Wikidata:Property proposal/Provides data for property

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

I was asked by @Kirilloparma: to save certain references not with reference URL (P854) but instead (for instance) ‎Playdate Catalog ID (P12125) in Wikidata:Tools/Wikidata for Web.

My concerns regarding this was that, I cannot automatically distinguish between data provided by the database item behind ‎Playdate Catalog ID (P12125) and information that just happens to be found under the same url.

Let's say the footer of a page might contain an email address, that is not related to the person reviewed in the page.

Or isbnsearch.org would tell me the title of a book but I wouldn't use ISBN-13 (P212) as the reference.

Now if I had an indication that a url that resolves to (for instance) an IMDb ID (P345) usually holds the information that applies to title (P1476), then I could make the assumption that it would make for a fitting reference statement when extracting this property from the url.

This information could be useful for other tools like:

• A tool that tells you that an item should have a title and that you could find it on the IMDB
• A tool that highlights a reference that might be faulty because it occours in an unusual context. Let's say Deku Deals ID (P8364) is used on a date of birth (P569) statement.

If an ID points to a wiki, that could hold all kinds of statements, it should be set to unknown.

@Addshore: –Shisma (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I quite like the idea, and it falls in line with what I am trying to do with more visual cues on items for the viability of references / sources and notability ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Same as supported metadata (P8203)? Midleading (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is meant for but the datatype is different. So it's definitely not the same. – Shisma (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

supported metadata (P8203) can be used to tell what kind of data a database stores, and not being limited to data that Wikidata has a property for. The example PubMed ID (Q2082879)supported metadata (P8203)digital object identifier (Q25670) is no different from the examples given here except that it accepts items which can be created by anyone. Midleading (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Knowing the data a property may hold would be helpful for sourcing statements on items. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Useful. --Prototyperspective (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Wait this property mixes three things together (1) Some entries in the database have data on this property. (2) All entries in the database have data on this property. (3) All entries have reliable data that's worthy of being imported on this property.

If we aren't clear about the meaning, different people are likely going to use it differently leading to bad conclusions. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the proposal and all comments again and I'm left with the impression the only assumed meaning of this property is (1). (2) can be expressed with a qualifier nature of statement (P5102) → sometimes (Q110143752). (3) if there is a property for it, I'd assume that the is a consensus that it is worthy of importing 🤷

I have an instance were data is there, but it it's format is always faulty. I would just deprecate the statement in such cases. We could do the same for when the source is known to be factually faulty reason for deprecated rank (P2241) → source known to be unreliable (Q22979588) –Shisma (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A tool that tells you that an item should have a title and that you could find it on the IMDB" is only true for (3). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tool that tells you that an item should have a title and that you could find it on the IMDB does not mean you shouldn't review it first. Did I imply we should do automatic imports based on this property alone? – Shisma (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shisma the general meaning of "should" is "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course".

It's not clear whether MyWaifuList character ID (P13031)Provides data for propertyblood type (P1853) is how the property is supposed to be used. A tool complaining that everything with MyWaifuList character ID (P13031) should have blood type (P1853) would be wrong.

While you didn't explicitely suggested automatic imports, the wording that you did use encourages people to read it as a justification of automatic imports. If you propose a property you not just have to think about how you want to use the property about also about how other people might misuse it and think about how to design the property to prevent misuse. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the data provided is faulty, wrongly formatted, or unreliable we can surely express it with ranks and qualifiers. Don’t you think? — Shisma (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous proposals: Wikidata:Property proposal/provides data and more refined ones: Wikidata:Property proposal/provides HTML microdata, Wikidata:Property proposal/provides JSON-LD data.--GZWDer (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]