Wikidata:Property proposal/cadastral district

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

asssociated cadastral district

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

Descriptioncadastral district in which a place is located or is part of. Use only if distinct from administrative entities (P131) in predefined countries.
Data typeItem
Domainlocalities and villages in predefined countries; currently: only Austria (Q40)
Allowed valuesitems for cadastral districts, e.g. cadastral municipality (Q253326)
Example 1Erlsberg (Q109839533)Erlsberg (Q109839531)
Example 2Furrach (Q109807015)Erlsberg (Q109839531)
Example 3Ilgenberg (Q109807035)Erlsberg (Q109839531)
See also

Motivation

[edit]

Given the lengthy discussion on project chat, this proposal. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 22:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Erlsberg

I made a chart of Erlsberg with WP:Erlsberg as article and all the WD items I suppose it will have. So WP:Erlsberg is connected to WD:multiple topics Erlsberg and this is linked to WD:dispersed settlement Erlsberg, WD:locality Erlsberg and WD:cadastral community Erlsberg. The item WD:dispersed settlement Erlsberg will have a link to WD:locality Erlsberg and the item WD:locality Erlsberg will have a link to WD:cadastral community Erlsberg. Beside, there are WP:Rüschersiedlung and WP:Vorstatt (and some other single houses I did not mention) within the locality of Erlsberg. The cadastral community also includes the localities of Furrach, Ilgenberg, Planneralm and Winklern, each with some houses. And Planneralm (Q1717842) is a ski resort near one of tree single houses within the dispersed settlement of Planneralm, part of the locality of Plammeralm within cadastral community of Erlsberg. (I did this with SVG, so everybody should be able to edit this chart.)

This is the model I suppose User:Emu means. I am sure that all this is very complex. I need to hold some information in an item an I think I cannot access this information, when it is not held in the item directly connected to the article. --Maincomb (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really. You can access all data in these items. Sample for use on Q109839533 (locality), to get the data from the item Q109839531 (cadastral municipality).
  • {{#invoke:wd|property|raw|Q109839533|P8138}} gives Q109839531 from Q109839533#P8138
  • {{#invoke:wd|property|{{#invoke:wd|property|raw|Q109839533|P8138}}|P2046}} gives 40.478819 square kilometre from Q109839531#P2046
--- Jura 10:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias1984 Vojtěch Dostál YjM Jklamo Walter Klosse Sintakso Matěj Suchánek JAn Dudík Skim Frettie Jura1913 Mormegil Jedudedek marv1N Sapfan Daniel Baránek Draceane Michal Josef Špaček (WMCZ) The photonaut Hartasek Zelenymuzik Gumruch Shadster Dænča M.Rejha Janek Jan Kameníček Eva Vele Linda.jansova Lukša Packa Fukejs Hugo Xmorave2 J.Broukal Lenkakrizova Steam Flow Pavel Bednařík Sanqui

Notified participants of WikiProject Czech Republic

In en:WP, there is en:template:wd - but there is no de:template:wd, bar:template:wd, fr:template:wd, it:template:wd etc. - in de:WP and bar:WP there only is the old-fashioned de:Vorlage:Wikidata with base functionality, that is a modification of the deprecated en:Module:Wikidata and located at de:Modul:Wikidata. You can test it in bar:Erlsberg, where I made some examples. --Maincomb (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy the module to the relevant Wikipedia(s). If you need further help with LUA or infobox editing, please ask at Wikidata:Project chat. --- Jura 11:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In de:WP there is mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs "autoreview" active and it is said that there are some problems with moduls and templates that are not modified for autoreview. Because I am blocked in de:WP, User:Emu should ask there. --Maincomb (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is widespread opposition to anything remotely Wikidata-related on de.wp, I’m not really inclined to do so. Emu (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that there could be a strong opposition in de:WP, but its just about asking. (It even might be hard to ask, because we already know the answer ...) --Maincomb (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the dewiki block and debates, but it isn't relevant for Wikidata and even less so for this proposal. What we can bear in mind is that use in infoboxes is technically possible.
The question here is mainly which property to use to link from items for villages, localities, etc. to items for cadastral districts. --- Jura 15:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erlsberg, 2nd model
First, we should talk about the items. I simplified Emus suggestion, now it is without "multiple topics". (I did it with SVG, so everybody can edit this chart.) And I do not know how to access locality and cadastral community from the WP:article, but this is my only motivation. :-( --Maincomb (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used existing items for the samples (created by yourself and Emu). Hope that helps explain how the proposed property is to be used. --- Jura 10:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the next days, I will try to install en:module:wd into bar:WP and create a functional model. --Maincomb (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emu: I installed en:module:wd into bar:WP and modified Erlsberg (Q67288493). What do you think about it? --Maincomb (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maincomb Wenn ich das richtig verstehe, ist Erlsberg (Q67288493) jetzt die Ortschaft in einem abstrahierten Sinn (was ich an anderer Stelle einmal Privatontologie genannt habe), während Erlsberg (Q109839533) die Ortschaft im Sinne der Ortschaftskennziffer ist (hier fehlen diverse Angaben, siehe Rufzeichen neben den Statements) und Erlsberg (Q109839531) die Katastralgemeinde. Hm. Kann man vermutlich so machen, wenn man das möchte. (Bemerkenswert ist übrigens, dass es bei keinem einzigen Statement eine Quellenangabe gibt, aber dieses Schicksal teilen die Items leider mit vielen anderen Items.) Emu (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emu: In my understanding, the WP:article is about the geographical/physical place, thus the connected item Erlsberg (Q67288493) is about something geographical/physical. This is a village, a hamlet or in case of Erlsberg a "dispersed settlement". I cannot understand what is meant by "locality in an abstract manner" and by "private onthology". I only know three typs of localities: political localities, statistical localities and postal localities and I am only modelling statistical localities because of the data. (The reasons of the exclamation marks are described there and do not affect the model itself.) The section "main subject" in Erlsberg (Q67288493) will be deleted and new sections called "located in the statistical territorial entity" and "asssociated cadastral district" (=this topic) will appear instead. I deleted your "Wikipedia article covering multiple topics" because I want to keep all as flat as possible. Furthermore: When I enter Erlsberg in a search box, I already get three choices: Erlsberg, Erlsberg and Erlsberg, one as settlement, one as locality and one as cadastral unit. This is complex enough and "Erlsberg" as "Wikipedia article covering multiple topics" would be the fourth choice. Question: What should a person, that was born in Erlsberg, select as place of birth (P19)? Settlement, locality, cadastral unit or Wikipedia article covering multiple topics? Will we need "locality of birth" and "cadastral unit of birth" to cover all aspects of birth? :-(
Geographical objects were never modeled that complicated in Wikidata so this might be an impact for many other items. (Will all place of birth (P19) need to be corrected?) What is your suggestion for a better model? --Maincomb (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already discussed this several times, I won’t repeat the discussion again and again. The main problem is that bar.wp (i.e. you) conflates all kinds of concepts just because they share the same name. So it’s really bar.wp that causes the problems. -- Emu (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emu: Yes, we discussed this several times and I never got your solution. Nearly all WPs have a single article for local objects, there is nearly no distinction. I did this in bar:WP because I installed bar:module:wd an tested this model in bar:Erlsberg. Now the floor is yours, give me your suggestions. (This is not the fault of bar:WP and you can demonstrate your model with other items.) --Maincomb (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Would you kindly discuss bar elsewhere? This is a property proposal discussion. I suppose the only question is if one should use Q109839533 or Q67288493 as a sample item, but this needn't be resolved here. Given that the Q109839533 was edited since I first added it, I removed it as sample.--- Jura 14:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]