Talk:Q5408158

Museums and other places people visit commonly have coordinates that can be shown on map. P159 is not commonly used for that, code on wikipedia side usually expects P625. For example, fr-wiki. Ipr1 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The place (geographical object) that people visit in this case is actually the building, i.e. Town Council's Prison (Q12373325). A museum or any other organization, as oppoesed to a building, generally isn't fixated to a location, it may operate in multiple locations at the same time or in different locations at different times. So P159 makes it clear what the coordinates are actually about. For instance, coordinates as a qualifier to P159 is also recommended for companies, another type of organizations (see here).

Understandably sometimes people simplify things and they may equate the museum and the building, but these nonetheless are always distinct entities. Wikidata item with all its valid statements is about one or another (unlike Wikipedia article that may mention related topics and otherways keep things fuzzier). As coordinates aren't characteristc to an organization then it doesn't make fully sense to have standalone coordinates statement in an organization item.

I doubt that less accurate data scheme should be chosen only due to limitations of a particular data consumer. Technically Wikipedia templates anyway can be adjusted to fetch coordinates from P159, too. If a template yet doesn't do so then you probably can still enter coordinates manually in an article (here they appear to be entered into frwiki article already). 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:C5F7:9B63:4BAD:6569 19:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Usually there are no separate article for the building but both institution and building are within same article. And what is more, it is the practice in wikidata: take a look at entities dealing with museums (for instance, museums in Greece), it is global practice to have coordinates in P625. Ipr1 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Random example: Q4785417. It is widely common practice to use P625. And it applies to non-museum entities as well. Ipr1 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia often doesn't have separate articles. In a Wikipedia article about museum it's probably fine to have a section about bulding(s) and other locations where it operates. There in a free-form text possibly even former use or other uses of the building can be mentioned briefly. But in Wikidata it should be made clear what each statement is actually about by placing each statement in respective item. For instance, in addition to coordinates, statements about architect or number of floors would be about building and not about musuem.

It is common to have standalone P625 statements in museum items, but I think this alone shouldn't be the reason not to try to clear things up, especially if spearate item/article for the building already exists. These standalone statements probably result mostly from automatic import of Wikipedia info. Such data is often preliminary and needs further cleanup anyway. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:B539:37E:B2B1:A4CD 08:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)