Wikidata:Requests for comment/Property: belongs to jurisdiction
| An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Property: belongs to jurisdiction" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
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.
Closing this RFC. While there was much discussion, there was no specific proposal on which there was any consensus, and there has been little activity for almost two years (and none for over 6 months). Note that the English property name has been changed (to "applies to jurisdiction"). Also a large number of examples have been provided on applies to jurisdiction (P1001) that clarify its purpose; it is also used in constraints on other properties and elsewhere so changing its meaning at this point would be disruptive. Therefore I believe the discussion below is essentially obsolete with regard to the current status of the property.
ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This property seems to be the cause of thorough confusion. In fact, looking at its original creation discussion, I cannot quite figure what it's supposed to represent! The potential multiple conflicting meanings of "jusrisdiction" are certainly not helping!
Most likely, the constraints defined for it are a major source of problems in defining it, but looking at the constraint violation report, a few issues really need to be sorted out.
- Is the property appropriate for distinguishing federal and provincial/state "jurisdiction" over nonterritorial organizations like National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Q214700)?
- Me I say such cases should probably be handled by part of (P361) (to agencies and ultimate to the federal government).
- Is the property appropriate for administrative entities that themselves fall within the "jurisdiction" of a territorial entity outside the bounds of "normal" territorial divisions such as transportation operators, school districts or Euroregions (as found in Bedburg-Hau (Q243433))?
- The former may be appropriate, but the latter two are clear part of (P361) to me.
- If the original discussion was in fact about territorial courts, whyever is the current constraint strictly connected to political entities, causing problems whenever the division happens to be administrative instead (e.g. the Swedish district court (Q2065704), which show up in several places in the constraint report)?
The property could probably use at the very least a renaming (something along the lines of "has jurisdiction within the territory of") for clarity, and possibly a "split" for the "governmental jurisdiction" thing ("is legislated by" is not an option, sadly). Circeus (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When I originally proposed this property, I wasn't fully aware of the extensive use of the word "jurisdiction" in English. I understand the concept, but it's not the way we use the word in Swedish. Semanticly, I think it would work to use this property for both meanings, but it makes a mess in the constraints. I would propose that we here keep the meaning "governmental jurisdiction" for P1001 and create a new property for the originally proposed meaning. Simply use "part of" works poorly since there is no simple hierarcy. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lavallen: You say "it's not the way we use it in Sweden" but you don't say what way you do use it in Sweden. Please can you write out a paragraph describing how you do propose to use this property, noting what should be excluded and what included. If we agree on that then we can then see if we can edit it down to a shorter label. Filceolaire (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess when I saw this property was that it is the property to use in place of country of origin (P495) or country (P17) for items like government agencies. P17 should be reserved for geographical features, so P1001 would be the logical replacement for government agencies. /ℇsquilo 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The domsaga I live in here: Ångermanland District Court (Q10726549) is marked with dark red here. The related appeal court handle all of the light red area. In the late 1800 all municipalities could be described to be in some domsaga, and every domsaga was in some county. If that would have been true in all of the Swedish history, I could have used located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), but that is not the case. The district courts are no longer geographicly related to the rest of the civil administration. The hierarchy becomes to complicated to describe only with P131.
- The way you use "in jurisdiction" would I, until when I learned recently, never use anything else than Sweden (Q34) since we have the same law in all of the nation. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet any multi-tier justice system can make use of the property: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Q49669) applies to jurisdiction (P1001) United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Q250479). Circeus (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My guess when I saw this property was that it is the property to use in place of country of origin (P495) or country (P17) for items like government agencies. P17 should be reserved for geographical features, so P1001 would be the logical replacement for government agencies. /ℇsquilo 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lavallen: You say "it's not the way we use it in Sweden" but you don't say what way you do use it in Sweden. Please can you write out a paragraph describing how you do propose to use this property, noting what should be excluded and what included. If we agree on that then we can then see if we can edit it down to a shorter label. Filceolaire (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the property seems to be used primarily as a way to indicate what territory an entity has power to act in. This is a rather strange interpretation of the property name. Circeus (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a term we use in Wiki Loves Monuments to identify which governing body is in charge of protection of cultural heritage for the item at hand. In the Netherlands, we have Rijksmonuments, Aardkundige monuments, Municipal monuments and National monuments. Depending on the law and the proper agency, the way WLM photo's are handled on Commons is according to the proper categories representing the Wikipedia lists of the items per jurisdiction specified by the agency. There can be a high number of these per type of heritage object in any given country. Hope it helps. Jane023 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's yet another suggested use that confirms how people can't interpret the property, from Property talk:P237: "coat of arms of Liechtenstein (Q207282) : applies to jurisdiction (P1001) => Liechtenstein (Q347)". Circeus (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecation of this property edit
@Circeus, Lavallen, Filceolaire, Esquilo, Jane023: I have nominated this property for deletion, so we can move its values to more specific properties. See: Wikidata:Properties for deletion#applies to jurisdiction (1001).--Micru (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that link doesn't take me to a discussion? And I can't see what the replacement model is going to be - is this a list of properties, or a set of guidelines how to determine jurisdiction for items? thx, Jane023 (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still active ? edit
@Circeus, Lavallen, Filceolaire, Esquilo, Jane023: Can we close this RfC after more than one year without new edit ? Thanks Snipre (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is related to a discussion about whether we should create properties for each WLM list or Museum collection. If we don't how de we describe them? For WLM provincial monuments, this property can be used as a qualifier to show monument lists per province (and in the US and Germany, per state). If we say each listholder gets a property then this is unnecessary. After a few years I am thinking we should just make the properties. That way we can easily see both which states and jurisdictions do and those that do not have lists. Jane023 (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]