Wikidata:Property proposal/incorporated

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

date of incorporation[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Descriptiondate when company, organization or city was incorporated
Representscorporation (Q167037)
Data typePoint in time
Domainproperty
Example 1Walmart (Q483551) → 31 October 1969
Example 2Kroger (Q153417) → 1902
Example 3Suning.com (Q1895661) → 15 May 1996
Example 4Apple (Q312) → 03 January 1977
Planned usecompanies are incorporated way after there date of foundation and it's an important change in the state and structure of the companies, almost all big corporations today has gone trough that. Same can be used for cities all around the world.
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Single-value constraintyes
Wikidata projectCompanies, Economics, Organizations, Cities and Towns
Proposed byBeLucky (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation[edit]

Moving terms incorporated, incorporation date, date incorporated, date of incorporation, incorporated on date and year incorporated out of the inception (P571) as both are totally different things. One is establishment of anything while other one is change in state of business or city. So these terms can't stay in inception (P571). BeLucky (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

date of incorporation
Normal rank 1902 edit
0 references
add reference


add value
date of incorporation
Normal rank 15 May 1996 edit
0 references
add reference


add value

Discussion[edit]

'Incorporated date' : OK, but will there be confusion possible with city incorporation date (eg : https://calafco.org/sites/default/files/resources/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc) ? Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 21:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Bouzinac That's why we made things clear in the description of the property that "date when company or organization was incorporated". -- BeLucky (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Bouzinac But it's good that you pointed towards incorporated town (Q9283961) we can generalize the property for that too. -- BeLucky (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Bouzinac All we need to do is change the description to: "date when company, organization or city was incorporated". -- BeLucky (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bouzinac Looking forward for your support on this ... also added cities incorporation as per your good suggestion. - BeLucky (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

decidedly unsure This is somewhat specific to the US. In my small central-European jurisdiction, there is something like a three-month limit (not sure if by law or custom) where you can get started before you have to have the paperwork in order. In the case of Apple, specifically, it appears that it started with a different legal form before incorporating, i. e. some kind of partnership? In that case, how is that first date of incorporation different from any subsequent change in legal form? I can't quite make sense of this history section and it may just be a lots of name changes, but there's an Ltd before it's listed on a stock exchange, then there's a "Limited in Stocks" as legal form, a Suning Holding is involved, subsequent listings on different stock exchanges, government buyouts etc. In other cases there will be mergers, insane space-billionaires taking the company private, spin-offs, reverse mergers, and so on. Karl Oblique (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Karl Oblique The scenario you are explaining is of some countries only. It's different in all over the world. Plus as per @Bouzinac suggestion we are looking forward to make it more general with using cities incorporations too. -- BeLucky (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Lectrician1 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Pmt (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MD Imtiaz Ahammad Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler RShigapov User:So9q User:1-Byte pmt Rtnf econterms Dollarsign8 User:Izolight maiki c960657 User:Automotom applsdev Bubalina Fordaemdur DaxServer

Notified participants of WikiProject Companies,

Mcnabber091 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Note 1 PAC2 (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Rjlabs (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Datawiki30 (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Sidpark (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Mathieu Kappler (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Economics,

Notified participants of WikiProject Organizations and

User:Lectrician1 User:Pelagic User:Pallor

Notified participants of WikiProject Cities and Towns. Seeing if some others are interested in this. -- BeLucky (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

⟨ subject ⟩  Wikidata property  ⟨ object or value ⟩

I would prefer a default EN label "date of incorporation" as consistent with "data of birth", "date of death", etc. - PKM (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I agree, that would be good too. As I said in Motivation section: Moving terms incorporated, incorporation date, date incorporated, date of incorporation, incorporated on date and year incorporated out of the inception (P571), so we are free to pick best suitable out of them. -- BeLucky (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PKM looking forward for your support on this one. - BeLucky (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment not really convinced, how is this « different things ». Do you have an example where two separate properties are needed (otherwie, it just look like a cosmetic move from one porpety to an other for linguistic reasons). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about linguistics. From @VIGNERON point of view [[1]] as he said and I quote: "a large number of alias is a good thing, it helps navigation and discoverability." we should add all different type of Wikimedia projects names to just one item Wikidata (Q2013) or we say add all different type of Wikimedia projects names to each and every projects item names just for the sake of suggestion list as we type. There is a very blur line between similar aliases and non related items added in the name of alias just because someone didn't know the right word to use. Lets make it clear here what is wikidata (as mentioned on the very first page of wikidata): "Wikidata acts as central storage for the structured data of its Wikimedia sister projects including Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wiktionary, Wikisource, and others." with Structured data written bold. If multiple items/properties will have same aliases for the sake of navigation and discoverability because someone doesn't know the right word, then it destroys the meaning of structured data. -- BeLucky (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a semantic problem, please point it clearly. And please don't twist my words. If we follow your logic, should we have an infinity of items because 1 and 1.0, 1.00, 1.000 is different? obviously not, equally obviously we need more than one item and we do already have hundred million o fhtme when and where there is a need (same datatype as the existing property and no apparent conflict), here I don't see the need. It's up to the proposer to explain the proposal. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are just trying to establish the balance here. Kindly don't fetch it too far. We must have alias where they needed but not just for the sake of navigation and discoverability as you said. That's not the way. -- BeLucky (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And about, "It's up to the proposer to explain the proposal": "inception (P571) is establishment of anything while incorporation is change in state of business or city." already explained in the motivation & planned use. -- BeLucky (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support ~Namita (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @BeLucky: 1. Can you give an example of a company where Incorporation is different from Inception? 2. If accepted, do you undertake to migrate all existing values? I would support the proposal re Cities, but I don't think it is well justified for companies --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vladimir Alexiev 1. It's already there in property examples given 4 examples .... more can be given if you want. 2. I wanted to mention incorporation for companies that's why I proposed it. 3. Yes cities point make it more general and more purposeful. Regards. - BeLucky (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vladimir Alexiev All those dates mentioned in the example are incorporation dates NOT the foundation dates. - BeLucky (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vladimir Alexiev Here are the links to the information about the incorporation of some of the most popular corporations in the world:
    1. Walmart - [[2]]
    2. Kroger - [[3]]
    3. Apple Inc. - [[4]]
    4. Suning.com - [[5]]
    5. Wendy's - [[6]]
    6. Virgin Group - [[7]]
    7. Warner Bros [[8]]
    8. Suzuki [[9]]
    Kindly open these links to Wikipedia and search for the word "incorpor..." you will find all the relevant info there. Regards.
    - BeLucky (talk) 11:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vladimir Alexiev Sir, looking forward for your response and support on this one. Regards. - BeLucky (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see no virtue in speciating inception date for each special case someone thinks of - start of constrution, date of incorporation, whataver you come up with next. It's easily possible to represent the meaning of a P571 value by qualifying the statement with e.g. object has role (P3831) taking an appropriate value; and to have multiple qualified P571 statements for any number of inception dates in an item. The clear risk is that we merely move from supposed ambiguity about a single property, to ambiguity and confusion attaching to & between multiple speciated incept properties ... meanwhile, arguably, degrading ease of reporting by requiring report writers to understand that this sort of incept data is found over here, that sort of incept data is found over there; and again arguably degrading the contributor UI insofar as the user now has to choose from a deck of date properties rather than use the single property. To my mind, whilst I see the superficial attraction of more & more detailed properties, my experience of RDF leads me to the view that more & more tends to add all sorts of complexity and confusion without usefully solving any real problem, and instead I'd favour a better & better approach in which we use a using a simple deck of properties and properly qualify statements to convey meaning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tagishsimon Very first of all: If you can't even understand that inception and incorporation are completely different things then no one can convince you for anything in the first place. Let me put it here again which already said in motivation: inception is start/establishment of something while incorporation is change in state of business or city. They are not at all related in anyways. And this good approach of using one property for multiple related terms is crossing a boundary here, our learned fallows has to understand this. If we keep crossing that line wikidata is gonna be a mess with merging everything in everything just for the sake of convince. WikiData is structured data based project to organize all the data available in properly structured format , it's not a convince project. - BeLucky (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support with caveat that I prefer “date of incorporation”. - PKM (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PKM Changed the proposal name to date of incorporation as per your good suggestion. - BeLucky (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have done companies that were formed as partnerships and subsequently incorporated. In these cases “inception” and “date of incorporation” would be different. Today I use “significant event” qualified as “incorporation” but I would prefer as separate property. - PKM (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done date of incorporation (P10786) @BeLucky @Bouzinac @Karl Oblique @Pmt @PKM @VIGNERON @Tagishsimon @Vladimir Alexiev @BNamita Lectrician1 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/incorporated&oldid=1659076502"