en:Template:Infobox stadium has a field "surface". This could be added with this property as well. Currently domain for this property is limited to events though. Shall we extend it? BTW That infobox is currently used 8277 times. --  Docu  at 09:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I certainly agree to extend the scope to venues like stadiums, etc. The same proposal has also been made during the discussion of creation.--Kompakt (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are many more possible applications even completely outside the sports domain: e.g. thoroughfare (Q83620) (including subclasses), runway (Q184590), etc. --MB-one (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Docu, Wolbo, Vinkje83: (top-3 users of this property)

Right now, there is 1493 "Type compétition (Q841654)" violations for 1503 uses of this property. That's 99,3% of violations, something is wrong and should be corrected.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the issue. First of all: I never heard of competition (Q841654) before, and I never use it. Secondly: your reference to https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/NavelGazer.php does not work (not for me, anyway). Please give better information. Vinkje83 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is the difference between competition (Q841654) and competition (Q23807345)? In my language they have the same name. In English too. Vinkje83 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Vinkje83: the issue is that there is a constraint which is almost always violated. There is various solutions: remove the constraint, change it or change the items. I don't know the subject, I'm just raising the question, it's up to you to find a way to solve this (or not).

(PS: NavelGazer is just a tool for knowing who use a property, it works fine for me and has nothing to do with the problem here).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are saying that I am one of three users that violate some constraint or other. What is it that I did wrong? I am not aware of violating any constraint. Please tell me, in words that a non-technical user like me can understand, what I should have done differently? Vinkje83 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Vinkje83: no, I'm just saying you're in the top 3 of user of this property. More precisely, you used this property 133 times, making you the third users to use it most (after Docu and Wolbo). That is why I pinged you. Constraints violation is another problem.

So on Wikidata, for each and every property, we define rules (called constraints), basically something saying « this property should be used this way ». On surface played on (P765) there is a rule « P765 should be used on item that have instance of (P31) = competition (Q841654) (or something that is under competition (Q841654)) » but currently almost none of the item respect that rule (this is what we call a « constraint violation »). I don't know what to do, maybe the constraint is wrong (and then we should change it), maybe the constraint is right (and then we should change the items), maybe something else in between (more probably the first but not sure).

After a bit more of investigation, Matěj Suchánek changed the value of the constraint from sports competition (Q13406554) to competition (Q841654) in January: Special:Diff/624507571. I see too that @Jarashi, Infovarius, MisterSynergy: did some change on the subclass of (P279) of sports competition (Q13406554). The problem probably comes from here.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for ping. There is unfortunately continuous hassle with the definition of sports competition (Q13406554), which in January was even merged to another item. Matěj Suchánek’s bot moved the values ~a week later (similarly as it does for all other mergers), but then the merge was (correctly) undone, and parts of the old values were restored. This created strain on several sports-related constraint reports.
Another problem is that the subclass relation of sports competition (Q13406554) is changing from time to time, since apparently naive users think they could “improve” something here. I am pretty frustrated meanwhile regarding this situation, but just yesterday I planned to open a topic at WD:PC to discuss the items competition (Q476300), competition (Q841654), competition (Q23807345), and sporting event (Q16510064), which seem to have a lot of overlapping character with cluttered sitelinks. Due to the fact that I am on holiday soon without much activity I decided to postpone this discussion to a later time.
On the matter: it would probably suffice to undo Matěj Suchánek’s edit from Jan 29 to fix the problem. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now changed, and I also allowed subclass relations due to the range of actually correct uses. Now there are ~30 violations left, mostly stadiums. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@MisterSynergy, Jura1:

Many tennis tournament edition items, e.g. 2017 ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament (Q28606333), have the statement surface played on (P765). This however results in a constraint message "Entities using the surface played on property should be instances or subclasses of sports venue (Q1076486) (or a subclass of it)". Should this constraint not be updated to include instances of tennis tournament edition (Q47345468)? Surface for tournaments can and do change in time so different editions can have different surfaces but have the same sports or event venue.--Wolbo (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Sure. tennis tournament edition (Q47345468) is a fairly recent creation, from when we tried to tackle the many tennis items without statements. --- Jura 14:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • There were for some reason two type constraints which I transformed into one. tennis tournament edition (Q47345468) should now be an acceptable type as it is a subclass of sports competition (Q13406554), otherwise feel free to add it explicitly. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply