Property talk:P39

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search


position held
subject currently or formerly holds the object position or public office
Description Office or official responsibility filled by a person sometime in his/her life. Qualify with: start time (P580), end time (P582), replaces (P1365), replaced by (P1366), electoral district (P768) (electoral constituency), subject of the statement (P805). If there is no specific item for the position: of (P642) (chamber/senate/assembly/administrative entity), but generally a specific item for the a public office should be created.
Represents mandate (Q845436)
Data type Item
Domain human (Q5), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), fictional character (Q95074) and mythical character (Q4271324)
Allowed values use item for specific public offices in priority. generic office - position (Q4164871), e.g. municipal councillor (Q15113603), member of parliament (Q486839), deputy (Q1055894) (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
According to statements in the property:
George Washington (Q23)President of the United States of America (Q11696)
Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor (Q130221)Holy Roman Emperor (Q181765)
Barack Obama (Q76)United States Senator (Q13217683)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Robot and gadget jobs DeltaBot does the following jobs:
Tracking: usage Category:Pages using Wikidata property P39 (Q23908974)
Proposal discussion Originally created without a formal discussion
Current uses 312,119
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Type “human (Q5), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), fictional character (Q95074), mythical character (Q4271324): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “human (Q5), character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598), fictional character (Q95074), mythical character (Q4271324)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)).
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P39#Type Q5, Q21070598, Q95074, Q4271324, hourly updated report, SPARQL

constraint “value type constraint (Q21510865)” declaration error: “incorrect value of property “relation (P2309)”, acceptable values are: “instance of (Q21503252), subclass of (Q21514624)””.

Qualifiers “start time (P580), end time (P582), replaces (P1365), replaced by (P1366), of (P642), subject of the statement (P805), electoral district (P768), series ordinal (P1545), as (P794), appointed by (P748), oath of office date (P1734), end cause (P1534), elected in (P2715), parliamentary term (P2937), reason for deprecation (P2241), parliamentary group (P4100), has cause (P828): this property should be used only with listed qualifiers.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P39#Allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
Property “applies to territorial jurisdiction (P1001)” declared by target items of “position held (P39): If [item A] has this property with value [item B], [item B] is required to have property “applies to territorial jurisdiction (P1001)”.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P39#Target required claim P1001, SPARQL, SPARQL (by value)
Property “inception (P571)” declared by target items of “position held (P39): If [item A] has this property with value [item B], [item B] is required to have property “inception (P571)”.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P39#Target required claim P571, SPARQL, SPARQL (by value)
if [item A] has this property (position held (P39)) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P39#Contemporary
Conflicts with “position held (P39): minister (Q83307): this property must not be used with listed properties and values.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P39#Conflicts with P39, SPARQL
Pictogram voting comment.svg Office holders shouldn't end before starting
start date should be < end date. If two terms are mixed, separate statements should be made
Violations query: SELECT ?item ?position ?start ?end WHERE { ?statement pqv:P580 ?start_node; pqv:P582 ?end_node . ?start_node wikibase:timePrecision 11; wikibase:timeValue ?start . ?end_node wikibase:timePrecision 11; wikibase:timeValue ?end . FILTER( ?end < ?start ) . ?item p:P39 ?statement . ?statement ps:P39 ?position . ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P39
This property is being used by:


Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)


See #applies_to_jurisdiction_.28P1001.29_revert.2C_idea_has_some_value

See #Target_required_claim_inception_.28P571.29

See #Target_required_claim: subclass


doings in the past[edit]

Maybe it is better to have a property with hat and another with hatte? Conny (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

No, we don't have different properties for current and former statuses; these will be shown with qualifiers, but the system does not support these yet. This means we should probably rename this to "holding office" or something similar if that makes sense? James F. (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed to 'office(s) held'[edit]

The reason for this is that a person can hold multiple offices in their lifetime.

multiple offices is not necessary, you can ad as much different offices as you want.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
chaged to 'office held' to avoid plural.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarity sought, it says political[edit]

The description for the property clearly says political. There are other offices that would seem to need a classification that are traditional "office" under the definition for appointments and ceremonial roles, especially when you look at the history of some of these roles, rather than a "now" snapshot. Examples are ambassadorial roles, offices like Q953355. The meaning of 'political' in the 21st century has different connotations especially in democratic nations, so setting properties that are firmly embedded in "now" meaning is problematic when dealing with historical contexts.

I would like to suggest that the we either need to broaden the description, and/or given more examples.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I´d suggest to change the description into "public office" which also applies to bishops or other non political or no longer political offices.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
no issue with the name and it can still be used, it is the definition/description in English that filters to "politics"  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Support broadening the description, I see no point in restrictin it to political offices. --Zolo (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I think there are no objections to broader use. The description in several languages still have the narrow use.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Same office twice[edit]

At present this property prevents the entry of the same office twice. William Melton was Lord High Treasurer twice, see William Melton, so we may need to enter it twice with date qualifiers when they're available. Danrok (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@Danrok: Very late reply, but it could be useful for others with the same question. When someone has had the same office twice, just add the property twice. See for example how I did it for Bernard Dowiyogo (Q715836), who was no label (Q18934382) seven (!) times. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree. It works well with Reasonator: see "position held" on President of Nauru --- Jura 09:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Rank qualifier[edit]

There should be a "rank" qualifier to put the number in the list of holders of the office (for example, 123th Emperor of Japan) -Ash Crow (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

German translation[edit]

saying official office has to be changed into öffentliches Amt, to work with e.g. Matteo Renzi (Q47563) position held (P39) Secretary of the Democratic Party (Q15309742)--Oursana (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The nordic translation also has an issue (at least the Danish): "embede" (position held (P39)) relates to ministers, priests and other official positions. It seems rarely used for members of parliaments. The scope of this property seems fuzzy. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Qualifier of (P642)[edit]

Hello @Laddo: you added of (P642) to mandatory qualifiers. It is not used in the most cases currently as I see. For example:

Vladimir Lenin (Q1394) <position held (P39)> Premier of the Soviet Union (Q462189)

Need I add qualifier <of (P642)> Government of the Soviet Union (Q2148) for this claim? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the qualifier is mandatory.
There was some discussion about this property at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/12#General_vs._Specific_.E2.80.94_best_practices. --- Jura 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
OK not to make it mandatory, it was a bit awkward indeed. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 21:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I removed this qualifier from mandatory qualifiers. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

property for the composition of a cabinet, sample: Second Rutte cabinet (Q1638648)[edit]

Which property should one use to detail the members of the cabinet? participant (P710)? Q1570969 uses P:P39, but somehow this seems the wrong way round (positions held by this person, rather than officeholders). --- Jura 09:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

has part (P527) as I think. Government is formed from persons. And position held (P39) as qualifiers maybe:
First Azarov Government (Q1570969) <has part (P527)> Yuriy Boyko (Q1420661)
qualifiers: <position held (P39)> [head of ministry of Fuel and Energy]
@Francis McLloyd: are you have some ideas maybe? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Francis doesn't seem to have been active recently. --- Jura 23:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between position and hereditary title[edit]

position held (P39) and noble title (P97) seem to overlap quite a bit. Which property should be used for monarchs, or positions like Prince of Wales (Q180729)? Both? --Yair rand (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think technically Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou (Q1871533) is supposed to have a noble title (P97) but nobody cares in france so his position held (P39) must not exactly be related to it :) author  TomT0m / talk page 08:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Qualifier as (P794) for "acting governor", "military governor"[edit]

Samples from Governor of the United States Virgin Islands (Q20804520):

For an overview, try Reasonator: --- Jura 14:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Qualifier appointed by (P748) for officials who were not elected[edit]

At items like Q2979355#P39, I used the qualifier for those civilian Governor of the United States Virgin Islands (Q20804520) who were appointed and not elected.

For an overview, try Reasonator. --- Jura 14:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wives of officials[edit]

When checking some of the US governors, I noted that some wives had slipped in as office-holders (in addition to their husbands, not as first lady). This probably happened through categories at Wikipedia. --- Jura 14:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Follow/replace - qualifiers[edit]

Please see Wikidata:Bot requests#Follow.2Freplace_-_qualifiers for position held_.28P39.29. --- Jura 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently there are just the following left:

  • followed by (P156): 139
  • follows (P155): 135
    --- Jura 14:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Current office-holders[edit]

P39 is used with specific offices on items about people.


Current office-holders could be identified in the following ways with qualifiers:

Some of the problems with these could be:

  • A. If they retired earlier, the statement would be wrong. It would need some indication that this is a theoretical term.
  • B. This can suggest that the person is no longer in office, but the exact date is unknown.
  • C. This can suggest that the person is still in office, but there is no indication when this statement was true.
  • D. As we don't know the end date, it might be a good idea to not add such a qualifier at all.

I think we should recommended one or the other approach. --- Jura 10:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As it is most likely to be correct of the point of editing, wouldn't we be better where it is to the present date (as it was when edited) to utilise "Retrieved" and specify the date of currency, and allow someone to check it, or to allow us to automatically check it and identify it as a page that needs checking to be updated/terminated. It is what we have done for the VIAF identifier when there is no value to at least note it was as of a point of time. So I would prefer that we don't set a terminating date to maintain an evidence approach, not a presumptive approach.

Depending on the regulatory body, some will have fixed dates with no renewal, some fixed dates with limited renewal, some fixed dates with unlimited renewal, some no fixed dates, it would seem better to have a bot that can do the calculations, and present data for refreshing, this is actually good for allowing for adding new incumbents, and suits gamification.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Currently a lot of dates are being imported from Wikipedia/Freebase. Such data may have been current when it was created, but isn't necessarily on import. So there may be correct start dates, but we don't know if it's still current.
I do like the idea of specifying when it was current, but the "retrieved" qualifier can't be applied to the "end date: no value" qualifier.
A possibility could be to add point in time (P585), meaning this person held the office at that moment in time. This has the advantage that it won't need updating later on. Based on the term of office (Q524572) and start date, it is possible to roughly calculate if the data is still current. (Sample: Start date = 2001, term = 5 years, point in time: January 2010 => data needs updating as we don't know if the term starting in 2011 is being held). --- Jura 06:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
A list of current incumbents based on the absence of "end date" can be found at current governors of US states.
I also made a proposal for a new property: term length of office. --- Jura 16:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

applies to territorial jurisdiction (P1001) revert, idea has some value[edit]

I think that there is having some guidance that applies to territorial jurisdiction (P1001) should be added where it exists, as while it is correct that it is political, the political can cover non-traditional politics, eg. FIFA, etc. We can also utilise a negative criteria to state that there is no jurisdiction that applies, by no label or some alternate. The ability to state or deny a jurisdiction can be of value. [Not saying that the revert is wrong, just saying that there is some merit to having the discussion about the idea].  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It works mainly for political functions/public offices. I think all those should have it defined. The only way to check this is to add a constraint here. To avoid that it appears on individual items reports, we can add a subject heading before.
BTW, if you edit in Spanish or Finnish, I think this property is only to be used for public offices (at least according to the labels/descriptions). --- Jura 05:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on the results of today's constraint report, I tried to add values to various functions. It works quite well. For positions that don't have jurisdiction (e.g. CEO, bishop, priest), I used "no value". For position where the jurisdiction varies depending on where the title is being used, I used "somevalue" (e.g. "king" as opposed to "king of Foo"). Some positions are classes of positions (e.g. US governor) that can be assigned to a specific jurisdiction (USA for the sample). A few samples can be found on Property:P1001. --- Jura 09:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

steps for list clean-up[edit]


  1. Go through the 1000 items with lists at Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P39#Types_statistics_2 (find, e.g. "List of presidents of foo")
  2. Create/identify item for corresponding office ("President of Foo")
  3. Replace uses in P39

Oddly there is no easy way to link "List of presidents of foo" to "President of Foo". --- Jura 17:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Target required claim inception (P571)[edit]

That would be interesting to have for offices with specific items. It might allow to do a summary check if we have most/all office-holders. --- Jura 06:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

P39 vs P463[edit]

The description of member of (P463) says "do not use [...] for holding a position such as a member of parliament (use P39 for that)". But what if there is a Wikidata entry for the "X parliament" but not for "member of X parliament"? Do I use P463-"X parliament" or P39-"X parliament"? Deryck Chan (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There's currently a property for every national-level parliament and I'm thinking about the rest, so hopefully this problem will be solved soon :-). You could use P39 with the generic member of parliament (Q486839) for the time being, as you would for (say) "position held : mayor" for someone who was mayor of a small town. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: What do you mean, a property for each parliament ? An item ? author  TomT0m / talk page 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m:. Sorry, that was a bit vague - there's now a "member of X" property, for each national legislature X, eg Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom (Q16707842). Full list at Wikidata:EveryPolitician/country. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: That's what I thought, you mean "Item", not "property" :) These are items. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Yes, you're entirely right. Absent-mindedness :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd just go ahead and make one: "member of X parliament" and add it to a few other members as well. --- Jura 20:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favour of a restricted use of member of (P463). When competing with P39, P39 should prevail. But there is also an overlap with award received (P166) with, for instance, Fellow of the Royal Society (Q15631401). I don't know in this situation which property is better. Louperivois (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan: Just create the needed item. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray, TomT0m, Jura1, Louperivois: Case at hand is Ching Cheung Ying (Q19825750) is an elected councillor of Sha Tin District Council (Q7459870). But there's no item for "Sha Tin District Councillor". Deryck Chan (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Try member of Sha Tin District Council --- Jura 15:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

More qualifiers: end cause (P1534)[edit]

For end cause (P1534), not re-elected (Q22087114) can be used as value.
--- Jura 14:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

New qualifier elected in (P2715)[edit]

This is to link the item about the election.
--- Jura 14:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed of (P642): United States Senate (Q66096)[edit]

The Barack Obama sample included the following qualifier: of (P642): United States Senate (Q66096). I removed that as it doesn't make much sense with a position held item "US senator". Besides, the general preference is to create items for the office held.
--- Jura 14:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Target required claim: subclass[edit]

Most items used as values should probably also be a subclass of something. Sample: Q19966859 has P31=position, but it should probably also have P279=defense minister.

I added a corresponding constraint above. Let's see how it goes. --- Jura 15:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jura1: In your example, I think Defence Minister of Armenia (Q19966859) should be an instance of defence minister (Q2518691) (subclass of position (Q4164871)) because Q19966859 is (P31) both a position and a specific defence minister position; and Q19966859 is only used with P39 => P31 of Q19966859 can't exist => Q19966859 is not a class => we shouldn't use P279 with it.
This is why I think most items used as values should not be subclass of something (only instance of something being a subclass of position).
This constraint add many false positives (example: positions of Q8070087). I think we should remove this constraint. — Metamorforme42 (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Apparently there are two ways of viewing that. Most positions actually have that P279 (and always had).
--- Jura 15:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there any way to set the constraint like this : (value requires statement constraint: property p279) except if the value is an instance of any subclass of Q4164871? This may allow the two ways of viewing that to work and remove a lot of false positive from Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P39 (broken for the moment). — Metamorforme42 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

New qualifier: parliamentary term (P2937)[edit]

This qualifier is now available to link to items for parliamentary terms. In some cases, start date/end date of these may not be those of the office holder (please use effective start/end dates). --- Jura 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

reason for deprecation (P2241) = president-elect (Q1921011) ?[edit]

As the successful candidate hasn't taken office yet, I don't think one should add a valid statement with position held (P39). Still, a statement with deprecated rank can be useful. Sample at Q24045706#P39. Once it's valid, the rank can be changed. --- Jura 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Qualifier for entitlement[edit]

Which qualifier should be used for entitlement (Russian: правоустанавливающий документ)? Most similar property is foundational text (P457), but i have some doubts... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what it is, but Image Googeling it gets me documents that could be letters of appointment or nomination. Maybe reference URL? Supposedly there wouldn't be a copy at Commons or Wikisource.
--- Jura 09:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a wikidata item, linked with an entitlement at ruws. Currently i add a reference stated in (P248) = Supreme Manifesto from March, 1st 1881 (Q19180760). But we definitely should have a qualifier to express this. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Normal rank[edit]

Most lists of officials seem based on statements with best ranks (that is statements with normal rank if there is no preferred rank). Oddly a few items break this by using preferred ranks for some functions. I had to set it back on Winston Churchill (Q8016) (one of his non-consecutive terms), Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Q40649) (her current function of senator), Stephen Harper (Q206) (his past position as PM, also lacking the effective end date; preventing also his later function of MP to appear). Anyways, it should be fixed now. It might need occasional checks.
--- Jura 15:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: I can envisage occasions where one might utilise a preference. If a head of government, also had a concurrent subsidiary ministry, yet as a separate and identified position, then one may wish to identify one of the roles as preferred, especially if the nomenclature of title is applied differently in one role than another. Looking at something like Victorian state ministers, one will see that James Merlino holds the position of Deputy Premier, and two separate ministries; the Deputy Premier role would definitely be preferred, and would affect how that person is addressed. I can think of similar situations where judges/justices hold temporary or permanent roles contemporaneously which are definitely ranked. That said, the use would be the exception rather than the rule. Just thoughts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Qualifier for parliamentary group or political party[edit]

For your information: There is a proposal for the property parliamentary group to use as a qualifier for position held (P39). In the discussion is also mentioned using a possibly changed member of political party (P102) instead of making a new property. You are invited to comment if you like. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Scope in relation to occupation (P106)[edit]

As I noted before the scope position held (P39) is fuzzy to me, particularly wrt. occupation (P106). Previously, we had "embede" (~public office) as the Danish label. I changed it to the more general "position". Her are some cases for discussion:

  1. Should a professorship at a university be a position held (P39) or occupation (P106)?
  2. Should a professorship at a public university be a position held (P39) or occupation (P106)?
  3. Should another position at a public university be a position held (P39) or occupation (P106)?
  4. Should a CEO be a position held (P39) or occupation (P106)?
  5. Should a CEO/head at a company owned by the state be a position held (P39) or occupation (P106)?

Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say that all of these should be occupation (P106) — my understanding is that position held (P39) is solely for political positions and offices — the examples and property constraints are all along those lines. It's possible that there could be some nuances that I don't really follow about a "university" vs a "public university" that could make a difference here, but I don't think being a head of a state-owned corporation is itself a public office. --Oravrattas (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
A professorship (in the European sense of a named professorship, not the general US sense of "someone who teaches") feels like it ought to be position-held, not occupation, but it's not clear where we'd draw the line. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
In terms of how the property is defined, it has a scope of Represents: mandate (Q845436). However, in terms of how it's actually used, it's generally much much broader. I think some of this is an issue with the name/descrption — in some languages (such as English) it's very broad, and is often used as a qualifier on employer (P108) when representing normal employment, whereas in others (such as German) it's restricted more clearly to "public office or function". If we want to prevent the more general usage, it would be better if it was clear which property to use instead, e.g. for the plain CEO case above. The best alternative (and next most common in terms of usage) seems to be a simple as (P794) which isn't really ideal, as it's more of a general catch-all when nothing more specific suits. Alternatively I think we should explicitly widen the scope of P39. --Oravrattas (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree the distinction is fuzzy, I think we should have only one of position held (P39) and occupation (P106). The nature of the occupation or the position is enough to determine its nature. − Pintoch (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Occupations are generic, positions are distinct, so these properties are distinctly different. President of the Royal Society of Chemistry (Q18247655) is a position held and never an occupation. Similarly Chief Justice of Victoria (Q5096806), so here the incumbent would have an occupation of judge, however, the position is distinct.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

P102 as qualifier[edit]


I noticed that member of political party (P102) is quite often used as a qualifier of position held (P39) (1211 times right now, mostly UK politicians) but it is not allowed by the current constraints.

I think it could make sense (for politicians, you can be elected specifically under a member of political party (P102), that can be different for different level and/or election) but I'd like some other point of view :

(PS: for the context, I found it on Peter Bone (Q264426) where it was added by Oravrattas)

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

These mostly predate the recent creation of parliamentary group (P4100) (or are added for internal consistency with ones created before then). That property was created because there were a wide range of properties in use to represent this concept. For members of the Parliament of Sweden (Q272930) for example, this is set using a mixture of member of political party (P102), represents organisation (P1268), affiliation (P1416), member of (P463), and of (P642):
SELECT ?qual ?qualLabel (COUNT(DISTINCT ?person) AS ?count) 
  ?person p:P39 [ ps:P39 wd:Q10655178 ; ?pq_qual ?pq_obj ] .
  ?qual wikibase:qualifier ?pq_qual .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" . }
GROUP BY ?qual ?qualLabel
ORDER BY DESC (?count)
Try it!
I think the English name of P4100 is a little misleading, particularly for legislatures that don't really have a strong concept of Parliamentary Groups/Factions/Clubs distinct from Parties, but the definition of the property is deliberately wide enough for both, so I think we should migrate most uses of those qualifiers to P4100. The one place I could imagine needing a separate qualifier is where there is both a strong parliamentary group (Q848197) model within the legislature, but it is also generally useful to know what party list someone was elected from (where that might differ from the party that the person is actually themselves a member of). My suspicion, however, is that where that information is important, it should be stored as a qualifier in an election/candidate related context rather than on the P39 legislative membership.
Also pinging @Andrew Gray: for thoughts on making this explicit on the UK model --Oravrattas (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oravrattas: So, some quick thoughts.
  • We definitely need to express party affiliation in some way as a qualifier on the position property as well as on the person item - a person can be a member of one party but sit for another (this happens more than you might think).
  • It would be great if all instances could use the same property so that we can write consistent queries - they all use electoral district (P768), so why not a consistent "party" value?
  • We should use a broadly-scoped property here to ensure we cover all the nuances of what "party affiliation" might mean in different places or at different times - if we go back a few centuries, a "party" could be a very informal grouping, for example.
  • There are three options - member of political party (P102), parliamentary group (P4100), and represents organisation (P1268). P102 is intended to be used for people and we can probably keep it for that role. I am not sure what to do with the other two - is one better than the other? P1268 already has ~11k uses (mostly German?)
In short - I'm happy to switch all the UK P102s, I'm just not sure what we should switch them to... Andrew Gray (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Oravrattas, Andrew Gray: thank you for you explanations, it seems much clearer to me. If I understand correctly, I suggest the following structure :
What do you think? Is it correct? More exactly, is it precise enough to cover most cases? (maybe I'm biased by what I know of French politics)
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
PS: on fr:Modèle:Infobox Personnalité politique there is parameter groupe parlementaire 1 which seems to correspond to parliamentary group (P4100).
This looks sensible to me - the person has P102, and the "elected role" has P4100. The examples below are really good at demonstrating the distinction, so thanks for those! (Also, what do you recommend we do about represents organisation (P1268), or should we just leave that for now? At some point we should probably align those two...) Andrew Gray (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: I've put some examples below. There is still one data I'm not sure what do do with: the political label under which the person runs for during the campaign (which is usually the same as the general P102 but not always). For instance, Marine Le Pen (Q12927) presented herself for deputation under the label National Front (Q205150) (obviously), but she couldn't seat in the parliamentary group (P4100) as the party didn't get enough seat (only 7 where 15 is required, some goes for the other 6 deputies). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree billinghurst. I think we should remove the qualifier. It's either another duplication or misleading.
    --- Jura 12:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • We should find some way to keep this data even if we don't use P102 - this is really important information for modelling politicians. Having an appropriate party/faction/group qualifier allows us to say, for example, "this person was sitting in Parliament as a part of X party" or "as part of Y grouping". This may not be the same as their personal party membership - they might have personal membership but sit as an independent, for example, or might be a member of a local party but sit as part of a larger national group. An example here might be John Finnie (Q1495635), who was a member of the SNP and represented a seat as an SNP MSP until October 2012; he quit the party to become an independent MSP; and in October 2014 he joined the Scottish Greens but remained an independent MSP in parliament until re-elected in 2016. A system which just used P102 on the person and didn't have qualifiers on P39 would suggest the Greens had one extra MSP in 2014-16. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
My comment was about membership and position held; I have no issue with "parliamentary group" as that is specifically a qualifier for the purpose of positions within legislative bodies. As a general comment about such groupings, "independents" may not be a grouping, and it may be more a "no value" statement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I think everybody agree not to use member of political party (P102) as qualifier, the question now is what qualifier(s) to use for the political « colour » of seat. parliamentary group (P4100) seems to be a solution but does it really fit and does it cover all the cases? (not always, it seems). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we produce a list of cases where it doesn't suit, so we can work out an approach that is robust enough to model everything we need, but consistent enough to make querying the data possible? --Oravrattas (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. We have said that it is not suitable to use P102 as a qualifier. If they are elected representatives of a constituency then it seems appropriate to use P4100. Seems that we should bew lookig to get a bot replacement happening.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: — Yes, I'm in full agreement that, now that P4100 exists, it is much preferable to P102. My question was about VIGNERON's statement that P4100 might not always be suitable. So I'm suggesting we produce a list of places where it might not be. --Oravrattas (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
A bot run is certainly something we'll need to do in the near future, but I think it's okay to take a little time to work out that P4100 is the best option in all cases (rather than using a different property) before we do that replacement, so that we don't have to do it all over again in future! Off the top of my head, some systems I can think of that we'll have to cope with:
  • Politician elected for Party X, sits representing Party X - the modern UK system. Nice and straightforward, use P4100 with X as qualifier
  • Politician elected for Party X, which is part of coalition/bloc Y - use P4100 with X as qualifier; link X and Y by properties on those items; do not put coalition on the individuals. Would work for MEPs.
  • Politician elected for broad group Y, member of different party Z - use P4100 with Y as qualifier and P102 with Z on person
  • No parties used in election but politician aligns with group X after election - use P4100 with X as qualifier. Works for historically informal "faction" groups as well.
  • Politician elected for Party X, but X does not have enough seats for a formal "grouping" (France) - not clear - perhaps best to use P4100 with novalue as qualifier and either a new property for "party in campaign" or put this as a qualifier on an item about the election.
  • Politician elected for Party X, but informally aligned with Party Y - eg the American "caucuses with" concept - not clear - may need P4100 with X as qualifier and a new property qualifier to link to Y.
Any others I'm missing? I'm not very good on European parliamentary systems so I might have missed an obvious type. It looks like P4100 can do almost everything but there are a couple of odd cases where we'll need something else as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Politician elected for broad group/electoral list X, sits representing Party and Parliamentary group Y. --Yair rand (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Positions of academics[edit]

It is unclear how one should indicate the relationship between an academic and an institution. Can we use position held (P39) to indicate that a specific person is a, e.g., professor (Q121594)? I have been using the property that way, see, e.g., Søren Brunak (Q7666528). I have, however, currently stopped as I was not entirely sure that position held (P39) was suppose to be used this way. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Usually we have been linking with employer (P108). You could qualify that with subject has role (P2868) and call that professor if required. If the professorial role is created as an item (meeting notability requirements) then you could link to a position.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)