Property talk:P4100
Documentation
parliamentary group to which a member of a parliament belongs
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P4100#Type Q5, Q7278, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P4100#Value type Q848197, Q7278, Q1393724, Q11744698, Q327591, Q2738074, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P4100#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P4100#Scope, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
Constraints[edit]
@Airon90, Einar Myre: regarding the recent edits to add/remove constraints, the constraints here should definitely allow values which are instance of (P31):political party (Q7278). These were the original constraints when the property was first set up - it was always intended to include parties - and at the moment, at least 66% of all uses are political parties (query). In many countries, the groups and parties are roughly the same thing, so there aren't separate groups.
There are a couple of others it might be useful to add, as well. We have a few hundred cases where we use subclasses of political alliance (Q60170135), and for historic data - before parties or formal groups existed - it might be useful to allow political faction (Q1393724). We could include all of these as options, or just replace them all with something that says "any subclass of political organization (Q7210356)", which I think would get everything under discussion.
But it should include parties, however we do it - we should not be adding constraints that say most of the existing uses are wrong! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- This property is named "parliamentary group" because it is used to define which parliamentary group a MP joined. If in some countries parliamentary group and political parties are the same thing (not roughly, exactly) the item about the party should IMO also have instance of (P31) parliamentary group (Q848197) otherwise an item about the parliamentary group should be created and used. TBH I don't care if 66% of items are uncorrectly mapped, this should be fixed by editing not hiding the problem. --★ → Airon 90 07:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Airon90: This property was always intended to include parties, and "party" is an alias of the name! Covering parties is not a problem to be "fixed". P4100 is standard for parliamentarians in many different countries, and isn't only for use in the ones which have a specific concept of "group" which is different from "party". Not all countries work that way; many just have parties.
- Is allowing parties causing a problem for you in some specific context? If so, we can definitely try and work that out. But you're breaking things for other people by doing this. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Airon90: You shouldn't go to existing properties and redefine them because you want them to be different. At least you should read the property discussion where you see that the consensus that lead to the creation of the property was "Allowed values Instances of subclasses of parliamentary group (Q848197) or political party (Q7278)". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject every politician has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead., as P4100 is recommended as standard there. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Remove independent politician (Q327591) from constraints[edit]
This is a weird thing to add when we have the built in novalue which is specifically meant to state when they do not have a value for a property. Having separate items for when the subject does not have a value just for this property makes it much harder for anyone to figure out how it is modeled. Better to have it generic across all properties. Ainali (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Seems an innocuous means of specifying that they're sitting as an independent politician. I don't honestly follow why <no value> would be better. Pain in the arse to query for, by comparison. For the UK HoC, it's commonplace to say that an MP whose whip has been removed is sitting as an independent politician, and de facto they are a member of the parliamentary group of indepdendent MPs. @Andrew Gray: --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- There can be several reasons why someone is not a member of a faction. One is that he is a representative in an age when there were no parliamentary parties (e.g. 17th century). Then we use the item Q113264255. The other is if he is not a member of any political party (or left the party during the term and joined the independents). It is then much clearer if Q327591 is specified than if it is set to "no value".
- Another reason to use Q327591/Q113264255: it's easier to search for an item than something set to "no value". If we make a query about what factions existed during a parliament or a term, Q327591 might be included and show a percentage in the total, but "no value" is left out of the query. Pallor (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree with this - I think it is useful to have them modelled this way rather than novalue, since purely for practical reasons it is a lot easier to work with.
- One additional reason is that it may in future be useful to model different types of independent - eg the UK has a tradition of people being labelled as eg "independent conservative" and while we don't currently model that, it is something I've been thinking about. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)