Wikidata:Property proposal/Antarctic Specially Protected Area ID

Antarctic SPA ID edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Not done

Description	identifier for an Antarctic Specially Protected Area, under the Antarctic Treaty System
Data type	External identifier
Domain	buildings and areas of land
Allowed values	[1-9]\d+
Example	Haswell Island (Q22975525) → 127
Source	https://www.ats.aq/devPH/apa/ep_protected.aspx?lang=e
External links	Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned use	Import all registrants in the database to Wikidata and add ID numbers to all, as part of the Connected Open Heritage project
Formatter URL	https://www.ats.aq/devPH/apa/ep_protected_search.aspx?type=2&num=$1&name=&prop=0&lang=e

Motivation

To document the Antarctic Specially Protected Areas on Wikidata and link to the official website. See here for more info. John Cummings (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Protected areas. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are not many of them, but I guess it's still OK. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support VIGNERON (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fralambert (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as currently presented). The ID given is the key in the ATS directory; it is not the actual ID of the protected area, and if we import these as IDs it's just going to cause confusion. For example, Haswell Island (the example given) is not ASPA 32; it's ASPA 127 - these are the standard assigned numbers.

I like and endorse the idea of having these IDs in Wikidata, but I don't think this is a very clear way of doing it. At the moment all ASPAs are already in Wikidata (some are duplicated, like Haswell Island (Q3503835) & Haswell Island (Q22975525), because boundaries don't completely line up), and indexed using heritage designation (P1435):Antarctic Specially Protected Area (Q3031290); their designations are in a catalog code (P528) property. (The same approach is used for the two other types of Antarctic protected areas; historic sites & specially managed areas). The best place for the ATS links might be as a qualifier to heritage designation (P1435) or catalog code (P528), rather than a new property which just holds a page reference but manages to look confusingly like the real ID. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gray that is odd - the page parameter is "id", so what is that number then (32 in the example case)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArthurPSmith: I think it's literally just the number of that database record, nothing more. The same system also includes historic sites (with type=1) and the handful of specially managed areas (with type=3), but the id=XX never overlaps. Presumably all three types are stored in the same index and when a new one's listed it gets the next page ID in the list. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This information is already included in Wikidata otherwise. Besides, as Andrew points out, the sample is incorrect: wrong identifier and wrong item. Odd that people didn't notice.
--- Jura 06:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: Is there a way to request from the website to provide an URL that actually goes to the propery ID? ChristianKl (✉) 14:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support @John Cummings: @ChristianKl: @Andrew Gray: @Jura1: I've updated the proposal with a formatter URL and example that works with the ASPA ID, not the record ID on the current website that shows database results. Supporting this proposal as a result. Dhx1 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @Dhx1:, I was at a loss how to sort this out. Thanks again, --John Cummings (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The correct item to use would be Q22975525 where the information is already present.
--- Jura 08

45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- But not the specific link (I supposed it could be added via reference URL to the catalog code entry, but it's not there now). And why do we have two items for the same island? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ArthurPSmith: We have quite a few duplicated items for ASPAs. Originally, I think this was just a slapdash import. I tried merging some but stopped when I discovered that for a lot of places, it seems to make a degree of sense because the geographical feature itself isn't quite coterminous with the ASPA. In this particular case, it "... comprises Haswell Island (the largest island in the archipelago), its littoral zone, and the adjacent section of fast ice in the Davis Sea." It might be a good idea to rename a lot of these items as eg/ "Haswell Island Specially Protected Area"? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it's frequent that people confuse islands with administrative or other areas they are located in. It generally happens when people don't look into things in detail and add area numbers or comments to random items without much thought.
      --- Jura 00:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jura1: Thanks for identifying that Haswell Island (Q22975525) should be the correct item to use in the "Haswell Island" example. I agree that Haswell Island (Q3503835) and Haswell Island (Q22975525) are different items. One is an island, one is a geographic area which includes the island and some surrounds. I've fixed the example. Dhx1 (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support NMaia (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There are only 72 areas, they have items, and they are already identified with catalog code. --Micru (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]