Wikidata talk:Cultural heritage task force

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Task force in Canada[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

I took at the Netherlands. We have single monuments (Rijksmonument (Q916333), for example Stoop's Bad: 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:

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:
The street is now P:P670 (with 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)
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)

French monuments[edit]

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

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

Monuments Canada[edit]

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)
DEPRECATED main type (GND) (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)
is in the administrative-territorial entity (P131) * province
territory
city
New Brunswick (Q1965)
Carleton County, New Brunswick (Q2429216)
Hartland, New Brunswick (Q1019096) - Somerville, New Brunswick (Q3489808)
(OBSOLETE) structure type (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)
material used (P186) wood (Q287), iron (Q677) Pseudotsuga menziesii (Q156687)
concrete (Q22657)
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, New Brunswick (Q1019096)
date of foundation or creation (P571) July 4, 1901
start date (P580)
end date (P582)
construction date?
recognition date?
protection type?
Canadian Register of Historic Places identifier (P477) * CA 7623 1330 16366
identifiant lieu patrimonial provincial CA-AB: Alberta Register of Historic Places identifier (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 identifier (P763)
CA-QC: Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec identifier (P633)
CA-SK: proposal done (ex.: 2495)
CA-YT:
World Heritage identifier (P757) Ex.: Rideau Canal (Q651323), Old Quebec (Q2114279)
Structurae ID (structure) (P454) Structurae (Q1061861) - s ou p + 7 chiffres s0005778
Emporis 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 identifier (P477) et Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec identifier (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 :
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)[edit]

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:

Ma question est quel pourrait être le montage dans instance of (P31)? En passant voici un exemple au Cultural heritage register of Quebec (Q3456276) pour (no label) (Q3329240). [2]. Vous pouvez aussi me répondre en anglais--Fralambert (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Switzerland[edit]

Cultural properties of national or regional significance in Switzerland[edit]

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. 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)
  • 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 is 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 DEPRECATED main type (GND) (P107) = geographical feature (Q618123) (buildings and archeological sites) or DEPRECATED main type (GND) (P107) = creative 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) = Swiss cultural property of national significance (Q8274529) or instance of (P31) = 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[edit]

Available datasets are referenced here.

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

There is an issue related to collections not having DEPRECATED main type (GND) (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 street (P669) and street number (P670) --  Docu  at 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if we already should start adding 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)[edit]

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, Russia (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)
is in the administrative-territorial entity (P131) * регион
район
населенный пункт
Lomonosov (Q157688) Lomonosov (Q157688)
(OBSOLETE) structure type (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, Russia (Q2315050)
material used (P186) wood (Q287), iron (Q677)
street address (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)
date of foundation or creation (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 identifier (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…[edit]

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)

  • Symbol strong support vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg 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 identifier (P757)[edit]

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

Cultural heritage?[edit]

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

monument historique classé (Q10387684) and monument historique inscrit (Q10387575)
subclass of (P279)
monument historique (Q916475)
subclass of (P279)
national heritage site (Q358)
subclass of (P279)
cultural property (Q2065736).

In my opinion, the only required value for instance of (P31) is monument historique classé (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:
<national heritage site (Q358)> Art & Architecture Thesaurus ID (P1014) <300007031>.
Regards, --Marsupium (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Q numbers for Swiss monuments[edit]

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[edit]

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 Cultural heritage register of Quebec (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[edit]

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 :

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

Second case :

Proposed solution : transform the « redirect item » (no label) (Q2935229) and (no label) (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)