Wikidata talk:WikiProject Heads of state and government/Data Model
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
@Jura1: I'm curious why you've removed the use of officeholder (P1308) from this? --Oravrattas (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand why it was added. P1308 is meant to be the reverse of P39 when this is lacking, but P6 already serves that purposes.
--- Jura 22:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)- @Jura1: is there a reference somewhere that explains that? The previous discussions about it (e.g. Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2016/Properties/1#officeholder_.28P1308.29), imply that it is valuable even if a little redundant, especially if it's going to be used in Wikipedia infoboxes, where it would be a simple direct lookup. --Oravrattas (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- That still works. See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/21#P1308 for the proposal. No P6 on the item mentioned there. I suppose you already notice the problems we have to keep in sync P6 and P39, so one more: no need.
--- Jura 13:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)- If the issue is primarily about keeping data in sync, I'm not so concerned about that now what we have the contrast report — I keep a very close watch on that, and when the value of any of the three change, I make sure the others are up to date as well. In an ideal world Wikidata would provide some sort of way to make that happen automatically, but until then I think the value of having the data be easier to query in a wider variety of ways (which is ideally something that should be happening many times per day) is significantly greater than the cost of a single one-off extra edit when someone new is appointed (once every few years on average). --Oravrattas (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ideally, it would be specified in just one place. Two is already more than many want. Eventually, you might notice that the report doesn't work as you think it does.
--- Jura 09:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ideally, it would be specified in just one place. Two is already more than many want. Eventually, you might notice that the report doesn't work as you think it does.
- If the issue is primarily about keeping data in sync, I'm not so concerned about that now what we have the contrast report — I keep a very close watch on that, and when the value of any of the three change, I make sure the others are up to date as well. In an ideal world Wikidata would provide some sort of way to make that happen automatically, but until then I think the value of having the data be easier to query in a wider variety of ways (which is ideally something that should be happening many times per day) is significantly greater than the cost of a single one-off extra edit when someone new is appointed (once every few years on average). --Oravrattas (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- That still works. See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/21#P1308 for the proposal. No P6 on the item mentioned there. I suppose you already notice the problems we have to keep in sync P6 and P39, so one more: no need.
- @Jura1: is there a reference somewhere that explains that? The previous discussions about it (e.g. Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2016/Properties/1#officeholder_.28P1308.29), imply that it is valuable even if a little redundant, especially if it's going to be used in Wikipedia infoboxes, where it would be a simple direct lookup. --Oravrattas (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)