Property talk:P598
This property is being considered for deletion. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this property's entry on the Properties for deletion page. |
Documentation
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, 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)
Now that of (P642) is also deprecated, I wonder how we want to migrate for the next time. Midleading (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)