Wikidata:Property proposal/man page

man page edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Computing

   Done: man page (P11292) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionname of the man page that describes the subject; must end with the section number preceded by a period
Representsman page (Q47512572)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1man-pages (Q52931809)man-pages.7
Example 2man (Q709369)man.1
Example 3cd (Q283438)cd.1posix
Example 4ls (Q283503)ls.1
Example 5mkdir (Q709350)mkdir.1
Example 6ping (Q188876)ping.1
Example 7wpa_supplicant (Q281972)wpa_supplicant.8
Formatter URLhttps://manned.org/$1

Motivation edit

The majority of notable command-line tools is documented in man pages.

?item wdt:instance of (P31) wd:standard UNIX utility or command (Q18343316) currently yields 175 results. All of these are documented in man pages.

And we also have 216 instances of console application nearly all of which are also documented in man pages.

And we also have a couple of items for configuration files, e.g. hosts file (Q1149007), fstab (Q14717) and /etc/passwd (Q307510) which are also documented in man pages in section 5 (hosts.5, fstab.5, passwd.5).

So I think it would be great to be able to link these items to their man pages :)

I suggest the following constraints:

Note that the regular expression enforces the specification of the section number which is important because many man pages exist in different sections e.g. man.1 is different from man.7.

Also note that I am intentionally restricting the property scope to as main value (Q54828448) to disallow using the property for references because man pages can differ significantly between Linux distributions, making just the man page name unsuitable to be used as a reference since you wouldn't know which man page version is referenced exactly. So I think for references you should just continue to use reference URL (P854), which does not have this ambiguity problem.

Suggested aliases:

  • described by man page

--Push-f (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit