Property talk:P127

Danrok (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• But surely we'll have an owner field that can be used for a range of things that can be owned: buildings, businesses of all kinds (including sports teams, mentioned elsewhere) -- right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, of course many things have owners. A "parent organisation" is the owner its subsidiaries . I'd suggest getting owner in place, and in use for one or two types of things to begin with, then open it up to other types. Danrok (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Support for use here and elsewhere... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done It's here Property:P165, and can be used for organisations, and pretty much anything which has a legal owner. Danrok (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

We should have some guidelines for this property. For instance, it states that some brands are owned by some companies, but I am not sure it that is tecnically correct. The company may own the subsidiary in charge of the brand, it can also own the brand commercial name, but I am not sure either of these is exactly of the same thing as owning the brand. --Zolo (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that owning a subsidiary that owns a brand is not the same as owning a brand. The chain of ownership should be recorded as it really is. I guess we could call it a distinction between direct and indirect ownership. I think this property should be used for direct ownership, and as for indirect ownership I don't think we need a property, as this can be inferred from the chain of direct ownership relations.

As for the particular issue of owning brands, AFAIK many countries consider brands as intellectual property in the form of trademarks, which one can have legal ownership of, just as with other kinds of property.

Silver hr (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

should be merged with Property:P127 JAn Dudík (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Danrok (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll do a bot request Even though it requires a lot more edts, I think items using P127 must be moved to P165 rather than the other way round, as P127 is the more general property.--Zolo (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done [1] --Zolo (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, this one was apparently also about all sorts of owners at some point, so I kept this one. --Zolo (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

cf. Property talk:P126

Oui, voir just au dessus :). --Zolo (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Currently, "X owner Y" means "X is owned by Y" which is not very obvious. One could just as well (and possibly more likely) interpret "X owner Y" to mean "X is the owner of Y". Therefore, I propose that this property be renamed to "is owned by". Silver hr (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added "is owned by" as alias. Since the corresponding infobox parameter name is a noun, I think we should keep "owner" as label. This is a common problem for many properties - the verb form is easier to understand, while the noun form is used by the infoboxes. We should have a common approach. Mange01 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree about the need for a common approach for all properties regarding this issue. Has there been any central discussion somewhere? Silver hr (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not a 'problem' Mange01 -- there is absolutely no obligation here to create a property because an infobox has one, much less name it exactly the same as an infobox parameter. I support Silver hr's suggestion and am going to change it. I recently changed "employer" to "employed by" on the same basis. Espeso (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

To clarify my statement, a property does not have to be named exactly the same as an infobox parameter to be mapped to it. In any event, if you still disagree with the change proposed by Silver hr and implemented by me, feel free to revert and discuss. (Note I removed the word "is" in "is owned by" largely to make the property simpler to enter from the keyboard--if many properties start with "is", the dropdown list is big.) Regards, Espeso (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your note, it's an interesting problem. On the one hand, if we include the "is", then automated construction of natural-language sentences by using labels is possible. On the other, as you said, data entry is made a bit harder. Since I think that the ability to support automatic construction of natural-language sentences would be nice to have, maybe we could solve this by using sort keys? If they were implemented, that is. Silver hr (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

True. But... the present tense is a bit of a problem when we think of those poor famous people or organizations that are no longer with this. (We're supposed to get around the timeframe issue with "qualifiers" eventually, as you probably know.) I was about to change the label again based on your reasoning (since the alias without "is" serves as an alternate lookup anyway), then I thought of the present-tense "problem". Not worth spilling more ink over, one way or the other, for me. Espeso (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good point, temporal qualifiers do complicate the situation. I still think we could have automatic construction by looking at the qualifiers as well, but in any case, that kind of work belongs in the future. Silver hr (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• owner
• owned by

This is a condradiction

• XY is owner of zy
• XY is owned by zy

->I changed the english label to owner of--Svebert (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

In der deutschen Sprache wird unterschieden zwischen Besitzer und Eigentümer. Besitzer: Jemand der ein Land oder Haus mietet, pachtet, der Verfügungsgewalt hat. Ein Dieb ist Besitzer eines gestohlenen Gegenstands. Eigentümer: Jemand der der das Land/ Wohnung gekauft oder geerbt hat. Der Eigentümer bleibt Eigentümer eines gestohlenen Gegenstands, auch dann wenn er nicht mehr auftaucht, der Dieb oder Hehler ist unrechtmäßiger Besitzer.

Welche Definition trifft zu?--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

in aller Regel wird es um Eigentümer gehen, nicht um Pächter/Mieter (Besitzer). Habe das also geändert. Die Beschreibung ist vielleicht noch etwas holprig. Holger1959 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am using this property extensively for companies. However for companies it is usual, that company has majority owner holding some share (like 51% or 99%), and I want to add this info as qualifier. But I am not able to found any appropriate property. Any ideas ? --Jklamo (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

• proportion (P1107). —putnik 02:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can https://schema.org/accountablePerson have some overlap with this property? Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Infovarius: it seems to me like we get a mess when we start using inverse property label items outside of what they are created to do. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

is needed to express end cause (P1534)

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q108696628&diff=prev&oldid=1588429787&diffmode=source
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q108696628&diff=next&oldid=1588429787&diffmode=source

--Oursana (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"contemporary constraint

The entities Tintern Abbey and Cadw should be contemporary to be linked through owned by, but the latest end value of Tintern Abbey is 3 September 1536 and the earliest start value of Cadw is 1984."

From Tintern Abbey (Q1439379). This has gone wrong somewhere! Things can change overnership - the heritage organisation does not need to be as old as the heritage building! Secretlondon (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply