Property talk:P17/Archive
Archive of Property talk:P17
2013 edit
Discussion edit
Where we can use this property? I'm not sure is it good to use this at list of communities in Manitoba. --Stryn (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand french but the French translation of this property is "pays" which has a description "division administrative". Is this correct? --Napoleon.tan (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Country or "located in administrative area" edit
See Wikidata_talk:List_of_properties#Country.3F. -- Docu at 06:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- There is a separate Property:P131 called "administrative unit". It's used to describe that an item is located in an administrative unit (city, town, village, province, district, county, etc). --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Values edit
Values of statements with this property should be countries, that is, item that include a statement "this is a country" or "this is a sovereign state". --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
How are we supposed to use this property in things like Kexholms län? It was a County of Sweden and Grand Duchy of Finland between 1617-1721. Today it is located in Russia and the Republic of Finland. -- Lavallen (block) 19:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Potentially, it could be added to the last three + "Swedish Empire". -- Docu at 23:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the "Grand Duchy of Finland 1809-1917" had such automony that I agree that p17 can be used. But can "Grand Duchy of Finland -1809" be used in p17? The only independance the Eastern part of the Swedish Empire had, was what it gained by it's distance from the rest of the nation. That is at least what I've been told. -- Lavallen (block) 05:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Once we have date datatype and qualifiers we can note this as being in all these countries at different times.
- Yes, Is's such things that hold me back from start using Wikidata "for real". This far it's only experiments. Are there any schedule of how far away such datatypes are? -- Lavallen (block) 04:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Name and description edit
The label is country, but the description says sovereign state. Are these not two different things?
Consider that London is in the country of England, and the sovereign state of the United Kingdom.
As we are, the data is messy due to this oversight. Danrok (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Use common sense and care. My opinion is that a non-sovereign state like Greenland and some others can be used, but I have no simple solution to the "Republic of China vs "Peoples Republic of China"-trouble.
- In the England/UK-case, I would prefer UK. -- Lavallen (block) 16:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- This may be due to that fact then when it was created, there were also properties named "state" and "province". The others were later superseded by Property:P131, but some of the UK ones were not adapted yet.
- Correct use for London would be P:P131="England", P:P17="United Kingdom". -- Docu at 16:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think this has been discussed in the PC before at least once...
- English does not have an unambiguous term for what we sometimes call a "country" and sometimes call a "(sovereign) state". Countries/states are things like the UK, France, USA, Canada, Japan, Mexico/United Mexican States, and so on (even though, technically, some might not actually be sovereign), while England the "country", Greenland the "country", Kansas the "state", the Republic of Tatarstan, Chickasaw Nation, and the Free and Sovereign State of Mexico are not. --Yair rand (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not always so easy for any part of the world, because we will have to work this out for all periods in time. For example, today London is in the sovereign state of the UK, but was in the sovereign state of the Kingdom of England from 927 to 1707, but that's a fairly simple one. Danrok (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Languages with "country" edit
This property has been added to a number of items for languages, such as Chakosi (Q34845), Koryak (Q36199), Bangolan (Q34862), Palenquero (Q36665), Twi (Q36850), Riksmål (Q37015), and Umbundu (Q36983), apparently to indicate the location of speakers, or perhaps the origin of the language. I think this might be bad practice, as it's quite ambiguous as to what the properties mean in these cases. Thoughts? --Yair rand (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Add a self-link to sovereign states? edit
In my view, it would be a good idea to add a self-link to sovereign states (e. g. so that the item Italy (Q38) has the property country (P17) with the value being again Italy (Q38)). This would not only solve the problem described at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P605#"Item country (P17)" violations, but it would also provide an elegant way to check whether an item describes a sovereign state. Thoughts? --UV (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sound like a good idea! -- Lavallen (block) 08:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have now requested this at Wikidata:Bot requests#Add a self-link to sovereign states. --UV (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a bit odd, but I agree. -- Docu at 20:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- What would be the point of this? If you were to self-link all countries with their own name, should you also link every person to their name, every city to its name, et cetera? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittenono (talk • contribs) at 00:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC).
- As to your first question: The point of this is to make automated checks much easier and to provide an elegant way to describe that an item describes a sovereign state. As to your second question: I see neither an appropriate Wikidata property, nor the usefulness of linking every person to their name, every city to its name, et cetera. --UV (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's a very bad idea that no experienced database manager would ever implement. Technical problems should not be solved by polluting the database with properties that are useless for the end user. Such kludges are also difficult to remove later when users get accustomed to them and programs depend on them. -- Bjung (t) 02:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Single Value edit
Why should there be only one value? I don't think this have to be correct as e.g. for big rivers like: Rhine (Q584). I think we should drop this regulation. --Sk!d (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- In general, there would be just one value. However, there are items where several values are appropriate, e.g. areas that span across borders.
- Currently only 0.06% of all items have more than one value. The question is if we use the report or not. In the later case, we can de-activate it. -- Docu at 06:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Or make a list of "false positive". -- Lavallentalk(block) 07:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- It would be great if we could get a report but on another page to work on where we could add white list. But we should remove the current block at the top of the page which says that more then one value is wrong. --Sk!d (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't really say "wrong". It says "Exceptions are possible" -- Docu at 07:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Bot task edit
My bot could change some common false values like in the list below please tell me if this is correct and if you would like to add something? e.g. I don't know what to do with Jersey (Q785) or Bermuda (Q23635).
--Sk!d (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I am not so sure about such examples as 'Puerto Rico', 'Hong Kong' and maybe some other. It's true that these are not independant states but the 'country' in infoboxes for these areas are often Puerto Rico and Hong Kong. I would be suprised to see country=USA in infoboxes about localities of Puerto Rico. This is less true in cases like England and Sachsen, but there can be exceptions. Historicly these states has been more or less independent and can maybe be used in itmes about historical locations. -- Lavallentalk(block) 08:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- All values are non historic there are special items for historic states: e.g. Kingdom of Saxony (Q153015). The description of this Property says "sovereign state of this item". If some Infoboxes do want another value they should not use this property but P131 instead or they should use their own value. I think that the values are false related to "sovereign". --Sk!d (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- I give you right about Sachsen then! -- Lavallentalk(block) 04:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- All values are non historic there are special items for historic states: e.g. Kingdom of Saxony (Q153015). The description of this Property says "sovereign state of this item". If some Infoboxes do want another value they should not use this property but P131 instead or they should use their own value. I think that the values are false related to "sovereign". --Sk!d (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't this property's purpose just be merged with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think this was an exception from that rule, and I think it make sense, since "land" tells what else among the statements are of importance. Looking for a "mayor" in Sweden is for example waste of time, and flags of cities and counties lack notability. -- Lavallentalk(block) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just have a look at Property talk:P131#Country an administrative unit?. --Brühl (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
new constraint type: self-reference edit
Hi! I noticed that Eswatini (Q1050) contains a "self-reference". This makes no sense to me. לערי ריינהארט (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Those were done fairly recently, though I don't know why. Maybe it was to resolve another constraint. I don't mind it too much; a country's geography and government is one of the few instances where I kind of think it's useful to have a top level item that includes everything under its scope including itself. And it's not like it's going to screw up categorization trees because everything is just one level away from the top of the country tree. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I could see this also at Singapore (Q334) . Haven't looked (in detail) at many geographical objects so far. לערי ריינהארט (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Background info: on the same page above and bot request . --Zuphilip (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
should we call this "sovereign state"? edit
I know that the word "country" is more common, but if this is limited to sovereign states, maybe we should call the property that to make it clear than this shouldn't be used on other types of countries. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Duplicating my comment from above:
- English does not have an unambiguous term for what we sometimes call a "country" and sometimes call a "(sovereign) state". Countries/states are things like the UK, France, USA, Canada, Japan, Mexico/United Mexican States, and so on (even though, technically, some might not actually be sovereign), while England the "country", Greenland the "country", Kansas the "state", the Republic of Tatarstan, Chickasaw Nation, and the Free and Sovereign State of Mexico are not. --Yair rand (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Yair rand: Isn't "sovereign state" the unambiguous term in English that includes France, USA, and Japan while excluding Kansas, Greenland, and Chickasaw Nation? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, at least not any more than "country" is. Is the "Free and Sovereign State of Mexico", one of the 31 states of the United Mexican States, an actual sovereign state? Not in the "country" sense. Is England a country? Not in the "(sovereign) state" sense. Note that we're clearly not using "sovereign state" as meaning "sovereign" + "state", as there are plenty of countries that aren't sovereign, yet we're not excluding them from the list. (Also, there might well be a few that don't really even qualify as "states", in the normal sense, but that's an issue for another time..) The term is no less ambiguous than "country", and comes with even more potential for confusion. --Yair rand (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Yair rand: I have to disagree, "sovereign state" is far less ambiguous than "country". If I was a new editor using this property and trying to decide whether to put "United Kingdom" or the name of some UK dependency, the term "sovereign state" would make it far more likely that I chose the UK and fell within the property constraint. The word "country" can have an immense range of meanings, including non-sovereign places like Greenland and UK dependencies, and, in some contexts, including any distinct geographic area (as in "I grew up in mountainous country"). Yes, the term "sovereign state" is sometimes used on places that aren't the same type of entity as Japan and France and USA, but it's still a far more precise term because it specifically excludes places like England and French Guiana and many dependencies. "Sovereign state" has a few of tricky cases, but "country" has an essentially limitless number of tricky cases. To say that one term is "no less ambiguous" than the other frankly seems like a huge exaggeration to me. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, at least not any more than "country" is. Is the "Free and Sovereign State of Mexico", one of the 31 states of the United Mexican States, an actual sovereign state? Not in the "country" sense. Is England a country? Not in the "(sovereign) state" sense. Note that we're clearly not using "sovereign state" as meaning "sovereign" + "state", as there are plenty of countries that aren't sovereign, yet we're not excluding them from the list. (Also, there might well be a few that don't really even qualify as "states", in the normal sense, but that's an issue for another time..) The term is no less ambiguous than "country", and comes with even more potential for confusion. --Yair rand (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Yair rand: Isn't "sovereign state" the unambiguous term in English that includes France, USA, and Japan while excluding Kansas, Greenland, and Chickasaw Nation? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Recent changes in the One-of-List edit
There are some recent changes in the list of possible values (one-of-constraint) withouth further discussion. @Arctic.gnome: Can you explain what you changed? @UV: Can you check the changes? I know that you checked the list 3 weeks ago for the Wikidata:Bot_requests/Archive/2013/07#Add_a_self-link_to_sovereign_states. --Zuphilip (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Zuphilip: I seem to have caused a massive number of constraint violations, so I probably should have come here first, sorry about that. The issue is Denmark (Q35) versus Kingdom of Denmark (Q756617) and Netherlands (Q55) verses Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999). Most P17 links are to the shorter-named European parts of the countries. I don't know much about Danish and Netherlander governments, but the way the entities are described in their Wikipedia pages, it sounds like Q35 and Q55 are constituent countries and the true top-level sovereign states are the two "kingdom of" items. For comparison, it's as if every reference to the UK linked to England instead. If I'm right about that, we're going to need a bot to change the P17 link to the "kingdom of" pages. If I'm wrong, the other possibility is that places like Greenland and Aruba are sovereign states under the same crown as Denmark and the Netherlands (like Canada and Australia are with the UK), in which case our links are fine the way they are. However I suspect that isn't the case given they way the Wikipedia articles are written and the fact that Greenland and Aruba aren't independent members of the United Nations. Evidence seems to point to the "kingdom of" items as being the true sovereign states. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not simple to describe the "Rigsfællesskab" since it's formal legal status is not the same as it looks in real life. Greenland and Faroe Island are sometimes "sovereign states" and sometimes not. Rigsfællesskabet is member of UN, but not in the Nordic counsil, where each part has it's own seat for example. The relation to EU is not simple to describe, since Greenland and Faroe Islands have a relation to the Union, but are not members. In every "country"-parameter I have seen in Wikipedia, Faroe Island, Greenland and Denmark has been used, not the "Rigsfællesskab". -- Lavallen (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind including some constituent states or dependent territories into the list, but what rule should we use? Should we include every territory that isn't directly governed by the central government? There are a lot of other places we could include, like Puerto Rico, Isle of Man, Niue, Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, Macau, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and probably fifty more. We should make some kind of rule explaining why we do or do not include any given place. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not simple to describe the "Rigsfællesskab" since it's formal legal status is not the same as it looks in real life. Greenland and Faroe Island are sometimes "sovereign states" and sometimes not. Rigsfællesskabet is member of UN, but not in the Nordic counsil, where each part has it's own seat for example. The relation to EU is not simple to describe, since Greenland and Faroe Islands have a relation to the Union, but are not members. In every "country"-parameter I have seen in Wikipedia, Faroe Island, Greenland and Denmark has been used, not the "Rigsfællesskab". -- Lavallen (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
2014 edit
Change this to be about modern countries edit
Some geographical items are listing more historical periods than necessary and it's a bit arbitrary to decide which historical governments should count as countries and which shouldn't. For example, there are German towns that have P17= German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, Allied-occupied Germany, East Germany, and Germany. I don't think towns need to list every type of government they have been uneder. I propose that we make this property specifically about what modern country the item is in. When we want to list historical countries associated with an item, there are other ways of doing it, like applies to jurisdiction (P1001) for government bodies and country of citizenship (P27) for people. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand the problem, but it will look strange to have "Ancient city of Karthago country (P17) Tunisia". -- Lavallen (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wikidata should not cover the present only, but also the past. We do not remove information about the profession of individuals just because that individual has retired or died and does not work in his profession any more. Likewise, we should not remove (or forbid) information about what countries an item was related to in history. When we want to find out the current country, we can use date properties on the country and/or date qualifiers on the country (P17) statement. --UV (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Al lot of information in infoboxes depends not on present, but on past, including, for example, place of birth and death. It should be possible to retrive correct person->place of birth->country information depending on person date of birth, that is used a lot in ruwiki infoboxes. -- Vlsergey (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I liked the single value constraint, see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P17&direction=prev&oldid=90834252 . I don't see advantages in splitting the property according to modern vs. historical states. And I believe it would become insonsistent from the beginning. On the other hand, I think that not every German town has to repeat the German history in its P17 values. --Zuphilip (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that each German town can have different German history... And I suppose it should be revealed. Infovarius (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- @UV: I don't think that analogy is apt. We should list the past professions of a retired person because that's what made them notable. For geographic features, on the other hand, their political history isn't what's notable about them. For example, on an item about a random lake in Italy, the fact that it used to be part of the Italian Republic and the Italian Monarchy and the Papal States and the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire is true, but what makes the lake notable is it's geographic location and its depth and its out-flowing rivers. I doubt many people using the data care about the political history of the county of every geographic feature. Maybe removing all historical countries isn't the answer, but I think we should at least set some rules about when a historical country needs to be listed and when we would be better off listing the modern country or using country of citizenship (P27) or applies to jurisdiction (P1001) instead. If, on the other hand, we do allow all past countries, we need to add hundreds of new items to our "one of" list to include all the countries that lasted for five years before being merged into something else. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- If we want to be able to use Wikidata to answer queries (such as: longest river in the Austro-Hungarian empire, deepest lake in the German Democratic Republic/in Czechoslowakia), then the easiest way is to add all historic countries. For many geographic features, their fate is not strongly linked to any country (a mountain does not change is height whether it happens to lie in China or Brazil), still we add the country (P17) information. If we do add country information to geographic features, why confine ourselves to the present and diminish the possibility to use Wikidata for queries? --UV (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- One of the main goal of wikidata is to be useful for wikipedias: interlinking, infoboxes, automated lists... We should consider the use of P17 in wikipedias, and at the moment they are used in Russian wikipedia. Ivan A. Krestinin, can you say what happens to your implementations if P17 has multiple values?
- The queries you outline IMO should be answered for example by using coordinates. This would mean coordinates for the geographical objects as well as the (borders) of the modern and historical countries. Moreover, the questions are not yet well-defined: For example, Czechoslowakia mostly splitted into Czech Republik and Slowakia. Thus, one would just take the union of those two for a query about the former Czechoslowakia. But if you go into details, you will see that Carpathian Ruthenia (Q1148511) was for some time (until 1939) also part of Czechoslowakia and now it belongs to Hungary. The longest river in the Austro-Hungarian empire would be Danube (Q1653) if it has not to be completely in that country. Otherwise one has also to consider that the borders did not remain the same over time. --Zuphilip (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- When I work with deprecated administrative divisions, is there two questions that are important. What was it a part of when it was alive? and where can it be found 'today? Kexholm County (Q1108072) used to be a part of Sweden, today it's former parts can be found in Finland and Russia. I do not know if it's very interesting to know that it has also been a part of the Russian empire and USSR, but I guess I have to add that too. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would "translate the infobox" in en:County_of_Kexholm into statements, i.e. something like
- Kexholm County (Q1108072) -> country (P17) -> Swedish Empire (Q215443)
- Kexholm County (Q1108072) -> start time (P580) -> "1634"
- Kexholm County (Q1108072) -> end time (P582) -> "1721"
- Kexholm County (Q1108072) -> "went into" -> Kymmenegård and Nyslott County (Q3278073)
- Kymmenegård and Nyslott County (Q3278073) -> country (P17) -> Sweden-Finland (Q3279296)
- Kexholm County (Q1108072) -> "went into" -> Saint Petersburg Governorate (Q49512)
- Saint Petersburg Governorate (Q49512) -> country (P17) -> Russian Empire (Q34266)
- etc. --Zuphilip (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and it shows some of the problems with this system. The svwp-article "Swedish empire" is not about a nation, it's about the history of a country. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lavallen, you could replace the link with the redirected sv:Svenska_stormaktstiden and create a new item for sv:Stormaktstiden as described Wikidata:Project_chat#redirects. --Zuphilip (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but how many would agree that the "Swedish empire" is another nation than the modern Sweden? We had a revolution 1772, but you cannot compare it with what transformed the Russian empire into USSR or what turned USSR into modern Russia. And the loss of the eastern parts of Sweden (i.e. Finland) did not technically changed anything then. It's today we sometimes name Sweden before 1809 as "Sweden-Finland". It was never any kind of Union between a Swedish and a Finnish state. The "Grand Duchy of Finland" existed already before 1809, but it wasn't until it became a part of the Russian empire it gained any autonomy worth mention. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Lavallen, you could replace the link with the redirected sv:Svenska_stormaktstiden and create a new item for sv:Stormaktstiden as described Wikidata:Project_chat#redirects. --Zuphilip (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and it shows some of the problems with this system. The svwp-article "Swedish empire" is not about a nation, it's about the history of a country. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Current implementation in ruwiki will show all values, but I an not sure, this is not my implementation. Some thinks: today we add historical information. Tomorrow somebody will add information about non-official division. After that alternative history information (Moskow <country> German with qualifier <wanted by> Adolf). After that fictional (Moskow <country> Galaxy Union Federation). And more another cases... Every new case will cause changes in every data client... I think this is way from database to datahell. Is there real task where is needed historical information? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- If qualifiers are added correctly, You can design a module that only gets the "current" or "latest" information. I have templates on svwp who will need both "present" and "historical" information, in separate parameters. Not P17 (yet), but P131. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Current implementation in ruwiki will show all values, but I an not sure, this is not my implementation. Some thinks: today we add historical information. Tomorrow somebody will add information about non-official division. After that alternative history information (Moskow <country> German with qualifier <wanted by> Adolf). After that fictional (Moskow <country> Galaxy Union Federation). And more another cases... Every new case will cause changes in every data client... I think this is way from database to datahell. Is there real task where is needed historical information? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Bad translation edit
In catalan language there is a bad translation. Country is translated as State. I tried to fix it, but it is protected. Please, correct the error. The correct translation would be País. Thnak you. Gavanzo (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Country property for international treaties? edit
Is this property the correct one to be used to list those countries which have signed a treaty? I would think not, that would obviously violate the single value rule, but is there any other property yet? So far the only item which lists the participating country is Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 (Q224794), but that used the equally wrong has part(s) (P527). Do we need a new property for this? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- The single value rule is often violated, and I do not think it should be considered a large problem to have such exceptions. Norway–Russia border (Q2661853) have two values for example, and I cannot see that it could be otherwise. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Description edit
Shouldn't the description be "sovereign state of this geographical feature/location"? --SamB (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Can we change this constraint to "value type"? edit
The property constraints for this item have lots of cases to go through and decide whether they belong on our list of countries. Is there an easier way of doing this? It seems like it should be possible to say that objects must be a certain type. Is there any class, in English or another language, that includes sovereign states and dependencies, but does not include constituent states? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- At the current time, no this is not possible since no single Q item groups all allowed "countries", and template:Constraint:Value type only supports one parent. However the good news is that statements on properties will be supported very soon; the domain might then be specified by an explicit API request, giving much more flexibility than the existing scheme. For example, a domain comprising sovereign state (Q3624078) and country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q15304003) and member of (P463) United Nations (Q1065) could be specified like this:
- Stay tuned. - LaddΩ chat ;) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)