Property talk:P410

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


military rank
military rank achieved by a person (should usually have a "start date" qualifier), or military rank associated with a position
Descriptionmilitary rank achieved by a person. Use with qualifier start time (P580).
Representsmilitary rank (Q56019)
Data typeItem
Template parameteren:Template:Infobox military person
According to this template: person
According to statements in the property:
human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074) and individual animal (Q26401003)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed valuesinstances of military rank (Q56019). The rank should be specific, such as United States General, not generic General (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
ExampleGuillaume Henri Dufour (Q123238)general (Q670860)
Tracking: sameno label (Q42533270)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P410 (Q20990007)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses85,423
Search for values
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Value type “military rank (Q56019), fictional military rank (Q18325582): 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 military rank (Q56019), fictional military rank (Q18325582) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Value type Q56019, Q18325582, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Type “human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), individual animal (Q26401003): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), individual animal (Q26401003)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Type Q5, Q95074, Q26401003, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Item “sex or gender (P21): Items with this property should also have “sex or gender (P21)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Item P21, search, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
if [item A] has this property (military rank (P410)) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Contemporary, hourly updated report, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
This property is being used by:

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

Removed "highest"[edit]

I removed "highest" from the description, as it does not really make sense anymore, now that we can use qualifiers for dates. --Zolo (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And added that we should use start time (P580). --Zolo (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Subject expansion to "rank"[edit]

There has been talk in Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#religious_rank of expanding this property military rank (P410) to not be exclusive to a military context but instead just rank, with a strongly recommended qualifier of of (P642). Does anyone involved here have input on this matter? Involved in the original proposal for military rank (P410) were @Stevenliuyi: @Goldzahn: @Zolo: @NaBUru38: @Paperoastro: @Laddo: and @Docu:; more recent conversation has included @Giftzwerg_88: and @Tobias1984:. Thanks everyone. Sweet kate (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the main interest of using this property rather than position held (P39) is is that we know that it refers to something military. If we want to make it more generic, then P410 does not seem to have any benefit over P39. So I would say either create a new property or use position held (P39) (in the latter case, it may make sense to merge P39 and p410 as well). -Zolo (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I see your point that watering down military rank (P410) too much makes it meaningless. If we don't want to modify military rank (P410), I still think there is a strong case to be made for a separate religious rank property. I see rank as a fundamentally separate concept than position held (P39), especially in my original context of religious hierarchy. (If one thinks of karate, maybe the level language is clearer — when you are a black belt, is is something fundamental about YOU, independent of what job/position you have: assassin, security guard, gym teacher, etc. Similarly, you ARE a cardinal once you reach that level, and you HOLD a position as Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago.) I don't think merging with position held (P39) makes sense. "Religious rank" is both specific and clear and broadly applicable to a variety of religious hierarchies... but I don't seem to have convinced everyone at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#religious_rank yet. Sweet kate (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The difference between p39 and p410: p39 is for some extended time, with start and end, but a p410 is some achieved level in hierarchy. It is possible to have p39 without the appropriate rank (example: somebody may be elected pope who has not been bishop before, a simple soldier may hold the command in combat without appropriate rank). A general stays a general, even after retirement or in times he is not in command, Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst (Q71361) is bishop, but without any office. The ranks work the same in any hierarchy, so I´d like to support a generic use of ranks. If we do that, we should name it "rank in hierarchy", else people might mix it with the snak ranks of WD. The word hierarchy indicates the same time the necessity to qualify the hierarchy.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

police rank (Q19476593)[edit]

Would it be a good idea to expand this property to include police rank (Q19476593)? Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 04:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

type constraint[edit]

The type constraint to human (Q5) and goat (Q2934) seems a bit strange. @Sjoerddebruin:, why goat? I also noticed some fictional characters have the property, should the scope be widened to include them? Ghouston (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)