Property talk:P140: Difference between revisions

Sorry, but I think adding "for monarchs, heads of state, etc" is too restrictive, giving a false impression that this is to be used for political figures, despite the "etc." Better to simply leave it at "relevant." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Geagea (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, should be used for anyone, so long as the information is reliably sourced (esp. for living people as per always). Danrok (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, sourced and relevant. I had at first objected to that 2nd criterion, but then saw that it was already in the guidelines for the EngWiki person infobox. I daresay that will be where arguments may occur. When is it "relevant"? But a label needs to be short and so cannot serve as an exhaustive list of "relevant" positions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think relevancy is dependent on the final application. What may be considered irrelevant on WP, may be highly relevant to other parties who use the data via the API. As far as WP goes, anything considered irrelevant can just be ignored by scripts or whatever. But, these things will be worked out in the end. Danrok (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Infoboxes on Wikipedia do not limit us, either forcing us to have certain properties, or limiting us to having certain properties. I would support using this property whenever it is applicable (sourced, I mean), not limited to theologians and such. Espeso (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay with me. This is basically the criteria for inclusion in a People by foo religion wikipedia category. But then I wonder if we should then change the label? If I understand the consensus correctly, then should the label more accurately say something like religion of a person (use when there are reliable sources)? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I hate to add wording like that when I know it's not going to be followed until globally mandated by policy (for example), and technically we can't even add the source yet... but "agreed in principle". To me, at this time it is sufficient to say "Wikipedia has it sourced", which puts me in a minority I expect. Fellow country-person to you, BTW, assuming your handle is a statement of fact. :-) I think we're pretty rare here. Espeso (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This property, like many others, will be one day massively filled by bot imports from Wikipedias (or shall remain used only on a few dozen items...). I am not sure to understand what "relevant" means there, good luck when you'll have to explain it to a bot :-). Sincerely, I think any restriction is illusory : either you don't create the property at all, or you should be ready to see it used very broadly. Touriste (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)