Wikidata:Property proposal/near

near/close to[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

Not done

Description	for geo-objects which are located near some other geo-object
Represents	near (Q21818619)
Data type	Item
Domain	any geographical feature (Q618123) or even physical location (Q17334923)
Allowed values	any geographical feature (Q618123) or even physical location (Q17334923)
Example 1	Sodom and Gomorrah (Q180141)→Dead Sea (Q23883)
Example 2	Q159#P1333→Ragdan (Q20092238)
Example 3	Mizpah in Gilead (Q6884729)→Jerash (Q31565)
Planned use	accidentally
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
See also	Wikidata:Property proposal/adjacent to, Wikidata:Property proposal/monument in the near

Motivation[edit]

Some locations (objects, points) are situated close to some notable other location, and we can show it. Sometimes it is even the only way to show location (e.g. we don't know exact coordinates, but we have description "it is near X") - this is relevant e.g. for some biblical places. Also it can be useful to add such property as qualifier, example: in Q159#P1333 there is no exact item for this point, but we know the closest object to it - Q20092238 (for a while it's temporarily shown by P276). We can use such property also as "monument in the near" if we come into agreement upon this. Infovarius (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support for fictional/mythical objects –Shisma (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Germartin1 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many possible values. See also previous discussion. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kirilloparma, I wouldn't want items to be spammed with statements such as tourist attractionneartram station. However, I do agree that there are domains where this property would make sense (e.g. biblical places); the property name and description should therefore be more restrictive to allow use only for such cases and maybe a citation needed constraint (Q54554025)-restriction should be part of the proposal. --Nw520 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem in "spamming". We can adjust using by restrictions and constraints. E.g. "near metro station" can be turned into a new property (which can be important, really). Also I would add "conflicted with: geographical coordinates" in order to not duplicate them and to use the property only when coordinates are unknown. There are many such cases, which can't be covered by P625! --Infovarius (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]