Talk:Q316197

Legislature

city council of a Philippines city (Q7417960) is a type of legislative body (P194). It is not the proper name of the legislative body (P194) of Naga (Q316197). I am removing city council of a Philippines city (Q7417960) from this page. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

income classification (Philippines) (P1879)

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, Naga City has no income class yet: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/municipality.asp?muncode=072234000&regcode=07&provcode=22 so I'm going to remove the 1st class claim and replacing it with "no value". —seav (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Since there are now two sources for the income class of the city with two different values, we can now add 2 statements with the PSA sourced-claim being the preferred claim. —seav (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@seav, Mary McAllen: After some more reverts, I now protected the item for a month or until we are coming to a common understanding how this case has to be handled.

To my understanding, Wikidata is meant to have statements with multiple values in such cases (see Help:Statements#Multiple values). This is even true if some of the values are considered incorrect by the community (see Wikimedia Blog: "Wikidata is not about truth, but about collecting referenced statements in a secondary database"). If some valid source says that Naga doesn't have an income classification, we should have a statement saying so. If some other valid source says it's a 3rd class city, we should have another statement saying so. If there are reasons to assume that one of them is correct and the other isn't, we can use ranks to set one value to "preferred" and one to "deprecated".

In this particular case, I tend to trust the government more than the city itself, but I don't have any deeper knowledge on the topic or the Philippines in general. However, in no case I see a reason to remove one of the values completely. Maybe I am missing something - some particular issue here on this item, or some general Wikidata guideline that changed without me noticing it. --YMS (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@YMS: your understanding is my understanding as well. I think the proper discussion should be on which value (no-value or 3rd class) should have the preferred rank, but it is completely unacceptable to just delete the "offending" value because this goes against accepted practice in Wikidata.

As for which value should be preferred, my opinion is that the one coming from the national government (no value) should be preferred. It is the national government (specifically the Department of Finance (Q3002326)) that provides the income classification framework. Now User:Mary McAllen added a start time (P580) of 2011 for the 3rd class value. If this is true (but I don't see it in the source), then this seems suspect since the city was embroiled in a legal cityhood battle from 2007, when the bill converting the municipality to a city became law, until 2011, when the Supreme Court finally (after several reversals) to grant cityhood to Naga and 15 other municipalities. (The legal battle happened because the requirements for cityhood was updated in 2001 and Naga met the old requirements but not the new requirements.) So my opinion is to make the 3rd class value have the normal rank. —seav (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mary McAllen: What's your point of view here, if I may ask? --YMS (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As User:Mary McAllen doesn't seem to want to discuss here (though editing frequently) and all others are sharing the same views, I unblocked the item. Happy editing again! Needless to say, starting an edit war again instead of discussing issues here will have consequences. --YMS (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)