located in the administrative territorial entity (P131): the item is located on the territory of the following administrative entity. Use P276 for specifying locations that are non-administrative places and for items about events. Use P1382 if the item falls only partially into the administrative entity.
associated electoral district (P7938): constituencies/electoral districts in which a place is located or is part of. If a municipality/county is split into or part of several districts: add several values. Use only if distinct from administrative entities (P131) in predefined countries
located in statistical territorial entity (P8138): statistical territorial entity in which a place is located or is part of. If a municipality or county is split into or part of several regions: add several values
I made a chart of Erlsberg with WP:Erlsberg as article and all the WD items I suppose it will have. So WP:Erlsberg is connected to WD:multiple topics Erlsberg and this is linked to WD:dispersed settlement Erlsberg, WD:locality Erlsberg and WD:cadastral community Erlsberg. The item WD:dispersed settlement Erlsberg will have a link to WD:locality Erlsberg and the item WD:locality Erlsberg will have a link to WD:cadastral community Erlsberg. Beside, there are WP:Rüschersiedlung and WP:Vorstatt (and some other single houses I did not mention) within the locality of Erlsberg. The cadastral community also includes the localities of Furrach, Ilgenberg, Planneralm and Winklern, each with some houses. And Planneralm (Q1717842) is a ski resort near one of tree single houses within the dispersed settlement of Planneralm, part of the locality of Plammeralm within cadastral community of Erlsberg. (I did this with SVG, so everybody should be able to edit this chart.)
This is the model I suppose User:Emu means. I am sure that all this is very complex. I need to hold some information in an item an I think I cannot access this information, when it is not held in the item directly connected to the article. --Maincomb (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. You can access all data in these items. Sample for use on Q109839533 (locality), to get the data from the item Q109839531 (cadastral municipality).
{{#invoke:wd|property|raw|Q109839533|P8138}} gives Q109839531 from Q109839533#P8138
{{#invoke:wd|property|{{#invoke:wd|property|raw|Q109839533|P8138}}|P2046}} gives 40.478819 square kilometre from Q109839531#P2046
Given that there is widespread opposition to anything remotely Wikidata-related on de.wp, I’m not really inclined to do so. Emu (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that there could be a strong opposition in de:WP, but its just about asking. (It even might be hard to ask, because we already know the answer ...) --Maincomb (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the dewiki block and debates, but it isn't relevant for Wikidata and even less so for this proposal. What we can bear in mind is that use in infoboxes is technically possible.
The question here is mainly which property to use to link from items for villages, localities, etc. to items for cadastral districts. --- Jura15:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Erlsberg, 2nd model First, we should talk about the items. I simplified Emus suggestion, now it is without "multiple topics". (I did it with SVG, so everybody can edit this chart.) And I do not know how to access locality and cadastral community from the WP:article, but this is my only motivation. :-( --Maincomb (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used existing items for the samples (created by yourself and Emu). Hope that helps explain how the proposed property is to be used. --- Jura10:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maincomb Wenn ich das richtig verstehe, ist Erlsberg (Q67288493) jetzt die Ortschaft in einem abstrahierten Sinn (was ich an anderer Stelle einmal Privatontologie genannt habe), während Erlsberg (Q109839533) die Ortschaft im Sinne der Ortschaftskennziffer ist (hier fehlen diverse Angaben, siehe Rufzeichen neben den Statements) und Erlsberg (Q109839531) die Katastralgemeinde. Hm. Kann man vermutlich so machen, wenn man das möchte. (Bemerkenswert ist übrigens, dass es bei keinem einzigen Statement eine Quellenangabe gibt, aber dieses Schicksal teilen die Items leider mit vielen anderen Items.) Emu (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emu: In my understanding, the WP:article is about the geographical/physical place, thus the connected item Erlsberg (Q67288493) is about something geographical/physical. This is a village, a hamlet or in case of Erlsberg a "dispersed settlement". I cannot understand what is meant by "locality in an abstract manner" and by "private onthology". I only know three typs of localities: political localities, statistical localities and postal localities and I am only modelling statistical localities because of the data. (The reasons of the exclamation marks are described there and do not affect the model itself.) The section "main subject" in Erlsberg (Q67288493) will be deleted and new sections called "located in the statistical territorial entity" and "asssociated cadastral district" (=this topic) will appear instead. I deleted your "Wikipedia article covering multiple topics" because I want to keep all as flat as possible. Furthermore: When I enter Erlsberg in a search box, I already get three choices: Erlsberg, Erlsberg and Erlsberg, one as settlement, one as locality and one as cadastral unit. This is complex enough and "Erlsberg" as "Wikipedia article covering multiple topics" would be the fourth choice. Question: What should a person, that was born in Erlsberg, select as place of birth (P19)? Settlement, locality, cadastral unit or Wikipedia article covering multiple topics? Will we need "locality of birth" and "cadastral unit of birth" to cover all aspects of birth? :-(
Geographical objects were never modeled that complicated in Wikidata so this might be an impact for many other items. (Will all place of birth (P19) need to be corrected?) What is your suggestion for a better model? --Maincomb (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already discussed this several times, I won’t repeat the discussion again and again. The main problem is that bar.wp (i.e. you) conflates all kinds of concepts just because they share the same name. So it’s really bar.wp that causes the problems. -- Emu (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emu: Yes, we discussed this several times and I never got your solution. Nearly all WPs have a single article for local objects, there is nearly no distinction. I did this in bar:WP because I installed bar:module:wd an tested this model in bar:Erlsberg. Now the floor is yours, give me your suggestions. (This is not the fault of bar:WP and you can demonstrate your model with other items.) --Maincomb (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you kindly discuss bar elsewhere? This is a property proposal discussion. I suppose the only question is if one should use Q109839533 or Q67288493 as a sample item, but this needn't be resolved here. Given that the Q109839533 was edited since I first added it, I removed it as sample.--- Jura14:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notified participants of WikiProject Czech Republic
Support It works fine in combination with en:template:wd. --Maincomb (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Created by Epìdosis as associated cadastral district (P10254). @Maincomb, Emu, Arbnos, MasterRus21thCentury, JAn Dudík:. About Czech Republic (Q213) and other countries, see Property talk:P10254. Thanks all for your help. --- Jura 14:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)