Talk:Q61892172
Autodescription — Baltimore–Washington Parkway (Q61892172)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Baltimore–Washington Parkway” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Items for subsidiary federal/state segments of Baltimore–Washington Parkway (Q453188) edit
- Background
This item was originallycreated to reflect a subsidiary segment of Baltimore–Washington Parkway (Q453188). The content of this item was reverted without discussion (the item itself redirected) with the following comment:
No discussion exists on the original item or on the en wiki to subdivide a contiguous roadway, despite this segment being a historic portion, especially when this change remains out of sync with and not reflected in the en & fr wiki articles, the KML file, in the OSM relation & on OSM, and the Commons category
No discussion was required to make an original good-faith contribution, and a large-scale reversion of such good-faith work with no discussion is itself objectionable. Therefore I have restored this item and initiated this discussion.
- Discussion
I support an arrangement of items where Baltimore–Washington Parkway (Q453188) is a parent item, with two subsidiary items relating to the federal and state segments, linked through the properties has part(s) (P527) and part of (P361). This represents the situation that prevailed prior to the initial reversion, except that the single item for the state entity had not yet been created. This is appropriate because the federal and state segments of the BW Parkway are identifiable subsidiary entities. They are mutually exclusive in geographic extent, and have separate ownership, maintenance, and long-term planning regimes. The federal segment does have a heritage designation (as noted), is a unit of the National Park System, and has been dedicated to the memory of Gladys Spellman (Q2045562), none of which features apply to the state segment. The two segments were last unified in the initial planning of the complete driving route between Washington and Baltimore, but diverged beginning with construction, which was performed by different agencies at different dates over a half century ago. Of course, it is entirely appropriate to recognize the singular driving route with an item, and is equally appropriate to recognize the distinctions between the federal and state segments with their own items. If one wanted to consolidate all those distinct data points into a single item, it would require an unwieldly system of applies to part (P518) qualifications. Cleaner and clearer to accomplish the same with three items.
Responding to specific points in the edit comment quoted above: there is no requirement for maintaining a one-to-one relationship between Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles; having such a requirement would seriously inhibit the functionality of Wikidata. In any event, the enwiki article does make a prose distinction between the two parkway segments, and structures the text around that distinction. The frwiki article references the distinction between the segments, but doesn't use that distinction as an element for structuring the article text. Wikidata also shouldn't maintain a one-to-one relationship with Commons or OSM objects, which could be created after the Wikidata items if so desired. The implication of the edit comment above is that Wikidata needs to be the final step in a coordinated set of contributions to an undefined number of open online projects - a Wikidata item cannot be created unless the various other projects recognize an entity with a separate object. Really? Surely not. — Ipoellet (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- In the absence of participation in this discussion by other users, I have proceeded with recreating a variation on the original item for the federal segment. I have attempted to incorporate the concerns expressed by User:Dcflyer in edit comments, including the one quoted above:
- I believe it is more productive to focus on the federal segment's status as a national park unit and less on subdividing the roadway route. The pre-existing item will continue to cover the entire route, while the item for the national park unit in effect simply happens to encompass a portion of the roadway.
- Cross-project connections beyond Wikidata have been created that will relate to the new item, including a Commons category and an OSM relation showing the national park boundary. (I do not know what KML file was referred to, so I was unable to account for that.)
- I have ensured that no constraint violations register in either the pre-existing item relating to the roadway (Q453188) nor the new item relating to the national park (Q65560560). (See edit comment here.)
- I hope and believe that these changes address the concerns that were expressed. If there are further matters of disagreement, I invite further discussion. — Ipoellet (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)