Wikidata:Property proposal/NASA active astronaut ID

Description	identifier used by NASA for an active astronaut
Data type	External identifier
Domain	people
Allowed values	[a-z]+
Example 1	Joseph M. Acaba (Q318934) → joseph-m-acaba
Example 2	Christina Koch (Q13500192) → christina-h-koch
Example 3	Kjell Lindgren (Q3197699) → kjell-n-lindgren
Example 4	Gregory Reid Wiseman (Q3116390) → reid-g-wiseman
Source	https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/active
External links	Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned use	manual insertion
Number of IDs in source	48 (from source)
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/$1
See also	NASA biographical ID (P2030)

Support. 4 years after the web change all the URL, it time to create new property. - yona b (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 48 is a very small number for a property like this, have you considered alternative solutions? On the other hand maybe NASA's planning on a lot more active astronauts soon? ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith: I don't know about NASA programming a lot more active astronauts soon, it may or it may not, and I agree about 48 not beeing a huge number. The main reason for the proposal is that these astrounats used to have a valid value of NASA biographical ID (P2030) for their biographies, until NASA reformed the website and made the formatter URLs for active and former astronauts different; so creating this property has the objective of restoring some IDs which existed before a change in NASA website - I hope it is a sufficient motivation. --Epìdosis 23:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ArthurPSmith, Epìdosis: Perhaps we can put this proposal with the status = on hold. When there is enough input, the proposal will be reconsidered. —Eihel (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done at P8102, I considered there is enough consensus for creating. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose In case the above comments are not sufficient, Amitie 10g —Eihel (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whm, as the property has been marked as ready by the proposer... the property should not be used then. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitie 10g: Again, reading the comments: one writes "too little input", the other writes "put on hold". The change has been under discussion since December 2016 and the proposal is recent in comparison. But several things are wrong, apart from the proposition: the property contains errors and gaps. In addition to the fact that Wikidata:Property creators has just changed, you can take inspiration from this page and other creations/properties to avoid P8102. The fact that status = ready is not enough: it can hardly be said that there is consensus. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]