Wikidata:Property proposal/reference properties

Not done

Description	reference properties
Data type	Property
Domain	qualifier for citation-needed constraint (Q54554025)
Allowed values	properties from `{{Reference properties}}`
Example 1	social classification (P3716) → citation-needed constraint (Q54554025) → Reference properties → stated in (P248), reference URL (P854)
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING
Planned use	add the qualifier to all citation-needed constraint (Q54554025) usages
Robot and gadget jobs	constraints check bots and tools are need to be improved

Support There is need to distinguish property. For example stated in (P248) (this can be "source") and imported from Wikimedia project (P143) (this generally can't be "source" in Wikimedian sense) for citation needed constraint. --Was a bee (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support David (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't it be easier to blacklist "imported from" or "Wikimedia import url" and ignore "retrieved date" or "title"?
--- Jura 08:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about all other properties including introduced in the future? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the reference can be any property with an external id, the list would get endless. Not sure if the constraint would be used for properties were "imported from" is sufficient.
  --- Jura 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Honestly, I'm not enthusiastic about this approach. We would repeat the same lists of reference properties in almost all the properties with the citation-needed constraint (Q54554025). This model would be terribly redundant and hard to maintain. The mandatory reference properties could be defined once in one place; for example, as a statement on citation-needed constraint (Q54554025). --abi án 12:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Different properties can have different requirements to sources. For example "imported from" is good for external identifier property, but is not enough for many others. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, external identifiers directly shouldn't have this constraint since they're references by themselves, their verifiability is inherent. References for external identifiers should be possible but not mandatory. --abi án 23:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest to make such constraints mandatory. But its are needed to control data integrity, describe completeness of dataset, fix vandalism and etc. One of interesting cases is external ID property without formatter URL. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm sympathetic to Abián's approach above, but I think in the case of constraints it actually is useful to have them explicitly defined on each property, even if that's a lot of duplication. So I think this property would be useful. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support let's see how it goes.
--- Jura 12:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all statements except of external identifiers should have a reference with either stated in (P248) or reference URL (P854). There is no need to repeat that on each property page. --Pasleim (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about Q6569638#P31? Do you think that better way is delete citation-needed constraint (Q54554025) and check references by default for all properties except extIDs? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Abián. If we are making changes to this constraint, I would expect that such properties is defined globally (for instance as part of the WikibaseQualityConstraints configuration), not individually for each use of the property constraint. − Pintoch (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the way it is currently proposed this seems to be redundant. We're probably better of defining what a good citation is (stated in + link + timestamp?) and a bad one (imported from Wikimedia project (P143) / Wikimedia import URL (P4656)) and use that for the next iteration of this constraint. Multichill (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not done discussion has stalled with no consensus. − Pintoch (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu