Wikidata:Property proposal/type of external page

type of external page

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	(qualifier only) type (read: status) of external page
Data type	Item
Example 1	Second Crusade (Q51654) Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417) event/Second-Crusade <type of external page> <Britannica directory page>
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING

Motivation

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/BsivkoBot proposed to deprecate all links to Britannica directory pages. I propose to tag them with a new qualifier. See also Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/11#Encyclopædia_Britannica's_'empty-ish'_concepts_in_Mix'n'Match. GZWDer (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support This seems like a good solution to the problem at hand. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support but I still have the feeling that they simply added them for ad revenue. --SCIdude (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Actually having such entries is good in some perspective, as 1. this still refers to some clear distinguishable entries and 2. this prevents duplicate and naming conflict, and the "stub" may be expanded to a full article. This is somewhat like a solution similar to mw:Extension:ArticlePlaceholder/Smart red links (cf phab:T123021). --GZWDer (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support I had thoughts about kind of parameters (like qualifier) to resolve the problem, but I'm not so expert in Wikidata to make such initiative. Thanks to starter for the proposal. Bsivko (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Support. Sounds OK. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC).
•  Comment Why not use object has role (P3831) for this? Unless you have some other cases where this specific qualifier would be helpful, I think a more generic solution is better. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• @ArthurPSmith: actually this example Britannica page also has an external type, which is "event".--GZWDer (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment why this new very specific property if you can just qualify it with object has role (P3831)? Multichill (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh wait, Arthur already said the same :-) So  Oppose unless someone can come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be done that way. Multichill (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you are right. I withdraw my support vote and also  Oppose. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It could be there are two identifiers of one scheme on the same item, e.g. one for the real name and another for a stage name. These would probably be differentiated by object has role (P3831)
    BTW not really convinced by the usecase. I don't see why we should link empty-ish pages in the first place. --- Jura 11:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• @GZWDer, ChristianKl, SCIdude, Bsivko, Nomen ad hoc, Multichill:  Not done Closing as stale. If a new proposal is created for this, please reference this discussion. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)