Wikidata:Property proposal/intended subject

Description	(qualifier) this statement is deprecated as it is actually about another subject
Data type	Item
Domain	deprecated statements
Example 1	See refers to different subject (Q28091153)
Example 2	See applies to other person (Q35773207)
Example 3	See applies to other chemical entity (Q51734763)

Support if we don't have any other established way to do this. Also – if created – this should be an universally allowed qualifier (cf. phabricator ticket).
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T242797
Wostr (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{Status oppose3}} It is a cause that is part of list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174). The property concerned is reason for deprecated rank (P2241) : it is not a creation of property. That said I am for the creation of an element "intended subject" which is not listed and which can contain the rest of the causes, depending on the subject of the discussion in Project Chat, I notify the user concerned. A discussion in this sense is already underway here. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eihel: I'm really trying, but can't understand what you're trying to say here. It is about creation a property (i.e. qualifier) to be able to do something like this Wostr (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

30724-02-8

edit

intended subject

Qxxx

0 references

add reference

add value

Sadly, you've edited this page after my replay, but you haven't dispelled the doubts, I am almost certain that this is your misinterpretation of the proposal as this has nothing to do with list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174) or stated discussion. Wostr (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, I got confused with Phab's task above. And sorry for the late modification, I was looking at the feasibility. —Eihel (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we already have the information noted by having a statement on the item of the other person? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with that. Most likely there with a reference that didn't mix it up. I think one should avoid using statements from the wrong item instead. --- Jura 15:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support if we merely delete the statement, it probably ends up being re-added. --- Jura 08:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GZWDer, Wostr, Eihel: please make good use of it. --- Jura 06:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu