Wikidata:Property proposal/size of unit under command
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
size of unit under command[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
Not done
| Description | property that represents the size (and type?) of a military unit under the command of a commander |
|---|---|
| Data type | Quantity |
| Domain | Human (Q5), Values of Position held (P39), and eventually others |
| Allowed values | numeric (but eventually empty/no value) |
| Allowed units | military units (like soldiers, archers, etc) |
| Example 1 | Pedro de Menezes, 1st Count of Vila Real (Q4290455) -> 1000 infantry (place:Ceuta, point in time: 21 August 1415) |
| Example 2 | Álvaro Anes Vieira (Q106444980) -> 600 mounted crossbowers (point in time: 21 August 1415) |
| Example 3 | João Pereira "Agostinho" (Q106429068) -> 300 squires (point in time: 21 August 1415) |
| Source | https://purl.pt/31516/2/ (for instance) |
| Planned use | data mining in old documents about 15th century conflicts (and other similar uses) |
Motivation[edit]
It allows us to include information in Wikidata about the combats and forces stationed at given points in time in a structured way. Darwin Ahoy! 22:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- I'm kind of skeptical of this. Especially the use of e.g. "mounted crossbowers" as a unit. Do we have examples of using exotic units like that elsewhere? Also, would this make more sense on battles rather than on people? BrokenSegue (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @BrokenSegue: This is 15th century warfare, and at that time it seems to be usual. It makes sense both on battles and on people. From what I've seen, theytend to keep the specialization, and not jumping from crossbower to scout or whatever (which is logical, if they have a specialization, that's what they do).-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- by unit I mean "as opposed to meter or kg" BrokenSegue (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @BrokenSegue: yes.. it's more "unit type" or something. You don't find useful to mark somewhere that a captain had X persons under his command, or that a battle involved forces of X persons? Maybe there is some way to write this information there that I'm not seeing.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- by unit I mean "as opposed to meter or kg" BrokenSegue (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @BrokenSegue: This is 15th century warfare, and at that time it seems to be usual. It makes sense both on battles and on people. From what I've seen, theytend to keep the specialization, and not jumping from crossbower to scout or whatever (which is logical, if they have a specialization, that's what they do).-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't we normally have an item for the military unit, with properties (like commander, size, type, events, etc.) on that item? This seems a bit indirect. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: The source I'm using says "person X commanded 600 soldiers". Apparently there is no way to properly record it on wikidata yet, so I'm using other properties that accept quantity, even if they are not really appropriate for that. I don't see the point on creating a Wikidata item for a temporary military formation that only subsisted for a few hours during a battle, and of which few information exist (the mentioned force of 600 men). It's not even helpful.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Wikidata isn't Wikipedia where it makes sense to have a high bar for creating new items. Creating new items to store information is the way to go. That allows us to have a uniform schema and also makes it easier to add additional information when other sources provide more information. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done - no support for the proposal --DannyS712 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
