Wikidata:Property proposal/JJM Habitation id

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

‎JJM Habitation id

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Descriptionidentifier for Indian hamlets(/rural habitations) issued by Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Jal Shakti (Q85785741) of the Government of India
Representshuman settlement (Q486972)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhamlet (Q5084) in India
Allowed values\d{1,7}
Example 1Cherukupalli (Q97489248) -> 16339
Example 2Panatoor (Q19672794) -> 31095
Example 3Kothaganesunipadu (Q6433970) -> 1670814
Sourcehttps://ejalshakti.gov.in/JJM/JJMReports/BasicInformation/JJMRep_AbstractData_S.aspx
Planned useMinimal use.. probably around 48000 entries from Andhra Pradesh for now
Number of IDs in source1,699,676
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoLGD local body code (P6425), Indian census area code (2011) (P5578), MDWS place ID (P6335)
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes
Wikidata projectWikiProject India (Q11037573)

Motivation

[edit]

This is the most comprehensive list of Indian hamlets available, it will be very helpful in tracking all the rural habitations which are not full blown revenue/census villages. It also has a mapping to LGD local body code (P6425) making the whole Indian hamlet mapping tractable. RamSeraph (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  •  Oppose Neutral This is the same as MDWS place ID (P6335), as all three example values for that property are (up to the presence of leading zeros) also values for this one. Mahir256 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mahir256 Can you give the source where these can be looked up.. I do suspect the JJM id is a successor to the MDWS place ID (P6335). I will retract this if this is actually the same RamSeraph (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RamSeraph: The third "source website for the property" link on P6335 (incidentally with the domain ejalshakti.gov.in) still resolves, if you want to browse that. Mahir256 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mahir256 I did see the same domain, and that is the reason I added MDWS place ID (P6335) in the related property list and also the reason I think it is a successor id. The other clue was that the reports with MDWS place ID (P6335) stop at 2018 and the JJM ones start at 2019. 3 out of 1.6 million matching is not a confirmation that they are the same, but let's put this is on hold till we can actually confirm fully. One other reason I want to add JJM id is because they are mapped to LGD here - https://ejalshakti.gov.in/JJM/JJMReports/lgd_mapping/rpt_LGDMappedStatus.aspx RamSeraph (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      One other thing.. can you confirm that the id in brackets next to the habitation name is the id to consider? RamSeraph (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, JJM data has been pulled and is available here(documentation) RamSeraph (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mahir256 The linked page for MDWS place ID (P6335) is broken for a lot of blocks, There are no ids even next to the habitation names for some states. I couldn't locate Cherukupalli (Q97489248) in the drop downs.. it would be helpful if you can show the source for the claim that the ids are the same. RamSeraph (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @RamSeraph: I'm not sure which bracketed numbers you are referring to, but the "S.No." that appears in the P6335 link is not the value of P6335; if you examine the HTML source for the drop-down boxes in that link (the <table class="SelectData"> element), each <option> element has a value attribute, which has been treated as the value for P6335 and which for Nangdala Tea Garden (Q60794317) and Uthukuli block (Q25553040)—to add two other random places to the three P6335 examples—match the values for this proposed property.
      Have you tried looking for some of the existing P6335 values in the link that you provided? There do seem to be issues now browsing the P6335 link (for whatever reason the list of administrative divisions in the drop-downs for the 2018 data doesn't actually correspond to what existed in that year)—in the case of Andhra Pradesh likely due to some reorganization of administrative divisions in the last six years—but while it may be disappointing that no P6335 values for within Andhra Pradesh was added to Wikidata, with respect to information from other states I also haven't seen yet any values where the value for P6335 is different from the value for this proposed property. Mahir256 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wasn't looking at the "S.No.", some of the habitations had a number in brackets - An example would be Appapuram village's listing of habitations. Can be reached via the following dropdown - "State: Andhra Pradesh -> District: Guntur -> Block: Kakumanu -> Panchayat: Appapuram -> Village: Appapuram". You will see two habitations listed there with names Appapuram(0709747009011500) and Chinakakumanu(0709747009021500). These are the numbers I was looking at. I highly suspect they were not the MDWS place ID (P6335)s of the habitations. I did look at the HTML source.. the ids in the <select> field don't extend till habitations, they stop at villages. So the MDWS place ID (P6335)s for habitations are no longer accesible.
      That brings us to what seems to be a major misunderstanding here, the current proposal is only for Habitation ids, not for census villages or any other administrative entities above them. In fact habitations are not administrative entities, they are just human settlements. The lowest administrative hierarchy is a Revenue village( which the British decided to use as census entities as well, you know, priorities :) ) or sometimes a Gram Panchayat( yes, a revenue village can have multiple gram panchayats ).
      Some of these habitation names are what people recognise as their village names. The 3 examples I gave are these kind of habitations, These couldn't be tracked down to revenue villages or gram panchayats. In the link added as source in this proposal going to the "B1: Basic Habitation Information" section you can locate these 3 entries by following the dropdowns as listed below.
      Cherukupalli (Q97489248) State: Andhra Pradesh, District: Bapatla, Block: Cherukupalli, Panchayat: ARUMBAKA, Village: ARUMBAKA
      Panatoor (Q19672794) State: Andhra Pradesh, District: Chittoor, Block: Gudipala, Panchayat: Gollamadugu Village:Bomma Samudram
      Kothaganesunipadu (Q6433970) State: Andhra Pradesh, District: Palnadu, Block: Machavaram, Panchayat: NAGESWARAPURAM THANDA, Village: Pillutla
      Now, coming to fact that the existing MDWS place ID (P6335)s are very similar to the newer JJM ids, these is more inline with what I was saying that the various JJM ids( for state, district, block, panchayat, village, habitations ) are successors of the original MDWS place ID (P6335).
      Are you suggesting that I add JJM habitation ids and call them MDWS place ID (P6335)? This is something I am ok with, We can add JJM id as an alternate name, but this might lose some of the subtlety that the id spaces have been separated in the newer identifiers and the source now calls them JJM ids, it might even lead to confusion, somebody needs to people to add additional zeros to avoid clashes across various entity types.
      Note: Looks like I got the id for Panatoor (Q19672794) wrong, I am going to correct the proposal, it is 31095 not 11912 RamSeraph (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mahir256 Forgot to ping. Also, adding one more thing. The newer JJM ids will definitely have ids which weren't in the original MDWS place ID (P6335). Digging these up would be easy. Look for any district formed after 2018. RamSeraph (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mahir256 What is the prescription here? Given that the MDWS place ID (P6335) values for habitations are no longer accesible at the source and the current proposal is only for habitations, I don't see how any of the arguments put forth in opposition still hold. Is this still an "oppose"? RamSeraph (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mahir256:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the discussion above. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mahir256, would you like to give your final opinion based on the discussion above, and clarify the comments above by @RamSeraph:. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mahir256, are you still opposed to the proposal? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 04:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have withdrawn my opposition in favor of staying neutral at this point—sorry it took so long for me to get to this—but would ask @RamSeraph: to at least provide some examples in the proposal for West Bengal (or some other state that has not undergone as many administrative division reforms as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have since 2018) so that a connection or disconnection between P6335 and this property may be made clearer. Mahir256 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @RamSeraph, could you please provide some examples in the proposal for West Bengal as suggested? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @ZI Jony@Mahir256
      I did an analysis of the data in both JJM reports(from 2024-25) and MDWS reports(from 2018-19).
      The full log is here: https://gist.github.com/ramSeraph/132b145862288215ed60edece96be3e0
      Summary is that MDWS data is missing(/has no matching ids for) 3 states/union territories, 68 districts, 595 blocks, 13774 panchayats and 31344 villages
      And the JJM data is missing(/has no matching ids for) 2 districts, 6 blocks, 3868 panchayats, 352 villages.
      But none of this really matter because the ids for 1,699,676 habitations are no longer accesible in MDWS reports. RamSeraph (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In case it isn't clear, apart from the anomalies cited above, the rest of the ids are a match. The name matches were spot checked. RamSeraph (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, Considering that MDWS place ID (P6335) was also from the same department, JJM habitaion id is a successor. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The JJM ID will help in completing the coverage of habitations in Andhra and rest of India eventually. So in full support. --Saiphani02 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RamSeraph, Mahir256, Arjunaraoc, Saiphani02: ✓ Done as JJM Habitation ID (P12929) Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/JJM_Habitation_id&oldid=2223967799"