User talk:Lodewicus de Honsvels

Welcome to Wikidata, Lodewicus de Honsvels!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, häufig gestellte Fragen sind unter

• de:Benutzer:M2k~dewiki/FAQ

zusammengefasst. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the creation of many items for natural monuments in Upper Austria. There is just one little thing - P31 (is an instance of) is not suitable for Q14912864, since this is not something intrinsic to the object itself. Instead it should be placed under P1435 (heritage designation). But thank you nevertheless! -- Clemens 10:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also overwhelmed by your contribs. Although the natural monuments are organized by district in the de:WP, located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) should be the most precise possible administrative unit, which is the municipality in most cases (could be two municipalities in borderline cases). best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, bin über einige Duplikate der von dir angelegten / stark ausgebauten (@Olea:) Naturdenkmäler gestolpert, etwa

• Gamssulzenhöhle (Q21862726) / Gamssulzenhöhle (Q119856936)
• Gleinkersee (Q1488291) / Gleinkersee (Q108143658)
• Irrsee (Q665961) / Zellersee (Irrsee) (Q108143697)

und frage mich, ob ein See, eine Höhle, etc. nicht einfach ein See oder eine Höhle ist, zusätzlich mit einem Schutzstatus als Naturdenkmal (und solche Duplikate wie oben zu mergen sind). lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I didn't touched any of the said elements. If you refer to my Nationally designated areas inventory (Q1116062) uploads, they are just instances of conservation designation (Q5162954) which are conceptually different than landform (Q271669) instances (not sure if this is really the correct abstract class) they are related to. Hope this helps. —Ismael Olea (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer @Olea:. You created Gleinkersee (Q108143658) & Zellersee (Irrsee) (Q108143697). That's why I included you.

IMHO the protection state conservation designation (Q5162954) should be used with heritage designation (P1435) (as it is done with Cultural heritage monuments). The state as a natural monument is intrinsically bound to the object under protection. It is the lake that is protected not an abstract object. For caves it is quite clear that the protected object and the protection object are identical. If we separate both, the protection object no longer is a cave or a lake, but just a protection object containing the cave or lake (modelled by part of (P361) & has part(s) (P527)?). The protection state is a property of the protected object, do we really want to objectify the protection state as a separate state object? Of course, this is only the case when the protected area and the protected object are identical, in all other cases the protected area might contain protected objects (more than one), of which not all are completely defined in WD. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to standardize protected areas in Wikidata into a single common practice. My opinion:

• designations are not abstract concepts, are human administrative acts (WD notability criteria 2);
• a new protection status property for natural areas: this would simplify the queries, for example and disambiguates cases as World Heritage Site (Q9259) sites;
• this property would be analogous of heritage designation (P1435) and intangible cultural heritage status (P3259), setting a common practice in Wikidata;
• also, there are significative important databases/inventories managing designations as records and this is a simple way to keep a 1:1 mapping;
• the designations elements would enjoy to exact map existing external ID properties (Common Database on Designated Areas ID (P4762), WDPA ID (P809), Natura 2000 site ID (P3425) and many others);
• the value of the new property would be the WD element for the designation, because there could be several designation related with the same place with different values (area, maps, etc);
• this way we would not need to mix different designations data in the same element (example: Sierra Nevada National and Natural Park (Q1969050));
• each protection elements can have all the technical details as approved;
• and any geographical object (natural or not) can be explicitly related with their related designations with located in protected area (P3018).

All benefits! —Ismael Olea (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Olea: sounds reasonable. I have no idea how and no energy to develop modelling guidelines and to enforce them and do the work to implement them. But I share your pain that missing modelling guidelines (and rules & processes to agree on them) are one of the big problems here at wd, as this is intrinsically necessary to allow queries that will find all relevant objects. Would be fine if you could take the lead. The pity is that your proposal is an answer from the future. While I find it reasonable to apply the designation Zellersee (Irrsee) (Q108143697) - which then cannot be a lake (Q23397) any longer - (and possibly others) to Irrsee (Q665961) - which then is the lake (Q23397) object - (and possibly more), I'm not sure about that separation for natural monuments (e.g. trees, caves). For Cultural heritage monuments (in Austria), the protection is just a property on the object (which is a church, a castle, or a bridge - see Belvedere (Q211818), and if the situation is such, that the real world object does not correspond to the protected object, we model it as a compound object, e.g. Rechensteg (Q121294123)) which allows to query the protected objects and the bridges in separate queries. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right pointing to the data reusability issue. I didn't been aware about its handicaps until doing some practical work. About leading this, I'm still not sure I have the emotional force required to promote it :-) —Ismael Olea (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]