Property talk:P3179
Documentation
part or all of the area associated with (this) entity overlaps part or all of the area associated with that entity
Represents | territorial overlap (Q26919946) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Data type | Item | |||||||||
Domain | According to this template:
geographical areas
According to statements in the property:
When possible, data should only be stored as statementsgeographic region (Q82794), fictional location (Q3895768), map (Q4006) or administrative territorial entity (Q56061) | |||||||||
Allowed values | other geographical areas of different nature (symmetric constraint?) (note: this should be moved to the property statements) | |||||||||
Usage notes | Please ONLY use this property if both the used-in item and target item are fall under types of geographic region and/or fictional location class, and you have cited resources to use it | |||||||||
Example | According to this template:
Roman Catholic Diocese of Auxerre (Q866941) --> Yonne (Q12816) (start time (P580) 1790 ; end time (P582) 1801)
instances of special-purpose district of the United States (Q610237) -> cities/counties they encompass/have a part in Great Britain (Q23666) -> United Kingdom (Q145) According to statements in the property:
When possible, data should only be stored as statementsRoman Catholic Diocese of Auxerre (Q866941) → Yonne (Q12816) Great Britain (Q23666) → United Kingdom (Q145) Hokkaido (Q1037393) → Hokkaido (Q35581) | |||||||||
Tracking: usage | Category:Pages using Wikidata property P3179 (Q38536719) | |||||||||
See also | coextensive with (P3403), next level in hierarchy (P10229) | |||||||||
Lists |
| |||||||||
Proposal discussion | Proposal discussion | |||||||||
Current uses |
| |||||||||
Search for values |
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3179#Type Q82794, Q3895768, Q4006, Q56061, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3179#Value type Q82794, Q3895768, Q4006, Q56061, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3179#Entity types
Redundant to P1382?[edit]
Isn't this a duplicate of partially coincident with (P1382), which was created for the same reason? P1382 was created because it could deal with any two subjects that partially overlapped but not fully; for example, territories, highway route concurrency, etc. I was in on the discussion for P1382, and I supported it for the same reasons that people later supported P3179. I guess it could be said that P1382 was created specifically to be distinct from part of (P361), but P3179 can mean either P361 or P1382. Is that intentional? Why wouldn't we use P361 and P1382? --Closeapple (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- We hadn't looked into partially coincident with (P1382) when doing this one. The main differences seems to be that P3179 makes it clear that the territory associated with an item overlaps with the territory associated with another item. Both partially coincident with (P1382) and part of (P361) don't specify this. territory overlaps (P3179) doesn't seem suitable for roads (for which partially coincident with (P1382) seens to be mainly used).
--- Jura 19:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)- Yes, the only difference seems to be that territory overlaps (P3179) should be used only in items about geographical entities. I do not think it makes much sense, and I would support merging these properties. -Zolo (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not really, "territory associated with" isn't the same as "geographical entity".
--- Jura 08:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)- Rereading this, those properties are actually completely different. partially coincident with (P1382) means "are partially the same thing" (a portion of a road that has its own name), while territory overlaps (P3179) means are partially at the same place" but conceptually different. If you take the example, "diocese of Auxerre" is an ancient religious circonscription used by the catholic church. Yonne is an administrative entity. Even if they occupied the exact same territory, the would be totally different concepts, used for completely different purposes. --Zolo (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Both properties could probably use some work. This property is practically unused (either it should be put to use or be deleted). partially coincident with (P1382) is now used more frequently for things other than roads. Maybe its scope needs to be redefined or uses split into several properties. Some may need P3179.
--- Jura 09:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Both properties could probably use some work. This property is practically unused (either it should be put to use or be deleted). partially coincident with (P1382) is now used more frequently for things other than roads. Maybe its scope needs to be redefined or uses split into several properties. Some may need P3179.
- Rereading this, those properties are actually completely different. partially coincident with (P1382) means "are partially the same thing" (a portion of a road that has its own name), while territory overlaps (P3179) means are partially at the same place" but conceptually different. If you take the example, "diocese of Auxerre" is an ancient religious circonscription used by the catholic church. Yonne is an administrative entity. Even if they occupied the exact same territory, the would be totally different concepts, used for completely different purposes. --Zolo (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not really, "territory associated with" isn't the same as "geographical entity".
- Yes, the only difference seems to be that territory overlaps (P3179) should be used only in items about geographical entities. I do not think it makes much sense, and I would support merging these properties. -Zolo (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Label[edit]
I think label should be changed here in order to make the distinction between this and coextensive with (P3403) more clear. It could be "territory partially overlaps" instead of "territory overlaps". For instance, I used these properties next to one another for Q25444718, and at first glace it currently probably isn't clear why these are given as different properties. 90.191.81.65 08:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Removing citation needed mandatory constraint[edit]
I think this constraint is overkill. Whether two polygons overlap is intrinsic. I don't see why it is necessary to additionally cite a separate source. Nikola Tulechki (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)