Wikidata:Property proposal/Downloads page
Downloads page[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
| Description | A URL describing where this item can be obtained. |
|---|---|
| Data type | URL |
| Domain | software (Q7397) |
| Example 1 | Exchanger XML Editor (Q61939444) → https://code.google.com/archive/p/exchangerxml/downloads |
| Example 2 | Mozilla Firefox (Q698) → https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ |
| Example 3 | Chalk (Q61687348) → https://chachatelier.fr/chalk/chalk-downloads.php |
| Planned use | I would like this property to be added to all software items on Wikidata. |
| See also | download URL (P4945) |
Motivation[edit]
Wikidata includes many software items. Wikidata can currently include a download URL (P4945) for each software version identifier (P348). However, it is difficult to include download links for every published version and keep this list updated. Furthermore, various computer architectures may require different downloads. Thus, for a user seeking to obtain the latest version of software suitable for their architecture, they would be wiser to ignore the included download URL (P4945) and go to the official website (P856). By including a link to a downloads page on Wikidata, allow the user to skip the step of searching the home page for a downloads link. Most software has a dedicated downloads webpage, although on some occasions this may be the same as the official website (P856). Daask (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Oppose The current property is enough and I do not think we need a new one David (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)- Oppose per David. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I also think this is not needed, but I think it would be useful to have a Property like "source code link" that links directly to the source code of the software. In most cases this would be a link to GitHub or an other git platform. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo: How would this be different from source code repository URL (P1324)? Mahir256 (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just searched for it with the wrong words. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Mahir256 (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Pigsonthewing, GPSLeo, Mahir256: I am somewhat bewildered by the opposition, given that no one has addressed any of the points I mentioned in my motivation. Perhaps it would inspire more thoughtful dialogue if I re-formatted my rationale as a list:
- Wikidata software version identifier (P348) information is not consistently up-to-date, and therefore not reliable or usable for those seeking to download a piece of software.
- Different computer architectures sometimes require different downloads. While a software version identifier (P348) can have multiple download URL (P4945) qualifiers, there is no way to describe which software version identifier (P348) is which, except by encoding this information in the URL. In other words, since software version identifier (P348) is a qualifier, it cannot have qualifiers of its own.
- This is one of the most vital and useful pieces of information about a software application, which is frequently searched for by users.
- There is no current property which is suitable to provide the same information. download URL (P4945) is a qualifier, not a property.
- @Daask: Any problem with the existing property can be solved so there is no justification for creating a new one David (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: May I ask how you think the problem can be solved? I made a proposal for the best solution I could think of, but it sounds like you have another idea I may not have considered. Daask (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Daask:I do not have a specific idea but there is definitely a solution to any problem with the existing property David (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: May I ask how you think the problem can be solved? I made a proposal for the best solution I could think of, but it sounds like you have another idea I may not have considered. Daask (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others.--Vulphere 09:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
