Property talk:P749
Documentation
parent organization of an organization, opposite of subsidiaries (P355)
Description | parent organization of an organization (distinct from owned by (P127)) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Represents | parent company (Q1956113) | ||||||||||||
Data type | Item | ||||||||||||
Template parameter | Can be mapped to en:template:infobox company, with its field called parent. Also en:template:infobox airline, again the field is called parent. | ||||||||||||
Domain | organization (Q43229), fictional organization (Q14623646), project (Q170584), religious organization (Q1530022), recurring event (Q15275719), festival (Q132241) or center (Q68773434) | ||||||||||||
Allowed values | Companies - company (Q783794), Organisations - organization (Q43229) (note: this should be moved to the property statements) | ||||||||||||
Example | According to this template:
see en:British Airways and en:GE Capital. At the moment we can scrape divisions (such as en:GE Money), but not parent companies or subsidiaries. BA's parent company would be en:International Airlines Group, and GEC's en:General Electric. BA would then also be added as the parent company of en:BA CityFlyer, en:OpenSkies, en:British Airways Limited.
According to statements in the property:
When possible, data should only be stored as statementsAirbus Commercial Aircraft (Q67) → Airbus Group (Q2311) Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China (Q907098) → State Council of the People's Republic of China (Q59261) | ||||||||||||
Source | several infoboxes use this -- like the one given above (note: this information should be moved to a property statement; use property source website for the property (P1896)) | ||||||||||||
Robot and gadget jobs | Ideally this should be reciprocal with subsidiary, I would imagine, but that doesn't exist at the moment either (though I'm about to propose it too). | ||||||||||||
Tracking: same | Category:Parent organization same as Wikidata (Q42533284) | ||||||||||||
Tracking: usage | Category:Pages using Wikidata property P749 (Q23909078) | ||||||||||||
Tracking: local yes, WD no | Category:Parent organization not on Wikidata (Q101364584) | ||||||||||||
See also | part of (P361), parent club (P831), owned by (P127), member of (P463) | ||||||||||||
Lists |
| ||||||||||||
Proposal discussion | Proposal discussion | ||||||||||||
Current uses |
| ||||||||||||
Search for values |
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P749#Type Q43229, Q14623646, Q170584, Q1530022, Q15275719, Q132241, Q68773434, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P749#Value type Q43229, Q14623646, Q170584, Q1530022, Q16519632, Q70363582, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (parent organization (P749)) 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/P749#Contemporary, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P749#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P749#Scope, SPARQL
Non-company organizations
[edit]It should be changed to "parent organization" to include organizations which are not companies (as ministries etc.). --ŠJů (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, since "parent company" is defined by law, whereas "parent organisation" is ambiguous and can mean anything from owners to a larger group that the item belongs to. I would recommend creating a new property for "parent organisation". --Wylve (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Defined by law? Which law of which country? This is a multilingual project, and this property is not country-specific.--Underlying lk (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- What I was trying to say is that there are laws in many jurisdictions governing what "parent company" actually means. I don't think it is beneficial to made the scope of this property more ambiguous. —Wylve (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well then, can we get another property for "parent organization" and make this an instance of that? Because we end up using this for government organizations (as Andreasmperu notes below), nonprofits (see Zine Archive and Publishing Project (Q19979286) for example), etc. and the name here is misleading. - Jmabel (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- What I was trying to say is that there are laws in many jurisdictions governing what "parent company" actually means. I don't think it is beneficial to made the scope of this property more ambiguous. —Wylve (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Defined by law? Which law of which country? This is a multilingual project, and this property is not country-specific.--Underlying lk (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Both terms, "parent company" as well as "parent organization", have their sense, but we need to decide what of the two meanings we want to express. "Organization" is most wide term. Some (but not all) organizations are "companies". But some forms of entreprises are not companies (e.g. a "state enterprise" which has not the company form. Some organizations are not companies nor enterprises, typically non-profit governmental organizations, ministries etc. States, self-governing regions and municipalities can be conceived as "companies" in broader sense but not in strictu sense (as "trade companies").
The position of the parent organization can be various: the parent organization can be the "owner", or, more generally, the "founder". There is some distiction between the two terms. E.g. any club or association is founded by their members, and a subsidiary club by the parent club, but it is not exactly an "ownership" as in case of joint-stock company. --ŠJů (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Government organizations
[edit]Probably a good idea to extend the property to parent agency/departments. For instance, United States Department of Homeland Security (Q11231) for Federal Emergency Management Agency (Q503010). It does not seem practical to create another property for this purpose. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 05:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not clear when you should use parent organization (P749) compared to owned by (P127). I am presently using parent organization (P749) when the parent company has the controlling interest. This is in accordance with the present English description for parent company (Q1956113): "company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations". — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Same issue here. Harvest won't let me add parent organization (P749) and owned by (P127) seems for building only. Can somebody clarify ?--Teolemon (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- When an organization owns at least 50% + 1 stock of an other organization, it can usually be considered its parent organization (P749). How much the parent organization (P749) owns of its has subsidiary (P355) can be specified with owned by (P127) and its proportion (P1107) qualifier. The RedBurn (ϕ) 13:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Same issue here. Harvest won't let me add parent organization (P749) and owned by (P127) seems for building only. Can somebody clarify ?--Teolemon (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Military units
[edit]Should we use that property to indicate the parent unit (the formation of a higher level) of a military unit. For example the Regiment X is part of the Division Y, so the Division Y is its "parent unit"? Amqui (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"has" vs. "is"
[edit]I find this property a bit confusing. Does (A, parent-organization, B) mean that A has B as a parent organization or that A is the parent oragnization of B? --WiseWoman (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Parent organization versus part of
[edit]I started a discussion about the relation between this property and part of (P361) at Wikidata:Project chat#Parent organization versus part of, please comment there. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Inverse constraint
[edit]I have deprecated the inverse constraint (Q21510855) requirement that a value for this property have a corresponding has subsidiary (P355) statement.
In general a parent organization (P749) value may have many many constituent sub-entities. Normal wikidata practice is to record many to one relationships on the many items, not the one. So one should not (generally) expect an inverse statement. Jheald (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Adding "as qualifier" to property scope
[edit]I am working on a Wikiproject modeling statements about archival collections, where members of the WikiProject have determined adding parent organization (P749) as a qualifier to an archives at (P485) statement would be useful. (See an example of the proposed use at Q449515#P485.) At the moment, parent organization (P749) has a property scope constraint (Q53869507) with the only allowed property scope (P5314) being as main value (Q54828448). I see there is much discussion of how parent organization (P749) has similarities to part of (P361), which can be used as a qualifier according to its property scope contstraint. Additionally, there are currently 166 uses of this property as a qualifier. Would there be any objection to me adding as qualifier (Q54828449) to this property's scope? --Infopetal (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (Q7013890) already has parent organization (P749)New York Public Library (Q219555), I don’t see the point in repeating the same piece of information as a qualifier. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that statement is one we added added to items ourselves for NYPL research libraries and divisions, and we used parent organization (P749) and part of (P361) statements there so that all libraries and divisions and their relationships can be queried programmatically. Adding parent organization (P749): New York Public Library (Q219555) as a qualifier to archives at (P485) would be for human legibility when viewing or editing an individual item. A more illustrative example is Q118437842#P485, as in that case the larger library system is not clear from the statement's value or collection (P195) as neither clearly indicate New York Public Library (Q219555) in their name.
- Aside from this specific use case, is there a reason that part of (P361) can be used as a qualifier where parent organization (P749) cannot? Reviewing the "Parent organization versus part of" thread, it appears there is a lot of overlap with how these properties operate otherwise. --Infopetal (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)