Talk:Q69765

P131 values

@AnBuKu: please avoid deleting statements that are not clearly wrong.

• Wikidata doesn't use presentism.
• The comparison with parent-child is incorrect, as, e.g. father is a single valued property.
• In general, districts of Switzerland aren't that helpful in P131, as only some are administrative territorial entities. Neither electoral districts nor statistical quarters should be added with P131. There are electoral district (P768) and located in statistical territorial entity (P8138).

To keep the structure stable, please add additional statements or qualifiers and adjust rank.

If you need help with queries or setting ranks, don't hesitate to ask. --- Jura 09:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Salut @Jura1: Basically, I follow the suggestions / inputs of Eihel (talk • contribs • logs), or at least I think I did and do so.

That "districts of Switzerland aren't that helpful in P131" I wouldn't say, as it may be useful for future queries with future data we don't know yet, that's why I use the districts it they are available (if not available, I try to fix that)

From now on I make attention, that the smallest administrative entity (in my case usually a "municipality of Switzerland" or in the city of Bern one of the 32 city districts) is always in the first place within located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and I control, if it renders informative/nicely in the corresponding Wikimedia category.

In the case of the city of Bern with 6 city districts and 32 quarters, what are as well statistical territorial entities (Quartier, respektive "statistischer Bezirk"), I keep on using located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) as I did so far. I tested located in statistical territorial entity (P8138) to be used with smallest entity instead of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), but it is not rendered in Wikimedia Category, thus no alternative.

I think it is quite nice, that in {{Wikidata Infobox}} smallest localities to biggest is shown as now. In that way the people using Wikimedia may have the possibility to learn about the locality.

As an idea: located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) might be improved in a way, that all upper entities are shown as tree, but no active link and not creating an overload of results with SPARQL queries.

cheeers, AnBuKu (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@AnBuKu: As long as you don't delete or overwrite any statements, I don't mind. P131 shouldn't be used for statistical entities or electoral districts, even if it may look "nice" in some application. location (P276) might be the more general solution you are looking for (already supported by Commons, I think). --- Jura 20:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: in this example, Elfenaupark (Q1328444) I respect the suggestion of @Eihel: and it works in commons:Category:Elfenau_(Bern) as well. IMHO, that is OK. AnBuKu (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this statement? I removed it in the meantime. If you prefer, I can set it to deprecated rank. --- Jura 21:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In general, I would try to set at least the municipality in P131 for any place. --- Jura 21:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The reference: https://www.bern.ch/themen/stadt-recht-und-politik/bern-in-zahlen/katost/stasta, hope it is sufficient enough.

In most cases in CH the municipality is in P131 in the first position, if not it will be fixed over the time during the future KGS lists update.

The challenge will be in cities (= municipality) with city districts and quarters. I think it is needed that Wikidata can handle that properly, thus maybe administrative offices of cities or cantons or or may use Wikidata.

Have tried right now with Brunnadern (Q55527146) and flute player (Q84871498) by adding to P131 the smallest unit only and then the smallest unit plus municipality. IMHO it misses half of the in formation in Wikimedia, personally I ask my self, why adding the municipality (in this case Bern)? If somebody is interested, the person will click and learn more and Bern is mentioned in the "Description". Somehow I have a bit the feeling of all locations in a row or only one, the smallest, to be added to P131.

Anyhow, have to go ahead with my hobby: adding a couple of thousand |WD-Item = to the KGS lists in order to promote WD in Wikipedia and give readers ease of use. cheeers, AnBuKu (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look at Bern. It seems to me that maybe only the 6 quarters are "administrative territorial entities" within the city of Bern, maybe there is actually none. I don't think the 32 or 114 neighborhoods qualify. Accordingly, the value for P131 would at least Bern or one of the 6. So the sample would probably look like flute player. Having at least the municipality in P131 would probably also stop the back and forth there seems to be now. --- Jura 22:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Jura1, if I can reply to your 3 points:

• If I understand your term "presentism" correctly, you maintain that the presence of a link in the database, more or less distant, is not the rule in Wikidata, and all that can be put in a item must be put. You can refer to Linking data into WD structured data which provides information on how to enter data into WD. So, on the contrary, the basic concept employed in WD is indeed that recommended by W3C of a structured database (RDF). Besides that meaning, I don't see any other meaning in your term "wikt:presentism" ?!
• My parent-child example demonstrates the relevance of removing unnecessary links related to P131. Because existing and already supplied in WD: the grandparents have no properties, because P22 and P25 are sufficient. As for your assertion on the unique value of father (P22), it is false: the single-best-value constraint (Q52060874) contains a separator (P4155) which allows to add other values. As an example, there may be the stepfather who receives the qualifier nature of statement (P5102)de jure (Q132555) and the biological father who receives the qualifier nature of statement (P5102)de facto (Q712144).
• In Switzerland and as much as possible (depending on the cantons), the segmentation to be reported in P131 is as follows: place, municipality, district (in the majority of cantons), then the canton. But each of these values ​​occupies a unique place in the different items. Districts are the equivalent of prefectures (and are administered by prefects by the way), so they are useful in P131 unlike your writing. This item of the canton of Bern has the following division (since 2010): Muri bei Bern (place and municipality), Verwaltungskreis Bern-Mittelland, Bern. Each division accepts a single value, not all values. Each location property has its importance and its role in WD. Please, don't add the "kanton" in P131 if other territorial divisions exist and still lead to the "kanton".
  

Qualifiers give additional information, but they have less influence on WD's data structure compared to the primary value of a statement. Ranks should not avoid the use of an RDF scheme. Your interventions asking to do the opposite of what I advise, must put our contributor, AnBuKu, in distress. I have already had some conflicts with you, but now a contributor is confused. AnBuKu, to confirm or deny my explanations and use good techniques (RDF), I suggest you see with other experienced contributors (particularly with SPARQL). I spoke to another experienced contributor who might come and advise you on how to go in the right direction. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Saut @Eihel:: Thank you for your explanations. I think, I have understood now so far how to tag the stuff I mainly work in German Wikipedia Category:List (cultural properties in Switzerland) (Q9005881). If an experienced Wikidata contributor wants to review my contributions, it's fine by me, as I'm always thankful for hints to improve my contributions. cheeers, h. AnBuKu (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Have look at wikt:presentism sense #1: if you delete anything but current administrative entities you are actually ignoring the past. P131 should provide values for the structure in 2021, but also previous years.

I think I already answered your other points. I think you are mistaken to consider that all Swiss cantons are subdivided into districts and these all are administrative territorial entitites.
Let me repeat my reminder: please cease with the deletion of valid statements from Wikidata. If you need help with queries, I'd be glad to help. --- Jura 22:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)