Topic on User talk:Lockal

I notice that you removed the soft redirect templates from Property talk:P155. Is there any particular reason for this? I thought it would be helpful to unify the talk pages for the two closely-related properties, to keep everyone on the same page regarding usage.

Relatedly, I see that you removed the qualifier constraints for both properties, despite prior consensus in favor of the constraint here. Was there any discussion on removing the constraint? I didn't see one at either talk page.

I removed soft redirect template, based on ru-wiki experience: we use soft redirects only for crosswiki redirections and don't have talk page unification.

I removed qualifier constraint, because at that moment we had 266060 constraint violations for all of 266060 processed elements.

So, in this situation, we can't use a hard redirect because the constraints violations links are only accessible from that talk page, and the templates can't be duplicated elsewhere afaict. However, it really is important to not split the talk pages if discussions are to be of any use. What do you think should be done? Maybe just an ordinary non-template notice pointing to the right page?

Regarding the qualifier constraint, I don't think the number of violations is relevant. Every one of them is going to need to be fixed eventually, and marking them as not violations isn't going to make that any easier. As I said before, there already was a consensus in favor of having the constraint.

I have no opinion on joined pages, you can make a separate mbox-template, if you want.

Regarding the qualifier constraint, well, there are 3 users supporting adding this constraint, but I don't see analysis of consequences there. Infovarius raised concern about sequential items and usage in templates, but the answer was "to take it first as a qualifier and then as a property itself", which nullifies the idea of constraint.

What I would like to see:

1. Counts for qualifier usage: this property is used mostly as non-qualifier
2. Qualifier analysis: we won't be able to use qualifiers for qualifiers
3. Type statistics: case with album (Q482994) was explained, but why should we do the same with single (Q134556), asteroid (Q3863), year (Q577), biographical article (Q19389637), TV series episode (Q21191270), United Nations Security Council resolution (Q877358), etc?

I still fully agree that P155 has no sense for P31:Q5 (2724 items atm), so adding "Conflicts with" constraint would help. Also as far as I know, "Conflicts with" checks are applied only for non-qualifier snaks.