Wikidata:Property proposal/coextensive with
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
coextensive with[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place
| Description | this item has the same boundary as the target item |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | primarily administrative divisions and geographic features like islands |
| Example |
|
- Motivation
I often come across pairs of items for places which share the same boundary but cannot be merged (even if we wanted to) because both have a sitelink for the same wiki. It is usually different levels of administrative divisions or an administrative division which is the same as an island or island group. We have properties like located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and located in/on physical feature (P706) for saying that one is in the other and said to be the same as (P460) for saying that two things are sometimes considered the same, but none of those mean that they are coextensive.
- Nikki (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)- Support said to be the same as (P460) could maybe be used for this but I think this is a better approach to make explicit the basis for the relationship. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment⟨ subject ⟩ said to be the same as (P460)? That's the canonical way to make explicit the basis of a relationship, no? --Azertus (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
⟨ object or value ⟩
criterion used (P1013) ⟨ items share the same boundary ⟩- I'm not keen on that because stating that two things share a boundary is not the same as claiming they are actually the same thing - it would not feel right to me to add a reference to a said to be the same as (P460) statement if the source only says that they are coextensive.
Using a qualifier also makes it harder to work out how to add the data correctly (even if you add "coextensive" as an alias for P460, that doesn't tell you you need to add a qualifier or what the value of the qualifier should be), more work to enter (needs more steps and you have to remember which qualifiers/values to use, versus just writing "coextensive" in the property search box), harder to add constraints (they would have to be complex ones) and harder to query (you would always have to check the qualifiers).
I don't really see an advantage to using a qualifier here on a vaguely defined property when we could have a simple clearly defined property. :) - Nikki (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on that because stating that two things share a boundary is not the same as claiming they are actually the same thing - it would not feel right to me to add a reference to a said to be the same as (P460) statement if the source only says that they are coextensive.
- Support That sounds reasonable! --Azertus (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikki, Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith, Azertus:
Done Now coextensive with (P3403) --Lymantria (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
