Wikidata talk:Property proposal/Archive 1

Active discussions

How do we manage property proposal ?

We need a common rule about property proposal management especially about the next point:

  1. How do we treat proposals after creation ?
    a) delete the proposal without copying anywhere
    -   Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    b) let the proposal on the page with mention of the creation
    -   Oppose, no question, impossible. The list would get endless. --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    c) cut-paste the proposal on the talk page of the property
    -   Support, together with e) --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    -   Support Easy to find and helps if the discussion continues. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    -   Support Useful for further discussions. --Paperoastro (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    -   Support Danrok (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    d) cut-paste the proposal to the archive (as at moment)
    -   Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    -   Support only for not approved properties or deleted one. In this manner useful discussions will not be lost. If this proposal will be accepted, I suggest to organize in different manner the archive section. --Paperoastro (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I have seen the proposal 2.d after! --Paperoastro (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  2. How do we treat proposals when there is consensus about their uselessness ?
    a) delete the proposal without copying and message anywhere
    -   Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    -   Oppose --Paperoastro (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    b) let the proposal on the page with mention of the creation
    -   Oppose, no question, impossible. The list would get endless. --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    c) cut-paste the proposal to the archive (as at moment)
    -   Support --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    -   Support --Paperoastro (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    -   Support Danrok (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    d) In addition summarize all rejected properties on a special site, with a link to another site with the whole discussion - As started here: Wikidata:Property proposal/Rejected (not complete).
    -   Support --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    -   Support In this manner useful discussion will not be lost. I suggest to add in this page also the discussions of deleted properties, if technically possible. --Paperoastro (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    e) Only summarize all rejected properties on a special site, without a link to another site with the whole discussion
    -   Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  3. How do we treat proposals which are a double of an existing property ?
    a) Immediately delete the proposal
    -   Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    b) Let the title (property name) remain and replace the content with a template which clarify the situation. Left this information for one week, then remove the proposal completely.
    -   Support --Nightwish62 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    c) (In addition) message on the talk page of the person who proposes the property, when it's not an IP.
    -   Support --Nightwish62 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    d) (In addition) message on the talk page of the person who proposes the property, even when it's an IP.
    -   Oppose --Nightwish62 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • For all three: Make a section with possibilities, so we can vote for every option. Similar to how we've voted pro "property creator". But I think we should take this to the RFC again, new entry. Personally, I think we should never delete something without giving a message about it. Otherwise the one who has make the proposal is searching for it. --Nightwish62 (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    You forgot another option. There is also a Archive. I inserted this. --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't we switch the format over to a page-per-discussion and then just list the pages in an archive? Then we can always find them and not worry about attribution/loss/confusion. James F. (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

How do we define properties proposal ready for creation ?

Do we check regulary the proposals and do the creation when we see that there is a consensus ? When no comment is given to a proposal, after one week can we decide that the property is accepted ? Do we wait on request on our talk page ? Do we create a section "Submission of property for creation" on Wikidata:Property proposal where contributors can put a request with a link to the proposal when the proposal is ready ? Snipre (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have clear guidelines. Just an idea:

  • The proposal discussion has to run at least 4 weeks, but
  • for every vote (without the one who proposed the property!) this time is halved. Meaning: 0 vote 4 weeks, 1 vote 2 weeks, 2 votes 1 week, 3 votes and more (!) 3 days (so this is the minimum time a discussion has to be).
---- AND ----
  • The proposal must have at least 50% of all votes.

But I think this is also better placed under a RFC.--Nightwish62 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think if you are not at ease when creating properties, you should refrain from doing so.
Still, I encourage you to get more experience at Wikidata: editing items, creating/evaluating the use of properties. Looking at properties that work, others that don't.
You might also want to create a user page. Nightwish62 is still a red link. --  Docu  at 16:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I think creation should be at the best judgement of a competent person after reviewing the discussion. Danrok (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision of proposal template

I propose to update the template used for porperty proposal

  • description = put definition here, e.g. same as in the infobox documentation (NEEDED)
  • infobox parameter = put infobox parameter here if existing, e.g. en:template:infobox settlement population
  • datatype = item, Monolingual text, multilingual text, media (NEEDED)
  • domain = type of items that may have this property
  • allowed values = type of linked items, restrictions on the values
  • source = External reference, Wikipedia list article (either infobox or source NEEDED)
  • example = example item and/or example value
  • robot and gadget jobs = Should or are bots or gadgets doing any task with this? (Check other properties for consistency, collect data, etc.)
  • proposed by =


I proposed to delete "allowed values", "domain" and "robot and gadget jobs" parameters: these parameters don't provide important references. Allowed value is not so different that data type and if you have to put some restriction in the use of the property it should be explained in the description field. As we splitted the property proposal page Domian is not more necessary. If the property is specific to a field this has to be given in the description parameter. For robot and gadget jobs, I don't understant the use of that parameter: every property will be handled by bot if necessary. But we have to add a new parameter like status where property creators can put some comment about management like "wait more comment", "will be deleted",... Snipre (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it depends what you do with the template once the property is created. I think it's good to have at least part of it as a summary on the talk page of the property. Some fields might even be more useful there than on the proposal. The earlier this is available, the better.
Once the item is created, I think it's good to link the original proposal in the archive. This could replace "proposed by". Sample: Property_talk:P265
In some fields, I couldn't do much with "allowed values" and "domain" so they remained empty. Still if property:P107 had stated listed allowed values in the beginning, we would have saved at lot of discussions. "suggested values" might be missing. --  Docu  at 16:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC), edited 16:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
With qualifiers around the corner, and sources already implemented, perhaps the template should also include a new parameter to say whether the proposed property is intended to be used as a statement, source or qualifier? --Ch1902 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
"Allowed values" is helpful and clarifies the purpose of the property. "domain" should be renamed in "main type (GND)" or deleted. ("domain" sounds like DNS.) --Kolja21 (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Domain' is a widely used attribute of properties in the Semantic Web; see this Semantic Web primer from the W3C and rdfs:domain. It defines the valid subjects / items for a given predicate (property) beyond merely datatype. "Allowed values" should really be called 'range' (and based on rdfs:range); this property attribute would specify the valid objects / values for a property beyond merely datatype. Neither domain nor range should be based on GND main type (P107), given the major flaws that many contributors have noted with that property -- see here for more detailed explanation. Emw (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Steps when creating new properties ..

Today, I created a series of properties. It's actually quite a lot of work. Here are the steps that seem to be needed:

  • 1. Create the property with Special:NewProperty including the label and description from the proposal. Polish it if needed.
  • 2. Add the new property to the sample item from the proposal. If there was no sample in the proposal, find one.
  • 3. Remove the proposal from the subpage of Wikidata:Property proposal
  • 4. Archive the proposal at Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/5. If the proposal uses Template:Property documentation, add the number of the property in the template's status field. Otherwise link the new property at the end of the discussion. Add a discussion closure comment if needed.
  • 5. Clean-up the use of Template:Property documentation and add it to the talk page of the new property. This will allow it to be edited/extended there. At "proposed by", link the proposal in the archive. If the proposal didn't use the template, it's worth filling it yourself. Sample: Property talk:P409.
  • 6. Add the new property to Wikidata:List of properties
  • 7. For properties with a string datatype, request links to added to MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AuthorityControl.js (if applicable)
  • 8. Notify people who want to use the new property. Generally that would be the user who first proposed it and maybe some of the other participants in the discussion.

Comments:

  • step 3: Once done, the proposal shouldn't remain Wikidata:Property proposal, some of the subpages are already very large.
  • step 4: I archived the discussion in Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive as this is the archive that is listed on Wikidata:Property proposal. I think the archive as such should be chronological. Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/4 seems to complicated to read. The page should also be readable without clicking on "unhide" buttons. I don't understand why people would use "hide" on discussions.
  • step 5: rather than duplicating the entire discussion to the property talk page, I linked the archived one and started a property documentation on the item's talk page. If it's part of an archive, the documentation is unlikely to be edited ever.
  • step 8: I added that step as some of the proposals seem to be there for quite some time and users might have forgotten about them. As new property creation is now restricted, I think it's important that we make sure users know when they can start making use of them.

Quite a few "string" type of properties are ready for creation. If people are interested in using them, I think we should go ahead and create them. Please help. --  Docu  at 14:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A good candidate to be added to the instructions.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Very good jobs! A question: a page with "requests for property creator" could be useful? --Paperoastro (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Ok for me. This could save users going to WD:AN. --  Docu  at 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Docu, this list is going to be really helpful. Maybe we can add it to WD:PTC so it can be refined and translated? Legoktm (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure. It might not be ready for translation yet. --  Docu  at 18:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
With the status-field it should be possible to let the poposals be archieved by a bot. And such a bot could write a note at Wikidata:List of properties. --Goldzahn (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Automated archiving would indeed be easier (would save us step 3/4), but make it more difficult to get the link in step 5 right.
BTW to simplify step 6, at Property talk:P10/row, we tried to transclude this on Property talk:P10, Wikidata:List of properties and even Property:P10. It didn't quite work though. Maybe we should have items about wikidata properties ;) --  Docu  at 18:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC), edited 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Why do we need to copy the proposal to the \Archives pages if we copy-paste the proposal with discussion in the talk pages of the created property ? Don't do the job twice.
And better put that list of things to do in the header of Special:NewProperty Snipre (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a good procedure, though it would be great if it could be semi-automated, because it is rather boring to do it all by hand :|. --Zolo (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
As per Legoktm, I added it to WD:PTC. --  Docu  at 10:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


Navigation of subpages

To make it possible to navigate from one subpage to another, I created Wikidata:Property proposal/navbar. Feel free to improve its layout.

Before there was no link from one subpage to another. Oddly each subpage linked Project Chat and other discussion pages. --  Docu  at 10:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Elected to a seat in parliament

I am struggling to work out the properties to use where someone was

  1. elected to the UK parliament
  2. then to assign to the seat to which they are elected, and then to put the preceded/succeeded

In fact, it is one of those things that I am not even sure within which section to look. Nothing jumps out at me from the summary list. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Every MP in the Swedish riksdag is connected to one of 29 constituency (Q192611), a numbered seat (1-350) and a political party, or no party at all. You maybe have to many electoral districts in UK and in other countries to see such system as useful. -- Lavallen (block) 15:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
For UK, at present you can say position held (P39) = member of parliament (Q486839) qualifier member of (P463) = Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q11010), but I don't think we have a seat property. I suggest we could have a generic, or broad property for that. Danrok (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like constituency (Q192611) would do it? Danrok (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not a property. So, no. Danrok (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for property proposals

I think the current process of property proposal is not regulated enough. Properties are created with just one or two support votes, only to get deleted soon after. Sometimes the user who creates the property is the one who made the proposal in the first place, and that's a conflict of interest. In order to make the process clearer for everyone, I propose the adoption of the following guidelines:

  1. Before a new property is created, it has to be proposed and discussed here.
  2. After seven days or more, the proposal can be closed by a property creator or administrator who has not been involved in the discussion.
  3. If the proposal is supported by three or more registered users and there is a clear consensus for creation, the property is created.
    If the proposal has some supporters, but no or very few opponents, the property is created.
  4. If the condition above is not met after a month, or if the proposed property is an obvious duplicate, the proposal is rejected.

I think this simple set of rules would benefit both property supporters and opposers. What do you think? Mushroom (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Comment. Everybody can take part to the property proposal discussion. If no one cares (at that's the situation), it can't be the fault of the proposer. I saw some property proposals which waited for month without any vote (neither support or oppose). So I don't see why we should adversely affect the proposer for the non-activity of the community. Being passive in the proposal process but as soon as the property has created starting a deletion request isn't a right way. So take your chance to oppose a property as long the proposal runs. For this, 7 days are enough. BTW: people normally rise their voice if their are against something, but silently agree to others they like. That's very normal, also in real world. Did you ever seen an employee which thanks to his manager for the great wage he gets? Or a demonstration for the great government? --Nightwish62 (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should adversely affect the proposer, in fact the guidelines above state that a property proposal can be approved after seven days or rejected after a month, so if anything they favor the proposer. However, I'm open to changing the deadline above from "a month" to "a long time" if that seems better to you. I just think we need clear rules on this matter, and a requirement of three supporters (including the proposer) doesn't seem such a difficult threshold to reach. Mushroom (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The threshold of three support can be a too high limit for strongly niched subjects. The lack of oppose would in my opinion be enough if the support-number is less than 3. -- Lavallen (block) 09:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm thinking...it's not the time, it's the 'at least three supporters' which I oppose. --Nightwish62 (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
For example: the Peruvian municipalitycode. There is only a proposal, no support and no oppose. My opinion is that all required is that it is usful as long as nobody is opposing. I know to little about Peru to tell my opinion. -- Lavallentalk(block) 11:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It's true, I wouldn't know what to vote in that case (and many others). Then let's keep the old wording for rule #3: "If the proposal has some supporters, but no or very few opponents, the property is created". Would that be ok? Mushroom (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this will just marginally affect the property proposal process. Please see the RfC and the discussion linked in it on project chat to see the arguments developed (Wikidata:Requests for comment/Property proposal organisation reform to a more Model (or infobox) oriented process) as it's the same discussion. TomT0m (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"The current process of property proposal is not regulated enough"? I think the process fails because it is already way too much regulated. Ljubinka (discussion) 11:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There are to many templates, with functions only a few understand. -- Lavallentalk(block) 11:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Not regulated, not organized well enough, it's inefficient. Part of it is because when a newcomer come to Wikidata, it simply does not really know how to process because of lack of information and organization. TomT0m (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
To Ljubinka: so what's your proposal to fix the process? Open up property creation to anyone? Mushroom (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarification is probably helpful. The general process is outlined at Wikidata:Property creators. It currently requires: "Per community consensus, new properties should not be created without a proposal/discussion on Wikidata:Property proposal. Property creators should not create new properties unless consensus exists".
    A general observation is that there isn't much discussion of most property proposals. Proposals generally get a few "me too". Beyond a detailed proposal, there isn't much one could add to the many proposals for Swedish statistical codes. Even fairly general ones seem to limit themselves to "me toos" (sample: "coordinates", see P625). Thus, I'd shorten point one to just "1. Before a new property is proposed, it needs to be proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal". Deletions seem to be much more popular, even draw users who don't participate in the creation of property or in the actual addition of properties on Wikidata. Maybe deletions are over-advertised and draw unneeded drama.
    In some Wikipedias, simple "me toos" are not considered helpful for consensus building. A consensus exists if there is no opposition for a proposal. Thus I'd rephrase "3. If the proposal has some supporters or no or very few opponents, the property is created." For (2.), I'd limit this for cases where there is opposition. "After seven days, the proposal can be closed by a property creator. If there was opposition, this should a user who has not been involved in the discussion.". --  Docu  at 06:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I personally think property proposals should be advertised more prominently, at least to their associated content areas (WikiProjects). I would also support the requirement for any property proposal to be evaluated by an uninvolved admin or property creator. I think deletions are advertised appropriately, but we may want to advertise requests more.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Another point we should add is: "5. Properties should only be created by users with sufficient understanding and experience in the process of formulating property proposals, discussing or supporting properties, and use of properties in statements.". --  Docu  at 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I arrived here looking for guidelines about property proposals. There should be a place to explain what's explained here and in some parts of Wikidata:Property creators. It would be very useful for newbies like me. Paucabot (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Internationalization

The property proposals system is currently very English-centered, and probably very difficult to use for non-English speakers. There are a number of ways this situation could be improved:

  1. The "Add a request" button's preload text (Wikidata:Property proposal/Preload) is currently only in English. This could be made localizable per language, and perhaps use the English version for languages without a localized version.
  2. The preload text currently demands an English label ("NEEDED: PROPERTY NAME IN ENGLISH (en)"), completely preventing non-English speakers from proposing any properties at all. I think this requirement should be removed.
  3. The English label is at the front of the header line, regardless of the user's language. I think a preferable setup would be if the label in the user's language was generally the only one displayed. If it's not available, then all of the available labels could be displayed, with the language codes next to them, together with a prominently displayed invitation to translate the label into the user's language.
  4. The parameters given to Template:Property documentation are only in English, and not easily translated. I propose that all parameters be filled in with a template similar to {{LangSwitch}}, only one that can accept not having English given, and invites the user to translate the content when not yet translated (this will probably require some Lua coding). The instructions form, preload text, and so on should all have the template placed by default in each localizable parameter.
  5. The line saying "Discussion" under each proposal could, instead of simply displaying the English word, transclude a translatable template.
  6. The use of the form of proposal using only plain text instead of the localizable box template could be eliminated.

--Yair rand (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed in general, but especially with points 1 and 5. Both can be easily changed to be in line with other pages. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced ;Discussion with ;{{int:Talk}} on WD:Property proposal/Header, WD:Property proposal/Generic, and WD:Property proposal/Authority control. I'll do the rest in a day or so if there are no objections before then. --Yair rand (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Property similar to [role]

I was about to do some tidy up at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P453. On looking at the list, there seems adequate (mis)use of the property to indicate that a similar property could be created, eg. warfare role. Can I reflect, that I would ideally prefer to see [role] renamed to something like [character] or [character role], as in English the term of [role] is quite ambiguous and needs better context.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a property floating around called "use" which should be useful instead. Alternatively, those each should not specifically carry the property (I would expect "use" to be transitive), and the "air force" item should. *shrug*--Izno (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Too ambiguous, especially as in English it has different meaning with different emphasis (one as noun, one as verb), though if you said "military use" or "military purpose" that would seem sufficiently specific. It would be great if someone knowledgeable in the creation process could get a suitable property.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

discussion during property proposal to be added to each property discussion page...

It would be nice if the discussion that led to the creation of each property could be systematically added on top of the property, since it can be very difficult to understand the use of some properties, and/or to explain them to someone (see here) - discussion of birth name (P1477) and name in native language (P1559) are not, for now... :)

Thank you very much... --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

'On hold' proposal archive

Should we have a separate page or pages, for "on hold" proposals? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

see Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending --Pasleim (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Propose adding a focused search into Wikidata:Property proposal/Header

I would like for there to be the consideration to add {{Engine}} into Wikidata:Property proposal/Header so that searches can be made more easily for property proposals from within those pages. Any objections?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to use that template, though I absolutely agree that there should be a search bar. To include archives also. --Izno (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

DBC identifiers

The Dansk BiblioteksCenter or, in short, Danish Bibliographic Centre (Q12307383) seems to be a national authority for people and publications. I think it would be a good idea to incorporate their identifiers into Wikidata. But I'm not sure how to got about it, e.g. whether we should create separate properties for DBC person entries and bibliographical entries ...

@Genium, Missvain: Perhaps you have an idea? And could you please include and message other users who might be interested and able to help with this? Jonathan Groß (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't created a national authority myself, hmm..perhaps @Multichill: might have some ideas. I have only used the DBC once (and failed :) ) but it can't hurt to add it! Missvain (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Danish Bibliographic Centre (Q12307383) is harvested by VIAF: VIAF ID (P214). Is there an other way to look up the DBC ID? --Kolja21 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a listing (apart from VIAF) or a resolver. Neither on https://opensource.dbc.dk nor https://bibliotek.dk. I don't think there is one. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of Template:Property documentation in proposal

Should we request that all proposal use {{Property documentation}} ? Filling the template is slightly tedious and I don't think it is always useful, especially for those about external identifiers that are all conceptually similar. To me the common-sense solution and letting the proposer do things as he wishes, and ask for details when something relevant for the discussion is missing. But as it seems to be controversial, I copy a recent discussion from Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control. --Zolo (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


:@Zolo: Please complete the template for each of these nominations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: once again, what's the point of adding {{Property documentation}} here ? It would not add any useful information, and would arguably blur the connection between the three proposed properties (perhaps we should just have one property or whatever). --Zolo (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Zolo: Once again, this was explained to you on 19 October, by User:Nikki. Your continued obstinacy in this matter is unbecoming of an admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: as you can see I had replied to Nikki at the time, and so had Jura. The template would not add anything relevant for this proposal, just translate a few words, so few that it couldn't possibly include more people in the discussion. You can't assume I will comply with your request if you are unable to provide a rationale. --Zolo (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting discussion! @Zolo: - I think you should go ahead and create those proper requests because that needs to be made in oder to complete the property (and the property will link back to this page). Not doing so just forces Andy to do it for you, which I just see as being impolite and putting the burden on the admin rather than the proposer. --Jane023 (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Andy has visibly no intention to add the template, and I am certainly not suggesting that he should. I would just like to know why it would be helpful to add it in this case. Afaik, the only recent discussion on the topic was in the mix'n'match section of Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/39, and that was inconclusive at best.
Now that there are statements on properties, mechanically copying the template from the proposal page should be avoided, as it adds a lot of redundant data that need to be cleaned up. If you look at the latest properties I created like Property talk:P2266, it does not reuse anything from the template from the discussion, nor should it. Had there be no template like here, things would have been done exactly the same way. --Zolo (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
What seems even more problematic is that if you use the template, Pigsonthewing edits the content of the proposal template without noting the changes in the comments making it difficulte to determine what people agreed to (Diff). --- Jura 11:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a waste of time and energy. I just added the templates. Please do come up with a better way of handling this in the future, but not here. Probably better to move this to Wikidata talk:Property proposal. Maybe create a template like {{Proposed property}} in which you fill out all the information. Once you created the property the template will suggest the missing claims to be added and the contents of the {{Property documentation}} to be added to the talk page. Multichill (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Multichill: Why would we need another template ? I agree with Zolo that these templates take a lot of space and make the proposal of a set of properties to represent something pretty unreadable. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've replied to the comments in this, forked, conversation in their original location. I see no need for a second template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the need or not of a template

@Pigsonthewing: About the comment I made https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control&diff=270037752&oldid=270037656 ans for which you asked an explanation on why this template is bad : (the need for) this template is just a part of a global problem. I think, like others, like thinking property by property like this template encourage by focusing (giving a lot of space) on a single property can work in simple cases like identifiers, but usually we need to think more broadly to have a consistent model. And the process fail totally to give an overview of a whole infobox or a whole domain of application. It takes typically, when everything goes well, more than two weeks to gain the approval of a single property. To migrate an infobox, we typically need a lot more proposal. And the consistency of the proposal might be broken because one property is approved in the set, but the discussion on the other one is never closed, which blocks everything. It's a real burden to focus on a whole property. We should have the opportunity to present a global plan for a field, to discuss all at once, come by to a consensus, and then create at once all the properties to make it work. This template encourage thinking property by property and bickering and is imho as such a part of the problem where we can't think globally. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of a work

Hi all, recent discusstions about Structured Data for Commons resulted in remarks about how current licensing of files on Commons has no counterpart in associated Wikidata properties, before proposing such properties (PD-old, CC-by, etc) it would be nice to get some consensus about how to use these. Please post thoughts at the project cht here: Wikidata:Project_chat#Property_for_.27copyright_status.27. Thx --Jane023 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this note Jane023. I should have put that conversation thread here in the first place! Wittylama (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I think the chat has more followers, but not sure. This is the overall property page, and the people who may have ideas tend to hang out at the creative works property proposal page, but that doesn't appear to even have a talk page. It's things like that which make you realize we are still in the beginning phase! --Jane023 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Reorganizing: One page per proposal

Links to previous discussions: WD:Project_chat/Archive/2016/04#How_could_we_..., WD:Project_chat/Archive/2016/04#One_page_per_property_proposal.3F.

Pinging participants in previous discussions: @TomT0m, Jane023, Nikki, Pigsonthewing, Edgars2007, Pasleim: @ArthurPSmith, Srittau, Brya, Jura1, Lymantria, T.seppelt: @Jklamo:

The last discussion showed what seems to be a sufficient amount of support for the proposal to reformat property proposals as one per page. The transition seems reasonably simple:

  1. The clickable button on Wikidata:Property proposal/Header needs to be replaced with an input box, like the one on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Header.
  2. The property proposal forms from the end of Wikidata:Property proposal/Header can presumably be deleted, and we can add instead instructions regarding adding new proposals to the main list. Longer-term, we'll have that part done automatically, but I think it would be okay to have proposers to it manually on the short-term.
  3. All existing proposals on each of the 16 property pages need to be redone as their own pages. This might take some time.
  4. Would be useful: Adding a system to have Watch buttons next to each proposal. I have a script that does just that, which could be added as a default-on hidden gadget (loaded only outside the mainspace). (This isn't strictly necessary for the transition, but I think it would make sense to do it at the same time.)

Later on, we can start doing things like having alternative systems of organizing/sorting proposals, and maybe do something with certain proposals being listed on Wikiproject talk pages or subpages, but this would be a good start.

Thoughts on this? Did I miss anything? --Yair rand (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. Do we have a categorization system for the subpages? This could also be used for lists on Wikiproject pages. – T.seppelt (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I think, at the start, we should just have all proposals be in a unified category, which could then be organized into, e.g. topic/domain/project categories later. The pages could be transcluded from the current pages /General, /Event, etc as appropriate. --Yair rand (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If we activate flow on the proposals page this would take care of most of the usual issues of lost subpages
    --- Jura 05:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    Flow is not currently being developed, and there is no way (afaik) to have a Flow thread shown on multiple pages, so I don't think this would be a good idea. --Yair rand (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    And Flow doesn't even work very well. I don't get pings from Flow pages, Flow pages show up as permanently read on my watchlist (I'm sure I've missed tons of stuff on pages which were converted to Flow by now, because why would I pay any attention to things showing up as already read?), I can't even get from a Flow topic back to the original page... - Nikki (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Nikki: did you ping the flow devteam for investigating your issues ? (@Trizek (WMF): for coordination). author  TomT0m / talk page 08:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    There are already Phabricator tickets for all of those issues, but that doesn't help if nobody is working on Flow now... - Nikki (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think you are meant to use the notifications, not the watchlist.
    --- Jura 08:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping, TomT0m!
    @Yair rand, Flow is maintained and some small improvements are added. Major developments, like displaying a topic on several pages, are not scheduled at the moment, but we really listen at communities needs. In the coming weeks, a survey about Flow development in the future will be sent on many wikis using Flow, Wikidata in included.
    Nikki, have you opt-out Flow notifications on your preferences? When you are on a Topic, have you noticed the link below the page title, displayed like it is on a subpage?
    If you have any comments or needs concerning Flow, please ping me :) Trizek (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    Weren't they to make it into a workflow tool? Anyways, transclusions doesn't work, unless we have a bot build custom indexes, this wont work.
    --- Jura 08:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Yair rand:! Does this have implications for the way of archiving? Lymantria (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Lymantria: Archiving will be a bit different, yes. Rather than copy-pasting the entire section to the archive, just the individual listing (template transclusion) will be moved. The page for the particular proposal itself can remain unchanged. --Yair rand (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    Well, that means that on each propsal subpage the warning not to edit anymore has to be repeated once it is archived, I guess? Also an adjustment of "proposed by" in {{Property documentation}} should be implemented, to point to the proposal subpage rather than the archive page? Lymantria (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    Good points. Looking at Module:Property documentation, it looks like User:Abc82 already added the necessary code for this last week. Non-numeric inputs for "proposed by" point to Wikidata:Property proposal/(value). --Yair rand (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    The template could automatically display a message when the status is set to done, not done or withdrawn, saying that the proposal is closed etc. - Nikki (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Yair rand, yes I think you captured what needs to be done. Though I'm not sure how the input box business works. I do NOT support using Flow for this - every time I use Flow on somebody's talk page I find the editing interface unnecessarily complex - it's completely inconsistent with every other editing experience here. Property proposers should know how to insert values in templates the normal way. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing it up again, Yair Rand! I think the steps you outlined seem reasonable. I am willing to work on this. Flow is not a solution for anything at this point, as it is broken by design. --Srittau (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Naming scheme

What naming scheme are we going to use for the sub-pages? To copy my comment from the last discussion: I think something like Wikidata:Property proposal/2016/04/Great new property would work best. Maybe Wikidata:Property proposal/Great new property would suffice. This is what the German village pump uses. Great new property can be in any language, of course. --Srittau (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say Wikidata:Property proposal/Great new property suffices as it is anyway not allowed to have two properties with the same name. And in case a proposal is started which was before declined one can add a task number, e.g. Wikidata:Property proposal/Great new property 2 like on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. --Pasleim (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
+1. --Yair rand (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft

I set up a draft on User:Pasleim/Property proposal header which would replace Wikidata:Property proposal/Header. --Pasleim (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool - are we ready to act on step 3 (creating subpages for existing property proposals) yet? The final content of those pages can be updated when we switch things over officially. But we might want to wait for existing proposals near completion to be done first & archived? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hm, if each subpage has a raw category at the bottom, it will also get transcluded onto the main proposals list pages, which would then be similarly categorized. Would that be a problem? Also, for purposes of having watch buttons, there would need to be a template with direct access to the subpage name (setting {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} as one of the params, probably). There should probably also be an editintro with some instructions. --Yair rand (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
We should probably add categories based on the status from {{Property proposal}}. We could do without the manual category at the bottom then and use <noinclude>. --Srittau (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The idea is that the category at the bottom of each subpage is added automatically based on the page title on which the request was started. With this categorization a bot can transclude the subpage to the proposal list and users will not have to do any additional click compared to now. --Pasleim (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I see, this makes sense. How is this handled on other similar pages, like Wikidata:Requests for permissions? Also with a bot or is there some kind of automatic transclusion mechanism? --Srittau (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
On Wikidata:Requests for permissions transclusion has to be done manually but it happens regularly that it gets forgotten and so the request is hidden for multiple days. --Pasleim (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
As the full form is cluttered with marginally helpful detail, I tend to use the empty template. Supposedly the existing template version is still possible.
--- Jura 10:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Trial

I've gone ahead and converted my PO box proposal into a sub-page. Fortunately it was the only proposal open on Wikidata:Property proposal/Place. We can use that to see if any problems arise. --Srittau (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to start converting resolved proposals into sub-pages when archiving them. --Srittau (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I converted a resolved proposal into a subpage and noticed that the pinged users got pinged again. That is not a good idea. So I refrained from doing that with more proposals. Lymantria (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Very good. All looks fine to me in the trial and it seems good to archive them this way. Do you point to the subpage in the Property talk page? Lymantria (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You were quick to notice. I did indeed do that. --Srittau (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I tried this out with power consumed (P2791): Wikidata:Property proposal/power consumed, linked at Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/50. Seems to work well. --Srittau (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks excellent. :) Lymantria (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we should use the discussion templates to indicate this is an archival page and should not be altered - I added that to the above example, does this seem the right way to do it? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I think an even easier way would be to modify {{Property proposal}} to add a "discussion closed" warning, when the status is set to done, not done, or withdrawn, but not on archive pages. (Since this has an overall header.) The advantage is ease of use, the disadvantage is that it cannot draw a box around the whole discussion, which is mainly a problem, if we don't archive immediatly. (See below.) --Srittau (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that the Watchlist counter of number of proposals does not pick up your subpage PO box proposal. Lymantria (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The counter should be fine. On Wikidata:Property proposal/Place there are two proposals and the counter shows 2. --Pasleim (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I see it does now. Lymantria (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Immediate archival?

Should proposals on their own sub-page be moved to the archive immediately when they are closed? Personally, I am   Support this, since people that interested in a specific proposal will have that sub-page on their watchlist anyway and interested parties are pinged on that sub-page when it is closed. I think this was the main reason, proposals were only archived after some time. It will also de-clutter the proposal pages and make it immediately clear, how many and which proposals are still open. Finally, this way, when you are watching a proposal category page, you will be notified about new and closed proposals when they happen and not some while later, when someone bother to archive proposals. --Srittau (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps have a "latest closures" list at the top of the proposal page with, say, 5 proposals as link, not transcluded. Lymantria (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
That is basically the archive, if we add closed proposals to it immediately: a chronological list of closed proposals. I think this is actually very interesting, because it makes it very easy to watch all latest closes. --Srittau (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sub page names

We had discussed tidying up the (16) property proposal subpages (in this RFC) so I took a look at what was needed - and since "Unsorted" was empty (at the time) I removed it from the navbar. It has since become non-empty so we might want to rename it ("Miscellaneous"?) and bring it back - but I wonder if with the new individual pages now is the time to consider a completely different structure? In any case it seemed to me that Unsorted was no longer a useful category - people can place their proposals in any suitable proposal section now, more than one if needed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I emptied the Unsorted category, which is why it was empty. :D --Izno (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, agreed. I don't think we need the 'unsorted' bucket--and I think "general" probably serves that goal well-enough. I'd also like to discuss removing "Space" in favor of either the natural sciences or transport; users who think it needs both can link theirs at both. --Izno (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed on Space - I think we can feel freer to move things around substantially now. But you had a list of more general categories we were contemplating - I liked your "Culture and the Arts" merge for example. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I think we should check in with the bot op of PLbot (talkcontribslogs) who is Pasleim (talkcontribslogs), because the bot updates Wikidata:Property proposal/count. Otherwise, I think we should take a second look at your numerical breakdown and simply shoot for "good enough". --Izno (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I will look at merging Person as proposed. I think we should rename "authority control" to "identifiers", and merge unsorted's heading to "General" and indeed, add a "miscellaneous", not rename 'unsorted' to "General"'s page.
I will also merge all of references to what is presently works. --Izno (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the changes so far. I also took the liberty to rearrange the table on the sub-pages to match that on the front page (awaiting translation blessing). One category that I never understood is "Term". Can we either rename it to something more obvious or just remove it? --Srittau (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a leftover from when Wikidata started and "GND main type" was a thing; one of the GND types is "Term" and basically meant "anything that isn't one of these other 5/6? main types". I think that we could probably remove it, with software and products going to creative work... I'm not sure where to send "processes" and "languages", however. --Izno (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we could add a category "Humanities" where we put languages. The two new proposals about religion in Unsorted would fit there as well. Processes and productions fits into Economics, I think. --Srittau (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Creation template

Something like Template:Participants cold be implemented in order to launch the proposition. This templates checks if a subpage exists and propose to create it with a skeleton if it does not, and if it does transcludes it. We could also implement a "add to watchlist" button to easily follow a proposal. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Lost proposals?

I realized I could find all proposals under the new scheme (as well as a lot of other pages under Property proposal) here. I found Wikidata:Property proposal/ACTD ID which seemed to be not included on any of the regular property proposal discussion pages - I added it to the Authority Control page. But maybe we need a better mechanism to catch things so they don't get lost? I'm sure there are more in the list that are missing - and not quite sure how to tell if they are or not... ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I extended before Wikidata:Property proposal/Proposal preload such that all new proposals get categorizied. I'm now writing a script which checks if the new proposals are transcluded to anothere page, and if not it does the transclusion. --Pasleim (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Now notice will be shown in every new requests if not transcluded.--GZWDer (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose to reform the archive process

As now requests are made in subpages (which I support strongly), There're no point to transclude every request in archive. In addition, the current scheme of archive is too arbitrary. I propose to change the archive process to:

  • New archive page will be named like Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/2016/07.
  • The content of every new archive page maybe like this or this.
  • Archives are sorted by end date. For example, proposal closed between July 1 and July 31 2016 will be archived to Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/2016/07
  • Old archive might be migrate to new system. This is not mandatory, but makes finding past requests easier.
  • Archiving bots are useful in the new archive process.

--GZWDer (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pasleim, Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith, Edgars2007, Lymantria: I have converted the archive system. Two problems remaining:
  1. Should archives be sorted by date of archive or date of closure?
  2. Should old archives be converted to new format?

--GZWDer (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

    • I'd say: 1. by date of closure. 2. no. Lymantria (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
ah - it's because Jura also edited Template:PPArchive. Not sure how to fix this myself though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, fixed now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I propose a new property?

There doesn't seem to be a link to propose a new property on this page... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: You start a subpage of Wikidata:Property proposal with the content of Template:Property proposal filled in, and subsequently transclude it on the related domain property proposal pages. We should probably have an input box to do it, using a seed page, come to think of it. (Will probably go steal the one from en.WP AFD). --Izno (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
On the domain property proposal pages, there are input boxes to start a new proposal. --Pasleim (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Izno, I have startedstealed one. Have limited time now, but sometime after Rio Olympics it could be "released". --Edgars2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - having an input box on this page would make a lot more sense to me rather than having input boxes on all of the subpages. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

10 lost proposals

I just found about 10 lost proposals and transcluded them into subpages. Some dated back to June. Hopefully the current format of the template avoids this going forward, as this had been a problem mentioned when we first discussed the subpage idea.
--- Jura 09:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Quantity symbol, onthology

I just wrote some proposals for a physical quantity (natural science) (here). What is the best place (parameter) to enter the quantity symbol? I sort of expect that to be a main documentation feature. Also, is there a point to start talking its 'instance of' or 'part of' onthology? -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

status options

What are the |status= options? (or, more likely: where is documentation I missed?) I understand that <blank> = 'Under discussion'. (I was looking for a 'pause' or 'waiting for ...' like option). -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

See the template notes (in general this works for any template assuming the template author documented it): Template:Property proposal ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Data type of one specific property

I suppose the data type of village code of Indonesia (P1588) should be changed to "External identifier". --XXN, 10:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

see the discussion of P1588 (along with others) here - that particular property looked like it had over a thousand "duplicate" problems, where the same code was used on two or more different items. You may want to comment on that page if this has been resolved or is not an issue. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove category "Term" and/or "authority control"

As mentioned above "Term" is a leftover from the early days of Wikidata. Personally, I have no idea what to put in there as it to me, everything is a "term". I suggest to remove it. --Srittau (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a good fit for language and product related stuff. Personally, I think "authority control" isn't of much use as it overlaps with others and implies use that isn't assessed.
--- Jura 13:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand how language and product related stuff relates to the term "Term". Actually, I can not see any relation between the two. Authority control is not under discussion in this section. --Srittau (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  Support removing "term". --Yair rand (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Add category "Social science"

On the other hand, we are missing a category "Social science" to go with "Natural science". This could include the "language" sub-category from "Term". --Srittau (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support. Makes sense. "Term" is being completely misused now, in my opinion. --Yair rand (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Create top-level category for "time"

Just as there are separate discussion pages for "space" and "place", there should be one for "time". This could include: revisions, time subdivisions, multiple dates in the timeline of a property or process or statement. also historical and prospective future times associated with an item. Sj (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sj: I feel like that would have a lot of overlap with "event", which is unfortunately somewhat ambiguous now. Maybe "event" could be extended to be broader and include more "time"-related property proposals. --Yair rand (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@yair rand: A time, types of time, and properties of times (reference frame, alternate formats, more?), are worth discussing independent of any particular event. Events are associated with a number of different properties, including a number of different times: start and end, any internal time-structure or repetition. Sj (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Property proposal/Archive 1".