Wikidata:Property proposal/IP address or range
IP address or range edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization
On hold
| Description | single IP address or range of IP addresses |
|---|---|
| Represents | IP address (Q11135) |
| Data type | IP address (phab:T235389)-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype) |
| Domain | organization (Q43229), |
| Example 1 | University of Oxford (Q34433) → 2001:630:440::/44 |
| Example 2 | Wikimedia Foundation (Q180) → 198.35.26.0/23 |
| Example 3 | Johns Hopkins University (Q193727) → 128.220.0.0/16 |
| Example 4 | University of Chicago (Q131252) → 2a03:b600:640::/107 |
| Planned use | Move existing values of IPv4 routing prefix (P3761) and IPv6 routing prefix (P3793) into the new field |
| See also | IPv4 routing prefix (P3761) and IPv6 routing prefix (P3793) |
Motivation edit
I would like to make a tool in toolforge that will allow a user to input an IP address and get the organization (Q43229) associated for that IP address. Unfortunately, you cannot query a range unless you have the start and end of that range. Based on the discussion in the previous proposal it seems best that a new datatype would be created for this property, one that extends from Quantity. Then organizations will be able to be queried by the IP address. U+1F360 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Discussion edit
- After the property is created, the old properties should be deprecated. Once all of the data has been migrated, the old properties can be removed. U+1F360 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Support. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 04:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment if you want to make a tool anyway, then I suggest you do the indexing there. Looking at the Phabricator ticket, there is not a huge appetite for deploying a dedicated datatype for this. − Pintoch (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)- Support --Trade (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Weak support I really don't see much need to replace IPv4 routing prefix (P3761) and IPv6 routing prefix (P3793) with a unified property. But if a unified datatype ever materializes, sure, why not? /ℇsquilo 15:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
