Property talk:P3615

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• String length
• List of qualifiers
• Count

Vision of Britain unit ID
identifier of an administrative unit in the University of Portsmouth's Vision of Britain database

Data type	External identifier
Domain	According to this template: places in Great Britain According to statements in the property: human-geographic territorial entity (Q15642541) When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed values	\d+
Example	Perry Barr Urban District (Q28648748) → 10002825 Cloffocks (Q23699794) → 3389 Kegworth (Q31208528) → 10382520
Formatter URL	http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/$1
Tracking: usage	Category:Pages using Wikidata property P3615 (Q55975370)
Related to country	United Kingdom (Q145) (See 326 others)
See also	Vision of Britain place ID (P3616)
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties Items with no other external identifier Items with no other statements Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Chart by item creation date Mix'n'match (Report) Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 15,589 Main statement 15,106 96.9% of uses Qualifier 3 <0.1% of uses Reference 480 3.1% of uses
Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Type “human-geographic territorial entity (Q15642541)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “human-geographic territorial entity (Q15642541)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Type Q15642541, SPARQL

Distinct values: this property likely contains a value that is different from all other items. (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Unique value, hourly updated report, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)

Single value: this property generally contains a single value. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Single value, SPARQL

Format “\d+”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Format, hourly updated report, SPARQL

Item “country (P17): United Kingdom (Q145)”: Items with this property should also have “country (P17): United Kingdom (Q145)”. (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Item P17, hourly updated report, search, SPARQL

Item “located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)”: Items with this property should also have “located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)”. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Item P131, search, SPARQL

Item “coordinate location (P625)”: Items with this property should also have “coordinate location (P625)”. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Item P625, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Entity types

Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as reference (Q54828450): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3615#Scope, SPARQL

Discussion

One to many?

@Pigsonthewing, Dhx1, YULdigitalpreservation, Nev1: I meant to ask this in the property proposal, but User:ChristianKl beat me to it and has created the property (which I am very pleased about).

Do we see this as a one-to-many property? For example, for Bedfordshire (Q23143), as well as general Vision of Britain place ID (P3616) = place/17471, VoB has units:

• Bedfordshire Ancient County: unit/10107325 (abolished 1889)
• Bedfordshire Registration County: unit/10166561 (1851-1930)
• Bedfordshire Administrative County: unit/10173048 (1889-1974)
• Bedfordshire 1841 Occupation reporting area: unit/12779926 (1841)

Should these all be linked on Bedfordshire (Q23143) with Vision of Britain unit ID (P3615), perhaps with qualifier P794 (P794) to indicate the different role (albeit User:Yair rand has recently complained that P794 (P794) is overloaded)

Or should we be creating lots and lots of different items for these different roles? Jheald (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Given that they have different start and stop dates I would prefer creating new items for the roles. ChristianKl (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Each identifier describes a different concept, so should go on different items, if any. Whether those items should be mass created, created only when needed, or not created at all, is a topic for discussion, but is not something upon which the current proposal is contingent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

For somewhere like Cheshire Cheshire (Q23064), VOB place 17489, there would also be

• Cheshire Modern County: unit/10032957 (post 1974)

Would we create a separate item for that too?

I worry that if a user just wants to record that somebody was born in Cheshire, it may get quite confusing, the number of different Cheshires they get presented with. And what are the linkages? Does each one of the specific types of areas become facet of (P1269) an item for the generic concept of "Cheshire" ? (which is sort of the approach VoB has taken) What does the generic one become a instance of (P31) of ? Will the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) chain still work, and how will eg infoboxes know what to extract ?

It gets even crazier if we take a town like Macclesfield (Q868637) -- here are all the units VoB knows about named after Macclesfield (24). Do we create items for all of them? How many of them should places in the town be made located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) to (needed if things in the area are to be findable?) Jheald (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about the correct items and relationships for Glasgow (Q4093) (VOB place 16317) might be a useful test case, as that item is currently pretty overloaded in things it represents. However, we still want people to be able to easily search for, eg "people born in Glasgow" and get sensible results. (Many items will just record 'Glasgow' as place of birth; some will record more specific places within Glasgow; the typical approach is to use located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), and include everything within its sub-tree of a unit. Perhaps one has to search (P131*/P1269?) Q4093 instead?). Jheald (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Use Subclass for the links. If (Bedfordshire Ancient County) and (Bedfordshire Registration County) are subclasses for Bedfordshire, searching for people born in Bedfordshire will show you both the people born in (Bedfordshire Ancient County) and (Bedfordshire Registration County). ChristianKl (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That very much depends on what the "Bedfordshire" to which you refer represents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

As another heads-up, the 7266 instances of civil parish (Q1115575) are overloaded with an awful lot of other stuff at the moment (query: tinyurl.com/jbfqbt8) -- eg 5063 of them are also identified as village (Q532). Probably they ought to be separated out, but when a source says that "X was born at (date) in W", does it mean W the parish or W the village? Will people search for the right one?

(See also Wikidata:WikiProject_UK_and_Ireland/adm/England for similar searches for other levels of administrative areas). Jheald (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

One to many: continued

• To help clarify the structure of the units in the VoB database and get more of a handle on this, I have gone through the pages in this tree on the VoB site which discusses the different main classes of units there, and summarised the information from them on the following pages:
  • hierarchies -- the different families of units on the VoB site; summarising the VoB database constraints for which are allowed to be "part of" which.
  • levels -- more information about the units at each spatial level in the VoB system; including subclasses of each type. A VoB unit may belong to multiple of these subclasses within the same functional main class.
  • successions -- potential cases where entities or territories with apparent historical continuity may have evolved into different roles or legal statuses. Jheald (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some thoughts: parishes
  • I think it probably does make sense to separate out statements on our current items into statements on separate items for settlements, ecclesiatical parishes, and civil parishes; because the latter two may have confusingly different borders at the same point in time, and are essentially different entities, even if they may have the same name.

  A very great many of our articles on English wikipedia present combined information about the village and its parish, especially if these share the same name. I would choose sitelinks to systematically point to our item on the village. It will typically then be possible for templates to pick up information about the parish, by following located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) information.

  To express the relationship there are likely to be (at least) two P131 statements on the item for a village: one statement for the civil parish and another for the ecclesiastical parish. These could be distinguished by qualifying them with the qualifier "object has role" civil parish (Q1115575) or "ecclesiastical parish" appropriately. (It might also be an idea to give a further P131 to mark the county, as this might be more meaningful to an editor than an obscure parish. If people object to the redundancy, it could always be deprecated with reason for deprecated rank (P2241) = "redundant".

• A couple of case-studies of places that are slightly larger:
  • VoB: Stepney : Stepney (Q123627) -- en:Stepney / Stepney (Q7611046) -- en:Stepney (parish)
  • VoB: Macclesfield : Macclesfield (Q868637) -- en:Macclesfield / Macclesfield (Q1459692) -- en:Macclesfield (borough)

tbc. Jheald (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)