Wikidata:Property proposal/debated by
debated by edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization
Not done
| Description | a person who debates a motion as parliamentary procedure |
|---|---|
| Represents | debate (Q769584) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | motion (Q452237) |
| Allowed values | person (Q215627) |
| Example 1 | Aims and Objectives Resolution of the Constituent Assembly of India (Q63343205) → Mukund Ramrao Jayakar (Q6713023) |
| Example 2 | Aims and Objectives Resolution of the Constituent Assembly of India (Q63343205) → Hari Singh Gour (Q5657231) |
| Example 3 | Procedure for Election of Permanent Chairman of Constituent Assembly of India (Q63344761) → Purushottam Das Tandon (Q983057) |
| See also | moved by (P6939), seconded by (P6938) |
Motivation edit
Debating on a motion before an assembly is the most important step to propose something . This property will help create data about the seconders debaters who have participated in any parliamentary democracy. The more we can create data about motions and politicians who have actively participated in parliamentary democracy, a simple query will reflect how well an elected member engaged in the assembly. Bodhisattwa (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion edit
WikiProject every politician has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. Bodhisattwa (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Support Seems useful. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC).- Support This would be a very good edition to our coverage of legislation (Q49371). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I have a few different issues with this, as currently proposed. Firstly, though only minor, the "motivation" section seems to have been accidentally swapped with seconded by. More significantly, the examples given seem to conflate the outcome of a debate with the debate itself, and having something like Aims and Objectives Resolution of the Constituent Assembly of India (Q63343205) be both a "constitutional document" and a "motion" is likely to cause significant issues further down the line. It's certainly worth being able to record these things, but we need more thought as to the best way to do so. In most legislative systems there isn't as clean a 1:1 mapping between outcomes (e.g passed laws) and the various debates and motions that lead to them. We would also need to be careful not to end up with a solution that only works for a single type of legislative procedure. My suspicion is that if we were to have an item for any important debate itself (separate from the outcome of the debate), we could usefully use participant (P710) instead, with qualifiers to specify how the person participated (e.g. proposing or seconding a motion, giving an important speech, casting a certain vote etc), with much more flexibility that needing new properties for each of these. That also seems like it would be simpler to query for many of the common requirements. --Oravrattas (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Oravrattas:, thanks for pointing out the mistake in the motivation part. It was unintentional, mostly due to the tiredness of not having some good sleep for last few days. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, Aims and Objectives Resolution of the Constituent Assembly of India (Q63343205) is not a constitutional document, my bad!! Corrected it. It's a resolution. Sorry again. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Oravrattas:, thanks for pointing out the mistake in the motivation part. It was unintentional, mostly due to the tiredness of not having some good sleep for last few days. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support David (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Hrishikes (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Wait This property would need a good definition that species what it means. Does debating only refers to saying things in an full session of a parliament? Do committees count? Do debates outside of the parliament count? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)- Oppose would this list every member of an assembly? The assembly itself? It doesn't seem needed --DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Needs further clarification, per above. --Yair rand (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done while I did oppose this above, the last comment here was 195 days ago, and its clear that there is no consensus to create this property. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
