Property talk:P92

Documentation

main regulatory text
text setting the main rules by which the subject is regulated

Description

Text setting the main rules by which the subject is regulated. See also stated in (P248).

Represents

authorizing legislation (Q106706188), constitution (Q7755)

Data type

Item

Domain

places only? (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Example

Italy (Q38) → Constitution of Italy (Q719967)
United States of America (Q30) → United States Constitution (Q11698)

Tracking: same

no label (Q117318902)

Tracking: differences

no label (Q117318920)

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P92 (Q108873996)

Tracking: local yes, WD no

no label (Q117318915)

See also

foundational text (P457), laws applied (P3014)

Lists

Proposal discussion

[not applicable Proposal discussion]

Current uses

Total	13,567
Main statement	13,003	95.8% of uses
Qualifier	307	2.3% of uses
Reference	257	1.9% of uses

Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Value type “statute (Q820655), plan of management (Q45736416), service regulations (Q4122445), decree (Q2571972), legal act (Q1864008), regulation (Q428148), committee directives (Q98491862), delegated legislation (Q694045), legal instrument (Q3150005), sources of law (Q846882), religious text (Q179461), regulation of sport (Q766366)”: This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31), subclass of (P279) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value statute (Q820655), plan of management (Q45736416), service regulations (Q4122445), decree (Q2571972), legal act (Q1864008), regulation (Q428148), committee directives (Q98491862), delegated legislation (Q694045), legal instrument (Q3150005), sources of law (Q846882), religious text (Q179461), regulation of sport (Q766366) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P92#Value type Q820655, Q45736416, Q4122445, Q2571972, Q1864008, Q428148, Q98491862, Q694045, Q3150005, Q846882, Q179461, Q766366, SPARQL

Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449), as reference (Q54828450): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P92#Scope, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P92#Entity types

This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Label

Can I rename this property "legal basis" ? It is currently used to mean that some source has some kind of legal value, while "legally established" seems to imply that the source has some kind of chronological precedence. But I do not speak legalese, so I am not sure. --Zolo (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have changed it. "legally established by" is kept as an alias. --whym (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact difference with laws applied (P3014)? --Hannolans (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Property:P248

What is the difference with Property:P248 ? Snipre (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in any creation discussion of nether this nor the other item, but I would guess Property:P248 is intended for non-legal references (e.g. books, standards, ...) while this property should only hold legal documents like laws or constitutions. --Faux (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So these two properties aims the same target: we can merge them. Snipre (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that they aims the same target. For example: a country is formally established by the its constitution. That's a legal basis. And that can't be contested. In the other hand, the property stated in can be use with scientific documents, for example, making to ensure the truth of what we say, but there is a probability of that document don't correspond to the truth. In other words, the first is to present the document that establishes (is the base) of the item. The second property is to ensure that the information that is on Wikidata is not an original source, being the references of the Wikidata. If this is the way I'm saying, the first should be a normal property, while the second should be a sources property, but this is just my interpretation of the issue. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The description currently states "[statement] is established by [law/legal document]", so "x legal basis y" is the same as ["x stated in y" and "y instance of law/legal document"]. If that's the intended meaning, then they should be merged. If not, can you provide an example of "x legal basis y" that means something different from ["x stated in y" and "y instance of law/legal document"]? Silver hr (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the meaning I originally imagined for the property, and I agree it can be merged with "stated in". Yes it is used in another way as well: see Q1065. I think we would need another property for that, any idea about the name ? --Zolo (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usage there seems to be something like "foundational document", the difference from "stated in" being that the domain is entities, not statements. Perhaps this property could acquire that meaning, but then the instances where it's used for statements would have to be changed to "stated in". Silver hr (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created P:P457 (foundational text). I will replace P92 with it in relevant cases, but it appears that in some cases, a "member of" property would be needed (as is proposed in Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic) --Zolo (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the property to "main regulatory text" per Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2013/Properties/2 and other discussions. --Zolo (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal

This property was proposed for deletion. Please comment at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P92 (legal_basis). Snipre (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipre: The consensus in Wi idata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2013/Properties/2#main_regulatory_text_.28P92.29 was to keep the property P92. But should it be used as source property, as it is still noted here? Examples can be found among this list... --Zuphilip (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuphilip: The rules for sourcing are available here: adding redundant properties will just complicate the data extraction in wikipedia. Snipre (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipre: I don't want to use P92 as a sourcing property, actually I wanted to replace P92 with P248 whenever it occurs in the sources. But then I found different information and was not sure how up-to-date they are. Let me ask again: In Help:Sources#Book under point 5. it is mention that one can use other source properties with a link to Special:MyLanguage/Wikidata:List_of_properties/Others: this list contains P92 as a sourcing property. Is this maybe outdated? If yes, we could delete the line and maybe also say it clearly in the description of main regulatory text (P92), e.g. "text setting the main rules by which the subject is regulated (use P248 in sources; use P457 for ??)". --Zuphilip (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current usage

There are the statements

but also we have

What usage is correct?

List of all 23 statements with P92, and all 36 statements with P457

Today, there are 17 items in 23 statements using this property P92:

and 28 items in 36 statements using property P457:

--Zuphilip (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sourcing examples are useless: I just take an example I know, the swiss federal constitution. There are 3 versions of this document so it is not possible to source with the general item about swiss federal constitution, you need to specify which version is used in order to source correctly. Furthermore the current constitution is updated regularly at least once per year, so this good to specify the retrived date too. The best way to source is to use the rules of help:Sources which allow a standardization of the sources and allow an easiest extraction in wikipedia. Snipre (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note these examples are exactly using P92 not in the sources. IMO the statements

are saying everything and maybe we don't need for every property a reverse property as well... --Zuphilip (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constraint on type

After adding a constraint on type [[[Property:P92|main regulatory text (P92)]]], it ended up that the majority of items using this property were in violation... For reference, here is the report that was generated with that constraint: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P92&oldid=290400294. I am removing that constraint altogether. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 13:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add main regulatory text (P92)property constraint (P2302)value-type constraint (Q21510865)class (P2308)regulation (Q428148)

Currently regulation (Q428148) is not allowed as a value for this property, but it seems it should be. Regulation can be set by non legislative bodies in which case it will not be Xinstance of (P31)regulation (Q428148) and not any of the other allowed values.

I'm going to make the change, if someone wants to roll it back please do and then discuss objections here. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The law WikiProject does not exist. Please correct the name.

Notified participants of WikiProject Companies

Discussion

Neutral I of course support my own proposal, please add your own support here. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dhx1 (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]