Talk:Q2221906

geographic location vs location

Since "location" can also refer to a location inside an object irrespective of geographic location, I renamed "location" to "geographic location", since looking at the linked items and at the description I think that is what was meant. Until looking at these I never thought Q2221906 "location" would only refer to geographic location. This is confusing when working on the subclass tree. The generic tree does not show the description, so without clicking on each item in the tree one cannot check the correctness of the tree. Tamawashi (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Just undid another effort to rename the English label for this to just "location". The above explains well why that's a bad idea. JesseW (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Scope

What exactly does this item refer to? geographical feature (Q618123) is a subclass of (P279) Q2221906, but Q2221906 is a subclass of physical location (Q17334923)>physical property (Q4373292). mountain (Q8502) is a subclass of landform (Q271669) > landscape (Q107425) > physico-geographical object (Q20719696) > geographical feature (Q618123), but mountains aren't physical properties. Furthermore, Q2221906 has part of (P361) Earth's surface (Q1349417), but Egypt Mons (Q5348327) is a mountain (Q8502), but it isn't part of Earth. Some of these statements must be incorrect, but which ones? Any thoughts on the scope of this item? --Yair rand (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Swpb: I notice that you've changed the label and description from "geographic location" and "geographical point or area" to "location" and "point or area in space". This implies that the item is for any generic location, but it still has links to articles specifically about points on Earth's surface, as well as statements such as part of (P361) Earth's surface (Q1349417). Do you think that the item should be split? --Yair rand (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I was looking for an item describing a generic location, and I couldn't find one; physical location (Q17334923) seems to be that item. I don't really have an opinion on whether Q2221906 should also describe a generic location, or be limited to locations on Earth. Swpb (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding data for 7.5 Minute Quadrangles

Please consider the following two items, for my question below.

• Geologic map of the Everett 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Snohomish County, Washington (Q57850902)
• National Geologic Map Database entry for Geologic map of the Everett 7.5 minute quadrangle...

Where, in the first wikidata item, would I add the latitude and longitude data found in the second item? I've added quite a few USGS pubs for these quadrangles thinking there was a way to define the physical area covered by the maps. I guess this is something I should have understood before pulling the data into Wikidata. Thank you for your recommendations. -Trilotat (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Not geographic object?

Infovarius, your change (Special:Diff/917849344) produces considerable ammount of confusion as there are several properties about location that have constraints using geographical feature (Q618123). E.g. see Talk:Q7930989. Are you sure about this? Why isn't geographic location a geographical object? (To me it's also unclear if there's a clear distinction between "geographical object" and "geographic entity".) What should constraints be corrected to? Are you going to correct these? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:447B:A3C:513B:34E 08:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I digged a little deeper, apparently Special:Diff/855843177 also affects this. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:447B:A3C:513B:34E 08:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've done this because (geographical) location is a point not an object - it has coordinates (or even is a set of coordinates) but has no area nor perimeter. Constraints probably should be adjusted. Can you point me to these constraints? --Infovarius (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Infovarius: The item is not currently used to only mean a point (as opposed to an area), as far as I can tell. Q2221906's description specifically mentions "point or an area", and the various subclasses are mostly areas. There should probably be one item for (zero-dimensional) geographic point, one for area, and one shared parent class for both, I would think, and these should be clearly marked. For the constraints, there are quite a lot of them. Take a look down the list of 90 or so properties in Special:WhatLinksHere/Q2221906. --Yair rand (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that geographic location being a point is self-evident at all. That should probably be described more accurately as "coordinate location". Some geographic location as an answer to question where geographically? may as well be some wider location such as street, settlement, country etc. We consider the latter as geographic objects, don't we? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8857:61B3:15C4:541E 06:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This subclass change still causes problems and isn't in accordance with actual use of this item. Please reinstate geographic location (Q2221906) as subclass of geographical feature (Q618123). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:A54C:2FB9:F34A:1755 11:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please? Which problems it causes? I suppose that most of Special:WhatLinksHere/Q2221906 just should be more specific. --Infovarius (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually I would say that this item is not about point or region at all, it is about a couple (or more) numbers which identify those points and regions. --Infovarius (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As pointed out above, there were (and still are) many location/place related properties for which constraints made use of this item. Currently about 90 properites refer to it, usually in order to indicate that value type is town, region, country etc. (i.e. geographic location subclasses). For some of these, people have tried to work around your change by setting the value type to either geographic location or geographic object or by doing something similar, as it's rather hard to understand what's going on with this item and related items now.

You may have some strict definiton of "(geographic) location" in mind (it's a point, pair of numbers, or whatever), but as said, it's not self-evident. In natural language it's normal to describe location by other means than coordinates, too. As said, geographic entites such as country, town, street etc. can be given as kinds of locations.

Some confusion may indeed arise from the fact that topics of geographic location (Q2221906) and geographical feature (Q618123) (and topics of Wikipedia articles attached to this items) overlap to large degree. Also there is no separate item place, that is also largely the same, but not necessarily in all contexts. You arbitrarily say that there is no overlap and one item is just a quality of another. This in my opinion isn't a solution as it doesn't reflect how these items are actually used and what related Wikipedia articles are about, and so your change only results in even bigger confusion. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C994:BA38:6C66:290 13:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C994:BA38:6C66:290, 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C994:BA38:6C66:290, Infovarius, Yair rand: This edit request does not appear to reflect a noncontroversial consensus. Is this issue still active or can we drop it? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C994:BA38:6C66:290, 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:C994:BA38:6C66:290: can we elaborate some examples: which is wrong now and how it can be? --Infovarius (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I find that defining this enitity strictly as coordinate location, or as a quality of abstract geographic object (Q1503302) isn't justified, as already described above. Even Wikipedia article at en:location sitelink of this item describes location more broadly, including settlements and alike. This more broad definition is implied pretty much in every property that links here, take for example first one from the list of properties linked above: place of birth (P19). I'd say that your change in the first place didn't refelect a noncontroversial consensus. But alright, I withdraw the edit request as clearing this up apparently isn't urgent and by now users have adjusted properties by adding whatever value types that work around constraint violations. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2087:EE73:8D81:6B79 14:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology#High_level_Geographic_classes

for a place to discuss this overall hierarchy and hopefully clarify it. JesseW (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)