Wikidata:Property proposal/Partially located in the territorial entity

Partially localted in the territorial entity edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

Not done

Data type	<item-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Template parameter	(none directly but would help a lot with handling the location parameters of some infoboxes
Domain	places
Allowed values	administrative territorial entity (Q56061)
Example	<Mauricie National Park (Q1798539) partially localted in Saint-Roch-de-Mékinac (Q3463280)
See also	territory overlaps (P3179)

Motivation

located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) is marked with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)transitive Wikidata property (Q18647515), which makes pretty good sense for inference. When the item is itself an admninistrative entity this constraint implies that P131 means that "the whole item is located within this administrative entity". But when the item is not an administrative entity, the property is also used to mean "is partially located in the administrative entity". . For example Mauricie National Park (Q1798539) has 3 located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), and it is not wholly contained in any of them. This is rather inconsistent and not inferrence-friendly. A simple fix would be this "partially located in administrative entity" property.

It would also help with slightly bizarre cases like Tours (Q288) that has located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) canton of Tours-Centre (Q913072) and canton of Tours-Est (Q743594) while canton of Tours-Centre (Q913072) and canton of Tours-Est (Q743594) are entirely within Tours (Q288). People apparently do it because they think of cantons as higher-level division that communes.

Zolo (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have hundred of problems with that P131 is regarded as a transitive Wikidata property (Q18647515). The property is 4 1/2 years old, and I still cannot see how it could be that. With that implication, you cannot use it at all in Q34. And I still cannot see how we in states that aren't federations like US and Germany can have a hierarchy between different types of administrative units. Our districts here are today the smallest of our administrative units, but their borders do not match with any other higher level of administrative division. They often do, but far far away from always.

My solution to this is that P131 should end being regarded as a transitive property. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Innocent bystander: the transitivity comes from the assumption that P131 means "entirely located in". Knowing that has lots of potential uses, for instance showing the location in template en:Template:Infobox Telescope (en:Five hundred meter Aperture Spherical Telescope).

There are many cases where an administrative division is entirely within a larger one, like France: commune->département->région, Italy: comune->province->region, China: town->prefecture->Province... But there are also many cases where it is not, so I think a second property would be a useful clarification. --Zolo (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And is that true, also historically? When the Swedish communes were founded in the 1860's the parishes were intended to always be located totally inside a commune. But they were both changed independently, resulting in a big mess which the authorities had large ambitions to keep up with, but failed brutally. For many years Vetlanda City and Vetlanda rural municipality were both located inside Vetlanda parish.

The province of Blekinge and the county of Blekinge today exactly matches each other, but that has not always been true. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how about territory overlaps (P3179) ?
--- Jura 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only solution I can see that helps us here is to add "all" types of administrative units in every item. Tour Eiffel should have not only P131:7e arrondissement, but every administrative entity that can be found in the area. Then we get rid of the problem that entities can overlap and the hierarchy is only partial. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Oh, I had never seen territory overlaps (P3179) it seems exactly what I had proposed. I suppose this proposal can be retired. Now data have to be cleaned up. --Zolo (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Innocent bystander: in France, départements were from the start (1790) made subvided into communes, and régions have always been made of départements. Technically, some départements are no longer in régions and some places are no longer in any départements, but still a département cannot be in two different regions (some intermediate levels may be more messy. And the pre-1789 situation even more so.).

I think putting every administrative division in every item looks a bit confusing, and makes it harder to build simple Wikipédia templates. If we just call the P131 property, in a template it will show a long unsorted list. But it is true that in some cases, we will need to to just that, so the templates should probably be able to cope with it anyway. --Zolo (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The templates I have designed for svwiki do just that. It looks for every item in P131 that has P31:Q127448 to find the communes, every item who has P31:Q193556 for the provinces and P31:Q21721343 to find the districts. The template do this at the same time as it avoidw claims with an "end date". To find the counties it first looks for P31:Q200547 in P131 and if there is none, it looks into the communes and lookup which county it is located in. It is also difficult to tell if provinces are located inside counties or if counties are located inside provinces. This source shows that some provinces are smaller than counties and some counties are smaller than provinces. I was born in Småland who has almost all of three counties inside it and smaller parts of two other counties. Now I live in Västernorrland county, who has all of Medelpad province inside it, and almost all of Ångermanland province.

Even if the districts almost always are much smaller than the communes, there are many places where the borders differs to some extent. That is because the borders of the districts were locked to how the parishes looked in 1999. The borders of the communes has changed since then, but the districts hasn't. It was decided that the borders of the districts never will change in the future. But the borders of the municipalities are changed whenever somebody finds a good reason.

Before 2000, Sweden also had another hierarchy, connected to the national Lutheran church. And the borders of the dioceses neither matched those of the provinces or those of the counties. Luckily we do not have to bother with that as a present administrative division. But they definitely were a historical administrative division of the nation. They still exists, but only inside the church. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I also made a module in frwiki that looks for the right type of administrative division, but that looks for the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) in the item in located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Sadly, all wikis do not have this sort of template.--Zolo (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my template also do that. It first look into the main item itself to see if there is any county or province there. If there is none, it looks for a commune in the P131 and go to that item to look for counties and provinces. It (in present time) works fine to find the right county, but it could potentially add wrong provinces for those villages who are located in communes that are located in more than one province. Therefor I today always put P131:province directly into the village-item. I do not have to do that when the commune is located in a single province, but I have no list of "single province communes" and that list could easily change, without telling us. The village of Läppe in the 90's became larger, making the communes of Vingåker and Örebro changing their borders to fit all of the village inside Vingåker. Suddenly the border between the communes and the provinces did not match each other any longer. The village was located in one single commune again, but was located in two provinces. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zolo, Jura1: I see one option here. If this (proposed) property gets created, I could have use for it in Q34 (Sweden), no problem. But how about entities like Malmö (Q2211)? I do not know here and now when Malmö flooded the borders of Malmö commune, but at some point it did. In 2015 it suddenly flooded also the borders into a third commune. How do I best describe that this is no longer a single-commune-entity and instead becomes a two (or more) commune-entity? Then I suddenly have to switch from P131 to PXXXX, and P131 has to switch to county-level, since it is the smallest entity that enclose all of it? Note that the only simple relation we have in Q34 is between present day communes and present day counties. Not even the relation County/Province <-> Nation has always been simple, with disputed territories at the border of Norway. I am old enough to remember border disputes with Denmark, Finland and SSSR. (In the first two cases, uninhabited islands and in the third case fishing rights in the Baltic sea.) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Innocent bystander, Zolo, Jura1: Not done, given that Zolo said that he's okay with using territory overlaps (P3179) for this purpose and the discussion is stale. ChristianKl (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]