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)

"good luck when you'll have to explain it to a bot": but the bot owner must be careful to defined guidelines...

Are there many infoboxes with religion on the English WP ? In the French one, I don't think so (except bishops or similar). --Eric-92 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• One question - what type of items should we be using here? Q106039 (Christian), or Q5043 (Christianity)? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be Q5043. Danrok (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Applicable pour l'athéisme ? / Applicable for atheism?

Français : si c'est applicable à l'athéisme, il faudrait le préciser dans la description.
English: if it is applicable for atheism, it should be explained in the description.
--Gloumouth1 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think atheism is a religion. Danrok (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that we should use 2 different properties to code that someone is catholic or atheist? I do not think so, and as a consequence, we should rename the property; something like religion or irreligion --Gloumouth1 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The label on the corresponding infobox is "religion", so for that reason I'd suggest that only religions should be included for now. Danrok (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean the corresponding infobox on w:en, right? So, if a decision was taken on w:en, the same decision is taken automatically on wikidata? --Gloumouth1 (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a decision, just a simple pairing of data between here and the infoboxes. It's also labeled "religion" on Modèle:Infobox Politicien. Danrok (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is shown as an objective on this page: Phase 2 "to map and harmonize Wikidata properties to common infobox parameters." Danrok (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

At least in Uk and Pl wikipedias similar property is used for atheism too. Because in most cases such property is same as "religion", other wikipedias just had to handle (ignore) value "Atheism" in their infoboxes --AS (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Being myself an atheist, I would be shocked to see this opinion classified as a "religion". But my opinion is of little importance (though I don't think it is so far from the usual classifications - I have more than once browsed through general surveys of world religions omitting atheism, marxism, vegeterianism and other unrelated ways of life). The real answer is to be found in external documents : if you have a document asserting that X's religion is "atheism" (or gaullism, or schizophrenia or anything) you can use this item as a value of P140, as odd as it sounds. If you don't you should not. Touriste (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia should not be a source for Wikidata : if an undeducated monkey working on Wikipedia made a random choice when filling an infobox, the opinion of this uneducated monkey should not be used as a basis for filling a distinct data bank. Touriste (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Life stance? --AS (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not bad, it would be ok for me. But actually, the debate is not only about the property's name. Should we have in wikidata:

1. a specific property (for relegions only, this is the choice made on several wikipedia projects, and it seems to be the reason why some contributors think it is the best choice) and will force us to have one day another property for "irreligion".
2. a generic property (that could include more than religions, this is my position, and if this option would be chosen, yes, we could name the property life stance for example)

This is not a philosophical point of view, this is only a pragmatic point of view: if there is a strong dependency between 2 properties, there should be only one property, otherwise you introduce a way to code some inconsistencies. Let’s suppose we have another property about "irreligion". You allow to code <John Doe> religion <Catholic> AND <John Doe> irreligion <Atheist> which is not consistent. To have a generic property is a simple way to avoid it.

--Gloumouth1 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

But your example is not inconsistent : in some civilizations, a bit different from our good old individualist Western one, is catholic anybody who was bord a Catholic or even who was born from catholic parents. So you can be an atheist catholic, or an atheist muslim. Thinking religion as a personal experience is in some extent the result of a western cultural bias. Anyway, inconsistencies are not avoidable : a single source is sometimes inconsistent, the collection of all sources is very often inconsistent. Touriste (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)