Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for comment/P31 or P279 for geo-objects

< Wikidata:Requests for comment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as stale, with low participation and the proposer blocked/globally locked. --Rschen7754 05:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With additional "former" former administrative territorial entity (Q19953632) we need to use qualifiers to disambiguate values in P31. But when we don't use secondary classification (former and current), then there is nothing to disambiguate (less qualifiers) before after

former should mean

I'm looking for opinions why do we need to use Q19953632.

If it is something we can avoid, I suggest to use one way (e.g. with less qualifiers). d1g (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our models here tends to be little to simple than real life. In Sweden, parishes used to be the smallest administrative entity. But does that mean that they have ceased to exists? No, it is just a result of the separation of the Swedish lutheran church from the state. They still have a function within the church, but since the magic night of 1999-12-31/2000-01-01, they are no longer a part of the government of the Swedish nation. Civil parishes were the main administrative division outside citys until the mid-19th century. Most of its task has gradually been taken over by the municipalities and other entities. Even if they are not a central part of the administration any longer, they still have a few functions left. So are Swedish civil parishes "former"? In some aspects, Yes indead, in others No, not at all! Swedish provinces lost their main administrative functions even further centuries back! I doubt there is any real administrative function around them any longer. But if you ask a Swede how (s)he identify him/herself, it is not as belonging to a county. It is most often as belonging to a province. So are provinces former administrative units? Well, yes, but you still see them on maps and people identify themselves with them. You can still find statistics about their population in Statistics Sweden. So, they, sort of, still exists! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocent bystander: if it possible to create just 2 items and define their capabilities and responsibilities - then it is not so complicated.
Two claims like
⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ agreement 1800-1900 ⟩
⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ agreement 1900-2000 ⟩
make sense, but "historic" and "former ATE" are vague and not so useful when it comes to actual historic information.
BTW much more complex situation is where several kingdoms or city-state participate within "country" or disputed territories. d1g (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocent bystander: another complexity is when territories of Empires gain independence: one claim would be "historic" only with respect to "old" empire (or new country?), not new independent country.
So my suggestion is not to use "former" items but actual agreements on territories with date ranges. d1g (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Things tends to happen gradually, and sometimes not always at the same time in all of the nation. Even Norway became independent gradually from Sweden-Norway. The relation finally ended by a couple of signatures on a peace treaty, but that after several changes in the relation during decades. The Swedish intention was originally the same as the one with Estonia in the 16th century. First a loose relation where Estonia handled its own internal affairs, until it was totally digested and Estonia became a Swedish province like all the other.
Our "county councils" here are now migrating toward becoming "regional councils". Not much is in reality changing. They have got one new responsibility (regional development) together with the option to change their names from "county council" to "regional council". Much larger changes has happened since the 1860's when they were founded, but they are NOW described by new articles, mainly because they get new names. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocent bystander: is common to agree and quit same terms but with slightly different dates
Start date qualifier should be used in P31 "term" claim to indicate delay.
Question: should we do the same in ATE properties?..
But "term" item can span longer period of time; and possibly have parallel "terms" in one country.
Because this is difficult to track without preparation, we should use next/previous statements at "term" (agreement 1800-1900) next (agreement 1900-2000)
1800 indicates first member to apply and 1900 latest date of last member. d1g (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not even easy to tell what a ATE is sometimes. To continue the discussion about Swedish county/regional councils above. County councils were in many ways not considered territorial at all. They administrates mainly health care, public transport (Q178512) and culture. You can hardly say you are inside a county council unless you are inside a hospital or its administrative buildings. As they changed names to "regional councils" instead, they suddenly started to use flags and people started to say "I am from Region X". Today, all regional/county councils have the same borders as counties, but that has not always been true, since Kalmar county used to have two county councils and some citys/municipalities used to be "county council free areas". (Do not let the name "county council fool you, the Swedish name is "landsting" and has very little to do with both "county" and "council".) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should apply ATE as territorial division used in some economic sector (modern view) or as their responsibilities in tribute (Q748289) (historic perspective)
Public services and public healthcare is a tertiary/quaternary sector.
@Innocent bystander: this definition would be the most useful for current countries, but possible for historic. d1g (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that way Sweden could be considered as a unitary state (Q179164), not divided at all! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocent bystander: sub divisions are used in almost every country just because territories are vast or population is concentrated.
China and Ukraine are unitary republics, but have divisions for centuries; same for other countries. d1g (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/P31_or_P279_for_geo-objects&oldid=654062576"