Wikidata:Requests for comment/structured path for property definition changes

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "structured path for property definition changes" 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!

For creating a property there is a good way to propose these new property at Wikidata:Property proposal, but if you want to change the usage of an property, for example for wider usage. By changing labels, descriptions and constraints. There is no structured way for now. You just can use the property talk page, the project chat and maybe a project page but there is not all at one place. To provide clear place where a consensus about the changes can be found, I would propose to create a page Wikidata:Property changes where consensus can be found and after that labels and descriptions can get changed. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree that it would be good to have a more formal process for it. Instead of having it at a new page I would prefer to integrate it into the current property proposal process so that the property proposal pages list both proposal for new properties and change to existing ones. ChristianKl❫ 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As data users start relying on properties having a given definition, I don't think this should generally be done. If an identifier scheme changes, the proper way is to create a new property for that scheme. If the old one should be discontinued for some reason, delete it. It's not much different from the general rule not to re-purposes entities (items, lexemes, properties, schemas). --- Jura 09:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean changes like main subject (P921) also for events not only for texts or author name string (P2093) also for photographers not only for text writers. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
P2093 has too many uses to change its labels. --- Jura 10:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely say if I would propose the new properties "photographer name string" and "artist name string" many people would say just use author name string (P2093) and rename it to "creator name string". That would not break any query. That is the reason why we only use the Q-ID for every linking and not the label. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware that some users don't subscribe to the non-repurposing aspect of Wikidata. --- Jura 10:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: While I agree that using one item or property for a completely new purpose is bad, sometimes the initial label is problematic and it's helpful to improve on it. The status quo is that some changes do happen. Having a structured process where improvements can happen and at the same time changes that are repurposing properties in a way that might be a problem for data-reusers can be rejected seems to me like it would be an improvement. ChristianKl❫ 08:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, If any minor change required for any of the property it's best that we should discuss on WD:Project chat as there's more traffic instead Wikidata:Property changes, or talk page as many user are watching that. Fot the major changes we should propose a new property and delete the old property after create new property successfully. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)