Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending – properties which have been approved but which are on hold waiting for the appropriate datatype to be made available
Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/11.
Oppose as proposed with the description that just repeats the term of the label. @Trade: saying "it's completely different" without specifying how it's different is not answering the issue. Spelling out the intent, so that people in the future can read the property proposal is useful.
Wikidata is not supposed to be anglocentric. Properties should not focus on the meaning of English words, but you should seek to define them well, so that they can be used by speakers of other languages as well.
The field simply states a source for people to find items to use the property on. Whether or not people chooses to use the articles as a source in of itself is something i (for obvious reasons) have no control over
Besides, why would i tell people to list the Wikipedia articles as source when none of the examples does so? Doesn't make sense Trade (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Duplicates information which is more within the scope of Wikimedia Commons (and Commons categories often already have Wikidata items) -عُثمان (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't only the scope of commons.
It fits perfectly to the scope of wikidata to provide information, it works also with pictures have a look at properties like p109 or p1442 Z thomas (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally don't see the benefit of the property. I can't understand the intention of the image then being displayed in the Wikidata info box either. You have gallery pages on Commons to show stuff like that. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The images are shown in the wikidata Infobox. This is shown in the commons cat, the gallery pages is something different Z thomas (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems quite reasonable to me. For many professions and activities you cannot see the face of the person when this person is doing their job, - at the same time it's quite obvious to have a picture of the person dancing if they are a dancer. Ideally infoboxes could allow customers to switch between these two images. Андрей Романенко (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Did any of the people casting support votes even read the label? Having a property that addresses the person in a gendered way (his) seems to be an automatic no. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose this decision. According to Wikidata:Property creation, It is the job of the property creator to weigh consensus. The mere fact that there were three opposing votes against five votes in favour does not tell anything about the reasonable consensus. The objection of the colleague ChristianKl can be easily solved by renaming the proposed property into Picture of this person doing their job (English is not the mother tongue for the author of the proposal, their original German name of the property does not have this problem). Two other objections just read as "I don't understand why we need it"; in the meantime a clear explanation of why we need it is provided. According to Wikidata:Property creation, All opposing points of discussion should be addressed before creation occurs - this is exactly the case. @ZI Jony:, I believe you have to either elaborate your decision addressing the arguments in favour of this proposal or revert your decision and create this property. Андрей Романенко (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Андрей Романенко:, I understand your frustration, but it's important to note that the decision-making process involves considering all viewpoints. While three opposing votes (which are more than 37 percent) may seem significant, it's also crucial to assess the nature of the objections and the overall consensus. I’d suggest you to discuss with @ChristianKl, عُثمان, Gymnicus:, if they are willing to change their opinions, I'll be happy to mark as ready or revert my decision. Else, we have to consider as not done. Thank you. Regards, ZI Jony(Talk)11:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It simply does not work this way. All objections must be addressed, according to the rule. The rule does not claim that all the opposing users must change their opinions; they are even not obliged to come back to the discussion after giving their opinion once. If the objection is only about the name of the property (which is the case for one of the opposing users), it is your responsibility as a property creator to consider possible renaming (and I proposed this renaming). If some users opposed to the proposal and the author of the proposal replied, it is your responsibility to weigh (the word from the WD rule) the arguments. Андрей Романенко (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Андрей Романенко:, I've already taken my decision. If you want to overturn my decision, then you are full free to take this matter to AN. A administrator will revert/reopen the proposal for you. Thank you! Regards, ZI Jony(Talk)13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy asks for arguments being addressed before a property is created. It does not ask for addressing points before proposals are closed. That's by design. We frequently have stale property proposals that we close even if there are a lot of unaddressed points made in a discussion.
When creating a new property I expect that people think about how to best name the property and I do think that both label and description matters and someone should do the effort to create good one's in English. " Picture of this person doing their job" is still questionable even if not as obvious. We don't capitalize the first word. The related properties that are listed all use the word image. There's no reasoning given why this one should deviate from that. Anyone who thinks deeply about this property should think about those issues and the fact that nobody did, means that nobody of the people who support this property engaged in the intellectual labor I expect before property creation (so I'm less sure about whether there are other issues that take me more than a minute to think up). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl With respect, it is not a valid reason to oppose a new property because the label used in the proposal uses inappropriate capitalisation. You are free to update the proposal with the correct capitalisation, now or at any time after creation. What we are looking for is relevant comments on the substance of the proposed property, not minutiae — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: As long as people vote without doing the bar minimum of thinking about what's invovled it's necessary to cast oppose votes to prevent bad properties to be created. That's the point of why we have the approval process. Preventing ill-thought out properties from being created. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, MSGJ. Let me once again stress the point: we expect from the main picture of a person to give the general idea of what their face looks like. But there are many professionals whose main activity shows them in completely different view. And it is quite reasonable that, for instance, for an ice hockey goalkeeper we'd be able to switch between this and this. I really don't understand wht's wrong in it and why we cannot have for people what we have for buildings. Андрей Романенко (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not a native English speaker, so it might even sound wrong, but alternatively I would suggest something like person's job image or image of a person's occupation as a label for the property. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma thanks for your suggestion. I'm fine with it. Everything that helps to improve the proposal is good. And your proposal hits the point well. Greetings from Germany Z thomas (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the opinion of @ChristianKl, who previously opposed the proposal because of the current label. What are your thoughts now on the new proposed labels and which one is more appropriate? Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are many subtypes of P18 already, so I think there is a decent precedent for that. I think, though, that we so many kinds of images we perhaps can think of other constructions to not overload the property space. E.g. perhaps a new property for "qualified image" and some structured system of qualifiers. The reusability in Wikipedia infoboxes is a very good argument IMHO. TiagoLubiana (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think part of (P361) would be intuitive for a (more or less) complete mummy. One advantage (for what it's worth) of having the property in this direction is being able to see on a person item that there is an item for their remains, without needing to expand "Derived statements". Swpb (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the current formulation. I think it would be better to link from the item of the mummy to the item of the person. I would also prefer something more general so that it can be used for individual body parts as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, both as to when where to apply it, and to make it general enough to include saints' relics, and medical museum artefacts. Vicarage (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a weird one. This is a digital version of a 2015 book "Ar Aizputi un novadu saistītie". Website was made with the same data, I presume. The data appears to be compiled and curated by a single person. Her credentials appear in order, so I have no reason to doubt the accuracy. The site does have unique info not found elsewhere as she interviewed people firsthand and cites sources otherwise. It does lean heavily on "personal angle" rather than any sort of structured data. My concern is that the author is 98 now. Last update seems to be 2019 and 2016 before that a bunch after initial release. "Autortiesības" ("copyright") is just a text on the website. There is no contact info. There is no info about the plan here for this website and maintaining it. What happens if, for example, I spot an error - how will this get updated? I don't like that they haven't even set up HTTPS, this screams made by the "nephew who is good with computers". That said, the aizpute.lv domain belong to the local Municipality, so they could presumably retain this indefinitely. But I very much doubt they will ever update this unless all the IP rights are settled and some sort of initiative for this happens (or some volunteer takes over). I don't know if any of this is relevant to having a property, but it is likely the data will just remain as it is now until the website goes 404. I guess I don't oppose this particular "database", but I do think it would have been better served as a source for other long-term maintained databases. — HELLKNOWZ∣TALK∣enWiki09:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthias M.: It used to be a social network for video game designers, but it was relaunched in 2016 and now it's more like a collaborative blog about video games. Any person can make an account and post videogames-related stuff. Some posts are written by staff members, and those are considered a reliable source at least in Russian Wikipedia. Currently almost no posts are gamedev-related. With that said, I'm not sure I support this property. The vast majority of DTF account holders are non-notable (for instance, me). There is no infromation you can extract from DTF that would be suitable for Wikidata, you can only see posts and comments the person made. Novik account from examples section isn't even verified, I would advocate against connecting it with Wikidata. Unless there are lots of verified accounts for notable persons (which has to be proved), I don't see much use for this property. A particle for world to form (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't that many notable Russian speaking game designers to begin with. And while many of them might have an account on dtf.ru, the vast majority of them do not post anything. Also it's a bad sign when you have to do a direct communication with the designer to confirm that the account is legit. Facebook, X and YouTube are social networks, also it's a primary tool for doing PR. Whenever you visit an official website for a person, a studio or a game, you can usually find links to social networks. I've never seen anything like that with DTF. DTF is more like IGN, Rock Paper Shotgun, Polygon, etc. We do not have properties for accounts for these websites, even though some of notable video game journalists and designers might have an account there. A particle for world to form (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Novik account from examples section isn't even verified
Weak support Being a Russian speaking person, I can confirm DTF being a quite notable source. I'm giving it only a week support, because I think that only verified accounts should be linked to Wikidata, if a person is notable. I see this proposal as a Facebook ID of some sort, so why not. It just needs a bit of adjustment to my taste. --David Osipov (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While DTF is indeed a notable source about video games, there's nothing notable in having an account on this website, especially when this account haven't posted anything and only left a dozen of comments (which is true for all three examples). I'm not convinced there is a potential for more than a couple of dozens of statements for the proposed property and I don't see any way Wikidata can benefit from that. Also, while Wikidata doesn't seem to have "No original research" policy, I heavily dislike the fact you have to contact the person to verify their account. A particle for world to form (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unless there's exceptional circumstances, properties should usually be expected to be used at least 100 times, and I'm not quite convinced there's enough notable users on this website to meet that requirement. This is a better use case for website account on (P553), in my opinion. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive Information System on Korean Historical Figures ID
Notified participants of WikiProject Fictional universes --Trade (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject LGBT has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --Trade (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Support! ~ RampantSpirit (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as proposed with the description that just repeats the term of the label. @Trade: saying "it's completely different" without specifying how it's different is not answering the issue. Spelling out the intent, so that people in the future can read the property proposal is useful.
Not done, @Z thomas, M2k~dewiki, عُثمان, Gymnicus, Stefan Kühn, Lutzto: @Derbrauni, Андрей Романенко, ChristianKl: no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Weak support Germartin1 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose Unless there's exceptional circumstances, properties should usually be expected to be used at least 100 times, and I'm not quite convinced there's enough notable users on this website to meet that requirement. This is a better use case for website account on (P553), in my opinion. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)