Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

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 2019/10.

Geographic locationEdit

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


   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


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)

Swedish Lighthouse society IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe Swedish Lighthouse society ("Svenska Fyrsällskapet") has a wiki with a lot of excellent information about swedish lighthouses and the families who lived there. By having a property in Wikidata we will add value by connecting this information domain with Wikidata
RepresentsSwedish lighthouse society (Q10685023)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem Q39715,Q5
Example 1Hoburg lighthouse (Q10524998)wiki/index.php/Hoburg
Example 2Gotska Sandön (Q387843)wiki/index.php/Gotska_Sandön
Example 3Hamnudden (Q32248828)wiki/index.php/Hamnudden
Example 4Karl Bourgström (Q66209580)fyrpersonal/person.html?pid=89
Planned usepopulate all lighthouses and families that are relevant....
Number of IDs in source3000 lighthouses and also some people "famous" and worked at the lighthouse
Expected completeness100% lighthouses plus some people
Formatter URL$1


A local active society wit speciality lighthouses will be a good complement to Wikidatas information about Swedish lighthouses Salgo60 (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


ArthurPSmith,Nomen ad hoc please explain. My hope is that we in the long run get a SPARQL Federation with them and that they also start use Wikibase. Then we "dont need" those few people in Wikidata.
One scenario I already can see is that the wife of a lighthouse worker has donated material to the Nordic museum i.e. that means we could be able to
- Salgo60 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • How about Swedish Lighthouse society ID as the property name? ChristianKl❫ 10:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    • changed name to "Swedish Lighthouse society ID" - Salgo60 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


  Notified participants of WikiProject Lighthouses Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Esquilo: then for the few pages we will have the same id on Enskär (Q32233915) and Isokari lighthouse (Q31825396). Wikidata is flexible if they suggest have one structure we can in Wikidata have another. As said above I hope we can get them start use Wikibase and then I guess they change the structure... We have the same vice versa problem with Swedish parishes that the Swedish SCB Regina decided to have one item per parish that is part of one "municipality" and then one item in Wikidata is one at the National Archive but can be two or more at SCB Regina see list - Salgo60 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Esquilo: The property reference URL (P854) is not supposed to be used as a main page property as you parenthetically suggest; it has a property scope constraint (Q53869507) that the property scope (P5314) should be as references (Q54828450). Your latter suggestion of described at URL (P973) looks right to me. - Imnasnainaec (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe you want to comment. --- Jura 22:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, just noticed that someone already pinged the project. --- Jura 22:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

protected region schemeEdit


Currently we have heritage designation (P1435) for various heritage designations. We currently lack a property to express the same as heritage designation (P1435) for nature or environment protection schemes. Thus this proposal. Similar to heritage designation (P1435), using instance of (P31) for the scheme is generally not a good way to express this: such schemes tend to change over time. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 16:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC) (rewritten)


  • Hum, how it's related in Property_talk:P1435? As I see in the proposition, this seem more a way to replace instance of (P31)? In the exemple, waterfowl production area (Q7974063) seem to be the best instance of (P31) of the element, since it is the leal status of the area. And our discussion one year ago was more a way to link a heritage element with id historic district. --Fralambert (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem with such schemes is that they keep changing. I think this is why P1435 was created as well. --- Jura 16:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Correction: the previous discussion was indeed about another aspect of the problem. --- Jura 16:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC) I rewrote the intro accordingly. --- Jura 16:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see how it cause a problem. If Hettinger County Waterfowl Production Area (Q49500570) don't have waterfowl production area (Q7974063) as instance of (P31), what sould it be? The protected area was created the day the easement was made. It could apend that a protected area change of status, but it not diferrent for a municipality who change is status for a town or a city in North America. Like a change from municipality of Quebec (Q27676428) to city or town (Q27676416) is current in my province. (ex: Saint-Honoré (Q3462423)) --Fralambert (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    • It could be park, wetland, lake, geographic region. city or town (Q27676416) you mention is somewhat ambiguous, as P279 on this includes a populated place subclass and a type of subnational entity. --- Jura 16:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      • IMO, a park or a lake is usually something different than a protected area. Usually, the area corresponding to a lake/region/wetland does not match perfectly to the protected area, hence they should be different items. And thus protected areas should always be instances of protected region schemes.--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my comment above --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm with fralambert and voitech. there is nothing whatsoever this accomplish that isn't precisely what instance of (P31) is supposed to do. Heritage designations are assigned to extant objects, but conservation areas are not, as a specified territory, objects in their own right until they have been designated as such. Circeus (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I once created a series of items based on that assumption only to see a substantial part of them being merged by some user. --- Jura 17:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At least here in Germany, protected areas are a legal construct, thus in all cases they would have instance of (P31) same as this new property. It was already hard enough to keep the lake/forest/hill/river apart from the protected area, which in the German Wikipedia are often placed in one article. Besides, just because a protected area is named after a geographic entity, it usually does not mean its areas are exactly the same, quite the contrary. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC) IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionCave ID at (available at*/
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values^[1-9]\d{0,3}$
Example 1Malkata peshtera (Q61788562) → 2247
Example 2Dobra voda (Q61788565) → 2250
Example 3Temna dupka (Q61788589) → 2269
Example 4Dupcheto (Q61788599) → 2277
Planned useReplace misuses of reference URL (P854) as seen at
Number of IDs in source1
Formatter URL*/$1


There are hundreds of Bulgarian caves in Wikidata that with reference URL (P854) to an ID-specific url of a defunct Bulgarian website; see this Wikidata query result: Since reference URL (P854) is not supposed to be used in this way: "The property reference URL should not be used in this location (as main value). The only valid location for this property is as references." This property would allow for the information to be properly retained. Imnasnainaec (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


It should be easy to write a bot to convert all these references to this new ID, but that is beyond my current access/ability. Imnasnainaec (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

minimum temperature recordEdit

Descriptionlowest temperature reached at this location
Representsminimum temperature record (Q63301851)
Data typeQuantity
Domaingeographic location (Q2221906)
Allowed unitsgenerally degree Celsius (Q25267), degree Fahrenheit (Q42289)
Example 1Afghanistan (Q889) → -52.2 °C
Example 2South Africa (Q258) → -18.6 °C
Example 3Albania (Q222) → -25.8 °C
Planned usearticle temperature records on Earth (Q20183675)
See alsomaximum temperature record (P6591)


Following a proposal by @Manu1400:, we created maximum temperature record (P6591) some time ago. I think this would nicely complete that. @Infovarius, Dhx1: fyi.

Please add more samples/help complete the proposal (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 10:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


  •   Support David (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Dhx1 (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Manu1400 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me from the examples and the description what this property means. The lowest temperature in what timeframe? ChristianKl❫ 10:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It should work like maximum temperature record (P6591) that uses the qualifier to indicate the date. It's the maximum/minimum value that is documented for a given place. --- Jura 12:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

gained territory fromEdit

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) territorial entity from which the subject item gained territory as a result of the event in the statement
Representsboundary change (Q28953942)
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier on statements of the form <subitem of territorial entity> significant event (P793) <subitem of boundary change (Q28953942)>
Allowed valuesterritorial entity (Q1496967)
Example 1United States of America (Q30) significant event (P793) Alaska Purchase (Q309029)gained territory from Russian Empire (Q34266)
Example 2Oxfordshire (Q23169) significant event (P793) boundary change (Q28953942)gained territory from Berkshire (Q23220) (point in time (P585) = 1 April 1974; applies to part (P518) = Vale of White Horse (Q1540110))
Example 3Coldingham (Q68815157) significant event (P793) boundary change (Q28953942)gained territory from Oldhamstocks (Q68826300) (point in time (P585) = 1890; has cause (P828) = Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 (Q6664029))
See alsosignificant event (P793); property proposed below: "gave up territory to"; replaces (P1365)

gave up territory toEdit

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) territorial entity to which the subject item gave up some of its territory as a result of the event in the statement
Representsboundary change (Q28953942)
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier on statements of the form <subitem of territorial entity> significant event (P793) <subitem of boundary change (Q28953942)>
Allowed valuesterritorial entity (Q1496967)
Example 1Russian Empire (Q34266) significant event (P793) Alaska Purchase (Q309029)gave up territory to United States of America (Q30)
Example 2Berkshire (Q23220) significant event (P793) boundary change (Q28953942)gave up territory to Oxfordshire (Q23169) (point in time (P585) = 1 April 1974; applies to part (P518) = Vale of White Horse (Q1540110))
Example 3Oldhamstocks (Q68826300) significant event (P793) boundary change (Q28953942)gave up territory to Coldingham (Q68815157) (point in time (P585) = 1890; has cause (P828) = Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 (Q6664029))
See alsosignificant event (P793); property proposed above: "gained territory from"; replaced by (P1366)


In recording boundary changes of a territorial entity, it would be useful to be able to indicate which entity it gained the additional territory from, or gave it up to. A qualifier on significant event (P793) = boundary change (Q28953942) statements seems the best way to do this.

There should normally exist parallel statements on the item gaining territority, and the item giving it up. Jheald (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Proposed. Jheald (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Melderick (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support both David (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There's already a lot of information on the items about countries. I think this information would be better stored within the item for the significant event. ChristianKl❫ 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: Useful comment. I had thought about what you suggest, but I don't think it will usually be the way to go, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, most smaller entities (eg the parish or the county in the examples above) won't have an item for the significant event, so then the information can only be stored as a statement on the main item. Secondly, even if we do have an item for a treaty (or a war), it seems to me that that is actually a separate thing from the boundary change, so I am not sure that this property would make sense on such an item. It seems to me that the treaty may be the proximate cause of the boundary change (and a war may be the underlying cause), but they are not actually the boundary change itself, so I'm not quite sure I can see how it would work. Concrete items like Alaska Purchase (Q309029) or Louisiana Purchase (Q193155) are really rather rare; and even then, arguably they refer to the whole process, negotiation, treaty-making, etc, rather than the just the boundary change, so even in these cases perhaps they are best seen as the cause of the boundary changing, rather than the change itself.
Perhaps an alternative, where a country X has a long and particularly complex territorial history, would be instead to have an auxiliary item "Territorial evolution of X", that would be a facet of (P1269) of X, and on which one could put the significant event (P793) statements for each of the boundary changes. We already have quite a few of these items, corresponding to some of the articles in eg en:Category:Territorial_evolution_by_country. It would seem quite a useful and natural way to keep the relevant information all discoverable and editable in one place. Jheald (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: But if you have changes that you think would make these proposed properties more useful on a wider range of items and statements, please do suggest them. Jheald (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


Outer spaceEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Space for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Space}}