Wikidata:Property proposal/ship's captain
ship's captain
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation
Motivation
[edit]For older ships, identification is sometimes done by name, flag and captain. The above would allow to add the last element to an item for a ship.
Somehow I thought we had a property for this already, but we only have a few related ones (see above). Notably P4791 is used on submarines, few civil ships use it (incorrectly). An option could be to add P39 statements to people, but it seems to me that it's preferable to add this to the ships directly. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 10:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Ships please help complete the proposal. --- Jura 10:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- I would love to see this property. But why would you use inception (P571) for a captain? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nortix08 (talk • contribs).
- Oh, sorry for that: it should be point in time (P585): I updated it. --- Jura 19:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nortix08 (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support If the captain has a WD entry it should be linkable to a ship item. We could also go vice versa and create "command held" for ship captains and other persons of authority. De728631 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support NMaia (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1, Christian Ferrer, Nortix08, De728631, NMaia:Why not make the scope of team captain (P634) to include ships? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Recording this is good, but this proposed property seems to have a lot of overlap with commanded by (P4791), and I worry that having two closely defined properties would cause confusion about the scope. Are we going to use this for all ships, and avoid using commanded by (P4791) for ships at all? Or use both on naval ships? Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Broaden and use commanded by (P4791) It will be to many properties commanded by, as the same can be used for a spacecraft, an polar expedition (where the leader was appointed). The opposite have allready existed by commander of (DEPRECATED) (P598) Pmt (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment chief executive officer (P169) could be another option. It's seems closer to the meaning, but still seems suboptimal. team captain (P634) might lead to translation problems. In any case, merely including it there based on the name in English (among others), I'm somewhat reluctant to do that. From the samples by @Nortix08:, I take it that this should be used for military ships replacing P4791, at least if it covers the actual captain. The meaning of ship captain seems fairly clear, isn't it? --- Jura 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this is one or the more intuitive for use with military ships. For merchant ships this proposal is definitely the better choice. Possibly a restriction should be made, which says that commanded by (P4791) should only be used for military units. chief executive officer (P169) is for a leader of a company and not comparable to a military leader and team captain (P634) is IMHO related to sports only. Nortix08 (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment There are cases where the ship captain is not the person in command of the ship, just the nautical captain, and the command is held by a noble man or military, but still not a commondore or commander of a fleet. On cruise vessel you will also have the staff captain. And you may have the supercargo. Pmt (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good idea, but it should be used with the qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582). --Cavernia (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support I think so with qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582).--Kette~cawiki (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose commanded by (P4791) is sufficient. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait not sure this is needed. What about crew member(s) (P1029) with qualifiers ship captain (Q849424) or using commanded by (P4791) as described above? The first option would also allow other crew members to be modelled such as First Mate etc. --Hannes Röst (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: I also think that P4791 would suffice. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC).
- @Nortix08: how should we resolve the overlap for military ships? Given the samples above, I suppose this should be used instead for P4791.
- As to the use of P4791, I'm not really convinced that assimilating non-naval ships to the military is a good idea. Similar to business enterprises, a separate property seems preferable. --- Jura 20:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite sure. Are non military ships commanded in a way the term commanded by (P4791) suggests it? Introducing this property for the use with any civilian ship, wether it'll be a merchant, trawler or cruise ship is possibly the best way to do it. Nortix08 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Nortix08: maybe @Nomen ad hoc, Tinker Bell: want to elaborate? --- Jura 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Simply agree with Nortix. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC).
- I think having one property for "captain of a civilian ship" and one for "captain of a military ship" is going to be very confusing - some ships will be both at different times in their career, so will need to use both properties, and some like Queen Anne's Revenge (Q247567) or USAHS Marigold (Q7865742) do not fall neatly into a "military vs civilian" divide. It will be less confusing to say either a) use commanded by (P4791) for all ships, military & civilian (no new property needed); or b) use this new property for all ships, and keep commanded by (P4791) for military units & formations. It will be a lot easier for us to be consistent that way. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I simply think P4791 can cover all of these cases, not just military ships. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- "simply" doesn't really tell us much. Civilian ships are not military units and a ship's captain is a specific function, similar to a chief executive officer (P169) or team captain (P634) for similar roles that may be called differently or the same. --- Jura 02:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I simply think P4791 can cover all of these cases, not just military ships. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think having one property for "captain of a civilian ship" and one for "captain of a military ship" is going to be very confusing - some ships will be both at different times in their career, so will need to use both properties, and some like Queen Anne's Revenge (Q247567) or USAHS Marigold (Q7865742) do not fall neatly into a "military vs civilian" divide. It will be less confusing to say either a) use commanded by (P4791) for all ships, military & civilian (no new property needed); or b) use this new property for all ships, and keep commanded by (P4791) for military units & formations. It will be a lot easier for us to be consistent that way. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Simply agree with Nortix. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC).
- @Nortix08: maybe @Nomen ad hoc, Tinker Bell: want to elaborate? --- Jura 20:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not quite sure. Are non military ships commanded in a way the term commanded by (P4791) suggests it? Introducing this property for the use with any civilian ship, wether it'll be a merchant, trawler or cruise ship is possibly the best way to do it. Nortix08 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- As to the use of P4791, I'm not really convinced that assimilating non-naval ships to the military is a good idea. Similar to business enterprises, a separate property seems preferable. --- Jura 20:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Nortix08: given the additional comments, what's your preference of naval ships? --- Jura 10:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- To keep it as simple as possible we should keep commanded by (P4791) for both, naval and merchant ships. When adding a description to cover them both it should be fine. Nortix08 (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Nortix08: I see. Personally, I'm not really in favor assimilating civilian ships with military units. Of course, if other contributors add data, all the better. --- Jura 11:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- AsAndrew Gray mentionend: If there is a ship transferred from a merchant to a naval ship it'll be very difficult to handle it. Disregard my first vote and now count me in for Oppose Nortix08 (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Nortix08: I think it's a corner case. Personally, I'd either include all naval ships or use there only if nothing else is specified. I don't really have preference between that. I suppose in that case, I can remove your samples from the proposal. --- Jura 12:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Also bear in mind ships like IMO 5059953 (Q1032840) who served as a navy/government troop transporter during the Falklands war The next day, her captain Dennis Scott-Masson received a message asking his time of arrival at Gibraltar, which was not on his itinerary. When he called at Gibraltar, he learnt that the Ministry of Defence had requisitioned Canberra for use as a troopship. Canberra sailed to Southampton, Hampshire where she was quickly refitted, sailing on 9 April for the South Atlantic. There is also [[1]] merchant marine (Q865132), showing the use of civilian as naval ships. Pmt (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- The question is if there is any added value in including it in the other property or if a separate property would make handling its content easier. --- Jura 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done Clear lack of consensus. JesseW (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)