Talk:Q618123

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Autodescription — geographical feature (Q618123)

description: components of planets that can be geographically located
Useful links:
Classification of the class geographical feature (Q618123)  View with Reasonator View with SQID
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
⟨geographical feature⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1)
Generic queries for classes

Union and disjoint queries

See also


how is it possible that only 4 wikipedias have an article of this item? Maybe it's better this one geographic location (Q2221906)? --Viscontino talk 19:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean better for the "main type" property. --Viscontino talk 19:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I think, because Q2221906 is your own position, here it is any object. Maybe there are different names for this item in the languages... Conny (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It's still strange that I can't find an article on it.wiki about this! And the en.wiki says "Geographical features are the components of the Earth"... what about a crater on Mars? What would it be his main type? --Viscontino talk 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
See also Property talk:P107 --Zolo (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Vietnamese has different words for "geographical feature on Earth" (địa thể) versus "celestial body" (thiên thể), and this item is used for both, I went with địa điểm, which means "place". – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on Q2756579, an asteroid. It maybe technically is a "geographical feature", but I think something like "astronomical feature" would look better. -- Lavallen (block) 06:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User removing items from the tree of geographical features[edit]

User:GerardM is removing items from the tree of geographical features. I asked him to stop, but he says he goes on. Please can someone help? Tamawashi (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

subclass[edit]

@Infovarius: Hi, I added physical location (Q17334923) as subclass as hope that it resolve a big problem when user delete geographic location (Q2221906) as subclass of geographical feature (Q618123). I create a lot of constraints violations in most properties who use only geographic location (Q2221906) as a type subclass, like CGNDB unique ID (P821) or NRHP reference number (P649). The idea is having a core item in the ontology that cover all the items in geography. --Fralambert (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fralambert:, but physical location (Q17334923) is not a subclass for geographic location (Q2221906), so violations will not go. I am interested person too - I am checking Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2496 page and I see that we have removed/created P279=Q2221906 more then 10 times already. I could agree with removers that geographical feature (Q618123) has geographic location (Q2221906), but NOT is subclass of geographic location (Q2221906). Really we need geographical feature (Q618123) in our constraint violations, so I suggest to replace in all affected constraint violations class=Q2221906 to class=Q618123, it is only 79 constraint violations, so I can do it by hand in the hardest case. --Voll (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Voll: It's because that geographic location (Q2221906) is a subclass of physical location (Q17334923). So we can use physical location (Q17334923) as the « core type » for the contraint. Also, geographic region (Q82794) is actually a subclass of geographical feature (Q618123), but I am not sure it's the right onthology, since that geographic region (Q82794) is not a physical object. --Fralambert (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fralambert:, it seems my question (but physical location (Q17334923) is not a subclass for geographic location (Q2221906)) was correct. See the new report. --Voll (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about geographic region (Q82794), we mixed geographical region and region in the commons (general) sense now, but we can divide it in Wikidata without problem IMHO. --Voll (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

+abstract geographic object (Q1503302)? --Fractaler (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

point here causes problems with geographic region (Q82794)[edit]

d1g (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Physical object?[edit]

So all administrative divisions are physical objects. Is it what we want? See Talk:Q2043199 for problems. --Infovarius (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have: 1) 1D geographical object (in one-dimensional space (Q208920)) 2) 2D geographical object (in two-dimensional space (Q222032)) 3) 3D geographical object (in three-dimensional space (Q34929)). Question: administrative territorial entity (Q56061) is "2D geographical object"? --Fractaler (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is an important question. IMHO, mostly, yes. --Infovarius (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then, 2D-object can be a physical object?--Fractaler (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

geomorphological unit (Q12766313)[edit]

The same? Fractaler (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology#High_level_Geographic_classes[edit]

for a place to discuss this overall hierarchy and hopefully clarify it. JesseW (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q618123&oldid=1692859698"