Wikidata:Property proposal/historical region

historical region edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

Done: historical region (P6885) (Talk and documentation)

Description	geographic area which at some point in time had a cultural, ethnic, linguistic or political basis, regardless of present-day borders
Represents	historical region (Q1620908)
Data type	Item
Template parameter	"země" in cs:šablona:Infobox - sídlo
Domain	human settlement (Q486972)
Allowed values	instance of (P31) historical region (Q1620908)
Example 1	Prague (Q1085) → Bohemia (Q39193)
Example 2	Brno (Q14960) → Moravia (Q43266)
Example 3	Wrocław (Q1799) → Silesia (Q81720)
Example 4	Nantes (Q12191) → Brittany (Q327)
Planned use	Infoboxes, queries
See also	location (P276), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), located in the present-day administrative territorial entity (P3842)

Motivation edit

Historical regions are sometimes a very strong part of the local identity. Some of them could be a past administrative entity, some of them not.

In my opinion in this case location (P276) is too general, located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) with start time (P580) and end time (P582) qualifiers is inaccurate, as some of these regions were not an administrative entity, but mainly end time (P582) qualifiers in inappropriate, as people still feel to be part of the historical region, even it has been dissolved or divided. Jklamo (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support this does sound helpful, we seem to get a lot of questions from users about this sort of thing. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support David (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support JAn Dudík (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC) For settlements in the Czechia is it very useful property. Add yes, it should be limited to settlements, because this usually were in one region. JAn Dudík (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This could be rephrased as "former region" or "prior region" and potentially cause less bias, but it seems that the cultural identity is important here with a nod about its history, regardless of causing some bias with the term "historical". There are those folks that will elevate this with the idea of "historically important" and we should be careful and mention in its description that the importance of a region is not what this property is about, but that "a region had a prior name and cultural identity that may still remain in part even today". Thadguidry (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Historical region as a label was proposed because of historical region (Q1620908) label and its clear definition at en:Historical region as well as enwiki categorization. "former region" or "prior region" are good aliases, but "historical region" is clearly defined and widely used.--Jklamo (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some things to consider:
- Should use of this be limited to human settlements, as suggested above, or perhaps also be used for provinces and districts and such? (I imagine we want to restrict it somehow, to prevent it being used on every building and territorial entity and natural feature, but I'm not sure that human settlements is the right choice.)
- Should this property be used even if the former region is already indicated via located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)?
- What counts as a historical region? Should this include every single former country or geopolitical unit of any level that has covered that spot?
- Should this be used for settlements that no longer exist, to point to historical regions that also no longer exist?
--Yair rand (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (As these points remain unclear, I Oppose creating this for the time being.) --Yair rand (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Statement on Wikidata generally aren't time-bound. It's better to use the existing ways of specifying regions and with appropriate qualifiers. Maybe we even need new ways to qualify a new type of regions, but I don't think going over time is the right way. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose loose term. When the entity was of the administrative kind, it should be used located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) with qualifiers. When not... I guess location (P276) does the job here. strakhov (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) will work very well, with the appropiate qualifiers. --Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Díaz ★ diskutujo 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cwf97 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful for Incubator, we the Incubator users wanna it, please send petition emails to those oppose users above, to convert their unfair opposition of developing Incubator supports to fair supports. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t see how this is needed when we can say “location” or “located in administrative territory” = some historical region, with start and end times. In any case, if we have this property it should be called “located in historical region”. - PKM (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @PKM: There is a problem with your solution. It is still located in this historical region. It did not cease to be located there; the region is just not administratively recognized any more. Sometimes, the region was never administrative in the first place. Understand it as "located in non-administrative entity". --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Okay, I'm convinced. - PKM (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not use that label, in that case? "Historical region" might be misunderstood as a replacement for P131 when given an end date. --Yair rand (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deror avi (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lutzto (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Completely. Would be really helpful. Cuatro Remos (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jklamo, Thierry Caro, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Matěj Suchánek, JAn Dudík: @Thadguidry, Yair rand, ChristianKl, Strakhov, Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Diaz: @Pigsonthewing, Cwf97, Liuxinyu970226, PKM, Vojtěch Dostál: @Yair rand, Deror avi, Lutzto, Cuatro Remos: Done This is one of those inconclusive substantive discussions, but reviewing it there does seem to be a general consensus that it's useful and not sufficiently covered by existing properties, with a remaining concern about misuse - however I've added the proposed constraints requiring a value of "historical region" which I think should be clear to anybody trying to misuse it. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]