Wikidata:Property proposal/member of the crew of
member of the crew of
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation
| Description | Inverse of crew member(s) (P1029). Can be added to human items to claim that they have been a member of a crew associated with the target item. The scope is for any kind of crew (Q345844), in the sense of a mini-organization or social group, but typically operating a vehicle. |
|---|---|
| Represents | crew (Q345844) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | human (Q5) |
| Example | James Paul Moody (Q545805) → Titanic (Q25173) |
| See also | crew member(s) (P1029), backup or reserve team or crew (P3015), squadron embarked (P4624) |
Motivation
It's possible to list every crew member for a particular vehicle, etc., but a) crew member(s) (P1029) is restricted to astronauts (sometimes ignored in practice) and b) it may be unwieldy to list every notable crew member of a long-lived historic vehicle. Alternatively, the scope of crew member(s) (P1029) could be expanded to match the definition of crew (Q345844), or maybe it's desirable to both expand that one and also define this inverse property. See the current Project chat conversation: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2018/03#How_to_show_that_John_Andrews_(Q126052)_served_onboard_USS_Benicia_(Q2273142) Ghouston (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
The English label could be shorter, as "crew member of", although that's very similar to crew member(s) (P1029). Ghouston (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's desirable to have two different ways to do the same thing, i.e., for some vehicles listing their crew members on the vehicle, and for others listing the vehicle on the crew members. I'd say either the properties should be inverses, i.e., set on both the vehicle and the crew member, or we should go with either a) expanding the scope of crew member(s) (P1029), and not defining this item, or b) defining this item and deprecating crew member(s) (P1029) (or treat astronauts crews differently to other types, but that would be weird.) Ghouston (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Defining this category and deprecating crew member(s) (P1029) would be consistent with employer (P108), where the claim is made on the person and there's no inverse "employees" property for an organization. If inverse properties aren't needed for an employee relationship, they probably aren't needed here either. Ghouston (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Support Pmt (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)- Support David (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment I prefer to expand the scope of crew member(s) (P1029) to match the definition of crew (Q345844) --Pasleim (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)- Comment https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Naval_Biographical_Dictionary has plenty of related information that could be imported.
--- Jura 21:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC) - Support, I agree this is intiutively a fairly natural direction for this information (it is more consistent with other occupational properties). Once this is created, crew member(s) (P1029) can be proposed for deprecation. Pinging the participants in the proposal for crew member(s) (P1029): @Micru, ValterVB, Izno, Adert: @Paperoastro, Ivan A. Krestinin, Tobias1984, Byrial: − Pintoch (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support Indeed seems more consistent with our other properties. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch, Pmt, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Ghouston, Jura1, Tobias1984: @Pasleim: 
Done: member of the crew of (P5096). − Pintoch (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)