Property talk:P410
Documentation
military rank achieved by a person (should usually have a "start time" qualifier), or military rank associated with a position
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Value type Q56019, Q18325582, Q19476593, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Type Q5, Q95074, Q26401003, Q4164871, Q13002315, Q4271324, SPARQL
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 violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Contemporary, SPARQL
Replacement property:
Replacement values: vice admiral (Q4902790) (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#none of, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P410#Entity types
|
If property value equals to Da Jiang (Q839253) then claim military branch (P241) = People’s Liberation Army (Q200106) will be created automatically. Testing: TODO list |
(Help)
Violations query:
SELECT ?item ?value { ?item wdt:P410 ?value. ?value wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q18325582. FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item wdt:P1441 ?a. } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item wdt:P1080 ?b. } }List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P410#Fictional
|
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)
- 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)
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)
- I also think the type constraint is too restrictive, but for another reason. I would like to add the property to Q2961996 which is an instance of a position to indicate the military rank associated with the position. Amqui (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- IMHO this might not be the best way to model it, the same reason we don't have sex or gender (P21)female (Q6581072) added to items like mother (Q7560), actress (Q21169216) or nun (Q191808).--Stevenliuyi (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Stevenliuyi: How would you model it then? Amqui (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure. Maybe we could simply use Chief of the Defence Staff (Q2961996)subclass of (P279)general (Q5531647), or use has characteristic (P1552)? If people think military rank (P410) is the way to go, I'm also okay with it. I just think, ontologically, the relation between a person and a military rank is not quite the same as the relation between a position and a rank. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Subclass makes sense. Thanks. Amqui (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure. Maybe we could simply use Chief of the Defence Staff (Q2961996)subclass of (P279)general (Q5531647), or use has characteristic (P1552)? If people think military rank (P410) is the way to go, I'm also okay with it. I just think, ontologically, the relation between a person and a military rank is not quite the same as the relation between a position and a rank. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Stevenliuyi: How would you model it then? Amqui (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- IMHO this might not be the best way to model it, the same reason we don't have sex or gender (P21)female (Q6581072) added to items like mother (Q7560), actress (Q21169216) or nun (Q191808).--Stevenliuyi (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
wrong country[edit]
When checking values for Help:Import_NBD_from_enwikisource/lists/people, I noticed a few had values for navies other than the Royal Navy. There may be rare cases where it's correct, but generally it was an import error (ruwiki if I recall correctly).--- Jura 12:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Should post-captain (Q3399716) be used or replaced with captain (Q5036514)? There are currently 37 uses. --- Jura 17:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Honorary ranks[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Military History How do/should we model honorary rank? The now infamous Prince Andrew, Duke of York (Q153330) was recently stripped of military titles which includes "Honorary air commodore of RAF Lossiemouth". Rather than making a separate item to air commodore (Q407033), it seems sensible to me for a standard qualifier to use and mark a rank as honorary so that the same can apply to any rank. --SilentSpike (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SilentSpike: My personal opinion is that this should not be done with a qualifier. In US we have "Colonel" (as military rank) and "Honorary Colonel" (as honorable title). Maybe we could use title of honor (Q3320743)? --StanProg (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
military branch[edit]
P410 has currently 155k uses. While there are 82k uses that lack military branch (P241), most are still in recent centuries:
SELECT ?cen (COUNT(*) AS ?count) WHERE {
?item wdt:P410 ?value;
wdt:P570 ?d.
BIND(ROUND((YEAR(?d)) / 100 ) AS ?cen)
MINUS { ?item wdt:P241 _:b19. }
}
GROUP BY ?cen
ORDER BY DESC (?cen)
Accordingly, I think it still useful for most items. We could change the "item requires statement" constraint to "suggestion" constraint. --- Jura 08:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- All Properties
- Properties with wikibase-item-datatype
- Properties used on 100000+ items
- Properties with constraints on type
- Properties with contemporary constraints
- Properties with none-of constraints
- Properties with scope constraints
- Properties with entity type constraints
- Properties with complex constraints