Talk:Q94993988

@Bouzinac: The label and subclass for this should be adjusted if something which isn't properly considered an "airport" can somehow also have this item (which is a subclass of "airport") as a P31. Maybe "commercial traffic aerodrome"? Mahir256 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't speak very fluent English. The goal of that subclass is to class all airports (preferably because they generally are big) and possibly very tiny airports. They are tiny but have scheduled regular commercial flights. Big airports can be also without commercial regular airlines. You are free to rebrand the name of that item, provided I still can query a list of airports receiving commercial flights. Bouzinac (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bouzinac: Okay then, I will adjust this item to "commercial traffic aerodrome" then. I've stopped my QS batch (which removed P31 "aerodrome" on items with both P31 "aerodrome" and P31 "airport", given that "airport" is a subclass of "aerodrome"), but I implore you to find a way to remove one or the other statement from the ~5000 items which have both statements. Mahir256 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Airports having neither patronage (P3872) statements nor P31=Q94993988 are probably more aerodromes than airports. But not 100% true. Another check could be done with the name. Why is it a pb to have multiples P31 ? There are cities having multiples P31 such as city, human settlement, incorporated cities, municipalities, etc... Bouzinac (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bouzinac: There's inherently no problem with multiple P31s in general; the problem here arises when the multiple P31s are redundant due to one being a subclass of the other (in this case, "airport" being a subclass of "aerodrome"). If we take your example with cities, of the four possible P31s you note (city, human settlement, incorporated cities, municipalities), "human settlement" is redundant with the other three (as the other three are ultimately going to be subclasses of it), and "incorporated cities" is redundant with "city" (and in fact is probably a subclass of "city"). (Depending on what jurisdiction the city is in, "municipality" may or may not be redundant with "city", so it may or may not be appropriate to keep that.) A good query for all 'human settlements' would, rather than use "wdt:P31 wd:Q486972" by itself, use "wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q486972" to obtain all subclasses at the same time. Besides, should all universities also have "higher education institution", "educational institution", and "institution" as P31s? Should all sculptures have "three-dimensional object", "object", and "work of art" as P31s? A line must be drawn somewhere. Mahir256 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you would like to specify somewhere incompabilities between P31. I agree with you "airport" and "aerodrome" are redundant so just one is enough but technically, it's not a pb since you can use the * to query them. Is there a way to tell P31, if X and Y are incompatibles/redundant P31 values, then item being having X as P31 should be 'forbidden' to get a P31=Y. Pb is that you happen to merge things and then Y and X may come inside...

Besides, if you have time, it would be good idea to clean that list : [1] Bouzinac (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bouzinac: It's true that having both is technically not a problem as far as actually running queries with P279* are concerned, but to keep both is similar to the phenomenon of overcategorization on Commons and on Wikipedia, which is discouraged on both those sites and, as a matter of promoting data cleanliness, should be discouraged here as well. Mahir256 (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)