Wikidata:Property proposal/former operator
former operator
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization
Not done
| Description | entity, company, military service, or organisation which is notable for previously operated the item, aircraft, vehicle, or other equipment |
|---|---|
| Aliases | previous operator|last used by|formerly used by |
| Data type | Item |
| Template parameter | 'former operator' |
| Example 1 | DHC-1 ChipmunkRoyal Air ForceAir Experience Flight |
| Example 2 | British Rail Class 43railway companyBritish Rail |
| Example 3 | Boeing 747airlineBritish Airways |
| Example 4 | SEPECAT Jaguarair forceRoyal Air Force |
| Planned use | Military aircraft which are still in use by an air force of one country, but have notably been significantly previously used by one or more other countries air forces |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
Motivation
[edit]I am proposing this, because [[Property:P137]] can become significantly overcrowded in many items between '''current''' operators and their former operator(s). Creating this property will provide clarity to a casual reader, and a significant new data category for experienced Wikidata users, organisations, and statistical analysts. Regards Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Using time ranges with the existing operator (P137) seems preferable. Its certainly an approach that works well for ships, which frequently change operator, so
Oppose Vicarage (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC) - Oppose - use 'operator', with an end-date qualifier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. You don't even need to know end dates for former operators when using P137, you can just give the statement for the current operator a preferred rank and a reason for preferred rank (P7452) = currently valid value (Q71536244) or most recent value (Q71533355). Swpb (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- reason for preferred rank (P7452) most recent value (Q71533355) is a nuisance for items that are no longer being operated, as it confuses historical analysis. It makes more sense for items in current use which can have currently valid value (Q71536244), though there is still the problem of churn. Generally WD use of the word former, especially in descriptions, trips up historical use. Vicarage (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per time ranges qualifiers argument and "crowding" shouldn't be a reason for a new property. --IntensionalLogician (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose JhowieNitnek (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Not done, @IntensionalLogician, JhowieNitnek, Militum professio scriniarii, Pigsonthewing, Swpb, Vicarage: No consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. -- Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)