Wikidata:Property proposal/Ex æquo with

Ex æquo with

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Withdrawn

Description	person achieving the same rank at a competition
Represents	ex aequo (Q590503)
Data type	Item
Domain	human (Q5)
Example 1	Claude Cocozza (Q46492603) → concours d'entrée à l'École polytechnique (Q65150561) [ex æquo with: Francis Kretz (Q46510300)]
Example 2	Michel Fauquier (Q59195186) → agrégation d'histoire (Q2827277) [ex æquo with: Stéphane Van Damme (Q45832821)]
Example 3	Jean-Paul Dumont (Q3168472) → agrégation de philosophie (Q2827292) [ex æquo with: Daniel Pécaut (Q29969640)]
See also	together with (P1706)
Proposed by	Nomen ad hoc

I thought together with (P1706) could be use instead as a qualifier, but it actually doesn't seem to suit (see this discussion topic if you can read French). Hence I propose a dedicated property. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Sports: I've no such example but I assume that it could be useful for sport competitions. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Education: same as for educational tests or contests. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion

Support Speltdecca (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I read the French discussion with Google Translate, and recommend to go with the ranking (P1352) qualifier approach instead—just as mentioned in the WD:Bistro topic as well. It does not matter with whom someone shared a ranking in a competition. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ranking (P1352) is already in use. And so, according to you, follows (P155) and followed by (P156)'s claims are too useless regarding a competition... ? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I am not sure what you mean regarding P155 and P156. Both properties have neither been mentioned on this page yet, nor in the WD:Bistro discussion… —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is used to specify prior and following candidate ; so why not also a property for equal ones? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Now I have found some follows (P155) and followed by (P156) qualifiers on assessment (P5021) claims, but honestly I do not understand what they should to tell me…
I got your ping as a member of the sports WikiProject, and from that perspective the proposed property is not necessary. Usually we use participant in (P1344) claims with event items as values and ranking (P1352) qualifiers to indicate the final result in that event (competition), and I do not see any need for an "ex æquo with" in that field. We also do not use follows/followed by qualifiers in that context. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support David (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have difficulty seeing the purpose. If you read about a person, why would it be be interesting who have an equal ranking for something? --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose competition ≠ doctorate (Q849697) ?! We do not reach a level, like exam points, for a doctorate. Simply, we obtain the diploma or not from a college of professors and a witness. So your Property proposal is also made to determine if someone at the same grade as another. How many human relationships do you think there is on WD with your future property? Then, you do not want to know the precedent or the following as indicated by your comment. Useless property. —Eihel (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, who exactly spoke about doctorate, Eihel? And I never ever said that I "do not want to know the precedent or the following [candidate]"; I'm afraid that you seem to have misread my comments. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Support I vaguely recall having used together with (P1706) for sports competitions to express the same. It appears to me now that that qualifier isn't really suitable for this. It might not really matter with whom the rank it is shared, but a shared gold medal isn't exactly the same as a gold medal held by just one competitor. Checking the reference for one of the samples given above it appears that it is stated if the rank is "ex aequo" or not. Depending on the numbering system used, it can be useful to have an explicit way of tracking such ranks. BTW I'm commenting here as I have been asked to give my view on this proposal. --- Jura 23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not just use together with (P1706) and ranking (P1352)? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just have a look at the link given on the motivation, VIGNERON :). Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I did and I still don't understand where and what is the problem. If two people have the same rank, then they de facto are ex æquo. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If P1706 doesn't apply, how could we indicate the ex æquo person on a given item? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
« Mr X, rank 1 and Ms Y, rank 1 » is enough (and it's already redundant if you indcate the same follows for X and Y), why do need even more redundancy? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of sports events, I think one would use together with (P1706) for teammates, and “ex æquo with” for competitors who finish on the same rank for whatever reason. Yet I do not think that we need the latter (for anything related to sports, no idea about other uses). —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]