located in/on physical feature located on the specified (geo)physical feature. Should not be used when the value is only political/administrative (P131) or a mountain range (P4552).
Contemporaries: if [item A] has this property (located in/on physical feature (P706)) linked to [item B], then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
No, a city is not a terrain feature, so it's not appropriate here. This is intended for objects (including other terrain features) that are located on a single terrain feature (lake, island, mountain, sea, etc.). For the location of an event, P766 (P766) is appropriate. Superm401 - Talk01:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, hålla isär den stora prepositionsförvirringen i ett mångspråkigt projekt som det här är nog meningslöst, när vi inte ens på svwp klarar att hålla isär skånska begrepp från rikssvenska, se sv:talk:Råå. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion sv:talk:Råå is about syntax, my question was about semantics, or; "What does this proprty apply to?" rather than "What should we call this property?". /Esquilo (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I care about the exact name of a property. But since prepositions are so volatile in translations, it's hard to give a welldefined answer by using prepositions. I have seen proposals that this property also should be used to describe that a city (or whatever) is located next to a river, lake or sea. Visby is then both located on the island of Gotland and by the Baltic sea. But I guess there is still a separate property for the latter relation somewhere. -- Lavallen (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be used for both. Note the original proposal (above) gave separate examples of an island in both an ocean and a lake. It also specifically said it can be used when the domain (current item) is a town (similar to Visby (Q54757)). Superm401 - Talk03:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems that located in or next to body of water (P206) has a slightly different meaning: "next to" not "in". Los Angeles is probably p206 Pacific Ocean (because it faces it), Paris is probably p206 the Seine River (even though it is a bit different, as the river flows through it) but I do not think it would be correct to use the same property to say Île de la Cité is in the Seine River. I guess we should use p706 for that ? --Zolo (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example, a town covers two nearby islands. Should this property be created with 2 values, one for each island? —seav (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infovarius, for nearly past four years it didn't say "body of water" in English description and based on English label/description it was generally clear that located in or next to body of water (P206) instead should be used for bodies of water. See also #"in" as well as "on"? above, where it's concluded that "in" in label isn't necessary. (P206 now appears to be used for both "next to" and "in".) So I think this overlap should not have been reintroduced by changing the English label the way you did. This way it's unclear which property should be used or if values should be duplicated. I'd instead adjust labels in some other languages that didn't quite match English one. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:7863:A95D:A481:D81C08:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking because I don't see a lot of usage of this in general. For instance, if I wanted to add a claim to Q183360 (Lake Toba) indicating it's on the island of Sumatra, is P706 what I should use? Keenan Pepper (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
