Wikidata:Property proposal/Supports qualifier

Supports qualifier

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	(used in a reference group) The reference group supports this specific qualifier/qualifiers, or novalue if the reference group supports no qualifier
Data type	Property
Domain	N/A
Example 1	MISSING
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING
Robot and gadget jobs	sometimes

Motivation

See Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/09#Roadmap update: improve the connection between values and references for background of this proposal. GZWDer (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have a very vague idea what you are after here, but can you come up with a realistic example that makes sense? This may need an RFC rather than a property proposal to flesh out the details... In some ways I'm not sure this is a good idea. Say you have a statement with 3 qualifiers and 2 references; one of the references says it supports 1 of the qualifiers, the other none. If somebody changes one of the other qualifier values not support by a reference, would we flag that as a problem, or leave it alone? If somebody modifies the supported qualifier value that would be flagged? If somebody modifies both a qualifier and the reference to change the supported qualifiers list, would that be fine, even though the qualifier they changed was one that supposedly was already covered by the existing reference? This could get really complicated... ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Hasn't this been proposed before? Anyone want to hunt through the archives? --Yair rand (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we had a proposal for the negative (i.e. "does not support qualifier"). My impression might be mistaken, but it seems to me that the qualifier is frequently not supported by the reference. --- Jura 06:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• A lot of claims with start/end dates will naturally end up with two sets of references - one giving the start date and possibly other metadata, the other giving the end date (which hadn't happened when the first one was written) and it would be good to be able to say what reference applies to what bit. I'd like to see this proposal given a bit more detail so that it's clear what we're discussing, but I think the idea seems sensible. I think potentially either or both "supports qualifier" (implication: it probably only supports the listed qualifiers) and "does not support qualifier" (implication: it probably supports all the other qualifiers) would work. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should create both, but not use "unknown" on either. --- Jura 21:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose in the absence of examples and motivation on the proposal itself. − Pintoch (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Pintoch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment There does seem to be a problem in need of a solution, even if this exact proposal isn't it. I hope, if this fails, that GZWDer and others will revise and try again. Swpb (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Not done no consensus to create --DannyS712 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)