Wikidata:Property proposal/military unit size
unit size
editOriginally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization
Not done
Description | size classification of military unit |
---|---|
Represents | military unit size class (Q21506450) |
Data type | Item |
Domain | Q176799 |
Allowed values | Q21506450 |
Example 1 | 1st Armored Division (Q163673) military unit size military division (Q169534) |
Example 2 | signals regiment (Q47423740) military unit size regiment (Q52371) |
Example 3 | infantry squad (Q47250366) military unit size squad (Q207063) |
Example 4 | Filo (Q62649248) military unit size squadron (Q679165) |
Motivation
editPermit connecting a military unit to the item related to its size. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
edit- Support David (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- From the examples, it appears that this would be used for both classes of units and individual units. For the latter, wouldn't this be redundant with P31? Or would the P31 value be changed to something else? --Yair rand (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- If P31 is an item with the new property already assigned, the specific instance wouldn't require it. For the first example:
- If 1st Armored Division (Q163673)instance of (P31)armored division (Q3032351) and armored division (Q3032351) military unit size military division (Q169534)
- then 1st Armored Division (Q163673) military unit size not used or 1st Armored Division (Q163673) military unit size military division (Q169534) (depending on current guidelines, see my note following)
- I am not sure exactly how Wikidata is handling these kinds of redundancies these days...whether instances inherit the properties of their class or if they are separately attached. As far as I have seen, there is not consistency. I am fine with actual implementation of the property matching whatever the prevailing method is, my point is only to bring it into existence so we can start attaching this information. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- If P31 is an item with the new property already assigned, the specific instance wouldn't require it. For the first example:
- Oppose Redundant with instance of (P31). /ℇsquilo 06:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Using instance of (P31) does not work with most of these examples. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Esquilo: Can you comment on my question below on how you would query P31/P279 values to determine the unit size of an item? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Using instance of (P31) does not work with most of these examples. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Arpyia (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems to me that instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279) is already enough to express the information currently. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: Your sentiment matches mine for a long time, but here is what I am struggling with, so perhaps you can help me out here: Nearly all non-identifier properties could be replaced with instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279), and I often see the argument made that a property should be deleted or not created because the information can be expressed already with P31/P279. And this is true, it can. But yet there is no policy that if it can be done at all with an existing property, that a new property can't be used, even if it offers an advantage. The fact is that while P31/P279 can express the literal connection between items, they are not good at providing context and they are difficult to reference correctly, as outside sources are not likely to tailor their descriptions and definitions to the structure of Wikidata classification. Distinct properties allow users, both machine and human, to more quickly access the data they seek. Using P31/P279 for example, a reader seeking the size of a unit would have to query each value of P31/P279 to ask it 'are you a size classification?', and this would potentially need to be done through several levels depending on how deep of a classification exists for the item. It would be an especially difficult problem to identify those items for which a link to a unit size classification has not been added yet (how recursively do you query the database until you give up?). On the other hand, a distinct property for 'unit size' would allow that information to be accessed directly from the item's page with no need for recursive queries, and both machine (by seeking the exact property) and humans (by reading the property label) would immediately be able to identify the desired information with a minimum of workload for both the user and the database. So a pretty simple example: Seeking the answer to this question, "What is the unit size of 223rd Squadron (Q62783320)?" If it has the statement 223rd Squadron (Q62783320) unit size squadron (Q679165) then a simple query 'return the value of P# (unit size) for Q62783320' is all that is needed. How complex would the query need to be if we only have P31/P279? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- While it is theoretically possible to replace all non-identifier with P31/P279 I think that the most obvious instance of (P31) for 1st Armored Division (Q163673) is actually military division (Q169534). If people wouldn't add that value anymore then the items wouldn't have a instance of (P31) claim and I would consider that problematic. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: Why is that more obvious than 1st Armored Division (Q163673)instance of (P31)armored division (Q3032351) or 1st Armored Division (Q163673)instance of (P31)military unit (Q176799) or 1st Armored Division (Q163673)instance of (P31)organization (Q43229) or 1st Armored Division (Q163673)instance of (P31)United States Army formation (Q66735962) or several others that could be listed? Why would people stop adding a instance of (P31) claim? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- A further thought, if your concern is that instance of (P31) will go absent, we can add a constraint to the new property that requires items with it also have a instance of (P31) property. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- armored division (Q3032351) does subclass military division (Q169534), so that information is included in the claim. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: But not several others (i.e. organization (Q43229)). I'm sorry, but instance of (P31) does not permit a controlled way to add a sourced claim without relying on several other tenuous uncontrolled links. A defined property remains the more elegant and direct solution to the requirement. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not done no consensus to create --DannyS712 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)