Open main menu

Property talk:P5130

This property is being considered for deletion. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this property's entry on the Properties for deletion page.


island of location (DEPRECATED)
area of land where the element is situated
Representsisland (Q23442)
Data typeItem
Domaingeographical object (Q618123)
ExamplePieter Both (Q260580)Mauritius Island (Q2656389)
Bishop Rock Lighthouse (Q59082596)Bishop Rock (Q866344)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P5130 (Q52731382)
See alsocontinent (P30), part of (P361)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses26
Search for values
  Type “geographical object (Q618123): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “geographical object (Q618123)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5130#type Q618123, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
  Value type “island (Q23442), island group (Q1402592): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value island (Q23442), island group (Q1402592) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5130#Value type Q23442, Q1402592, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
  Property “located in or next to body of water (P206)” declared by target items of “island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130): If [item A] has this property with value [item B], [item B] is required to have property “located in or next to body of water (P206)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5130#Target required claim P206, SPARQL, SPARQL (by value), SPARQL (new)
  Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5130#scope, hourly updated report, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

updates neededEdit

Looks like many items using located on terrain feature (P706) need to be changed. Also P706 is included in many lighthouse lists. How do you plan to update all these?
--- Jura 08:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

What's the problem with using located on terrain feature (P706)?
I've removed location (P276), part of (P361) and located on terrain feature (P706) duplicates from items of geographical object (Q618123) that already have the new property. But there's still a lot of declarations to move and check. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
This needed to be better advertised. I'd echo the question: what was the problem with using located on terrain feature (P706)? Moving over the info to this new property means that it's removing the information from infoboxes that don't yet support this new one. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I have asked Therry a few times times without ever getting an actual answer. To me using located on terrain feature (P706) appeared both simple and obvious. Now it appears we'll have to learn and use a whole range of new properties, which will have to be supported by infoboxes etc too.--Hjart (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: can you comment please? I'd like to know the longer-term plan here too, are other location properties going to be proposed down the line? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This property and all it changes conserns me. Why should a group of Coastal defence and fortification (Q5138347) in Norway have if it is located on an island and if it is located on the Mainland. In addition it also carries the value requires statement constraint located in or next to body of water (P206). Pmt (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This new property is to help curb the little chaos created a long time ago by located on terrain feature (P706), which still has a lot of totally different things as values. The idea is to sort that mess a little bit by creating a few basic properties that make declarations more straightforward. Like here for the landmass (island of location). But there is no plan for other new location properties as far as I am concerned. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much everything that could easily be moved has been moved by the way. So the new property now has all the declarations regarding islands that before were held through location (P276), part of (P361) and located on terrain feature (P706). The stats and constraint violations should be automatically updated within hours. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This property should not be used. Use located on terrain feature (P706) instead. A LOT of templates depend on P706. /ℇsquilo 10:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Which ones? Maybe we can help you update them? Thierry Caro (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: What chaos was that? The only chaos I spotted was the need to move from using other parameters to using located on terrain feature (P706). I'm worried that we'll soon end up with "located on mountain" for telescopes, as an example, and templates will have to cope with even more properties just to put together a location string (as commons:Template:Wikidata location does, for example). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What's currently the most common instance of (P31) of located on terrain feature (P706) target items? Can you guess? No? Well, it's Serbian city (Q37800986). And the rest is pretty much the same. That, for me, is chaos. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like an argument to clean up uses of located on terrain feature (P706), not to create a new property... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, we've moved a few thousand values to a new basic property where they can have specific constraints. I believe this is cleaning. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand the need to create island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130) in order to deal with Serbian city (Q37800986)?. You've removed a lot of located on terrain feature (P706) that actually made good sense.--Hjart (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: Can you please explain why you have removed location (P276) from HKB Björnöy 31./976 (Q22677757). What exactly do you mean I shall change in template So it still can be used for all pages using this template? Pmt (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130) is there, there's no need to keep location (P276) anymore, as the former is a subproperty of the latter. This is why this has been deleted from this item. As for the Infobox, you just have to add -->{{Infoboks rad|{{{island|{{#statements:P5130}}}}}}|Island|{{{island|{{#statements:P5130}}}}}}}<!-- somewhere in the code, with the correct translations to Norwegian, in order to have a new line displaying the values. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: I think that is just an easy way around. There is also HKB 1./971 Svaerholtklubben (Q25923227) who also have instance of (P31) Coastal defence and fortification (Q5138347). And this costal fortress is not located on an island but on Q9080801. How shall I then show this in the infobox? Pmt (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pmt: If this is not on an island, the item hasn't been modified after the creation of the new property. So this should show in the Infobox as it did before. The new line in the Infobox does not impact the existing one. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: Let me see if am getting this right. You are saying that for an item who is for instance human-made landform (Q35145743) located on an island the item will have the property island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130) added and property location (P276) removed. So for Nysæter Church (Q11992857) located on an island

< Sagvåg (Q1890945)     > location (P276)   object or value >

will be removed and island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130) added for this item. Pmt (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, in that case, [1] looked to be necessary. Location should only be used for things that move around. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pmt: This is the idea. Yes. Thierry Caro (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  Comment I am really sorry for not giving up on this matter, but I feel that the way this property is used and the method from one single user introdusing this property and starting deletion of an other property is not fair to other users and their contribution. Pmt (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I do no understand your last sentense. Location should only be used for things that move around. Do you by Location mean location (P276)? Pmt (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was meaning location (P276), which has alias "moveable object location". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
No problem, but I would like to point out that for location (P276) "moveable object location" is just one out of ten aliases including amongst them are location of item, place held and based in for the English Version of the property. And the English description says location of the item, physical object or event is within. In case of an administrative entity use P131. In case of a distinct terrain feature use P706.
Kindly note that my comment is not ment as an attach on user:Mike Peel but as a needed comment to the use of island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130) and removing of location (P276) for items. Pmt (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Property island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130) in Suomenlinna (Q1292442)Edit

Hi! I am adding my edited comment I wrote on the user page of User:Thierry Caro on the trouble that I have with this property. I ran into these new definitions for islands and objects in Suomenlinna (Q1292442) that had been changed. The islands of Kustaanmiekka (Q5399296), Susisaari (Q16928377), Iso Mustasaari (Q11865193), Pikku-Musta (Q11888097), and Länsi-Musta (Q11880027) are now said to be island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130) of Suomenlinna (Q1292442). However, I find it difficult to realise that an island is located on another island. Earlier, the connection of the islands to Suomenlinna (Q1292442) was defined as part of (P361). The islands are part of (P361) neighbourhood of Helsinki (Q15715406) of Suomenlinna (Q1292442), part of (P361) fortress island (Q29968665) of Suomenlinna (Q1292442) and part of (P361) Cultural heritage site of national significance (Q29966257) of Suomenlinna (Q1292442).

It is also how our Wiki Loves Monuments data was modelled. Wiki Loves Monuments lists areas of interest (Cultural heritage site of national significance (Q29966257)) which include objects of interest. These objects are not necessarily directly listed as heritage objects. Using part of (P361) has been the primary way to include all objects within these areas of interest.

I do think that a more precise definition is a possible enhancement. It may also be necessary to split the meanings of Suomenlinna (Q1292442). Anyway, I think it's kind of reckless to mass edit established meanings and force users of the property to check and change all that data. I will revert the changes as they don't make sense, but I am sure this works somewhere.

Thanks for your attention! Cheers, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The use of fortress island (Q29968665) on Suomenlinna (Q1292442) is the origin of the mentioned problem. I'm not sure island of location (DEPRECATED) (P5130) is directly responsible for this, per se. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Return to "P5130" page.