Wikidata talk:WikiProject every politician

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata query: occupations of parlamentarians[edit]

You might like this:

BubbleCharts! --Atlasowa (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Not really. At some level, I suppose it could be good to hear that people assume coverage of Wikidata is that good, but on some other level it really isn't. There might just be gaps in professions other than journalism.
    --- Jura 09:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Mandatory[edit]

For people, reference URL (P854), start time (P580) and end time (P582) must be mandatory, without this, it is useless. --ValterVB (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: I'm presuming you're talking about the position held (P39) membership information here? --Oravrattas (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I read here in section Mandatory: "preferably with a reference URL (P854) (ideally to the official site), and with modifiers (where known/appropriate): parliamentary term (P2937), start time (P580), end time (P582), electoral district (P768), elected in (P2715)". It's need to know (mandatorily) the source of the data and the period of validity of the position held (P39). --ValterVB (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
We can certainly firm up the wording to explain that when someone is adding a P39 membership, they MUST add a reference, but the much bigger problem is that out of the 375,000 current uses of P39, only 71,000 have references at all, with over 300,000 without. --Oravrattas (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
In incipit of Wikidata:EveryPolitician I read "This is a tracking page for an ongoing project to provide comprehensive coverage of politicians in Wikidata" Can yo u explain what is the source? --ValterVB (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. There isn't one source for this — there are thousands of sources: official parliamentary sites, monitoring organisations, press articles, elections results sites, etc etc. --Oravrattas (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, it's exactly what need. What I ask is: this source will be added to the data? Because add other a lot of other data without source isn't acceptable (wikipedia is not a source).. --ValterVB (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
At the moment a lot of these are imported from Wikipedia and so the dates are not yet in place but we do want them to be there. I agree it's not very useful without them. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Openpolis[edit]

m:Grants:Project/EveryPolitician mentions there is a shortlist of countries somewhere on this page but I didn't see one. Anyway, in case you work on Italy, do you know about https://www.openpolis.it/eng/ ? The have arrangements with the Italian Parliament and help publish a lot of open data about parliamentary activities. --Nemo 15:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo_bis: — Yes, we know Openpolis well, and they are currently one of our main sources of data for Italy. The Italian Parliament itself is already one of the best in the world for publishing open data (and even has a SPARQL interface to it) — http://data.camera.it/data/en/datasets/ --Oravrattas (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Openpolis have worked many years on this. I'm glad you build on their work. --Nemo 07:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Useful Query[edit]

This is a useful SPARQL query showing how many people hold a given position by date. (The link goes to one for Israeli parliamentarians, but it can work for any legislature by replacing the relevant Q-ids.) Can be useful for finding gaps and inconsistencies in the data. --Yair rand (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Project Updates[edit]

Project updates will henceforth feature on: the timeline page for the associated grant. --Lucyfediachambers (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Member of the Swedish parlament[edit]

Many of the member of the Riksdag (Q10655178) should probably be migrated to "Member of the Swedish first/second chamber". Many of these predates the single chamber parlament which was established in 1971. Bertil Johansson (Q4895688) for example was member of the Second chamber 1965-1970 and the Riksdag from 1971. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: we could definitely help with getting the data a lot better for all the members since 1976 (using the official API, which makes structured data available with no licensing restrictions), ensuring everyone has dates of service, party groups, electoral districts etc. Is that something you'd be willing to help out with, or do you know other people we should talk to about that? 1971-1976 seems a little bit harder, and going back even further than that looks like it would get much harder very quickly — or do you know any good sources for older data? --Oravrattas (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
There are good sources for the Second chamber many decades before 1976, but I seriously doubt that they are machine-readable. Also the First chamber has sources, but they are trickier, since you have to be at least boyscout to interpret them. (They were not elected in general elections, but by a sort of electoral collage, containing of councillors in some citys and county counties.) The users with most experience of those are IP's. I definitely do not have the time, but maybe André Costa or Ainali know SomebodyTM. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Lists and P360[edit]

For lists of parliamentarians, the preferred syntax for property and qualifiers should probably be

list of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 (Q4158639)is a list of (P360)  human (Q5)
qualifier: position held (P39)  Member of Parliament (Q16707842)
qualifier: parliamentary term (P2937)  55th United Kingdom Parliament (Q21084472)

rather than

list of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 (Q4158639)is a list of (P360)  Member of Parliament (Q16707842)
qualifier: parliamentary term (P2937)  55th United Kingdom Parliament (Q21084472)

The first form (with the position held put into a qualifier statement) gives the additional information that each member of the list will be instance of (P31) human (Q5), and will be related to Member of Parliament (Q16707842) by position held (P39)

This makes it more possible to auto-generate or check such lists (as e.g. Reasonator tries to do, linkView with Reasonator), and also to analyse them at scale. Jheald (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortuately there's a problem -- there's no understood way to signal in a is a list of (P360) that membership relies on a qualifier value, rather than a property value. (The P360 statement is assumed to give a list of properties and their required values, with no provision for qualifiers and values).
There's no easy way I can see around this. But there is a different model of semaphore that's been suggested in connection with category combines topics (P971), so maybe something like that could be a possibility. Jheald (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

too much specific items for legislature members[edit]

I noticed that very specific position items related to each legislature of one assembly have been created and massively used in position held (P39), for instance Member of the 52nd Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q36634044). User:Oravrattas is pursuing the creation of similar items for each imaginable parliament. In my opinion, these items are too much specific and could be avoided simply by using parliamentary term (P2937) as a qualifier of Member of Parliament (Q16707842). It is incorrect that being a member of a given parliamentary term (P2937) is a semantically different position that another parliamentary term (P2937). Moreover, several problems are emerging right now: The translation of these items allowing their use (for instance in infoboxes) will always be unsatisfactory; and the mass import of these claims is redundant with more general claims related to the same charge. I therefore ask User:Oravrattas to discuss here before resuming his work. Louperivois (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Louperivois: the previous discussion for this is at Wikidata:EveryPolitician/Proposal:Term Membership Items. Perhaps it would be best for us to continue the conversation over there? --Oravrattas (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be worth doing a specific project for parliaments. The "how to import from the EveryPolician website"-project seems unsuitable to coordinate with the Wikidata community. For the UK, there is already a specific project.
    --- Jura 08:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed; Sannita (MySociety) (talkcontribslogs) was discussing a possible WikiProject:Politics at Wikimania last week. We currently know of country-specific projects around politics for the UK, France, Germany, and Finland. If anyone knows of any others, pointers would be very useful. The specific discussion on per-term "member of" positions arose out of the UK case, and is where we have been trialling it — see discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject British Politicians/Archive 1#One_P39_per_parliament_versus_one_P39_per_held_seat and following.--Oravrattas (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Most countries have specific properties which generally include constraints defining the datamodel for the relevant MPs, at least what's needed beyond P39.
        --- Jura 11:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Here is one for parliaments: Wikidata:WikiProject Parliaments‎
          --- Jura 11:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I was about to say "wow, how on earth did I miss that!" but I see you've just put it together. Thanks, this is useful :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Louperivois:. I was originally quite uncomfortable with the idea of term-based membership items for the UK, but after Oravrattas and I did some work on it, it became clear it was the most practical option for the time being. Because we can't assign start-end dates to specific qualifiers, we're always going to need multiple P39s for many politicians (sat for a different seat? elected more than once? changed party?). We tried having lots of position held (P39):Member of Parliament (Q16707842) with qualifiers, but a lot of external tools don't work very nicely with this approach - eg QuickStatements will try and put all the qualifiers for every entry onto a single entry.
What I've done at Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians is try and formalise a "level 1 to level 4" approach here - the most basic, a single position held (P39):Member of Parliament (Q16707842) with no qualifiers is level 1; and the "full" system with Member of the 52nd Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q36634044) and qualifiers is the most detailed, at level 4. A well-constructed query should in theory work for all levels, although of course you'll only get the full information once the qualifiers are added. I think this might be a good approach to use when thinking about this project - most countries will sit at Level 1 with perhaps Level 2 for current politicians (so we can identify them as current), and that's fine, if we don't have anyone willing and able to improve the data. But where we have the data and someone able to do the work (eg the UK), we can push on to everyone being Level 2, Level 3, or Level 4. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The model with "123rd Parliament" works poorly for some chambers. The Swedish first chamber had elections every year for 1/8 of the seats. (They were normally elected for eight years.) It is even possible that there were more than one election some years. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it'll work in all cases - in the UK I don't currently think we'll use it for the House of Lords, for example. But for the ones where a legislative term is a coherent concept, it seems to makes sense.
I've been thinking about the translation issues mentioned earlier and I agree that's a concern. I'll try to think of a way to make sure this is handled systematically. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I am used to some complex constructions of templates on svwiki, and from that point of view I think there are no large problems, as long as there is a simple and straight relation between "Member of the 52nd Parliament of the United Kingdom" and "member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom". The subclass of (P279)-relation is technically correct here, but is it enough simple and enough straight everywhere? It also have to be simple and straight up to next level, "member of parliament", which we can imagine everybody have a translation of. If there are too many levels between "member of 53rd Parliament" and "member of parliament" the template soon becomes to complex to be displayed on Wikipedia. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
At the moment the hierarchy is a bit of a mess: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?lang=en&q=Q4175034&rp=279 --Oravrattas (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's just UK politics that is complicated to understand for other countries. In most countries, people just get elected and then sit forever ..
--- Jura 12:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Not here Face-smile.svg. On local level, it is not unusual that people got tired after half a term and leave the seat to somebody else. And on national level, they have parental leave, get elected for EU-Parliament etc etc. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, forever is relative .. Nothing that couldn't really be solved with a single start and end date for consecutive time in office ..
--- Jura 13:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Almost all of the primary chambers of national legislatures (with a handful of notable exceptions) nowadays follow a fairly standard term-based model, where all (or almost all) the seats are re-elected in a single general election, members are often commonly referred to as having been a member during the Nth Period, etc. In most cases official parliamentary websites that actually include historical data include it in that format (rather than as a single start date to single end date model). It is also very common on Wikipedias for members to be in categories such as "Member of the 8th Legislature of Country" (and thus very suitable for quick imports to suitable P39 targets). Using Andrew's ranking system, Level 2 data is certainly a lot better than anything before it, but it starts to break down quite quickly when you actually want to have comprehensive data, including tying each mandate to a specific election, tracking party changes accurately, etc. I suspect this will be even more so in countries where legislators need to give up their seats (often temporarily) if they are then appointed to a Cabinet-level position, etc, though we haven't modelled any of those sufficiently yet to see it in action. --Oravrattas (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Oravrattas: "Nth Period" is never used here. First of all, you can as a member of parliament have several terms between two elections. A replaces B from October 2016- April 2017 while B has a parental leave. C gets a long time sick period from May 2017 to February 2018 and A replaces her then. In December 2019 D gets promoted to Government and A take Ds seat until next election. Members of the Government have a seat for 2-3 days until they are promoted and replaced. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: "Here" is Sweden, yes? From what I can see the Riksdagen website does break up what would otherwise be a continuous membership into periods that coincide with the parliamentary terms/elections — e.g. http://data.riksdagen.se/personlista/?iid=0739780276601&utformat=html — but in common with quite a few other countries simply refers to those terms by dates (e.g. "the 2014-2018 electoral period") rather than numbering them. And yes, Sweden definitely tends to have a lot more individual "membership periods" within a term than most other countries, in large part I suspect because it's one of the few countries where a member is actually replaced by their deputy when absent. Do you think that each entry of that table from data.riksdagen should have a separate position held (P39) entry in Wikidata, or do you think there's a better way to model the data here? --Oravrattas (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not think such things as sick-periods or parental leaves should influence how we use P39. But if they are replaced because they are promoted to Government or as Chairman after only a few days, they probably shouldn't be mentioned as MP's at all. But you still find them listed in riksdagen.se. Such complicated situations as Mrs As above mainly affects deputies in larger party groups and constituencies. From what I have learned deputies are normally restricted to one single party and one single constituency. Most deputies in small constituencies as Gotland (2 seats) probably never see Stockholm other than on a postcard. (~25 constituencies for 349 seats and 8 political parties) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we have a qualifier to include the information. The problem with attempting to follow Wikipedia categories is that some are based on the assumption that one can't have more than 199 category members. So these get broken down by party, electoral district, year of election, seniority, etc. All objective criteria, but in most countries not part of the description of the office itself.
--- Jura 15:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I read the work that you did and I respect it. But even with the existence of the WikiProjects, we should follow the Principle of least astonishment (Q22668). It is not obvious at all that it is a mistake (according to your proposal) to add position held (P39):Member of Parliament (Q16707842). Moreover, the failure of third-party tools to evolve with the reality of multiple terms and qualifiers reflecting them should not determine the intrinsic structuring of the data. I run a bot that is fulfilling position held (P39). I stopped it during more than one year to find a solution about handling multiple terms and the bot is now taking all qualifiers before editing a statement. I expect not less from other software. Right now, the proposal will result to a harder maintenance and consistency of data, especially on about internationalization. Louperivois (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Louperivois: there are a few different points wrapped up there, so let me try to separate them out a little:
  1. Distinct items such as Member of the 3rd Northern Ireland Assembly (Q37303713) cause translation difficulties. I'm afraid I don't follow this. Wikipedias often have separate items for the list of all such members in a term, and thus we also end up with Wikidata pages for each of those: e.g. Members of the 3rd Northern Ireland Assembly (Q6814606). Why is the first more problematic than the second?
  2.  A member of one term of a legislature is not semantically different from being a member of a different term. Again, I'm not sure I follow. We already often have separate items for the individual legislative terms themselves. We also often have separate items for the list of members in those terms (as above). Why is it then bad to also having the individual position of "member of term X" as well. Why can we have "List of ZZZs" but not "ZZZ" itself? This is a well-defined conceptual class, with multiple pieces of data that can be usefully applied to it, and which is very useful in constructing queries to get the data back out again in meaningful ways.
  3. Tools should be shaped by modelling decisions, not the other way around. In theory I agree with this. However, we also have the contrasting goal of wanting to have useful information available. A great many of the national legislatures of the world already have lots of data available to us that is structured in exactly this form (a person being a member of a specific term). If tools like Petscan and QuickStatements made it possible to import that data with the correct qualifiers, I am convinced that we would have a much higher amount of higher quality political information in Wikidata than we do at the minute (where in a great many cases all we know is that someone was, at some unspecified point, a member of their country's parliament). Should we decide later that per-term membership items were a mistake, then a single bot could migrate all P39s using them to point at their parent instead, with the suitable qualifier. But at the moment, if we do not allow such items, the only way to enter all this data is manually, or by writing a bespoke bot (or persuading someone to write one for you). In practice that means we will not get this data in a great many cases, or at least not any time soon.
  4. According to my proposed version, would a non-term-specific membership item a mistake? No, I don't think so. There are lots of scenarios where a "Member of Country's National Legislature" item will be sufficient. But I believe the value in also being able to use a more specific "Member of Term X" item where appropriate is sufficiently large, makes conceptual sense, and is easily migrated later if we do choose a different approach.
For me a key question not only in this case, but in general, is simply whether an approach makes our data better or worse. Switching to this way of working for UK data enabled us to enter complete and comprehensive membership data for the House of Commons (Q11005) (since 1997), the Scottish Parliament (Q206171) (since inception), and the Northern Ireland Assembly (Q285714) (since inception) in a matter of weeks, in a way that simply was not feasible before. I also have a personal interest in ensuring that data for the Riigikogu (Q217799) is equally comprehensive, and a professional (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (Q180)-funded) one in helping people in other countries do likewise. The Estonian data is an awkward mismatch of position held (P39) and member of (P463) data at the moment, but this approach makes it really easy to migrate all those P463s very quickly, so that we at least have consistently entered data as a base for deepening it. For many other countries we have lots of useful data already available to us through, for example, Wikipedia categories (e.g. the term-by-term subcategories of https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Категорія:Народні_депутати_України), that currently could only be easily imported as a plain People's Deputy of Ukraine (Q12132454), thus losing lots of information, versus importing to term-by-term membership items as a much stronger basis for later improvement.
In my view this is all very low-hanging fruit, enabling us to greatly improve our political data very quickly. --Oravrattas (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
We anyhow need a model that allow us to do either way. We do not have items for the 3rd parliament of Skåne Regional Council (Q3232565). We do not even have an item for this specific parliament at all. We could create these items, but that would soon fill our days with only the task of creating such items. The model have to allow people to add statements like "Position held:Member of legislative body" "from:2018" "to:2022" of:"the Region of Scania". When we have items like "legislative body of Region of Scania" we can exclude the "of:Region of Scania"-qualifier, since it should be added to the "legislative body of Region of Scania"-item. And if we have somebody who stays in office the whole term, we maybe do not have to add "from/to" either, since such information should be included in the item about the "2018-2012"-item. And in the case of UK, the number (53rd) could be some kind of statement too. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. No-one is claiming that this is the only suitable way for entering the membership data. It should always be as easy as possible to capture whatever information is actually available with the structure that already exists. Over time people might come along and create all the intermediate items that will allow us to be more precise in the modelling, but none of that should be required to simply capture the data initially.
And yes, the "53rd", should absolutely be in data. Usually we do that using a series ordinal (P1545) qualifier, though that's currently missing from most of the UK entries. I've added it to 53rd United Kingdom Parliament (Q21084470) and a few others now, and we should make sure it's on all the others. --Oravrattas (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is very long and I'm not sure to understand what would be the problem (or at least, as the matter is quite complex, I fail to see the real problem). Can someone give a clear example of what of what was done wrong and how it should be corrected? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: this is largely a parallel discussion to the one at Project:Parliaments. The issue here surrounds items like Member of the 54th Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q35647955), which are then used as a target for position held (P39) statements, e.g. on Caroline Flint (Q251095). (That is quite a good example as, due to the process of cleaning up old data still being in progress, she still has the data from the previous modelling — i.e. of a single Member of Parliament (Q16707842) membership — as well as the much richer term-by-term claims.)
I do not believe there are any serious objections to switching to separate P39s for each mandate/term like this (apologies if I am misrepresenting anyone) — or, at least, that does not seem to be the subject of this discussion.
Rather, the complaint is that these are entered using term-specific items: Member of the 52nd Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q36634044), Member of the 53rd Parliament of the United Kingdom (Q35921591), etc. instead of using Member of Parliament (Q16707842) with parliamentary term (P2937) qualifiers for 52nd United Kingdom Parliament (Q21084469), 53rd United Kingdom Parliament (Q21084470) etc.
Several arguments have been advanced for why this is bad:
  1. We already have an adequate way of entering this data (i.e. with parliamentary term (P2937) qualifiers)
  2. This is a significant and surprising change to the data model, with implications for people querying the data; using it infoboxes; etc.
  3. This requires a new "member of…" item for each legislative term, causing difficulties with translating into multiple languages.
  4. These items are an artificial construct, seemingly created solely to have been able to enter the data using QuickStatements: the positions do not actually exist.
  5. There are countries/legislatures for which this approach will not work.
(Although I am a proponent, not an opponent of the model, I hope I have fairly summarised the problems raised. If I have omitted any, or mis-represented, or weakened the force of any of them, I am happy to edit this into the strongest case. I am also happy to summarise the responses to these, if it is useful, but to keep this uncluttered for now, I will leave this as a statement of the objection first.)
If we were to decide that this approach was a mistake, the correction would be to migrate all P39s with these term-specific positions (e.g. Member of the 5th Northern Ireland Assembly (Q37279037)) to the parent class instead (Member of the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland (Q3272410)), and add a qualifier to each for the relevant parliamentary term (P2937) instead. I am not aware of any existing tools that would let us achieve that, but I do not believe it would be particularly difficult to write a bot to do so.
--Oravrattas (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@VIGNERON, Oravrattas: So, I took last week off to go hiking, did very little Wikidata work, and it was great for clearing the mind :-). I'm very sympathetic to all these points (particularly #2 & #4). However, we're still left with the fact that we can use term-based memberships to do things (importing large amounts of data) that aren't otherwise very easy to do with existing tools. I wonder if a solution here would be to say "ultimately, this is a transitional model" - in the fullness of time we can aim to transition back to a more elegant and simple "basic item + P2937" model, and we should try and ensure that term-based items and standard queries are constructed in such a way as to make this possible.
For example, we could -
  • ensure that all term-based items also have an appropriate parliamentary term (P2937) qualifier so that queries using this format can pick it up
  • standardise on "instance or subclass of" queries to ensure that they pick up both models
  • develop a simple bot script to "upgrade" all "member of the Xth Y" memberships to "member of the Y" as and when completed
  • keep a clear central list so it's clear where any given group of politicians stands in terms of imported data (which fits very nicely with what EveryPolitician are trying to do anyway...)
  • run reports to check that "member of the Xth Y" items aren't being used once that set of data has been properly updated
Or would this approach just cause more confusion? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support there are definitely some interesting ideas in there, particularly also adding parliamentary term (P2937) qualifiers even when it's seemingly redundant. I do suspect there will be some countries where it will end up making sense to keep the per-term membership items, but we can revisit that later to see if it does turn out to be so. But in principle I'm certainly happy to class this as a transitional model that enables people to get a lot more data in place, and then have a bot that can convert to the 'plain' membership items. --Oravrattas (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Joint office holders[edit]

Not sure where is the best place to raise this, but User:Llywrch pointed out [4] that some positions have joint holders and it is useful to be able to identify the other joint holder -- for example the two consuls of ancient Rome, or MPs for many seats in England in the 19th century. The en-wiki template en:Template:Succession box has slots to show them, as can be seen on eg en:Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (consul 215 BC) or en:Richard Cobden.

How should this relationship be entered on Wikidata? For the easiest retrieval by the template, would a new qualifier "office held with" be appropriate, to go on position held (P39) statements?

If so, does it matter if that appears to leave no way to indicate which dates apply, if the other incumbent changed part-way through the term (eg as in the Cobden example) -- could a template get that information from the item for the other incumbent? Jheald (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

together with (P1706) View with SQID tends to be used for this at the moment:
SELECT ?position ?positionLabel ?person ?personLabel ?with ?withLabel WHERE  {
  ?person p:P39 [ ps:P39 ?position ; pq:P1706 ?with ].
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
Try it!
We tend to already split position held (P39) statements in two if any of the qualifiers on that no longer hold (e.g. if someone changes party), so I'd suggest we do the same again here — i.e. one property to say that Cobden was MP with George Howard from 1847–1848, and another to say he was MP with Edmund Denison from 1848 on. --Oravrattas (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

confusing name[edit]

Can we rename this, e.g. "WikiProject Politicians"? WikiProjects are generally named after what they cover not who created them. --
--- Jura 08:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it duplicates the existing Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians. I think it should be merged there.--
--- Jura 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we have four things that overlap to some degree.

  1. Wikidata:EveryPolitician - a tracking page I set up way back in 2015 when EP wasn't linked to WD at all, then used by this project for a while in mid-2017 before it shifted here, now no activity.
  2. Wikidata:WikiProject every politician - where the EP work seems to sit, some activity
  3. Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians - set up by Lucy in June as part of this project, no sign of any activity (I work on politicians and honestly never knew it was there)
  4. Wikidata:WikiProject Parliaments - set up by Jura in August, some activity

Of these, #1 should probably just be redirected here (since this is the place where the actual work is being done). #3 is pretty much dead and could be redirected either here or to #4. I wouldn't say that #4 is "the initial name", though - it was created well after the EP work was underway. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Wikidata:EveryPolitician was an import page, later used in relation to the WMF grant (to do further imports of data from there). Parliaments and Heads of Government are just related projects. In any case, I think we should make sure to aovid confusion of Wikimedia Foundation websites with MySociety's EveryPolitician website.
    --- Jura 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The original EP page was a tracker for our politician properties to help with synchronising, not one intended for automated import - if anything, it helped them import our data, not the other way around. I know that, because, as I said, I was the one who set it up :-). On your second point, fair enough, but I don't think anyone is actually confused. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      • It did read "This is a tracking page for an ongoing project to provide comprehensive coverage of politicians in Wikidata. This is currently a recipient of a Wikimedia Foundation (Q180) grant." and include series of import lists. Somehow the associated discussion is now disconnected.
        --- Jura 22:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Andrew Gray. #1 should be redirected to #2 (including its talk page to avoid lost discussions). #3, which was never active, should be redirected to #2. We should also consider to merge #4 into #2, as it could scatter efforts made in the same topic. — Envlh (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support for merging #1 and #3 into #2. #1 is essentially a redirect now anyway, and I previously tried to redirect #3. I'd be OK with keeping #4 as a separate project to track information about the legislatures themselves, distinct from the legislators within them, if people prefer that. --Oravrattas (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done: #1 was merged in #2 quite a while ago. I've migrated the historic discussion from there to here as well, and set up a redirect on the Talk page. For now #4 lives on, as it has slightly tighter focus (similar to Wikidata:WikiProject Heads of state and government) — though we can revisit that later if there's ongoing consensus to merge them. #3 is still outstanding. --Oravrattas (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Zambia[edit]

It's all gone a bit Pete Tong on the Zambia Positions front - why is this report - Wikidata:WikiProject every politician/Zambia/Q45398490/positions kaput? (Was copied from Wikidata:WikiProject every politician/Wales/Q3112646/positions. There are 30 cabinet minister items populated - WhatLinksHere/Q45398490.

  • You were missing the row template, so it didn't know how to display each row. I've added that now.--Oravrattas (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


More generally, I've given Zambia a good going-over in the last few hours, concentrating on the current government; there's some more work to be done on Cabinet Positions, and there are iirc 10 or 14 appointed rather than elected Assembly members ... right now they have inaccurate qualifiers as having been 'elected in' a certain general election.

Any 'you got that wrong' feedback welcome. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the source of all the Zambia data is http://www.parliament.gov.zm/ but I've not got around to working out how to use quickstatements to add a URL stylee reference. Any clues gratefully received. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
How add reference -> reference URL (P854)? --Fractaler (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
In QuickStatements you start Source properties with an S instead of a P so they get added in the correct manner — see the section at “Each statement can be followed by an unlimited number of "source pairs"” at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/quick_statements.php
@Tagishsimon: That's superb, thanks! I've added a couple of reports so we can see better what data we have or don't have: members and bios for the current term. Those highlight a few things that should be cleaned up:
  • The description for everyone is in quotation marks: ”Zambian politician”
  • Lots of constituency labels include a disambiguation phrase — e.g. "Kapoche (Zambian National Assembly constituency)". In Wikidata that should be on the description, but not the label itself: Help:Label#Labels_can_be_ambiguous
  • It looks like you've created new items for people, even if they already existed in Wikidata: e.g. Q45382629 vs Brian Mushimba (Q27662555) — we'll need to merge all the people who now have two records.
  • Most of the people have no external identifier fields, and no source information on any claims, and don't link to any Wikipedia pages, so are liable to simply be deleted. Your suggestion to add reference information to all of these will help greatly with that.
Thanks for all your work on this! --Oravrattas (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your framework for this work! I'm afraid it all got a bit zzz, this morning, after an all-nighter. ”Zambian politician” and the label dismbiguators are now fixed; I spotted a couple of pre-existing MPs, but admit I could have done more checking ... I'll look at this. And then, yes, references for all of the assertions. DoBs also are low-hanging fruit, but I need to up my scraping game to get them efficiently.
I've also not given much thought to working out QIDs for the given name & family name of our MPs ... is there prior art here?
Best way I've found is to use OpenRefine. So, for example, if you have all the data in a Google Spreadsheet, and can generate 'given name' and 'family name' fields in that, you can then use the built in reconciliation tool to look each of those up and generate a new column full of Wikidata IDs. Happy to talk through that approach in more detail if you get stuck somewhere. --Oravrattas (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll get around to addressing blanks & other QA issues surfaced by reports shortly: some advice on the 12th report constituency gaps, please: if we take a politician such as Q45382648, he was appointed MP and has no constituency & thus was not elected. So the question here: what is the formulation for specifying he's an appointed MP, and how, if at all, do we deal with the observation that he has no Constituency (e.g. in a way that prevents our successors repeatedly trying to 'fix' the absence of constituency in the 12th report). --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Best way to explicitly record having no constituency is to set a electoral district (P768) qualifier of 'novalue'. I've set that on Q45382648 as an example. We haven't had to do that anywhere on a large scale yet, so we might need to tweak some of the queries to cope better with it if they don't do the right thing. --Oravrattas (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The 12th Assembly report and the P39 no district query both hold their hands up for tweaking, although not perhaps with any urgency. 10 or so of our Zim MPs now have an electoral district qualifier of 'no value'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Excellent work on pulling all the Cabinet details together too. I've added a report to show all the current members (they're all showing an end date of when the table was last updated because of the way I'm constructing the SPARQL query. Suggestions for improvements there very welcome, which ideally don't require a different query for the current cabinet than historic ones). --Oravrattas (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Czech Republic MPs[edit]

At cswiki cs:Seznam členů Poslanecké sněmovny Parlamentu České republiky there is an exhaustive list of members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic with its parliamentary terms. Most of these data are missing on Wikidata (but we have items for all MPs and parliamentary terms). Any idea (or volunteer) how to scrap these data? --Jklamo (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jklamo. I have, for an exercise, scraped the QIDs of all of the politicians in the cs:Seznam členů Poslanecké sněmovny Parlamentu České republiky table, and together with the table data can, for each member, create the position held (P39) values of Member of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (Q19803234) for each parliamentary term (P2937). Right now, though, we would lack electoral district (P768) & parliamentary group (P4100). We can infer start time (P580) and end time (P582), but we won't be taking into account those who left office early or joined a term late, such as via a by-election. There is electoral district (P768) & parliamentary group (P4100) on http://www.psp.cz/en/sqw/snem.sqw?P1=0&P2=0& - at least for the current legislative term; and iirc some pages on cs.wiki show parliamentary group (P4100) for prior elections, albeit in the plain text of article lists. cs.wiki is not the most reliable source, I guess. I've not looked hard for, but think we might lack some electoral district (P768) & parliamentary group (P4100) for earlier legistalive terms.
I'll pause at this point to play some other games; we can discuss whether we wish to pursue an approach based on cs.wiki. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Malawi[edit]

Outstanding issues on Malawi...

New property: Hungarian MP identifier[edit]

Please support the introduction of the identifier property Wikidata:Property_proposal/Hungarian_MP_identifier for members of the Hungarian Parliament.--Tdombos (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

ChristianKl

Oravrattas Tagishsimon Jacksonj04 Owenpatel Markcridge Louisecrow Nomen ad hoc Tubezlob Siwhitehouse Mhl20 Alexsdutton Danadl Teester Zache a_ka_es Hasive Nat965 masti Papuass Jklamo Kellyjeanne9 ProtoplasmaKid Jmmuguerza Graemebp Pete Forsyth


Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject every politician This property proposal has been hanging around a while, could you vote for it so it can move forward? Thanks. --Tdombos (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Modelling of 'reserved' seats[edit]

There are cases in several legislatures where a subset of seats are reserved for representatives of a specific group. For example Kenya has representatives for women, Pakistan for women and religious minorities, and Uganda for a range including the army, youth, workers and persons with disabilities.

In Kenya, this is currently modelled using subject has role (P2868) qualifiers on the position held (P39) statements, pointing to an instance of a position (Q4164871). For example, Women's Representative (Q47484213) as seen on Fatuma Ibrahim Ali (Q17411041)

In Pakistan, this is currently modelled by setting the electoral district (P768) qualifier on the position held (P39) to a non-geographic instance of constituency of the National Assembly of Pakistan (Q33513247). Examples of this are reserved seat for Women (Q33513293) and reserved seats for minorities (Q33513308), as seen on Fais Azeem (Q18764047).

It makes sense to me for this to be more consistent, and the approach I prefer is that of the former - using subject has role (P2868) qualifiers pointing to an instance of a position (Q4164871). This neatly avoids two problems, one that some of these 'reserved' seats also belong to a geographical constituency (eg in Kenya, Women's Representatives are still elected by a district), and that constituency (Q192611) is explicitly described as geographical in nature which would seem to preclude its use for these groups.

--jacksonj04 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I would disagree - I think in most cases these can be handled using the existing constituency model (though we should find a way of marking a constituency as reserved, either by electorate or by candidate). In the case of Pakistan, for example, reserved seat for Women (Q33513293) is effectively a single sixty-member electoral region, covering the whole country, and elected by proportional representation. Listing the members with P768 to that constituency is consistent with how we handle other jurisdictions where both region and constituency seats are represented in the Parliament.
(A geographic basis is normal but not an absolute requirement for a constituency - Ireland still has two university-graduate seats, India has Anglo-Indian reserved seats in the Lok Sabha (Q48724360), Hong Kong has the remarkable functional constituency of Hong Kong (Q5508804) system, and various jurisdictions still have "at-large" seats covering the entire area.)
In the specific case of Kenya, as far as I can see, they have electoral districts with no restrictions on who can stand, then an overlapping but distinct group of reserved regional seats. In this case, it seems to me that this is effectively another 47 geographical constituencies, with restrictions, in addition to the existing ones - Fatuma Ibrahim Ali is the member for Wajir District, which is a constituency with one seat, that is reserved. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
We have right to vote (P2964) which could be extended to apply to restricted constituencies as well as elections, and used as per 8th Constituency of Regional Councilors of Nantou County (Q49934086). I do worry slightly, however, that that would only work in Kenya because the higher-level constituencies to which the Women's Representatives get elected don't also have other types of representatives. I can easily imagine a scenario where person X is the Women's Representative for the Eastern District, whilst person Y is the Youth Representative for that same district. Making two separate items for such a constituency, each of which has all the same data, other than the electorate doesn't seem right to me, but if we only had a single item, which knows that it has both types of electorate, I can't currently think of a way to answer questions like "Who are the current Youth Representatives", unless we also had some way to record that on the position held (P39) (as per the subject has role (P2868) example above) --Oravrattas (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
right to vote (P2964) looks to be a useful property, but doesn't really apply to Women's Representatives since any member of the electorate can vote for them, not just woman. Other systems may well make this distinction, but in Kenya anyone can cast a vote, and in Pakistan the reserved seats are filled by party lists and aren't directly voted for at all. We'd probably need a 'right to stand' property.
In Kenya there is definitely a good argument to be made that the Women's Reps do sit in an Assembly constituency with one seat which is logically distinct but physically identical to the Senate constituency, but Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Q6016573) definitely considers them to be the same thing, just returning one result for Women's Rep and one for Senator. This is further muddied by the fact that the Senate also includes 16 seats for women which are allocated by party list, so we'd need to have another country-level constituency for those. --jacksonj04 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. I misunderstood who could vote for the Women's Representatives. right to vote (P2964) is definitely a red herring here then! --Oravrattas (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Constituency subclassing in Hong Kong[edit]

In Hong Kong for the Legislative Council there are two types of constituency: geographical constituency (Q2973947) and functional constituency of Hong Kong (Q5508804). These are both subclassed from Hong Kong Legislative Council constituency (Q19999028). In addition functional constituency of Hong Kong (Q5508804) is subclassed from functional constituency (Q2973945). In turn both Hong Kong Legislative Council constituency (Q19999028) and functional constituency (Q2973945) are subclassed from constituency (Q192611). This leads to functional constituency of Hong Kong (Q5508804) being subclassed twice in the same hierarchy - as show:

20180525 HK constituency model.png

I feel that Hong Kong Legislative Council constituency (Q19999028) could be removed, then subclassing geographical constituency (Q2973947) directly from constituency (Q192611) and functional constituency of Hong Kong (Q5508804) from functional constituency (Q2973945) alone - leading to this:

20180525 proposed modelling of HK constituencies.png

I think this simplifies the model without losing any information. Would others agree with this? -- Owenpatel (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple meanings of Intendant[edit]

intendant (Q6491450) mixes the meaning of Intendant as a public administrator with that of Intendant as the manager in an opera/theatre company. I've just posted on Q6491450 talk page looking for a way of disentangling these meanings. Comments from members of the every politician project would be welcome. Owenpatel (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Tying a legislative term to its election?[edit]

At the moment there doesn't seem to be a commonly adopted approach for going from a legislative term to the election leading to it — currently that needs to happen backwards from something like:

I've seen a few examples where the link is made in the opposite direction, using significant event (P793):

Do people think that this is a sensible approach? Are there other ways that these have been (or could/should be) connected? Should we add this to the data model? --Oravrattas (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

For the second method, there's determination method (P459) ... not sure if that flies better than P793. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I'm not so sure about determination method (P459). The discussion on that has a vaguely similar scenario which wasn't deemed appropriate, and it seems like a bit of a stretch to here too. Do you think this is significantly different enough? --Oravrattas (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't deemed appropriate by a single response. I appreciate that the election-term relation was not anticipated by the proposer of P459, but we really do not stretch the definition of the property - "Qualifier to indicate method used to get the value that appears in the statement" - if we say that the method of arriving at the 57th parliament was the 2017 general election. Equally, I understand & see that there is stretch in terms of understanding that "determination method" means "the election which brought about the parliament". Neither is ideal, and I'm not advocating one over the other ... it's probably more important that we establish & document a pattern ... thus I'm as happy to go with significant event. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Number of seats?[edit]

What property (if any) should we be using to represent the number of seats/members returned by a given constituency/district? At the moment number of representatives in an organization/legislature (P1410) seems to be constrained for use with political parties/groupings ("Labour has 302 seats"), and number of seats (P1342) for use on legislative terms or on the parliament itself ("The Assembly has 270 seats" or "In the 1949-50 term the Parliament had 103 seats"). We don't seem to have a clear property to define the number of seats returned by a multi-member constituency. There's some discussion on Property talk:P1410 which suggests it was intended to be used for this case but I don't know if that was ever formalised. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: some of the discussion around number of representatives in an organization/legislature (P1410) is a little odd (including at the initial property proposal discussion), as some of the participants appear to have been unaware that number of seats (P1342) already existed. I don't think we'd need to stretch the definition too far to make it work for this case, though, if we class the "group" in question as the constituents in a particular place. This doesn't feel completely satisfactory, though it seems a little better than expanding number of seats (P1342). I don't think I have a strong opinion either way at the moment.
In terms of current usage, there appear to be currently 35 constituencies using number of seats (P1342) already:
SELECT (COUNT(DISTINCT ?item) AS ?count) WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q192611 ; wdt:P1342 [].
}
Try it!
and 47 using number of representatives in an organization/legislature (P1410):
SELECT (COUNT(DISTINCT ?item) AS ?count) WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q192611 ; wdt:P1410 [].
}
Try it!
So nothing particularly persuasive there either. --Oravrattas (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Geographic areas as constituencies[edit]

I'm currently researching legislatures in Australia. I'm doing this work in my job as a Political Researcher at mySociety (Q10851773) and it is part of a larger project to collect information on elected representatives across all countries.

At the moment, members of the Australian Senate have electoral district (P768) statements that point to items for the States of Australia. For example, Ian Macdonald (Q5982140) from Queensland (Q36074).

In Mexico, constituency of the senate of Mexico (Q53537091) has been created as a subclass of constituency (Q192611) and then constituency items such as Puebla (Q53539319) have been created to keep the two concepts of "area as constituency" and "area as geo/political entity" separate.

What approaches have people taken elsewhere? What do you think best practice looks like? Ideally, it would be good to update the everypolitician documentation giving best practice. @Andrew Gray: @Jheald: as I see you both contributed towards a similar discussion Siwhitehouse (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Siwhitehouse: Both approaches are quite common: for example, United States Senate (Q66096) also tends to take the same approach as Senate of Australia (Q783330), whereas European Parliament (Q8889) has distinct items for the constituencies, even where those are whole countries (e.g. Germany (Q1350565)). I think it's generally accepted that ideally there would be distinct items for the place as electoral district, even where that maps exactly to somewhere that exists as a different type of administrative geography (e.g. a state), but pragmatically, unless / until there's actually a need to separate them out, if no such constituency items already exist, there's no real problem in using the existing items, especially if they are, by definition, the same geography (e.g. in a federal assembly). One downside to watch out for when there are separate items is people choosing the wrong one when adding data — e.g. there are currently 21 people with EUparl memberships with an electoral district of Czech Republic (Q213) (the country), rather than Czech Republic (Q5201764) (the constituency). To help detect (and potentially automatically fix) cases like this, it might be useful to always add a coextensive with (P3403) link between them. --Oravrattas (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Dates for events expected in the future[edit]

When adding information on current legislative terms there is often an end date available which indicates when the current term is expected to the end. As this date is in the future there is obviously a degree of uncertainty about the date - while this may be the expected end date for the term, something may happen to trigger the term ending earlier than expected. There doesn't yet seem to be an agreed best practice across Wikidata for such future dates. Drawing on the example of Louis Vuitton Foundation (Q50376746) (thanks to Oravrattas) which uses a qualifier nature of statement (P5102) with a value of expected (Q50376823) for some future dates, I've added similar qualifiers to legislative terms in Brazil, for example Municipal chamber of Sao Gonçalo 2017-2020 (Q56460002)

Does this seem like a reasonable approach? Are there other approaches I should consider?

Thanks for any advice Owenpatel (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. On the one hand this seems like a good approach; on the other, it is a trap for the unwary report writer. I wonder if in addition we should consider deprecating the rank of the statement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The trap would be if someone is simply checking for the absence of a dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576), rather than doing the FILTER(!BOUND(?end) || ?end > NOW()) dance, yes? If so, then that trap has already been sprung:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?date WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P576 ?date FILTER (?date > NOW())
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
Try it!
Deleting all those seems doesn't seem particularly sensible, and though I can see some appeal in marking them as deprecated, that feels a little like abusing the fact that a `wdt:` query ignores those, rather than being what that rank is actually meant to be used for. The statement isn't erroneous — it's the best information we currently have. I would instead expect a deprecated statement like this to mean "This was originally meant to happen on date X, but actually didn't".
I'm inclined to agree - it seems like the wrong use of deprecated. To give an example of where you might need to use Deprecated in the usual sense with an expected date - in the UK if there was a snap election announced we would have a new expected date, so the original one would become deprecated (but would still have been an expected date), and the new expected date (still in the future until it happens of course) would be added. Owenpatel (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
nature of statement (P5102) is a fairly new property, so not widely used yet, but using it with expected (Q50376823) seems to be exactly what it was intended for, and at least this way we get to search for any dates in the past which were qualified like this, to investigate whether it turned out to be accurate or not (whereas now it would be very easy for these to go unnoticed for a long term).
This does reinforce the idea, though, that we should build up a good set of example queries, as there are quite a few odd corner cases and gotchas for the unwary all over the place. (Perhaps starting by adapting lots of the examples at Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians/Sample Queries?)
--Oravrattas (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Politician elected terms which do not match Legislative/parliamentary terms[edit]

In many (most?) cases elected representatives are elected to a legislature for the length of the term of the legislature. So a position held (P39) statement for the representative can be given a parliamentary term (P2937) qualifier to link the position to the term. Obviously sometimes representatives leave or join the legislature mid-term, and this can be represented by adding start time (P580) and/or end time (P582) to the relevant position held (P39). For each term the representative is a member of a particular legislature they can have an additional position held (P39) which shows this membership.

However, there are other cases where a single elected term for a representative overlaps parliamentary terms. For example, this is true in the Brazilian Senate. The National Congress (bicameral) has terms lasting 4 years (54th legislature of the National Congress of Brazil (Q4640499), 55th legislature of the National Congress of Brazil (Q18479094)), but Senators are elected for periods of 8 years (covering two legislative terms) with a 1/3 and 2/3 seats being up for election every alternative legislative term. An example is Vanessa Grazziotin (Q7914656) - she was elected as senator in 2011 (at the start of 54th legislature of the National Congress of Brazil (Q4640499)) and still holds the position (until the end of 55th legislature of the National Congress of Brazil (Q18479094)).

At the moment the position held (P39) statement doesn't accurately reflect the fact that she was a member of both legislative terms. In this situation for the position held (P39) I'm wondering if it is better to:

  1. Add one position held (P39) per legislative term resulting in two position held (P39) statements on each representative
  2. Add one position held (P39) per elected term resulting in one position held (P39) statement for the whole elected period with potentially multiple parliamentary term (P2937) qualifiers where the position goes over multiple legislative terms
  3. Something else...

Any advice/pointers are welcome Owenpatel (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Owenpatel: Interesting question. There are definitely a few cases where there isn't a clean mapping between personal mandates and legislative terms, but usually they're more out of sync than this one. In this case I would think that #1 would be more suitable: adding multiple different parliamentary term (P2937) qualifiers (or indeed multiple of any qualifier) to a single statement seems likely to cause issues for various SPARQL queries. The general rule of thumb is that once any of the qualifiers change, there should be a new statement reflecting the updated scenario. So when the legislative term (Q15238777) changes, then a new statement, with a new parliamentary term (P2937) qualifier, would be appropriate. Making sure that both position held (P39) statements have the correct (same) elected in (P2715) qualifier would likely be helpful for being able to query which seats in each term were re-elected then, vs carried over from the prior election. --Oravrattas (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Members of committees[edit]

Just a notice that I asked a question on how we should model participation in committees on Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Parliaments#Members_of_committees. Ainali (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Suffrage / Women's suffrage[edit]

How can we enter suffrage in state items, is a property needed? There are various dates for every country, like: universal suffrage, equal suffrage, women's suffrage (active and passive), voting rights of Australian aboriginals (1962), voting rights of black people in the USA ... --1rhb (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I've wondered about this before; we probably need a similar approach for voting systems as well (first past the post, single transferable, etc). One problem is that these aren't always the same across all voters - for example, parliaments with both regional lists and constituency seats may have different voting systems for each one, and in some rare places different constituencies might have different suffrage rules (eg Wyoming had women's suffrage in federal elections for thirty years before it was universal across the US). This might be a problem to model in detail. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)