Wikidata:Property proposal/port calls

port calls edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation

Done: port calls (P8764) (Talk and documentation)

Description	harbor or port at which the ship stopped; port of call
Represents	port of call (Q99732461)
Data type	Item
Domain	ships calling a limited number of ports over its lifetime
Allowed values	ports and harbours, qualify with date if possible
Example 1	HMNS Liberty (Q5631082) → Port Hercules (Q7230673) point in time: February 1910
Example 2	Doris (Q99752758) → Port Hercules (Q7230673) point in time: February 1910
Example 3	Sagitta (Q99752922) → Port Hercules (Q7230673) point in time: February 1910
Example 4	Calanthe (Q99753025) → Port Hercules (Q7230673) point in time: February 1910
Example 5	U-96 (Q708124) → Keroman Submarine Base (Q321306) start time 29 December 1940; end time 9 January 1941
Example 6	U-977 (Q571234) → Mar del Plata (Q52607) point in time 17 August 1945
Planned use	see below
Expected completeness	maybe complete for some vessels or ports over a given period of time, otherwise: incomplete
See also	via (P2825) (for items about voyages/routes) location (P276) (for museum exhibits on dry land/permanently moored vessels/wrecks?)

Motivation edit

Still have to come up with a few good samples. The idea is attempt to transcribe 19th century lists of vessels that called a given port. I don't think this should be used for vessels where it would result in thousands of statements. Please help complete the proposal to avoid this. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 10:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Ships. Please help complete the proposal. --- Jura 10:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

There are lots of similar properties that we could envison for ships, such as "position". Key, I think, would be that time information be given. On the other hand, I think that ships are badly described as of now, with lots of properties probably missing, and irrelevant properties ("Flag of registry") being filled by bots programmed by people who have a superficial understanding of the subject, so filling a history of positions and ports of call might not be a priority. Rama (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I should have mentioned location (P276). There are currently 51 ships that use it: [1]. Some seem to be museum exhibits /permanently moored vessels, others might be using it as home port. I'm not really sure if it's a good idea to add ports of call with that property. I don't quite see how "flag of registry" is relevant. Anyways, the idea is to try to work from a given port and see which vessels passed there in the 19th century. --- Jura 16:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like this idea of querying a port to see which vessels passed through in 19th century. Can the qualifying point in time be constrained as necessary, rather than optional? --Thadguidry (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - When looking for the above samples (#1-#4), I added a few vessels that we will probably find in several other ports. The same lists also included a couple of vessels that seem to be circulating between a few ports only. For these, we could easily add a port once and several lists as references. Maybe for these, a date on each call isn't optimal. What do you think? --- Jura 23:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add examples. NMaia (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all from early 20th century though @NMaia: --- Jura 12:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we need a port calls parameter since it is not Wikidata's task to provide updates on the location of mobile vessels. location (P276) should only be used for permanently moored vessel, wrecks or such ships that are being exhibited on dry land. For any other location data that needs permanent updating, there are other online services with much more accurate tools like Vesseltracker, Marine Traffic, etc. De728631 (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The proposal above doesn't suggest to create a property requiring permanent updating, but rather mention which ports ships of the 19th/early 20th century called. I doubt any of the above samples can be find in the tools you mention. Supposedly we could exclude any locations that could be found through these. BTW, I updated the P276 uses mentioned above per your wording. --- Jura 11:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what do you think, shall we move ahead with this?

@NMaia, Thadguidry, Nortix08: --- Jura 08:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Support It is a very specific property. As regards ships and submarines from the Second World War and before, it will be very useful because the list for each unit is limited and no longer extended. For ships of today I cannot estimate the scope. Nortix08 (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I even thought about us constraining to the qualifying date of < 1960 but that would hurt rather than help, there are some historical ships that still travel (Star of India and Skibladner) (limited ports). --Thadguidry (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is not my area of expertise but, 1) why is the property plural? 2) In English the term is known as "port of call." Why is this not acceptable? - Kosboot (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Normally, (1) multiple values are expected, as e.g. category combines topics (P971). (2) It can be an alias. Somehow I think the proposed label makes it clearer how it should be used. --- Jura 13:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NMaia, Thadguidry, Nortix08: @Jura1, Kosboot: I am creating port calls (P8764)--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC) This is far away from my usual domain, since my core expertise are items about people and cultural heritage. I kindly will ask you to improve it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]