Wikidata:Property proposal/Number of Supporters, Opponents and Absents
Number of Supporters, Opponents and Absents
editOriginally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | Number of Supports in a vote |
|---|---|
| Represents | Support (Q340406) |
| Data type | Number (not available yet) |
| Template parameter | "for" in en:template:Infobox UN resolution |
| Example | United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (Q2355527) → 12 |
| Planned use | I plan to add the data to wikidata using Harvest Templates, and then to connect this property to he:תבנית:החלטה של האומות המאוחדות |
- Motivation
I want to make infoboxes easier to fill in Mikey641 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
Comment There is 2330 United Nations resolutions, so it could be interesting to create and add in UN resolutions templates, like Infobox UN resolution and Ficha de resolución de la ONU. I searched in United Nations resolutions items and anyone have a similar property to show how many votes support or oppose the resolution, and how many abstentions were there. I am trying to participate more in talks about property so I prefer to read what other users think about it, because maybe I am forgetting something. But, summarily, create a property for that seems a good idea; I imagine that the property could be "Number of Supporters, Opponents and Absents" and then use qualifiers like "for", "against", "abstention", or whatever that might be necessary. Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión 
18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- What I originally ment was to add one property for "Supporters" one for Opponents and one for Absents but using qualifiers is actually a great idea. We can call the property "Number of votes" and then add the qualifiers.--Mikey641 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mikey641: Could you be specific what property and values you are proposing to use as qualifier? An existing property or are you proposing a new one? SJK (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- We have votes received (P1111) and a group of other election-related properties, which I guess we can use for this. But they are not used in a consistent way, as far as I can see. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment It might be more useful to actually name the actual members (member states in the case of UN resolutions) who voted in support, opposed or abstained. The three properties should be expanded to legislative bills in general as well. Because members of legislatures are (usually) notable enough using items as opposed to number for datatype should not be an issue. —Wylve (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- But it could be a tiresome work to create items for them all, if they do not have articles on WP. And in many cases, we probably know very little about them. We may know their names and which political party they represents, and not much more. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- It might take a long time and will never be complete, but if we want comprehensive data then it's better to know who voted. But also this: if the legislators themselves are not notable enough for Wikipedia, then I doubt the bill/resolution will also exist on Wikipedia. —Wylve (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe true, but we also have to take care of the scalability of our systems here. TAke one step back and look at elections in general. Take sv:Landstinget Västernorrland as an example. There you see numbers about every general election since 1916. The statistics we have about the 2014 election is huge. We know how people voted down to city block (Q1348006)-level. But in the 1916-election, we do not know the names of the legislators, we do not know how many votes they got. In the majority of these elections, we only know how many seats of the legislative body had people representing national political partys. We can therefor not even separate "independent" from "local political partys". The difference between 2014 and 1916 is not how "notable" these legislators are, it is a matter of how much information has been stored. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Of course the availability of data does not determine the notability of entities. In cases where there is insufficient data, we can always use the unknown value or leave it blank until better sources emerge. Ultimately Wikidata decides what and which kinds of data gets imported. My point of view is that some data is better than no data. We should provide a schema for 2014 data even if there is no 1916 data for the same claims. —Wylve (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- In this example, you see that every election from 1916 to 2014, has been regarded as "notable" for a section of an article in WP. But I do not know if one single legislative in Västernorrland has an WP-article. Naturally, since they are ~100 every three to four years during 100 years, at least some of them have an article. But I do not know where they can be found, since we have no category for legislatives in Västernorrland. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your point. Maybe we can have three separate properties for supporting, opposing and abstaining votes to indicate the number of votes, and another three properties to indicate the actual legislators with item type. But I would not use votes received (P1111), as that is reserved for elections not bills and resolutions. —Wylve (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- In this example, you see that every election from 1916 to 2014, has been regarded as "notable" for a section of an article in WP. But I do not know if one single legislative in Västernorrland has an WP-article. Naturally, since they are ~100 every three to four years during 100 years, at least some of them have an article. But I do not know where they can be found, since we have no category for legislatives in Västernorrland. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Of course the availability of data does not determine the notability of entities. In cases where there is insufficient data, we can always use the unknown value or leave it blank until better sources emerge. Ultimately Wikidata decides what and which kinds of data gets imported. My point of view is that some data is better than no data. We should provide a schema for 2014 data even if there is no 1916 data for the same claims. —Wylve (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe true, but we also have to take care of the scalability of our systems here. TAke one step back and look at elections in general. Take sv:Landstinget Västernorrland as an example. There you see numbers about every general election since 1916. The statistics we have about the 2014 election is huge. We know how people voted down to city block (Q1348006)-level. But in the 1916-election, we do not know the names of the legislators, we do not know how many votes they got. In the majority of these elections, we only know how many seats of the legislative body had people representing national political partys. We can therefor not even separate "independent" from "local political partys". The difference between 2014 and 1916 is not how "notable" these legislators are, it is a matter of how much information has been stored. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- It might take a long time and will never be complete, but if we want comprehensive data then it's better to know who voted. But also this: if the legislators themselves are not notable enough for Wikipedia, then I doubt the bill/resolution will also exist on Wikipedia. —Wylve (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done No support.--Micru (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)