Wikidata:Property proposal/contact area count

contact area count

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	amount of contact faces of a certain device
Represents	electrical contact (Q394001)
Data type	int-number-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Template parameter	"contacts" in w:en:Template:Infobox CPU socket
Domain	property
Allowed values	natural numbers only
Allowed units	only full counting steps (no float values)
Example 1	Socket AM3 (Q876639) → Int number of contact pins
Example 2	LGA 2011-0 (Q748697) → Int number of contact fields
Example 3	DDR4 SDRAM (Q1189682) → Int number of contact slots
Example 4	Type 2 connector (Q2335519) → Int number of electric contact pins
Planned use	CPU socket items, DDR SDRAM items, EV charging connector items (I'm sure there are much more)
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
See also	Wikidata:Property proposal/number of pins, number of pin positions

Motivation

I got the idea for this when I was looking at CPU sockets here on wikidata. I was looking at an AMD CPU socket and thought could/should there be the pin count here on wikidata. Since this page exists, it does make sense for me since it's a unique property of a CPU socket that never changes and is already collected in information tables on Wikipedia.
My first idea was to name it "pin count". But since I wanted to use it not only for PGA, but also for LGA CPU socket I thought a bit and came up with "contact area count". If anyone has a better name, let me know!
When I thought about other uses outise of CPU sockets I realised that there are many items which have contact pins or areas and that this count is unique for them. So eg. DDR SDRAM bars, EV charging connectors, USB connectors, storage media (eg. FC or SD cards), cables (eg. Molex or SATA power cables). I found much use here witin the IT sector.
Since my work inside of the Wikimedia system focused much more on Commons I may need somebody to explain the structure of Wikidata in case I got something wrong. I hoped that I could get away with using an item, but it does not really look like it. If Q66061119 can not be used for that, don't forget to delete it. One thought I had (this is where the Wikidata structure information would be interesting) is that I also thought about that there could be pin count (PGA CPU sockets, EV charging connectors, CF cards) and area count (LGA CPU sockets, DDR SDRAM bars, SD cards). Not sure if this is really neccessary.
--D-Kuru (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Question What about Wikidata:Property proposal/number of pins, number of pin positions? --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 02:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I left a note --D-Kuru (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Does the "subject item" works ? --FabC (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what your question is. Do you have more information for me/a wikilink? --D-Kuru (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to my question, I changed the "subject item" in the template of the Property proposal, labelled "Represents", i.e. item corresponding to the concept represented by the property, if applicable. I was asking if it fine. --FabC (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I was, but stupid me of course answered the wrong part of the discussion - I switched that. For the question: Yes, it's actually a pretty good fit. --D-Kuru (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment An idea: As far as I saw there is has part(s) of the class (P2670) which can be combined with an item and you can insert a value in that item. I saw this for CPUs where L1, L2 and L3 cache is listed in said property. Is this an OK thing to do or is a property prefered here? If it would be fine to use items instead of properties this could be solved quite easy. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose has part(s) of the class (P2670) lead (Q947546) with a qualifier of quantity (P1114) should suffice? Dhx1 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there actually any need for any property when there is has part(s) of the class (P2670)? --D-Kuru (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: Using has part(s) of the class (P2670) with a qualifier of quantity (P1114) would provide greater detail for modelling all sorts of packages and components--for example, a through-hole header which has two sets of pins--one soldered to the circuit board, one exposed for connection of cables. Using contact area count, how would one distuingish between the types of contact areas? Also consider the case of TO-3 (Q3979666) which has two through-hole pins, and the case being the third electrical connection to the circuit board. It could be modelled as having the following parts: 2 through-hole pins isolated from the outer casing, 1 outer casing of conductive material. One could also add additional qualifier properties for each part, for example, conductor material, name/abbreviation, diameter, etc. Dhx1 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The idea originated as pin count for PGA CPUs. They I thought about LGA CPUs. They don't have pins, so the name would not fit here. After some time I came up with "contact area count". The name looked general enough for a number of purposes. It might be too general. If we have a property that is called "pin count" I would use that instead. It just seems to be a bad idea to have thousands of properties with a rather limited usecase

--D-Kuru (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done no consensus to create --DannyS712 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)