Template talk:Regions of

By "better hack" I meant something completely different - the "Imperial" duchy is an incorrect set up. What imperial regions should have is no duchy. That's a bit tricky to check for, since we can't check for "not part of" (they're part of a realm). --Tom 21:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So if regions are "Imperial", they will not have a duchy specified at all? OK, that does make it a bit different. I think I may have it... Let me check.

On further checking, I do not believe it is possible. You cannot search for a page that does not have a property set. The searches will only return values for pages that have the property set, but do not have some specific value set. See my response in Concept:Regions without a lord. So even if we change the definition of "part of" to only apply to being part of a realm, and added a "duchy of", you still would not be able to semantically search for all pages that did not have any value set for the "duchy of" property. You could only search for pages that did not have the "duchy of" set to a specific value. Unless you know of a way to do this, I think we may have to just settle for specifying an "Imperial" duchy, or some other discrete value, such as "(none)". --Indirik 22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am still trying to think of ways to get the Duchy regions to work without that parsing error. Do you think that not specifying duchies using the "Part of" property will work? We would still need to do a query inside a query. But perhaps if the nested query is querying a different property, it may work properly. I haven't had an opportunity to test it yet. --Indirik 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wild cards should work, I think, but I'm not sure. --Tom 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)