Wikidata:Property proposal/ZNIEFF Code


Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Done: ZNIEFF ID (P3498) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionidentifier for a 'Zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique' on the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle's official website
Representszone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique (Q16040909)
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed values\d{9}
Formatter URL$1
See alsoprotected areas INPN Code (P1848), for protected areas in France

France has an inventory of more than 15,000 zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique (Q16040909), each of them with a unique, stable and official identifier managed by Muséum national d'histoire naturelle (Q838691). Please note that zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique (Q16040909) are not protected areas (only "interesting" places) and the URL are different from those of protected areas on Muséum national d'histoire naturelle (Q838691) official website, so we cannot use protected areas INPN Code (P1848) for zone naturelle d'intérêt écologique, faunistique et floristique (Q16040909) codes. El Caro (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


Thierry Caro
Paul Mackay
Tris T7 TT me

  Notified participants of WikiProject Protected areas. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  1.   Support Pamputt (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  2.   Comment Je suis plutôt pour, mais faudrait au moins un exemple. Pour reprendre l'idée de la Carança, je suggère Vallée de la Carança? --Fralambert (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    Désolé Fralambert je me suis trompé dans l'exemple, j'en ai mis un autre qui sera mieux. Après, la distinction rivière/vallée de la rivière dans wikidata est un autre débat. El Caro (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      Support De rien, bon disons que sur Wikidata une vallée/rivière c'est généralement deux éléments, mais un seul sur Wikipédia. J'ai eu le même cas avec Mohawk Island (Q652226) et Mohawk Island National Wildlife Area (Q15568992). --Fralambert (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  3.   Support. Tubezlob (🙋) 15:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  4.   Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  5.   Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  6.   Support obviously useful (and maybe fr.wp could be harvest through fr:Modèle:ZNIEFF?) but unsure and maybe   Oppose the example @Fralambert, Thierry Caro:. I think there should be a specific element for the protected area; even if they share the same name, the area itself and the protected area may have very different characteristics. For example the and is true, but the protected area of the same name is only located in 19 communes of Lozère (Q12580). At least there should be qualifiers to untangle the two concepts and make it clear. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    I was aware of this. But I am OK with the property being used on an item for the feature if the item for the ZNIEFF area itself does not exist yet. Eventually, we'll get there, of course. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    There are several ZNIEFF related to Gorges du Tarn (Q1538251) so we should create an element for each ZNIEFF, so VIGNERON is right as usual (except that ZNIEFFs are NOT protected areas). But the property is still relevant, isn't it? El Caro (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    Of course the property itself is a good idea, and yes it could be temporary use on not-exactly-but-close-enough items but this temporary situation is not ideal and shouldn't be put as a example. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    I have added a new, better example: the actual valley covers the same area as the ZNIEFF. El Caro (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)