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)