Property talk:P137

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search


person or organization that operates the equipment, facility, or service; use country for diplomatic missions
Description organization that operates the service, facility, ship, aircraft, missile
Represents operator (Q29933786)
Data type Item
Domain Infrastructure, service (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Allowed values organization (Q43229) (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Example Yamanote Line (Q693036)East Japan Railway Company (Q499071)
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Washington, D.C. (Q4373983)United Kingdom (Q145)
Tracking: same no label (Q42533334)
Tracking: usage Category:Pages using Wikidata property P137 (Q23908989)
See also maintained by (P126), owned by (P127), used by (P1535)
Proposal discussion Property proposal/Archive/1#P137
Current uses 81,092
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Value type “organization (Q43229), fictional organization (Q14623646), human (Q5), group of humans (Q16334295): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value organization (Q43229), fictional organization (Q14623646), human (Q5), group of humans (Q16334295) (or a subclass thereof).
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P137#Value type Q43229, Q14623646, Q5, Q16334295, SPARQL
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Relation with P:P126[edit]

As discussed in Property talk:P126, the difference between operator and maintainer may not always be clear in practice. Does it make sense to keep two separate properties ? Using qualifiers instead may provide something more flexible and simpler to use. --Zolo (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I discuss a case I know of, for a metro line or a railway you can have two distinct entities doing the maintenance and operating the line. In France maintenance of most of the railways are under the responsability of Q1071978 and lines operation under the responsability of Q13646. So it's not a good ideas to merge the two properties otherwise, we will not be able to fill all the data for those two examples and maybe some more. Greenski (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, then I think we should have better documentation of what is an operator and what is a maintainer. From what I understand, an operator is someone who uses an infrastructure (a telecom network, a rail line) and a mainteiner takes care of the infrastructure. Bus it seems that the labels and descriptions are rather similar in some languages, so I think the difference should be made clearer in the documentation. --Zolo (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We definitively should make sure that the descriptions are clear in all languages in order to create a clear distinction between the two properties. Greenski (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
In general this would apply to the business/executive type of operator, the highest level of the operations, the overall controller. So, I'd suspect that Réseau Ferré de France (Q1071978) is not an operator. Danrok (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
On second thoughts Réseau Ferré de France (Q1071978) may be an operator of some items. Danrok (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


What property should I use for the entity which is ultimately responsible of the service? For instance, the entity which chose or funded the operator? Archive of Editorial Production of Lombardy (Q19662348) is a service, mandatory by law (so by Italy (Q38)), which the responsible entity Lombardy (Q1210) commissioned to Biblioteca Europea di Informazione e Cultura (Q3639582). The "maintainer" would be the technical company which takes care of the hosting (not relevant for Wikidata), but what about the responsible/overseeing entity? --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Country as an operator[edit]

It has been suggested in several discussions that this property be used for the country that an embassy represents (with country (P17) used for the host country) e.g.

< Embassy of Georgia, London (Q16891022) View with Reasonator View with SQID > country (P17) View with SQID < United Kingdom (Q145) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
operator (P137) View with SQID < Georgia (Q230) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

however this is not permitted by the current constraints. Should the constraints here be changed? See also WD:PC#From an embassy's QID, get its represented country and previous discussions linked from there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

How about using an instance of government (Q7188) (which is a subclass of organization (Q43229)) instead of directly a country ?--Melderick (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Not a bad suggestion. It would work for the obvious cases like UK, USA, Georgia, etc. Would it work where there are competing entities for the government (I don't know how the government items for those countries are structured)? Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Expansion/clarification of scope[edit]

Per Wikidata:Property_proposal/Competent_authority I expanded/clarified the scope of the property in these diffs. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a good idea. If terminology may be the same in some languages, these are generally two different concepts. Please revert.
--- Jura 12:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Me neither but that seemed to be the outcome of the proposal discussion. I've re-opended that (unsure if it needs to be linked back in on any pages). Lets take the discussion there. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
That discussion was now closed with the conclusion that the definition should be changed here so I'll re-add that changes. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus for that. Who agreed to that? There is just no consensus for a new property.
--- Jura 17:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Well it was explicitly closed by @Srittau: as "don't create a new property, amend the labels on P137 instead". /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Can we see a reference for the 2nd definition? Other than P. who agree to it? --- Jura 06:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The second definition is explicitly not for the word/label "operator" but for the greater scope which it was suggested that this property should cover. Personally I don't think expanding P137 is the better solution but then that is what the Proposal ended up in. The current process (some people are involved in property proposals, another in patrolling existing properties) is problematic though since it means that issues such as these essentially end up being bounced back and forth in some kind of limbo. Do we need an RfC (yet another group of people who likely don't fully overlap with the other two) to resolve this? /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is the one from Wiktionary:
--- Jura 07:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jura1, Srittau, Pigsonthewing: So to follow up on this. Can we either agree to a re-labelling or would one of you mind raising an RfC about it since there is obviously a conflict between what was decided in the Property Proposal process and how it is being realised here. Personally I don't care which the outcome is but the current limbo prevents me from adding this type of data to Wikidata. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It might be worth formulating a proposal that better fits your immediate need. I think the term used might have been confusing due to some uses in the UK ("airport authority" and "London airport" changing roles).
--- Jura 07:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Well the proposal was essentially to fill the spot currently taken by P137 in and . Not sure I could have made it any more narrow while still being useful. For now I'll just use P137 but leave the current labelling as is. It's not a ideal but it works for now. This is the second time I've encountered clashes between the Property Proposal process and implementation on existing properties and with no existing avenues for getting this sorted I just don't have the energy to put the proposal back in just to likely see it end up back here. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)