Property talk:P30

Value type “continent (Q5107), subcontinent (Q855697), supercontinent (Q55833), fictional continent (Q17199338)”: This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value continent (Q5107), subcontinent (Q855697), supercontinent (Q55833), fictional continent (Q17199338) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: Atlantic/Madeira (Q4816256), Atlantic/Azores (Q4816255), Pacific/Tongatapu (Q7122271), Pacific/Kiritimati (Q7122270), Pacific/Easter (Q7122269)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P30#Value type Q5107, Q855697, Q55833, Q17199338, SPARQL

Qualifiers “start time (P580), end time (P582), applies to part, aspect, or form (P518), reason for deprecated rank (P2241), reason for preferred rank (P7452), latest start date (P8555), earliest date (P1319), earliest end date (P8554), latest date (P1326)”: this property should be used only with the listed qualifiers. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P30#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL

Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), human (Q5)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P30#Conflicts with P31, hourly updated report, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P30#Entity types

Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P30#Scope, SPARQL

Single best value: this property generally contains a single value. If there are several, one would have preferred rank (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: Russia (Q159), Soviet Union (Q15180), Russian Empire (Q34266), Russian Republic (Q139319), Russian republic (Q16692637), Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Q2184), Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208), Ottoman Empire (Q12560), Turkey (Q43), Constantinople (Q16869), Istanbul (Q406), Russian irredentism (Q15680807)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P30#single best value, SPARQL

Value Africa (Q181238) will be automatically replaced to value Africa (Q15).
Testing: TODO list

Value Africa (Q383842) will be automatically replaced to value Africa (Q15).
Testing: TODO list

Value African Continent (Q11284672) will be automatically replaced to value Africa (Q15).
Testing: TODO list

Value Europa (Q3143) will be automatically replaced to value Europe (Q46).
Testing: TODO list

This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Where to use?

This seems somewhat useful on countries, but need it be on every city? -- Docu at 06:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so. Having it for the country would be enough in most cases. For transcontinental countries, it could be useful to have it for administrative divisions too, and possibly for other geographical areas. I don't see why we would need it on cities. --Avenue (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Docu, please note that the Caribbean is not a traditional continent, but according to Wikipedia it is considered to be a subregion of North America. Now as a general question: how do we say something is located in the Caribbean? Is it OK to use P131 for that, or should we have another property like "is located in region"? Thayts (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Docu added Q664609 (Caribbean) to the constraint list above, but shouldn't we first have a discussion if it is actually being considered a continent? I don't think it is. Also, Central America (Q27611) is part of the North American continent... Thayts (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Europe a continent? -- Lavallen (block) 11:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By convention, yes. Thayts (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely source-dependent as continent is an arbitrary concept. —★PοωερZ_{_talk} 11:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what sources do we follow? Can we use an arbitrary person's believes as a generally accepted source, or only if a great number of people think (or have been taught) the same thing? Or does it have to be some established encyclopedia? As for me, I have been taught the "traditional" continents and the Caribbean wasn't one of them. But perhaps we should define this property more broadly, as has implicitly been done already. Thayts (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata actually stores claims about facts not facts themselves. There can always be contradicting claims, but that's not our fault, we list them anyway. It's up to the reader what he/she considers reliable. An example is Germany: There are three possibilities that continent (P30) can be and this will differ depending on whom you cite (Europe, Eurasia, Afro-Eurasia). We list every source we can find and I can tell you most sources will claim Europe, some will claim Eurasia and only a few will claim Afro-Eurasia; that's an indicator of what is general consensus on the subject. If you want it in greater detail, you can also check how reliable each source is. You may find out most scientific sources claim Afro-Eurasia, while most political sources claim Europe. —★PοωερZ_{_talk} 12:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ok, so what you're saying is that Wikidata is not by definition reliable and that its contents are open to personal interpretation? Then what is the actual value of the information stored here? I don't see how the information is worth anything if there is no solid basis of truth or consensus. Thayts (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solid basis of truth? That's the concept of absolute knowledge, something that doesn't exist outside of mathematics. In the real world you can only say how probable something is. Thankfully, for factual claims it's often times true beyond any reasonable doubt. But how many continents there are is not a factual claim at all, as continent itself is a concept. —★PοωερZ_{_talk} 12:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (Here is an example of contradicting claims)[reply]

I see, but what about a basis of consensus or what has been generally accepted? Although continent is a concept, it has been invented with an idea in mind of what a continent is, right? Thayts (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually: no. Continent is a particularly bad example. The concept saw vast changes in definition throughout history. It originates in ancient Greece: "everything that is on this side of the Aegean sea is Europa", then the Romans came and defined: "everything else is Asia", just to contradict themselves by claiming "everything to the south is Libya", which was later renamed to Africa. Then mankind discovered Europe and Asia are connected and the concept shifted to a cultural rather than a geographical one. I recommend this video. —★PοωερZ_{_talk} 13:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so the idea of what a continent is has changed over time and still people might see it differently. But my point is, can't we come to a consensus of what definition we use on Wikidata? Or should we use the definition that is most to our liking (as I think you're saying), resulting in the back-and-forth changing of (for example) Germany's continent to Europe by one person, and to Eurasia by another who has a different view and doesn't agree? One way to prevent edit wars and arguments like these is to allow countries to have multiple claims for one property (so Europe and Eurasia and Afro-Eurasia for Germany), all of which are correct according to different views and definitions. Or, we could come to a consensus of what claims are actually allowed and do not overlap. That also fits better with the claim above that this property must contain only a single value, although that is simply not possible with some countries like the USA. But if we go for the option where we allow multiple definitions (and even if we don't), where do we draw the line? Can I claim Japan to be a continent on its own, because I say that in my view it is, and add it to the constraint list above? Or, more extremely, can I claim the same for Sri Lanka? I simply think we need consensus about this in order to prevent people arguing about it and to add claims that will be satisfactory for everyone. Thayts (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course we should limit sources (according to Wikipedia's source policy for instance). Not every source is valid; just because X says so doesn't mean this claim should end up on Wikidata. X has to be a well-respected source, for instance a scientific geographical paper. The problem narrows, but remains, especially in this case. There is controversy (not like "controversy" as in controversy about evolution, real controversy) and that's what we have to show because we cannot be biased. Furthermore continent is also culture dependent: South Americans often consider the Americas to be one continent, East Asians often consider Eurasia to be one continent. Splitting these up is just the most dominant view of the western world. —★PοωερZ_{_talk} 14:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (Wikipedia recognizes this controversy, so should we)[reply]

OK, so how do we show the controversy? By including claims for multiple views? And of course only the views that are generally accepted by different cultures etc., but we need a way to establish that too. Thayts (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious when different sources claim mutually exclusive things, for example:

A, B and C claim: Europe instance of (P31): continent
X, Y and Z claim: Europe instance of (P31): subcontinent
X, Y and Z claim: Europe part of (P361): Eurasia

But I personally think the continent problem isn't really that of an issue. Continent is wishy-washy and at best a broad generalization, you just have to know this when dealing with the term. —★PοωερZ_{_talk} 15:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba (Q21203) has/had the properties:

is in the administrative unit (P131) = Caribbean (Q664609)
continent (P30) = North America (Q49)

Neither seems particularly logic to me. A solution could be to add Caribbean as value for P30 and adapting the label for P30 to "Continent/sub-continent". Interestingly, "Oceania" is also listed above, but remained unnoticed. -- Docu at 13:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, "located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) = Caribbean (Q664609)" doesn't seem to be logic to me either, but since I believed the continent to be North America (Q49) and that the Caribbean is no continent, I didn't know how to say it is in the Caribbean until I saw someone else use located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). But yeah, if we can come to consensus that Caribbean (Q664609) is allowed to be used for continent (P30), then it's fine by me. But at least we should have a discussion about it like the one above. Thayts (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we'd add a source or a qualifier to describe the scheme. . -- Docu at 14:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we agree on Caribbean (Q664609) to be an acceptable value for this property, then it's alright. I do now agree that Caribbean (Q664609) fits better in continent (P30) than in located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), so I will revert my edits. Thayts (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To return to the original question: a few tricky ones are still left on Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P297#.22Item_continent_.28P30.29.22_violations. Most of them might remain. Further, I tried to have Wikidata:Database_reports/Property_inheritance/P17_not_in_P30 de-activated. -- Docu at 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica

As there isn't much of a country division, I think "continent" should be set for all places in Antarctica. -- Docu at 07:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

@Mathieudu68: Mathieudu68 added many claims with this property to places in Austria. In my eyes they should by deleted because this information is expressed by located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Do I misunderstand anything? How should we handle this examples? Kind regards, --T.seppelt (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello T.seppelt,

I thought these edits were justified as they are related to natural objects such as mountains, volcanoes or rivers. P30 is already set in some items regarding mountains, e.g. Mont Blanc (Q583) or Scafell Pike (Q1146222), so I thought we should set it in all items regarding mountains. Moreover, even if all Austrian mountains are located in Europe, this is not necessarily the case for other countries such as France or the United Kingdom, as they own overseas territories on several continents. So, to my mind, this property can be useful for mountains. But if I'm wrong, my edits can be deleted. Regards, Mathieudu68 ^talk 14:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think continent (P30) claims should only be justified if their entities are located in a multi-continental administrative division, e.g. Russia, UK or France. This is my opinion. We may ask someone else. Regards, --T.seppelt (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathieudu68, T.seppelt: I agree with T.seppelt, this information is redundant and should be removed. I'm not sure located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) = administrative entity is a correct claim for natural object, location (P276) with a specific place seems more appropriate to me / Je suis d'accord avec T.seppelt, cette information est redondante et devrait être retirée. Je ne suis pas sur que located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) = entité administrative soit une bonne déclaration pour les objets naturels, location (P276) avec un endroit spécifique me semble plus approprié. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constraint:One of

Hi,

Is the One of values constraint really usefull? It is incomplete and it seems redundant to me with the Value type constraint. If it is usefull, we should add all the fictional continent (Q17199338) and geological continent like Pangaea (Q4398) to this list. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we should remove the one of constraint. --Pasleim (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with type constraints is that they tend to slip and include thing that we might not want .. as it's fairly easy to add one or two continents, I'd keep it. --- Jura 06:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pasleim, Jura1:, for the time being, I've add 3 exceptions. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this, I would like to re-ask a seven year old question. Do we really need this constraint? It's incredibly incomplete, and it seems to cause issues when adding stuff for new franchises. I feel like, if we're going to have the 'one of' constraint, we might as well not have any of the other constraints. I figured the whole point of having 'type' constraints was so that we didn't need to have an instance if literally every possible option in a 'one of' constraint. Theoretically, I should be able to just create a new item with 'instance of: fictional continent', and add it to my thing. I don't see why I should also need to add my new continent to the list of things allowed by the 'continent' porperty, because it seems like needing to do that defeats the purpose of even having 'instance of: continent/fictional continent/etc.' LiftedStarfish (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifiers

Hi,

On March, Ivan A. Krestinin added a « no qualifier » constraint but right now there is 27 use on applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) as qualifier of continent (P30). Shouldn't we add this qualifier ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, another way: delete continent (P30) from Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999) and add has part(s) (P527): European Netherlands (Q2118709), Dutch Caribbean (Q5317255) instead. Information redundancy will be removed, but this will make queries more complex. So the case is not simple. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about he others? Shouldn't United States of America (Q30),Turkey (Q43),Netherlands (Q55),France (Q142),European Union (Q458) & Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999) just be added to the exceptions? It isn't a mandatory restraint. Mbch331 (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Others have the same issue, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999) was used just as example. I think we need to discuss the data model first. E. g.: is continent (P30) usage in items like Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999), Turkey (Q43) correct? Need it to be replaced to has part(s) (P527) → <subdivision with continent (P30)>? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivan A. Krestinin: your solution work for Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999) but not so much for France (Q142) or states like Turkey (Q43) or Russia (Q159) ; a lot of countries are on several continents (see en:List of transcontinental countries). It's not only for countries, what about geographical features used to define boundary between two continents like Bosporus Strait (Q35958)? And in the other way, how to tell clearly that something is only on one continent ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better not to use for cities

Other properties are more appropriate "located in ..." - see discussion above.

And don't use overly unspecific regions "Located in" "central Europe" "central Europe" "Located in" "Europe" d1g (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is useful for cities. What about Perm (Q915) and Yekaterinburg (Q887)? Can you derive the value without the property? --Infovarius (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for items in/on Antarctica, but which are not countries

Minor examples where where the type type constraint "should be instances of geographic region or sovereign state" doesn't work. For geologic formations, i.e. lithostratigraphic or rock units, and for non-sovereign shared resources, e.g. observatories, should we ignore the constraint? Trilotat (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]