Wikidata:Requests for comment/Property documentation
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Property documentation" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There seems to not be enough consensus nor activity to come to a full conclusion but a unified design seems to have more or less the only support in this RfC. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we have many different templates to documentate Properties. Informations are stored in different templates and these templates have different designs and need much space on the screen. Also the existing templates are not used on all property talk pages.
Example for full documented page with different templates: Property talk:P373 Result: Looks bad, not well ordered, don't fits to users screen.
I propose to use a new documentation template which covers the functions of Template:Property documentation, Template:Constraint subtemplates and Template:ExternalUse. It should be used on all properties and new property proposals.
If possible the stored informations should also directly used in the WD:List of properties.
Preview --Pyfisch (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I think we need is "Featured items" for each property. Items who demonstrates how a certian property should be used in differens situations. A group of such samples is easier to understand than 2 kB of talks on a multilang-project like this. -- Lavallen (block) 11:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally the "example=" does that. -- Docu at 20:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:ExternalUse shouldn't be needed .. a Wikidata function should supply this. -- Docu at 12:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, but it does not yet, so keep until then. -- Lavallen (block) 12:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a unified design, we could first merge
{{Constraint}}
into{{Property documentation}}
. --Ricordisamoa 19:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Support Good idea, especially the example-items that show how the property should be used. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Constraint}}
is still being developed.
Looking at User:Pyfisch/Template/external use row used within User:Pyfisch/Template: I don't really like templates within templates. This can get tricky to handle. Maybe visually merging borders would do.
In any case, something should be done to adjust the look of Template:ExternalUse to the others. -- Docu at 20:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I think that the constraint templates in the new style are an acceptable solution and here is no big activity, I propose to close this RFC. --Pyfisch (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that RfC, sorry. So I posted that on project chat, related to a shorter text version of the same kind of things that are discussed here, so usable easyer outside documentation to say the same thing :
<QItem> date of occurence <date>
- (qualified by <value>)*
versus the second statement :
( <QItem> date of occurence <date>
- qualified by <value>
)*
I think we should start a discussion on what we could put in a formal model like that, a minimal set of requirements would be:
- for properties : express their domains, which walue they should take ?
- for items : which, how many, ... statements they could have ?
- for statements : how do we qualify them, question like my example questions ?
- for whole domains of applications : how do we type items, how many items, how are they organised by statements ?
Of course, by Denny's famous blogpost these model should not be strictly enforced, so I propose to call them usually correct data model.
- Any thoughts or extension proposals ? TomT0m (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]