Wikidata:Property proposal/Competent authority

Competent authority edit

   Not done
DescriptionThe authority which is tasked with performing the function or managing the area.
Representscompetent authority (Q5156302)
Data typeItem
ExampleBothnian Bay Water District (Q25346184)Kalmar County Administrative Board (Q25349864)
Kalmar County (Q103707)Kalmar County Administrative Board (Q25349864)
See alsooperator (P137), part of (P361)
Motivation

Looking around I couldn't find any property that represents this type of relationship. The closest I found was:

  • operator (P137) (similar but limited to equipment, facilities and services),
  • part of (P361) (used in similar situations but works badly when relating objects of different character).

I could also imagine this being used for the relationship between military organisation/command/unit and the area they are responsible for (e.g. War II Air Districts and Numbered Air Forces and similar.

An alternative name could be: Responsible authority /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

/André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @André Costa (WMSE): I think it's a labelling issue - look at the (English) description and aliases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: You might be right. But I would both have to add Responsible organization as an alias and amend the description to something like "person or organization that 1) operates the equipment, facility, or service or 2) implements or enforces the decision or law ". That second one feels like a pretty big expansion of the scope of the property and still doesn't really cover the "responsible for the area" aspect. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Ok I've now [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property%3AP137&type=revision&diff=361597656&oldid=361596578 expanded/clarified the scope of operator (P137) so consider this proposal withdrawn. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1, Pigsonthewing, Thryduulf: And reopening per this revert. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remain opposed, per my previous comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@André Costa (WMSE), Thryduulf, Pigsonthewing:   Not done, consensus seems to be that this is a labeling issue with operator (P137), please correct it there. --Srittau (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the changes there. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]