Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/Pakistan Railways station code

Pakistan Railways station codeEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Descriptioncode to identify a railway station operated by Pakistan Railways
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameter"code" in en:Template:Infobox station
Domainrailway station (Q55488)'s in Pakistan (Q843)
Allowed values[A-Z]+
Example 1Karachi City Station (Q4373381) → KYC
Example 2Peshawar Cantonment railway station (Q7171369) → PSC
Example 3Lahore Junction railway station (Q3695748) → LHR
Example 4Islamabad railway station (Q15228858) → MGLA
Sourcevarious Wikipedia articles and references from the Pakistani government as may be found regarding this property
Planned useadd this to items for stations (especially a great deal which only have sitelinks to urwiki)
Number of IDs in sourceas many as there have been railway stations in Pakistan—around 1200, according to some estimates I found
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Robot and gadget jobsnot yet, though this is surely possible
See alsoIndian Railways station code (P5696), Amtrak station code (P4803), ESR station code (P2815), China railway TMIS station code (P1378)


The presence of this identifier is motivated by similar identifiers for the United States (Amtrak station code (P4803)), Russia/the USSR (ESR station code (P2815)), China (China railway TMIS station code (P1378)), and most recently India (Indian Railways station code (P5696)). Mahir256 (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


@Thierry Caro, BukhariSaeed, Obaid Raza: who might find this interesting.

Why can't be used station code (P296) with a qualifier? --Sabas88 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sabas88: If you would like to propose the deletion of the other four properties I mentioned (plus more of the sort), you are welcome to do so, but in the meantime having a separate property for this large collection of stations has its benefits, including the ability to easily define formatter URLs for each country on each country's respective property. Mahir256 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose for now, if there are reasons that how codes in this country are used in URL schemes, I would change to support. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nepalicoi (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Nepalicoi: Supporting just by adding such template is a pain in the ass, that won't help anyone to know how the potential new property will be helpful for us. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Mahir256: Please can you cite your sentenses such as "various Wikipedia articles and references from the Pakistani government as may be found regarding this property" with proper bibliographical references? Without references, I'm afraid that your sentenses can be mostly empty sentenses. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Liuxinyu970226: There are items for rail stations in Pakistan, such as Lahore Junction railway station (Q3695748) (hey, you edited that item!) that presently have a station code (P296) (derived from their respective enwiki articles) which could be converted to use this property. One can also derive lists of codes from old versions of the Pakistan Railways site (this does not mean that the codes are unused presently!--see page 6 here of a recent timetable). Mahir256 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, unless there's a use of this in URLs; at the moment, I can't find any uses of these codes in URLs anywhere on the web, not even on . As others say above, there is already a generic solution for when a custom formatter is not needed, and the data could be transferred very easily to a new property created for this purpose if this were the case. -- The Anome (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support consistent with others. There is no requirement for external-id properties to have a formatter url. --- Jura 05:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1: So link to$1.php is also good to go for you?! These subproperties without a defined target for them one-per-one are nowadays problem introducer instead of useful, that's why I won't nominate to have a property for Japanese Telegraph code "電報略号", even I know that that serves an item. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    I don't understand what make you conclude that. The proposed datatype isn't URL, but identifier as ISO 3166-2 code (P300). It's also unclear what problem that would introduce. LHR needn't be mixed with London Heathrow. --- Jura 17:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per @Jura1: -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, even without a formatter URL − Pintoch (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, as for other countries.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exilexi (talk • contribs) at March 11, 2019‎ (UTC).
  •   Oppose per Liuxinyu970226--DiMon2711 03:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. -- Catherine Laurence 14:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportAs we have the same for other countries. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)