Wikidata:Property proposal/taxa protected

taxa especially protected in area edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

Done: taxon especially protected in area (P6569) (Talk and documentation)

Description	species and other taxons especially protected in a region
Data type	Item
Domain	protected areas (not countries)
Allowed values	any taxon
Example 1	Doi Phu Kha non-hunting area (Q28104754) → some 170 species (see [1])
Example 2	Trockenhänge am Donaurandbruch (Q58870700) → yellow-bellied toad (Q606431), Cypripedium calceolus (Q156124), Dicranum viride (Q310409), Lucanus cervus (Q190491), Myotis myotis (Q723413) (source [2])
See also	taxa found

Motivation edit

Following the discussion at taxa found with @Ahoerstemeier:. The scope would be different from the other proposal, as the values would only be species that are specially protected in an area with a special protection scheme. The species could actually be present or not. This shouldn't be use for state-wide red-lists and the like. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 09:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support As Jura created this proposal because my intended use did not match the related proposal, I of course support it. I just worry if this property is usable for those cases 100+ taxa could be listed, at least the current UI would break... Ahoerstemeier (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could also be used in instances of of biotope (Q175208) --GPSLeo (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for the related "taxa found" proposal fits better, which however is intended for a specific geographic area, and not a class of them. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mr. Fulano! ^Talk 23:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Sorry but I'm missing the rational why these taxa are protected by some governmental act and how should this be referenced. --Succu (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The examples above show what I had in mind - the taxon which are listed in the official legal document which established the protected area, e.g. for Naturschutzgebiet (Q759421) in Germany often an instance of landscape plan (Q1803798). Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yellow-bellied toad (Q606431) is a Species referred to in Article 4 of Directive 2009/147/EC and listed in Annex II of Directive 92/43/EEC and site evaluation for them. Is it protected? If yes, by whom? --Succu (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its those taxa which, at least partially, were the reason to establish the protected area. Thus the management of the protected area should be done in a way that especially these taxa should not get harmed. So do I understand you right that you only have a problem with the short property name "taxa protected" and prefer it to be "taxa which were listed as reason to create protected area"? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe the proposed name is the source of confusion. In Czech we call this "předmět ochrany" (translated as "object of protection") and it is usually either a specific taxon or a given biotope (Q175208), or a combination of both.--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can refine the label, that would be fine. --- Jura 05:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll try to find out what the official term in English is (if there's one). --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you considered using the reverse property instead? e.g. "protected in" / "locale of special protection". That way there would be less uses on any one item. For example, we don't want our country items to be filled up by every species they protect. --99of9 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get this from? This isn't meant for general red lists. Is there something we can add to the proposal above to make it clear? Not sure about the numbers either. --- Jura 05:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Jura1--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahoerstemeier, ChristianKl, Mr. Fulano, GPSLeo, Succu, 99of9: @Jura1, Vojtěch Dostál: Done: taxon especially protected in area (P6569). − Pintoch (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]