Wikidata:Property proposal/gained territory from

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

gained territory from[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) territorial entity from which the subject item gained territory as a result of the event in the statement
Representsboundary change (Q28953942)
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier on statements of the form <subitem of territorial entity> significant event (P793) <subitem of boundary change (Q28953942)>
Allowed valuesterritorial entity (Q1496967)
Example 1United States of America (Q30) significant event (P793) Alaska Purchase (Q309029)gained territory from Russian Empire (Q34266)
Example 2Oxfordshire (Q23169) significant event (P793) boundary change (Q28953942)gained territory from Berkshire (Q23220) (point in time (P585) = 1 April 1974; applies to part (P518) = Vale of White Horse (Q1540110))
Example 3Coldingham (Q68815157) significant event (P793) boundary change (Q28953942)gained territory from Oldhamstocks (Q68826300) (point in time (P585) = 1890; has cause (P828) = Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 (Q6664029))
See alsosignificant event (P793); property proposed below: "gave up territory to"; replaces (P1365)

gave up territory to[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) territorial entity to which the subject item gave up some of its territory as a result of the event in the statement
Representsboundary change (Q28953942)
Data typeItem
Domainqualifier on statements of the form <subitem of territorial entity> significant event (P793) <subitem of boundary change (Q28953942)>
Allowed valuesterritorial entity (Q1496967)
Example 1Russian Empire (Q34266) significant event (P793) Alaska Purchase (Q309029)gave up territory to United States of America (Q30)
Example 2Berkshire (Q23220) significant event (P793) boundary change (Q28953942)gave up territory to Oxfordshire (Q23169) (point in time (P585) = 1 April 1974; applies to part (P518) = Vale of White Horse (Q1540110))
Example 3Oldhamstocks (Q68826300) significant event (P793) boundary change (Q28953942)gave up territory to Coldingham (Q68815157) (point in time (P585) = 1890; has cause (P828) = Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 (Q6664029))
See alsosignificant event (P793); property proposed above: "gained territory from"; replaced by (P1366)

Motivation[edit]

In recording boundary changes of a territorial entity, it would be useful to be able to indicate which entity it gained the additional territory from, or gave it up to. A qualifier on significant event (P793) = boundary change (Q28953942) statements seems the best way to do this.

There should normally exist parallel statements on the item gaining territority, and the item giving it up. Jheald (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Proposed. Jheald (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Melderick (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both David (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There's already a lot of information on the items about countries. I think this information would be better stored within the item for the significant event. ChristianKl❫ 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: Useful comment. I had thought about what you suggest, but I don't think it will usually be the way to go, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, most smaller entities (eg the parish or the county in the examples above) won't have an item for the significant event, so then the information can only be stored as a statement on the main item. Secondly, even if we do have an item for a treaty (or a war), it seems to me that that is actually a separate thing from the boundary change, so I am not sure that this property would make sense on such an item. It seems to me that the treaty may be the proximate cause of the boundary change (and a war may be the underlying cause), but they are not actually the boundary change itself, so I'm not quite sure I can see how it would work. Concrete items like Alaska Purchase (Q309029) or Louisiana Purchase (Q193155) are really rather rare; and even then, arguably they refer to the whole process, negotiation, treaty-making, etc, rather than the just the boundary change, so even in these cases perhaps they are best seen as the cause of the boundary changing, rather than the change itself.
Perhaps an alternative, where a country X has a long and particularly complex territorial history, would be instead to have an auxiliary item "Territorial evolution of X", that would be a facet of (P1269) of X, and on which one could put the significant event (P793) statements for each of the boundary changes. We already have quite a few of these items, corresponding to some of the articles in eg en:Category:Territorial_evolution_by_country. It would seem quite a useful and natural way to keep the relevant information all discoverable and editable in one place. Jheald (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: But if you have changes that you think would make these proposed properties more useful on a wider range of items and statements, please do suggest them. Jheald (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment for electoral districts, this could work nicely. --- Jura 08:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)