Wikidata:Property proposal/Property constraint comment

Property constraint comment edit

Not done

Description	qualifier to provide an explanation about a specific property constraint
Data type	Monolingual text
Domain	property namespace: statements for property constraint
Example 1	MISSING
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING

Comment Replacement for comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315). Part of Ivan A. Krestinin's Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/40#comment, created but with a label that was too generic.
--- Jura 08:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the forum to replace existing properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where should replacement properties be discussed then? There is consensus in several places that comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) needs to go as it conflates several different things in an unstructured manner. Because at least some of what it contains is useful several properties have been/are being proposed to replace it in a structured fashion - see for example Wikidata usage instructions (P2559), syntax clarification (P2916) and Wikidata:Property proposal/source validity comment. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to be ready for creation.
--- Jura 18:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus for its creation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: Please can you explain why you think this is ready for creation when there are no supports, one oppose and one unanswered question related to that oppose? Please can you also supply an example use of the property. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you addressed the oppose argument. Besides, I had been advised to ignore Pigs' comments as they are frequently irrelevant. It seems they are just randomly inserted into proposals I formulated. As you mentioned, there is a consensus to replace P2315 and this covers the initial use case.
    --- Jura 03:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - While there is a consensus to replace P2315, that does not imply there is a consensus to (partially) replace it with this property. Without seeing examples of the sort of comments that this will be used to store I'm neither supporting nor opposing it. Additionally, as proposer you are not the person who should be judging whether comments should be ignored and/or have been adequately addressed or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the absence of examples. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, I would appreciate examples. Which cases of these remaining uses would it replace? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 20:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments like the ones you inserted here. Archive #40 above explains the original purpose of these properties.
  --- Jura 21:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be better added as a parameter to {{Constraint}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - syntax clarification (P2916) does that job. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If any comment about the function or purpose of constraint qualifies as a "syntax clarification", then I think this meets the initial purpose of "comment" and I'd withdraw this proposal.
      --- Jura 12:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1, Thryduulf, Laddo, Pigsonthewing: Not done, no consensus. Maybe a properly formatted proposal with actual examples would help. --Srittau (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]