I think this property is so general, lacking enough accuracy for data extraction queries turn out. It includes a wide range of place domains: cities, sport clubs, organizations, shops, airports, etc. and maybe domains which are not considered as a place. As well as, it includes a wide range of time domains from millisecond to century. I propose to pick it into several properties. And the next and more delicate point is that the label is so vague if it is used for cities (meaning establishment), stores (meaning opening) and so on. — دوستدار ایران بزرگ (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Qual è la differenza tra "creation date" (Property:P571) e "start date" (Property:P580)? --95.141.31.5 02:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I seem to remember the original purpose of this property was quite narrow: foundation date or establishment date, in the formal sense. In the case of a modern company this would be the date that appears on the company's registration documents. Danrok (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think this property needs qualifiers. Stockholm was founded as an urban area 1960 (Swedish urban areas in it's modern definition are never older than that.), was founded as municipality 1971, founded as city-municipality 1863, as town/city 1463 and as settlement 1252.

It would also be nice to show how it was founded. -- Lavallen^talk(block) 04:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree, I notice that some old organizations in the UK were founded by a Pope, and then re-founded by a King or Queen, after the creation of the Anglican Church, and a the move away from the Catholic Church in England. Danrok (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought that this property is a qualifier, or it needs splitting to be a number of things that have a start and end date.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would like to add some thougts about Lavallens example. First, let's consider what the item Stockholm (Q1754) actually is. Is it a urban area? No, Stockholm urban area (Q94385) is. Is it a municipality? No, that is Stockholm Municipality (Q506250). Is it the city-municipality? No, we've got Stockholm City (Q10680648) for that. Is it about the town/city? Yes it is! But the fact that it was granted town privileges in 1463 was only a formal recognition of its status. The city/town/settlement was already there and it was already there in 1252 when Birger jarl wrote his letter granting privileges for Fogdö kloster. That letter just happens to be the oldest written record mentioning Stockholm. But Birger jarl wrote the letter in Stockholm and also wrote in the letter that it was from Stockholm. That indicates that there already was a settlement there noticable enough to be mentioned by the Jarl. The only source available stating the exact year for the foundation of Stockholm is Visby Franciscan chronicles (Q10716064) and that says it was founded in 1187. /ℇsquilo 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Kial ne estas uzita [Q50101|ISO 8601]] do: JJJJ-MM-TT ekzemple 2013-10-12 sed estas "oktobro 12 2013"? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kie vi vidas tion? --AVRS (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ĉie. Ekzemple: Q143 (interfaco pl, eo, en). Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The data is stored as "+00000002013-10-15T13:09:40Z". It's the User Interface that writes everything in wrong order. -- Lavallen (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

La dato estas montrata en la formo difinita ie por la unua lingvo en la listo de "Helpaj lingvoj" sur la paĝo "Redaktado" de oniaj preferoj.

The date is rendered as specified somewhere for the first language on the "Editing" page of the user preferences .

--AVRS (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dankon. Estas bone. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:Q10893166#date of foundation or creation (P571). --Jeremyb-phone (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are there any plans to restrict the domain of this property to organizations? Or the intended domain is an artifact? If not, I see no sense in keeping that property, since Property:P580 has the same meaning. -- Apohllo 14 January 2015, 16:57

Would you say this property can be used to record when an animal race was first created (by crossing two other races), for example in Swabian-Hall Swine (Q769449) inception (P571) 1820? —DSGalaktos (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It seems that Nativity of St. John the Baptist (Q18602467) was painted in the years 1633-1635. Which year should be used in this case? And what about the precision value if it is not exactly in a certain year but 'decade' would be too imprecise? Bever (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Bever: I think start time (P580) and end time (P582) are intended for this use-case, so

⟨ Nativity of St. John the Baptist (Q18602467)      ⟩ inception (P571)   ⟨ 1630s ⟩
start time (P580)   ⟨  1633 ⟩
end time (P582)   ⟨  1635 ⟩

. Or perhaps earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326), but I think those are intended for cases where the exact date is unknown, which isn’t the case here. —DSGalaktos (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any discussion about the renaming of this property. The single word inception is misleading when the main component of this is that it is a date or a time, not the concept of wikt:inception. Can we please have the element of the time component added back.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Counter-argument: one “inception” statement can be used not only to record the time at which the inception occurred, but also other things. For example, see P:P1191, which is “first performance”, not “date of first performance”, since it’s often also qualified with location (P276), performer (P175), etc. – these qualifiers make more sense when you read them as “location of first performance”, not “location of date of first performance”. (For examples, see The Blue Danube (Q482621) and Symphony No. 9 (Q11989).) (However, in this particular case, I’m not sure if that argument applies – I haven’t seen many qualified inception (P571) statements.) —DSGalaktos (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please see Property_talk:P1619#Relation_to_inception_.28P571.29_.3F. --- Jura 08:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

How should the first half of the 18th century be indicated? And how the first quarter of the 18th century? Or beginning of the 18th century? Romaine (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

As 18th century (precision: 100 years), with qualifiers earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326), I think. —Galaktos (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Note that the new-ish qualifier refine date (P4241) supports this directly. - PKM (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?inception ?start ?end ?instanceofLabel 
WHERE
{
  hint:Query hint:optimizer "None" .
  ?item p:P571 ?statement .
  ?statement pq:P580 ?start . 
  ?statement pq:P582 ?end . 
  ?statement ps:P571 ?inception . 
  ?item wdt:P31 ?instanceof 
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

There is some discussion about it on French project chat (Topic:U8ugv72dm20md1is).
--- Jura 11:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Pierre Martins: @Jura1: @VIGNERON: inception can't have start time (P580) and end time (P582). @TomT0m: is completely right here (Topic:U8ugv72dm20md1is).

Plus he is also right that inception (P571) can't be used for "date of construction" or anything related to construction. Good news is that we started to cleanup the mess with inception (P571) and here are the new property proposals: Wikidata:Property_proposal/construction_start & Wikidata:Property_proposal/construction_end for construction realted mass of inception (P571).

For a one time event's 'start' and 'end' dates you could use significant event (P793). Plus if there is any recurring event then we can use day in year for periodic occurrence (P837).

• v
• t
• e

significant event	beginning edit point in time 1991 0 references add reference   end edit point in time 1993 0 references add reference
		add value

If anyone came across better method of doing it, kindly let us know too.

-- BeLucky (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am working on Rouillon bridge (Q3397110), a bridge which has been destroyed 3 times, and reconstructed 4 times. Both inception (P571) and date of official opening (P1619) only allows one date for this property. How should I note these multiple dates in this element? Should I:

• ignore the warning and go ahead with multiple entries for this property?
• use significant event (P793) = demolition (Q331483), qualified with point in time (P585) as suggested in Property_talk:P576 ?

Dirac (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have the same problem with the closing and reopening of a professional association (Q33037862).--Hienafant (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would regard the bridge being being built four times as four separate instances, four separate incarnations, so there are four entities, each of them with a different inception date, and all of which instance of (P31) Rouillon bridge (Q3397110). -- 𝒦 (🗪 | 🖹) 13:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Following the discussion with @Llywelyn2000: at property proposal, here are a few items that can be used for the qualifier criterion used (P1013):

• declaration of independence (Q1464916): assertion by a defined territory that it is independent and constitutes a state
• independence date commemoration (Q60024336): date generally commemorated as date of independence, may be an actual or traditional date
• independence recognized by another country (Q60024485): date when a country was first recognized as independent by another country
• independence recognized by country from which it separated (Q60021702): date when a country first recognized one of its former posessions as an independent country

Sample use with actual dates for Mexico in the sandbox.

• statement is subject of (P805) is used to link country specific items about the event: Grito de Dolores (Q1145411), Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire (Q1131780), Treaty of Córdoba (Q767450)
• separated from (P807) links to the country it separate from (Spain).
• subject has role (P2868) could be used to link sovereign state (Q3624078) at the applicable date (when is that?)
• The statement with the Treaty of Córdoba (Q767450) has deprecated rank as it was signed, but not ratified by Spain.

Obviously, for some countries criteria could be different/some not applicable. Please list them here. --- Jura 07:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The system gives an error, you cannot put two dates of creation. This restriction is not correct. Exemple: Q61767271 is an abbey created in 12th century and closed during the French Revolution. It was reopened in 1898. I don't find anyway to put this two dates in de wikidatafile, though they are both correct. I know a lot of other examples.--Flamenc (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is there a way to indicate that an object was created between two dates (when the precise date of its creation is unknown (examples in: Q11765908; Q1142058)?--Braaark (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Braaark:, here's one way to do this using "earliest date" and "latest date" as qualifiers: Tunic with Frontal Figures (Q60756150). - PKM (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

PKM: thank you for answering. However, this method, which is the one I used in the two examples I provided, does not work for Wikipedia infoboxes.--Braaark (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is there any objection to adding nature of statement (P5102) as a valid qualifier for this property? - PKM (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Have often dates, that a inception (P571) is before a date. In 1470 there is a mill, but inception (P571) is before... How to define? Regards, Conny (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC).Reply

• with the "latest"-qualifier? --- Jura 16:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I notice that a bot is now routinely using this property on Commons for the date on which a photograph was taken, e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Albany,_Oregon_-_Wallace_Building_(former_J.C._Penney).jpg&diff=390006982&oldid=265512026 . Is that actually the intention of this property? (If answering, please ping me, I don't keep a watchlist on Wikidata, thanks in advance.) - Jmabel (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

+1, same question. @Multichill: as the owner of BotMultichill. I don't think this is the intention of this property. @Jmabel: --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have the same question.

Also, why is the hidden category "Taken on missing SDC inception" always entered when using the {{Taken on}} template?

-- F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 18:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@F. Riedelio I think you should discuss this on Commons. --- Jura 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for the hint F. Riedelio • talk 08:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's appropriate to say that inception (P571)inverse property (P1696)dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576), as the property currently does. The documentation for inverse property (P1696) makes it clear that "inverse" is not here a synonym of opposite, but in the sense of Inverse function (Q191884): the inverse property (P1696) is making the claim that Wikidata (Q2013)inception (P571)29 October 2012 implies that 29 October 2012dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576)Wikidata (Q2013), which is nonsensical. What we really need to properly model the relationship is to create an equivalent to opposite of (P461) for properties, but as there aren't very many properties with clear opposites, this might not be worthwhile.

Since I already made this change and got reverted, I want to see whether this line of reasoning makes sense to others.

Vahurzpu (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vahurzpu: Sorry, I haven’t checked the documentation for inverse property (P1696), I just saw that you removed this property, then added opposite of (P461), then removed that again, so I thought that you just forgot to readd P1696. Feel free to revert my revert. (By the way, if I move some data from one property to another, I always first add the new one, and only after that do I remove the old one, in case anything stops me from finishing my edits—my browser crashes, I have to go to the toilet instantly, my house gets on fire etc.—, the data is still there. If you’ve edited in this order, it would have been much less suspicious for me.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to add "not dated" for paintings? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• v
• t
• e

inception	unknown value Help edit 0 references add reference
		add value

--Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have a department at the University of Washington whose web page states that it was established "about 1961". Not sure how best to record an approximate date. For now I did this:

inception: 1961 qualified with: stated as: about 1961

Is that the best way to do this, or is there another way to include an approximate date as the value for inception? --- Adam Schiff 19:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

See Help:Dates#Inexact_dates, specifically "Qualifier for circa". --- Jura 18:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you!! Adam Schiff 20:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It would be interesting include somewhere a link to the Wiktionary definition of inception, for more information. --BoldLuis (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added this because some neologism's date of invention is known, like covfefe. EdwardAlexanderCrowley (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that this property is equivalent to both dateCreated and foundingDate on Schema.org, the first of which is for works and the second for organizations. But the parallel Schema.org properties for location, locationCreated and foundingLocation, have separate equivalents on Wikidata: location of creation (P1071) and location of formation (P740) respectively. Will this property be split/the other two be merged, or will this remain this way (since I was going to propose to use some of these properties in certain ontologies)? Thanks. Knr5 (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Knr5: Unfortunately without proposal from an interested party and following community consensus nothing will change. Personally I find properties that have a conditional meaning (i.e. the meaning changes depending on the subject item) tend to be a "bad data smell" and think it would be a reasonable idea to create sub properties in this instance. You may want to share this discussion to the project chat to seek further input (or if feeling bold create property proposals explaining the reasoning). --SilentSpike (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! (I noticed at least one issue that I had overlooked earlier, with location of creation (P1071). I may start there.) Knr5 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think this property should have a citation-needed constraint (Q54554025).

I am trying to clean up improper usages of this property and move them to alternative and more-specific properties. Checking what the provided value means and even if it is valid is very tedious and concerning when it is very-often not sourced.

This property and all date properties are important and making sure they have a citation I'd consider very important.

Please let me know your thoughts. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Seems fair to me, thought I think most properties should have that constraint by default. SilentSpike (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Tagishsimon Revision. I don't think for most items the time it begins is specific. For example, is the time a building begins when the building is first drafted? Is it when it is first decided to be built? Is it when construction starts? Is it when construction ends? Is it when the building opens?

There are a lot of options and this problem exists with about every item. I think it's fair to ask the user to try to use a more specific propety, especially since I've seen this property being misused for things that aren't exactly the start date of something. For example, when a music artist debuts. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The relation to start_time and end_time for planned events is unclear too. Is the inception of the London Olympics when the nebulous plan to hold it started, the 2003 bid submission date, the 2005 date when it won, or 2012 when it was held? All are useful, but any value other than 2012 will surprise. Is it better to advise the omission of inception for events in favour of the clear start and end times? Vicarage (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Vicarage Yes, it is advised to use a more specific property or state specifically what event is being described by using significant event (P793). Lectrician1 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

1. date founded
2. date created
3. incorporated
4. foundation
5. created
6. date of foundation
7. date of creation
8. established
9. establishment date
10. foundation date
11. creation date
12. incorporation date
13. date incorporated
14. date of incorporation
15. date of establishment
16. founding date
17. date of founding
18. date formed
19. formation date
20. formed on date
21. founded on date
22. incorporated on date
23. established on date
24. created on date
25. commencement date
26. date commenced
27. commenced on date
28. date of commencement
29. time of foundation or creation
30. date of foundation or creation
31. written on date
32. time of inception
33. year founded
34. year created
35. year incorporated
36. year written
37. year commenced
38. year established
39. date constructed
40. construction date
41. constructed
42. inititated
43. formation
44. dedication date
45. formed in
46. formed at
47. inaugurated
48. launch date
49. introduced
50. introduction
51. completed
52. first issue
53. built
54. foundation / creation date
55. founded
56. launched
57. founded in
58. broke ground

58 words represent 1 word inception. It's totally wrong and highly massed-up. I am purposing we need to break this property into 3 at-least. And we need to move some to Property:P1619 (date of official opening) too.

We need to knowledge the fact that inception/foundation and official opening/inauguration and construction(started/ended) related terms are 3 totally different things.

-- BeLucky (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@BeLucky It is already known that this is a problem. Start a property proposal and we can begin the process of fixing the mess. Lectrician1 (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Lectrician1 Nice to hear that someone already realized the same and fixing it. BeLucky (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just formatted and defined everything here for everyone's convenience:

inception (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inception) the beginning of something

time of inception

founded (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/found)

date founded

date of foundation

foundation date

foundation

founding date

date of founding

founded on date

year founded

founded in

date formed (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/form)

formation date

formed on date

formed in

formed at

formation

date created (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/create)

created

date of creation

creation date

created on date

year created

time of foundation or creation

date of foundation or creation

foundation /creation date

established (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/establishment)

establishment date

date of establishment

established on date

year established

incorporated (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/incorporate) [ Need another property ] (incorporated) Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated

incorporation date [ Need another property ] (incorporated) Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated

date incorporated [ Need another property ] (incorporated) Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated

date of incorporation [ Need another property ] (incorporated) Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated

incorporated on date [ Need another property ] (incorporated) Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated

year incorporated [ Need another property ] (incorporated) Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated

commencement date (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/commencement)

date commenced

commenced on date

date of commencement

year commenced

written on date

year written

date constructed [ Need another property ] (construction ended Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end)

construction date [ Need another property ] (construction ended Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end)

constructed [ Need another property ] (construction ended Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end)

broke ground [ Need another property ] (construction started Wikidata:Property proposal/construction start)

built [ Need another property ] (construction ended Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end)

inititated

dedication date [ Need another property ]

inaugurated ---->> moved to date of official opening (P1619)

launch date ---->> moved to date of official opening (P1619)

launched ---->> moved to date of official opening (P1619)

introduced

introduction

completed [ Need another property ] (construction ended Wikidata:Property proposal/construction end)

first issue [ Need another property ]

BeLucky (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I agree that this property is very confusing, but we don't need to split it in a lot of Date-type properties for many events. We have significant event (P793) to link to any important event in the history of the item. We can use start time (P580) and end time (P582) qualifiers to indicate the start and end of the events (or point in time (P585) if is an event with a single date). founding (Q3075355), construction (Q385378) for a infrastructure construction, demolition (Q331483) for a demolition, inauguration (Q1417098) for inauguration event, opening (Q15051339) for the actual date an object starts its operations, and so on, there are a lot of things that could happen to an item, and if the event you are looking for doesn't have a Wikidata item, it can be easily created. IMHO, I think it would be better deprecating inception (P571) and migrate to significant event (P793). --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Tinker Bell We are not splitting it. Just removing the words those doesn't belong to inception at all. We are gonna remove "incorporated" and related (6) terms, construction related (6) terms. Moved inauguration related (3) terms to P1619 and 2 more words need to be looked after .... Rest is staying here. There were 58 terms now it will be 41 terms .... 17 terms are not at all related to inception which we are thinking of moving elsewhere. It's very kind of you to point us in the right direction that we can use the significant event (P793) property for founding (Q3075355), construction (Q385378), demolition (Q331483), inauguration (Q1417098), opening (Q15051339) with start time (P580) and end time (P582) where-ever necessary. And definitely that's good general practice and everyone gonna keep on doing that. And about @Joeykentin:'s two property proposals (construction start & construction end) .... His point is that those two can be used for exceptional cases like wonders of the world etc. Lets see what he has to say about those or if he wanna withdraw those two if we all agree to use significant event (P793) property as explained by you. IMHO we could use those two. I hope this makes our good intentions clear here. With Regards. BeLucky (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Tinker Bell Really, I hate date properties and think we should migrate them all of them to significant event (P793). That's probably not going to happen though lol. Lectrician1 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Comment @Lectrician1: Moved terms incorporated, incorporation date, date incorporated, date of incorporation, incorporated on date and year incorporated out of the inception (P571) here: Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated -- BeLucky (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Comment 58 words *in English* (which is only one of the 400+ languages of Wikidata, please don't be anglo-centric) and a large number of alias is a good thing, it helps navigation and discoverability. 58 (49 now since aliases have been removed before the end of the discussion) is not that high located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) have 101 aliases in Chinese. Plus Wikidata is not about linguistic, it's about semantic (linguistic is useful to find the best label but not to define a property). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@VIGNERON It's not about alias. Just tell me how construction or incorporation can be inception. And it's all done by proper discussion in property proposals. And some few other proposals. Some words were not at all related to inception just moved them to proper properties. That's all we have done. -- BeLucky (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@VIGNERON If all this were about linguistics .... I would have made 58 to 5 or 8. But it's not about that. Rest of 41 makes sense to be with inception and we get it and we respect that. Just needed to say this as you are taking it too far in linguistic and all. -- BeLucky (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@VIGNERON Consider it like this: you are roll-backer, we are organizers and mess cleaner .... we both are on same side here to make this better. -- BeLucky (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@BeLucky: dont focus too much about "inception" it's just the current label in one language. Maybe the solution would be to change the label (we could for instance go back to the orginal label "foundation/creation date", see previous discussions). And yes, a property can encompass a lot of loosely related words, as long as the meaning can be infered all is good (see for instance head of government (P6) which goes from cities - mayor - to states - president/prime minister). Properties (as most thing) should follow the occam razor: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Y Totally agree. -- BeLucky (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not clear from the instructions how this property should be used for buildings. date of official opening (P1619) is for the opening ceremony, but is this property for the announcement date (which would also be announcement date (P6949)), the groundbreaking date, the date construction was completed, or something else? Additional clarification is needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This vagueness is true of so many things. For buildings, service entry (P729) seems preferable because its likely to be accurate to year level, and closest to what people expect. Vicarage (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe that we should deprecate this property for buildings and require the use of more descriptive, specific properties for each stage. Elizium23 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Deprecating is not good. For many historical buildings we have information in sources like Building from 1869. This probably means year of starting use, but for many historical buildings it can be also (the same) year of founding.

Building is very ambiguous, it can mean little niche chapel or big nuclear powerplant... JAn Dudík (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply