Wikidata:Property proposal/tracking category with pages including information suitable for property
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
tracking category with pages including information suitable for property[edit]
Not done
| Description | Item linking categories tracking pages on client projects. |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | property namespace |
| Allowed values | items for categories |
| Example | image (P18) > Category:Local image but no image on Wikidata (Q16742294), Category:Articles with template Infobox person and picture missing in Wikidata (Q23981558) |
Comment we currently have a few properties that track usage of properties at Wikidata, but lack a way to find categories that track data suitable to add to Wikidata.
--- Jura 05:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Use the inverse - Category:Local image but no image on Wikidata (Q16742294) -> category's main topic (P301) = image (P18). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- P301 has an inverse constraint and a single value constraint on it, effectively making it 1 to 1. I don't see that solution as as desirable/feasible. --Izno (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Inapprorpate constraints can be fixed, or removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Those constraints are not inappropriate. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Either they allow the use of the property as I describe, in which case they are appropriate. Or they do not allow it, in which case they are inappropriate. Argument for both of these these two, mutually-contradictory, PsoV is logically untenable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Uh... no. I'm not even going to bother responding to that line of nonsense. You're welcome to review Property talk:P301 yourself, its creation proposal, and the related documentation to understand why you're self-evidently wrong. --Izno (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Either they allow the use of the property as I describe, in which case they are appropriate. Or they do not allow it, in which case they are inappropriate. Argument for both of these these two, mutually-contradictory, PsoV is logically untenable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Those constraints are not inappropriate. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Inapprorpate constraints can be fixed, or removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- P301 has an inverse constraint and a single value constraint on it, effectively making it 1 to 1. I don't see that solution as as desirable/feasible. --Izno (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose How does this differ from the proposal at Wikidata:Property proposal/property usage tracking category? --Izno (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno. Which version? I don't think it matters. The question is if any of the current properties cover this or not.
--- Jura 03:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)- Answer the question, please. --Izno (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- If it's not the current property, which version are you interested? Why should this be of relevancy? Please explain.
--- Jura 04:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- If it's not the current property, which version are you interested? Why should this be of relevancy? Please explain.
- Answer the question, please. --Izno (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno. Which version? I don't think it matters. The question is if any of the current properties cover this or not.
- Comment as both oppose arguments seem to have been addressed, I think this is ready for creation.
--- Jura 07:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)- Hardly. You have yet to answer my question in any form. Please do so. Instead of being obtuse, simply answer for any and all forms of said proposal. --Izno (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the proposal is linked in any way to any of the existing properties. If other proposals lead to these properties, it's not relevant to this one. If you think it is, please explain why that would be so.
--- Jura 11:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)- Because it appears you have created a duplicate proposal. If you are unwilling to answer the question of whether this proposal is the same as any of the former proposals (which were rejected in the form you're proposing here), I will simply leave my Oppose and let another property creator sort it out. --Izno (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You don't need to explain your oppose if you can't. Just cast your vote. No worries.
--- Jura 16:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)- No, I don't need to explain my oppose if you can't explain why you think these are needed, and why this proposal is not a duplicate of previous proposals. Move along now. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are free to comment here. Try to keep it constructive though.
--- Jura 17:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are free to comment here. Try to keep it constructive though.
- No, I don't need to explain my oppose if you can't explain why you think these are needed, and why this proposal is not a duplicate of previous proposals. Move along now. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- You don't need to explain your oppose if you can't. Just cast your vote. No worries.
- Because it appears you have created a duplicate proposal. If you are unwilling to answer the question of whether this proposal is the same as any of the former proposals (which were rejected in the form you're proposing here), I will simply leave my
- I don't think the proposal is linked in any way to any of the existing properties. If other proposals lead to these properties, it's not relevant to this one. If you think it is, please explain why that would be so.
- Hardly. You have yet to answer my question in any form. Please do so. Instead of being obtuse, simply answer for any and all forms of said proposal. --Izno (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Weak oppose - in part because of the contentiousness of the above discussion which I think stems from a poor quality of presentation of the proposal. Are there other properties besides image for which this is an issue? However, I also think I see why Jura is asking for this - these sort of categories could be valuable for wiki's planning to switch to sourcing information from wikidata, and also potentially valuable for wikidata in validating and updating data. And property usage tracking category (P2875) does have a single-value constraint which limits its use for the multiple different sort of cases Jura has found at least in the case of image. But how about just making image an exception for the constraint on property usage tracking category (P2875) and go from there? The main purpose of this is surely just to link the property to the categories, I really don't see a point in having two properties doing almost the same thing. Change the label and description on property usage tracking category (P2875) if it's not quite right. Also - aren't most of these things computable from a database dump of the relevant wikis, do we really actually need human-maintained categories for this purpose? In any case, I recommend just altering the constraint on property usage tracking category (P2875) to allow image (and any other properties with similar issues) to have multiple values, or if this is widespread among properties, just delete that constraint altogether. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is nothing specific to images. At it:Categoria:Dati incrociati con Wikidata - Template Bio there is a series of such categories. None are human maintained. Besides, none of the articles in these categories actually make use the properties they could help us build statements with so using P2875 seems missing its point. If there is some other way to use statements to get these on Template:Property documentation, I would look into them.
--- Jura 08:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)- @ArthurPSmith: is there another point I need to address?
--- Jura 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)- Sorry, you are confusing me even more - what on earth does this have to do with Template:Property documentation? Perhaps you could step-by-step explain your plan and what a property like this has to do with it? If you made things very clear maybe people would understand better what the issue is - and why P2875 doesn't work for it. I still feel just changing the constraint - and perhaps the label - for P2875 is the better solution here but I am really not sure I have even a shallow understanding of what you are trying to accomplish and why a property would help for it. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a proposal on Wikidata:Property proposal/Property metadata (at least, until someone moved it from there). All properties there are mainly there to be used on Template:Property documentation. If you want to learn more about that template, you might want to visit its documentation and talk page.
--- Jura 10:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is a proposal on Wikidata:Property proposal/Property metadata (at least, until someone moved it from there). All properties there are mainly there to be used on Template:Property documentation. If you want to learn more about that template, you might want to visit its documentation and talk page.
- Sorry, you are confusing me even more - what on earth does this have to do with Template:Property documentation? Perhaps you could step-by-step explain your plan and what a property like this has to do with it? If you made things very clear maybe people would understand better what the issue is - and why P2875 doesn't work for it. I still feel just changing the constraint - and perhaps the label - for P2875 is the better solution here but I am really not sure I have even a shallow understanding of what you are trying to accomplish and why a property would help for it. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: is there another point I need to address?
- This is nothing specific to images. At it:Categoria:Dati incrociati con Wikidata - Template Bio there is a series of such categories. None are human maintained. Besides, none of the articles in these categories actually make use the properties they could help us build statements with so using P2875 seems missing its point. If there is some other way to use statements to get these on Template:Property documentation, I would look into them.
- Comment To make this more constructive and attempt to meet the objective the property, maybe others can share ways they use to identify Wikipedia articles that have information available for specific properties across multiple wikis. We could use this to formulate a better proposal.
--- Jura 08:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- We have a set of Wikidata-related categories at svwiki. Q21700437 is for example a category who tells about articles with data from Wikidata that is sourced with imported from Wikimedia project (P143). Category:Articles missing basic Wikidata-properties P31/P279 (Q21291456) are articles missing P31/P279. Q21291454 are articles connected to items with labels in less than two languages. This category contains articles who have local data that contradicts country (P17)-statements. These articles have no statements at all. Ergo: Not all these categories are connected to one single property. Not all of them are simple to solve. Those missing P31/P279 are (today) all featured articles. One of them is planetary habitability (Q846030), which I do not know how I should handle at all.
- Many of our category-item have statements like: P31:Wikimedia category (Q4167836). To be honest, that is not very helpful. More specific semantic descriptions should be used in these items. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:P971 does that to some extent. In combination with (e.g.) Wikidata:Database reports/items without claims categories/ltwiki this can give good results. However, in general, we may not know if articles in categories with P971 have statements or not. Categories like Category:Articles missing basic Wikidata-properties P31/P279 (Q21291456) do compile this, but we need an way to make this visible for people starting out with categories.
--- Jura 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Template:P971 does that to some extent. In combination with (e.g.) Wikidata:Database reports/items without claims categories/ltwiki this can give good results. However, in general, we may not know if articles in categories with P971 have statements or not. Categories like Category:Articles missing basic Wikidata-properties P31/P279 (Q21291456) do compile this, but we need an way to make this visible for people starting out with categories.
I have been adding info like "is a list of" "human" and with a qualifier like "educated at" "Maastricht University" on a large number of categories. It works really well and I use this to copy data from any Wikipedia to Wikidata.. (FYI when adding data I qualify for instance of human. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- @GerardM: Thanks for your feedback. I think this can give similar result to P971 mentioned above.
--- Jura 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jura1, Pigsonthewing, Izno, ArthurPSmith, Innocent bystander: 
Not done, no consensus at this point. Also seems to be a duplicate of property usage tracking category (P2875). --Srittau (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)