Wikidata:Property proposal/Australian Statistical Geography 2011 ID

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Australian Statistical Geography 2011 ID

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

DescriptionIdentifier of a geographic region defined in the Australian Statistical Geography Standard 2011
RepresentsAustralian Statistical Geography Standard 2011 (Q29980869)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameter"ID" in en:template:Census 2011 AUS
Domaingeographic regions
Allowed values\d or POA\d{4} or SSC\d or NRMR\d or D\d or SED\d or CED\d or ILOC\d or UCL\d or RA\d or IARE\d or SOSR\d or IREG\d or SOS\d or \d{1}G[A-Z]{3} or LGA\d or SUA\d or \d{1}R\d or \dR[A-Z]{2-3} or GL_[A-Z]{2-3}\d
Example
SourceAustralian Statistical Geography Standard 2011 (Q29980869) http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/australian+statistical+geography+standard+(asgs)
Planned uselinking suburbs, local council areas, and states with their census data
Formatter URLhttp://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/$1 (some of the types of ID do not have a URL profile, e.g. the tiny statistical areas, but these are unlikely to be used as properties for wikidata items)
Robot and gadget jobslikely
See alsonone pre-existent, but we could make similar properties for the 2001 and 2006 census region IDs
Motivation

These are Australian Bureau of Statistics identifiers for formally specified geographic regions. Some defined by them, some approximating regions defined by other government entities. Their URLs provide a quick link to 2011 census information about those regions. Wikipedia often already links to these pages for demographic information. I was in two minds about whether to make a different property for each type of region (see all the types here: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/c453c497aadde71cca2576d300026a38/$FILE/ASGS%202011%20Structure%20and%20Summary.pdf) so if others think we should go that way, that's also fine by me. 99of9 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  • Thanks for the link - I missed that conversation, but was previously aware that rural SSCs are sometimes bad approximations to the gazetted communities (but for urban areas they are WAY better than the only map link we usually have which is a rough Geonames polygon). If more than one community share the same SSC, they could either all link to the same one (which would make it easier to locate this issue in Wikidata) or could use a more appropriate identifier to their situation (e.g. a GL). Either way, it helps to have a direct link to where statistics can be found. Editors will need to stay careful and vigilant in how they use them. Regarding stability, these codes may change every 5 years, which is why I called this the 2011 ID, because I think it is safest to separate them, and this way we can also have direct links to historic demographic statistics. --99of9 (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reply. I'm kind of dubious about the potential for misleading SSC information to be loaded in purely by mistake, but I don't want to derail all the other valuable uses this could have. Will think this over for a couple of days. Lankiveil (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]