Talk:Q2864118

Oravrattas, I think it's better not to classify certain city districts as instances of this. As far as basis of the classification is Estonian legislation, then city district in Tallinn is not a special kind of city district. It is a city district (Q34985575) in sense of the Local Government Organisation Act the same way as it is in Kohtla-Järve (the only other city that officially has city districts). It is the same way as villages in different Estonian rural municipalities are villages in the same sense. Differences that there are (Tallinn has city district governments, Kohtla-Järve has not etc.) are only differences in implementation of the law. The same way as organisation of Estonian municipalities varies to a degree in other aspects than their composing units too. This item here I'd say is rather a facet of (P1269) city district and Tallinn. 90.191.81.65 06:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@90.191.81.65: I'm not quite sure that I'm following. Are you saying that we should not say

⟨ Haabersti (Q1566254)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118)    ⟩

? Or that we should not say

⟨ city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ city district (Q34985575)    ⟩

? --Oravrattas (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You recently changed city districts like Haabersti (Q1566254) to be instances of this item here. I'm saying that for classification purpose it probably makes more sense to keep them as instances of city district (Q34985575) instead.

Besides that, for the same reason, I suggested to use facet of (P1269) for this item here instead of indicating that it's an instance or a subclass of something. 90.191.81.65 08:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Haabersti (Q1566254) is a district of Tallinn, no? Why is it better to make it be a instance of (P31) of a more abstract city district (Q34985575), rather than the more specific city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118) (which is itself a subclass of city district (Q34985575)). This way, to get a list of all the districts of Tallinn, we can use

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q2864118.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "et,en". }
}

Try it!

This is in keeping with how many other items throughout Wikidata work. Do you have an example which uses facet of (P1269) instead? --Oravrattas (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Oravrattas, above there is an explanation about what "city district" exactly means (not in some abstract sense), i.e. from where its definition comes from (I referred to an act). You didn't comment on it. What exactly is confusing about it and needs to be elaborated on?

As for things being inexact (or "abstract") we might say that for instance generic Q4286337 would be inexact as a classification unit. This is because there are different kinds of city districts, some are officially designated, some are not, and those that are official are legally defined as different kinds of units in different regions. Contrary to that, Q34985575 as a classification unit is pretty much as exact as we can get, it deals with a city district in sense of specific act.

Possibly some of the confusion comes from differences between Wikipedia's categorization system and Wikidata's classification system. While categories are designed to combine different concepts and characteristics as categorization units (categories), then Wikidata generally doesn't combine its classification units like that. For instance, Wikipedia may have category entitled "People from Tallinn", but on Wikidata people from Tallinn are still classified as "human", because something like "human from Tallinn" is not its own thing (a special kind of human). Characteristics like being related to Tallinn are instead given as separate statements. See also Wikidata:Item classification. The same way, as described above, "city district of Tallinn" is not special kind of city district.

I don't know an example that would compare well with "city districts of Tallinn". Possibly it could be considered a "Wikimedia list article" as well. But if a Wikipedia article isn't merely a list, then the use of "facet of" might be more appropriate.

Without using this item here as a classifcation unit you can still query city districts of Tallinn by adding ?item wdt:P131 wd:Q4450503. to the query. The same that you do if you want to query, say, settlements of some some other municipality. 90.191.81.65 07:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

As there are no further questions I'm now going to reinstate the classification as it was. 90.191.81.65 05:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@90.191.81.65: — simply linking to someone's User page does not actually "ping" them — for that you need to use one of the notification templates, such as Template:Reply to or Template:Ping — and therefore I was unaware of your further comments here. As for the changes you have now made, I think a lot of the confusion has come from whether this item is about the districts of Tallinn, or the concept of a district in Tallinn. This was ambiguous (and the changes between these has actually significantly altered how some of the above discussion reads, as that uses the current labels, not those from the time) and our changes were taking it in opposite directions (mine towards the latter; yours to the former). I'm OK with it being either, but not both: but that will require also undoing 345424495 (the previous change before mine). --Oravrattas (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this confuses too. Singular form more likely implys as if there was a concept a district in Tallinn. I'm going to change the French label too. I didn't notice it before.

As per documentation mentions work without a template too. Oravrattas, after all you noticed the first comment above, which has a mention without a template. There are no notifications for IPs though. So mentioning me has no effect. (I just keep an eye on talk pages where I've participated lately.) --90.191.81.65 11:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I discovered the original comment here as it was referenced from the edit summary you made on the item, not from you mentioning me here. The documentation you linked to is a little unclear, but I think that the "Notifications will not be sent if your signature … has no link to your user page or user talk page" part is what prevents me being notified when simply mentioned, rather than explicitly pinged, from an IP-address rather than a full account. --Oravrattas (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be on located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)

What I see: 1) Tallinn is divided into 8 administrative (et:Halduslik linnaosa) areas with certain boundaries; 2) these areas have their own local government and form a hierarchy with Tallinn goverment[1]. What is the fundamental difference from the districts of Moscow (Q2608102#P131), New York (Q11259#P131) or London (Q318043#P131), which does not allow the use of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about London and New York, but administrative entities in Estonia are counties and municipalities (cities and rural municipalities) per § 2 (1) of the Territory of Estonia Administrative Division Act that reads: the administrative division of the territory of Estonia is the division of the territory of Estonia into counties, rural municipalities and cities. Area having certain borders does not necessarily make it into an administrative entity, territorial entities are also for e.g. statistical purposes or for use as address objects. Also the local government claim is not true, in Estonia only rural municipalities and cities have local government per Local Government Organisation Act. There are city district governments, but this refers to city authorities dedicated to particular city districts, not separate local government.

As for "halduslik linnaosa", this is an informal designation that almost doesn't exist outside Wikipedia. I suppose adjective "halduslik" in that usage should be understood as being part of or otherwise related to administrative entity (i.e. the city). Neither does local government act, based on which city districts are formed, suggest that city districts themselves are administrative entities. So it would be rather misleading to state otherwise on Wikidata. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:25A5:496C:1894:AFC7 11:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

So in this Act it is directly stated that Rural municipality districts or city districts (linnaosi) may be formed in a rural municipality or city, respectively, pursuant to the procedure provided by law. In other words, the Territory of Estonia Administrative Division Act provides for this.

In Wikidata we have administrative territorial entity (Q56061) described as territorial entity for administration purposes, with or without its own local government. However, we have clear information from the district statute that Kesklinn (Q1230929) has its own local two-branch government (Linnaosa haldusorganid: 1. Tallinna Kesklinna linnaosakogu; 2. Tallinna Kesklinna Valitsus).

All these circumstances give a pure correspondence to what we usually classify through located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Given act also deals with the composition of administrative entities, and city districts are in composition of administrative entities (cities).

Yes, each city district in Tallinn has city district assembly and city district government, but I'm not sure what conclusion we should draw from this. As referred above and as is also explicit in another act that you refer to, city district government is an administrative agency of the city, it isn't a body of/for separate administrative entity.

This "for administration purposes" is a rather loose and wide definition, and in any case the line between administrative and non-administrative entities needs to be drawn somewhere. I think it's reasonable to check out what is the actual approach to administrative division in particular country, rather than follow some other arbitrary and personal interpretation on whatever you think makes a "pure correspondence". In Estonian legislation the line between administrative entities and other territorial entities is explicit.

Note that below city districts there are also subdistricts in Tallinn. These are said to be unofficial, but nonetheless appear in some official usage by the city. As such, if really desirable, one probably can also argue that subdistricts are administrative, too. Yet, I think we shouldn't produce confusion with such personal interpretations. Current approach to administrative division of Estonia in Wikidata is at least consistent and clearly based on Estonian legislation. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:5449:D8D4:5B3A:9384 09:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

If we are faced with a choice, then it should be decided in favor of using P131 here as it is done for similar cases with other countries, including countries of the past, when formal legislation could be absent altogether. Especially since P131 has many aliases like "is in the local government area of", "is in the municipality of" or "is in the district of".

The very fact that counties have their own bylaws suggests that it is not just a statistical area or district. Just read this § 2 (3) - Linnaosa täidab oma haldusterritooriumil lisaks käesolevas põhimääruses sätestatule teisi riigi ja Tallinna õigusaktides talle pandud ülesandeid (In addition to the provisions of these statutes, a district shall perform other functions assigned to it by state and Tallinn legislation in its administrative territory). "Other territorial entities" named as § 6. Settlement units (settlements and urban regions) when city districts described in § 2. Administrative division of territory of Estonia as optional.

You are now trying to convince me that we are dealing with a unique phenomenon - a territory whose existence is regulated by the Territory of Estonia Administrative Division Act, with its own statute, borders, administration (government and a representative body) is not an administrative unit or local goverment area or municipality (any of the above is enough for P131). What is it then?

As for subdistrict (Q18551781), they are precisely the Settlement units (Asustusüksused). This I admit, they are for some other purpose, not for P131. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite get it why we necessarily need to fit city districts of Tallinn to P131 if the outcome is less accurate. City districts, neighborhoods and alike in different countries and in different cities are very different by nature anyway. For some it may be easier to interpret these as being administrative entities, for others less so, and so I wouldn't expect that there should be a universal approach to all kinds of city districts in Wikidata.

Well, based on legislative act referred at the top, city districts in given context are territorial subunits of municipalities, but are not administrative units nor settlement units. The local government act specifies that it's a "unit which operates in the territory and within the composition of a rural municipality or city", i.e. it isn't separate from or at separate administrative level from the city.

It seems to me you mainly focus on word "administrative" in sources, and less on context. Everything that is regulated by administrative law, or that has some administrative function (on territorial basis or not), or that is administrated by some other public (or even non-public) entity, isn't yet necessarily an administrative territorial entity itself. For example, public libraries also operate on territorial basis, also besides governments of states and administrative entities, other administrative authorities/agencies which govern over some domain, are also sometimes named government. As already said, in this case city district governments are specifically formed as administrative agencies of the city (moodustatakse linna ametiasutusena). Administrative divisioning and resulting administrative territorial entities are a specific facet of administrative sphere, in this case laid down in legislation. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:692B:9A26:D44E:628C 10:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

In Classification of Estonian administrative units and settlements (Q20530786) city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118) are classified[2] in the same range as cities and rural municipality (Q28122896) (0100-0999), which also suggests that city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118) are classified as administrative units. Althought we can see a hierarchy there[3] so it is separate administrative level from the city. There are no something like libraries there, as well as subdistrict (Q18551781). Since we have property located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) we have been striving for a universal approach. Entities similar to city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118) sould be filled into P131. It does not follow from the cited definitions that city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118) are not suitable for P131. The same applies to countries that are mandatory indicated for administrative units of the first level as P131. I see from your side a senseless game with the letter of the law, this is divorced from the consensus use of P131. Your focus on word "administrative" is more senseless since P131 has aliases without this word like "is in the local government area of" or "is in the district of". If you specifically set a goal, you can also insist that the phrase (5) Alteration of the placement of rural municipalities and cities in counties is decided by the Government of the Republic implies that the counties are only an instrument in the hands of the Government of the Republic and word "administrative" in the Act name is senseless. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This classification (EHAK) isn't a classification of only administrative units, besides city districts it also includes settlements, and hence its hierarchy obviously doesn't indicate only administrative hierarchy. Such random guessing based on item being included in EHAK or its number range isn't helpful really. Especially as explicit legislation is available.

Most countries are considered to have administrative units and so P131 probably can be used universally for most countries. Nonetheless, as already pointed out above, what entities exactly are administrative entities still needs to be figured out country by country. I don't think there is an actual consensus to use P131 for whatever territorial units that relate to administration or that are simply similar (whatever kind of similarity is considered), nor that your random interpretation on meaning of some word taken out of its context reflects some other kind of consensus. I don't see a real benefit from using P131 for given city districts and your premise on "consensus" is most likely false. Confusion around countries given as first level P131 is a separate matter, and probably there's no need to discuss this here.

Name district is merely a name, it can be used for census district, election districts, geological district or whatever. Again, we shouldn't derive meaning from word alone. Also given city subunits can be named whatever, e.g. neighborhoods or wards, without this changing what given subunits are in essence.

I focused on word "administrative" only because you in the first place tried to conclude something apparently merely based on the fact that words "district" and "administrative" appear close to each other in some source.

My intention is not to play a "senseless game". I try to base the use of properties on clear sources and criteria, instead of personal interpretation on words taken out of context. Neither do I get it what you mean by the name of the act being "senseless". The sense in the act just differs from your personal interpretation, this doesn't make it senseless. If we follow legislation, then yes, it is in the hands of the government where to draw the line between administrative and non-administrative entities, but in that regard having an authoritative source seems to be only a good thing. Not to mention, whether there are administrative units, also their creation and alike, is in the hands of the government anyway.

The main problem with using P131 for city districts of Tallinn is that it's simply misleading. With P131 city districts are entitled as administrative territorial entities that they explicitly aren't in Estonia. Surely one can argue that P131 is for administrative entities in different more loose sense, but this is far from clear to data consumer. We can easily just avoid this confusion and not use P131 for given entities, the way it has worked fine for quite a while. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:1CF1:451D:1C93:6ABB 15:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that in explicit legislation city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118) are specified in the section Administrative division of territory of Estonia. Another section Settlement units describes other entities that are not for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). There is no third. If we interpret the letter of the law differently, then it would be most reasonable to rely on other official sources (for example, EHAK) and the general practice of using P131.

The logic and the goal is very simple - to show for the items the primary level of the administrative hierarchy, for a resident of Tallinn, it is a district with an administration and an assembly. In some other countries, there is no concept of "administrative-territorial unit" at all; synonyms are acceptable here. For example, in the article en:Administrative division it is written that A country may be divided into provinces, states, counties, cantons or other sub-units, which, in turn, may be divided in whole or in part into municipalities, counties or others. So there is nothing wrong with the word sub-units. And, for example, in England we fill this property in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 (Q1510461). Why shouldn't this be handled in the same way? What then? Well, you can offer a new property for such urban areas, because the P276 is an absolutely inconvenient option, there the city districts of Tallinn (Q2864118) and subdistrict (Q18551781) can be mixed with park (Q22698), shopping center (Q11315) or something like Rotermann Quarter (Q18523881), Tallinn old town (Q726803). And if we read the description for located in/on physical feature (P706) then we will see that this property "should not be used when the value is only political/administrative (P131)". So, P131 is more then "administrative entity in the most literal reading".

Serving Estonia differently from how it is done for all other countries is really pointless. Everywhere municipalities and other urban areas with their own administration or authority are an appropriate value for P131. And there is no need to say that your proposed approach works. It is simply executed and protected from a group of your IP addresses. I can cite as an example other countries where, before 2020, something was also incorrectly indicated, and then corrected. Serbia, for example. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Instead of arbitrarily interpreting paragraph title "Administrative division of territory of Estonia" you should read paragraph's first section (cited at the top) where it explicitly says what the phrase means. Moreover, § 3 refers to another act that explicitly lists administrative units (counties, cities and rural municipalities). My idea is to just follow what it explicitly says, not to "interpret" it differently. As for EHAK, as already pointed out in previous comment, there's not much to rely on in this question as EHAK's hierarchy includes other territorial entities than administrative entities, too. Your "no third" assertion is apparently a case of affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

I did not say there was a problem with word "subunit". It may or may not refer to administrative territorial entity. As is the case with these other words that you list. As already pointed above, we shouldn't ignore context and derive meaning from word alone. The same way you keep ignoring the fact that there are different kinds of governments. While city government in Tallinn is an executive body for an administrative unit, here we deal with city district governments that instead simply and legally are administrative agencies of the city, among many other like the Education Department and Transport Department. Also, an administration (as an executive body of administrative unit) and an assembly or their absence necessarily doesn't define an administrative unit, e.g. counties in Estonia are administrative units, but have neither.

Why treat local government units in England and Estonia differently? Without going into details, I'd say because local government systems are different. P131 is used in both cases, but administrative units in one case are cities and rural municipalities, and in another case something else. I'm not sure what's the point of this comparision.

To say that Estonia is served differently from "all other countries" is obviously an overstatement, and is probably impossible to demonstrate. As already pointed above, in reality the use of P131 varies between all countries anyway, there's different number of administrative levels, different kinds of (non-)administrative territorial entities exist, etc.

Using P276 (not P706) should be suitable here as long as city districts are not administrative units, the same way it should be fine for all sorts of other territorial units that are not administrative units. P276 is what it is as a property for all kinds of different locations, and so I don't get it how city district makes its use more inconvenient or how it mixes things up more. Contrarily, this leads as to another benefit of not using city district as P131 value as then at least the use of P131 is consistent for pretty much all objects in Estonia, i.e. its value is a municipality (except for municipalities themselves where P131 value is county). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:9D8C:1493:394C:1D99 09:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)