Wikidata:Property proposal/number of articles
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
number of articles[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | How many articles a Wikipedia language edition has |
|---|---|
| Data type | Number (not available yet) |
| Example 1 | English Wikipedia (Q328) → 5,782,014 |
| Example 2 | French Wikipedia (Q8447) → 2,070,417 |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| Source | some Wikipedia or meta |
Motivation[edit]
(I am sorry, I can speak English a little bit)
Lot of Wiki have old data. This qualifier help in the future, that the data is always up to date. B.Zsolt (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Support David (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment for the last discussion see Wikidata:Property proposal/Number of articles. --Pasleim (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)- Support, I disagree with Andy—has part(s) of the class (P2670) is not flexible enough for this kind of data. For example, a statement can be qualified further with date, which is a very important part of data. (Qualifying the has part(s) of the class (P2670) statement with the date is semantically incorrect: it means that at that point, this Wikipedia contained articles; it may contain kittens or countries or anything else tomorrow.) Actually the properties mentioned there are (except for number of households (P1538)) static values, which don’t change over time, so a qualifier is more sufficient for them than for Wikipedia articles. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Re semantic accuracy: I don't think that's correct. Date qualifiers qualify the whole statement including other qualifiers. --Yair rand (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Palotabarát (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Question Why not use number of pages (P1104)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)- Question Is it necessary to have this information 'statically' in Wikidata? Isn't an information available via the API? (I wonder if someone will update this information frequently how it would affect the history of the object) --Sabas88 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think the arguments in the previous discussion have been addressed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)- Oppose per previous discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- When re-proposing a property, please ping participants of prior discussions. Doing so now: @Mikey641, 1Or, ביקורת, Swpb, Vladimir Alexiev, Marsupium:. --Yair rand (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Yair rand (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Changes to fast. Would only make sense if there would be a way to get the data from the API in to the property value without a bot. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
