Wikidata:Property proposal/is supervisor of

is supervisor of edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Not done

Description	Is the natural person who is given instructions and/or orders by a supervisor in business, no profit, army, religion, public administration, academia (other than PhD).
Data type	Item
Example 1	James B. Conant → J. Robert Oppenheimer
Example 2	J. Robert Oppenheimer → Enrico Fermi
Example 3	Jérôme Fenoglio → Christophe Ayad
Example 4	Luciano Fontana → Aldo Cazzullo

Motivation edit

After the creation of Property:P7604 supervised by that I intiated, the reversed property "is supervisor of" would be highly useful and complementary. F.Gelati (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC), modified --F.Gelati (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Question can you add samples? How can one determine the context? ~~In any case, I think this is preferable over supervised by (P7604).~~ --- Jura 15:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the sample/explanation, I think P7604 is preferable, but I'm still curious how one should determine the context of the "supervision". For doctoral advisor (P184) it's given by the property definition. --- Jura 09:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answer I added the context in the ENG definition, please feel free to amend it --F.Gelati (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question who supervised whom in these samples? --- Jura 16:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need for a reverse property. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Support David (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answer In the examples the former supervises the latter --F.Gelati (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw that supervised by (P7604) changed names to "supervised by", and is clearer now. Great! Maybe just changing this proposal it to "is supervisor of" would make it clear that A is supervisor of B. TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC). Done, thanks for your suggestions --F.Gelati (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no need for inverse properties. --Pasleim (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like a relation that is better expressed by the existing inverse property. In the rare case where there's unique value in expressing the relation in this direction, and student (P802) doesn't apply, one can use significant person (P3342) with qualifier object has role (P3831), with values such as employee (Q703534), deputy (Q3250324), or assistant (Q23835475). Swpb (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@F.Gelati, Swpb, Jura1, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Nomen ad hoc, TiagoLubiana: Not done given that the proposal finds no support. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]