Wikidata:Property proposal/cadastral municipality name
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
cadastral municipality name
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place
Not done
Description | for cases, when the name of the locality differs from the name of the cadastral community |
---|---|
Data type | String |
Example 1 | Flüssing (Q104825115) → Fliessing // ("ü" becomes "ie") |
Example 2 | Modlisch (Q63432848) → Modlitsch // (additional "t") |
Example 3 | Schmerbach am Kamp (Q63432838) → Schmerbach |
Example 4 | Deutsch-Schützen (Q1220918) → Deutsch Schützen // (missing "-") |
Example 5 | Münchreith an der Thaya (Q63413454) → Münichreith an der Thaya // (additional "i") |
Example 6 | Stoies (Q2351057) → Stoyes // ("i" becomes "y") |
Example 7 | Bad Erlach (Q21874001) → Erlach |
Source | Ortschaften [1] and Katastralgemeindenverzeichnis [2] |
Expected completeness | complete |
Wikidata project | WikiProject Austria (Q11343046) |
Motivation
[edit]For municipalities in Austria, there are two types of subdivisions: Cadastral communities and localities. In many cases, these subdivisions are identical an modeled as one item like in Flüssing (Q104825115). But because cadastral communities were created in 1830ies and localities were created in 1970ies, the spelling can differ. The proposed property will help to handle different spellings. (Now, different spellings are stored as alias.) --Maincomb (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Comment Might a more generally applicable approach be to use official name (P1448) with a subject has role (P2868) qualifier? Jheald (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- I did this with Flüssing (Q104825115) and it looks good. Thanks. --Maincomb (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- if you are satisfied with the model (using offical name etc) proposed by Jheald, please withdraw this property proposal. Mfchris84 (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I did this with Flüssing (Q104825115) and it looks good. Thanks. --Maincomb (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The proposed property is too specific. The approach described by Jheald seems better. — The Erinaceous One 🦔 22:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not done no support for creation of this property --DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)