Wikidata:Property proposal/merger

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

mergee

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

   Withdrawn
Descriptionobject that merged into the subject, that existed previously, so as to form an indistinguishable whole. Inverse of merged into (P7888). Use has subsidiary (P355) if the object stays distinguishable as a separate entity
aliases merger of, incorporated, integrated, assimilated, acquisition
Representsmergers and acquisitions (Q731112)
Data typeItem
Template parameter"merger" in en:Infobox organization, "merger" in en:Infobox political party, ...
Domainallowed values of the inverse property merged into (P7888)
Allowed valuesdomain of the inverse property merged into (P7888)
Example 1ExxonMobil (Q156238)Exxon (Q4781944) and Mobil (Q3088656)
Example 2Sun Microsystems (Q14647)Star Division (Q316875)
Example 3CDA (Q273749)KVP (Q1548365) and CHU (Q143058) and ARP (Q574747)
Example 4Friedrich Krupp AG (Q679201)Hoesch AG (Q883662)
Robot and gadget jobssolve inverse constraint violations
See alsomerged into (P7888) (the inverse), has subsidiary (P355), business division (P199)

Motivatie

[edit]

A, B, C and D being organizations:

A --
     \
       C -----
     /     \
B --        D

Currently merged into (P7888) and separated from (P807) exist, which can link from A (and B) to C, and from D to C respectively. I feel like we should be able to traverse back or forth between A and D, but that is currently not possible. The reverse properties "incorporated" (C "incorporated" A and B) and "split-off" (C "has split-off" D) could make that possible.

This property probably needs an inverse constraint with merged into (P7888), which leaves us with quite some constraint violations. I hope a bot could help fix them.

See also: proposal for split-off (permalink). --Strepulah (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MD Imtiaz Ahammad Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler RShigapov User:So9q User:1-Byte pmt Rtnf econterms Dollarsign8 User:Izolight maiki c960657 User:Automotom applsdev Bubalina Fordaemdur DaxServer Laurenz Sommerlad

Notified participants of WikiProject Companies

Discussion

[edit]
C --------------
     /     \
B --        D --
--FogueraC (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for the first figure I think, as they depict the same process. The thing is that replacing and merging are two very distinct concepts, the difference becoming more apperent in the following comparison: Bush replaced by (P1366) Obama < and > Bush merged into (P7888) Obama, the latter obviously being as wrong as it sounds gross. --Strepulah (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, replaced by (P1366) can be used for other things apart from organizations. But "B merged into (P7888) C" models the situation where C already existed before the merging. If your proposal is that "incorporated" is the inverse property of merged into (P7888), then it does not accept the example in the motivation. If your proposal is that "incorporated" models the example, then it is not the inverse property of merged into (P7888), but a subproperty of replaces (P1365) restricted to organizations. FogueraC (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is meant as the reverse of merged into (P7888). I figured it should work for the given example as well, since merged into (P7888) is also being used for that situation (see query). But if it is for entities that existed previously only, then I agree that the inverse should meet that requirement as well. I changed the description to reflect that. --Strepulah (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn

[edit]

So inverse properties are not ideal. Neither do links that only go one way I think, but something will be worked out in the future I assume. Until then the relateditems plugin will suffice. --Strepulah (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]