Wikidata:Property proposal/see talk page discussion at

see talk page discussion at

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Withdrawn

Description	URL link to a section on a talk page where there is discussion of statement
Represents	Wikimedia talk page (Q87358148)
Data type	URL
Example 1	Q5#P373 → https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q5#P373_value,_Commons_category
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING

Motivation

Sometimes it is useful to be able to explain why a statement has the value it has, or to be able to point an editor to additional information. Also, sometimes the value may have been the consensus result of extensive discussion.

The community has decided that comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) is not desired in Wikidata data (see 2017 deletion discussion); and a recent proposal at Project Chat by User:GZWDer to reconsider that received little support.

User:ArthurPSmith's response in that recent discussion was "What's wrong with suggesting people actually look at the Talk pages for this kind of thing?"

At the moment, however, there is little to signal to users that a statement is the subject of any discussion or further information. Even if a talk page does have a blue link, most commonly the talk page is likely only to contain generic information about the item -- for example the {{Item documentation}} template, rather than any specific information or discussions or warnings about any of the particular statements. So at the moment, an editor looking at an item will typically have no expectation of finding anything relevant on the talk page about any particular statement. This proposed property would change that.

A couple of specific points:

• I have suggested the URL datatype for the property to allow links to archived sections on talk pages, on talk pages for other items, and on talk pages for sister projects.
• I would propose that (at least initially) the new property should be used as a qualifier on statements. Yes, perhaps it might make more formal sense for it to be a reference, but the whole point of the property is for it to be visible, and by default references are not visible, so (at least at present) requiring it to be a reference would defeat its purpose. However, perhaps if the property attracts a sufficiently large number of uses, the development team could be asked to change the reference code so that if this property were present as a reference, then the reference including this property would always be shown (and, perhaps, might be highlighted in some way). That could be considered in future. But for the present, I think it would be easiest simply to introduce the property to be used as a qualifier. Jheald (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Proposed. Note: if anyone has some more links to discussions they could add to the examples section above, they would be very welcome. At the moment they are rather hard to find! Jheald (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • We have Wikimedia community discussion URL (P7930). --GZWDer (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per GZWder. 轻语者 (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose per GZWder. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 05:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Jheald: If Wikimedia community discussion URL (P7930) seems sufficient could you set the "status" here to "withdrawn"? Otherwise please explain how this differs, thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer, 轻语者, Tinker Bell, ArthurPSmith: I have now set the status to "withdrawn". However I do think the issue here is that the signal to readers of an item needs to be visible. So I do think a property that is a qualifier is needed, rather than a property that is a reference. Also, if the aim is to direct the reader's attention to a discussion on the talk page, I think a more striking and immediate name may be needed: Im not sure that "Wikimedia community discussion" is sufficiently striking.

So I'd like to ask back to you all: do you think the usage of P7930 should be changed, for it to be a qualifier rather than a reference? And would you suggest a more striking name for P7930? If your answer is "No", then I would reopen this proposal, as P7930 would not be equivalent. Jheald (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jheald: I think we should have a free-text peoperty as qualifier (as not everyone will open a random URL without any summary). Soon after Wikimedia community discussion URL (P7930) was created I proposed to reuse comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) for this purpose, but currently I tend to use a new property.--GZWDer (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jheald: I don't see any problem using this property as a qualifier and as a reference. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 04:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't think about the difference in visibility between qualifiers and references. I guess it would be ok to add it as a qualifier, it's sort of a "see also" that qualifies the meaning maybe? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jheald, @GZWDer, @轻语者, @Tinker Bell, @ArthurPSmith: The discussion above is almost three years old now. I just found it, learned about Wikimedia community discussion URL (P7930) and decided to use that property (subclass of (P279) of entity (Q35120)) after adjusting its constraints according to what I believed was the consensus in this thread (i.e. I added as qualifier (Q54828449) to property scope constraint (Q53869507) plus every possible allowed-entity-types constraint (Q52004125) type). I also declared the property subject to frequent changes.

Then I realized the discussion wasn't formally concluded as it was part of a another property proposal (which remains withdrawn) and I may have acted prematurely. Was the matter decided somewhere else, or what was the result? Please let me know whether I should revert my changes pending a proper conclusion.

I understand that Wikimedia community discussion URL (P7930) semantically belongs among the references rather than as a qualifier to the statement itself, but that applies to reason for deprecated rank (P2241) and reason for preferred rank (P7452) too, and I agree with @Jheald that visibility is an issue. --SM5POR (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@SM5POR: I'm not aware of anywhere else this has been discussed; in my view if somebody questions your edit on the constraints it would be fine to point here, but maybe add a link to this discussion in the talk page for Wikimedia community discussion URL (P7930) too? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; done that now.

For me, this ties in with a plan I have to improve model item quality through active maintenance, for which I would like to establish a permanent discussion venue. I have mentioned it at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Data Quality#Model item quality, and related aspects, but not yet seen any advice. I suppose I could post a note in the general community chat as well in order to attract attention to the issue. --SM5POR (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)