From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


description: small clustered human settlement smaller than a town

Useful links
Classification of the class village (Q532) View with Reasonator View with SQID
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item) 
subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
<village> on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1)
Miga external tool (does not work in Firefox) 
listing of subclasses, number of super and subclasses, properties of the instances: <village> on Miga
Browse the classes starting from this one 
Browse classes from < village > with Taxonomy Browser

Interwiki conflict   Merge-arrows.svg
Items involved: Q532Talk, Q5084Talk Status: X mark.svg   not resolved

I doubt that ru:Село != be:Сяло. Infovarius (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Villages in Burkina Faso[edit]

@Ayack: - why did you tag Bana as village? [1]. English WP says town, French says commune. Tamawashi (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tamawashi: It has a total population of 2769 so it is at the border between a village and a town... Change it if you want! — Ayack (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ayack: Do you mean your bot used some random function on the population value of settlements in Burkina Faso, or did the bot always used village if the population was 2769? How did you program that? Tamawashi (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Claim made by external reference[edit]

@Infovarius:, you reverted my edit.

But the statement that village is a subclass of city is supported by an external reference ontology, an ontology by the authors of UMBEL and is the successor to UMBEL after OpenCyc was closed. Wikidata is not a database of the opinions of users. (You simply said "no, that's wrong".) Rather, Wikidata is a database of claims made by referenced sources. I added the reference. This claim is valid.

I must agree that sourced statements should be. But it is nonsense. Do you believe that any village which has under 10 people in it can be called city??? Sources can also be nonsensical and outdated. We can at least mark this statement as deprecated. --Infovarius (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I marked it as deprecated and reported the error to the KBpedia authors who agree it should be fixed. They will align their definition of City to be more like Wikipedia's definition and Village will change its subclass. Jefft0 (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you. --Infovarius (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@XXN:, please see this discussion. The statement is referenced to an external source. It was set to deprecated rank until the external source reviews arguments against this statement. The external source is now preparing a new release which should fix this, but it is still a part of the external reference. This is the purpose of the deprecated rank. I restored the version you changed. Jefft0 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jefft0: please refrain adding questionable information to Wikidata (and any other Wikimedia project)! The statement you added is controversial and disputable, and it shouldn't be added on the basis of a single source of questionable reliability (in this case). I'd recommend you to remove this statement, restore the status quo, and don't add it again without a discussion and a consenus reached (preferably at WD:PC). We don't care of other projects and we don't wait for them to correct their errors in order to correct errors in our project. You probably don't know the fact that across Wikidata (and by extensions many other WMF wikis) are several tools, bots and also human users which works (mass-editing) on large series of items built by running queries on classes and subclasses of parent item. By introducing this statement you could condition the propagation of some errors and false information on a large scale. Let's hope this did not happen! XXN, 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)