Wikidata talk:WikiProject Built heritage

Task force in Canada

Oh my God, I'm sooooo glad to see this page online! Since I've worked on Canadian lists in both French and English, Wikidata was the only solution for mismatches between both lists! I'm waiting for Wikidata's phase 3 since summer 2012.

Now, I'm willing to help, but I'm not sure how and where yet. Do you guys have an example of what you did with one Rijksmonument? Thanks. Benoit Rochon (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Français : Je vais tenter d'aider, j'ai rajouter quelques ID dans les articles correspondant, même si je ne suis jamis certain qu'il s'agit d'un bon choix d'avoir choisi le RLPC, le répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec étant beaucoup plus facile de mettre à jour. J'ai même fait ce test sur la frwiki. --Fralambert (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

France

Count me in. Jean-Frédéric (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I could help too. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

French heritage mess

Hi,

The situation is a little messy in France, so I open this discussion.

There is two database for « monument historique » : Mérimée (Property:P380) for buildings (and others stuff that doesn't look like buildings ) and Palissy (Property:P481) for objects (ship, building and others stuff like musical organs are nearly allways « object », sometimes even walls are objects). Buildings (and sometimes objects) could have several entries/identifier in each database (it's not unusual for organs to have 3 entries/identifier in Palissy and sometimes an other one in Merimée ; bridges and others things on two or more communes have 2 or more entries/identifiers). Then, some identifiers are buildings on several location and in this case there could be several articles on Wikipedia. Moreover, for each monument, the protection could be « classement » or « inscription » (or both, or two classement, or two inscription, or whatever you could imagine) ; basically classement is done at a national level and inscription at a regional level (but both are in the national database). And finally, in Mérimée and Palissy is identifiers for things that are « inventoriés » (when the identifiers being with IA or IM instead of PA and PM), a « monument inventorié » may be a « monument historique » but not allways…

So for a Wikipédia articles, we could have :

• a single unique identifier ;
• multiple unique identifiers (the most common case) ;
• a single but not unique identifier ;
• not identifier at all (generally a temporary situation for newly protected monument but not only).

So now, how could we put that on WikiData ? What constraints should we put on Property talk:P380 and Property talk:P481 ? We could choose a unique and single value (fortunately, there is usually a “primary” identifiers that is unique and single) but is it a good idea ? (why restrain this on WikiData and not on the Wikipedias ?) Should we create two others properties for the inventoriés ? (and there is some others complicated questions for some odd cases).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the situation is unique in France. I guess we just need to allow for multiple value for each identifier which can have multiple values for the same object.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this situation is not specific to France. See, by example, this Canadian monument that have 3 identifiers. As Wikidata supports multiple values for the same property, I think that we should see "monument identifier" properties as relationships between 1 Wikidata item (the monument) and n registration in official databases. So the values of these properties should be seen as "unique" but not "single". More, if there is a "primary" identifier and some other ones, we will be able to use the "prefered" statement rank for it in the future. Tpt (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Property proposal

I start an example (Q99290 // ID: 1330, 7623, 16366) just to see what can be added. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'd like to propose a property: "contruction date" (Begin: 1898, End: 1901). What do you think? Benoit Rochon (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. But what should be the Datatype ? (1898−1901 is not a number, could the item Q7848 do the trick? ; can qualifiers help us for this?). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There will be a date datatype, just not yet. Construction dates are already proposed Wikidata:Property_proposal/Place#Buildings_and_structures_.2F_Geb.C3.A4ude.2F_b.C3.A2timents. --Zolo (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It'll be very easy to express "contruction date" (Begin: 1898, End: 1901) using the PropertyIntervalSnak with a DateTime datatype. But I believe that this kind of snak won't be implemented this year. I think that we should use a "contruction date" property of type DateTime (the most relevant here and that will be implemented soon) with, as value, 1900 with a precision of 10 years, and two qualifiers from_date and two_date. It's pretty hacky but I don't see a better solution.

A detail about Q99290: this is a list of property is done to explain that Wikipedia pages linked to the item are list of value elements like in List of popes is a list of Pope. So, I've removed this property from the item. Tpt (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a question, some province have a good registery, like Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec, who not all the site or objet are inscribed in HPC. Should we create a new property? Like Q3301851 give 105835. Some objet will never be in the HPC, like this one. --Fralambert (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rijksmonumenten in the Netherlands

I took at the Netherlands. We have single monuments (Rijksmonument (Q916333), for example main building (Q13423596)) and these might be part of a complex (Rijksmonument complex (Q13423591), for example Stoop's Bad (Q12013423)). I did a breakdown of the requirements:

• We must have items for every single monument and for every single complex
• Every item (single or complex) must have Rijksmonument ID (P359)
• Every item (single or complex) must have country (P17) = Netherlands (Q55)
• Every item (single or complex) must have P107 (P107) = geographical feature (Q618123)
• Every item (single or complex) must have located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) for the province and the municipality
• Every item (single or complex) must have coordinate location (P625)
• Every single monument item must have instance of (P31) = Rijksmonument (Q916333)
• Every complex item must have instance of (P31) = Rijksmonument complex (Q13423591)
• Every complex item must have has part(s) (P527) with all the single monuments that are part of the complex
• If a single item is part of a complex it must have part of (P361) with the complex item
• Every item (single or complex) should have an image (P18) if available
• Every item (single or complex) should have a Commons category (P373) if available
• Every item (single or complex) should have a architect (P84) if available
• Should do something with the address, see Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#Address / Adresse / Adresse
• Should do something with the street
• Should do something with "type_obj" probably map it to instance of (P31)
• Should do something with "cbs_tekst" probably map it to instance of (P31)
• Should do something with "oorspr_functie", probably map it to has use (P366)
• Should do something with "bouwjaar", something with time, see Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic#Key event

What do you think? Multichill (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Constraint violations/P359 does some of it. --  Docu  at 15:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

By looking the list, it should be (instance of (P31) = Rijksmonument (Q916333) or Rijksmonument complex (Q13423591)) and not P31 = Q916333 only.

I think image (P18) is POV, how can you say it is the most représentative image of the monument? --Fralambert (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I of course took a look at the talk page to see what kind of constraints are already in place. Some are not correct. That should probably be updated. Not sure how to model the combined constraint.

Image is not POV, it's just the image that will be shown in the infobox and list item. I'm not saying anywhere that it is the most representative image. Multichill (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, a few comments:

• We have architect (P84) for architects.
• Keep an eye on Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#Address / Adresse / Adresse and Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic#Key event (for construction date).

The street is now P:P670 (with located on street (P669) as a qualifier). This is item datatype, and it may not always be easy to find the right one by bot, though is should be sometimes retrievable from pages like fr:Liste des monuments historiques du 1er arrondissement de Paris. --Zolo (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• there has been various discussions, most recently in Wikidata:PC#Need of a general concept for properties, about about which administrative unit to include in located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), but the trend seems to be toward just the most local one (it should soon be possible to query the P131 of an item's P131 from Wikipedia). --Zolo (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I updated the list. Not sure yet what to use for the street. Take for example nl:Lijst van rijksmonumenten in de Grote Houtstraat. All these items should be linked with Grote Houtstraat (Q3094222), but how? Multichill (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine the simplest solution would be to have a street property with a street number qualifier rather than (or in addition to) the address. --Zolo (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I´d throw out country (P17), P107 (P107) and use located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) only when you can not assign the monument to a specific location (it´s out in the wood, now destroyed or specific location unnknown). In every possible case use location (P276) with the city, town, municipiality etc. The link to "Netherlands" goes upwards through the properties of the municipiality to county to province to country (or whatever the names of the next higher levels of administration units are). On the other hand Rijksmonument (Q916333) also implies a monument within the Netherlands.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

French monuments

Here is a proposal for each items about a Historical Monument (Q916475) that may be a place or a movable object:

• Every item may have one or more (if there is a PA* and a IA* identifier) Mérimée ID (P380) (place) or Palissy ID (P481) (movable object) directly related to the item (example: Père Lachaise Cemetery (Q311) is the only item to have the identifier of the "Père Lachaise" entry in the Mérimée database)
• Every item must have country (P17) = France (Q142)
• Every place item must have P107 (P107) = geographical feature (Q618123)
• Every movable object item must have P107 (P107) = work (Q386724)
• Every item must have located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) for the department and the municipality
• Every place item should have coordinate location (P625)
• Every item must have instance of (P31) = cultural property (Q2065736)
• Every item must have instance of (P31) = Historical Monument (Q916475) (is it really needed?)
• Every monument "classé" item must have instance of (P31) = classified historical monument (Q10387684) with one or more point in time (P585) qualifier.
• Every monument "inscrit" item must have instance of (P31) = monument historique inscrit (Q10387575) with one or more point in time (P585) qualifier.
• Every item should have image (P18) if available
• Every item should have Commons category (P373) if available

I'm writing a bot for the importation of these data into Wikidata from French Wikipedia lists. Tpt (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Done for Palissy ID (P481). I don't no if it is actually possible to program instance of (P31) = classified historical monument (Q10387684) or monument historique inscrit (Q10387575) for constrain. For Historical Monument (Q916475), I don't think it is needed since classified historical monument (Q10387684) or monument historique inscrit (Q10387575) are subclass of (P279). --Fralambert (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Monuments Canada

As other countries above, I make a proposal of properties that should be in each item of an historic site of the list of historic places in Canada (Q3250865). Interested are invited to add, modify or discuss these proposals.

Property	Note	Example with Hartland Bridge (Q99290)
P107 (P107) *	geographical feature (Q618123) *	geographical feature (Q618123)
instance of (P31) *	national historic site of Canada (Q1568567) * cultural property (Q2065736) *	national historic site of Canada (Q1568567) cultural property (Q2065736)
country (P17) *	Canada (Q16) *	Canada (Q16)
located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) *	province territory city	New Brunswick (Q1965) Carleton County (Q2429216) Hartland (Q1019096) - Somerville (Q3489808)
P168 (P168)	house (Q3947), mill (Q44494), lighthouse (Q39715), bridge (Q12280)…	covered bridge (Q1825472) road bridge (Q537127)
part of (P361)	If it's part of a bigger complex
crosses (P177)		Saint John River (Q607546)
made from material (P186)	wood (Q287), iron (Q677)…	Pseudotsuga menziesii (Q156687) concrete (Q22657) rock asphalt (Q202251)
address	proposal done
coordinate location (P625) *	In decimals, separated by a comma, will be converted in dms.	46.296667,-67.530278
architect (P84)
named after (P138)		Hartland (Q1019096)
inception (P571)		July 4, 1901
start time (P580)
end time (P582)
construction date?
recognition date?
protection type?
Canadian Register of Historic Places ID (P477) *	CA	7623 1330 16366
identifiant lieu patrimonial provincial	CA-AB: Alberta Register of Historic Places ID (P759)
	CA-BC:
	CA-MB:
	CA-NB:	88 1984
	CA-NL:
	CA-NT:
	CA-NS:
	CA-NU:
	CA-ON:
	CA-PE: PEI Register of Historic Places ID (P763)
	CA-QC: Quebec cultural heritage directory ID (P633)
	CA-SK: proposal done (ex.: 2495)
	CA-YT:
World Heritage Site ID (P757)	Ex.: Rideau Canal (Q651323), Old Quebec (Q2114279)
Structurae structure ID (P454)	Structurae (Q1061861) - s ou p + 7 chiffres	s0005778
Emporis building ID (P455)	Emporis (Q704560)
image (P18)		Hartland covered bridge 2008.jpg
Commons category (P373)		Hartland Covered Bridge
* Mendatory for all items.

Feel free to add, remove, modify, propose, discuss about these propositions! Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

J'ai ajouter les coordonées dans les contraintes de Canadian Register of Historic Places ID (P477) et Quebec cultural heritage directory ID (P633). --Fralambert (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bonne idée, merci ! Benoit Rochon (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Tu as écris « Ça existe? » dans la cellule « identifiant lieu historique local »... en fait, je voulais dire Territorial au lieu de Local; je pensais à l'ID donné par l'instance municipale. Par exemple, l'ID Territorial du Pont de Hartland dans le Répertoire municipal de lieux patrimoniaux locaux est 1984.

Personnellement, je me demande si c'est pertinent de répertorier les IDs territoriaux ? Sont-ils voués à disparaître ? Est-ce que le Répertoire municipal de lieux patrimoniaux locaux du Nouveau-Brunswick est sur Internet ? Bref, tu en penses quoi ? Benoit Rochon (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Le Nunavut, les Territoires du Nord-Ouest, l'Ontario et la Colombie-Britannique n'on pas de répertoires sur internet. L'Alberta, qui à l'un des meilleurs répertoires avec le Québec, a décidé de ne pas tout mettre ses biens sur le RLPC [1] et je ne sais même pas si le Québec participe encore au programme. Je ne pense pas que les ID provinciaux vont disparaitre, le site du RLPC est plutôt le mirroir des différents sites provinciaux. --Fralambert (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Donc si je comprend bien, les 8 prov./terr. que j'ai ajouté ci-dessus, dans la cellule "identifiant lieu patrimonial provincial", ont besoin d'une propriété à part, n'est-ce pas ? D'où les demandes ci-dessous :

• identifiant Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec
• identifiant Registre des lieux historiques de l'Alberta
• identifiant Répertoire des lieux patrimoniaux de l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard

Ai-je raison de penser cela ? Et la propriété pour l'Alberta ne devrait-elle se nommer plutôt "identifiant Répertoire des lieux patrimoniaux de l'Alberta" ? Benoit Rochon (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Problème de patrimoine (Québec)

J'ai un petit problème pour comment composer la section instance of (P31) de Quebec cultural heritage (Q3370013). Le patrimoine inscrit est divisé en quatre partie, soit:

• Une catégorie (immeuble patrimonial, site patrimonial, objet patrimonial);
• Un statut (déclaration, classement, citation)
• une autorité (Government of Quebec (Q3112634), ministère de la Culture et des Communications (Q3315272), local municipality of Quebec (Q3327873))
• une date de reconnaissance

Ma question est quel pourrait être le montage dans instance of (P31)? En passant voici un exemple au Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec (Q3456276) pour musée Laurier (Q3329240). [2]. Vous pouvez aussi me répondre en anglais--Fralambert (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Switzerland

Cultural properties of national or regional significance in Switzerland

Cultural properties of national or regional significance in Switzerland (so called A- and B-objects) are listed in the PCP-Inventory (the legal basis is The Hague Convention and related national legislation). The inventory contains both single and multiple objects.

A recent export of the database (June 2013) can be downloaded here. Please note that some entries have been corrected when they were integrated into the German Wikipedia (see Error List, with no guarantee for completeness) and the coordinates have been transformed from CH1903 to WGS84 format. See also Translation tables for the variables (in the database extract, the variables may be named slightly differently).

There are further protected monuments at the cantonal and/or municipal level (based on legislation concerning the conservation of buildings) that are not part of the PCP-Inventory. There also is a large overlap between the buildings but the granularity of these lists is often very different compared to the PCP-Inventory. The requirements below refer only to the PCP-Inventory and not to the cantonal/municipal databases. In order to cover the objects from the cantonal lists, we would have to define requirements for each of the 26 cantons as their laws and database structures vary.

Requirements:

• We must have an item for every entry in the PCP Inventory. (Exception: cultural properties that cross territorial borders, such as cantonal or municipal borders, have several entries in the PCP Inventory with different PCP identifiers; for these entries we would need only one Wikidata entry that is assigned to several territorial entities and several PCP numbers. The same probably applies to cultural properties that cross national borders.)
• Every item must have PCP reference number (P381). (a number of items presently don't have a PCP identifier, see also the error list)
  • Where an object has several PCP identifiers it recommended to further qualify them with the property located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), e.g. Wooden Bridge across the Reuss river (Sins-Hünenberg) (Q2146628).
• Every item must have country (P17) = Switzerland (Q39). (this is redundant with the municipality)

  Please add country as well, it is the way this property works at Wikidata. --  Docu  at 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Every item must have located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) for the canton and the municipality. (the indication of the canton is redundant with the municipality).

  Please add canton as well, this make it easier to select items. --  Docu  at 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Every item must have P107 (P107) = geographical feature (Q618123) (buildings and archeological sites) or P107 (P107) = work (Q386724) (collections). (I'm not entirely sure whether all collections qualify as 'creative work' in the sense of Q386724.)
• Every item must have coordinate location (P625). (NB: The database of the Swiss Conferation contains coordinates in the CH1903 format; on the German Wikipedia these coordinates have been translated into WGS84 format)
• Every item must have instance of (P31) = class A Swiss cultural property of national significance (Q8274529) or instance of (P31) = class B Swiss cultural property of regional significance (Q12126757).
• Every item should have a Commons category (P373) if available.
• Every item should have an image (P18) if available.

  Constraint violations/P381 can check some of these. --  Docu  at 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Should do something with the address (street and number).
• Should do something with the type of objects. (NB: The database of the Swiss Confederation contains two different sets of object types - one for A-objects and one for B-objects. The German Wikipedia uses a modified version of the set of object types indicated for the B-objects.)

  Please bear in mind that there are also C objects . --  Docu  at 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Should do something with the "former municipality" (This variable is used for municipalities that have been merged with others)

Further information contained in the GIS system of the Swiss Confederation:

• Items may have URLs of photos of the objects
• Items may have a URL to an object description in PDF format by the Gesellschaft für Schweizerische Kunstgeschichte (Association for Swiss Art History)
• Items may have a description derived from "Der Schweizer Museumsführer" of VMS (www.museums.ch) (Museums Guide by the Swiss Museums Association).

Known issues:

• The German and French Wikipedia lists for the canton of Geneva contain a few multiple objects that have several entries, although they have just one PCP identifier.
• The German Wikipedia lists for the canton of Zurich need to be updated to contain PCP identifiers (at present they only contain cantonal identifiers for all objects).

These issues should be resolved soon. See the Discussion on the Project Page.

Protected historical monuments at the cantonal/municipal level

Available datasets are referenced here.

--Beat Estermann (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an issue related to collections not having P107 (P107) = geographical feature (Q618123), as it seems that they wouldn't be supposed to have coordinates in this case. See the discussion on the P625 Talk page on this issue. Instead they might have a property like "is located in the building", and then the building would have coordinates. - Does that make sense? --Beat Estermann (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Good start, if you can, please create these items as soon as possible (I couldn't download the spreadsheet).

A known issue with the lists on Wikipedia/Wiki Loves Monuments is that some items have (incorrect) coordinates leading them to appear several times in the WML app. Possibly this is a conversion issue with the coordinates.

Some of the Wikipedias also combine B and C objects.

You might want to use the local language name of the object (D/F or I) as label for en on Wikidata.

At Commons, frequently categories with photos of archive buildings or institutions producing them are included. One should bear in mind that PCP generally refer to archived materials. We should find a way to work around this though. --  Docu  at 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW for street addresses, there are located on street (P669) and house number (P670) --  Docu  at 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if we already should start adding located on street (P669), it is quite an effort to create a new item for every street. Maybe later, there will be an easier way to add the address. --Pasleim (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't suggest to add them manually. In order to test how it works, I did a couple. Now we got rue du 23-Juin (Q14494634)! Seems to work. --  Docu  at 17:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Monuments Russia (Памятники культурного наследия РФ)

I make a proposal of properties that should be in each item of an cultural heritage too. Interested are invited to add, modify or discuss these proposals.

Property	Note	Example with Oranienbaum (Q2315050)	Example with элементом комплекса
Label		Ораниенбаум	мост
Alias		Дворцово-парковый ансамбль Верхнего парка и Нижнего сада
Description
instance of (P31) *	cultural property (Q2065736) * World Heritage Site (Q9259)	cultural property (Q2065736) World Heritage Site (Q9259)	cultural property (Q2065736) World Heritage Site (Q9259)
country (P17) *	Russia (Q159) *	Russia (Q159)	Russia (Q159)
located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) *	регион район населенный пункт	Lomonosov (Q157688)	Lomonosov (Q157688)
P168 (P168)	house (Q3947), mill (Q44494), lighthouse (Q39715), bridge (Q12280)…	palace (Q16560)	bridge (Q12280)
part of (P361)	If it's part of a bigger complex		Oranienbaum (Q2315050)
made from material (P186)	wood (Q287), iron (Q677)…
P969 (P969)		Дворцовый просп., 48, Верхний парк	по Ореховой аллее, у Китайского пруда
coordinate location (P625) *		59°54'53.65"N, 29°45'14.24"E
architect (P84)
named after (P138)
inception (P571)		1-я четв.18 в., 1-я пол.18 в. (копия с античного оригинала 4 в. до н.э.) , 18 в. (копия с оригинала ск.Лисиппа) (копия с оригинала ск.Леохара) (копия с оригинала ск.Лотто Л.) (копия с античного оригинала 4 в. до н.э.) (копия с оригинала ск.Болонья Д.)	18-19 вв.
идентификатор сайта Культурное наследие		7810305000	7810305031
World Heritage Site ID (P757)		540
image (P18)		Bottom Garden & Big palace 25-07-04.jpg
Commons category (P373)		[3]
* Mendatory for all items.

Feel free to add, remove, modify, propose, discuss about these propositions! Best regards, --Voll (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, here we can only discuss the property, but once the discussion dies out, the proposal should be submitted at (I believe) here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Main type (P107) is obsolete, we can just erase the line.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, thank you. I have added it "за компанию", because other countries use it in their proposals. --Voll (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Properties in the queue are: Типология (осн.): Памятники архитектуры; Состояние: Нет информации; Категория охраны: Федеральная --Voll (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Identifier mess…

This is going to turn into a complete mess because it will be virtually no sharing of identifiers, and it will be nearly impossible to traverse the structure later on. It must be found a common way to set up identifiers, and as Wikidata should use common methods from linked data the identifiers should be dereferencable URLs. Jeblad (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Strong support. Wikibase software should have a way to support the identifiers and the associated dereferencable URIs. I've made a proposal last year about it. See also the talk page. Tpt (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Strong support. But what do we do now? If it takes too long to figure that out, people will keep on creating separate identifiers... Benoit Rochon (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

World Heritage Site ID (P757)

I added the property for the World Heritage Site ID (P757). --Fralambert (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cultural heritage?

I don't think that every item should have instance of (P31) = cultural property (Q2065736) and classified historical monument (Q10387684) (or monument historique inscrit (Q10387575)). It seems redundant to me as we have:

classified historical monument (Q10387684) and monument historique inscrit (Q10387575)

subclass of (P279)

Historical Monument (Q916475)

subclass of (P279)

heritage site (Q358)

subclass of (P279)

cultural property (Q2065736).

In my opinion, the only required value for instance of (P31) is classified historical monument (Q10387684) (or monument historique inscrit (Q10387575)) and the type of monument (castle, church, bridge, etc.). Ayack (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also think that since we can program a the type of monuments in instance of (P31), we can probably put out cultural property (Q2065736). The only advantage of cultural property (Q2065736) is that we can locate rapidly all the monuments. I would like at least a another opinion before we delete the constraint. --Fralambert (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As Fralambert mentionned, cultural property (Q2065736) allow to get all monuments around the World, and with national historic site of Canada (Q1568567), Canadian only... for instance. But let's wait another opinion. Benoit Rochon (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather add both. It's much quicker to retrieve all linking to cultural property (Q2065736). Also, it shouldn't be much effort to add both. --  Docu  at 17:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding both sounds like a good idea. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Especially for the type you also mentioned, it might be useful to use the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (Q611299) for the classification system. We have yet a property Art & Architecture Thesaurus ID (P1014). We use it at Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts and it seems much better than making up a classification system from scratch. But there is even an AAT record historic monuments. So it should probably used:

<heritage site (Q358)> Art & Architecture Thesaurus ID (P1014) <300007031>.

Regards, --Marsupium (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Q numbers for Swiss monuments

Last night, I started adding PCP reference number (P381) to a couple of items. To be faster I created first a list with Q numbers of Swiss monuments which already have an item. If someone else is working on Swiss monuments too, it might be helpful: User:Pasleim/monuments --Pasleim (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally, you should find all of them with Special:WhatLinksHere/Q8274529 or Special:WhatLinksHere/Q12126757. I'm trying to figure out a way to add the identifiers from the WLM database, but it might take some time. --  Docu  at 18:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Monument lists to Wikidata

Not a good time to discuss this in the middle of WLM, but just not to forget later. Based on the discussions above, it is now time to create individual entries for cultural monuments on Wikidata, to move there information from Wikipedia lists, to translate them here, and to replace the Wikipedia lists by lua templates. Obviously each country and each protection level should be discussed separately, but for example for UNESCO World Heritage and the English Wikipedia we should be able to do it as soon as we have enough manpower.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that even possible before we from the client can collect data from other items than the items directly connected to object? I guess each object in every list should have it's own item, and that the list-items only will list those items. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure. But I assume cultural heritage monuments are individually notable in most if not all Wikipedias, and thus certainly are notable for Wikidata. Then we can create entries even for those monuments which still have no Wikipedia articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not know how it works in other countries, but I guess in the case of the Swedish "fornminne" and "byggnadsminne" it would be better to create the items directly from the api from the source at Swedish Open Cultural Heritage (Q7654799), rather than from the Wikipedia-list. Many "byggnadsminne" has articles on svwp, but only a few "fornminne". They are more often discussed in groups in geographic articles, rather than in own articles. But I think they still would need own items, to preserve the integrity of the database. Otherwise it will be almost impossible to know which property belongs to which item in Swedish Open Cultural Heritage (Q7654799). -- Lavallen (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is still to be discussed how the items have to be populated (for instance, for Russia info should not be imported from the Wikipedia lists, nor from the external database, but needs to be pre-screened first). But yes, I think every monument needs its own item, and once we have them all on Wikidata the creation of future lists would be greatly facilitated. For instance, if the Swedish lists are there, one needs to provide English translations of the names on Wikidata and copy the templates from the Swedish Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia in order to get lists of Swedish cultural heritage on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And we have to identify good properties for different kinds of identifiers. "byggnadsminne" has two identifiers, and "fornminne" one, together with some kind of "name-property" for "RAÄ-nummer". The "fartyg" has no system with identifiers as far as I know, maybe the proposed sameAs-property would be enough there if there exists any page at all. It would also be good to identify some kind of property for "signum" in Rundata. -- Lavallen (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In some countries, like Ukraine, there are no identifiers either, and this has to be solved somehow.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A finding from P757# SingleUnique value about Wikipedia articles on World Heritage sites is that we frequently have articles about individual locations that make up a World Heritage Site, but not necessarily one about the site as such. An infobox then gets added to each location or the main article about the region which covers other things as well. Note that there would be identifiers for sub-sites, but these aren't used frequently. --  Docu  at 18:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC), fixed link to P757 report. 19:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see it as a problem. Clearly everything that is on the World Heritage list, be it a site or a part of a site, is notable for Wikidata, and items can be created.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not a problem in terms of number of items, but it makes organizing the content more difficult. --  Docu  at 18:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Some countries also have national lists with "submonuments".--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

But not all national submonuments should have a wikidata elements, Île d'Orléans (Q128172), a declared heritage site (Q13859619), have more that 3000 entries in the Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec (Q3456276) (all the buildings of the island). But canadian monuments are propably the worst example, since of the great varieties of different heritage protection in the country. --21:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I would start with Rijksmonumenten because we know the domain very well or with the monuments in Switzerland because the multilingualism is a big issue there. Multichill (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Netherlands sounds indeed as a good starting point because we are working with the lists for four years already and hopefully know all the issues. Switzerland may come second for instance.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Two cases to solve

Hi,

Hi I've two weird cases (wich give constraint violations) and I'm not sure to know the best way to solve it.

First case :

• one MH protection, two monuments/articles/items : PA00090609 for cordon des Druides (Q1132337) and Pierre courcoulée (Q2093334)

Proposed solution : create a third items on top of the two others for the protection.

Second case :

• one monument/article, two MH protections : PA00108781 (in 1979) and PA44000002 (in 1996, extended the first protection) for Penchâteau protohistoric camp (Q1033174) (and Penchâteau protohistoric camp (Q2935229) linking to the redirect), see too Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts/Unresolved/2014#February 2014.

Proposed solution : transform the « redirect item » Penchâteau protohistoric camp (Q2935229) and Penchâteau protohistoric camp (Q1033174) as two bottom items for the protections and create a third items on top of the two others for the monument/items.

Please take a look and tell me if the solutions are right. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: I think your solutions are correct. It's mosty how they are divided for the world heritage site. And it look like how they divided it in this external site (about Q15975351). --Fralambert (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

make sure that claims stay

How to recognice without a seperate list, that someone deletes the cultural heritage site status of an item? Thank you, Conny (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

Rijksmonumenten import

We already discussed importing monuments into Wikidata. I fixed up the monuments database over the last couple of weeks so now I have fresh data to import. My notes are at User:Multichill/Monument imports. Take for example the api output and Koningshof: double garage (Q17187818). This item is part of first test run. What do you think? Any feedback before I start importing more? Multichill (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to have the Dutch Rm title, the number, address and coordinatyes, but isn't it possible to identify the monument type (church, barn, facade, statue, city gate, etc)? Jane023 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jane, I've been thinking about that too. That data is not available through the monument database api. For this initial import I'll leave it out of scope, but I'll probably look into it later. We would have to map the fields "oorspr_functie" and "cbs_tekst" to Wikidata items. The most popular ones:

MariaDB [s51138__heritage_p]> SELECT `oorspr_functie`, COUNT(`oorspr_functie`) FROM `monuments_nl_(nl)` GROUP BY (`oorspr_functie`) ORDER BY COUNT(`oorspr_functie`) DESC LIMIT 20;
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| oorspr_functie            | COUNT(`oorspr_functie`) |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| Woonhuis                  |                   20138 |
|                           |                    9045 |
| Boerderij                 |                    7521 |
| Werk-woonhuis             |                    3719 |
| Kerk en kerkonderdeel     |                    2977 |
| Tuin, park en plantsoen   |                    2712 |
| Bijgebouwen kastelen enz. |                    1552 |
| Industrie- en poldermolen |                    1257 |
| Kasteel, buitenplaats     |                     999 |
| Opslag                    |                     893 |
| Begraafplaats en -onderdl |                     867 |
| Dienstwoning              |                     747 |
| Erfscheiding              |                     612 |
| Industrie                 |                     574 |
| Kerkelijke dienstwoning   |                     549 |
| Brug                      |                     518 |
| Handel en kantoor         |                     486 |
| Onderwijs en wetenschap   |                     472 |
| Omwalling                 |                     443 |
| Fort, vesting en -onderdl |                     380 |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
20 rows in set (0.72 sec)

And the second query

MariaDB [s51138__heritage_p]> SELECT `cbs_tekst`, COUNT(`cbs_tekst`) FROM `monuments_nl_(nl)` GROUP BY (`cbs_tekst`) ORDER BY COUNT(`cbs_tekst`) DESC LIMIT 20;
+--------------------------+--------------------+
| cbs_tekst                | COUNT(`cbs_tekst`) |
+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Gebouwen, woonhuizen     |              36390 |
| Agrarische gebouwen      |               7542 |
| Losse objecten, ed.      |               5308 |
| Kerkelijke gebouwen      |               4173 |
| Openbare gebouwen        |               1974 |
| Verdedigingswerken       |               1542 |
|                          |               1468 |
| Molens                   |               1276 |
| Weg- en waterwerken      |               1121 |
| Kastelen, landh. ed.     |               1015 |
| Liefdadige instell.      |                431 |
| Kerk-onderdl./object     |                213 |
| Horeca-instellingen      |                199 |
| Delen van geb/woonh.     |                190 |
| "Gebouwen, woonhuizen"   |                175 |
| Bijgebouwen              |                 40 |
| "Losse objecten, ed."    |                 21 |
| Militair verblijfsgebouw |                 17 |
| Gezondheidszorg          |                  7 |
| Losse objecten e.d.      |                  6 |
+--------------------------+--------------------+

So we'll be using house (Q3947) a lot. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The commune (gemeente) is missing, the rest looks (superficially) fine. I think the construction year is not readily available.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter: The municipality ("gemeente") is not always available. I check if the linked value is an instance of municipality of the Netherlands (Q2039348). That's not the case with Overveen (Q1847815) (that's in Bloemendaal).

Would be a nice improvement in the future to check if every Rijksmonument has it's province and municipality listed and maybe the locality (like Overveen) listed too (with P1134 (P1134)). Multichill (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

OK I get the problems with the object descriptions and gemeentes. Can we include the image (if available) from the nl wikipedia list? Jane023 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, image is included if it's in the list. See for example Israëlitisch begraafplaats Overveen (Q17187828). Multichill (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. This will become a problem very quickly if many of these complexes are documented like this. From the image you linked I assumed I would be able to fix the item with the item in the picture, in this case something like "Gate of the Jewish cemetery in Overveen" or ""Mortuarium of the Jewish cemetery in Overveen". However, when I go to the actual linked monument number, there only appears to be general info for the whole cemetery, so I can't see a difference between Israëlitisch begraafplaats Overveen (Q17187828) or Israëlitische Begraafplaats (Q17187883). If this is just an edge case it's probably OK for now, but if the "cleaned" database has a lot of these you might get into trouble. Jane023 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops! My bad, I keep forgetting about that weird lack of fallback language. I use the English interface, so when I am on an item (or even reading the notes here) I don't see the labels + descriptions that you imported in Dutch. But when I am on one of these items and click "what links here", they appear by magic. Problem solved. Go ahead and import away. There is plenty of information to be able to flesh out these items once they are created well in Dutch. Jane023 (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Jane023/Ymblanter/others. Some things I would like to have input on.

1. I skipped the description for now because I wanted to have a look at this later. What I'm thinking of now is 'Rijksmonument op %(adres)%' see for examples the addresses in * Haarlem and Amsterdam. So that would be something like 'Rijksmonument op Anegang 28' or 'Rijksmonument op Blauwburgwal 18'. What do you think?
2. I found the original database with the complexes in it! So I'm going to add those in a second iteration.
3. I plan to extract the street and link it to a street article (if available). Probably do that a bit later on.

Multichill (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds a lot simpler. Jane023 (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The object look good to me, about point 1: the addresses as a name, this will work, but for more complex address structures (see the Haarlem link) this might get a bit ugly. Examples: for "Anegang 22 / Frankestraat 1" we might prefer "Rijksmonument op hoek Anegang 22 / Frankestraat 1" for "Anslijnstraat 5 t/m 67 (behoort bij complex Rosehaghe/ Anslijnstraat ong.)" we'd like to skip the stuf between brackets. For an automated run the first one probably should be skipped (as not important enough), the second one can be taken care of by removing info between brackets. But for example with: "Bakenessergracht 71 A t/m J (voormalige Brood- en meelfabriek)" we probably prefer the part between brackets, althought if it's correct that one has a description. Don't most buildings have a description anyhow? Something in the line of "Herenhuis met kapitelen en 16e eeuwse lijstgevel"?

Point 2 and 3: nice, for the street addresses we could try if it's possible to somehow parse the streetname and number in a nice way. Maybe it's a good idea to start there with only the ones formatted like: "WORD NUMBER". Some of them have multiple adresses. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

We probably need a small test run. The irregular items (no address or no municipality) should be logged and taken care of manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Jane023, Basvb and Ymblanter. I made a number of adjustments. These are all in a way that older items get updated too

• I now add the description based on the address. This might give some edge cases that don't look to pretty, but these can easily be corrected manually
• I added some lookup magic so now the municipality gets added too it's something like "Overveen". It will find the item for Overveen and lookup the municipality item on that one.
• I made another bot to add the streets. I created a lot of the missing streets in Haarlem and added these.

Wikidata query and Autolist is very useful for finding items that are not complete. It's a shame it doesn't contain labels and descriptions. Multichill (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree and I am surprised that no one has created a bot to fill in the labels for the items that have local Wikipedia articles. Half of the items I have merged the past month would not have been created to begin with if the original item had been labelled in the language it was created in. This may be a legacy from the early days, but I am surprised how often I see that. Nice work on the streets, but can't you go back through and add the labels in Dutch? Jane023 (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would love to fix labels and descriptions but I'm really looking for a tool to easily hunt down the items which still lack it. Do I really have to do a query on the commandline to get this information? Multichill (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean like this? Here is the work of a bot on enwiki: Q15279151 Jane023 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, for me as a human. Tool should answer the question: "Give me all streets in Amsterdam that don't have label in English" (or something like that) so I can work on that. I know how to do it with a bot, that's easy. Multichill (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question! I just tried to make a list this way because I though P171 was the label property, but it doesn't work like the other properties. What I do to generate a list of items without labels is to dump a category item into Reasonator, then download the results and filter in excel for the empty labels - I am working with a large category (Painters). If it's a category with fewer than 500 items, then you can use the pop-up box to update the label when you hover over red-underlined items, so see for example this query for Engravers. Jane023 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating alias

It would be nice to add an alias name of each object with Rijksmonument ID (P359) available, I propose a simple extra alias of the following format: "Rijksmonumentnummer 5xxxx" , so we can easily find a certain object in the search field of wikidata. Is that possible? Michiel1972 (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically possible: Yes, if we should do this: Not sure. You can use autolist to find a specific object. Doesn't that already suit your needs? If we would go for an alias I would probably prefer "Rijksmonument <id>". Multichill (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know for heritage buildings but for museum objects, adding the accession number as an alias would be useful. When looking for a single entry, it is much faster and more convenient than autolist, and referring to an object through its accession number is common practice. --Zolo (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Zolo, I am not sure what you mean. The accession number for collections is exactly the same thing as the heritage identifier. It just means the number that was given by the listholder when the thing (whatever it is, house or painting or whatever) was added to the list. Jane023 (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jane023:. I meant that I often see articles that refer to a painting with 'INV 2012', but never to a building as Risjksmonument XXXX", so that inventory numbers of artworks may be more useful aliases than Rijksmonument IDs of buildings. That said, it is true that it may be overkill to add it as an alias in every language. Plus if "INV 2012" refers to several artworks in different museums it would actually not be so convenient to use (and "Louvre INV 3493" is less intuitive than just "INV 3493"). --Zolo (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this thread. My answer is yes, having an alias like Rijksmonument XXXX for monuments or INV XXXX for artworks is a good idea. Jane023 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating UK entries in this table

I'm trying to add the UK lists to this table, but must have something wrong in the formatting, as they do not appear. Anyone able to help please? The lists are the four gb-xxx entries. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix Multichill. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Irksome issues with p31

Currently, it is recommended to provide information about the item's protection status (cultural property (Q2065736) or subclasses) using instance of (P31). I am not sure it is a good practice. A protected church is a church more than it is a protected monument. If the purpose of p31 is to provide basic info about an object, then p31: church is more relevant than p31: heritage building. Maybe we can have both statements on the same item, but it seems to make the overall structure harder to understand. Another solution would be a separate "protection status" (somewhat like we use IUCN conservation status (P141) rather than p31 for animal protection). Another reason for doing that is that sometimes, in France at least, the protection applies only to some parts of the building. That can be expressed with a applies to part (P518) qualifier but doing this on p31 is sort of strange. --Zolo (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. You can mark a protected church as instance of "protected church", then mark "protected church" as subclass of "protected monument", "church" and whatever. --Nemo 09:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As there are many types of protected monuments (more than one per country), that would mean creating a lot of items (up to number of protection types * number of building types). However, the more important problem imo is that protection status has nothing to do with the type of the building, so it does not make a lot of sense to conflate the two in a single statement. For instance infoboxes, should not display "instance of: protected church" but rather something like "type of building = church | conservation status = heritage building". If information about both things are conflated in a single statement it will be tricky to split them automatically. --Zolo (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a better property would be award received (P166). As it is par of the recognition of the buildings, but I am not sure the constraint is compatible. I understand the problem, like Louis Bertrand House (Q15701839) is a house, but is not a national historic site of Canada (Q1568567) or a classified heritage immovable (Q13789518) who are the regonition of the building. Probably a creation of a new property like IUCN protected areas category (P814) would be a solution. --Fralambert (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zolo, Nemo_bis: A advantage of creating a new property will also to devellop a type constraint so we will be able to see all the different type of protected monuments, a little like we can see for P477 (Canada only). --Fralambert (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fralambert: In many countries the heritage status is not just an award, as it has important consequences as to the status of the building (can't be destroyed, not altered too much, the owner may get subsidies, may have the open the building to the public, etc.). Another solution could be a general "legal status property that oould also be used for companies (like: legal status = limited liability company). But actually, it seems that for a company, using the legal status as the main p31 value could make sense. If we agree on creating a new property, how do we call it ? --Zolo (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zolo: I will do a property proposal this evening. I have the property creator right, but I need to make a proposal on the main board first. --Fralambert (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Support a "protection status" property. — Ayack (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zolo, Ayack: The proposal is done Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#type de bien patrimonial. --Fralambert (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zolo, Fralambert, Nemo_bis: I've created a bot request to move values, qualifiers and references from instance of (P31) to heritage designation (P1435). Please add the missing items in the list. Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the Quebec heritage types, for the rest of Canada, I will wait after my vacation. --Fralambert (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Multichill: could you clarify why you oppose moving Heritage monument values from P31 to heritage designation (P1435). I think it really makes things unwieldy. P31 is useful to tell what the item primarily is, but what is most important to know about a building is wether it is a bridge or a castle, not wether is is a grade II liste building or a county landmark. Currently, many buildings should be marked as missing a p31 value, but they are not because p31 contains their heritage status listing. Beside, fr:Modèle:Infobox Monument uses P1435, but that misses all the relevant values stored in P31. Of crouse, the template could be changed, but that would makes things much more complicated and error-prone. --Zolo (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this is an oldie. I'm generally a bit reluctant to mass moves of things that are actually used a lot. We're still very much in the process of deciding what to store in general properties ((instance of (P31)) and what to store in specific ones (heritage designation (P1435)). I looked in my backyard and I think this might work. So for the Netherlands we would have instance of (P31): Church, statue, etc etc etc and heritage designation (P1435) Rijksmonument (Q916333)/Rijksmonument complex (Q13423591)/pre-protected Rijksmonument (Q17698911). We would have to modify some template logic and run some bots, but that's not a big problem. It's probably better than the current situation. @Jane023: @Basvb: @Ymblanter: do you agree? Multichill (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Jane023 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No problems with this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please take care of the actual properties before changing property constraints? I don't see a point in having thousands of "violation" reports for a principle that has been agreed upon. For this reason, I temporarily reverted the change on Slovene Cultural Heritage Register ID (P1587). — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Properties of place of worship

I started curating Wikidata entries for historical churches in my home town in Italy, based on the amazing work of an Italian Wikipedian. There are a few properties of structure of worship (Q1370598) that I'd like to be able to represent in Wikidata and don't seem to exist:

• the religion or religious denomination of the place of workship.
  • should, say, Roman catholic churches indicate their religious denomination via religion or worldview (P140) ? Infoboxes like en:Template:Infobox_church have a "denomination" field.
• its dedication (what deity, saint, idol, supernatural entity is worshipped in this place)
  • is there any property that could be used to express this or should I request one? "Dedication" strictly speaking only makes sense in the context of some religious traditions and I wonder whether this should be a generic property for all places of worship, regardless of their religion, or a series of properties specific to religious denominations. Note that en:Template:Infobox_temple has a "primary deity" field.

Having these two properties would allow one to query for all catholic churches in Lombardy dedicated to Saint Roch or all temples in India dedicated to Ganesha. --DarTar (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@DarTar: For the dedication, named after (P138) will be the best property. A church dedicated to Saint Roch is technicly a churh named after (P138) --> Roch (Q152457). For the first point, religion or worldview (P140) seem to be human only. The solution is probably to add a «catholic place of worship» to all the catholic churches in instance of (P31). --Fralambert (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fralambert:, excellent I think I'll get started with named after (P138). --DarTar (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You should probably also add dedicated to (P825) for catholic churches and maybe diocese (P708) too. Multichill (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

New template

I've created a new template {{Cultural heritage properties}} to put on the talk page of cultural heritage properties:

Please, add the missing ones. Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tanks, I added some missing properties of Canada and Belgium. I think we should create a third goup for the subnational registeries. --Fralambert (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a new group for subnational registeries. --Fralambert (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fralambert - would it make more sense to group the sub-national section alphabetically by country rather than all of them together alphabetically? There's three sub-national items there for Australian states already, and several for Canada, the UK etc., so perhaps it would be good to put them visually together? Wittylama (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

List of monuments

Note that we got this property, Property:P1456. It needs to be added into articles about localities, see Q891 as an example.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter and thank you ! I'll add it for France communes. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Classification of cultural heritage

I was thinking of something about the classification of the heritage monument. Actually we have:

⟨ classified heritage immovable (Q13789518)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Quebec heritage immovable (Q13619657)    ⟩
subclass of (P279) ⟨ Quebec cultural heritage (Q3370013)    ⟩
subclass of (P279) ⟨ heritage site in Canada (Q14469659)    ⟩
subclass of (P279) ⟨ cultural property (Q2065736)    ⟩

It is fine for the hierachical classification but what I ask myself if should we create new way to go to cultural property (Q2065736). Technicly, classified heritage immovable (Q13789518) is a provincial protected heritage property, so I can also say

⟨ classified heritage immovable (Q13789518)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ sub-national protected heritage site ⟩
subclass of (P279) ⟨ sub-national heritage site ⟩
subclass of (P279) ⟨ cultural property (Q2065736)    ⟩

and

⟨ classified heritage immovable (Q13789518)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ sub-national protected heritage site ⟩
subclass of (P279) ⟨ protected heritage site ⟩
subclass of (P279) ⟨ cultural property (Q2065736)    ⟩

. It could be a good idea, with the right classification, we could possibly ask for all the heritage monument by the municipalities in a county, or all the commemorative heritage designation (like national historic site of Canada (Q1568567)) in a region. --Fralambert (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Little problem about Rideau Canal (Q651323)

Rideau Canal (Q651323) I have a little problem about Rideau Canal (Q651323). With the canal, world heritage inscription also include the canal itself, but also five forts in Kingston, Ontario[4]. Should I create a new item for the world heritage site? We have somelike case in the Bistro and it generally finish by the creation of a new item. --Fralambert (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say creating a new item is a goor idea. The world heritage site is clearly notable. And it should be obviuosly connected to the forts and to the canal.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:  Done With Rideau Canal (Q18087815) --Fralambert (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A another canadian problem (battle)

I have a another case for the canadian heritage site. Many old national historic site of Canada (Q1568567) are named in commemoration of battle, like Battle of Trois-Rivières (Q1247957) for the American Independance War, Battle of Stoney Creek (Q177470) of the War of 1812, and Battle of Cut Knife (Q963444) for the North-West Rebellion. I understand I have to create a item for the place and a item for the event, but how I shoud name them? the exact name of the battle with for description this is a national historic site of Canada (Q1568567)? --Fralambert (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Name them the same and add different descriptions.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Cultural Heritage, WLM, and the Main page

Hey all, I'm a member of the WikiProject Interesting Content which helps coordinate content to feature on Wikidata's Main page. The Main page is next scheduled for an update around October 7th and I thought it'd be nice to feature something related to the end of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition. Given the overlap of cultural heritage interest between this WikiProject and WLM, I wondered if anyone here had any ideas as to what might be a good thing to highlight for Wikidata's contributions to WLM? I'd love to hear your suggestions here or (even better) as a submission. Thanks. -Thepwnco (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

New property: P1551

I added a new property Exceptional heritage of Wallonia ID (P1551) of the Exceptional heritage property of Wallonia (Q2218240). --Fralambert (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). It would be great if you would see room for interaction! Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Monuments in Portugal

I've been working with mapping Commons Institution pages to Wikidata items, and I have run across several Portugese monuments (identified by templates on their Commons category pages):

• c:Template:IGESPAR
• c:Template:IGESPAR/SIPA
• c:Template:SIPA

We don't have Properties to record these IGESPAR and SIPA IDs in. Even if we don't have a way to do a mass import at this stage, are there any concerns about requesting the Properties for manual entry? - PKM (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You can propose the creation of new properties here. If your ID are already in a template, they sould not be a problem to import it by a bot from wikidata. I done the same think with Classified properties and protected areas of Wallonia ID (P1133). --Fralambert (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Properties proposed. Please discuss. - PKM (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Baudenkmal Bavaria

I created a new item Mount Calvary Church (Q18755185) and I have tagged it heritage designation (P1435) architectural heritage monument in Bavaria (Q17297633) - is that right? I couldn't find a property for the identifier. - PKM (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If I look architectural heritage monument in North Rhine-Westphalia (Q15632117) you seem to have done the right think. There is probably lot of types of protection with no element. There is also a lot of property identifiers who don't exist in wikidata. The template about the identifiers is {{Cultural heritage properties}}. --Fralambert (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Natural heritage protection

Hi,

First, is there « Wikidata:WikiProject Natural heritage » or « Wikidata:WikiProject Nature protection » somewhere ?

Then, should and could heritage designation (P1435) be used for natural protection ? I've tried it for marais de Goulaine (Q3287387) and discuss it with Fralambert and EdouardHue but I'm still unsure if it's the right/best way or not (at least, the constraint value type class cultural property (Q2065736) is not planned for this use).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How to represent remains of ruins of a castle?

Quick question: What is the best way to indicate that an item like Stamford Castle (Q17644180) represents the remains of a castle?

Should one tag it instance of (P31) => castle (Q23413) and instance of (P31) => ruins (Q109607), like Hardenstein Castle (Q1012201) ?

Or should the ruined-ness be a qualifier on the first P31 ? Or a separate property ?

Is it significant if the monument has much a smaller surviving footprint than the original castle? ie should one create a new item, so that Stamford Castle (Q17644180) => part of (P361) => "Stamford Castle", with "Stamford Castle" getting the instance of (P31) => castle (Q23413).

Or is it better, wherever possible, to keep information about the monument on the same item as information about the original structure, to ease presentation on any Wiki article, that is likely to treat both together?

It would be useful to have a style guide page, with up-to-date advice on the most common properties and P31 => Qxxxxx constructions across the project's items. Jheald (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jheald: I found a lot a ruined castle in Switzerland (Q39). Generally I added instance of (P31) => castle (Q23413) + ruins (Q109607) with a preffered rank for the ruins (Q109607), since the it is the actual state of the buiding. I do the same think for some archaeological site (Q839954). --Fralambert (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Just in case it can provide some inspiration, fr.wikipedia now has infoboxes for monuments with several fields taken from Wikidata (though some functionalities are still missing because of arbitrary access / quantity with unit datatype). See for instance fr:The Octagon House or fr:Croix de chemin de Saint-Thomas-Didyme. --Zolo (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy to hear that Zolo! Multichill (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Searching by English Heritage List number

en:Church of All Saints, Chipstable, currently at DYK on enwiki, doesn't have a Wikidata item matched to it at the moment. It's Grade II*-listed, so an item will have been created for it during Wiki Loves Monuments 2013. There must be thousands of All Saints churches so it would be very difficult to find this going by the title alone, but the National Heritage List for England number is 1344603. Is there a way of searching this property (P1216) on Wikidata? Please ping me back. Ham II (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ham II:, I have added the link to Church of All Saints (Q17555693) using resolver.php. --Zolo (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ham II: No, even searching for birth names added with birth name (P1477) doesn't work. Other than the "resolver", you could use autolist: sample. --- Jura 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Zolo, Jura1: Thanks, both! Resolver is clearly what I was looking for. Ham II (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Contributing properties for Historic Districts (US)

For the definition of "contributing property", see en:Historic_districts_in_the_United_States#Property_types.

At Charlotte Amalie Historic District (Q20827611), I listed them with has part(s) (P527). Is this the way to do? --- Jura 07:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The items for the "contributing properties" might need a specific heritage status as well. --- Jura 07:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1: en:Template:Infobox NRHP contains quite extensive documentation about this.

Also take a look at en:Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend. For these types we should have items and these items should be structured in a nice tree. Note that we won't have NRHP-delisted, because that's just a NRHP listing with an end date qualifier.

Using has part(s) (P527) and part of (P361) is a good approach that is used in other countries too (for example to connect a Rijksmonument complex (Q13423591) and multiple Rijksmonument (Q916333)). I would mark all the contributing properties with the heritage status National Register of Historic Places contributing property (Q1129142) and add the part of (P361). Multichill (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for your response. I will add heritage designation (P1435)=National Register of Historic Places contributing property (Q1129142). For WLM, one might want to list the contributing properties as theses are the components that can be photographed. --- Jura 14:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems we lacked NRHP district (Q20856087)

As for the end dates, I suppose someone has to go and check which contributing properties still exist .. --- Jura 15:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1: I just added NRHP district (Q20856087) in the constraint of NRHP reference number (P649). Only a detail like that, some type on en:Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend, like National Historic Site (Q1258086) are more federally protected area that type. Il always prefered the usage of location (P276) for liked a item to is historic district. Some district, like Île d'Orléans (Q128172) have more that 3000 buildings within it's limit. --Fralambert (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If there are too many, one could just limit oneself to part of (P361). I don't think this is an issue for Charlotte Amalie Historic District (Q20827611).

The problem I see with location (P276) is that it can also be used for non-contributing properties. I thought about using it for linking various places to Virgin Islands National Park (Q491005).

BTW, are there a few areas in the US with items that are fairly well structured? --- Jura 07:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of Q358 ?

The meaning of heritage site (Q358) is unclear, and the literal meaning of the label varies across languages. Should it apply to

• a) national heritage sites only, as opposed to subnational heritage site (Q18087975)
• b) all heritage sites.

English sitelink seems to be a) but others seem to be b). Additionnally, b) seems to be more or less synonymous with subnational heritage site (Q18087975). One solution would be to move non-English sitelinks to subnational heritage site (Q18087975) but German and Polish have two different articles (de:Kulturdenkmal / de:Kulturdgut // pl:Zabytek / pl:Dobra kultury).

It seems that some cleanup is needed. --Zolo (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Reasonator is quite interesting, to see what items are subclasses of Q358   and Q18087975  ; and also which items are instances of them (probably very few should be -- they should instead be instances of more specific subclasses).

I would have thought that a minimum requirement for heritage site (Q358) status would be listing by a national body that kept a national register.

subnational heritage site (Q18087975) correspondingly would apply to sites listed on state, province, county or city-level registers.

Of course, from country to country the criteria for inclusion on a "national-level" register are likely to vary wildly, even for monuments of a particular type. What rates as of significance for national listing in one country may be very different from what is listed by national-level bodies in another country.

But it's not an entirely useless distinction, for keeping the various subclasses in a manageable structure. Jheald (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As regards sitelinks, maybe a "Bonnie and Clyde" combined object is needed to encompass both. Jheald (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zolo: I see heritage site (Q358) as a meta item. No other item should be instance of (P31) -> heritage site (Q358). We should use item for each national type and properly tree structure these. So yes, cleanup is needed here :S Multichill (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zolo, Jheald, Multichill: I created subnational heritage site (Q18087975) and local heritage site (Q18089563) with the idea of: "What whould be the easiest way to found all the heritage monuments designated by a city or a province in Canada?" It mosty by the same idea that if you do Query: Tree[14469659[][279]], you can have all the heritage statues in Canada. Multichill: You are probably right that we should clean Query: Claim[31:358] and put the right designation in heritage designation (P1435). --Fralambert (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Multichill, Jheald: agree but my question was mostly : what is the difference between heritage site (Q358) and subnational heritage site (Q18087975) ? Based on the English sitelink heritage site (Q358) only refers to sites registered at the national level, while cultural property (Q2065736) also includes sites that are registered at the local level. The issue is that most non-English sitelinks in heritage site (Q358) have a broader meaning than the English one. We can move move them cultural property (Q2065736), even though it is a bit like committing the sin of changing an item meaning. But even if we do that, we still have an issue with dewiki and plwiki. Looking a bit more closely into it, we need at least 3 items:

• one for sites specifically registered at the national level with a link to en:National heritage site. That might be heritage site (Q358). But we might need an additional item for es:Monumento nacional, whose meaning appears to be narrower than en:National heritage site (it excludes natural sites).
• at least two items about heritage sites that are not registered at the national level. We need at least two items because there are two articles in German (de:Kulturdenkmal and de:Kulturdgut) and in Polish (pl:Zabytek / pl:Dobra kultury), but I don't know exactly what should go where.

@Fralambert: not sure the difference between subnational heritage site (Q18087975) and local heritage site (Q18089563) is completely clear. For instance, there are buildings that are protected by Shanghai municipality, like Shanghai Cultural Relics Protection Unit (Q10867873). Shanghai is called a "municpality", so that might be "local level", but it is big, and politically more or less equivalent to a province. Some buildings are registered at a more local level, like through Q15909102. In other provinces there is yet another level that might be seen as intermediary between Shanghai Cultural Relics Protection Unit (Q10867873) and Q15909102. --Zolo (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zolo: My system is not perfect, but probably some city at state level, like Bremen (Q1209) should have the two statements. As for in between level, I am unfamiliar with the political subdivision of China. In North America, some county have designated some property, but it is generally in the territory who the county operate as municipal level (Like in the unorganisated territory for Quebec and British Columbia). I thrust you of what you will found the more suitable for some administrative level. --Fralambert (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicates in Historic England ?

These rally seem to be about the same building (both location and description really match)

• Canterbury Castle (Q17641471) [5] and Canterbury Castle (Q2968772) [6]
• Vauxhall Bridge (Q1142134) [7] and Vauxhall Bridge (Q17553045) [8]

Still, given the entries are rather detailed, I would find it surprising that they are real duplicates. Anything I missed ? --Zolo (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like, for Vauxhall Bridge, the issue is that the bridge crosses between two London boroughs. The northern half is in Westminster, and was listed with number 496912 on an older LBS (=Listed Buildings?) system (new id 1393011), while the southern half is in Lambeth, and had a separate computer entry 496911 on the LBS system (new id 1393012). Jheald (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For Canterbury Castle, it seems there is a listing as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, and another as a Grade 1 Listed Building. The two relate to different legislation, and give different protections; but they do here appear to relate to the same structure (or, at least, to what presumably should be a single Wikidata item). Jheald (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so I suppose I can merge items, and add them as exceptions to the uniqueness constraint of property talk:P1216.

It is interesting to add start time (P580) qualifiers to heritage designation (P1435), but I don't know what to do for scheduled monuments. Apparently, the term "scheduled monument" dates back only to a 1979 Act of Parliament, but http://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1005194 says that Canterbury Castle has been scheduled since 1915. Do we need another item for "scheduled monument - pre 1979", or can we extend the meaning of scheduled monument (Q219538) to pre-1979 times ? --Zolo (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be useful to indicate on the item what the separate numbers apply to. applies to part (P518) is probably the appropriate qualifier for the bridge. Not sure what should be used for the castle -- criterion used (P1013) perhaps? Or perhaps heritage designation (P1435) used as a qualifier?

As for "scheduled monument" I think it is fine to go on using it -- that is the current status, presumably as a direct incorporation/continuation of a preservation order first made under the en:Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act 1913, upheld through the various pieces of legislation that have succeeded it.

Historic England say that the term "scheduled" monument goes back to the "1882 Ancient Monuments Act, when a 'Schedule' of prehistoric sites deserving of state protection was first compiled." [9] Jheald (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it OK to merge all duplicate entries for bridges? I came across this long ago with bridges in Wales which cross two communities, e.g. Old Leckwith Bridge (Q17741052) and Old Leckwith Bridge (Q17744353). Would a new "applies to part in" property be a good idea? Ham II (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ham II I think it makes sense to merge them, as they are about the same object, which is what matters in Wikidata, at least if we consider that Vauxhall Bridge (Q1142134) is about the whole Vauxhall Bridge, not juste abuot the part of Vauxhall Bridge within the City of Westminster.

@Jheald that sounds reasonable, but I don't konw about what qualifiers to use. "applies to part: City of Westminster", seems a bit odd, and inconsistent with others use cases like "applies to part: northern facade". Another solution would be to use the property that would that would be to use located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) for the bridge and, using the same logic heritage designation (P1435) for the castle, but not sure it makes much formal sense. --Zolo (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zolo: In that case I'll make a start on the Welsh bridges. Just to be clear, my suggestion about a new "applies to part in" property is an attempt to address the first point you raise with Jheald. Cheers, Ham II (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Q811165

I have a problem with architectural heritage monument (Q811165), lots of the items who use it are not in Germany (Q183) (ex.: Query: claim[1435:811165 and (claim[17:40] or claim[17:38])]. What should we do to clean this mess. I imagine that for Italy (Q38) it should be replace by Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt (Q1188447), but i don't know what we should use for Austria (Q40).--Fralambert (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Could use some help with the Rijksmonumenten

Hi people, I could use some help with improving the data about Rijksmonumenten.

• Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P359 needs to be sorted out. Possibilities:
  1. It's not a Rijksmonument, remove the heritage status
  2. It's not matching exactly with a Rijksmonument, remove the heritage status and use "part of" and "has part" to link things
  3. It's a Rijksmonument, add the id. Big chance we have to merge it later on
• instance of missing or incorrect: Find a correct instance of. A lot of them will be house (Q3947) and you can always use building (Q41176)
• Two id's: The really though puzzels
• possible duplicates: Id's far apart: Probably a duplicate, also some though puzzels
• missing municipality, add it!

Help is much appreciated. Multichill (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Heritage Institutions

Hi, I've started to set up the process for adding heritage institutions from GLAM inventories, beginning with the list of Swiss heritage institutions: Description of the procedure. Now, I have a few questions/requests:

• Please have a look at the process description and leave comments if deemed useful.
• Please comment on my property proposal regarding the creation of a property 'GLAM ID' - I will need it to match the source data file with the corresponding Wikidata entries in the future. The property has been created in the meanwhile. --Beat Estermann (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Please let me know where I should place my process description with regard to the WikiProject "Cultural Heritage" (as part of the project or as a separate project?). The WikiProject "Cultural Heritage" seems to be mainly focused on historical monuments. At the same time, its name suggests a broader scope that would indeed include heritage institutions and heritage collections as well. There are also some overlaps: First of all, disentangling WD entries for collections and buildings will be a concern both when ingesting monuments data and data about heritage institutions. And in the case of Switzerland, the list of cultural properties of national and regional significance includes both historical monuments and heritage collections.

What do you think? --Beat Estermann (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Beat Estermann: There is no problem to put heritage designation (P1435) for objects or collections. Its more that objects are often small (ex.: this chalice), and not a priority by most of Wikidatian. If the enty is about the museum and the collection at the same time, you can alway use applies to part (P518) as a qualifier of heritage designation (P1435). --Fralambert (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

P1435 vs. Intangible cultural heritage

I have a problem with the contraint of heritage designation (P1435) that comme from intangible cultural heritage (Q59544) and there subclass. Is that there are incompablible with most of the contraints of heritage designation (P1435). I begin to think the most easiest solution should be the creation a "intangible cultural heritage status" property what do you think? --Fralambert (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. You can try filing the new property request, and, if there are better solutions, they are typically found during the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:  Done Wikidata:Property proposal/intangible cultural heritage status --Fralambert (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Submonuments?

I'm starting to explore what it would take to import the Romanian list on Wikidata and one of the first issues I've noticed is that we have some submonuments (aka parts of a larger monuments, such as a secondary church in a monastery or the wall of a fortified church). I'm not sure if/how I should import those. These are sometimes too small to have a Wikipedia article, but it would make sense to have a fully imported list.

Also, I'm wondering what property other people have been using for unclear addresses, such as "5" (as in "village X, number 5" - no street) or "250 m SE from the main road". @Lokal Profil: I think you've done some similar things, perhaps you have some pointers?--Strainu (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like the contributing properties the National Register of Historic Places (Q3719) has. For the Netherlands we have an item for every listing and some of them are grouped together, see for example Elswout (Q2278595). This seem to work fine.

For the unknown streets: You can set located on street (P669) to unknown qualified with house number (P670) -> 5. Multichill (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It append some time with the properties in the Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec (Q3456276), expecially in the biger one like Old Montreal (Q1529351). Generally I add part of (P361) in the submonuments, like i done with Cimetière Anglican Saint-Matthew (Q28810708) who is part of enclos paroissial Saint-Matthew (Q25706895). We don't have realy a status for submonument, so i don't known if it is the best method. --Fralambert (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Splitting World Heritage sites into separate items from the places they are located in

Hi all, There is a lot of potential confusion arising from marking items for places and structures as being inscribed as UNESCO World Heritage sites. In many cases, the area that UNESCO defines as being a World Heritage site is only part of the place, not the whole thing. Many Wikipedia articles mention this on a page, and are able to add some qualifying text to define that the real boundaries of the site, but this is much harder to do in Wikidata without having countless qualifiers added to each statement on the item (e.g. heritage designation (P1435), World Heritage Site ID (P757), World Heritage criteria (P2614)). For example, Białowieża Forest (Q192666) is currently described as being a World Heritage site on Wikidata but this is not strictly true as only a part of the forest has been inscribed by UNESCO. Apart from the potential confusing this can cause when querying the data, it is also preventing the addition of extra data that is available.

For example, we have data available for coordinate locations, and areas of World Heritage sites provided by UNESCO (data here) that I can't really add to the root items as it would be completely misleading - it's not the coordinates/areas of the whole place, just the part which is inscribed as World Heritage site.

The solution appears to be to split all World Heritage sites into separate items, which are then linked to the place they are in with some other statement where needed (e.g. using located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) or other applicable property). Then we can add as many statements as we like describing the World Heritage site without conflicting with statements about the places they are in. This would also lead to more consistency as many existing sites are already separate items, either because they have been individually split to avoid this type of confusion, or are contained within several regions so needed new items creating during the original import.

I'm aware this could lead it's own problems, like making it harder to find related Wikipedia articles from queries in many cases, but it appears to be the way forward to me. Please let me know what what you think of the plan, and if there are any other problems you can think of with this approach. Cheers! NavinoEvans (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nav, I think this probably does make sense -- eg the two will have different populations, different areas, we're going to have shapefiles soon, and the two will have completely different outlines.

One answer to get to Wiki articles that combine the two from queries here is to create corresponding items on the Wikis as redirects, marked by eg en:Template:Wikidata redirect, which now has its equivalents in several languages, see Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item (Q16956589).

The one thing I wonder about is how to let infoboxes on those Wiki articles find the item for information about the heritage site, as well as information on what will now be their home item. This could just be done by requiring the Q-number to have to be specified directly on the page -- ie. "include world heritage site section, Q-number is Q.....". But perhaps it could be signalled here by eg has part(s) (P527) <heritage site item>, with qualifier heritage designation (P1435) World Heritage Site (Q9259).

The important thing is to make sure template writers know what you're doing, and are okay that they can adapt to it. Jheald (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This sounds similar, at least at first-look, to the problem when there is a strong conceptual overlap between a 'museum' and the building that houses it - one is a type of organisation and the other is a type of structure, yet for the general public they are intertwined. Think, for example Anne Frank House the museum (which also operates from the modern building next door as well and was founded in 1960) as separate from the heritage building on street-address Prinsengracht 267 and was constructed in 1635 - both concepts are currently described in the same wikidata item Q165366. I guess the same thing could be said for any instance-of house museum. Wittylama (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks @Jheald:, very good point about making sure the template writers know the change as and when it goes ahead. I think that using has part(s) (P527) with qualifier sounds like the right way to create the link as well. I totally agree with Wittylama, it's the same type of issue and one I would really like to see resolved in a consistent way. If an organisation is in a building that is of no historical significance, then it seems perfectly sensible to not have a separate item for it - but if it has some known history (e.g. was used for some other known purpose) a separate item is the only way to go IMHO.

Regarding the World Heritage Sites, I presume each separated item would then have instance of (P31) = World Heritage Site (Q9259) ? NavinoEvans (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Nav - yeah, especially when there's multiple parts to the building's history! Take for example Downing Centre (Q5303192)/Mark Foy's (Q6767657). It's an Art-Nouveau building in the centre of Sydney that was built as the flagship of department store, but is now used as the main Courthouse complex of the State. The Wikipedia articles w:Downing Centre is about the courthouse, and w:Mark Foy's is about the company - and BOTH talk about the building! Wittylama (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfect example. I imagine there shouldn't be too much resistance to this, as there are already countless examples where the Wikidata statements are technically wrong - National Gallery (Q180788) is not a Listed Building with Georgian architectural style as the statements currently suggest, the building is! Hopefully this World Heritage item splitting can act as a good example for addressing the wider issue. I guess we should start a new conversation at some point (probably here?) to try and tackle this properly. It will be quite a job as it affects a lot of items, and also the template writers who will still probably want to use the fuzzy definition in Wikipedia article infoboxes. NavinoEvans (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Marking countries as done

To figure out which WLM datasets have already been migrated I was thinking it might be nice to e.g. make completed rows green in the massive table. What I was wondering is if a) that is a sensible way to mark them b) which we already known have been completely migrated. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Marking countries as done

To figure out which WLM datasets have already been migrated I was thinking it might be nice to e.g. make completed rows green in the massive table. What I was wondering is if a) that is a sensible way to mark them b) which we already known have been completely migrated. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

For b) it's in addition to the ones which have 100% on "Wikidata" in commons:Commons:Monuments database/Statistics of course. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Cardinal'S Hat?

Are the capital S's on Cardinal's Hat Inn (Q26302094) and The Cardinal's Hat Public House (Q26669272) just a case of bad title-case rules on the imports? - PKM (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@PKM: It' seem to be a error, it's hard to say since the names on the directory are in capital. --Fralambert (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just change them. - PKM (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It was a systematic error in the upload, in the change from upper-case to title-case.

I found 11,362 examples in all, in items with a National Heritage List for England number (P1216) -- now fixing them with QuickStatements. Jheald (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. With luck that should be all of them (query: tinyurl.com/n4bfved). Jheald (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 Lists Migration

I'm creating this section as a placeholder for countries who want to help move their lists to Wikidata as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 efforts. If your country is interested in this effort, please add your country name and a point of contact username that WMSE can reach out to, to help with transfer of data. --LilyOfTheWest (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

WLM-IR

Iran is interested to have its monuments lists transferred to Wikidata. I'm happy to help WMSE in this effort. --LilyOfTheWest (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

WLM-RU

I think we would be interested. Note that the lists are on voy:ru (not on Wikipedia) and are still incomplete, so that in requires some discussion/arrangements. May be other countries should be transferred first.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Example to find without images

#defaultView:Map
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?location ?status ?heritageproperty ?identifier WHERE {
   hint:Query hint:optimizer "None" .
  wd:Q167566 wdt:P625 ?KerkLoc .
  SERVICE wikibase:around {
      ?item wdt:P625 ?location .
      bd:serviceParam wikibase:center ?KerkLoc .
      bd:serviceParam wikibase:radius "5" .
  }
  MINUS { ?item wdt:P18 [] } .
  ?item wdt:P1435 ?status .
  ?status wdt:P1687 ?heritageproperty .
  ?heritageproperty wikibase:directClaim ?propertyclaim .
  ?item ?propertyclaim ?identifier .
  #?item ?propertyclaim [] .
  #?property wikibase:claim ?propertyclaim .
  #?property wikibase:propertyType wikibase:ExternalId .
  #?property wdt:P31 wd:Q18618628 .
  SERVICE wikibase:label {
    bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en,nl" .
  }
} LIMIT 253

Try it!

Fun stuff you made. Need to replace with literal thing. Multichill (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Q2806720 and Q11086396

@Towanis: Hi, I'm not sur 100 Landscapes of Heisei (Q2806720) and New Eight Views of Japan (Q11086396) sould be in heritage designation (P1435), since the award was given by a newspaper. Sould-it be moved to award received (P166) or a more appropriate property? --Fralambert (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fralambert:

Not sure either, prbably though.

One thing for sure, we need to be consistent, if we keep using heritage designation (P1435) then

⟨ 100 Landscapes of Heisei (Q2806720)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ heritage site (Q358)    ⟩

is ok, but if we switch to award received (P166) then this claim should be corrected or amended. In both case, shouldn't there be subclass of (P279) = landscape (Q107425) too ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Ok, I will made de change of subclass and ask for a bot for the move. --Fralambert (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

3 items for one id. Uncertain criteria on World Heritage codes

This a transcription from a user space between @VIGNERON: and @amadalvarez:. It started as a talk about a modification of an item to clean a specific constrain. After analize several situations where the criteria followed by UNESCO is not homogeneous among them, we decided to move the discussion here in order to share it, get other points of view and decide what should be the best solutions. Thanks for your cooperation.--Amadalvarez (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Hi,

There is 3 items with World Heritage Site ID (P757) = "148": Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Q15726304), Old City of Jerusalem (Q213274) and Walls of Jerusalem (Q2918723), which is against the constraint for this property.

I understand why there is 3 items : a global one (the first one) and two more specific. But do we need to put World Heritage Site ID (P757) on all 3 of them? (likewise for heritage designation (P1435) and maybe other data). I feel that this should only be on the global item, no? Or is there any reason why you duplicate the id on the 3 items?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(for information, @NavinoEvans: who worked on this items too)

@VIGNERON: Hi, at the moment I add the property to the specific item I didn't think that a constraint existed. To handle the heritage properties is easier have them in any item than handle the inheritance of codes via part of (P361), as you can understand. In addition, the criteria of UNESCO is not uniform. Some multipoint heritage as Works of Antoni Gaudí (Q921745) has an official subcode for each (320-001, 320-002,..) which make easy to solve the constrain. But they also have the part of (P361), obviously. So, in these cases get the code via the inheritance of P361 could give false duplicate results: the codes 320 and 320-001,.. Well, if this situation of Jerusalem is anecdotic my purpose is to ignore the constrain or change the control to avoid the error when also contains P361. If you consider that are too much situations like this, we can consider eliminate the World Heritage Site ID (P757) on the specific points. Thanks, --Amadalvarez (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think we should remove the World Heritage Site ID (P757) from the specific items and respect the constraint for several reasons. First, the code correspond to the global site, not to the specific one, it's kind of a distortion to apply the code for the whole thing on only a part (and that's exactly why the UNESCO produced subcodes, to avoid duplication, ideally they should do it all the time ). This duplication is even stranger for heritage designation (P1435). Then, if you want to manipulate the data, it will be a lot harder if you have duplicated codes (in fact, for the context, that's the reason why I came here in the first place, for Wiki Loves Monuments in Israel, maps based on Wikidata show 3 points for one monument :/), if you want to count the numbers of monuments, you'll have to do some extra filtering to remove the duplicates (and filtering can be quite hard and quite harder with exact code duplicates). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Done !.--Amadalvarez (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: However, it's not always easy. See in the list: 314-001, 318, 378, 80-001,.... because the official description it's not the name of a group of things, but a list of things. --Amadalvarez (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Very true, cleaning the data like this will not be easy, but I think we can work that out anyway and in the end, it worth it to have proper items. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Well. Not easy it's a figurate way to say "sometimes is not possible". How will you fix 378 ? The description is absolutely generic but the protected heritages are a list of specific buildings without using subcodes. And what about 314-001 ? it's already a subcode with the name of two different buildings (Alhambra and Generalife), not "park of Granada monuments" or "medieval construction in Granada". I don't know how to fix them without loss an important information in the "real protected buildings" items. Probably the UNESCO has use a non coherent criteria, but the reality is that more than a building/item needs to share the same code. Thanks,--Amadalvarez (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure but a solution could be to create items that exactly correspond to the UNESCO and then link them the existing items. For instance an item « Alhambra and the Generalife » (linked with part of (P361)/has part(s) (P527) to Alhambra (Q47476), Generalife (Q525811) and Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín, Granada (Q9603543)). We used this kind of solution in some cases for French monuments historiques. But we should probably ask on Wikidata:WikiProject Built heritage to get a more wider point of view. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: This solution will create a dummy but not real item in this kind of situations. In my opinion is better to have the code in the specific items than the global one. For instance, in the exemple of 378 (Mudejar Architecture of Aragon) it is an open list of some buildings in a region (Aragon) made in a specific style. Now it contains 12 buildings in differents towns. This concept has no interest nor to represent in a map of WLM, nor to create a WP article. It will not have a single coordinate nor other building properties related. On the other hand, all the buildings protected by this WH code will not have the code and will not be show by a basic query. In the case you talk of WLM of Israel, I agree that three points are incorrect. However, I would like two (Old City of Jerusalem (Q213274) and Walls of Jerusalem (Q2918723)) because they are the real protected heritage. Thanks,--Amadalvarez (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For the "314-001" site I tink the best solution will be to create a item "part of World Heritage", I think it could help the site was added in a extension. Also we could keep World Heritage Site (Q9259) for the world heritage site proper. My only question is more if we have to add a "part of World Heritage" to a item like Banff National Park (Q41858), who don't have a 304-XXX id. --Fralambert (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fralambert: I will answer you after a summary to focus the discussion. To me the cause of the problem is:

• World Heritage Site ID (P757) has been defined as a "Unique value" and, therefore, a bot generates a list of constrains when two or more items have a same P757.
• When a World Heritage code points to a unique element (small as a building or large as a park) we have no problem with present rules. Obviously, the elementary objectes inside (a mountain in the park or a sculptures of the monuments) are not World Heritage by themselfs. If these elements exists as WD items, they shouldn't have P757.
• Not all World Heritage codes (or subcodes, when exist) point to one unique (and real) element.
• When the WH code points to an assembly element that covers the whole single elements that are inside (as Palmyra (Q5747)), the P757 should be in this element and each of single monuments within only should have part of (P361) of Palmyra (Q5747), without P757. Until this point, I think VIGNERON & me agree.
• When the WH code points to a "concept" that doesn't includes the whole elements, then we have two different situations:
  • The official name in WH list is a global concept but only are protected part of the elements. Ex.: Works of Antoni Gaudí" (Q921745) which contains not "all works of Gaudí" but only the 7 protected. Another exemple is [http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/378 378 because the concept "Mudejar Architecture of Aragon" it's formed by hundreds of buildings in the region, but onle 12 are protected.
  • The official name is a list of several monuments/building protected by a common resolution with the same code. Ex.: 314-001 (talked above)
• On both situations, my opinion is that the global element defined by WH could exists as a item just to have a has part(s) (P527), Commons category (P373), country (P17) and so. Perhaps could have located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) or country (P17) if are the same for all elements. However, it make not sense to have coordinate location (P625), P969 (P969), and so, at this level. Regarding the specific protected buildings, they should have the heritage designation (P1435) and {{P|757}, because this is the real element protected by WH.
• On the previous point VIGNERON & me disagree. On one hand, accounting of items with P757 will give a result disappointing with the WH List; on the other hand, the item of the real protected element (a building, monument, and so) contains a coherent and whole information ready to use in infoboxes, and to be shown on a map with the real position of each protected point.

Answering @Fralambert:: as you can see the problem is not if we need to have or not an item for the global element. The discussion is where should be stored the P757, in the global element (related with the exact name of UNESCO) or in the item of the protected elements inventoriated in the description of UNESCO. Then, answered the second question, we don't need any special solution in cases as Banff National Park (Q41858), because the concept of a "unique element" is fulfilled.

Thanks, --Amadalvarez (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I don't really disagree as I'm not sure what would be the least worse solution. I just remember discussions during Wikimania where this kind of confusion between close concepts can cause trouble; because in fine, the protected building and the physical building are two different concepts (like we usually have to create 2 items for a museum : one for the building and one for the institution). Most of the times, we can mix them without major problems but not always. Plus, for me, the protected building would not really be a "dummy" item, in the contrary it has a real usefulness. +

Fralambert (talk) (Canada and United States)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) Yarl ✉️️  Spinster 💬 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Acka47 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC) --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Ainali (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) VIGNERON (talk) Marsupium (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Runner1928 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) --Alexmar983 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC) -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC) --Titodutta (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC) -- Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Satdeep Gill (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Pmlineditor (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Rajeeb Dutta (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC) --Ananth subray (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC) --Sumanth699 (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC) --Ranjithsiji (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC) --MNavya (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Blademasterx (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Buccalon (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC) --Planemad (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Nizil Shah (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Ivanhercaz (Talk) 10:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 16:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Mallikarjunasj (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC) --DarwIn (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC) --Atudu (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Arch2all (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Akuckartz (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Baidax (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC) --Epìdosis 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Pauljmackay (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Mathieu Kappler (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC) dzahsh (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Wolfgang8741 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) —Ismael Olea (talk) Akbarali (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC) ⚊⚊ DCflyer (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Antoine2711 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Built heritage for more point of views. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

For the WLM data import in Finland, we have created new, sometimes arbitrary items for RKY national built heritage environment ID (P4009) that relate exactly to the listing item and linked the items that it contains from the side of the items with part of (P361). An example of RKY national built heritage environment ID (P4009) is Helsinki Market Square with enclosing buildings (Q30167152). The only one with the RKY national built heritage environment ID (P4009) should be the exact item, not the ones that are contained. On the other hand, I often used existing items that seemed more or less equal as the listing item, like when the item is a building.

For World Heritage Site ID (P757) I have noticed that there are such violations in Finland, and I would just clean them to follow the same principle, but I have not got round to it. It may be that someone wishes to include the containing items in tools listings, but that should not dictate data modelling. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

When I've faced this issue in a similar context (COAM structure ID (P2917) ids), I've leaned towards favouring a collective "abstract" item incorporating the value for the ID property plus individual items without ID linked to the former through has part(s) (P527)/part of (P361). One possibility in order to improve this procedure might be adding a P794 (P794) qualifier to the value for part of (P361) inserting a "indexed part" or something like that. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON, Amadalvarez: Missed the bulk of this conversation, but just wanted to say that I completely agree with the conclusions here. Duplicate items with the same ids are definitely no good, and there are a large number of problems that are solved by making a separate item for all World Heritage Sites (obviously linked to place/structure items they relate to). I'm about to start doing 1 day per week working on UNESCO data with the John Cummings (Wikimedian in Residence there), and this issue is high up on the todo list. We have loads of data about World Heritage Sites like areas and populations that can't be added at the moment because they don't exactly correspond to the same place (like 378 mentioned above). Let me know if you start a discussion in the Wikidata:WikiProject Built heritage. I will start it myself within the next few weeks if it's not already rolling. Best, NavinoEvans (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Dears @VIGNERON, NavinoEvans:. I hope you remember the conversation we had on WikidataCon on this topic. In Berlin, I proposed assigning "fictitious" codes to the singular elements that are part of a global concept, when officially only a global code has been published. At that time, I committed myself to do a test to see that it did not cause problems, especially with the link that is generated towards the UNESCO website. First of all, I apologize for having taken 8 months, but the good news is that it works well. I have applied it on the case that it has come out to the examples: the 378. It has been the coincidence that the user Herrinsa was working with incorporating the breakdowns of the protected buildings and I have completed the case. Fictitious codes follow the same pattern as when assigned by UNESCO, that is, 378-nnn, starting with nnn = 001. The link to the web seems to only act with the first part of the code, that is, you get to the protection file in all cases. And, of course, the constrainst disappears by duplicate code. If it seems reasonable, we could adopt this decision and formalize it in the instructions, at least, regarding World Heritage. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Mapping of South American datasets

Hi!

I wonder if there is anyone here with good knowledge on cultural heritage in South America and/or Spanish? While working with the Connected Open Heritage project, we have found the following datasets (on Spanish Wikipedia), on South American cultural heritages:

• Argentina: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/ar_(es)
• Mexico: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/mx_(es)
• Salvador: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/sv_(es)
• Uruguay: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/uy_(es)
• Panama: Wikidata:WikiProject_WLM/Mapping_tables/pa_(es)

We have, however, some questions on them which are hard to know without background knowledge:

1. How were the ID numbers of the monuments chosen, i.e. do they come from some official source (in which case, what is it, is it available online?) or were they invented exclusively for WLM
2. What is the heritage status of the monuments? For example, National Monument of X, Regional Monument of Y. There are two relevant parts
   1. Do all the items in a certain dataset have the same heritage status (it's implicit, can be batch-assigned) -- if not, how is it indicated?,
   2. Do Wikidata items for the heritage status(es) exist?

Thanks, Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Eric Luth (WMSE):, generally the ID comme from the online database, except maybe Asset of cultural interest code (P808), who ID from the Spanish directory itself. I don't think inventig a ID is a good idea, since we can also use the item number on Wikidata. For the name used in the heritage designation (P1435) there is two general styles, depending of the county. Most country, like France, give a proper status for is monuments (ex.: classified historical monument (Q10387684), monument historique inscrit (Q10387575). Other simply label that the monument is "listed" on the register, tike the United States (ex: National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910). The best is to found the legal heritage statuses the country give to his monuments. For the two last questions, I don't have the anwser. But you can look if the status is aready created in this query:

#Values used by property P1435
SELECT ?value ?valueLabel ?ct ?sampleitem ?sampleitemLabel
WHERE
{
  {
    SELECT ?value (count(*) as ?ct) (SAMPLE(?item) as ?sampleitem)
    WHERE
    {
      ?item wdt:P1435 ?value
    }
    GROUP BY ?value
    ORDER BY DESC(?ct)
    LIMIT 1000
  }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" }
}
ORDER BY DESC(?ct) ASC(?value)

Try it!

Good luck --Fralambert (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fralambert: Thank you, but this isn't exactly what we're wondering about. What we're trying to figure out is where the ID's that are currently used in the WLM database actually come from. In some of the datasets, the ID's come from official sources, for example in the US lists the WLM identifiers are the official NRHP ID's. But in many other cases, the ID's don't come from any official source and were invented specifically for the needs of the WLM lists. So we're trying to find out what the case is for the Latin American countries :) --Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, First for Argentina, I found the site of the commission responsible for the protections [10], but they don't seem to have ID [11]. Also. I'm not sure the inventory is complete. I also find the register for Mexico [12], but they ask for a username, not sure I wan to register. --Fralambert (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

For Argentina, IDs are those of the former online database (http://www.monumentosysitios.gov.ar) which seems to have been lost. Full listing (from 2013) is still available thanks to Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20140317155540/http://monumentosysitios.gov.ar/descargas/listado_monumentos.xls — Ayack (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Places with multiple heritage listings

I have opened a thread on Project Chat as to best practice for places that may have multiple heritage listings -- eg Gloucester Cathedral, Guildford Castle. When should they be merged, and when should they not be merged; if they are not merged, what should be the structure, and which should get the Commons category (P373)?

Up above, in the section #Duplicates in Historic England ? we talked a bit about bridges; and about listed buildings vs scheduled monuments, which are cases where I think merges are appropriate. But for the parts of the castle and the cathedral I am not so sure. Jheald (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely sure (each case can be different) but my personal philosophy: always have distinct items for distinct things (and parts of monument can be a thing in itself, it's clear to me for church towers or castle keeps at least). On the project Built heritage of France we (almost) always separate items, there is some downsides (the structure is not always clear for re-users) but there is much more upsides (at least there is no uncertainty is is normal to have two id? or two coordinates? is it really the same building? is it a building or two buildings?) and I think it's the best choice in the long run. And if one change his mind, it's very easy to merge afterwards while the contrary his not true, it can be a nightmare to split when an item already exist and is used elsewhere.

On a tangential but similar subject, see also #Splitting World Heritage sites into separate items from the places they are located in and #3 items for one id. Uncertain criteria on World Heritage codes (with NavinoEvans and amadalvarez).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

When should an item be for a building, when for a sequence of buildings?

Follow-up to the previous section, again also raised at project chat:

If I have an item for something like a cathedral, eg Gloucester Cathedral (Q262500) or St Paul's Cathedral (Q173882), when should we treat the item as going back to the entity's first founding (eg AD 680 for Gloucester, AD 604 for St Paul's), and when should we treat it as referring just to the current building?

What is best practice, if eg Wikipedias in most languages have at most one article for the thing? Or, with suitable use of qualifiers, is it normally possible to present both aspects in the same item? Jheald (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting review

I just did my best to tease apart Seattle Asian Art Museum (Q54962876) (a building) from Seattle Asian Art Museum (Q836066) (the institution); also added quite a few statements in the process. I'd greatly appreciate review; first time I did something like this, not sure I did it right. - Jmabel (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, beyond just those two items: I've added a statement

⟨ Seattle Art Museum (Q1816301)    ⟩ headquarters location (P159) ⟨ Seattle Asian Art Museum (Q54962876)    ⟩

with appropriate start & end time, but I don't know at all how to express the fact that Seattle Art Museum (Q1816301) moved to a new building downtown in 1991 and that that downtown museum was expanded in 2006-2007 as part of the construction of Russell Investments Center (Q7381595), of which it is now part. - Jmabel (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this looks good to me. Checking all the external identifiers can be a hassle when there are many of them. I think it would be useful to define constraints for them (Which ones are only for architectural structures? Which ones only for organizations?). Now you can go on describing all the other venues related to that museum if you like. Have a look at Rijksmuseum (Q190804) for ideas how to model things. Cheers, --Beat Estermann (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons - community consultation on basic properties for media files

Fralambert (talk) (Canada and United States)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE) (talk) Yarl ✉️️  Spinster 💬 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC) PKM (talk) Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Acka47 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC) --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Ainali (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC) VIGNERON (talk) Marsupium (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Runner1928 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) --Alexmar983 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC) -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC) --Titodutta (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC) -- Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Satdeep Gill (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Pmlineditor (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC) --Rajeeb Dutta (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC) --Ananth subray (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC) --Sumanth699 (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC) --Ranjithsiji (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC) --MNavya (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Blademasterx (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Buccalon (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC) --Planemad (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Nizil Shah (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Ivanhercaz (Talk) 10:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 16:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Mallikarjunasj (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC) --DarwIn (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC) --Atudu (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Arch2all (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Akuckartz (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Baidax (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC) --Epìdosis 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Pauljmackay (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Mathieu Kappler (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC) dzahsh (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Wolfgang8741 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) —Ismael Olea (talk) Akbarali (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC) ⚊⚊ DCflyer (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Antoine2711 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Built heritage. Hello everyone! This month (July 2018), we are hosting a quite crucial community consultation on Wikimedia Commons: we are listing the Wikidata properties that media files on Commons will need (including ones that might not exist yet, and might need to be created for this purpose). The consultation runs at least till the end of July, maybe longer.

Please consider to take a look and give input, as I don't see a lot of discussion yet about images of built heritage :-) Thanks! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Identifier for heritage in Morocco

Hi,

For information, I proposed Wikidata:Property proposal/identifiant Inventaire et Documentation du Patrimoine Culturel du Maroc. Please take a look.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Slovene registry of cultural monuments now open and machine-readable

A heads-up: I got word from the Slovene Ministry of Culture that the national registry of cultural properties is now completely open and that they offer APIs for machine reading - meaning that authoritative data on ~10.000 monuments (plus potentially 20.000 additional listed objects which don't have protected status) can be imported in Wikidata. User Edgars2007 has volunteered to check what can be done, some details are on his Meta talk page. The most tricky thing is that spatial data in the registry is presented as polygons, does anybody have experience in converting this to coordinates? — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Move value from P31 to P1435

Cizhou Kiln Site (Q17039929) came up on WikiProject Random. It includes cultural heritage (Q210272) in instance of (P31). I think the general idea is to add that with heritage designation (P1435) instead and the value can be moved there. The same is needed for a few other items [13]. --- Jura 10:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Precise distinction on heritage site (Q358) and cultural property (Q2065736)

Is there a clear definition on when (and when not) to apply heritage site (Q358) or cultural property (Q2065736) to instance of (P31)? There is a mess about it in Austria, see de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:WikiProjekt_Österreichische_Denkmallisten#Kulturdenkmal_auf_Wikidata,_wie_tun? (German). Any clear rule is welcome. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to alter 333K descriptions of items about UK heritage sites

At Wikidata:Project chat#333K QuickStatements edits (archived) I announced that I am ready to perform QuickStatements edits on a batch of 332,886 items that have heritage designation (P1435) equal to any of the subclasses of heritage site in the United Kingdom (Q96211371). The list of affected items is here – columns, delimited by tab, are: Q ID, English label of instanceof, current description.

What am I trying to solve. Currently the English descriptions are the location of a given object. Example: Special:Permalink/1340274805. My intention is to alter the descriptions such that instead of "current description" we would have "English label of instanceof in current description". Example edit.

I made sure data is 100% sanitized and the batch is now ready to be run. Sanitized means:

1. items with descriptions that are already complete will not be touched (e.g. Ulting Wick (Q26266381))
2. where there are multiple instance of (P31) available, I use one of them at random
3. made sure all English label of instanceof are valid
4. the descriptions that had "(2)" attached for deduplication purposes, like this, will continue to have this deduplication appendix.

Before I begin, I'd like to ask this community for opinions about several matters:

1. For internationalization purposes, is it a good idea to append the country name to the description? i.e. "English label of instanceof in current description, UK". As an example, for Q26601154 it would be "Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S75" → "barn in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S75, UK"
2. Should I keep the postal codes in the description? Some colleagues on the Project chat thread suggested it should be removed, like here: Special:Diff/517761246
3. Other suggestions, or do you see anything in the batch that rings an immediate bell to you?

Thanks in advance. Gikü (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gikü  Support I will say "go for it" for the description. I think that the postal code should be removed and ther country added. Fralambert (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Fralambert for your input. I will follow it.

I am starting off the batch. First sub-batch will include the items where current descriptions start with A and B (identifiable in edit descriptions with adding instanceof into UK heritage descriptions (A-B) #temporary_batch_1645114059721 – sorry but for some reason the name I gave to the batch does not appear in edit descriptions). Since I am removing the postal codes in favor of the country name, I expect some duplicate label-description pairs to pop up. I will assess the situation after completing the first sub-batch, but preliminarily I think I will resolve those by appending "(2)" like the creator of these items did here. Gikü (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Modelling of buildings with different uses over time

Most heritage buildings have had multiples uses over time. These various uses can be documented in the same Wikidata item, as in Sanderson Centre for the Performing Arts (Q38386517) or in Aeolian Hall (Q4687855). This modelling strategy seems to work relatively well but it requires to qualify most statements with start and end times. At the same time, this may also present challenges with properties such as date of official opening (P1619) (that may apply to the initial opening or to a reopening after a closure and renovations) or architect (P84) (that may apply to the architect of the initial construction or to the renovation). Is this the preferred modelling strategy or are there circumstances where it would make more sense to create two distinct items? I raised this question (and related questions) in this project chat discussion. Please share your thoughts! Fjjulien (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

cave church

I hope that this is the right project to adress: It seems that there is something off with the item cave church (Q64732764) (it was brought up at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology); currently it is both a subclass of church building (Q16970) (a type of building) and rock-cut architecture (Q11587139) / cave architecture (Q102301541) which is rather a type of architecture.

Some buildings are instances of cave church (Q64732764), so now some buildings come also up as architecture (Q12271), via rock-cut architecture (Q11587139). As architecture (Q12271) is currently a subclass of built environment and design studies (Q113129241) these buildings are now indirectly classed as built environment and design studies (Q113129241).

At first glance the problematic statement seems to be cave church (Q64732764)subclass of (P279)rock-cut architecture (Q11587139). It should be probably moved somewhere else (I'm thinking about using architectural style (P149)): cave church (Q64732764)):

cave church (Q64732764)subclass of (P279)church building (Q16970)

cave church (Q64732764)architectural style (P149)rock-cut architecture (Q11587139)

But I'm not sure if architectural style (P149) should even be use on classes of buildings.

As architecture (Q12271) is currently defined as a subclass of built environment and design studies nothing should be made its (direct or indirect) instance, I think. But maybe it is also the item architecture (Q12271) that needs fixing. Kind regards, Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

cave architecture (Q102301541) has definition "caves that are utilized, generally having been excavated or otherwise altered, for sheltering humans or animals, or for use as storage, worship, or another use" that completely mismatches making it subclass of architectural style (Q32880) - is it describing set of caves or is it describing style of architecture? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I followed subclass of (P279) architecture (Q12271) and label when adding instance of (P31) architectural style (Q32880) but you're right - the description says otherwise. I removed my addition. Maybe somebody else has a better idea what to make of it. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

help with listeria

(Template:Wikidata list (Q19860885))

Hi, the spreadsheet at New Mexico Historic Preservation Division | State and National Register has the following columns:

• SR# - NMSRCP reference number (P6473)
• Name of Property - name (P2561)
• County - located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)
• Property Category - Building(s), 734; Structure(s), 81; Site, 282; Object, 15; District, 241; Other, 4; Collection, 1; Thematic group, 1; N/A 1
• State Register YMD - start time (P580)
• National Register YMD
• Contrib SR (for districts)
• Contrib NR
• Significance Level: Local/State/National Y/N
• Address - street address (P6375)
• City - location (P276)
• Restricted - Y/N access restriction status (P7228)
• Common Name / Notes - nickname (P1449)

Could someone help me identify which properties are most relevant to these columns and allow for a listeria table to be erected somewhere that would allow us to gauge completeness? Arlo Barnes (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

For the property name, I generally use subject named as (P1810) instead, as it not follow the "Family, first name, building type" order for building name after someone. For restricted site if this is a yes, Your will probably have unknow value in coordinate location (P625) with has cause (P828): address restricted (Q47460806). Not sure the Significance Level is useful. For the National Register of Historic Places contributing property (Q1129142), I never reaaly think how to enter the quatity in a item. I hope it help. Fralambert (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Property proposal/British Listed Buildings Online ID

I'm looking for opinions on Wikidata:Property_proposal/British_Listed_Buildings_Online_ID Vicarage (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)