Wikidata:Property proposal/Number of twitter follower
Number of twitter followers
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
| Description | The number of twitter followers of a person or organization, should be only used in combination with X username (P2002) |
|---|---|
| Data type | Number (not available yet) |
| Domain | human (Q5), organization (Q43229) |
| Allowed values | >=0 |
| Example 1 | National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Q23548) → 29636888 |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| Source | twitter.com, www.socialbakers.com |
| See also | X username (P2002), number of subscribers (P3744) |
Motivation
The current states for the property X username (P2002) is that from 124391 usages of the property [1] 81018 use number of subscribers (P3744) as a qualifier to give the number of twitter followers [2] (these are 65%). I do not think the number of subscribers (P3744) was intended for this usage. I would like to propose this new property to indicate the number of twitter followers of a person or organization. The benefit of using a designated property is that we can denote the time when the number of twitter followers was determined and also store historic data of the number of twitter followers to see its development. With the current practice I can not determine for e.g. X username (P2002) of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Q23548) when the stated number of subscribers was gathered. Sk!d (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose: redundant with 'number of suscribers' qualifier. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC).
- I would argue that the functionally of qualifier is too limited as I described it above. Sk!d (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Better widen it? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC).
- Sorry I don't understand your question. Do you mean that we should widen the functionality of qualifiers? Sk!d (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I mean. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC).
- Sorry I don't understand your question. Do you mean that we should widen the functionality of qualifiers? Sk!d (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Better widen it? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC).
- I would argue that the functionally of qualifier is too limited as I described it above. Sk!d (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Duplicate.See number of subscribers (P3744) David (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please read my motivation where I argue that number of subscribers (P3744) as a qualifier has a limited functionality. Sk!d (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment I agree that the current solution (P3744 qualifier) is somewhat suboptimal as it isn't easy to store more than one number of followers. We could repeat P2002 and qualify with a different date to add more. If we create this property, we will probably end up creating more for other social media accounts.
--- Jura 06:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)- Comment I guess another solution would be something like number of subscribers (P3744)=<val> as a main property, with website account on (P553)=X (Q918) and point in time (P585)=<val> as qualifiers. That probably breaks a few different constraint parameters as those properties are currently set up, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Maxlath:, who as I recall added the vast majority of the subscriber numbers. Mahir256 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Neutral Yes, I did add a lot of subscribers counts, which led to this discussion. I can't set my mind on this issue: it's indeed sad that we can't follow subscribers counts evolutions through time when setting counts as qualifiers, but having those counts as claims could end up being very spammy for some somewhat secondary data: is Wikidata the place to keep track of those evolutions? Furthermore, having a dedicated property with the purpose of creating first level claims creates another issue that is that we will need to specify for which account mentioned in another claim this claim stands (there are for instance 667 items with several twitter accounts): for me, that's a strong sign that it should be a qualifier's job :/ -- Maxlath (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done no support after two months − Pintoch (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)