Wikidata:Property proposal/field of this award

field of this award

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	subject, discipline or scope of an award or prize
Represents	award (Q618779), field of work (Q627436)
Data type	Item
Domain	award (Q618779)
Example 1	Pomme d'Or (Q3395959) → tourism (Q49389)
Example 2	Academy Award for Best Costume Design (Q277536) → costume design (Q16331597)
Example 3	Nova Scotia Community Cares Award (Q111598665) → volunteering (Q188844)
Example 4	Eckert–Mauchly Award (Q2404647) → computer architecture (Q173212)
Example 5	Mayor's Arts Award for Public Art (Q105938794) → public art (Q557141)
Example 6	Siminovitch Prize (Q7517844) → playwright (Q214917) (as qualifier)
See also	field of work (P101), field of this occupation (P425)
Wikidata project	Wikidata:WikiProject_Award

Motivation

field of work (P101) is a really useful property to describe the domain or the area of specialty of an organization. However, based on its description, it should not be used to state the field of an award. In the absence of the proper property, the domain or subject of an award must defined through subclasses. This can lead to intricate and granular subclass hierarchies, which is not efficient. The simplest method of defining an award's subject or domain is to create a dedicated property, as it was done with field of this occupation (P425).

The proposed property could also prove useful to qualify cyclical awards. Several award programs are cyclical: they bestow the award to a specific discipline or sub-genre every year. For example, the Siminovitch Prize (Q7517844) operates on a three-year cycle and is awarded either to a theatre director, a playwright or a designer. If the proposed property was used as a qualifer, it would be possible to state:

Tara Beagan (Q109380045)award received (P166)Siminovitch Prize (Q7517844)

• qualifier "field of this award": playwriting (Q109567933)

author  TomT0m / talk page Mbch331 (talk) Jobu0101 (talk) Tubezlob (🙋) Flycatchr Koxinga (talk) Fuzheado (talk) Mfchris84 (talk) Manu1400 (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC) ミラP@Miraclepine 19:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Nils Casties (talk) Finnusertop (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC) DrThneed (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Award Fjjulien (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Oppose the property seems too narrow. Maybe something like "decidated to field" could be created that could be used more broadly and not only for awards? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ChristianKl Your suggestion of an alternative, broader property has merit. Let's see what others think. Fjjulien (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ChristianKl As per your suggestion, I created this other property proposal: Wikidata:Property_proposal/field_of_this_item Fjjulien (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose in favor of using field of work (P101): if that can apply to "human", why not to "award"
  • Furthermore, it should be possible to use field of work (P101) as qualifier of award received (P166)
  • People use award rationale (P6208) ("award citation") as qualifier of award received (P166) but that's free text not an item
  • I also think we should merge field of work (P101) and field of this occupation (P425) because why not? @ChristianKl:? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Vladimir Alexiev Regarding using field of work (P101) for awards: I've had this discussion with a few wikimedians and I generally found opposition, hence this proposal. See this discussion thread. Fjjulien (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Vladimir Alexiev Regarding the merging of P101 and P425: I'm glad you agree on the need to describe the fields of things other than humans, organizations, and occupations. I would however recommend caution before editing field of work (P101) or broadening its scope. When properties are too generic, we run the risks of inconsistent use and loss of conceptual clarity. field of work (P101) has been around for a long time and has been meeting clearly defined information needs, thanks to its self-explanatory label and clearly focused description. I am not in favour of merging P101 and P425. However, we could consider creating a more generic "field of this item" property, of which P101 and P425 could be sub-properties. Fjjulien (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Very interesting discussion. I'm for this proposal because this proposal provides fluidity in the modeling. It allows a natural transcription of the thought scheme while consolidating the set of properties, precisely by not creating fuzziness or noise on properties that have demonstrated their uses and their acceptance by the community. Moreover, I can't imagine a more generic way to describe them because by nature they are specific but this touches the limits of my thinking.:) --Vero Marino (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose eligible recipient (P8115) is a very powerful property in this case because it allows to precisely describe the kind of recipient (human, work… depending on what conditions) an award can be attributed to. By extension, we can probably deduce its "field", in most of the cases. However, since I agree it's slightly different concept to what is proposed here and if a new property is really necessary, I think we should make it less specific, as ChristianKl commented above. Peuc (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  This modeling is generic, but I find it rather unnatural for people, eg "Fields medal: eligible recipient: human, occupation: mathematician". It'd be much more natural to say "Fields medal: field: mathematics".

  Furthermore, the mapping field of this occupation (P425) between professions and occupations is neither complete, nor 1-to-1. Check this query https://w.wiki/5W3T, eg sport (Q349) is mapped to many different professions. Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Vladimir is making a good point about the mapping of professions to fields. It is highly incomplete the arts domain. Fjjulien (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Peuc I used eligible recipient (P8115) in Siminovitch Prize (Q7517844) and stated the occupations as values. This strategy worked well in this particular case. It may not always work as well if occupation values are missing and need to be created. Fjjulien (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose I oppose this proposal in favor of the more general Wikidata:Property proposal/field of this item. /ℇsquilo 07:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I also tend to solve this issue with the creation of Wikidata:Property proposal/field of this item. squilo (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• @squilo, Vero Marino, Vladimir Alexiev, Fjjulien:  Not done given more oppose votes than support votes and the stallness of the proposal. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)