Wikidata:Property proposal/cabinet

has cabinet

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

   Done: has cabinet (P12443) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Value is the advisory committee to the item's head of state.
Represents	cabinet (Q640506)
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Allowed values	instance of cabinet (Q640506) or advisory council (Q4686848)
Example 1	United States of America (Q30) → United States Cabinet (Q639738)
Example 2	United Kingdom (Q145) → Privy Council of the United Kingdom (Q683120) (has part(s) (P527) → Cabinet of the United Kingdom (Q112014))
Example 3	Quebec (Q176) → Executive Council of Quebec (Q2993943)
Example 4	Portugal (Q45) → Council of Ministers (Q16850120)
Example 5	Japan (Q17) → Cabinet of Japan (Q529012)
Example 6	Australia (Q408) → Federal Executive Council (Q2988632) (has part(s) (P527) → Cabinet of Australia (Q2028178))
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
See also	member of cabinet (P5054), a qualifier for position held (P39) to show which cabinet a person belongs to. executive body (P208), which is sometimes used to link to the cabinet but can include other parts of a government.
Distinct-values constraint	yes

Motivation

The existing property executive body (P208) gives two examples: Israel (Q801)executive body (P208)cabinet of Israel (Q2578249) and Brazil (Q155)executive body (P208)Federal Government of Brazil (Q5440531). But these are not equivalent. The "government" is the broad term for the executive branch, including the civil service. The "cabinet" is a committee that advises the head of state and gives instructions to the civil service. Both should be linked on a state's page, but from different properties. I suggest keeping executive body (P208) for "Government of XYZ" and creating a new property for cabinets. We already have a property called "cabinet" (member of cabinet (P5054)), but it is meant to be used only as a qualifier, and should probably be renamed to something like "cabinet membership". --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: I renamed the existing "cabinet" property to "member of cabinet" to avoid confusion. Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support, an important property for policy.--Arbnos (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
•  Support, I have found myself confused with the use of executive body (P208) before and I highly think this property will be valuable. DownTownRich (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Ok, this is reasonable given that member of cabinet (P5054) exists. However one or both proposals need to be renamed to avoid confusion!! ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have since changed P5054 to "member of cabinet" in English. We could further distinguish this new property by calling it something like "highest executive committee", but that might be more wordy than it needs to be. Arctic.gnome (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  @ArthurPSmith:, would you like to give your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose first off this is very confusing with the existence of member of cabinet (P5054) second as proposed shouldn't this be a statement on an office/position and not on a country? BrokenSegue (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I renamed P5054 to "member of cabinet" in English to better distinguish it. My proposed property would go on countries/states to serve a similar function as legislative body (P194) and highest judicial authority (P209). To link a position in cabinet to the cabinet itself, I think we could simply use part of (P361). --Arctic.gnome (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @BrokenSegue:, would you like reconsider your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  sure. i retract my opposition.  Neutral now. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Arctic.gnome:, policy of property creation saying that You should not create a property (or close the proposal as ready) if you are the only person to have voted on the proposal. here you are proposer, and you marked as ready! Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, I've removed ready status. It had been sitting in the proposals for over a year with no comments, so I figured I was supposed to do something. -- Arctic.gnome (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  @ZI Jony: Where do you read that proposers cannot mark the proposal as ready? "the only person to have voted on the proposal" clearly applies in a situation in which only one person supported the creation (and this is not the case). In WD:Property creation I read instead: "Updating the status can be done by anyone". --Horcrux (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Horcrux:, that time 2 supported, 1 opposed was vote casted. And, I believe proposer couldn't mark the proposal as ready in that situation! Where policy saying to voted person not to mark the proposal as ready, how proposer allowed to mark it? Updating the status can be done by anyone, he/she not required property creators rights. If you would like to discuss about the policy, we could discuss on the talk page of Wikidata:Property creation, or Wikidata:Project chat. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 12:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @ZI Jony: The policy does not say that who voted cannot mark the proposal as ready. This holds only (read the "only" word in the green sentence that you youreself are quoting) when the proposal was supported by just one user. In case there are multiple supporters for the property, the proposers are allowed to mark the proposal as ready (and I don't see why they shouldn't).

  Then, you might argue that this proposal shouldn't have been marked as ready in any case since there was an opposer, and I would agree with you, but that's another argument. --Horcrux (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, you are right. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Arctic.gnome, Arbnos, DownTownRich, BrokenSegue, ArthurPSmith:  Done has cabinet (P12443) Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 12:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)