Property talk:P2028
Documentation
number assigned by the US military to soldiers and sailors as the primary means of service member identification from 1918 until 1974
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2028#Format, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2028#Type Q5, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2028#Entity types
|
Repurposing for wider coverage
[edit]It is being proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Service number to broaden the scope of this property, so that it applies to other units. Please join the discussion there. − Pintoch (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Is there still an idea to broaden this to other nation's military identifiers? Sam Wilson 10:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Reviving the discussion; User:Andrew Gray proposed a property for "Service number" of armed/security forces personnel. The proposal may be seen at: Wikidata:Property proposal/Service number. Many opined that would be better to re-purpose this property instead of creating a new one. I am reviving the discussion to arrive at a consensus. We have the sources to retrieve the service number, but there is no appropriate property on Wikidata. Pinging users who participated in the property proposal, @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), ديفيد_عادل_وهبة_خليل_2, Pigsonthewing, ChristianKl, Jura1, Pintoch: @Samwilson: KCVelaga (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have no problem either way. --RAN (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, I'd forgotten about this - it got a bit stuck last time around. Reading over the old notes, I think the past discussion at project chat and the property proposal showed three things:
- this property, as currently scoped, is very narrow, unlikely to be used much, and there is interest in a more general one that would cover all countries/services (with qualifiers!);
- to get there, most people preferred the idea of repurposing/extending this one over creating a new property;
- it wasn't clear if we could actually repurpose this one (in part because it would involve switching datatypes from external-id to string; I don't really know how that works).
- I think a generic service-number property with a qualifier to say what it refers to is still the best option but I don't know what would be the most appropriate method to get there and I have no preference as to how we do it (repurpose this or delete/create new). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Andrew Gray: Thanks for the comment. Pinging @Mahir256: to help us with this. KCVelaga (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Since this property is used only on nineteen items--far from being complete and without any clear indication that this property is still being added to items or is being used in other projects--it would not be difficult to add qualifiers (applies to jurisdiction (P1001) perhaps?) to make this property refer to a more general armed services number. Were it present on more items, or were there some technical issue to be resolved in widening this property's scope, I'd agree that a new property would be necessary. Let's wait for more people that are still around who voted on the initial proposal, and perhaps some who are still around who added some existing values of this property, to hear their thoughts. Mahir256 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Andrew Gray: Thanks for the comment. Pinging @Mahir256: to help us with this. KCVelaga (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- What would be the use case? BTW We don't "repurpose" entities at Wikidata. --- Jura 13:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jura1: You mean "use case" as where will the proposed property be used. I think then we should have a new property. KCVelaga (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Which items should have what values? Items seems to have dozens if not hundreds in mind you want to add. Can you detail them? --- Jura 09:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Sorry for missing this. Here are a few examples;
- Joginder Jaswant Singh (Q1895936) -> IC-16078
- Somnath Sharma (Q3595115) -> IC-521
- Joseph F. Farley (Q6282971) -> 1000
- William H. P. Blandy (Q2579087) -> 8247
- @Jura1: Sorry for missing this. Here are a few examples;
- Which items should have what values? Items seems to have dozens if not hundreds in mind you want to add. Can you detail them? --- Jura 09:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jura1: You mean "use case" as where will the proposed property be used. I think then we should have a new property. KCVelaga (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- The pattern of these number greatly vary from country to country, and also within different forces of the same country. KCVelaga (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Since it is just a numerical value, the number 1000 will be recycled by each county, I think we prefer having unique numbering. --RAN (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- United States of America-related properties
- All Properties
- Properties with external-id-datatype
- Properties used on 100+ items
- Properties with unique value constraints
- Properties with single value constraints
- Properties with format constraints
- Properties with constraints on type
- Properties with entity type constraints