Wikidata talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Properties

Move to P1435

The consensus at this property seems to be that values should be included there instead of P31. This page still mostly includes it in P31.
--- Jura 07:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: please ping the project participant, if you want/expect an answer ;)

EdouardHue
VIGNERON
Thierry Caro
Paul Mackay
Pigsonthewing
Fralambert
Holger1959
Dhx1
Derzno
GPSLeo
Tris T7 ^{TT me}
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk)
Pmau
Olea

Notified participants of WikiProject Protected areas

Since my 2014 question on Property talk:P1435 the situation has changed and there seems to be a consensus to accept natural heritage (Q386426) in heritage designation (P1435) (that was not the case back then), not sure if it really changed the situation a « protected bridge » is an instance of bridge (the protection didn't created the object which exist independently) but a « protected park » is an instance of protected park (the protection did create the object and even the protection is the object is many ways). not sure if it's true for every areas (clearly not true for site naturel classé ou inscrit (Q18002388))

That said, a lot of things can be updated or improved on this properties page (a few new external-id properties have been created and there is more than « Seven shades of nature », probably more than fifty ).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I might have thought it was a new or recent page, but actually it's just old and outdated ;)
--- Jura 17:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion where you think this consensus was reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: +1 with Pigsonthewing, or maybe is it only a de facto consensus? I see that you added the natural heritage (Q386426) class in constraint almost one year ago (qv. Special:Diff/308793009) and nobody reverted it; it's a good start but maybe not enough to change the structure of this project (@EdouardHue: ?). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

+1: I feel a bit lazy today as well. Maybe I shouldn't write +1 if I wasn't interested in contributing.
--- Jura 15:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well… If we switched instance of (P31) to heritage designation (P1435), what would we set instead as a value for instance of (P31)? Is there a common class (maybe with a few subclasses) that encompasses french national, regional and marine parks, the four kinds of reserves, UNESCO's world heritage sites, danish Naturfredningsområder and all the others? Maybe we could stick to protected area (Q473972) in instance of (P31) and use heritage designation (P1435) for further details. But after all, isn't "all the protected area (Q473972)s that have nature reserve in France (Q3457689) for heritage designation (P1435)" the typical definition of a class to use in instance of (P31)? At the end, I feel like we would loose precision for the sake of generalization.

Moreover, items like Réserve naturelle nationale de la baie de l'Aiguillon (Q3457497) and Réserve naturelle nationale du cirque du grand lac des Estaris (Q19760090) mostly describe an administrative entity. The protected geographical feature(s) have item(s) of their own (namely Q19762426 and Lac des Estaris (Q3215661)). These items should probably bear heritage designation (P1435), maybe with a qualifier to link to the instance of protected area it belongs to.

--EdouardHue (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My point exactly, the situation is different for a protected bridge and a protected park. Although I'm not sure if it's true for all the level of protection. As I said, there is the obivous exception of site naturel classé ou inscrit (Q18002388) but beside this, is there other exceptions? (at the same times, we could/should list other types of protections) Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)