Wikidata

Wikidata:Properties for deletion/Archive/2022/4

< Wikidata:Properties for deletion‎ | Archive‎ | 2022
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

P8929 (P8929)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to delete this property and rename/repurpose religion or worldview (P140) to include "world view" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted --Lymantria (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

P8929 (P8929): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Creation was done without clear consensus; duplicates political ideology (P1142) and religion or worldview (P140), with no consensus to replace them. What a mess. —Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I was following the property proposal discussion and didn't participate, because my point of view on this question is mostly based on my philologic education and and not driven by questions of usability. But now a little theoretic input might actually be helpful in the discussion.
It appears to me, that one of the main problems is the different connotation of world view (Q49447) in different languages. The german word "Weltanschauung" has been used at least since the 19th century and has first been used by romanticistic artists and basically ment seeing the world as it is, without delusion. It has been adapted by the Nazis and saw a shift of connotation somewhat around 1930. There has been a lot of discussion of the term by german philosophers in post-war-germany, most notably Heidegger and Klemperer. The present denotation appears pretty hard to grasp. Duden defines «Weltanschauung» as «Gesamtheit von Anschauungen, die die Welt und die Stellung des Menschen in der Welt betreffen» (Totality of views concerning the world and the position of man in the world). This would most definitely include religions. And yet, «Religion oder Weltanschauung» (Religion or Worldview) is a well-used syntagma in german. So this definition appear not to grasp the every-day use of this term. ChristianKl wrote that social democracy (Q121254) is not fitting in the term «Weltanschauung», the same way anthroposophy (Q184719) does. So what exactly counts as «Weltanschauung» varies a lot. I don't have a lot of knowledge of the history of the english term «world view», but a quick search with google ngram (Link) reveals, that it has not been used until as recently as the 1970s. Since the history of the english term is much shorter, the meaning appears to be way easier to grasp and apparently matches the definition Duden gives for »Weltanschauung».
What are the consequences for this discussion? Having a catch-all property that can include all kinds of views, beliefs and convictions of political, religious or philosophic origin should in my opinion not be named «Weltanschauung» in german, since there's no universally agreed upon meaning.
Practical considerations: I would like to be able to specifically query for users by their religion and their political views. For example:
A list of anarchists and their religion (Query). Our data is obviously very incomplete, but I'd say that from a query perspective it's more useful to have fine grained properties. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep: see: world view (Q49447) Maybe political ideology (P1142) and religion or worldview (P140) should thrown awy. --Succu (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete and rename religion or worldview (P140) to include ''world view''. This is entirely subjective and we are, I believe, trying to split a continuum into discrete parts. I vote to delete because its obviously confusing to have two items naming religion. Including world view with religion piggy-backs on the logic of that German law that started all this: the concepts are different, but not necessarily distinct. And for our purposes, they behave in much the same way. As to movement (P135), political ideology (P1142), and political alignment (P1387) I never felt anything wrong with those and they subjectively feel a bit further afield from religion or worldview (P140). Politics and Religion are also two massive and distinct spheres of public discourse and should, in the spirit of French Revolution (Q6534), be kept separate. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete - Per Matthias Winkelmann, this property is very confusing. Let's expand the use of religion or worldview (P140) to include worldview. Husky (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment If those who are the major users of religion or worldview (P140) find the proposal to expand its use acceptable, I agree that that is a better solution. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete – this is a term often used as a catch-all in legislation to reflect 'sincerely held beliefs'. The exegesis of the 'political or religious' term is rooted strongly in an intent to protect political emanations rooted in religious belief, e.g. opposition to, say, mandatory public education as an emanation of the religious beliefs of some Amish groups. The formulation is legally beneficial in that it avoids fruitless discussion about whether a religiously-motivated view about public life should be protected as a religious view or not. It doesn't lend itself, however, to defining people. I see atheism (Q7066) as an argument, but atheism (Q7066) is a clearly religious position, even if it is often associated with a political emanation, secularism (Q216920) (there are religious secularists and there might be, at least in theory, atheists who believe there is some inherent worth in religious groups having some involvement with civil government).  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ari T. Benchaim (talk • contribs) at 23:44, June 21, 2021‎ (UTC).
  •   Delete unclear term, it is much better to use existing other terms. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete duplicates existing religion property, no clear guidance on when to use this one vs that one. "Worldview" is a vague term which can refer to religious, philosophical or political beliefs. I think "worldview" is better expressed using separate properties for religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, and political ideology, than trying to collapse all three into one. We already have properties for first and third, maybe we need to add one for the second. The boundary between them is generally clear enough in practice; exceptional cases can be debated individually rather than trying to use those as a justification to overturn a generally useful distinction. Mr248 (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weakly   Delete. I agree with what Ari said. Deryck Chan (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete From the property proposal: "Properties religion (P140) and political ideology (P1142) do not intersect nor overlap." I can't see the point of replacing multiple specific non-overlapping concepts with a single conflating one, other than deliberately muddying the waters (reasonable for political purposes, not for defining people, per Ari). If "Religionszugehörigkeit oder Weltanschauung" is a distinct concept with German legal scope, it possibly could stand alongside the other properties, but not replace them. Original proposal seems to be more of a messy conflation though. Salpynx (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have asked here for religion or worldview (P140) to be expanded in meaning to allow this to be deleted. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Delete I came across this property and was about to nominate it before realizing it's already here. As others have said above, redundant to religion or worldview (P140), which should have broadened instead of forked. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  Delete as confused, confusing and redundant to more specific properties. Not to say that more specific properties are axiomatically better—I think many properties are actually better as more general properties with qualifiers, but that's apparently not "the done thing". If we're going to have thousands of narrower properties, then at least be consistent. Consistency is absolutely critical for Wikidata to be even vaguely useful. Inductiveload (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

P5420 (P5420)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that these two properties should be merged with a slight preference for keeping the older property — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

P5420 (P5420): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Needs to be merged to GS1 GPC code (P8957), which has a lot more metadata. I can migrate the values (the former has 122, the latter 45) —Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess the new property has a slightly larger scope. Otherwise, I would have kept the earlier one. --- Jura 21:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  Oppose deleting P5420 (P5420) and   Support deleting GS1 GPC code (P8957) instead. It is better to remove the newer duplicate property than the older one, as it is more likely that the old property ID P5420 (P5420) is used externally in e.g. SPARQL queries posted on other websites. --Dhx1 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Post-close notes

@Vladimir Alexiev: are you able to help migrate this data from one property to the other? And can you respect the preference stated above that P5420 (P5420) should be retained? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dhx1, MSGJ: I can migrate the values but I do not agree to retain P5420 (P5420) because it's wrongly defined (GPC has a lot more than "bricks") and the other one is described more richly, including 2 MnM catalogs. Migrating all this info is more work than migrating the values.
Dhx1, can you provide any evidence that P5420 (P5420) is used is SPARQL or anywhere else? If you want to delete GS1 GPC code (P8957) please make a RfD and promise that you'll migrate its metadata and values --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't really get MSGJ closure either, see Wikidata talk:Properties for deletion/P5420. --- Jura 13:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jura1, Vladimir Alexiev: personally I don't think it is important which way the merge happens, but I was trying to accommodate the reasoned preference of Dhx1 in the discussion. Of course the scope of the other property can be altered at the same time of the merge. Shall wait a few days for Dhx1 to respond? Otherwise, thanks for your offer to help with this Vladimir Alexiev — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The question is what is your view on the consensus in the discussion about the property listed for deletion, where three participants expressed a reasoned opinion on the question.
P8957 isn't listed for deletion.
If you seek to express your own opinion, please do not do so by closing property for deletion requests. --- Jura 20:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no opinion about these properties. I have never come across them before and I have never used them before. Please stop making ridiculous accusations. It is my role to interpret the consensus in the discussion. I have closed the discussion as merge, and we are now discussing how best to implement this. Like merging two items, it does not really matter which direction the merge takes place, as the end result will be the same. I do not care either way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of such things, but you seem defensive about the question. If the following are not relevant opinions, I suppose we can then ignore personally I don't think it is important which way the merge happens and trying to accommodate the reasoned preference from "20:03, 13 February 2022" and proceed with deleting the entity actually listed for deletion, i.e. P5420. There is no function to "merge" properties, we can just migrate values and then delete the property. --- Jura 14:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Dhx1, MSGJ, Jura1: I have transferred all values from P5420 (P5420) to GS1 GPC code (P8957) --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev, when you did this, you didn't copy references. Could you please copy references on P5420 (P5420) statements to GS1 GPC code (P8957) or self-revert edit group QSv2/76800 so that I can copy the statements over with their references? Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@Tol: which references do you find useful? Please give an example --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev: Agh; this was an oversight on my part. I checked fortified wine (Q722338), beer (Q44), and vinegar (Q41354), the first three property examples, and all had references, so I assumed there would be more; apparently only those three statements had references, of which only one was useful. I've moved it over. I'm so sorry for bothering you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I've removed all remaining uses of this property, as claims have been moved to GS1 GPC code (P8957), and requested its deletion. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Now deleted; archiving this discussion. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion/Archive/2022/4&oldid=1643248628"