Talk:Q108028209
Autodescription — designation type (Q108028209)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “designation type” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
designation type⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
This is wrong in its current form, and it misinterprets CDDA data. CDDA dataset only references and records national designations that are developed and applied by individual countries. Given designations are not "developed by the CDDA" as description for this item currently claims. For the same reason it's misleading to claim that EIONET, the partnership behind CDDA, created or operated given designations, as suggested by current creator (P170) and operator (P137) statements. Previously I already described the confusion arising from it more thoroughly here.
Many designations already link to this item. Hence the simplest way to fix this seems to be as follows: remove parts from designation type (Q108028209) associating it to CDDA. Label could be simply "designation type" then. Also, as the very same CDDA dataset isn't limited to protected area designations, and there's also a designation for individual protected natural objects (natural monuments) like boulders and trees, and a cultural heritage designation (for buildings and other types of cultural heritage), then it's probably better not to limit this item, per its description, to protected area designations. I'll try to clear up this item accordingly. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:F84C:E574:4FB6:B70F 14:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Merge protected area (Q473972)[edit]
I think this is basically the same as protected area (Q473972) and therefore should be merged. GPSLeo (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- They are not the same thing. protected area (Q473972) is being used to instance a particular territory designated by a government institution. designation type (Q108028209) is the superclass for the designation (Special Area of Conservation (Q1191622), Special Protection Area (Q2463705), etc).
- A different question is how should be the relation of designation type (Q108028209) instances and Q473972.
- To me, is an open discussion and believe we need to create a new «natural designation» property analogous to heritage designation (P1435) and intangible cultural heritage status (P3259) but for designated protected areas. This new property would link a geographic place to the related natural protection desginations. —Ismael Olea (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, then I think the current status could be fine if the system for all types is like at Naturschutzgebiet (Q759421) which has instance of (P31) designation type (Q108028209) and subclass of (P279) protected area (Q473972). I do not think that we need a new "natural designation" as located in protected area (P3018) should be sufficient for this as we strictly separate the geographic place form the legal defined protected site. GPSLeo (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Man, I completely forgot about P3018! Because the naming, I guess, but probably is the solution as you suggest.
- The only real problem with the designation elements is they could be duplicated because it was impossible to conciliate with all existing values. But the solution should be as easy as merging when a case is identified. —Ismael Olea (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, then I think the current status could be fine if the system for all types is like at Naturschutzgebiet (Q759421) which has instance of (P31) designation type (Q108028209) and subclass of (P279) protected area (Q473972). I do not think that we need a new "natural designation" as located in protected area (P3018) should be sufficient for this as we strictly separate the geographic place form the legal defined protected site. GPSLeo (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are two major differences:
- designation type (Q108028209) is a metaclass and protected area (Q473972) is not, meaning instances of the first one are types of protection statuses, and instances of the latter are concrete protected objects at some concrete location
- not all designation types are that of protected areas (see example in previous topic)
- As for heritage designation (P1435), this has been discussed in several venues before. This property is already used also to link several natural heritage designations in addition to cultural heritage designations, which generally works fine. Using the same property for both kinds of heritage objects allows uniform approach especially in cases where an individual object (tree, boulder) is protected as both an individual cultural heritage object and as individual natural heritage object (is *not* just located in some protected area), and accordingly multiple designations apply.
- As for located in protected area (P3018), I don't see what this has got to do with designations. This property only links to concrete protected area that has some designation. An individual tree or boulder itself can be a protected object of some natural heritage designation, and additionally it can be located in a protected area which is turn has different designation.
- But all in all the use of these properties has got little to with whether we should have this metaclass here. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:58DD:6A1A:260D:51A0 10:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)