Talk:Q21510856
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lockal in topic mandatory → required
Autodescription — required qualifier constraint (Q21510856)
description: type of constraint for Wikidata properties: used to specify that the listed qualifier has to be used
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “required qualifier constraint” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
required qualifier constraint⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
mandatory → required edit
Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints
Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) pointed out that the English name of this constraint, “mandatory qualifier constraint”, might suggest to users that the constraint itself is mandatory. What do you think about renaming it to “required qualifier constraint” or something like that, to avoid this confusion? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the current wording is confusing and support the change. ChristianKl (✉) 16:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- It took me a while to figure out the purpose of this item and I do not think changing “mandatory qualifier constraint” to “required qualifier constraint” would make it any more clear as they are basically equivalent (to me at least). Maybe “required accompanying qualifier constraint” ? --Jarekt (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- All of those have the same problem: "mandatory" or "required" can be taken to be qualifying "[accompanying] qualifier constraint" as opposed to "qualifier". How about "constraint for mandatory qualifier"? --Yair rand (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is worse for “mandatory” because they’re called “mandatory constraints”, not “required constraints”. So I think “required” would still be an improvement, while staying consistent with the “____ constraint” pattern we have in all the English labels. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Changed it. Multichill (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is worse for “mandatory” because they’re called “mandatory constraints”, not “required constraints”. So I think “required” would still be an improvement, while staying consistent with the “____ constraint” pattern we have in all the English labels. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- All of those have the same problem: "mandatory" or "required" can be taken to be qualifying "[accompanying] qualifier constraint" as opposed to "qualifier". How about "constraint for mandatory qualifier"? --Yair rand (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- It took me a while to figure out the purpose of this item and I do not think changing “mandatory qualifier constraint” to “required qualifier constraint” would make it any more clear as they are basically equivalent (to me at least). Maybe “required accompanying qualifier constraint” ? --Jarekt (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints
- How about calling it "desired qualifier constraint"? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly calling two different things mandatory around constraints made things complicated. Now that this called "required", it's indeed odd that it could be non-mandatory or merely suggested based on the constraint status. --- Jura 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Both "mandatory" and "required" suggest to me that you should not enter this statement without the specified qualifier. Often these are for "start time" for a position or similar, and of course if a source says someone held a position but doesn't state the start time, we still want to record the information. "Recommended" might be a better choice, or "best practice". - PKM (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly calling two different things mandatory around constraints made things complicated. Now that this called "required", it's indeed odd that it could be non-mandatory or merely suggested based on the constraint status. --- Jura 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Another option: Rework the standard naming for all constraints, such that this would be "constraint: mandatory qualifier", and "distinct values constraint" would be "constraint: distinct values", and so on. --Yair rand (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Yair rand: constraint: mandatory qualifier is just as confusing when it's a suggested constraint as mandatory qualifier constraint. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Opinion from other side: Russian translation of this constraint has no issues. Currently it is translated (backwards) as "presence of qualifier", which does not impose any requirements whatsoever. --Lockal (talk) – The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC).