Hoi, First of all, we are talking about Wikidata. What a Wikipedia does, any Wikipedia does gets reflected in Wikidata but Wikidata does not need to stop there.
When there is a "Mayor of Foo", you can easily query for all the mayors of Foo. With more difficulty we can do a similar thing when we have composite queries for "office held" "mayor" and "in the administrative dadida" "Foo". (by implication Foo has a mayor and not a president).
My problem is that functionality like Reasonator does not support this. I thoroughly hate all the arguments that are theoretical and not practical. This is a "splitter and lumper" issue where Wikidata itself does not support us at all and is unlikely to do so as far as I understand things. I love to learn that I am wrong and that we can make all the mayors just mayor.
NOTABILITY When the Occitan Wikipedia makes a useful distinction, we have to deal with it. When the English Wikipedia does not, it makes no difference whatsoever.
Notability in Wikidata is about relevance and relevance in Wikidata only.. An example: in the Esperanto Wikipedia people can be notable because they speak Esperanto. Often not more than that can be said about these "human"s. Given that eo.wp includes them they are notable in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 June 2014 19:56, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
here are my thoughts about this:
"MAYOR OF FOO" VERSUS "MAYOR" OF "FOO" I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a "Mayor of Foo" item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for "Iowa Senate" and use the statement "office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate" so it keeps the same pattern.
NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item.
Example 1: The "Iowa Senate" has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. "Iowa Senator" is a subclass of "Senator" and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia "US Senator" is a redirect to "US Senate". Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683)
Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for "2014 Senate elections in Iowa".
Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for "2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district" and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates).
That is what I think.
Joe
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontology2@gmail.com wrote:
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here
http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema=
Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable.
Of course an uncountable number of "composite concepts" that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, "Economy of Japan" might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an "Economy of [place]" for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmorris@gmail.com wrote:
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
Tom
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird.
2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com>:
That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though.
A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
- The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
finds [the subject] notable
This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2@gmail.com
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l