Wikidata:Property proposal/number of lines

number of lines edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation

Not done

Description	Number of lines/routes
Data type	Number (not available yet)
Template parameter	`\|lines=` in en:Template:Infobox public transit
Domain	S-Bahn (Q95723), rapid transit (Q5503), commuter rail service (Q1412403)...
Example 1	Munich S-Bahn (Q256524) → 8
Example 2	London Underground (Q20075) → 11
Example 3	Munich Tramway (Q526596) → 13
Example 4	Saint Petersburg Metro (Q250225) → 5
Planned use	data import from lots of Wiki

Motivation edit

(Sorry, I can't speak english very well... :( ) I would like write lot of metro/S-Bahn/tram articles width Wikidata-data B.Zsolt (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support David (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with a constraint recommending start time (P580) and end time (P582) as qualifiers). Jc86035 (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d tend to Oppose and suggest the of use
⟨ metro system ⟩ has part(s) of the class (P2670) ⟨ line ⟩
quantity (P1114) ⟨ the number ⟩
for such a usecase. author TomT0m / talk page 10:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – LaSza 🚍🚊🚎🚇 ^{^{(huwiki talkpage)}} 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TomT0m. This is additionally problematic because often "line" is not well-defined and users will use this property for both lines and routes. Jc86035 (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose has part(s) of the class (P2670) is enough. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above. --Yair rand (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support has part(s) of the class (P2670) is unable to model historic development and it is hard to query.--Jklamo (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wouldn't it be possible to model historic development? Use P1114 together with time qualifiers. --Yair rand (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jklamo, would make to query easy. I think the number of new properties is not an acceptable reason to reject this. Kemenymate (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jklamo, Kemenymate: Why historic things? Anyway and anyhow even if they're also required for you, then have you ever tried significant event (P793)?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify "not well-defined", the proposal examples indicate that for this property "line" would actually be used to mean the number of named services, rather than the number of physical lines. However, users would almost certainly misunderstand this to also mean the number of physical lines, which is a fairly important distinction for some systems (for example, the New York City Subway (Q7733) has 27 services but 36 lines, and most of its services traverse multiple lines). I would also note that the Munich tramway actually has 17 services, including the four night routes. There are several layers of granularity here (and with the other property) which would be better indicated by using has part(s) of the class (P2670) using various different items. Jc86035 (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tomt0m, historic informations are not suitable here. --60.26.9.13 02:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The property is uncler per Jc86035. The description is also pretty awaful in that it doesn't even try to clarify what's meant by line. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose better use has part(s) of the class (P2670).--Geogast (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]