Property talk:P598
Add topicDocumentation
for persons who are notable as commanding officers, the units they commanded
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P598#Value type Q176799, Q42889, Q17149090, Q6619802, Q18691599, Q645883, Q939616, Q18643213, Q18011131, Q48900561, Q177597, Q6382533, Q2008856, Q1040374, Q45364, Q955920, Q679165, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P598#Type Q215627, Q95074, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P598#Item P21, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P598#Item P106, search, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (commander of (DEPRECATED) (P598)) linked to [item B],
then [item B] should also have property “commanded by (P4791)” linked to [item A]. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P598#inverse, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P598#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P598#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P598#Item P39, search, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
Reverse meaning for the property
[edit]@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2:: If you want to use the property for both directions (unit → leader as well as the original leader → unit), you need to change the whole property definition, not just the description. Currently, the property requires the item where it is used to be a person (also, it requires the item defines the sex/gender and date and place of birth of the person), and the value of the property to be a military unit or a vehicle (erm). It simply does not allow the property to be used in the opposite direction. Also, the original request stated the meaning of the property quite clearly. I don’t think it is a good idea to combine two meanings in a single property and a new inverse property should be created instead; but in either way, as I said, it is not just a matter of changing the property description (or title). --Mormegil (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note the reverse property already exists: commanded by (P4791) -- Mormegil (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
consensus to delete
[edit]Per the RfD, this property is marked as deprecated and it will be deleted as soon as all data has migrated to position held (P39). --Pasleim (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, I will deprecate the reciprocal requirement for commanded by (P4791). Arlo Barnes (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- How long is this expected to take?StarTrekker (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Pasleim, Arlo Barnes, StarTrekker: I have boldly added an item-requires-statement constraint to position held (P39) to encourage speeding up the migration process. Duckmather (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. This property is useful for military leaders, and universal (contrary to P39). Infovarius (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note that the example in RfD - Q5777531 has 4(!) different positions instead of 1 common property - much harder to query. --Infovarius (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
P642 (P642) is deprecated as well
[edit]Now that P642 (P642) is also deprecated, I wonder how we want to migrate for the next time. — Midleading (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any consensus on this yet? I have half a mind to suggest un-depreciating this property now that the main suggested replacement has been removed. Pinging other users with experience in this property to see if we can form a consensus: @Infovarius:, @Pasleim:, @Arlo Barnes:, @StarTrekker:, or at least get some ideas for what to do now. — IntensionalLogican (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Personally I very much disagree with this property being depricated. Imho next time this site wants to deal with things likes these it should be brought up in a way for more people to give their takes. — StarTrekker (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- organization directed by the office or position (P2389) (see RFC) and represents (P1268) are the qualifiers used by the example item. I'm ambivalent about whether they are good enough to replace this property; and generally I think architectural debates about Wikidata should proceed from a query or auto-infobox point-of-view, as they are the main downstreams. For example, has anyone involved in WikiProject Military history (Q8486702) weighed in? — Arlo Barnes (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- If talking about commander of (DEPRECATED) (P598) I do support an un-depreciating for this property! — Pmt (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Do we need to undelete P642, or re-create the new P642 solely for this? Midleading (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- I feel like just undepreciating this property would be an easier solution.StarTrekker (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- I feel like just undepreciating this property would be an easier solution.StarTrekker (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Do we need to undelete P642, or re-create the new P642 solely for this? Midleading (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- I support un-depreciating P598. 1000mm (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- If talking about commander of (DEPRECATED) (P598) I do support an un-depreciating for this property! — Pmt (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)