Wikidata:Property proposal/Place


Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Lexeme Wikimedia Commons

See alsoEdit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See steps when creating properties.

  On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2020/06.

Geographic locationEdit

Democracy IndexEdit

   Ready Create
DescriptionDemocracy Index rating of a country
Data typeQuantity
Domaincountry item
Allowed values0.00-10.00
Example 1United States of America (Q30) → 7.96
Example 2North Korea (Q423) → 1.08
Example 3Norway (Q20) → 9.87
Sourcedocument — Democracy Index 2019 for current ones (Democracy Index (Q326174) — note that this is weird; the index is a thing, but the Q item thinks that it is just a Wikimedia list article?)
Planned useput on a bunch of countries
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)

MotivationEdit

This index is referenced all over the place on English Wikipedia pages, and done by a major newspaper. DemonDays64 | Talk to me 06:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment fixed the datatype from "number" (non-existent) to "quantity". --- Jura 07:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure we already have a more generic property that would work for this. If there isn't one, there should be. --Yair rand (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: it seems non-neutral to state if something is a democracy or not rather than saying that one rating considers it one. To specify that a certain rating says that would be better to make sure we don't break neutrality rules. DemonDays64 | Talk to me 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@DemonDays64: I agree completely, and I think that a property that indicates that something has a score of X on the Y index/system/assessment would be fine. --Yair rand (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Properties proposed in RfC "Countries, subdivisions, and disputed territories"Edit

recognitionEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptioninternational recognition of the statement (use as qualifier for P31, P17, and P131)
Data typeItem
Example 1Armenia (Q399) instance of (P31) sovereign state (Q3624078) → "international recognition of Armenia"
Example 2Crimean Peninsula (Q7835) country (P17) Russia (Q159) → "recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia"
Example 3Israel (Q801) instance of (P31) sovereign state (Q3624078)international recognition of Israel (Q6055209)

recognized byEdit

   Under discussion
Data typeItem
Example 1international recognition of Kosovo (Q23052)United States of America (Q30)
Example 2"recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia" → Sudan (Q1049)
Example 3"international recognition of Armenia" → United States of America (Q30)

not recognized byEdit

   Under discussion
Data typeItem
Example 1"international recognition of Armenia" → Pakistan (Q843)
Example 2"recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia" → Italy (Q38)
Example 3international recognition of Kosovo (Q23052)Madagascar (Q1019)

jurisdiction statusEdit

MotivationEdit

These proposed properties are part of a broader proposal at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Countries, subdivisions, and disputed territories. Please comment there. --Yair rand (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support All David (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment What's "de jure, de facto"? Should have both de jure and de facto items? Or a new item called this should be created? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Liuxinyu970226: I had hoped for discussion on this to be kept on the page for the RfC itself, if everyone's okay with that. (@Liuxinyu970226, as explained on the RfC, the proposal is for a new item labelled "de jure, de facto" to be created, which would be for those which are both de jure and de facto authorities over disputed territories.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: Another interesting thing is that, how the second and third proposals are not covered-able by statement supported by (P3680) and statement disputed by (P1310). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Interesting proposal. I do see plenty of advantages. --- Jura 19:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This will give lot of important information! -Theklan (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support NMaia (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think we should sort out the relation to existing properties before creating this. Per RFC (and later linked from one of the properties), this should also replace existing ones. It's not clear why though. --- Jura 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I would like to add the ISO 2 Code of the country it is recognized by, this would help massively with subsequent data integration instead of just showing the country names (they are always spelled differently across data sources, whereas standardized ISO codes simplifies data integration) --- AddNPBot 11:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in current form of proposals.   Support the "recognized by" property if both the domain and value type constraint are changed to state (Q7275). Qualifier statement is subject of (P805) can then be used with the new "recognized by" property with a value type of international recognition of a country (Q19602404). Dhx1 (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in current form, and   Support in the form presented by Dhx1 TiagoLubiana (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--Dispe (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

territorial entity ranking contextEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier for area rank, population rank and population density rank to indicate which class of territorial entity the rank relates to.
Data typeItem
Allowed valuessubclass of territorial entity (Q1496967)
Example 1Cambridge (Q21713103) rank properties → district of England (Q349084)
Example 2Cambridgeshire (Q21272276) rank properties → non-metropolitan county (Q769603)
Example 3Pembrokeshire (Q213361) rank properties → principal area of Wales (Q15979307)
Example 4West Midlands (Q23124) rank properties → ceremonial county of England (Q180673)
Example 5Suffolk (Q23111) rank properties → one value non-metropolitan county (Q769603), one value ceremonial county of England (Q180673)
Example 6City of Bristol (Q21693433) rank properties → one value district of England (Q349084), one value ceremonial county of England (Q180673)
Planned useapply to 3 ranks on each of 450 territorial entities

MotivationEdit

This implements the qualifier proposed above by ArthurPSmith. Keith Edkins (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"above" where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

next level in hierarchyEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier: indicates the value at the next hierarchy level which is true for this item, when more than one is possible at the next level
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier only in transitive property (Q18647515) with hierarchy (Q188619)
Example 1111
Example 2
Example 3
Planned usefor select only right values in cases like AB → (C and D) where C is right for A but D isn't
See alsoterritory overlaps (P3179)

MotivationEdit

The question arose here. On the example of geographic hierarchical properties like located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), there are cases when at one level of the hierarchy there are two correct values but only one of them are correct for referencing item from lower hierarchy level. The proposed property will help to make the right choice in the case of such switches. We could do the opposite and indicate for each of the values a list of items corresponding to it from the lower level but in case of Atlanta (Q23556) it will be thousands of streets, non-profit organizations, monuments, schools, cafes etc. So best way to resolve it at the items of monuments or cafes.

I am sure that this can be useful not only for territorial properties like part of (P361). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)3333333333

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support Since geographic relationships are not always one-to-one (given the examples above), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) needs to be able to be qualified with a specific "parent" administrative territory. For example, after a natural disaster, I need to be able to search for all museums in a specific county. Without having a qualifier like "hierarchy switch", many museums will show up as being in the wrong county. And as Сидик из ПТУ points out, this qualification may also apply to other hierarchical/transitive properties. -- Clifflandis (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Mitte27 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support certainly make sense Ghuron (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

--Micru (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Tobias1984 (talk) TomT0m (talk) Genewiki123 (talk) Emw (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC) —Ruud 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Emitraka (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Bovlb (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC) --Lechatpito (talk) --Andrawaag (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC) --ChristianKl (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) --Cmungall Cmungall (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Cord Wiljes (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC) DavRosen (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC) YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Fractaler (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Diana de la Iglesia Jsamwrites (talk) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Ptolusque (.-- .. -.- ..) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Gamaliel (talk) --Horcrux (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) Bamyers99 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Malore (talk) Wurstbruch (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Dcflyer (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Ettorerizza (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Ninokeys (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC) Buccalon (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Jneubert (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Yair rand (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Tris T7 (talk) ElanHR (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC) linuxo Gq86 Gabrielaltay Liamjamesperritt (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC) ZI Jony Ivanhercaz (Talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Gaurav (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Meejies (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Iwan.Aucamp SilentSpike (talk) Tfrancart (talk) Luis.ramos.pst.ag Sylvain Leroux TiagoLubiana (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Albert Villanova del Moral (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Clifflandis (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC) --Tinker Bell 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC) SM5POR

  Notified participants of WikiProject Ontology

  •   Oppose given the discussion on Wikidata:Project chat and the alternatives explained there. Essentially this qualifier would encourage users to add incorrect statements to the "parent" item. --- Jura 09:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • This qualifier will not require changing existing statements specified in accordance with the property documentation. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support - It seems that User:Сидик из ПТУ offers this evolutionary change that will help to correctly display geo-chains in wiki-cards. The User:Jura1 solution will break geo-chains in the wiki-cards, therefore it is harmful and not necessary. Carn (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support This will allow to model the situation en e.g. Georgia, USA as viewed as almost everyone else does it. See also my summary of the discussion in Project chat in Special:Diff/1116318285. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This propoal assumes that administrative divisions are always organised as a linear hierarchy. Many countries however know branching hierarchies where two or more administrative divisions are subordinated to the same division. In such cases, one can add multiple located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) claims because there are multiple most local admin territories. --Pasleim (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • So, there will be several (two) administrative divisions for Atlanta (Fulton and DeKalb). Georgia will still not be the most local for Atlanta, nor will Fulton for Patch Works Art & History Center (Q76461608). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      • You might want to re-read the discussion on project. BTW territory overlaps (P3179) was made for that. --- Jura 13:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
        • As I read Wikidata:Property proposal/territory overlapse that isn't true. P3179 was made to: (quote) representing overlapse between territorial entities arising from distinct classifications. Administrative vs religious is one (as with administrative subdivisions of countries vs dioceses), administrative vs political (as is the case with american special districts), geographical vs administrative (landforms vs countries or cities). (end quote) I note the emphasis on different classification types. In the case Georgia, USA municipality and country belongs to different levels of the same type of classification. The municipalities is considered to be in one or more counties, where the counties isn't considered to be in municipalities. In such cases this proposed hierarchy switch will be best to describe the situation. In other cases like the examples in P:P3179 that property is better. So we need both. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    • This makes sense, if you relax the requirement/assumption that only the "most local" value should go in P131. But it may be tempting for people to delete the "redundant" P131 value if they don't realise why it's there. Ghouston (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Jura points out above that this qualifier will encourage people to add incorrect assertions. I would go further and say that it is only useful in the case when people have added incorrect assertions. While Atlanta certainly overlaps two counties, it is false to say that it lies either "physically within" or "under the administrative control of" either of them. If we want to be able to identify the containing county of some specific landmark within Atlanta, we can simply assert it directly (without requiring a qualifier), or find some intermediate region such as a neighbourhood. Bovlb (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Not that P30 matters, but the English label for P30 has just "continent", not "located in continent". --- Jura 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The burden of proof (Q1535975) on those who deny the hierarchy (municipality of Georgia (Q76514543)county of Georgia (Q13410428)Georgia (Q1428)). Atlanta seat of Fulton county (but also partly in DeKalb county, how can we say that Atlanta on the same level with counties after this? Are you going to claim that articles County (United States) (Most counties have subdivisions which may include townships, municipalities and unincorporated areasSome municipalities are in multiple counties) and Local government in the United States (Most states and territories have at least two tiers of local government: counties and municipalities) are wrong? Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you know — there are many labels and aliases of P131 in many languages have not in but true. And counties perfectly match with Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) in Atlanta case. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I suppose we will keep disagreeing on that. --- Jura 17:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiData is not a separate project, the data from it is used in different language sections of Wikipedia, so you should evaluate your proposal to see if the templates created in the language sections will break. Maybe for you this is another abstract question, for me everything looks different. It seems to me that you "disagree" without a proper level of argumentation at a practical level. Carn (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The question is you aren't doing the opposite as you are intending: by adding a complex additional element, you just to make sure that it works for a single outside projects that may not have implemented things correctly. --- Jura 20:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The approach in which some cities of Georgia have in P131 county while others have a state should be attributed to incorrect ones in the first place.
  Support --AleUst (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  Support, administrative territories are quite well represented as an ascending hierarchy, and this correction would make it work even better. Wikisaurus (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The good point of this debate is the highlights a problem: While I'm sympathetic to the problems faced by ruwiki infobox designers, it mainly illustrates that Wikidata should try to provide a basic infobox and breadcrum navigation as otherwise we keep getting requests from wikis that make use of our data in a somewhat sub-optimal way and attempt to tweak the data to their usecase. We already did that in other fields and should to it for that too. --- Jura 13:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

At first, Wikivoyage doesn't use Wikidata for breadcrumb navigation. Secondly, I see Example: Europe > Russia > Southern Russia > North Caucasus > Dagestan where Europe, Southern Russia and North Caucasus are not administrative territorial entity (Q56061) at all. And Russia is not only in Europe too so Europe > Russia > Siberia > Krasnoyarsk Krai > Krasnoyarsk (region) > Krasnoyarsk is simply wrong. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we understood that earlier in the discussion (please re-read the comment above by DerFussi if you haven't done so), but it's a feature that should be supported directly through Wikidata statements. I think it's useful even for projects/users other than Wikivoyage. --- Jura 13:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. In this case, if we somehow build a hierarchy through Russia then we definitely need a switch in order to choose Asia for Krasnoyarsk and Europe for St. Petersburg. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The best way now. - Kareyac (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Сидик из ПТУ, Clifflandis, Mitte27, Ghuron, Carn, Pasleim: @Bovlb, Kareyac, Jura1, Dipsacus fullonum: @DerFussi, RolandUnger, Ghouston: I have altered the English proposed name per a discussion above; please comment below if that changes your view on this proposal. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • It was one or more of several values and I suggest leaving this wording just in case. For example, when two of the three values are true. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • My objection was structural, and about the misuse of P131, so I'm afraid your fix doesn't help me. Thanks for trying. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have another suggestion, which would be to use another P131 statement as a qualifier on the P131 statement, instead of defining a new property. Maybe it would be easier to use that trying to remember the name of the obscure property that changes the hierarchy, and it would still be distinguishable from a redundant P131. Ghouston (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I also proposed to do so from the very beginning, however, this requires special documentation so that users understand in which cases such a qualifier is needed and in which it is unwanted. I believe that a special property allows users to better understand what function it performs. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment how to we determine what the next level of the hierarchy is? Wouldn't it rather be "alternate hierarchy"? --- Jura 09:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    • It must be one or more of the values that are specified in a similar property at the item to which we add the qualifier. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah, so "alternate hierarchy" fits it better. --- Jura 10:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Maybe I do not understand the subtleties of the wording in English but, otherwise, there are no differences from a typical case, county of Georgia (Q13410428) are always the next level of hierarchy for municipality of Georgia (Q76514543). The qualifier allows us to make a choice of several alternative values. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
          • From the discussion, I get the impression that you assume a pyramidal organization of different government entities and likely an infobox that can't handle alternatives. --- Jura 10:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
            • Yes, proposed property is for resolve this. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
              • Sure, but it's better to fix the infobox than to try to change the underlying data. --- Jura 17:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
                • The infobox algorithm just relies on the fact that Wikidata will follow the rule "You only need to add the most local admin territory". The most local admin territories for Atlanta are Fulton and DeKalb and this is in line with the main point of view of most serious sources. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment If we are going to say (for example) that Atlanta is in both Fulton and DeKalb counties then, yes, we need something like this. But I think that's just bad modeling and a patch to get around it. When geographical entities overlap like this, the city is no more in the county than the county is in the city. I believe that Atlanta, Fulton County, and DeKalb County are each in Georgia; that Atlanta overlaps with Fulton County and DeKalb County; and that any given point in Atlanta is either in Atlanta and in Fulton County, or in Atlanta and in De Kalb County. The fact that a county is somehow "higher-level" than a city does not change this. Five counties of New York State each coincide with boroughs of New York City: this is the one case I know of in the U.S. where counties are proper subsets of cities. Are we really going to say that New York City is in Kings, Queens, New York, Richmond, and Bronx counties rather than vice versa? - Jmabel (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Сидик из ПТУ and I were just discussing New York City over at Property talk:P131#Possible change of usage. Although the two situations aren't legally analogous, I believe they might be ontologically similar enough that a solution that applies to one ought to apply to the other. —Scs (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we read articles about borough of New York City (Q408804) yesterday[3][4][5], it emphasizes that they are unique to the United States and are parts of the NYC now. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel:, how would you write the location linearly, e.g., in the infobox for c:Category:Baltimore Block on Commons? The question is whether to put the city or county first, or come up with some other way of writing it. Ghouston (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ghouston: By tradition, in the U.S. (with the exception of New York City) we list city before county regardless of containment, but that's a matter of tradition, not data modeling. I think it might make sense to have a query know that as a rule for U.S. places (should be possible to enforce based on "instance of"), rather than to have to say in doesn't really mean in.
By the way, New York is a mess in this respect. Pretty much any New Yorker would say that Morningside Heights is in Manhattan, not that it is in New York County, or that Park Slope is in Brooklyn, not that it is in Kings County. As for Richmond County / Borough of Richmond: almost everyone calls it "Staten Island"; after more than 300 years, the effort to give it an English rather than a Dutch name never really stuck. - Jmabel (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
If the query “all cities of the county Fulton” doesn’t return Atlanta then this is a bad base and it doesn’t matter how the data modeling was. If Britannica says in then we follow this as most users who expect that for all the cities of Georgia, a generally accepted order is kept in line with the real situation. As for the local names of the places in New York, I can say the same thing about Moscow, where the districts got their names from the villages, and then these villages ended up in other districts. But it all suggests that New York boroughs are seen as part of the city as a priority and they are named on the English Wikipedia as Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island. There are not separate articles about Kings or Richmond. Everything is clear here. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a broader question here, which is: who or what is (or are) the primary user(s) of Wikidata? If it's people browsing our database, as if it were a stylized and highly-structured Wikipedia, then it makes sense to worry about what Britannica says, or what a reasonable New Yorker would say, and to try to have the presented data match that somehow. But if our data is primarily being used by computers running SPARQL queries, or by Wikipedia as it renders infoboxes, then we should favor a data model that fosters clean, consistent, general-purpose SPARQL queries and Lua templates and the like. —Scs (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Dozens of Wikipedia language sections and a number of other Wikimedia projects need a supported hierarchy for a property. Q18008533 is a Lua module and it is popular, this switch will be useful to it, but, of course, it is required to return the correct sequences like Atlanta→Fulton→Georgia. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the point is that you can't write a single SPARQL query; in the general case you have to write a little program, with some loops and if statements, that issues a number of SPARQL queries and makes decisions based on any next level in hierarchy qualifiers it finds. (To be perfectly clear, suppose the question is not, "Show me everything in DeKalb County (Q486398)", but rather, "Show me everything in County X".)
This isn't necessarily a fatal flaw, but it does need to be acknowledged.
Overlaps are obviously a mess. I suspect we can have either a data model that's closer to the "real world" but requires more-complicated algorithms to query, or a "refactored" model that's easy to query because it interposes some extra, artificial, constructed entities (like "portion of Atlanta within DeKalb county"), but not both. —Scs (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Using of "portion of Atlanta within DeKalb county" will make it difficult to work with queries such as "select all Atlanta bus stops". In any case, it’s better to work with real data than to add unobvious database tricks to the imperfection of the world. Alternatives to switch are similar to Procrustean bed (Q10991776). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Сидик из ПТУ: How does an interposed subentity of Atlanta make it harder to find all Atlanta bus stops? —Scs (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
At least we need to order unobvious where in Atlanta-DeKalb or Atlanta-Fulton. And queries may be to select all bus stops in the capitals of each state or to select all Gerogia bus stops with their cities or select count of bus stops by city, etc. And what P131 is correct for it? If counties then we lose Atlanta in our hierarchy and can’t easily select this city along with other state capitals. If Atlanta then we lose any effect of this. A completely different conversation that such administrative territorial entity (Q56061) do not actually exist so this may lead to misinformation of the users. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
This proposed qualifier is another such trick. I think we'd just stick to the initially suggested solution (add both Atlanta and DeKalb county statements to the bus stop item, but the most local entities) queries remain simple. --- Jura 10:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
This will make it impossible to build a hierarchy without a strong knowledge base wired into the algorithm and this will be a false statement that destroys the general logic. By the way, the property can be used without minus and queries like "select all bus stops in county" may contain the requirement to display the most local units for this stops (expected only cities). Maybe somebody can add to my query all organisations where next level of P131 contains only one county. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, using this qualifier assumes that the qualifier is used in a given level of the hierarchy, thus requiring users to write a program to identify it as Scs mentions. --- Jura 11:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Using P131 assumes that the most local admin territory for the bus stops of Atlanta is Atlanta, not counties. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You mean, you assume that. --- Jura 11:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The reverse situation will complicate both the algorithms on Lua and the operation of SPARQL-queries when they need to work with the hierarchy. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess it's debatable if "wdt:P131*" is more complicated than the program combined with the qualifier query you linked in some diff, but personally, I find more simpler. --- Jura 11:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Without following the rule of "most local admin territory" cheap hierarchy building will not be possible, however this feature is used in various Wikimedia projects very widely, it's much more relevant than the one-off SPARQL-queries for Georgia like was discussed here. The loss of hierarchy will entail the loss of many other opportunities while the qualifier, on the contrary, creates them. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Here we identified that there are actually two "most local admin territories" to be considered (unless "part of Atlanta in DeKalb county" is created) and infoboxes can handle this. It is known that the ruwiki one doesn't do that and apparently ruwiki lacks the resources to keep it in shape .. so we keep getting these requests here. --- Jura 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There are two "most local admin territories" for Atlanta (Fulton & DeKalb), it matches to sources. There is one "most local admin territory" for Patch Works Art & History Center (Q76461608) (Atlanta). The machine cannot be taught to choose the "most local admin territory" from two or more values without detailed knowledge base. No one will learn the algorithm to select from the list first the city, then the county and finally the state since several thousand such tasks have accumulated over the history of mankind. We suggest improving the functionality, you suggest destroying it. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
And the creation of artificial concepts that do not exist in the real world, such as "part of Atlanta in DeKalb county" will make work with Atlanta more difficult. It's not valid administrative territorial entity (Q56061), work with similar items in contrast to the documented property will be less handy and, again, will require a solid knowledge base. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think people are willing to dismiss transitivity so easily -- it's arguable that we do need it and should strive to preserve it. And North Yorkshire (Q23086) is no counterexample -- if anything it's proof that (a) real-world political subdivisions are confusing, irregular, and difficult, and (b) people have been representing them improperly in Wikidata for a while, meaning we really need some cleanup and a proper fix (whatever that may be). In particular, North Yorkshire is a ceremonial county of England (Q180673) and, therefore, not strictly an administrative subdivision. [See Wikipedia Subdivisions of England: "For non-administrative purposes, England is wholly divided into 48 counties, commonly known [...] as ceremonial counties".] But you probably can't use North Yorkshire (Q23086) as part of your primary P131 hierarchy -- it's guaranteed to fail. (Just look at the comment -- right in Q23086's description! -- directing you over to North Yorkshire (Q21241814), which actually is an administrative subdivision, and which does not encompass e.g. Redcar and Cleveland (Q1434448), meaning it'd be much easier to use Q21241814 as part of a proper, nonoverlapping hierarchy.)
Can you say a little more about what you mean when you say "not allowing hierarchies to be done"? The argument for enforcing pure transitivity on P131 is that it makes P131 act like the mathematical operator subset (Q177646), meaning that simple wdt:P131* queries always yield proper results. In this sense saying that Patch Works is in Fulton County, or that Atlanta is in Georgia, is perfectly fine. I think your objection to these relations is that you can't list all cities in Fulton County by doing a simple wdt:P131 wd:Q486633 query, or something, but I'm really not sure.
Have we asked the folks over at WikiProject Country subdivision for their advice on all this? I bet they've put some thought into how best to resolve these situations. [Footnote: I've now asked them.]—Scs (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, neither I nor Russian Wikipedia in general came up with the use of ceremonial county of England (Q180673) at located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). As I understand it, the British themselves began to fill out the data in this way. I am not opposed to clarifying this issue, although the ceremonial counties have changed the form of government over time and I fully admit that at the moment the phrase "Most ceremonial counties are, therefore, entities comprising local authority areas, as they were from 1889 to 1974" is correct. We can argue about the powers of the Queen of the United Kingdom, Governor General of Canada (Q390776) or Lord Lieutenant (Q914752) but if the existing hierarchies are in most cases useful then I do not see an error in such an interpretation where ceremonial county of England (Q180673) in located in the administrative territorial entity (P131).
Secondly, I think that following the main sources we should consider Atlanta a city in Fulton County (and also in DeKalb County) and make the appropriate statements. I consider it will be a bad decision to be guided in the first place by the rule "is completely in" and state Georgia for Atlanta at P131 with counties for other cities. It will simply be a false statement that the municipality of Atlanta is on the same hierarchy level as the counties. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, okay, now I get it: You want P131 to mean "is an administrative subdivision of". That makes sense.
Or, stated another way, P131 represents a direct child relationship, and the proposed new property simply represents a grandchild relationship, for use in cases where we can't properly describe the situation with two ordinary child relationships. (Indeed, we've got some similarly redundant tags for people. Normally we represent human grandchildren as a pair of child (P40) properties, and siblings as two people having the same parent(s), but if we don't have an entity for the parent, we can use type of kinship (P1039) along with grandchild (Q3603531), sibling (Q31184), etc.) —Scs (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. When I said "you probably can't use Q23086 as part of your primary P131 hierarchy", I was not referring to you or the Russian Wikipedia; I meant "anybody". But the fact that "the British themselves began to fill out the data in this way" doesn't prove much, either -- as JMabel mentioned in another thread, we shouldn't automatically let popular folksonomies drive our more-precise taxonomic work here. 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
And looking at the real situation, it seems that the warning in the description does not forbid the use of North Yorkshire (Q23086) in the P131 but something like different from (P1889). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Scs wrote: (quote) I think the point is that you can't write a single SPARQL query; in the general case you have to write a little program, with some loops and if statements, that issues a number of SPARQL queries and makes decisions based on any next level in hierarchy qualifiers it finds. (To be perfectly clear, suppose the question is not, "Show me everything in DeKalb County (Q486398)", but rather, "Show me everything in County X".) (end quote)
That is not true. Here is single SPARQL query using the proposed query for a search for items in an arbitrary administrative unit:
# SPARQL code to find items in an arbitrary administrative unit, called Q800000000,
# using the proposed qualifier, called P8000
SELECT ?item
WHERE
{
  VALUES ?searched_unit { wd:Q800000000 }
  {
    ?item wdt:P131* ?searched_unit .                 # located in the searched unit 
  }
  MINUS
  {
    ?item wdt:P131*/p:P131/pq:P8000 ?other_unit .    # unless next level in hierarchy is a unit
    ?other_unit wdt:P131/^wdt:P131 ?searched_unit .  # at same level in the hierarchy
    FILTER (?other_unit != ?searched_unit)           # and different from the sought unit
  }
}
Try it! --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologize for my naïveté about the potential power of complex SPARQL queries. —Scs (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's essentially two queries which works here because there are not too many items involved and P8000 doesn't exist. For testing, Sandbox-Item (P369) can be used.
I'm curious to see the version for "all bus stops in Georgia by county". According to an addition on Property talk:P131 this would work for that as well. --- Jura 09:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: Here is a version for all bus stops in Georgia by county as requested:
# Find all busstops in Georgia by county
SELECT DISTINCT ?busstop ?county
WHERE
{
  ?busstop wdt:P31 wd:Q953806 .       # is busstop
  ?busstop wdt:P131+ ?any_county .    # located in county
  ?any_county wdt:P31 wd:Q13410428 .  # which is a county of Georgia, USA
  OPTIONAL {
    ?busstop wdt:P131*/p:P131/pq:P8000 ?switched_county . # the true county if present
    ?switched_county wdt:P31 wd:Q13410428 .               # if it is a county of Georgia, USA
  } 
  BIND(COALESCE(?switched_county, ?any_county) AS ?county)
}
Try it! --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Does it assume that the qualifier would be placed on a known layer and the layer is always in the same place of the matrix?
Would this work if the county was a French department and the French municipality had a switch to the relevant department?--- Jura 09:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Answer to first question: No. Answer to second question: As I understand English Wikipedia a French municipality (commune) is in only one department. But even if that isn't the case, then the next levels in the French administrative hierarchy are cantons and arrondissements, so a commune should never have the proposed qualifier with a value of a department. Please read the description the proposal ("the value at the next hierarchy level"). But anyway, even with a double incorrect use of the qualifier, the query could be changed to give busstops in France by department, and work. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the problem at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_France/Communes#Communes_multi-départementales is solved. --- Jura 13:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand French, but as I understand the point using machine translation of the discussion, the French communes is always in exactly one department, but which department have changed over time. If that is correct, then this proposed qualifer will not be usable for french communes. Instead the values for P131 somewhere in the property chain should use time qualifers as start time (P580) and end time (P582). If you want help with queries with time qualifiers, please ask in Wikidata:Request a query. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there were several problems: one is that they changed over time (not important here), another that that some users include intermediate administrative layers that strech across several departments. It's a similar problem as the Atlanta one, at least if Atlanta had boroughs. --- Jura 20:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Until 2015, France had two parallel hierarchies of administrative-territorial units. One of them consisted only of cantons, and the other was and remains perfectly transitive. To build a second hierarchy according to it, it is enough to simply indicate arrondissement of France (Q194203). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

BC Register of Historic Places IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier of a property listed on the BC Register of Historic Places
RepresentsBC Register of Historic Places (Q86866826)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaingeographical object (Q618123)
Allowed values[A-U][a-l][A-W][a-x]-\d+
Example 1Emily Carr House (Q5372097) → DcRu-235
Example 2Windy Joe Lookout (Q86120559) → DgRe-2
Example 3Marine Building (Q1326540) → DhRs-33
Number of IDs in sourcecirca 4600
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoCanadian Register of Historic Places ID (P477)

MotivationEdit

Hi, at the diference of other provincial register like the Alberta Register of Historic Places ID (P759), Quebec cultural heritage directory ID (P633) or Ontario Heritage Act Register ID (P4120), the BC Register of Historic Places (Q86866826) don't have a online register. But you can see all the places here and all historic place data is available here Fralambert (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Thierry Caro Fralambert Amqui Antoine2711 (talk) Helmoony joplam QultureQc Jura YanikB Mykola Swarnyk Jimj_wpg Deror avi

  Notified participants of WikiProject Canada

DiscussionEdit

  •   Neutral. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment. @Fralambert: En suivant le premier lien, cherchant un site protégé puis cliquant sur nom, on découvre que cet identifiant est appelé "Borden Number" et ici, on voit que c'est un identifiant pan-canadien. Ne vaudrait-il pas mieux appeler cet identifiant de la sorte ? Et créer un élément dédié, aussi ? Thierry Caro (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    • En fait c'est Borden Code (P3611), non ? Thierry Caro (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
      • (conflit d'édit) La Colombie-Britannique utilise effectivement le code Borden comme id pour ses lieux patrimoniaux. Bizarrement, les sites archéologiques, qui sont pourtant la base du code Borden, ne serait pas inclus dans le registre provincial [6]. Du moins ça me crée des violation de contraintes sur Marine Building (Q1326540), tout en me conseillant pas des principaux statuts patrimoniaux, comme heritage designation (Q17504995), British Columbia designated provincial heritage site (Q16872697) ou listed in a community heritage register (Q18342392). --Fralambert (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Un identifiant qu'on ne semble pas avoir, ce serait plutôt ce qui apparaît sous le nom d'OBJECTID quand on essaie de télécharger les données à partir du volet en bas de la page https://governmentofbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. La valeur est de 5196331 pour Windy Joe Lookout (Q86120559). C'est peut-être ça qu'on devrait stocker ici plutôt, non ? Thierry Caro (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
        • J'y vais un peu par logique sur Canadian Register of Historic Places ID (P477) le site utilise bien ce code comme identifiant provincial [7]. C'est aussi ce code qui est présent sur cette carte [8]. Et si je regarde les définitions dans [9] « BORDENNUMBER is the unique site number. In BC, all archaeological sites and historic places are coded using the Borden system », ça semble que la province ait étendu le code au lieux patrimoniaux. Pour OBJECTID, c'est plutôt un numéro pour les cartes ESRI. --Fralambert (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
          • C'est un peu difficile à suivre mais en gros s'il y a deux bases avec des périmètres différents, c'est sans doute OK. Autrement, je suggère vraiment d'utiliser la propriété existante en en changeant les contraintes pour en élargir le champ. C'est tendu, en effet : parfois les gens ne veulent même pas de deuxième propriété quand il y identité des identifiants, ce qui serait le cas ici. Mais ici, en plus, aucune des deux propriétés ne génère de lien externe, ce qui est généralement tput l'intérêt. Donc on est vraiment à la limite de la logique qui consiste à scinder en deux propriétés. Désolé, mais je suis obligé de passer mon vote vers le neutre. C'est trop proche de Borden Code (P3611). Thierry Caro (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

TripAdvisor IDEdit

   Under discussion
Description{identifier of a place, in TripAdvisor
RepresentsTripAdvisor (Q1770710)
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values[0-9]+
Example 1Saint Paul hermitage (Q26389271)4037786
Example 2Cencio la Parolaccia (Q3664378)1049551
Example 3Canegrate (Q581)2023357
Format and edit filter validationNo words or symbols, just numbers
Sourcehttps://www.tripadvisor.com
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.tripadvisor.com/$1
Robot and gadget jobs
  • Convert P553Q1770710 (P554 → $1) into TripAdvisor ID → $1
  • Convert all "non-standard" and old IDs to the new and correct one
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/TripAdvisor ID

MotivationEdit

Everything you need to know has been discussed here. --★ → Airon 90 12:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

@Airon90: You might wanna see this query --Trade (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose. I'm sorry but just changing TripAdvisor ID (P3134) works fine for me. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Users Jura1 and SilentSpike think that a new property is needed instead of changing TripAdvisor ID (P3134) --22:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I know. And I understand that this is because they are worried about disrupting third parties using the property. But I believe that instead of having to create a new property every time an established one needs an update, we should just create one~for letting third parties indicate their use of a given property on that property page. This way we would know who we should contact before we implement a change instead of just speculating over possible external use and self-censoring because of that. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I don't think there should be a requirement to request stable entities from Wikidata. Even if there was and we know some properties are used on Commons. What could they do? Commons doesn't really have a way to identify each of them nor change them easily. --- Jura 13:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't really have a strong opinion on whether the old property should be deprecated or just updated. However, Jura's points convinced me that it makes more sense to create a new property and deprecate the old one (as you cannot rely on third parties indicating their property use when dealing with open data). This seems like the kind of thing the Wikidata community should establish precedent on for future decisions. --SilentSpike (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a new property, given the change is backward-compatible.--GZWDer (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

subpopulationEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionpartial population according to some criteria
Representssubpopulation (Q2311577)
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Domainplace
Allowed valuesinteger
Example 1Pristina (Q25270) → 426; point in time (P585) → 1961; ethnic group (P172)Macedonians (Q2436423)
Example 2See below for alternatives
Example 3MISSING

MotivationEdit

This is a proposed solution of Wikidata:Project_chat#Something_wrong_here?. Previous proposals:

I think this is better than the following alternatives:

For qualifiers:

-- GZWDer (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support --SilentSpike (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I guess this is ok, but I'm a little sad we can't use population (P1082) with qualifiers. I understand the reasoning, but it seems to me it applies to many other cases too, and maybe our data consumers should get a little smarter about checking for qualifiers. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question Could you include a qualifier to determine how the subcategory is done? e.g. criterion used (P1013)=eye color. Supposedly, people could add multiple sub-populations for the same date that aren't meant to add up. BTW, we already have male population (P1540) and female population (P1539). --- Jura 18:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Also literate population (P6499) and literacy rate (P6897). --- Jura 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • how about renaming it to "population by ethnic group" Germartin1 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Unique Street Reference Number (UK)Edit

   On hold
Descriptionunique 8 digit number assigned to streets, roads, footpaths or public rights of way in the UK
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainroad (Q34442)
Allowed values\d{8}
Example 1Oxford Street (Q209714) → TBD
Example 2Abbey Road (Q479469) → TBD
Example 3Princes Street (Q1548664) → TBD
Source"UPRNs and USRNs are centrally managed by GeoPlace. They provide every local authority with a range of UPRNs and UPSNs, from which they assign numbers to properties and streets." (URL TBD)
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLTBD (likely no 1st party formatter will exist) – WRONG FORMAT, MISSING "$1"

MotivationEdit

The UK government is adopting USRNs to identify streets in the UK (as part of a motion to streamline and increase accuracy of address data). This proposal is just to get the ball rolling on having a property for these in Wikidata (the data isn't released openly under Open Government Licence (Q17016921) until July). Highly recommend you read the government posts I've linked here to understand why these identifiers are relevant. SilentSpike (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment can we do this once data is available? --- Jura 08:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Yes, I've only opened these proposals so that any opposing views on whether these IDs should be included can be expressed. Will explicitly mark both as on hold until the data is available. --SilentSpike (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Unique Property Reference Number (UK)Edit

   On hold
Descriptionunique identifier for every location that can have an address in the UK
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Big Ben (Q41225) → TBD
Example 2Buckingham Palace (Q42182) → TBD
Example 3Westminster Abbey (Q5933) → TBD
Source"UPRNs and USRNs are centrally managed by GeoPlace. They provide every local authority with a range of UPRNs and UPSNs, from which they assign numbers to properties and streets." (URL TBD)
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLTBD (likely no 1st party formatter will exist) – WRONG FORMAT, MISSING "$1"
See also

MotivationEdit

The UK government is adopting UPRNs to identify properties in the UK (as part of a motion to streamline and increase accuracy of address data). This proposal is just to get the ball rolling on having a property for these in Wikidata (the data isn't released openly under Open Government Licence (Q17016921) until July). Highly recommend you read the government posts I've linked here to understand why these identifiers are relevant. SilentSpike (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

same transportation stop on the other side of the roadEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionpair transportation stop (eg. bus stop) for this item. May be located on the other side of the road or around a bend
Representstransportation stop (Q548662)
Data typeItem
Domaintransportation stop (Q548662) (eg. bus stop (Q953806))
Example 1Roddom no. 3 (Q75271893)Roddom no. 3 (Q90985343)
Example 2Meschersky prospekt (Q90990057)Meschersky prospekt (Q74170211)
Example 3Davydkovskaya ulitsa (Q90994636)Davydkovskaya ulitsa (Q75262979) + Davydkovskaya ulitsa (Q75264230)
Planned usetransportation stop (Q548662) (eg. bus stop (Q953806))
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also

MotivationEdit

Following the example of OpenStreetMap, I suggest having separate elements for bus/trolleybus stops on each side of the road. For example, I attached two of their entities of bus stops to our two (1247147305Roddom no. 3 (Q75271893) + 2339398944Roddom no. 3 (Q90985343)).

On the example of Moscow, I can say that sometimes a stop on the opposite side of the street can be renamed, leaving the second old name[10], respectively, we should be able to separately keep a history of the names of each stop. Also on the different sides of the road different routes may stop. Pair bus stops may have different equipment (pavilion, access to wi-fi), different operating mode (request or regular stop), different dates of establishment (if first of them did not have pair for a some time).

We also need to have separate coordinate location (P625) for each stop, especially since they can move independently on each side.

So, it should be symmetric property (Q18647518) for grouping pairs of transportation stop (Q548662) (something like this).

As for triple example (Davydkovskaya ulitsa (Q90994636) + Davydkovskaya ulitsa (Q75262979) + Davydkovskaya ulitsa (Q75264230)), this bus stops are located on intersection (Q285783)[11] and have the same name so I think should be grouped too. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Weak oppose It seems to me like for a given station like "Davydkovskaya ulitsa" you have two bus stops for trains going in both directions. There are also stations that will have more then two bus stops. It seems to me like a better model would be to have on item for "Davydkovskaya ulitsa" that then has two bus stops that are "part of" the main item. ChristianKl❫ 16:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
"Davydkovskaya ulitsa" means Davydkovskaya Street (Q4153718) in Russian. There are not any bus station (Q494829) here and I don't see any usage for station item because any of this three bus stops[12][13][14] can be independently renamed. The parent element in this case will be excessive bureaucratic fiction, it essentially does not exist in real life, all the properties must still be maintained in the child elements. Otherwise, I would simply combine these pairs and triples into single elements again, but above I write why this is not an optimal option. However, I don’t think that bus station (Q494829) need child items for each their bus stop (Q953806) as items are not needed for each platform (Q64896574) of railway station (Q55488) or each door of transport terminal (Q67183571). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Сидик из ПТУ: We need a model that doesn't just work for the Russian stations but that generalizes. ChristianKl❫ 22:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
For example, here is a similar situation in Denmark[15][16], Australia[17][18], Chile[19][20]. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

preposition in frenchEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionpreposition commonly used in French to this place
Data typetexte unilingue (monolingual text)-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Domainhuman settlement (Q486972)
Allowed valuesen/à/au/aux
Example 1Arles (Q48292) → en
Example 2Cuba (Q241) → à
Example 3Portugal (Q45) → au
Example 4Marquesas Islands (Q172697) → aux
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)

MotivationEdit

In itself, few interest, but this property would greatly help build and write automated French sentences/descriptions for Qid like "église en Arles" / "aéroport aux États-Unis" / "cathédrale au Wisconsin", etc Bouzinac (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

VIGNERON
Mathieudu68
Ayack
Aga
Ash Crow
Tubezlob
PAC2
Thierry Caro
Pymouss
Alphos
Nomen ad hoc
GAllegre
Jean-Frédéric
Manu1400
Thibdx
Marianne Casamance
Natou844
Nattes à chat
Bouzinac
Albertvillanovadelmoral
Jsamwrites
  Notified participants of WikiProject France

  •   Oppose This may be better placed on lexemes (senses of lexemes?) for those place names. Mahir256 (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you mix lexemes and Qid inside a sparql ? How to show in a sparql both https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Lexeme:L22294 and People's Republic of China (Q148) ? Beyond countries, has all cities/departement a lexeme ? Bouzinac (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bouzinac: This SPARQL query gets all countries with their French lexemes in Wikidata so far. It would be great to add more lexemes of course! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi ArthurPSmith (talkcontribslogs), thanks, looks promising. How would you add P5185 to this list ? https://w.wiki/Qa8 If okay, then i'll switch this proposal to lexemes. Well, there would be different french prépositions : du/de la/des/d' <> en/à/au/aux ... ==> Ambassade de l'Argentine en France Bouzinac . I somehow need to store these rules to help automate french descriptions [1](talk) 19:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Many Thanks! Bouzinac (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

AusStage venue IDEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionidentifier for a venue at AusStage
RepresentsAusStage (Q4822836)
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Alexandra Palace (Q254650)18281
Example 2Adelaide Town Hall (Q4681798)315
Example 3Brisbane Arts Theatre (Q4968534)136
Example 4Melbourne Athenaeum (Q12122406)83
Sourcehttps://www.ausstage.edu.au/pages/browse/venues/
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source703
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.ausstage.edu.au/pages/venue/$1
See alsoProperty proposal/AusStage person ID, Property proposal/AusStage organization ID, Property proposal/AusStage work ID

MotivationEdit

The Australian Live Performance Database funded by the Australian Research Council. INS Pirat (t | c) 07:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support Dhx1 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

cadastral municipality number in AustriaEdit

   Ready Create
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parametersee in infobox e.g. in the article de:Unterlembach, last line: Katastralgemeindenummer 07023
Allowed values\d{5}
Example 1Alsergrund (Q257780) → 01002
Example 2Unterolberndorf (Q2498616) → 15221
Example 3Fallsbach (Q1281969) → 51204
Example 4Niederau (Q1726076) → 83112
Sourceas zipfile from here (en:Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen), also see de:Liste der Katastralgemeinden in Österreich,
Planned usethere are about 8000 cadastral municipalities in Austria. Each should get a number.
Number of IDs in sourceabout 8000, between 00001 and 99999
See alsoProperty:P964

MotivationEdit

The Katastralgemeindenummer (cadastral municipality number) is the official ID for cadastral municipalities. It is administrated by the Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen (Federal Office of Metrology and Surveying) in Austria. --QXK (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Support --QXK (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  Support Similar to Property:P964, but for cadastral municipalities instead of municipalities. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  Support necessary id --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  Support necessary id --Geiserich77 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  Support --Niki.L (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Datatype would general be external-id, not number, even if it's just series of digits. If the property is meant for Austria, please include that in the label. Please wait seven days (May 28) before setting it to ready. --- Jura 16:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    • seems to be solved. BTW, do we have Austrian district numbers? this map relies on it. --- Jura 06:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1:The Austrian district numbers are not available in Wikidata. But the green area in the map is not a district, it is a Federal State of Austria. --QXK (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That one is the exception. Others use these, I think. --- Jura 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Correct. (Exception, because it is our capital and it has special en:Districts of Vienna.) The first digit is the Federal State and the last two digits are the district within the Federal State. Example: the first item "Amstetten" with Austrian district number "305" is within the Federal State No. 3 called Niederösterreich which has ISO 3166 code AT-3. So the first digit of the Austrian district number is the Property:P300 ISO 3166 code. --QXK (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Medusa NRHP IDEdit

   Done: Medusa NRHP ID (P8282) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionnumerical identifier for a Maryland structure or building listed in the National Register of Historic Places in the Medusa database
RepresentsMedusa (Q91762116)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaingeographic location (Q2221906)
Allowed values\d+
Example 1Cove Point Light (Q5178935)24973
Example 2Riley-Bolten House (Q14692364)17889
Example 3USS Torsk (Q7874823)46368
Sourcehttps://mht.maryland.gov/secure/medusa/
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useTemplate:Buildings links (Q25751684)
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://mht.maryland.gov/secure/medusa/mapintermediate.aspx?PropertyID=$1&selRec=nrhp
See alsoNRHP reference number (P649), Maryland's National Register Properties ID (P8165)

MotivationEdit

This new Wikidata property for cultural heritage identification (Q18618628) would help improve our coverage of the history of Maryland (Q5865454). Thierry Caro (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Beat Estermann Vladimir Alexiev Ilya Sadads Astinson Strakhov Zeromonk Spinster Wittylama Daniel Mietchen Susannaanas Sic19 Jason.nlw Carlojoseph14 YULdigitalpreservation MB-one Ouvrard MartinPoulter Missvain VIGNERON Ainali Birk Weiberg Pmt Mauricio V. Genta Smallison ProtoplasmaKid 2le2im-bdc Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton Ivanhercaz VisbyStar Patafisik Beireke1 Vahur Puik Ettorerizza Sp!ros Alexmar983 Epìdosis Buccalon Mrtngrsbch Eothan Giaccai NAH User:Fralambert Ipoellet

  Notified participants of WikiProject Cultural heritage. Thierry Caro Roseohioresident Fuzheado

  Notified participants of WikiProject United States. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Comment Is that really usefull, since we have already Maryland's National Register Properties ID (P8165) and they have link to each other? --Fralambert (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I would agree it's not the most needed thing on Earth. But the formatter URL and the IDs themselves are different from the ones of the other property. And the target pages have a different layout, etc. So it's still worth storing this too, in my opinion. Just for the sake of being as exhaustive as we can be. I don't mind adding both properties whenever I can, honestly. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Useful. Ivanhercaz (Talk) 02:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Susanna Giaccai (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Thierry Caro, Ivanhercaz, Giaccai:   Done --Fralambert (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

parish churchEdit

   Ready Create
Descriptionchurch which acts as the religious centre of a parish
Representschurch building (Q16970)
Data typeProperty
Template parameterex: "kościół" (En. church) in pl:Szablon:Parafia infobox (Polish Wikipedia)
Allowed valuesQ element or text
Example 1Q11806384St. Mary's Basilica (Q1143171)
Example 2Q11807110Holy Cross Church (Q1440735)
Example 3Q11808859Wrocław Cathedral (Q910211)
Example 4Q11807390 Archcathedral Basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul (Q2064095)
Planned useconnecting existing Wikidata elements describing churches with its parishes
See alsocathedral (P1885)

MotivationEdit

I want to create that property because it could be useful to organize information by linking churches to their parishes because, obviously, each parish has its own church. I would also like to create a similar property for the filial church. Gower (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support. OK. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC).
  •   Support @Gower: A parish could have more thast one church, il my Roman Catholic Diocese, the merged all the parished, so we don't have a parish with a single church anymore. Like my parish have 7 churches. --Fralambert (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Fralambert: I agree. That property should be allowed to mark more than one church. --Gower (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

NeighborhoodEdit

Outer spaceEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Space for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Space}}
  1. https://www.lepointdufle.net/ressources_fle/pays_regle.htm