Wikidata:Property proposal/branch or affiliate
branch or affiliate edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization
| Description | MISSING |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | politician (Q82955) |
| Allowed values | political party (Q7278) which have statement part of (P361) |
| Example 1 | Mary Abrams (Q100319948) → Democratic Party (Q29552) (Democratic Party of Connecticut (Q5255712) |
| Example 2 | Joe Bishop-Henchman (Q100327516) → Libertarian Party (Q558334) (Libertarian Party of the District of Columbia (Q17002282)) |
| Example 3 | Ralph Nader (Q193156) → Green Party of the United States (Q849158) (Connecticut Green Party (Q5161540) |
| See also | parent club (P831), affiliation (P1416), parent organization (P749), member of (P463), has subsidiary (P355) |
Motivation edit
This is mostly intended as a qualifier property for member of political party (P102). It has never been clear to me whether a politician should be considered a member of their state affiliate or the national party. This property would provide a solution to both. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Comment I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. There's the party a voter is registered with and for which you would be allowed to vote in primaries, which in the US would generally be determined by the state since states handle voter registration. But you can also be a member of the organization itself (paying dues, etc., which most voters do not), and in the case of New York that I'm familiar with, that local party organization is actually at the town (or maybe county) level, not the state. But dues-paying membership should probably be handled with member of (P463). ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: This is intended for the party a [person] is registered with and for which [they] would be allowed to vote in primaries [or caucus with], which in the US would generally be determined by the state [they live in]. You are right that member of (P463) would be appropriate for dues-paying organisations including local affiliates, but I am not really after that info. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand the suggested use, either. Taking the first example, Mary Abrams (Q100319948); she has member of political party (P102) → Democratic Party (Q29552) already; you are suggesting adding this new property as a qualifier on that statement, with the value of the qualifier set to (Democratic Party of Connecticut (Q5255712), right? How is that better than just adding a second statement, member of political party (P102) → Democratic Party of Connecticut (Q5255712) (assuming there is a reference to support her actually being an active member of her state party)? What value does the new property provide? JesseW (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This makes sense where you have state parties (US), joint lists (e.g. Israel: Yamina was, at some point, an alliance of New Right, Tkuma and Jewish Home, so a MK of Yamina was also a member of one of those three) or big tent unions (e.g. Hungary: some Fidesz MPs belong to sub-parties like Christian Democrats). However, since there is no unity constraint on the number of member of political party (P102) entries that a politician (Q82955) may belong to, this could easily be solved by a dual entry: e.g. for Joe Bishop-Henchman (Q100327516):
| member of political party (P102) |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| add value | ||||||||||||||||||||
- @MJL, ArthurPSmith, JesseW, Ari T. Benchaim:
Not done —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @MasterRus21thCentury: Has this been open that long? –MJL ‐Tauk‐☖ 20:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, no community consensus has been reached since October 2020. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)