Property talk:P10027

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• Network protocols
• List of qualifiers
• Count

official forum URL
website whose main topic is the entity and users can discuss, post questions, answer existing questions to help other users

Represents	Internet forum (Q168210)
Has quality	official (Q29509043)
Data type	URL
Example	OBS Studio (Q21707789) → https://obsproject.com/forum Funkwhale (Q58070309) → https://forum.funkwhale.audio/ Anki (Q557318) → https://forums.ankiweb.net/ Wikidata (Q2013) → https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat
See also	official website (P856), official blog URL (P1581), house publication (P2813), official podcast (P9549), issue tracker URL (P1401), official app (P4290), official wiki URL (P12203), mailing list archive URL (P8934)
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties Items with no other statements Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Chart by item creation date Database reports/Constraint violations/P10027 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 401 Main statement 392 97.8% of uses Qualifier 9 2.2% of uses
Search for values

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

Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449): 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/P10027#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/P10027#Entity types

Official and non official

Shouldnt we change this to just forum and use a qualifier telling if its an official forum or not. So we can support civic tech organization (Q61925294) like g0v (Q16078371) or do we have other strategies for modelling civic tech organization (Q61925294)

• @Rdrg109, Jura1, TiagoLubiana:
  Ainali Abbe98 Andrawaag Canley Tulipasylvestris Jsamwrites Masssly Azertus Rtnf Jane023 FenyMufyd Poslovitch Todrobbins tdombos Bodhisattwa Johanricher Popperipopp Papuass ArthurPSmith Ndahiroderrick RVA2869 Gnoeee Mndetatsin Reda benkhadra (Morocco) Exec8 Krabina Kuldeepburjbhalaike Tidjani Saleh (Spain, Andorra, Mauritania, Sahrawi Republic) Samoasambia
  Notified participants of WikiProject Govdirectory

- Salgo60 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It's currently similar to "official website", "official blog" etc. If it's just gets to links to random fora, it's not clear if that really helps. --- Jura 17:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1 It is inevitable that in some cases people will link to random forums (which is probably useless), but it can also be used for forums that are relevant for the community. For example, Stack Exchange sites focused on technologies are unofficial forums, but they are widely used by users of those technologies. Some of those sites are Vi & Vim Stack Exchange for Vim (Q131382), Emacs Stack Exchange for Emacs (Q189722), Ubuntu for Ubuntu (Q381) and Ask Different for Apple (Q312). Rdrg109 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Salgo60: I do not oppose broadening to "forum", but maybe we can just not be super duper strict with what "official" means. I guess if there is a serious community on the platform, I wouldn't remove the statement. I agree with Jura, though, that it is good to avoid too random stuff. TiagoLubiana (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"officially endorsed" should do. --- Jura 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@TiagoLubiana, Jura1: I also agree with random forums but my understanding from the gOv movement is that you "mirror" a government see video 30:30 what Taiwan has done. My thought was that we should be able to point on something like a forum at g0v. Maybe that is the scope of the Govdirectory (Q108109790) project? - Salgo60 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this will be relevant for the g0v sites since they are not usually forums at all anyway, but proper websites. Unless you have some actual examples and not just hypothetically ask this question, I think that not changing the scope is best. Ainali (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Ainali I see the need of "alternative" discussion groups e.g. Agency for Digital Government (Q56302089) has set up community.dataportal.se and they have difficulties when the discussion is critical and start speaking about restricting. Having parallel forum makes more sense were Agency for Digital Government (Q56302089) is just a member and not "discussion police" and we can speak about how they spend our tax money.... We have seen this problem with National Library of Sweden (Q953058) that closed down more forums like forum (Internet Archive), reason this time I guess was a bad project and critical end users - Salgo60 (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That might be the case, but it is activism outside Wikidata and hence totally irrelevant to this property discussion. Ainali (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I feel sitting and waiting that we get official forums is a very slow process.... If you have a forum about an object we can see 2 sorts of forum one "official" that the object manage and administrate but we can also have forums about the same object but not managed by the object themself. If we can see problems with the first type in Sweden I guess it can be worse in other parts of the world.... I can also see that forums managed by the object themself is less interesting and has less value when they deleted the forums or try to restrict the content.... I think Wikidata can managed those two different forums and we should somehow categorize them differently. My question is if yes how?

* at least in Sweden the speed of governments creating forums will be slow so to get this started maybe its easier someone set up nonofficial forums maybe a GovForum - Salgo60 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Salgo60 I don't oppose broadening to forum and using qualifiers for setting official or unofficial.

Under the context of Emacs (Q189722), in this official site, Emacs (Q189722)-related mailing lists, which are used as forums, are presented. I would use official for the qualifier here.

There are also these forums that are focused on Emacs (Q189722)

Emacs Stack Exchange is used by Emacs users interacting in the Stack Exchange network

Emacs Doctor is used by french native speakers that use Emacs (Q189722)

Emacs China is actively used by chinese native speakers that use Emacs (Q189722)

I would call these websites unofficial because they aren't explicitly promoted in the official websites of Emacs (Q189722).

Something similar happens under the context of Vim (Q131382). There's a Stack Exchange forum focused on Vim (Q131382). That site is not promoted in the community information in the official website of vim, so I would use unofficial for that. What is in the community information are the mailing lists, again, I would use official for the qualifier of the mailing lists. Rdrg109 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)