Wikidata:Property proposal/Mascot of

mascot of

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

   Not done

Description	the organization, sports team or university of which this item is the mascot of
Data type	Item
Example	Stanford Tree (Q7598803) → Stanford University (Q41506)
Planned use	import organisations os already existing mascots

Motivation

It is already possible to indicate with mascot (P822) to say what the mascot is of that organisation/etc. But the opposite, indicating what the mascot is the mascot of, still is missing. Romaine (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment We generally try to avoid inverse properties except when they are needed for technical reasons. Do you need this property for a particular infobox, maybe? − Pintoch (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The most important knowledge of a mascot is what the mascot is the mascot of. For the infobox it is the number one thing. I tried to find another way to indicate this, but there is none. Mascots are not just something unrelated to other things, but strongly related and this data must be accessible to be used. Romaine (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    •  Support Ok, then. − Pintoch (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support David (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --LydiaPintscher (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Sadads (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose as an unnecessary inverse of mascot (P822). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The organisation the mascot is from is the most important fact for a mascot. How do you then propose to add this knowledge to items about mascots? I am open to alternatives, please tell me!
    Second, you say it is unnecessary inverse, but you do not give any argument for that. Basically you say that because we indicate what kind of mascot an organisation has (on a different item), we should stop with collecting knowledge. That is I think fundamentally wrong and the inverse of the goal Wikidata has. Romaine (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • We should try to not have any redundant data because this leads to inconsistencies and additional work to enter the data and maintain the data. Because you can derive "Mascot of" from mascot (P822) it is redundant data. It is much better if everybody works on the same property (e.g. "mascot") instead of splitting the efforts between two properties ("mascot" and "mascot of") resp. doubling the effort because all users will have to enter the data twice and providing two times a source.--Pasleim (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I am not agreeing this is redundant data, we also indicate for example on the item about a parent who the child is, and on the item of the child who the parent is. As well as part of (P361) - has part(s) (P527) who require to add both. And the current situation will lead to much more inconsistencies and additional work as contributors will look for other ways to add this knowledge. If we would create a separate property, that would give less inconsistencies and less additional work as it can be easily checked. Also if there would be a concern of extra work, this can be easily undertaken by a bot. If you are concerned about sources, without this separated property users adding the data are less likely to add on both items the sources, while with a separate property a bot can copy the same source if necessarily. So while you think (theory) that without a separate property it would cause less inconsistencies, practically it would cause a lot more inconsistencies and additional work. So what you try to prevent is that what you precisely cause. Romaine (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Andy --Pasleim (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Andy. Unnecessary inverses mean more errors. --Yair rand (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Support but no symmetry constraint. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mr. Guye: Are there situations where the data should be asymmetric? --Yair rand (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Andy. --Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Díaz ★ diskutujo 03:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Question Maybe it's me, but it seems like instance of (P31) mascot character (Q386208) of (P642) works just fine. Circeus (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Andy. --Beat Estermann (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose, per Andy. U 1F360 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• marking as  Not done, no consensus for creation. − Pintoch (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)