Wikidata:Property proposal/urban population
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
urban population
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Description | number of people living within the territorial entity who live in it's urban parts |
---|---|
Represents | urban population (Q30127246) |
Data type | Quantity |
Domain | territory (Q1496967) |
Allowed values | \d{1,10} |
Example 1 | Dakshin Dinajpur district (Q533839) → 236295 |
Example 2 | Balurghat community development block (Q4853084) → 14762 |
Example 3 | Gangarampur (Q1656762) → 56217 |
Motivation
[edit]The primary motivation to create this demographic property is Indian census data, but also can be used in other demogrphic datasets of any country. Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]OpposeThe urban area should have it's own item with a population statement. I proposed a property for doing that linking. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: If you take a look at a Primary Census Abstract from the last census (the 33rd page of Census of India 2011 (West Bengal): Dakshin Dinajpur District Primary Census Abstract (Q55972011), for example), you will see that the district has a well-defined urban population (339,231) and rural population (57,175), which do not necessarily correspond to separately contiguous or otherwise separately regarded areas. Mahir256 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think I misunderstood the proposed property. I rewrote the description. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: If you take a look at a Primary Census Abstract from the last census (the 33rd page of Census of India 2011 (West Bengal): Dakshin Dinajpur District Primary Census Abstract (Q55972011), for example), you will see that the district has a well-defined urban population (339,231) and rural population (57,175), which do not necessarily correspond to separately contiguous or otherwise separately regarded areas. Mahir256 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support David (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Seem a good idea to slipt total with urban and rural population. --Fralambert (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- (See also Property_talk:P1082#"rural"_vs._"urban"_populations_in_census_data, where this came up recently.) Oppose. This needs a more general solution than trying to patch up every population sub-group with its own property. --Yair rand (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support It would allow importing a mass of useful information from the (enourmous) Census of India. While I agree with Yair that other Census data sets may have other distinctions, and a more general solution would be better, such a solution does not readily come to mind, and I support creating this property, to describe population data of about a seventh of the planet in greater detail, even if in the future, when a more generic solution is found, it is deprecated in favor of that solution (and data is easily remodeled to the future solution based on this property). Asaf Bartov (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per Asaf Bartov. I generally try to avoid "per person" comments in discussion. But Asaf has told everything I wanted to say here, so +1 to it --Titodutta (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Ijon, ChristianKl, Titodutta, Bodhisattwa, Mahir256: @Fralambert, Yair rand: Done: urban population (P6343). − Pintoch (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)