Wikidata:Property proposal/nixpkgs path

nixpkgs path edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Computing

Done: nixpkgs ID (P12433) (Talk and documentation)

Description	nix attribute path in the nixpkgs unstable repo
Data type	External identifier
Domain	software (Q7397)
Allowed values	text
Example 1	Gforth (Q5555121) → gforth
Example 2	Nokogiri (Q17071956) → rubyPackages.nokogiri
Example 3	GNU Compiler Collection (Q178940) → gcc
Source	https://search.nixos.org
External links	Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Formatter URL	https://search.nixos.org/packages?show=$1&type=packages

Main rationale is for completeness, since most other packaging systems have their identifiers as properties. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Binarycat32 (talk • contribs) at 21:17, October 20, 2023‎ (UTC).

Discussion edit

@Binarycat32: You made this proposal pretty unconvincing by hiding your motivation in the description of the property. You should give a true description of the purpose of the property there, and also add some examples, a formatter URL, and so on. This proposal really needs some working on. Jonathan Groß (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i filled out quite a bit in the automatic proposal generator thing, it doesn't seem like it worked properly. Binarycat32 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Binarycat32:, could you please complete your property proposal, see {{Property proposal}}. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few missing properties, it is now of the same quality as Wikidata:Property proposal/Debian package Binarycat32 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan Groß:, would you like to give your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, an important property for the connectivity of Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arbnos:, I'd suggest you not to support property proposal generally, please have a look at proposal or clarify that wherever it will be a good property! Example, this property proposal is incomplete, and information's are not enough to create a property! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this proposal to see if people believed it should exist. Please tell me exactly what fields are missing (I have not seen a single proposal that fills every single field of the template).

Stuff like constrains should be pretty trivial to add once the property is created. Binarycat32 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Binarycat32, for external identifier better to fills at least following parameters, description, subject item, infobox parameter, datatype, domain, allowed values, source, examples, planned use, number of ids, expected completeness, formatter URL, external links, see also, robot and gadget jobs, subpage, topic etcetera. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale for most of these properties is to defer to the precedent/example of previous package database properties (basically all package managers should have the same expected completeness, for example).

However, most previous properties of this class did not have these fields of the proposal filled out, and were added with no resistance.

Following their example, I left them empty.

PyPI project (P5568) is marked always incomplete, however anyone can upload a PyPI package, whereas nixpkgs requires a PR to be created and approved, so it is not directly comparable.

Also, when I asked of an exact list you responded with a list ending in "etcetera", so I can't just add everything from the list (also quantifying some of those would be difficult). Binarycat32 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Binarycat32, ZI Jony: Done --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]