Wikidata:Property proposal/Clubhouse account
Clubhouse account
editOriginally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
Description | account the person has on the plattform Clubhouse (Q104101703) |
---|---|
Data type | String |
Domain | human (Q5) |
Example 1 | Marc Andreessen (Q62882) → @pmarca |
Example 2 | Mark Zuckerberg (Q36215) → @zuck23 |
Example 3 | Elon Musk (Q317521) → @elonmusk |
Example 4 | Paul Nemitz (Q92306155) → @paulnemitz |
Example 5 | Eva Kaili (Q2420152) → @evakaili |
Example 6 | Damian Boeselager (Q63532607) → @dboeselager |
Example 7 | English (Q1860) → room/xX6Wylo2 |
Example 8 | bitcoin (Q131723) → club/597 |
Example 9 | artificial intelligence (Q11660) → club/10227 |
Planned use | add for politicians and other official people available on clubhouse and wikidata |
Number of IDs in source | > 10 000 |
Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
Formatter URL | https://clubhub.site/$1 |
Motivation
editClubhouse (Q104101703) is a new active platform used by many politicians and other that also have a Wikidata object. Clubhouse is currently the 16th most popular app in the “Social Media Network” according to backlinko.com - Salgo60 (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
edit- Oppose Please split this in multiple properties e.g. "Clubhouse person" "clubhouse room", "clubhouse page". Also regex [a-z] is missing--So9q (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Wikidata will not scale if we should have a dedicated property for every concept at a target "source". Compare if two "Wikidata" sites should link each other. With your logic then we need 10 million properties if we have 10 million concepts - Salgo60 (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per So9q, it does not make sense to mix concepts like this. Should be split into different properties. --Hannes Röst (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - We already solved this use case long ago. You just need to use website account on (P553) and then add a qualifier with website username or ID (P554) --Thadguidry (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose we should wait a while after something like this is created to make a property for it. make sure it maintains relevance for more than just a couple years. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – let's give it a few years. The last thing we want is a glut of social media skeleton identifiers with the service no longer in existence. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
There is currently no consensus to create this property. That is why I am closing the discussion here. It may be that at a later point in time a consensus on creating the property can be reached. You can then propose the property again here. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC) |