Property talk:P1566
Documentation
identifier in the GeoNames geographical database
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Format, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Conflicts with P2452, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Type Q17334923, Q15617994, Q4830453, Q3918, Q494230, Q31855, Q3895768, Q9826, Q14350, Q3914, Q1616075, Q23002054, Q1434274, Q23002039, Q428602, Q159334, Q149566, Q423208, Q17362920, Q2221906, Q22698, Q8502, Q13226383, Q56061, Q618123, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Conflicts with P279, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Conflicts with P31, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1566#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
Items explicitly marked as being different from each other are not expected to have the same GeoNames ID. (Help)
Violations query:
select distinct ?item { ?item wdt:P1889 ?item2 ; wdt:P1566 ?geonames . ?item2 wdt:P1566 ?geonames . } order by ?item limit 1000
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1566#Items with P1889 and the same GeoNames ID as another item
Items should not be instances of disambiguation pages. (Help)
Violations query:
select distinct ?item { ?item wdt:P1566 [] ; wdt:P31/wdt:P31 wd:Q4167410 } limit 1000
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1566#Items which are instances of a disambiguation page
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
[email protected]? (in many cases, it should be possible for users to update GeoNames themselves if they've created an account)
Error type | Item(s) affected | Description/Duplicates | Exception | Reported | Resolved (also unpublished) | Resolved and published | Wikidata updated |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
duplicate | Humboldt Mountains (Q25222806) | Humboldt Mountains (Q25222806), Humboldt Mountains (Q31712661), Humboldt Mountains (Q31711228) and Humboldt Mountains (Q31712470) (can't currently be merged) all have different IDs which appear to point to the same mountain range, compare with this map | |||||
duplicate | East Antarctica (Q866405) | IDs point to the same location with the same names | |||||
duplicate | Briand Fjord (Q4965740) | IDs have the same Spanish name and point to similar locations | |||||
duplicate | Marø Cliffs (Q6772266) | IDs have similar names and point to similar locations | |||||
duplicate | Lazarev Trough (Q4182049) | IDs have same name and location | |||||
duplicate | Fort William Point (Q5472334) | alternate names for the same thing according to GNIS, coordinates are a bit off but still point to the same island | |||||
duplicate | Soyuz-17 Cliff (Q7572044) | "utës" is a possible transliteration of the Russian word "утёс" which is listed as a translation of cliff on wikt:en:cliff | |||||
duplicate | Motunui / Edwards Island (Q32191133) | same as Motunui / Edwards Island (Q32284527) (can't be merged right now) |
Error reports ?
[edit]I is fairly clear that the ID provided in fur (Q197204) should have been in Poil (Q46569) (it can somehow be attributed to the homonymy in French). Do I just change the statements here, is there something else we should do to warn Geonoames people that their IDs are wrong ? --Zolo (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Zolo: the GeoNames Database contains incorrent data. As you can also edit the database, you can just fix it. (I can't because Google is blocked in China)--GZWDer (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Zolo: I fixed it, but the Geonames API hasn't yet picked up the change. I wonder why no Wikidatian fixed this in 2 years? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Updates
[edit]It seems they are not fairly quick to update changing administrative layers. I was hoping to eventually find some introduced on 1.1.2015, but I guess I would have to go there and add them myself .. --- Jura 05:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
be careful about semantic URLs
[edit]The semantic URLs of geonames places are http://sws.geonames.org/$1/ (note slash at the end). http://sws.geonames.org/$1/about.rdf is an RDF document about the place, but the statements inside are made against the semantic URL. So I've changed "URI pattern for RDF resource" to http://sws.geonames.org/$1/.
Furthermore, I think that the "Formatter URL" should be changed to the same. Their site also resolves URLs without trailing slash, but the canonical URL has trailing slash. If there are no objections, I'll change the "Formatter URL" too. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, can you help me to understand why an item accessible using the www subdomain cannot be accessed using the sws subdomain or the equivalent wikidata property? Pietro (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Pietro: That's strange. You should probably ask GeoNames about it. I'm not sure why they would behave differently. - Nikki (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Nikki: I posted a comment on their forum, but it has not been published up to now (the forum is moderated). Do you know any other way to contact them? Pietro (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Pietro: Sorry for the slow response. They have an email address ([email protected]) linked from the bottom of various pages (I saw it on the error page and it's also on the forum pages). It seems like this particular one has been fixed now though. - Nikki (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikki: thank you for your attention. That email address is only for commercial users. Anyway, there is a delay of about a week between the adding of a new item and its availability on the sws domain, maybe depending on an approval process. Pietro (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Pietro: Sorry for the slow response. They have an email address ([email protected]) linked from the bottom of various pages (I saw it on the error page and it's also on the forum pages). It seems like this particular one has been fixed now though. - Nikki (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Nikki: I posted a comment on their forum, but it has not been published up to now (the forum is moderated). Do you know any other way to contact them? Pietro (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Pietro: That's strange. You should probably ask GeoNames about it. I'm not sure why they would behave differently. - Nikki (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- They completely messed it up now. If you go to https://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html it's all http (without the s), but the example item is https. Now what? Multichill (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- It appears to me as if the URI pattern (P1921) should be changed to https. That's what they consistently use now in the rdf files. Awinkler3 (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Grabów nad Prosną: Grabów nad Prosną (Q206125), Gmina Grabów nad Prosną (Q3207413) and Gmina Grabów nad Prosną (Q33677108)
[edit]Both have ID 3098470, which is named "Gmina Grabów nad Prosną" and described as "seat of a third-order administrative division, population 1,967". There is also ID 7533566, which is named "Grabów nad Prosną" and described as "third-order administrative division, population 7,795" - this is used in Gmina Grabów nad Prosną (Q33677108). Both GeoNames IDs have Wikipedia links to Q3207413. It looks like 7533566 should be the gmina, and 3098470 should be the town - is this correct? Also which item should Q33677108 be merged to? Peter James (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Because of this and similar extremly weird duplicates on Geonames I've removed the single value constraint. I'm not sure who thought it a good idea to trust GeoNames in the first place, but it is clearly not up to the task. Braveheart (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- But it seems like people still think that bad data justifies bad decisions. Braveheart (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Type Constraints
[edit]I added research institute (Q31855) into the allowed classes. Before it had university or medical organization, which left multiple organizations without GeonameID. Is this OK?
Which Values to Use for Places?
[edit]GeoNames has identifiers for places as they exist as "administrative divisions", and also as they exist as ="populated places". Wikidata's modeling seems to combine these concepts into single entities for towns, for example Cambridge (Q1028261). In this Wikidata item, two GeoNames identifiers have been given. Both seem correct to me, but they violate the single-value constraint. Should users just leave these values alone since they reflect differences in data modeling between GeoNames and Wikidata, or does Wikidata prefer one type of identifier for places from GeoNames? If one type is preferred, which is it? Should one of these be preferred and the other deprecated? Does some other action need to be taken? I ran across this one in work on the LCCNBot project, and usually check other identifiers on items I work on to make sure things look ok. I'd like to know how GeoNames identifiers should look so I can fix this one and any others I run across that don't follow the right pattern. Thanks for any help. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- In some cases this has been solved by providing a subject has role qualifier; for example here: Q13376. In our reconciliation work on our own geographic thesaurus we've used the GeoNames entities with feature class=P as go-to entities in the past, but in hindsight that might have been an unfortunate choice as a lot of these have no links to Wikidata yet, even though the items in Wikidata do exist. RKDdata (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- All Properties
- Properties with external-id-datatype
- Properties used on 1000000+ items
- Properties with format constraints
- Properties with conflicts with constraints
- Properties with constraints on type
- Properties with qualifiers constraints
- Properties with entity type constraints
- Properties with scope constraints
- Properties with single value constraints
- Properties with unique value constraints
- Properties with complex constraints