Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/protected region scheme

protected region schemeEdit

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

   Under discussion

MotivationEdit

Currently we have heritage designation (P1435) for various heritage designations. We currently lack a property to express the same as heritage designation (P1435) for nature or environment protection schemes. Thus this proposal. Similar to heritage designation (P1435), using instance of (P31) for the scheme is generally not a good way to express this: such schemes tend to change over time. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 16:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC) (rewritten)

DiscussionEdit

  • Hum, how it's related in Property_talk:P1435? As I see in the proposition, this seem more a way to replace instance of (P31)? In the exemple, waterfowl production area (Q7974063) seem to be the best instance of (P31) of the element, since it is the leal status of the area. And our discussion one year ago was more a way to link a heritage element with id historic district. --Fralambert (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem with such schemes is that they keep changing. I think this is why P1435 was created as well. --- Jura 16:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Correction: the previous discussion was indeed about another aspect of the problem. --- Jura 16:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC) I rewrote the intro accordingly. --- Jura 16:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see how it cause a problem. If Hettinger County Waterfowl Production Area (Q49500570) don't have waterfowl production area (Q7974063) as instance of (P31), what sould it be? The protected area was created the day the easement was made. It could apend that a protected area change of status, but it not diferrent for a municipality who change is status for a town or a city in North America. Like a change from municipality of Quebec (Q27676428) to city or town (Q27676416) is current in my province. (ex: Saint-Honoré (Q3462423)) --Fralambert (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    • It could be park, wetland, lake, geographic region. city or town (Q27676416) you mention is somewhat ambiguous, as P279 on this includes a populated place subclass and a type of subnational entity. --- Jura 16:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      • IMO, a park or a lake is usually something different than a protected area. Usually, the area corresponding to a lake/region/wetland does not match perfectly to the protected area, hence they should be different items. And thus protected areas should always be instances of protected region schemes.--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my comment above --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm with fralambert and voitech. there is nothing whatsoever this accomplish that isn't precisely what instance of (P31) is supposed to do. Heritage designations are assigned to extant objects, but conservation areas are not, as a specified territory, objects in their own right until they have been designated as such. Circeus (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I once created a series of items based on that assumption only to see a substantial part of them being merged by some user. --- Jura 17:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At least here in Germany, protected areas are a legal construct, thus in all cases they would have instance of (P31) same as this new property. It was already hard enough to keep the lake/forest/hill/river apart from the protected area, which in the German Wikipedia are often placed in one article. Besides, just because a protected area is named after a geographic entity, it usually does not mean its areas are exactly the same, quite the contrary. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)