Wikidata:Property proposal/sex or gender of the position
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sex or gender of the position[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
Not done
| Description | Sex or gender of the people who hold the position. |
|---|---|
| Represents | gender (Q48277), sex or gender (Q18382802). |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | Instances of position (Q4164871) and subclasses. |
| Allowed values | Same as sex or gender (P21). |
| Example 1 | queen regnant (Q19643) → female (Q6581072) |
| Example 2 | Catholic priest (Q250867) → male (Q6581097) |
| Example 3 | Pythia (Q220344) → female (Q6581072) |
| Robot and gadget jobs | Check that when a person has a position held (P39) which has this property, it matches with the person's sex or gender (P21) -. |
| See also | sex or gender (P21), substitute/deputy/replacement of office/officeholder (P2098) |
Motivation[edit]
Some functions are associated with one specific sex or gender, either by definition, or by a rule or a tradition. Yet P21 is not suitable for them since it applies to persons only. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Support, a very important property for Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose IMHO, we need a much broader approach. Take the pope (Q19546) as en example: the prerequisite is not only the sex/gender, but also: celibacy (Q191778), be member of the Catholic church, be Latin Catholic priest (Q104050302) etc. I think, we need a prerequisite/requirement/precondition property for instances of position (Q4164871), something to complement prerequisite (P4967). edit: And sex/gender would be a part of this.--Geogast 🤲 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)- Oppose per Geogast. --Hannes Röst (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Neutral Why couldn't prerequisite (P4967) be used for this? Is some other property to complement prerequisite (P4967) really necessary? Just redefine prerequisite (P4967) to make it more broadly useable. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
