Wikidata:Property proposal/subpopulation 2

subpopulation

You have not transcluded your proposal on Wikidata:Property proposal/Place yet. Please do it.

   Under discussion

Description	partial population according to some criteria
Represents	sub-population (Q2311577)
Data type	Number (not available yet)
Domain	place
Allowed values	integer
Example 1	Pristina (Q25270) → 426; point in time (P585) → 1961; ethnic group (P172) → Macedonians (Q2436423)
Example 2	See below for alternatives
Example 3	MISSING

Motivation

This is a proposed solution of Wikidata:Project_chat#Something_wrong_here?. Previous proposals:

• Wikidata:Property proposal/Number by nationality, religion and gender (December 2017)
• Wikidata:Property proposal/subpopulation (January 2018)

I think this is better than the following alternatives:

• Use has part(s) (P527) with qualifier population (P1082) - this may be confused with other meaning of has part(s) (P527)
• Use has part(s) of the class (P2670) - one may argue population is actually not "part" of city
• Use e.g. Pristina (Q25270) → subpopulation property → Albanians (Q179248) → quantity (P1114) → 194,452 and Pristina (Q25270) → subpopulation property → Orthodox Christian item → quantity (P1114) → 480 - this will only be able to filter by one criterion, and can not express things such as "male Christian population"
• Use population (P1082) with qualifier - may confuse data consumers as thay may think the value is full population. In RDF trusty statements qualifiers are stripped
• Use ethnic group (P172), religion or worldview (P140) etc. with qualifier population (P1082) - 1. not able to filter by multiple criteria; 2. it will be awkward to say the population is 0

For qualifiers:

• Use ethnic group (P172), religion or worldview (P140), sex or gender (P21) etc. - my proposal, but not all quality have such property (e.g. we don't have a property "literacy")
• Use applies to part (P518) - if we use two applies to part (P518) qualifiers, it's unclear that the statement means "and" or "or"
• Use specific property with fallback to applies to part (P518) as general one

-- GZWDer (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support --SilentSpike (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Weak support I guess this is ok, but I'm a little sad we can't use population (P1082) with qualifiers. I understand the reasoning, but it seems to me it applies to many other cases too, and maybe our data consumers should get a little smarter about checking for qualifiers. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
•  Question Could you include a qualifier to determine how the subcategory is done? e.g. criterion used (P1013)=eye color. Supposedly, people could add multiple sub-populations for the same date that aren't meant to add up. BTW, we already have male population (P1540) and female population (P1539). --- Jura 18:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Also literate population (P6499) and literacy rate (P6897). --- Jura 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• how about renaming it to "population by ethnic group" Germartin1 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support for "population by ethnic group". This could also used for the race data provided by the US Census Bureau and will probably help a lot to import the US census data coming next year. Yellowcard (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree that "population by ethnic group" would be the most practically useful property as it woul allow us to easily import and store census data from any country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't feel qualified to comment on the technicalities, but I very much would support some easier way to be able to represent the racial/ethnic demographics of an entity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Also,  Question: How would this work for entities that aren't regions? E.g. if I want to specify the percentage of female students, first generation students, or international students at MIT? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• It looks like the discussion on this has ceased, and there's no explicit objections, and some support. This is probably ready... JesseW (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There are still open questions. Obviously  Strong oppose until this is sorted out. --- Jura 16:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I missed that you had commented on this; I wouldn't have spoken up if I'd noticed. JesseW (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
      • It seems as if you don't read (or understand) the discussions. --- Jura 16:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
        • It seems as if you can't let your attacks stop. Drop it, please. JesseW (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Why did you ignore the alternative proposal by three other users? --- Jura 17:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I have already said that your hostile tone, personal attacks and assumption of my bad faith make it impossible for me to participate in discussions with you. I will not be continuing to do so here. JesseW (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)