FYI, I maintain Reasonator, as a click on "Other/About Reasonator" would have revealed... On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com&gt; wrote: Absolutely. Do I take it that you volunteer? The code is at: https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/reasonator I can add you to the codebase there, and/or make you co-maintainer on the tool. Because I sure don't have the time at the moment to fiddle with some edge cases in a secondary component of one of my 50+ tools. Cheers, Magnus

Derric, Good luck with your edit-a-thon today [1] and it would be awesome if you could introduce Reasonator and Wikidata while discussing Wikipedia. I think it is very interesting that you just discovered Magnus through Reasonator instead of the other way around - discovering more of Magnus through his Wikipedia tools. So few people venture outside of the text-oriented Wikipedia projects, it's always refreshing to see someone in a public-facing capacity getting involved in Wikidata. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zellfaze/Edit-a-thon_Planning Jane On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, When you have an item like "mayor of Pebbles minor", you can make qualifiers like predecessor and successor, start date and end date. When every town has the same mayor, no such functionality is possible. Thanks, GerardM On 16 June 2014 19:13, Derric Atzrott &lt;datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com&gt; wrote:

should be then? Wikidata is confusing and not mature, it's sometime hard to put best pratices and a work of every day /o\. I guess this will be settled only when the data will be used and when we will have a decent query engine, or reasonable constraints about the subject. I don't personnaly really care if the same kind of datas are stored with the same pattern (the best model) but it's not always easy to decide and there is a lot to do before we really become confident with the choice we make. The time where the query engine will be ready and fully operational will be a great help and will ease to normalize the datas and we will know which query are the most elegant, which models are resonably general to limit the number of patterns used in Wikidata. This time has not came yet imho. 2014-06-16 20:49 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott &lt;datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com&gt;om>: > > When you have an item like "mayor of Pebbles minor", you can make > qualifiers > > like predecessor and successor, start date and end date. When every town > has > > the same mayor, no such functionality is possible. > > Start and end date are possible still as are predecessor and successor. > > See Q17202594 which is one of the former mayors of Frederick and has all of > those qualifiers on him. Unless you meant on the city, in which case I am > slowing working towards that on Q472675 as well under "head of government". > > Or am I misunderstanding you? > > > It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly > identify the > > concept, ... Mayor office of cities are amongst these identifiable items. > > You've got me there. I could live with every city having a mayor item > then. > That still makes me wonder what the purpose of the "of" qualifier is in > relation to "position held". > > Looking at the "position held" docs, n the example given they use: > Barrack Obama -> Position Held -> United State Senator -> of -> United > States > Senate. > > This seems to be somewhat redundant information as the fact that he was > "of" > the United States Senate seems to be implied by the very definition of > being > a United States Senator. To recast it in terms of mayor, it would be like > saying Mayor of Frederick in Frederick. > > should > be then? > > Thank you, > Derric Atzrott > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >

So would be practice be to use "Mayor" of "Frederick" or to create a new item "Mayor of Frederick" and use that instead? And if best practice is to use "Mayor of Frederick" why bother with the "of" qualifier in the first place? So at this point we just don't know which is the better way to go about this then? That is fair. For the moment I think then I'll stick with "Mayor" of "City" rather than making new items for each cities mayor. It will be relatively easy for a bot to switch those over later on if we decide the other way is best, whereas it might not be as simple the other way around. Thank you, Derric Atzrott

Notability in Wikidata has a different meaning as in Wikipedia. If an item is useful to express some information, then it at least fulfil structural needs and it is notable on Wikidata, fortunately, or it would be a bug headeach. It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, like with an id in some authority or national database, then it is notable. Mayor office of cities are amongst these identifiable items. This criteria also saves headeachs :) there is quite a lot of items in Wikidata, let's not take all the time to discuss the notability of millions of them. 2014-06-16 19:13 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott &lt;datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com&gt;om>:

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

On Jun 17, 2014 3:32 AM, "Thomas Douillard" &lt;thomas.douillard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: weird. Andy wants an item about himself. 'The Community' said 'no, not yet'. Andy regularly raises this as an inconsistency. Items for contributors is a special-case problem that the community needs to solve with a focused RFC, but maybe now isnt the right time, and raising it in every discussion that touches on notability is not helpful. -- John

I'm not familiar with conversations on-list before I joined, but I also assumed the comment about cognitive dissonance was about the mismatch between policy and the general vibe that the community gives off about what is notable enough for inclusion. I did not see the comment as something about a specific case, but as a more general issue. Thank you, Derric Atzrott

Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too. Tom On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard < thomas.douillard(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;ontology2(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;filceolaire(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, As it is Reasonator is able to show a query for either. When Wikidata has an item for "Mayor of New York" [1], Reasonator shows you all the mayors of New York and it shows them in order of date when a date is available. Theoretically a similar page can be created for the result of "office held" "mayor" and "is in the administrative yadiyadi" "New York". It has to be developed. Really important is that I can envision this to happen in Reasonator and WDQ and I would be thrilled when Wikidata itself could do this. However, I fear that this will not happen in the foreseeable future. Joe, please consider how things may work out in the first place in Wikidata and then, only then consider other projects and then, only then Wikipedia, your English Wikipedia at that. Thanks, GerardM [1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=Q785304 On 17 June 2014 20:50, Joe Filceolaire &lt;filceolaire(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 17 June 2014 18:59, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Pity you don't do en.WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCSH ;-) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Hi Derrick, I think it's vain to ask yourself if some concept "deserves" an item. It does not make much sense. There is much more value in the regularity in how we express the same kind of data : this makes really much simpler to develop tools and to help newbies on how to do things if we decide one way on expressing that somebody is the mayor of somewhere and stick to it. 2014-06-13 16:57 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott &lt;datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com&gt;om>: