Wikidata:Property proposal/protected area
protected area edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place
| Description | Property to store the protected area a place or geographical feature may belong to |
|---|---|
| Represents | protected area (Q473972) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | places, geographical features such as mountains, lakes, etc. |
| Example |
- Motivation
The way we should document the belonging of a place or geographical feature to a protected area is unclear, as this conversation as established, among others. Some of us may use part of (P361), some located in/on physical feature (P706), some located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), some location (P276) and some heritage designation (P1435). Eventually I believe a property fully dedicated to protected areas is the clearest option. It will be of common use as a lot of natural (and even artificial) features are in protected areas nowadays. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Support but I'd prefer the label to be "located in protected area" to make it clear that it is not an area of the item that is protected. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment Woudln't it be better to use "has part" for the parent item? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- That could be a very, very long list for large protected areas - think how many locations are in Serengeti National Park (Q11812902) and California Coastal National Monument (Q177587) for example. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support. --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Like Thryduulf, I think it sould be renamed "located in protected area". --Fralambert (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro, Thryduulf, Edgars2007, Fralambert:
Done Now located in protected area (P3018). --Lymantria (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)