Wikidata:Property proposal/sports in region

sports in region edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

Not done

Description	item about sports in general practiced in the country or region, sample: "sports in Brazil" for "Brazil"
Data type	Item
Domain	countries and other geographic locations
Allowed values	sport in a geographic region (Q29791211)
Example 1	Brazil (Q155) → sport in Brazil (Q2495055)
Example 2	Russia (Q159) → sport in Russia (Q2469987)
Example 3	Wales (Q25) → sport in Wales (Q2075835)
Example 4	Tunisia (Q948) → sport in Tunisia (Q3493942)
See also	history of topic (P2184): item about the historical development of a subject's topic, example: "history of Argentina" for "Argentina". To list key events of the topic, use "significant event" (P793) geography of topic (P2633): item that deals with the geography of the subject. Sample: "Rio de Janeiro" uses this property with value "geography of Rio de Janeiro" (Q10288853). For the location of a subject, use "location" (P276).

Motivation edit

This is similar to geography of topic and history of topic: it allows to discover more easily items (and linked articles) about sports in a given country or region and the countless related topics. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 16:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Sports --- Jura 16:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support It is quite logical, but I can formulate many similar properties like for football in Russia (Q1478197), basketball in Spain (Q810364), swimming in India (Q7658374)… Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, but I'd tend to link them from or to the sample items instead. --- Jura 17:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That said, I believe this could be widened – and renamed – to also cover universities. We could have Texas A&M University (Q49212) → Texas A&M Aggies (Q151521), unless such relation is already covered by some other property I am not aware of. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a new property is being discussed here. I wonder whether the two proposals could be merged, even though they do not aim for exactly the same thing. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a risk that we end up having Paris (Q90) → Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (Q483020) or <place> → <local omnisport club>? Not the relationship isn't interesting, but the topical link is different. --- Jura 17:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see. Maybe having two properties is better. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; this relation is important for the "sport in region" item, but not for the region itself. Thus, this should better be the other way round, e.g. "sport in Brazil (Q2495055) <related to place> Brazil (Q155)". —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I'm here on the MisterSynergy site and agree with his reasoning. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe there three or four aspects to consider about such items in Wikidata:
  1. one could view that essentially they are not needed: one could just query for information about geography/history/sports in a particular region and wont need these items. Maybe that's essentially an abstract, Query Service-based view, ignore any linked items and Wikipedia articles.
  2. another view could be that these items are the focus of a particular topic and provide the entry point for that in Wikidata and elsewhere. Maybe this is essentially a Wikidata view, possibly assuming that such items exist for all places. I suppose this is what @MisterSynergy has in mind.
  3. a third view could be that the item about the place exists and includes information about geography/history/sports/etc, but sometimes has separate articles on some aspects (e.g. its history). This is essentially the Wikipedia view and, to the extent that Wikidata helps provide sitelinks and structure to Wikipedia, a view of Wikidata for its primary function (provide sitelinks). To retrieve a given Wikipedia's coverage, one needs to query the main article and existing subarticles for geography/history/sports/etc. Infoboxes in some languages make use of this as well.
  4. another aspect we sometimes encounter is that the information about some details couldn't all be on the item about the places and needs to be stored elsewhere. This currently happens with demographics/economy. It's mainly a Wikidata specific aspect.

Maybe there are other aspects to consider. Depending on the topic, one or the other aspect can be more important. --- Jura

I think the vast majority of these "sport in X", "history of Y", "geography of Z" items are here for the sitelinks only (which is fine). However, we usually do not really add content to them which goes beyond a basic definition so that these items are managable and searchable. I consider them as internal entities, similar to "Wikimedia lists" for instance, because they much more describe some Wikimedia-internal approach to present knowledge, rather than a real-world concept. I would thus much rather avoid to link to them, and favor the inverse path so that they point to the items that they describe. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"geography of <place>" (and most others) are very much a real world concepts and objects of study. Depending on the topic I favor view #2 (yours) as well. --- Jura 11:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is fine expressed with:

<sports in XXX> instance of (P31) sport in a geographic region (Q29791211), and

<sports in XXX> location (P276) <XXX>

I agree with MisterSynergy that the <sports in XXX> items are not important for the regions. It is, as I see it, more items that need to exist to provide sitelinks to Wikimedia projects. There are multiple instances of <YYY in XXX> items to provide such sitelinks, and it would not be logical to create properties for the many different values of <YYY in>. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From query point of view, P276+P31 and the property proposed here would be equivalent (and one may prefer this proposed property over its simplicity), but from a contributor side, this isn't actually true. The proposed property simplifies editing these items. --- Jura 15:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1, Сидик из ПТУ, Thierry Caro, MisterSynergy, Gymnicus, Dipsacus fullonum: Not done —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]