Property talk:P1435

Documentation

heritage designation
heritage designation of a cultural or natural site

Represents

historic preservation (Q914856), heritage designation (Q30634609)

Data type

Example

Eiffel Tower (Q243) → monument historique inscrit (Q10387575)
Stanley Park (Q1126258) → national historic site of Canada (Q1568567)
Bukit Timah Nature Reserve (Q385725) → ASEAN Heritage Park (Q4654172)
Great Barrier Reef (Q7343) → World Heritage Site (Q9259)

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P1435 (Q20117163)

Replaces P31 edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

If I understand the usage correctly (from edits from User:Чаховіч_Уладзіслаў), it will replace P31 with the monument status. Is that ok? Michiel1972 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the goal is to replace instance of (P31). It's mosty a bridge is not is monument status. It was discuted on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Cultural heritage#Irksome issues with p31. --Fralambert (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Problem at WP Protect Areas, please see Wikidata talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Properties.
--- Jura 07:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Patrimoine culturel uniquement ou naturel aussi ? edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Bonjour,

Je re-pensais à Wiki Loves Earth (WLE) et en regardant le rapport de contraintes, je me rends compte qu'il y a peut-être un abus sur la contrainte « Type de valeur "bien culturel (Q2065736)" ». @Fralambert: est-ce volontaire (on se limite au patrimone culturel et dans ce cas comment indiquer le statut du patrimoine naturel ?) ou est-ce une erreur (et dans ce cas on étend au patrimoine naturel) ? Je dois avouer que je suis dans le doute. Autant sur une église MH, il me semble étrange d'indiquer « MH » comme instance of (P31) (une église est avant tout une église bien avant d'être un MH tant en importance que chronologiquement) mais autant sur un parc ou une réserve naturelle, cela ne me choque pas trop de voir « parc/réserve naturelle » comme instance of (P31) (et surtout si on transfert cette valeur en heritage designation (P1435), je me demande un peu ce que je vais mettre en instance of (P31), « territoire / zone / espace » ?).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS: j'ai nettoyé hier tout les qualifiers de P1435, il n'y a désormais plus de violations de contraintes \o/

En fait pour les réserves naturelles ou parc, il me semble aussi qu'il devrait être inscrit à instance of (P31). Le statut d'un parc est étroitement liée à sa nature. Quel serait le Mauricie National Park (Q1798539) sans sont statut de national park of Canada (Q1896949)? Un simple territoire publique. Pour ce qui est de WLE, peut-être ceci: Query: tree[142[150][131,17] AND CLAIM[31:(Tree[473972][][279])]] ferait mieux l'affaire? --Fralambert (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Désolé Fralambert mais en voyant le résultat de ta requête, je chance complètement d'avis. Pour un « parc naturel / réserve » ça passe encore (encore que…), mais il y a bien plus en patrimoine naturel que juste les parcs et réserves (surtout avec les p*t**** de sites naturels qui en France sont assez souvent tous sauf naturels) ; tout comme une église MH est une église avant d'être un MH, une forêt site naturel est une forêt avant d'être un site naturel.

En plus, cela permettrait d'être cohérent : le statut patrimonial, qu'il soit culturel ou naturel (ou autre chose ou les deux) est toujours indiqué en statut patrimonial.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

VIGNERON En fait, j'avais déjà mis les sites naturels en sous-classe de patrimoine de France (Q18013783). Le statut est beaucoup plus proche de heritage site (Quebec) (Q13859551) ou d'un site belge. Une forêt ne peut être classé que pour des raisons légendaires ou pittoresques, qui sont des raisons plus culturel que naturel. Ce qui n'interdit pas un parc ou une réserve d'avoir un statut en patrimoine culturel, comme pour le Last Mountain Lake Migratory Bird Sanctuary (Q18555478) (premier refuge faunique d'Amérique du Nord). --Fralambert (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

/me prend un aspirine et essaye de réfléchir…

Fralambert : oui de nombreux « sites naturels » sont plus culturels que naturels (et ce quelque soit le critère : artistique, pittoresque, scientifique, historique, légendaire ou une combinaison des précédents). Il n'empêche que ce sont (très généralement) des espaces naturels où l'artificialisation est limitée au maximum (interdiction de construire et tout les contraintes légales du même genre). Après, cela devient compliqué et on peut ratiociner pendant des heures sur la limite entre nature et culture (notamment sur des sujets de philosophie comme « la nature a-t-elle disparue quand l'homme est apparu ? »). Bref passons et tenons-en nous au concret.

Du coup, comment organiser et structurer tout cela ? Je n'avais pas remarqué mais indiqué patrimoine de France (Q18013783) comme subclass of (P279) de cultural property (Q2065736) me dérange un peu (idem pour heritage site (Quebec) (Q13859551) en subclass of (P279) de Quebec cultural heritage (Q3370013)). Cela sous-entend que tout patrimoine est uniquement culturel. Or même si on compte « largement » et que l’on considère que tout patrimoine naturel est en surplus culturel, il n'est reste pas moins qu'il est double : naturel et culturel et pas uniquement culturel, non ?

As-tu une référence pour « une forêt ne peut être classé que pour des raisons légendaires ou pittoresques » ; je n'ai pas encore trouvé de contre-exemple − il y a assez peu de forêts classées en tant que sites visiblement − mais l'if de Cruguel (Q17716) est classé « tout critère » et Q3287393 est classé en « pittoresque et scientifique ». Ce dernier peut servir de test puis d’exemple d'ailleurs, Fralambert : où indiquerais-tu la protection en tant que zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique (Q16040909) ? en instance of (P31) ? en heritage designation (P1435) ? une autre propriété (à créer ?) ? et trouve-tu « normale/pertinente/utile/convenable » l’affirmation instance of (P31) : protected area (Q473972) ?

/me reprend un aspirine et se dit que pour WLE, il serait peut-être bon de se limiter aux parcs, réserves et (si on a le temps) sites Natura 2000…

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Tanks Multichill for the new constraints, but I am not sure about the addition of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Some heritage properties are movable, like boats or paintings, who should be located with location (P276) (ex: Vrai portrait de Marguerite Bourgeoys (Q18573944)) instead of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Also a coordinate location (P625) is useless for movable. --Fralambert (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Note: If it is possible maybe we shoud change the constraint to Query: claim[1435 and noclaim[131] and noclaim[276]] instead of Query: claim[1435 and noclaim[131]]. --Fralambert (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be quite a small subset. Just qualify it with the point in time it was true and maybe for boats the usual spot. Multichill (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Registers edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In some countries, like the US and China, we usually do not say "it is an heritage building", but "it is listed on a register of heritage buildings" (like National Register of Historic Places (Q3719)). How do we handle that ? I am afraid the most logically consistent solution is to create items like "building listed on the National Register of Historic", and change National Register of Historic Places (Q3719) from "sublass of cultural property" to "subclass of register". --Zolo (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the name should be more "listed on the National Register of Historic Places", since not all the properties are buildings. But I think it is a good idea. --Fralambert (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure there is no major difference between “heritage building” and “listed building”. After all, since the Hague Convention of 1954, a cultural property (the physical part of cultural heritage) is − mostly − something listed as such.

Having two items « listed on NRHP » and « NHRP » seems logical to me. It's very similar to listed in the general inventory of cultural heritage (Q16739336)/General inventory of cultural heritage (Q3153865) and not far from Historical Monument (Q916475)-Ministry of Culture (Q384602) (and all the services within CRMH/CNMH/STAP/ABF/etc.). Nothing to be afraid of, it's just two metonyms concepts.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've created National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910). National Register of Historic Places (Q3719) and its use now need to be updated. Is there a way to link the two items ? The thing I do not like is mostly that it makes the formatting of Wikipedias transclusions more complicated cmpared to using Q3719 directly.

Constraint artificial object edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are they all artificial objects? No natural items that are declared heritage?
There is so much that is an artificial object, that makes the constraint almost useless, not?

@Fralambert: Thanks for notifying me of problems. TimurKirov (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I made a little change in the constrain, like it was already apliqued in Mérimée ID (P380). It sould resolve our different. --Fralambert (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can we use this property for UNESCO World Heritage Sites? edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm helping with getting data from UNESCO into Wikidata, and I've noticed that editors so far have been marking World Heritage Sites using instance of (P31) = World Heritage Site (Q9259). Before I go ahead with continuing in the same way, I thought it would be good to check if we should instead be using heritage designation (P1435) = World Heritage Site (Q9259) ? This makes sense to me but not sure if it's in the scope of this property. NavinoEvans (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@NavinoEvans:

Done --Fralambert (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

geographic location edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A geographic location is not a geographic object; instead, a geographic object has characteristic (P1552) geographic location. @Fralambert: what exactly is the problem with the constraint that "geographic location" being a quality of geographic object is an issue for you? --Izno (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

It mostly that the items using thsi property have to be a subclass of geographic location (Q2221906). Il added geographic location in landscape (Q107425), it will probably resolve the problem. --Fralambert (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Probably the biggest issue is because of the remnants of the GND type conversion... sigh. That should never have been a thing. :( I'm not sure landscape subclass of location makes sense, but it's better than location subclass of object... --Izno (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Monuments not belonging to any official lists edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does it make sense to use this property with an item describing monuments that are not listed in any official list (e.g. describing generic "sites/buildings of interest")? Nvitucci (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Nvitucci: Probably not but it depends, did you have a specific case in mind ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

P1435 and P166 edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have just discovered American Water Landmark (Q4745361) which apparently does not change in any way that statut of the building. award received (P166) seems more appropriate than heritage designation (P1435) in this case. I has me realize that the distinction between those two properties may not always be clear cut. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zolo (talk • contribs).

There is lot of heritage statuses who not offert protection, like National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910) or national historic site of Canada (Q1568567). I looked the criterias of eligibility and I see the structure need to be at least 50 years old ([1]) The think that probably favorise award received (P166) is probably more that it's the award is given by a organisation and not a government. --Fralambert (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Fralambert (and in France, listed in the general inventory of cultural heritage (Q16739336) doesn't offer protection either) and in the other hand some protection are given by non-governmental organisation.

In the end, I see no reason not to use heritage designation (P1435) like for other buildings. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

P1448 vs P1810 edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I know that wee actually use official name (P1448) as a qualifier of heritage designation (P1435), but then I realise yesterday we have also subject named as (P1810), who seem to be more appropriate. Should we move the qualifier from the first to the second? --Fralambert (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Either way works for me. Various observations: subject named as (P1810) is intended in part for labels applied in external databases, but heritage registers are not just any old arms-length database; they actually are a set of official designations. On the other hand official name (P1448) has data type monolingual text to capture the "official language" of the "official name", which is troublesome because heritage designations (other than World Heritage) are typically named without reference to any "official language". Perhaps we should use official name (P1448) for heritage registers like World Heritage that do make reference to official languages, while subject named as (P1810) is used for registers like the NRHP that don't have an official language component? (In Puerto Rico, for example, many of the NRHP names are in really bad Spanish, or weird mixtures of English and Spanish. I have no idea how to apply an "official language" to them.) Honestly, I have no personal preference which to use, as long as we do it in a consensus-driven, consistent pattern. For now, I'm going to continue to use official name (P1448), but I don't mean that to foreclose an alternate outcome to this discussion. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I kind of start this discussion without realising that subject named as (P1810) is not monolingual. Even if I found that the second have a best name, I thing it's more usefull to use official name (P1448), for at least the program in the local wiki can made a selection of language. --Fralambert (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Fralambert: After thinking a couple weeks, it seems to me that subject named as (P1810) works better for the U.S. heritage programs: since they name listings with no reference to official languages, a monolingual text qualifier is unnecessary and misleading. For heritage programs that do issue multiple names in different official languages, like World Heritage and (I imagine) Canada's, official name (P1448) used repeatedly for each of the official languages seems to be the better choice. Do you object if I add subject named as (P1810) as an allowed qualifier, so that either can be used depending on program? — Ipoellet (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ipoellet: OK, no problem. You can add it. --Fralambert (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Allowed qualifiers - of (P642) vs. part of (P361) edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

@Fralambert:: I felt it better to conduct this discussion on the talk page rather than leave it in revert edit summaries such as here.

Background: In some heritage register programs, one official inscription may consist of a number of subsidiary parts (for example in a World Heritage "serial nomination", or in a "historic district" on the National Register of Historic Places (Q3719)). Those subsidiary parts are widely considered to have heritage status themselves, even though on Wikidata they may be treated as separate entities/items from the umbrella inscription. We (Wikidatians) seem to be addressing this situation by tagging the item for the subsidiary part with the statement heritage designation (P1435):National Register of Historic Places contributing property (Q1129142), then adding a qualifier relating the statement to the umbrella inscription. (Example: See Herbert C. Hoover Building (Q124895), a contributing property in Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site (Q7163662).)

Question: In the qualifier under heritage designation (P1435):National Register of Historic Places contributing property (Q1129142), should we use of (P642) or part of (P361) to indicate the item for the umbrella inscription? In other words, which property should be listed and which excluded under allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851)?

Discussion: Judging from the discussions at Property talk:P642, the proper use of of (P642) seems in general to be a pretty complex and unsettled issue. In fact, if you go back to the property proposal, there was significant concern about "abuse" of the property. The original motivation for the property was quite narrow, relating to public offices: such as mayor of (P642) village. Although the existing discussions suggest some other uses are appropriate, there's no clear identification of which uses are or are not. However, there does seem to be a consensus that of (P642) should not be used if some other property could also serve the function. part of (P361) is exactly such a property. In addition, part of (P361) has the highly useful inverse property has part(s) (P527), allowing bi-directional linking between the umbrella inscription and its component parts, while of (P642) has no such inverse property. has part(s) (P527) would likely continue to be used even if of (P642) is selected for use in the component item, but it would then lack the symmetrical use of its inverse. For both of these reasons, I support using part of (P361) in preference to of (P642) on the contributing property item. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

part of (P361) is usefull, but is also best when is not used as a qualifier. The inverse constraint won't be working if you use part of (P361) as a qualifier. Also as a qualifier, it seem more natural to said that your building or place is a National Register of Historic Places contributing property (Q1129142) of (P642) Main Street Historic District. --Fralambert (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Although the inverse constraint may not work, it is still useful to use the two properties in an inverse fashion. The software limitations around constraints need not dictate how we actually use the properties. Also, with apologies, "seems more natural" is not a valid line of reasoning - it helps illustrate your thinking, which is useful to communication, but you still need to explain why it is a better/more natural solution. — Ipoellet (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can say that the notion of contributing property not exist in most of the countries. If I take a building like Édifice Price (Q373143), how I can enter that the building is part of Old Quebec (Q2114279) except that put part of (P361) as a property? And if we use 2 differents way to indicate a statement, how the local wiki will illustrate it? --Fralambert (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note is not that I favour P642 or P361, it's more that I feel we sould use one or the other as a qualifier. The two properties seem to near from each other to use the two of them. --Fralambert (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some time ago, located in protected area (P3018) was created. Wouldn't it be sufficient to use "P1435=contributing property" and "P3018=heritage district ABC".
--- Jura 07:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's the spirit of located in protected area (P3018), since is more for the protected areas, like national parks ans nature reserves. And it would give weird result for places in a heritage district and a national park, like Île aux Perroquets Lighthouse (Q16605095). Maybe we could also ask for the creation of a P3018 like property, since heritage is often like russian dolls. --Fralambert (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Good point. Maybe a separate property would be better.
--- Jura 07:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/protected region scheme. --- Jura 15:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, as you pointed out in the discussion, this was about located in protected area (P3018). Never mind. Anyways, the new proposal would be for a property similar to P1435. --- Jura 16:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Point in time as qualifier edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For Tanworth (Q24661476), I found the site had the heritage status scheduled monument (Q219538) in 1953, but no start or end dates. I used point in time (P585), but it isn't in the constraints. Is there another way this should be done, or should P585 be added as a qualifier? Peter James (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Groups of listed buildings edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Constraint error in that Historic England identifier can currently only be attached to one listed building. There are many places in which buildings are listed as a group, but each building may be notable in its own right. I think this can be solved by having a parent and allowing sharing HE identifiers in subsets IF members of those subsets have a "part of" property for the entire group. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Rodhullandemu:. The problem is not here, but more in National Heritage List for England number (P1216). Should we delete the distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) from National Heritage List for England number (P1216)? Or adding a separator (P4155) to this constraint? --Fralambert (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Fralambert: i don't know enough about properties yet to know the optimum solution, so I'll leave it to you. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Official name edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, since official name (P1448) can only be use as a main value, I replaced it by name (P2561). --Fralambert (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I readded it since it create 22 000 violation --Fralambert (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not an authority control edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed instance of (P31) = Wikidata property for authority control for cultural heritage (Q18618628).

It should not be in the sub-tree of Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637). The values of this property are not cases of a heritage identifier (Q853614), they are heritage classifications. Jheald (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

None-of constraint for "cultural heritage monument in Germany" edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This property's "none-of" contraint includes Q11691318. Is this a mistake? That item would seem like a prime example for a value to be used with this property. If it is not the correct value to be used here for cultural heritage monuments in Germany, then what is? --Zvpunry (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Zvpunry: I am surprised too. In addition, I have no idea what else to use for it. In order to find out the intention behind this restriction, it will be easiest to ask the user who added this restriction. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CamelCaseNick: Why did you add the restriction that you cannot use the data object cultural heritage monument in Germany (Q11691318) as a value for this property. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Gymnicus: As this property is for the status of a heritage site and from Germany there is no federal cultural heritage status, there always has to be a more specific item. (examples: cultural heritage monument in Baden-Württemberg (Q50378766), protected cultural heritage monument in Bremen (state) (Q31948690), heritage monument in Saxony (Q19413851), heritage monument in Hamburg (Q28661501), cultural heritage monument in Rhineland-Palatinate (Q84357648)) --CamelCaseNick (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)also @Zvpunry: CamelCaseNick (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Qualifiers for historical significance data edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The U.S. National Register of Historic Places has several data fields that describe historical significance such as Period of Significance (typically a range of years), Areas of Significance (categories such as Government, Architecture, Industry) and Level of Significance (Local, State, or National). What heritage designation qualifiers, if any, are appropriate for this data? Dzahsh (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic