Talk:Q156453

P7903/4

@Einar Myre: As late as today, I became aware of the use of gained territory from (P7903) and gave up territory to (P7904) as qualifier to significant event (P793):boundary change (Q28953942). It will take some effort to make that readable on Wikipedia, but it is fully doable. Do you have any idea how "big" a change has to be, to be "significant"? According to my sources ("Store norske leksikon") 18 % of Ørsta, but only 102 persons were tranferred to Volda as of 2020. The same source also tells 13 persons were transferred in the same direction in 1893. According to Jyvkam, it was "gården Ytrestølen" which was transferred then. That may seem small, but since it can be found in that source, I guess it could be seen as significant enough? What isn't significant is maybe small adjustments in every day surveying. 62 etc (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sextvåetc: I think any formal border change is significant enough to mention in a significant event (P793). I have added all of the changes of the last few years mentioned here, and some of these are as small as the one in 1893. Einar Myre (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we are at the same page!

I have one question from a template-gnome on svwiki. In Re Municipality (Q499570), you (or somebody else) has set one claim for the transfer to Holmestrand and another claim for Horten. Is that the best practise, or could adding both Holmestrand and Horten in the same claim be an option? (I think I have seen such cases in the United States.) 62 etc (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sextvåetc: As these were different border adjustments with separate decision processes, my opinion is that they should have separate statements as well. Einar Myre (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Einar Myre: Good point! I do not think this model works for the border changes on Märket, maybe doesn't matter. 09:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Einar Myre: Take a look at the infobox at sv:Sarpsborgs kommun. I am very pleased with this. (Ok, I am not pleased that it says that Sarpsborg was founded in 1016 by a separation from Tune in 1839, but you have to choose your [edit]wars...) 62 etc (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sextvåetc: Looks good. I am still concerned about when it's appropriate to use replaces (P1365)/replaced by (P1366), and when we should use other properties instead. Since merged into (P7888) was added as a new property, I think this fits better for mergers such as the one in 1992, where other municipalities merge into an existing municipality. Of course, if we use P7888 and remove P1365 and P1366, this will be a problem for the infobox. One possible solution for this could be to use significant event (P793) for this relationship as well, so for instance Sarpsborg Municipality (Q108025) could have

significant event (P793)	boundary change (Q28953942) edit gained territory from (P7903) Varteig Municipality (Q63116103) Skjeberg Municipality (Q19388892) Tune Municipality (Q7852920) has cause (P828) Q97154189 0 references add reference
		add value

Einar Myre (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding P7888 to the infobox is not a big deal. I can add that property as soon as we have an item to test it on. What the infobox always needs is a founding date, otherwise the whole part that shows all these properties collapses. 62 etc (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Einar Myre: I guess Norwegian Municipal Reform (Q19377734) could in some way fit into that claim above! 62 etc (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I used Varteig Municipality (Q63116103) as a test item now, and it works fine with P7888. Add {{Ortsfakta WD|qid=Q63116103}} to a random page on svwiki, and you see it works. 62 etc (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sextvåetc: That's great, but will it still work for sv:Sarpsborgs kommun if we remove all the replaces (P1365) statements from Sarpsborg Municipality (Q108025)? I.e., can the infobox show all municipalities that have merged into (P7888)Sarpsborg Municipality (Q108025) instead? Einar Myre (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the change I made. The template is now supposed to show merged into (P7888) in the same way as replaces (P1365) is. If both properties are present, then both will be displayed. 62 etc (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait, didn't you suggest to replace replaces (P1365) with significant event (P793):Grensjustering? 62 etc (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC) (It looks different, but all is displayed in that case.)

You're right, I did. I probably just misunderstood you when you showed me test changes to Varteig Municipality (Q63116103), but not to Sarpsborg Municipality (Q108025). Einar Myre (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Applied this to Andøy Municipality (Q113710) now. Interesting how SNL describes this: "Andøy fikk sine nåværende grenser i 1964 ved sammenslåing av de tidligere kommunene Dverberg, Bjørnskinn og Andenes, som hadde vært egne kommuner siden 1924. Før dette hadde kommunen i hele perioden fra 1837 da det lokale selvstyret ble innført, samme avgrensning som i dag, men da under navnet Dverberg." Other times they say that X was founded in 1964 by a merge of Z, Y and X. Gosh!!! 62 etc (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sextvåetc: I think it makes sense to use 1964 as the year of establishment, and in this case I think we should also keep the replaces (P1365). I only meant we should remove them for cases where merged into (P7888) would replace the replaced by (P1366)/replaces (P1365) relationship, and this doesn't seem to be the case here. We could certainly also have significant event (P793) in addition to P1365, but it should then be with value creation (Q11398090) instead of boundary change (Q28953942). Einar Myre (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense! Currently the template does not look for P793:creation (Q11398090) at all, only boundary change (Q28953942), so it works fine with the template.

There are a few cases where municipalities have emerged when three (or more) municipalities has given a fraction of their territory to a new one. Then neither separated from (P807) or replaces (P1365) does a very good job. How do you think about them? (Unfortunately, I cannot tell you an example right now and I am away from keyboard most of the day.) 62 etc (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sextvåetc: I made the changes to Andøy Municipality (Q113710) as suggested.

There are definitely some complex cases here, and I'm not sure what is the best solution in all cases. In your scenario, I think it could work to use three separated from (P807) statements, possibly with applies to part (P518) as a qualifier. But there are also other cases, such as Snillfjord Municipality (Q48568), which recently separated into three parts. Two of the parts merged with other municipalities to form the new municipalities of Heim Municipality (Q48475310) and Orkland Municipality (Q41030999), while the third part merged with the existing Hitra Municipality (Q109025). Maybe we should solve this by using two replaced by (P1366) and one merged into (P7888), maybe we should create a new element for Hitra after the merge and use three replaced by (P1366), or maybe a completely different solution would be better. I guess in many of these complex cases, using significant event (P793) could be a good way to make things clearer. Einar Myre (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)