Property talk:P466
Documentation
person or organization occupying property
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P466#Type Q811979, Q82794, Q13226383, Q39546, Q58778, Q2775969, Q63959448, Q3895768, Q18247357, Q699405, Q43229, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P466#Value type Q43229, Q5, Q16334295, Q8719053, Q14514600, Q95074, Q14623646, Q4164871, Q21192438, Q63982911, Q11707, Q41253, Q1664720, Q70363582, Q16334298, Q39659371, Q27686, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (occupant (P466)) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P466#Contemporary, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P466#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P466#Scope, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
Conflict between description and constraint edit
Hi,
@Sergey kudryavtsev, Pasleim, Laddo, Docu, Zolo, H4stings: right now the constraint says « Value type class organization (Q43229) » but the description says « person or organization occupying a building or facility ». I think the sould at least add human (Q5) (and maybe more classes?) to the constraint, what do you think ?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
PS: nd for the first constraint, I suggest to replace the class architectural structure (Q811979) by the mother-class fixed construction (Q811430).
Support both requests, now that the constraint allows using |classes=;D -- LaddΩ chat ;) 19:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)- Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support for first request. Please, give a sample for second one. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sergey kudryavtsev: I'm not sure about the second one ; I looked (quickly) at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P466 where there is 40 items with fixed construction (Q811430). An other (better ?) solution could be to replace these values with more specific ones. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Chinese label edit
@Howard61313: I reverted your edit by changing the Chinese label from "承租戶" back to "占用者" because, as I said in the edit summary, "承租戶 (tenant) is too narrow and may produce ridiculous results". You reverted my reversion, and then changed Chinese labels to "入居者". You claim that "占用" may produce ridiculous results as well. Probably you think that 占用 refers to illegal actions. But 占用/佔用 is a neutral and legal term used in Taiwan (you may search for "合法占用" or "合法佔用" in Taiwan's judicial decisions). And the word "occupier" (referring to tenants, licensees, and, under certain conditions, owners) in en:Occupiers' liability in English law is translated as "佔用人" in Hong Kong legislation (see this). I don't know under which circumstances "占用" produces ridiculous results. On the other hand, "入居者" (added as Chinese labels by you) is not appropriate under some, if not many, circumstances. "入居者" means the person who lives in the place. But the value of this property may be a non-human subject (e.g., an organization) that uses this place for non-residential purposes. For example, the Wikidata property examples (P1855) of this property's current version are "Louvre Palace (Q1075988) > occupant (P466) > Louvre Museum (Q19675)" and "Mariinsky Palace (Q1229016) > occupant (P466) > Legislative Assembly of Saint Petersburg (Q2390550)". "入居者" is apparently not suitable to be used in these two situations. Another example is "a factory > occupant (P466) > a human or organization". "入居者" is also not appropriate. Therefore I think that "占用者" should be the Chinese label if no other more appropriate word is available. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Neo-Jay: Thank you. I appreciate you claim that "占用者" is used not because it's good, but because there're no better options. I will change the Chinese label only if better option is found.--Howard61313 (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Howard61313: Sorry that my opinion may not be clear enough. I did not claim that "'占用者' is used not because it's good, but because there're no better options". Let me be clear. I think that "占用者" is good, while "入居者" is not "good". And since no better option is available, "占用者" is the best one and should be used as the Chinese label. If you also agree that "占用者" is better than "入居者", I will change the Chinese label accordingly. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. Although I don't agree that "占用者" is better than "入居者" so far, but I do agree that there're no other better options than these two. As a result, I won't revert your edit until better option is found. -- Howard61313 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Howard61313: Thank you. I have changed Chinese labels from "入居者" back to "占用者/佔用者" and added "入居者" to Chinese aliases. Although you have not explained why "占用者" is not better than "入居者", I think that my edits are fine with you. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you too. Your edits are fine with me....for now (until options better than both "占用者" and "入居者" emerge). Howard61313 (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Howard61313: Thank you. I have changed Chinese labels from "入居者" back to "占用者/佔用者" and added "入居者" to Chinese aliases. Although you have not explained why "占用者" is not better than "入居者", I think that my edits are fine with you. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. Although I don't agree that "占用者" is better than "入居者" so far, but I do agree that there're no other better options than these two. As a result, I won't revert your edit until better option is found. -- Howard61313 (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Howard61313: Sorry that my opinion may not be clear enough. I did not claim that "'占用者' is used not because it's good, but because there're no better options". Let me be clear. I think that "占用者" is good, while "入居者" is not "good". And since no better option is available, "占用者" is the best one and should be used as the Chinese label. If you also agree that "占用者" is better than "入居者", I will change the Chinese label accordingly. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
French label edit
Following this request for comments, the French label now includes the male and the female form. PAC2 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)