Wikidata:Property proposal/located in the constituency

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

associated electoral district[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Descriptionconstituencies or electoral districts in which a place is located or is part of. If a municipality or county is split into or part of several districts: add several values
Representsconstituency (Q192611)
Data typeItem
Domainlocation (Q17334923), municipalities or county depending on the country. If attribution can be done on county level, don't repeat it on state or province level. If it's the same for the entire state and all states have similar corresponding electoral district, don't repeat on county/district/municipality level. Use only for countries where there is a consensus to use it (initially: India, Canada)
Allowed valueselectoral districts of the same country (not Q3025246). Don't use for countries where the value is always the same as in located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)
Example 1Sarbari (Q60292834)Bankura Lok Sabha constituency (Q4856799)
Example 2Sarbari (Q60292834)Raghunathpur Vidhan Sabha constituency (Q7283039)
Example 3Raghunathpur (Q3929423)Raghunathpur Vidhan Sabha constituency (Q7283039)
Example 4Dollard-des-Ormeaux (Q141998)Pierrefonds—Dollard (Q600123)
Example 5L'Île-Bizard–Sainte-Geneviève (Q617452)Pierrefonds—Dollard (Q600123)
Example 6Pierrefonds-Roxboro (Q1896248)Pierrefonds—Dollard (Q600123)
Example 7Pierrefonds-Roxboro (Q1896248)Lac-Saint-Louis (Q3214654)
Example 8Montreal (Q340)Lac-Saint-Louis (Q3214654), Pierrefonds—Dollard (Q600123)
Planned useIndia, Canada
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also

Motivation[edit]

This property will describe a place which is located in a certain constituency or electoral district. Bodhisattwa (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sample electoral districts. --- Jura 10:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the samples as they are not for planned countries. --- Jura 07:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • A prior property proposal is at Wikidata:Property proposal/District. @Mdmahir: as proposer, @Jura1: as supporter of that proposal, and @Pigsonthewing, ChristianKl, Pasleim, ArthurPSmith, Yair rand: as opponents of that proposal. Mahir256 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The relationship between administrative divisions and electoral divisions has been neglected for some time, and most certainly deserves some way of being modeled here on Wikidata. I do think that rather than completely supporting or completely opposing this proposal, changes to this proposal such that the result can handle different political situations will be necessary. To those of you I named above who opposed it, for example, help us handle the situation of countries in which gerrymandering prevails (like in Five Eyes countries). To those of you who support this proposal as written, for example, help us handle the situation of countries in which constituency delimitations follow existing administrative boundaries somewhat well (like in India and Bangladesh). Mahir256 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Intuitively, I would prefer a property that's more general and can be also used for census districts as well as electoral districts.

ChristianKl Oravrattas Tagishsimon Jacksonj04 Owenpatel Markcridge Louisecrow Nomen ad hoc Tubezlob Siwhitehouse Mhl20 Alexsdutton Danadl Teester Zache a_ka_es Hasive Nat965 masti Papuass Jklamo ProtoplasmaKid Jmmuguerza Graemebp Pete Forsyth Jelabra Rfitzel Davidpar Canley Bodhisattwa CYAN Masssly MJL tdombos salgo60 Daniel Mietchen Lefcentreright Pedropaulovc Shahadusadik

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject every politician ChristianKl❫ 08:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea, located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) is not appropriate place for constituencies.--Jklamo (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes. depending on electoral law per country it can or cannot have the same boundaries as administrative regions Masti (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (as currently written, though I'm supportive of the larger idea). Allocating every city, town, village etc to specific electoral districts (as well as to an administrative district) doesn't seem either sensible, or particularly useful. The example given above, of Sarbari (Q60292834) being in both Bankura Lok Sabha constituency (Q4856799) and Raghunathpur Vidhan Sabha constituency (Q7283039) doesn't seem like the best way of being able to say that. I agree that we definitely need a good way of relating electoral districts and administrative districts, but this doesn't seem to be it.
    • More generally, there are four scenarios that we generally need to cover here, for each type of electoral district (and, of course, most places are in multiple different electoral districts simultaneously as they elect people to multiple different bodies: e.g. a city council, county council, state legislature, national legislature, and supranational legislature (some which which can separate constituencies for lower houses vs upper houses). These certainly can neatly nest within each other in some places, but my experience is that that's the exception, rather than the norm.)
      1. Where electoral districts have a one-to-one match to administrative districts (e.g. the US, or Australia, where the constituencies of the Senate are the States).
      2. Where electoral districts neatly contain one or more administrative districts, e.g. in Finland the constituencies of the Eduskunta mostly match the regions of Finland, other than a couple that combine multiple, e.g. South-Eastern Finland (Q18691231) which is made up of South Karelia (Q5691), Southern Savonia (Q5693), and Kymenlaakso (Q5698)
      3. Where an administrative areas neatly contain multiple electoral districts: e.g. each Canadian state contains one, or more than one, Senate division. However, it also often useful to break things down to a higher level of precision, e.g. to say that each the city of Bristol (Q23154) is represented in the UK Parliament by Bristol West (Q1072698), Bristol East (Q1070148), Bristol South (Q578636), and Bristol North West (Q3137955)
      4. Where there is essentially no mapping from an electoral district to an administrative district, other than it being within something at a larger scale (e.g. some of the common examples of heavily gerrymandered districts, or places with complex borders, such as Baarle-Nassau (Q9811), Baarle-Hertog (Q244959), where some of the electoral difficulties are described at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8027086.stm)
    • A key issue is also that, even when dealing only a single "type" of constituency (and quite a few legislatures explicitly have multiple types) it is not always possible to map all the electoral districts in a given jurisdiction using only one of these methods. This can then make it very difficult to know how to formulate queries to get useful/relevant information back out again, even where you have good knowledge of the underlying structure of that jurisdiction+elected body, and close to impossible if you don't. --Oravrattas (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this some more, I believe the best way to model this is to provide electoral district maps (i.e. in Commons I guess) for each district, and then you can in principle retrieve relevant districts for any location via those maps. But that doesn't make retrieval of relevant districts for a location easy from the query angle, so it would be helpful to have a secondary (derived) relation that represents the relationship of locations to districts. However, "in" is the wrong word for this, because there are far too many cases (even in the US) where one type of location is not wholly contained within the other type in either direction. So I think a looser secondary "related district" or "overlaps with geographic object" or something like that would be the right sort of property for this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith: See territory overlaps (P3179). I don't like the increasing number of "located in area of type X" properties. Plenty of countries have many types of regional divisions, some of which aren't administrative territorial entities. Should there be a property for every type? Something else to consider: Is Mexico (Q96) located in the constituency Second constituency for French residents overseas (Q3025246)? --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this one - use territory overlaps (P3179)! ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Not only for France. Legally, every place outside Poland is in Warsaw (Q270)'s district, so it had to be added to every place and every ship (with a Polish citizen onboard). Panek (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    (I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, in case that wasn't clear.) --Yair rand (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Whilst I agree that "located in the administrative territorial entity" is not the ideal property to use to explain the hierarchy of electoral districts, as this stands it seems far too prone to confusing usage. I think @ArthurPSmith: pretty much sums up my concerns, and that the correct solution is to both add spatial data to the Commons (for those who know how to query it, and this is good practice anyway for anything with a boundary) and to be able to say "related to district" for expressing more concrete terms such as "this district is explicitly defined as being a part of this district" and vice-versa. --jacksonj04 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't really see another working solution. P131 might seem to be working for countries where they more or less fit between existing administrative layers, but even there it tends to lead to the mistaken assumption that electoral districts actually are administrative layers. --- Jura 10:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To prone to gerrymandering (Q476310), i.e. changes very often. In many countires too often to be udated at time. Panek (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Panek: does the update address your concerns (which I share)? --- Jura 13:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exists as an infobox field in eg en:Template:infobox UK place -- see eg Falkirk which gives Scottish, UK, and European constituencies that the town is in. Where an area (eg Bristol) is included in multiple constituencies, simply record multiple values. There is no requirement that the constituencies only include the given item -- eg there may be many villages all located within a particular rural constituency. Jheald (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bodhisattwa, Jklamo, Masti, Jheald: I was thinking about adding Canadian federal electoral district of Canada (Q17202187) to municipalities and counties. The nice thing about these is that they seem fairly stable (checked every 10 years so) and sane (in terms of gerrymandering), so probably worthwhile to include.
Still, while some counties or municipalities are clearly located in one electoral district, others include parts of several electoral districts. For these, I think it would be worth to include all applicable ones (similar to the use of "territory overlaps").
Accordingly, I'd use "associated constituency"(1), "associated electoral district"(2) or similar(3) as label for this property. As you supported the initial proposal, would you be ok with the new label (2)?
In regards to electoral districts outside the territory of a country (Q3025246), I wouldn't add them with this property.
@Panek, Mahir256: For countries with too much gerrymandering, I suppose contributors would probably not find it useful or worthwhile. --- Jura 08:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I updated the proposal based on my comment above. --- Jura 07:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is necessary so that no one mistakenly fills the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think we would use this in Australia. At the moment we are overloading located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) with qualifiers (see an example at Tooleybuc (Q7824080)). @Canley: what do you think? --99of9 (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't have any great issues with P131 being used for this, but I think a separate property is preferable. We include constituency data in Australian place infoboxes, when they do change in a boundary redistribution, having a more robust Wikidata framework will make working out which ones to update much easier (provided someone updates them, I have done this for Queensland in 2017). --Canley (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. That's really good idea. We shouldn't mixed electoral district and other adminustraive, territorial or stasical units. In cases of gerrymandering we can use qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582). --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would be very useful for canton of France (Q18524218). Ayack (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would be usefull at least for country or region with multiple constituencies. --Fralambert (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bodhisattwa, Jura1, Mahir256, ChristianKl, Jklamo, Masti: @Сидик из ПТУ, 99of9, Canley, Ksc~ruwiki, Fralambert: ✓ Done: associated electoral district (P7938) Ayack (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)