Wikidata:Property proposal/locative

label in locativeEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

   Not done
Descriptionlocative form of the native label. Use only for languages/forms listed on the property documentation page. Don't add languages without previously describing which exact form should be included here.
Representslocative case (Q202142)
Data typeMonolingual text
Allowed valuesLanguages: Polish, Hungarian, Latin
For Polish, include locative form only, no instrumental case.
For Hungarian, include only (-t/-tt)-forms.
ExampleWrocław (Q1799) → pl:"Wrocławiu"
  • Not much. See below.
    --- Jura 12:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Why not make something like female form of label (P2521) and call it "label in locative"? My home language (sv) has no casus at all, so I feel I am on very thin ice here! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done I think the property might be more of an advantage for speakers of languages without a locative. Depending on the language even for native speakers it can be helpful, as forms don't always follow simple rules.
--- Jura 14:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We don't need a new property to be able to add aliases, so I don't see why this is so urgent that we need a temporary property for it and can't wait until we have Wiktionary support. - Nikki (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Nikki, Jura1: et al. Is Wrocław (Q1799) a typical topic in Wiktionary? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Innocent bystander: Yes, see wikt:en:Wrocław. Proper nouns like that are still words and still have linguistic information associated with them (etymology, pronunciation, audio, gender, declensions, derived words, translations, etc) so there is no reason to exclude them. - Nikki (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    One advantage with that would maybe be that "Wrocław", "Wroclaw" and "Breslau" can have different locative. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    What would be the disadvantages of storing the information in a property until Wiktionary offers that (e.g. in 2018)? Aliases aren't really structured.
    --- Jura 07:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    If this needs to be added now, it's your job to convince us why it's so important that it can't wait. There have already been various other things we didn't add because they belong in Wiktionary, many of which had better justification for why we should have them. Converting things is inherently disruptive. You might remember how much arguing was involved with introducing external identifiers, that was a trivial change in comparison. - Nikki (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    Well, I did most of the work for that conversion (at least, what wasn't done by devs) and a few others. Generally, I think I can say that I follow through with my proposals without creating much of cleanup for others. I don't think there is much disruption if it was made clear beforehand. Personally, I'd rather add it this year than next year.
    --- Jura 08:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I do not mind to create such property. But I do not know if I find dedicated purpose to use it in plwiki. BTW I did not use female form of label (P2521) yet. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Paweł Ziemian: Personally, I think the main interest of this property would be to users who don't speak the native language or speak it only badly. Locative form makes it harder to identify places in sources. Not sure if there would be much use in Wikipedia. Maybe redirects could be generated there based on this property.
      --- Jura 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
      • My scope of view is rather narrow, mainly using statements in infoboxes. However if you look for broader scope I think simple locative form is not enough. It is only pure Wictionary element. It would be better to define property that describes very narrow and well defined purpose. Examples are "in [the box], on, above, under, near to" etc. They seems to be "locative", but there are 7 cases in Polish, and for some of them different cases are used:
        1. in Warsaw (Q270)w Warszawie (locative)
        2. in Wrocław → we Wrocławiu (locative)
        3. about Wrocław → o Wrocławiu (locative)
        4. Dear Wrocław! → Drogi Wrocławiu! (here vocative case (Q185077))
        5. near to Wrocław → pod Wrocławiem (here instrumental case (Q192997))
        6. under Wrocław → pod Wrocławiem (here instrumental case (Q192997)) - a little funny, the city of Wrocław is on the Earth (BTW na Ziemi - locative), but maybe someone is digging a tunnel under it, this need some more context in the phrase
        7. nearby Wrocław → przy Wrocławiu (locative)
      • All the sentences need some preposition (Q8479428) to make them unambiguous. To be more complex some of the prepositions might use alternative form depending on the word followed (w-we). Paweł Ziemian (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Maybe this property is both too ambitious and not sufficiently ambitious. If we want to limit it to the "Wrocławiu"-form (in Polish), how would it need to be described?
          --- Jura 11:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
          • The description is OK, but the usage is rather useless without knowing the language. I would be afraid to use values in language other than Polish. Human language is a complicated beast. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
            • I think it depends on the use you make of it. It's main use would be to find the correct item at Wikidata based on the string. Currently, this isn't possible.
              --- Jura 14:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am not a native speaker of a language that uses the locative. From the little Hungarian I know, I think there are 2 problems with this property. (1) As the Polish example above, Hungarian has multiple grammatical cases that are subclasses of the locative. So when wiktionary arrives we want a property that connects "ház" --> inessive case (Q282031) --> "házban". (2) The problem that items like Vienna (Q1741) could in Hungarian either link to "Bécs" or "Wien-ban" depending if you use the Hungarian word or the German for Vienna. In summary without lexemes this will create pretty confusing data, so I would prefer to wait. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe we should clearly state for each language what we want to be included (I amended this above). Hungarian is probably one of the more complicated ones. Still w:Locative_case#Hungarian suggests that the when limiting it to the one called "locative" one would include only a few and seems to list no (-t/-tt)-form. Vienna would probably not be of much interest anyways as its native label is in German.
--- Jura 15:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I can see a clear use for this property, particularly for bot-related tasks, bur I agree that it is better to wait for a few weeks to see how this planed integration of Wiktionaries will reflect on Wikidata. Probably we could then use Wiktionary items to solve this problem, but if not, we can always create new property. --Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Милан Јелисавчић:. Thanks for your feedback. I don't think it's a matter of weeks. It might not even something that gets done in 2017. But maybe you have more recent information on this. Obviously, we can convert/remove it if Wiktionary solves it. In the meantime, it might provide a structured source ready for its use.
      BTW In the proposal above, I expanded the rules on which forms to include for what language.
      --- Jura 11:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  Not done No support.--Micru (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)