may be uncertain or disputed

Description

this item is said to be the same as that item, but the statement is disputed

Represents

said to be the same as (Q66209246)

Data type

Item

Domain

can be applied to any item (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Allowed values

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

Example

Maidilibala (Q7158737) → Uskhal Khan Tögüs Temür (Q8937)
James the Just (Q26925) → James, son of Alphaeus (Q44047)
Rabana-Merquly (Q113159165) → Natounia (Q113159202)

Tracking: same

no label (Q42533431)

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P460 (Q98083533)

Is the same

I think it would also be convenient to be able to say: is the same. The main use-case would probably be pen names of authors, but there are potentially other uses. For instance, Taiwan is a member of the World Health Organization under the name . We could also use a "under the name" string qualifier, but an item-type property sounds better, especially for the Taiwan example. Should it be done with this property, or should I propose a new one ? --Zolo (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This property is not and should not be used as a a generic "is the same" / "same as" property; it has a very specific and restricted use case. If the documentation isn't clear, then the property proposal discussion should help clarify how this property should be used: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/6#P460. If it's still unclear, asking here or directing questions to the proposer, User:Stevenliuyi, would be my next step. Emw (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find "sameAs"... do we not have it? Littledogboy (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is property:P2888, but merging the two pages together may be better in some cases (because if they are literally the identical concept, how can there be an ontological distinction?); however, note that 'the same in different contexts' may actually mean 'not [quite] the same', whether or not some people assert they are. It's not Wikidata's place to decide except inasmuch as we look at what has already been decided or not decided, and then represent that using the data model. Arlo Barnes (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguations "said to be the same as" as location/name/etc. items?

now this property get used for disambiguations too, see [1]. i don't think it makes sense to add "P460 = location/name/etc. item" to disambiguation items. is it really wanted to use P460 this way? Holger1959 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Holger, ru:Шницлер, fr:Schnitzler are about family name (Q101352), but some another are not. Mixing disambig with article about name/family name is typical case as I see, another examples: Kovaltchouk (Q1785689), Alekseyev (Q975690). — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For disambiguations, I'd rather not use this property. It can suggest that one could actually find some content other than disambiguations, but there shouldn't actually be any.

If an article is only about a family name, it shouldn't be mixed with disambiguations either. --- Jura 09:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed item has no any article unfortunately. Articles like ru:Шницлер, fr:Schnitzler are very typical. Its contain 1-2 text lines about family name, long list of persons and its are marked as disambigs. Sometimes its contain text like this family name was used for city/town/... name also. I saw few number of separate articles about family names. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave it to a each Wikipedia to determine if their page is a disambiguation or a stub. French Wikipedia is a bit annoying, as most pages are marked as disambiguation. --- Jura 20:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivan A. Krestinin, Jura1: thank you for the answers. i know that in this case family name and disambig links are wrongly mixed up in 1 item at the moment, but that is an other problem (of a few users not following the rule, that disambig items should only have links to pages actually marked with {{disambig}}; i already asked the user who merged the family name links into the disambig item, but got no reaction yet).

So here my question was only about the property usage. Holger1959 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use for “is the same”?

Is it correct to use this property in cases where two items are indisputably in some sense the same, yet in some other way different enough to warrant separate items? For example: Anakin Skywalker (Q51752)said to be the same as (P460)Darth Vader (Q12206942) —DSGalaktos (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can use pseudonym (P742) for that, I assume. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a string property. --- Jura 06:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? You could use it to connect Anakin to Darth Vader?

I think you should be able to use birth name (P1477) to connect Darth Vader to Anakin. If Property:P742 cannot be used to do it the other way around, what could be? Property:P460 is set to be symetrical. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two different items. If you want to connect them, you'd need a datatype-item-property. --- Jura 08:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Property:P742 isn't? How can I see that? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It reads "Data type: String" on the page. --- Jura 08:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anywhere; where do I need to look? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wait, I found it on the talk page:- cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This means to shouldn't be used to link to other items, just for unlinked data? - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try to set the language to English and look at Property:P742#datatype. It means you can only add strings and not items. --- Jura 08:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ what could work is use pseudonym (P742) and link the item with the qualifier "subject of" (P:P805). This could be done in addition to P460. --- Jura 09:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be ok, IMHO. --- Jura 06:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! —DSGalaktos (talk)

Split off duplicate-page use

See WD:Property proposal/Generic#duplicated_item. --Yair rand (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

opposite of (P461) vs. inverse property (P1696)

Paging Infovarius because the change was initially made by him.

There seems to be an error in said to be the same as (P460)'s claims : the property is not the inverse property (P1696) different from (P1889) (they're not reciprocal), it is the ontological opposite of (P461). The problem is the same, in reverse, on different from (P1889).

This is a very disrupting change for some tools relying on wikidata, so I'd like to change it ASAP but the issue is that the shitty search engine in edition mode absolutely couldn't find opposite of (P461) when creating a new claim ;-)

How can we change it ? Is there a hidden reason why this was changed to the current state in the first place ?

Eledeuh (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I decided to act on this, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1889 for more discussion/info. --- Eledeuh (talk)

Unhelpful aliases

Some of the current aliases actually have a different meaning: same as, the same as, equivalent to, equivalent of, is the same as, same, equal to (these all refer to permanent duplicated item (P2959)), similar to, see also (these don't exactly match any property, but different from (P1889) is probably closer). Since aliases are used in the search box when adding new properties, I think these are rather unhelpful and can lead users to mistakenly adding the whole property. Is there any reason to have them? Tgr (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

social work science

@Axolotl Nr.733: You removed the claim social work science (Q2305240)said to be the same as (P460)social work (Q205398) with the edit summary: "the fact alone that the German and Italian Wikipedia explicitly differentiate between these two is reason enough to have separate items". I have no intention of merging these items. However, I think that sources (and languages and cultures) do not consistently differentiate between these items. This is my understanding of the intended use of said to be the same as (P460). It is not at all obvious when relating items to social work, eg. Special:WhatLinksHere/Q205398, which target is most appropriate, social work (Q205398) or social work science (Q2305240). Often either or both is appropriate. Again, this is my understanding of an ideal use case of said to be the same as (P460). I would like to see this claim restored. Daask (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding this edit, I may add that someone had changed the descriptions in social work (Q205398), so I initially thought you had implied that social work science was the same as sociology, which certainly isn't the case. Concerning the difference between social work and social work science, it's probably a bit more difficult and the German Wp article does offer some critique, stating that scholars may consider social pedagogy (Q1572493) to be the sole scientific underpinning of social work, rendering a distinct "social work science" unnecessary. Nevertheless, I think it doesn't make sense to simultaneously state that social work science (Q2305240)is the study of (P2578)social work (Q205398) AND that they may still be the same. Plus, I have created social work scholar (Q109936222) (note that the related Category:Social work scholars (Q10212510) had existed before – I had created the category in the English Wp, but not in other languages) to differentiate it from social worker (Q7019111). You are right that said to be the same as (P460) doesn't indicate a proposed merge, but to me, it's clear that social work science is the outcome of debates within the academic discipline of social work, while, imo, said to be the same as (P460) relates to cases where unrelated sources may have developed similar concepts. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Create a conflicts-with property constraint amongst P460 and P1889?

Shoudn't we create a conflicts-with constraint (Q21502838) property (P2306) constraint amongst said to be the same as (P460) and different from (P1889)? The following query shows data quality problems (conflicting statements):

The following query uses these:

Properties: said to be the same as (P460)  

, different from (P1889)  

, instance of (P31)  

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?instanceLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?item wdt:P460 ?notequal;
    wdt:P1889 ?sameas;
    wdt:P31 ?instance.
  FILTER(?notequal = ?sameas)
}

Try it!

Geertivp (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this at Property_talk:P1889#Create_a_conflicts-with_property_constraint_amongst_P460_and_P1889?. --- Jura 12:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed constraint

I've added a citation needed constraint because it's clear from the proposal (and the name) of the property that it's to be used to indicate that a certain source claims that two concepts/instances are actually the same concept/instance. Consequently, it makes no sense to allow this property if a source isn't stated. Silver hr (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss it, but nothing will change before then. --HarryNº2 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reject this suggestion. If anyone thinks the term isn't similar, they should undo the edit and ask the editor to provide a source for it in the summary line or on the talk page. --HarryNº2 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on how you disagree with my reasoning for adding the citation needed constraint to this property. Silver hr (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because most terms are simply logical, especially in the area of personal names. For example, Fink, Finke, Finken, Vink, Vinke, Vinken, etc. or Miller, Müller, Möller, etc. all come from the same profession, so there is no need for a source. With the change, several hundred thousand sources would have to be inserted by name, just because, exceptionally, a source is missing somewhere else. As I said, delete what you don't like and ask the creator for a source, but not across the board for each and every entry in Wikidata. --HarryNº2 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Wikipedia, Wikidata is not a collection of original research. This means that in general, all claims should be sourced. See more at Help:Sources and Wikidata:Verifiability.

But that is a more general issue than the one we're discussing here. Here we're discussing the property "said to be the same as". Nothing is ever "said" as if it comes into existence on its own. There is always some person doing the saying. And this person can't be the Wikidata editor making the claim because that would be original research. This is why it makes no sense to not ask for the source when applying this property.

As for the fact that a lot of people essentially added a large amount of original research using this property and that it would be a lot of work to properly source those claims...well yes. But "it's a lot of work" isn't a valid exception to the sourcing rules I linked to earlier. Silver hr (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then all information in Wikidata would have to be provided with a source. Completely unrealistic, especially with trivial words. Ask yourself why nobody in the past 10 years had come up with the idea. --HarryNº2 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since your opposition to this constraint is based on disagreeing with a Wikidata guideline, and no one else has argued against the constraint in almost 3 weeks, I'll restore it. Silver hr (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description says that the statement is "uncertain or disputed", so a source for it is not needed and is not endorsed by Wikidata:Verifiability in that sense. Since you have changed a property here that you have been wanting to change for almost ten years without giving any sources and no other supporters have been found, I put the matter back to the old status. Extensive changes, as in this case, please put up for discussion here → Wikidata:Forum. --HarryNº2 (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the "uncertain or disputed" bit in the description means that it's to be used for cases when it's not completely obvious that two concepts are the same; instead someone is making that claim, but not everyone necessarily agrees with it.

Secondly, I don't see how you arrived to the conclusion that those words in the description somehow overrule the Help:Sources guideline.

Thirdly, with regard to you saying "Since you have changed a property here that you have been wanting to change for almost ten years": you don't know what I or anyone else wants or thinks, and it is rude to presume so. Furthermore, other Wikidata editors are not the topic in this or any other discussion, so please refrain from making personal comments.

Finally, since you insist, I've started a discussion here. Silver hr (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's rude about that? You want a change, but you don't even give an example of what it would be absolutely necessary for. HarryNº2 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is rude to presume to know what anyone else wants or thinks. Comment on actions and words, not people. Silver hr (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now archived. Of the comments made, User:HarryNº2 repeated the one stated here, giving the example of the use of this property to link family names that stem from a common occupation. However, this erroneously claims that two different last names are in fact the same last name. Aside from that, the connection between them already is or can be captured in statements of the form instance of (P31)occupational surname (Q829026)of (P642)miller (Q694116) (e.g. for Miller (Q1605060) and Möller (Q1184002)).

Other comments, from User:Vicarage, User:ChristianKl and User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) raised the issue that a way to indicate equality of concepts is needed where the editors themselves are the ones who are making the equality claim. I agree, and we already have that ability in three different ways:

When two Wikidata items are about the same concept, they can simply be merged, which causes one item to be redirected to another, and this gets exported to RDF as owl:sameAs.
When two Wikidata items are about the same concept, and a merge/redirect isn't possible, there is permanent duplicated item (P2959) which relates WD item to WD item, and it obviously doesn't need sourcing because its claims are about WD items themselves. Furthermore, to express uncertainty about the sameness (i.e. the editor is making a reasonable guess but isn't completely certain), one can use a qualifier such as sourcing circumstances (P1480)presumably (Q18122778) or nature of statement (P5102)hypothesis (Q41719).
When a Wikidata item is about the same concept as an item in a different ontology, there is equivalent class (P1709) which is the equivalent of owl:equivalentClass. If it is agreed that items representing instances can't use equivalent class (P1709), there is its superproperty, exact match (P2888), which is the equivalent of skos:exactMatch. Both of these properties relate Wikidata items to external items, and don't need sourcing for the same reason as in point 2, i.e. the Wikidata editor is the one making the claim that a Wikidata item represents the same concept as an item in another ontology.

With this in mind, I don't see any justification for continuing to use said to be the same as (P460) for something for which it wasn't intended and doesn't fit, and accordingly, I will restore the citation needed constraint. Silver hr (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any agreement in the archived discussion, so the status quo remains. The surnames mentioned were only an example. P460 is used in the same way for given names that are similar to each other and practically in every name article, e.g. Andre (Q16274896)/André (Q6298851), Maria (Q325872)/Maria (Q56449214)/Mária (Q6949677)/Mariá (Q81914052) and hundreds of thousands more, which you cannot or do not have to prove because it is simply logical. Therefore, the topic should be discussed with the Wikidata:WikiProject Names beforehand and a reasonable solution should be sought.--HarryNº2 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you can see in the archived discussion is what I've presented in the summary: a number of people raised a couple of issues which I addressed. It was a discussion, not a vote; arguments are what matters.

You now mention given names, and I can give you the same response as for family names: Andre (Q16274896), André (Q6298851) and Drejc (Q20523907) are different concepts and it is erroneous to claim that they are the same concept. In the case of Andre (Q16274896) and André (Q6298851), the connection between them is already captured in the statement Andre (Q16274896)has characteristic (P1552)name without diacritical marks (Q89410507)of (P642)André (Q6298851). As for how those are connected to Drejc (Q20523907), I can't say because names are not my domain of expertise; perhaps Drejc (Q20523907)has characteristic (P1552)version (Q105062328)of (P642)Andre (Q16274896)? What I do know for sure is that they're not the same concept, which is currently claimed by said to be the same as (P460) statements.

Also, I don't see how a discussion with part of the Wikidata community is necessary after we've already had a discussion that all of the Wikidata community could participate in, but if you insist, I'll present my case there as well. Silver hr (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month since the last comment in the WikiProject Names discussion, in which no one but User:HarryNº2 and I participated, despite the members of that project being notified. Since no one provided any new arguments there, and since I believe I've adequately addressed comments raised in the original discussion, I think it's safe to say that I've proven my case and that this property should have property constraint (P2302)citation-needed constraint (Q54554025). Since pretty much the only opposition to this came from User:HarryNº2 who doesn't seem to be willing to accept my arguments and thus agreement seems unlikely, @Ash Crow: do you have any suggestions on how to proceed (pinging you since you protected the property)? Silver hr (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, no one has been found who thinks it is necessary to cite a source, since the term is broad. Thus, the status quo continues to exist. --HarryNº2 (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the protection but please reach a consensus before changing the constraints. Silver hr it seems that for now you are the only one who wants this change. -Ash Crow (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this property really transitive?

If A is said to be the same as B, and B is said to be the same as C, does it follow that A is said to be the same as C? I don't think so.

Consider this sort of scenario: John is said to be the same as the Notorious Sandwich Thief. The Notorious Sandwich Thief is said to be the same as the Sith Apprentice. The Sith Apprentice is said to be the same as Frank. It doesn't follow that John is said to be the same as Frank.

This is an important respect in which P460 is not a genuine identity property. If it were truly identity, then it would be transitive of course. OwenCKing (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand a little bit: how a name can be "the same as" non-name entity? --Infovarius (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not transitive. Since the purpose of the property is to denote that a certain source claims that two concepts are the same, the only transitivity that can be inferred is in a situation when the same source claims A said to be the same as (P460) B and B said to be the same as (P460) C. In this case it can be assumed that the source did so knowingly and thus that it also claims A said to be the same as (P460) C, but that is a far cry from real transitivity. Silver hr (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)\[reply]

What is wrong in applying transitivity when A~B is in the first source and B~C is in the second? --Infovarius (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add another reason this can't be transitive: P460 is indeed symmetric. However, if it is both symmetric and transitive, we get more absurdities. Suppose that these two statements are both well-sourced: "John is said to be the heir" and "Jan is said to be the heir". Since the property is symmetric, that entails both of these statements: "The heir is said to be John" and "The heir is said to be Jan". But, given transitivity, it now follows that "John is said to be Jan". That cannot be right. --OwenCKing (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"John is said to be the heir" + "The heir is said to be John" seems to be non-symmetric and quite nonsensical for me. So it is a bad example. --Infovarius (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I didn't think there was any dispute about whether this property was symmetric! How could it not be symmetric? If someone says that John is the heir, isn't that person also saying that the heir is John? If someone says water is the same as H2O, isn't that person also saying that H2O is the same as water? OwenCKing (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be I don't catch something in English wording, what is "the heir"? Is it some particular person or a title? --Infovarius (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The particular content of the example is irrelevant. This property is clearly not transitive. Here is the proof: It may be that one group of people says A and B are the same, and a different group of people says that B and C are the same, but NO group says that A and C are the same. Hence, "said to be the same as" is not transitive. OwenCKing (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italian label

[Writing in Italian because it's merely a language question] Quell'essere è pleonastico, perché "considerato uguale a" ha lo stesso significato di "considerato essere uguale", ma è più conciso, elegante e suona più idiomatico. Correggiamo? --Ferdi2005 _[Mail] 11:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

similar to

I need a property for "similar to", which a fundamentally different concept from "is said to be the same as". Sure, "similar to" is extremely generic and not of much use for machines, but it is something humans say and want to say. An alternative label for that notion is "bears resemblance to". The notion of similarity is well recognized across languages. It is one of the fundamental concepts of human thought, although one with which machines are going to have great difficulty dealing with. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Something like a "sister model" connection, i.e. Chevrolet Cavalier and Opel Kadett are certainly different, but they are the same design built on the same platform. Retired electrician (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish label

Please change "está disputado" to "es incierto o cuestionable". There's no such word as "disputado" in Spanish, and in this way it fits better with the English description. NicoSkater97 (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P460

Contents

Documentation

Is the same

disambiguations "said to be the same as" as location/name/etc. items?

Use for “is the same”?

Split off duplicate-page use

opposite of (P461) vs. inverse property (P1696)

Unhelpful aliases

social work science

Create a conflicts-with property constraint amongst P460 and P1889?

Citation needed constraint

Is this property really transitive?

Italian label

similar to

Spanish label

Navigation menu

Property talk:P460

Documentation

Is the same

disambiguations "said to be the same as" as location/name/etc. items?

Use for “is the same”?

Split off duplicate-page use

opposite of (P461) vs. inverse property (P1696)

Unhelpful aliases

social work science

Create a conflicts-with property constraint amongst P460 and P1889?

Citation needed constraint

Is this property really transitive?

Italian label

similar to

Spanish label

Navigation menu

Search