Wikidata:Requests for comment/Standards for property proposal discussions
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Standards for property proposal discussions" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- A: consensus to keep current wording, i.e. property proposal should be open for a minimum of 7 days.
- the third voting option received more supporting votes than opposing votes but a majority of users is favoring the current wording.
- B: consensus to keep current practice, i.e. property creators are allowed to close a proposal when they were involved in the discussion.
- C: does not apply as no new policy is created.
--Pasleim (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Property cites work (P2860) was created about 2½ hours after it was first proposed [1][2]. The entire discussion period took place during the early morning UTC meaning that most potential contributors to the discussion were not aware of the proposal until after it was created. The proposer, the creator, and apparently all of the supporters, most of whom are not regular contributors to property proposal discussions, were attendees of a non-public conference in Germany. Five similar proposals had previously been rejected.
The property was almost immediately nominated for deletion [3]. A little over 24 hours later the deletion discussion had attracted mostly keep votes but widespread opposition to the speedy creation of the property.[4]
The proposals below seek to reduce the likelihood for a similar controversy in the future.
Notes:
- None of the proposals are intended to set a maximum or minimum time by which property proposal discussions must or should be closed, nor do they seek to change the standards by which support for property proposals is assessed.
- Proposals A1, A2 and A3 are alternatives to each other.
- Proposal A4 is dependent on one of proposals A1-A3 passing, but may fail independently without affecting other proposals.
- Proposals B1 and B2 are alternatives to each other.
- Proposal C is dependent on at least one other proposal passing.
Contents
Must be open for a minimum of 24 hours
editAll property proposals must be open for a minimum of 24 hours before the proposed property is created.
- Support as proposer, second choice to 48 hours. 12:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support in the same vein as Thryduulf (who is unsigned above). --Izno (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Rschen7754 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't think a mandatory minimum is a good idea, but if there's a consensus to set one, 24 hours is too short. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Jane023 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Mainly opposing the "must"-part. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Snipre (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too short. Pamputt (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Srittau (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too short. Lymantria (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose mainly due to the 'must' alongside Innocent_bystander ·addshore· talk to me! 09:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose changes to the the current policy, which states "The period before a property can be created should be no less than one week". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too short. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Too short. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--Oursana (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
must be open for a minimum of 48 hours
editAll property proposals must be open for a minimum of 48 hours before the proposed property is created.
- Support as proposer, first choice. 12:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support in the same vein as Thryduulf (who is unsigned above). --Izno (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Rschen7754 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support 48 hours is ok as a mandatory minimum - but I think it needs to be coupled with the current "should" language on WD:PTC "should be no less than one week". I would actually prefer to see more explicit language on determining that multiple people have thought about a property proposal - evidence of at least some discussion, etc. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Jane023 (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Mainly opposing the "must"-part. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportSnipre (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Agreed with ArthurPSmith.
- Oppose Considering the lack of participation in property proposal discussions, 48 hours is too short. --Srittau (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Still, 48 hours is very short and might cover a weekend off for a couple of contributors. An exception might be considered in case of massive support (say >15) and no oppose. Lymantria (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose mainly due to the 'must' alongside Innocent_bystander ·addshore· talk to me! 09:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose changes to the the current policy, which states "The period before a property can be created should be no less than one week". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Still too short. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--Oursana (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Must be open for a minimum of 7 days
editAll property proposals must be open for a minimum of 7 days before the proposed property is created.
- Support as proposer, third choice behind 48 hours then 24 hours. 12:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support in the same vein as Thryduulf (who is unsigned above). --Izno (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Rschen7754 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this would presumably be strengthening the current "should" to a "must"? I don't think that's a good idea, it really limits flexibility we might need at times (exceptions should already be rare to "should" requirements). ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Jane023 (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Mainly opposing the "must"-part. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As second choice Snipre (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Agreed with ArthurPSmith. Pamputt (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Current policy, works well. --Srittau (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Srittau. Lymantria (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose mainly due to the 'must' alongside Innocent_bystander ·addshore· talk to me! 09:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This will allow enough time for everyone to participate in the discussion before property creation. --Yair rand (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a less sure wording. Though I suppose the usual IAR/UCS can always apply. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as status quo (no change to current wording). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The creation of a property cannot be easily undone if said property has been used substantially. Therefore, I think it's more than reasonable to require a week.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support We need ample time to discuss whether we should create the property or not. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support One week seems to be enough but I wouldn't oppose going higher. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--Oursana (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--I would support if it was "should" instead of "must"JakobVoss (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Srittau. --Epìdosis 13:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions
editProposals that are a refinement or alternative to another proposal are exempt from the minimum duration provided that:
- The current proposal is a direct continuation or response to the first one, AND
- The first proposal had not been archived when the current proposal was posted, AND
- Significant participants in the first proposal discussion are aware of the revised proposal
In these cases the minimum duration is counted from the time first proposal was posted.
- Support as proposer. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant participants in the first proposal discussion are aware of the revised proposal" -> People still need to be made aware of the new proposal and allowed time to comment, even if they supported the changed proposal, so this doesn't quite fit the bill. Meeting the new minimum should be expected even in this case, I think. --Izno (talk)
- Oppose I can't think of a good reason a revised proposal should be an exception to the rules. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Two days are not a strong constraint. Snipre (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose No reason to make exception IMHO. Pamputt (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There is no hurry. Lymantria (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose it's stil a new proposal and yes, there is no need to hurry. -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There are too many vague terms in this definition (e.g. "continuation") for this to be worthwhile.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose At least one week. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal B1: Independence of property creators (1)
editProperty creators should not close proposals where they have been involved in the event or other discussions that led to the proposal being made.
- Support as proposer, second choice to proposal B2. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can see this was discussed in Wikidata:Requests for comment/Reforming the property creation process and I see no need to review it again only a few weeks later. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Innocent bystander: Which discussion specifically do you believe to be relevant here? --Izno (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The headers "#Recusal (1-5)" all deals with this in some way or another. Even external COI was discussed to some degree. No such proposal passed the RFC from what I can see. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Innocent bystander: Which discussion specifically do you believe to be relevant here? --Izno (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can see this was discussed in Wikidata:Requests for comment/Reforming the property creation process and I see no need to review it again only a few weeks later. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - we already disallow the proposer to be the creator; otherwise this is too restrictive, see previous RFC. I do feel a property creator should not act in a biased manner in dealing with proposals, and should be subject to administrative action if they are abusing their rights. That's already true though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Jane023 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The only way to have a strong confidence in PC activity Snipre (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Agreed with ArthurPSmith. Pamputt (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, currently we lack participation and active property creators. Maybe at some point in the future this will make sense. --Srittau (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Srittau. Lymantria (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with the same opinion as ArthurPSmith ·addshore· talk to me! 08:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per ArthurPSmith, -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose status quo seems to work for now. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per my comments in previous RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The status quo doesn't work when involved creations of properties have caused problems in the past.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Makes sense. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I vote for that it is ok to make a property quickly and by a closed knowledgeable group. Lets say we have a Nordic Business Wikidata hackathon/editathon and someone suggests a property such as CVR number (P1059). Such a property seems "obvious", unambiguious and immediately applicable. It seems silly to wait for a response from the rest of the community. Of course, as a general rule one should wait for a wide community response. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--Oursana (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Epìdosis 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal B2: Independence of property creators (2)
editProperty creators should not close proposals where they have been involved in the event or other discussions that led to the proposal being made, except where a proposal has >90% support or opposition, AND The proposal has been open at least 48 hours or 24 hours longer than the minimum duration, whichever is greater.
- Support as proposer, first choice over proposal B1. 12:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like what I said under proposal B1 can be applied here too. And "involved in the event or other discussions" looks very vague. I think we should encourage more participation in the PP-process and encourage more users to be Property Creators, not create a web of sinkholes around the process that makes it impossible to almost all of us to close a Property Proposal. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm comfortable with the rules as they currently stand in this regard; see above. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Jane023 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Snipre (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Agreed with ArthurPSmith. Pamputt (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Suppose I (or any other active property creator) am consulted about a possible property proposition and give some advise. Then I would not be able to create the property if there is some opposition. There not enough active property creators to make that possible. Also difficult to check and maintain. Lymantria (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with the same opinion as ArthurPSmith in B1 ·addshore· talk to me! 08:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose that's way to complicated. -- T.seppelt (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Would generally prefer less bureaucracy, rather than set numbers. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In favor of B1 which is simpler. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--Oursana (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose too complicated --JakobVoss (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose --Epìdosis 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal C1: Disregard of these standards
editAny property creator who repeatedly or egregiously disregards these standards may have their property creator right summarily removed by an administrator. Any disregard for these standards, whether or not repeated or egregious, may be taken into consideration in any discussion about a property creator's actions or behaviour.
- Support as proposer. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Let us review each case that pop up at AN one at the time. We are not overloaded with cases like that. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think using AN like so is a good way deal with an issue like this. And besides, the statement made here is the word "may" and neither "must" nor "should" nor "shall". --Izno (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The choice of "may" is key and deliberate. This just explicitly notes that these actions can (but do not have to be) be taken into account in that sort of discussion while also allowing (but not requiring or even encouraging) rapid action in the most serious cases when it is required in the judgement of an administrator. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is ever required to do anything here. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and no. You are free to do or not do any specific task, but if you do choose to do it you are required to follow the rules and/or processes associated with that task. And in certain cases if you choose to do X you are then required to either do or not do Y (for example, you have chosen to comment on this proposal therefore you may not determine what the consensus is regarding it). This proposal is about explicitly allowing a choice to do or not do something where otherwise that would be ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 14:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is ever required to do anything here. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The choice of "may" is key and deliberate. This just explicitly notes that these actions can (but do not have to be) be taken into account in that sort of discussion while also allowing (but not requiring or even encouraging) rapid action in the most serious cases when it is required in the judgement of an administrator. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think using AN like so is a good way deal with an issue like this. And besides, the statement made here is the word "may" and neither "must" nor "should" nor "shall". --Izno (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support though in controversial cases it should be discussed at WD:AN. --Rschen7754 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I don't see how this adds anything to the current rules on abuse of any privileges. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Jane023 (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The case has to be discussed first but this action should be proposed as penalty. Snipre (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is current policy. --Srittau (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Srittau. Lymantria (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with the same reasoning at User:Innocent_bystander ·addshore· talk to me! 08:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- T.seppelt (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I would prefer some discussion before removing permissions in general, outside of emergencies. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Administrators are trusted to exercise proper judgement. This includes talking with the editor first if necessary, so I don't see the point with the above objections.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Rschen7754 and Jasper Deng. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose--Oursana (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think, before we get into the details of this RFC, perhaps we ought to have a discussion about WHY we limit property creation and try to achieve a consensus on properties, when we have basically a free-for-all (wiki style) for items. What is the purpose of the proposal process? Why is it important for wikidata to have a relatively limited number of properties? Do we even have a consensus explanation for that? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus for property creators is Wikidata:Requests for comment/Restrict creation of properties to some users. Wikidata:Requests for comment/Clarifying the requirements for property creation is a followup. There is also the recently closed RFC at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Reforming the property creation process. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- From my point of view, the purpose of the process is so that we can ensure we have a decent chance at not fragmenting our own ontology. In the olden days, there was no restriction on who could create a property, and so many properties were created (I have a pair at PFD right now from this time frame, I think). But many of them subsequently were deleted for any of a number of reasons: poor rationale for existence, bad documentation, duplication (in both a literally "duplicates" POV and a less literally "subproperty" POV), and so forth. This is valuable, as it allows us to manage our ontology sanely. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't actually find it to be that sane. The closest analogy I can think of would be restricting creation of templates on Wikipedia. If we want better schema, better properties, we need to allow more people to gain direct experience making and refining them. Currently properties have deliberative processes for creation and deletion, but neither process provides much space for what makes wikis useful, such as openness, ease-of-use, responsiveness, experimentation, fast iteration, etc. There is no practical equivalent to a sandbox for properties. Even experimenting with items on Wikidata is awkward. Coming from Freebase (which I realize is not that well-regarded by many on Wikidata), one thing I appreciated there was the concept of a Commons which designates mature, approved schema, while ordinary users with the motivation to do so were still free to develop and familiarize themselves with property development in a separate "base" which they can work on by themselves, or can open up to whatever degree and style of collaboration they choose. Good schema and well-defined properties could then be promoted with strong consensus to the Commons, sometimes already with significant quality data to expose. This does presume a system capable of handling a certain scale of entities, but the goal is for Wikidata to be able to handle citations for the other Wikimedia projects, then the community will eventually need to let go of the notion that it will be able manage items and properties the same way that other wikis handle content pages. Perhaps that won't work here, but I think liberalizing property creation should still be something worth discussing. Dancter (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Izno thanks for the links, that does help give some background. However your explanation regarding fragmentation of the ontology is clearer than anything I could find in the old discussion, so thanks even more for that. Rereading all this, I think the main points are:
- We want multiple people to think about a new property before it is created, to catch possible issues like duplication of existing properties, wrong data types, source data that won't work with wikidata for some reason (eg. license issues), or just general problems in the definition or logic of the proposal. Wikidata's aim is structured data, so properties that encourage that are good, properties that allow basically unstructured strings are not. Creating and then deleting lots of new properties that have problems of this sort results in wasted work (and there was some experience with this in the early days); creating and not deleting them so that these properties become widely used makes wikidata less useful through inconsistencies and illogic or possibly even legal ramifications (on license issues).
- These considerations led to the proposal process, which encourages discussion before creation, and the property creators as a special user group. However there has never been full agreement on what constitutes consensus: some argued that no support or opposition after a period of time indicates a negative consensus, others interpret it as positive or undecided. When there is discussion with both supporting and opposing comments there is no fixed pattern for a property creator to decide what the consensus is, it is basically up to the one who takes it on to make the decision as best they can. One good opposing comment, or even a neutral comment questioning the logic of a proposal, might be sufficient to give pause in property creation until it can be resolved, even if there are many voices in support. On the other hand, the existence of one or several opposing comments doesn't necessarily mean a property shouldn't be created, the property creator needs to assess the arguments and give everything due weight. This is a subjective process and others might argue differently. We trust property creators to be responsible in their use of their authority. Abuse should trigger a referral to administrators.
- The guidelines for property creators at WD:PTC have evolved to reflect RFC's like this one on how those with that right should act. Most of the guidelines say "should" rather than "must". I would interpret "should" as allowing for exceptions, while "must" does not. One of the "should" items concerns the time period for discussion. If a property creator really feels consensus has been clearly reached with multiple independent people contributing to that consensus, I would argue that is more important than the time period allowed. In general the important thing is the first point above: multiple people thinking about the ramifications of a new property. One can find many examples where properties have been created with very little of that evident, but that's the ideal.
- does this seem about right? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Arthur that sounds about right. Let me also say here that I for one have been VERY grateful for all of the documentation that has recently occurred in the whole area of property creation and I am finding it a bit easier to understand as a process. That said, I am also really sad to see the nature of some of the recent disputes around property creation. I also hate to see words like "must" in a volunteer-run project, though perhaps we are moving in that general direction. :( Jane023 (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, points one and two are approximately the case. Regarding your third point: We use RFCs because of the international part of this project, where edits made due to some discussion on WD:PC or elsewhere may not have consensus due to the other language opinions. Indeed, "should" allows for some exceptions and "must" allows for lesser, if any (what does Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (Q4656211) mean, if anything, on this wiki? this process?). I also agree with "multiple independent people being more important" but caveated as something closer to "multiple independent points of view". --Izno (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, Wikidata:Property creators, which is a Wikidata policy, currently says: "The period before a property can be created should be no less than one week." This time period seems to work well. --Srittau (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- One week is probably far to short if we have to consider every reason people disliked how P2860 was created. It is maybe enough for a reasonable amount of users to find the proposal, but that is probably the only issue we solve during only 7 days. But having a longer period would make the process even more frustrating than it is today. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Most proposals don't need 7 days of intense discussion, but some do need longer (see for example the discussions about how best to store what area a map of a given object needs to be displayed - zoom level, bounding box, maximum edge-edge distance, diameter, northern-etc-most point, etc), which is why I explicitly am not proposing a maximum length of discussion. If consensus is clear at the end of the minimum period (48 hours is my first preference) then it can be created/not created as appropriate, if consensus is unclear and/or discussion still ongoing then it can remain open. I agree that properties requests dragging on excessively long (not infrequently months) is frustrating, but that is a very different issue to the one this RfC seeks to address. Most of the reasons people dislike the creation of P2860 are because it was created without opportunity for input from those not attending the conference and things that could have been quickly and easily identified and resolved prior to creation were overlooked but still need addressing (which is less easy now). Indeed had the property not been speedily created I suspect that it would have been done so with clear support in less than a week. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 15:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in less than a week (because our policy mandates a week of discussion at the moment), but after a week for sure, given the support it had. A longer process is called for when a property is disputed or is lacking participation. The creation of cites work (P2860) was completely unacceptable for the reasons Thryduulf states. --Srittau (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Most proposals don't need 7 days of intense discussion, but some do need longer (see for example the discussions about how best to store what area a map of a given object needs to be displayed - zoom level, bounding box, maximum edge-edge distance, diameter, northern-etc-most point, etc), which is why I explicitly am not proposing a maximum length of discussion. If consensus is clear at the end of the minimum period (48 hours is my first preference) then it can be created/not created as appropriate, if consensus is unclear and/or discussion still ongoing then it can remain open. I agree that properties requests dragging on excessively long (not infrequently months) is frustrating, but that is a very different issue to the one this RfC seeks to address. Most of the reasons people dislike the creation of P2860 are because it was created without opportunity for input from those not attending the conference and things that could have been quickly and easily identified and resolved prior to creation were overlooked but still need addressing (which is less easy now). Indeed had the property not been speedily created I suspect that it would have been done so with clear support in less than a week. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 15:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]