Wikidata:Property proposal/adopted policy

adopted policy edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

Not done

Description	policy formally adopted by an organization
Represents	policy (Q1156854)
Data type	Item
Domain	organizations, political parties, governments
Allowed units	a standard type of policy
Example	Reed College (Q1140775) → Sanctuary campus (Q28405427) California (Q99) → three-strikes law (Q1637292) United States of America (Q30) → One-China (Q608889) nuclear program of Israel (Q27281) → policy of deliberate ambiguity (Q7209701) Republican Party (Q29468) → School choice (Q2248822)

Motivation

Meant only for formally adopted policies, that can be succinctly described by another Wikidata item.Pharos (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A first look at the description doesn't make it immediately obvious to me what the property is about. Can you revise the description to be more clear and informative? ChristianKl (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The example at least could be captured by instance of (P31), I don't see the need for a new property for this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pharos: This seems backwards: organizations may adopt many policies on any number of matters, but policies are typically only adopted by a few noteworthy organizations — might the inverse, "policy adopted by", be more practical? --Swpb (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Swpb: I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that only a few noteworthy organizations might adopt a given policy; there are probably hundreds or thousands of municipalities in the United States that have adopted a sanctuary city (Q3559093) policy, for example.--Pharos (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true – either way you cut it, there are going to be some instances with many values. I lean toward agreement with ChristianKl that the inverse property would be more practical, but I definitely support the creation of this relation in some form. I think the inverse would work better, but the proposed form would be better than nothing. --Swpb (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This would lead to many statements for countries. I would rather store this information in the item about the policy than in the item about the country. ChristianKl (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: I think in most cases the policy wouldn't actually go on the country item, but on the relevant government agency. For example, United States Department of Homeland Security (Q11231) → Executive Order 13769 (Q28543928).--Pharos (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't this inverse to legislated by (P467)? I think it's better to avoid inverses. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Matěj Suchánek, Pharos, Pharos, ArthurPSmith: Not done. The proposal is quite old and hasn't gotten support. User the inverse property legislated by (P467) as Matěj Suchánek suggests. ChristianKl (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]