Wikidata talk:WikiProject Cultural heritage

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)


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]


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 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 located on 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)
I´d throw out country (P17), (OBSOLETE) main type (GND) (P107) and use located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) only when you can not assign the monument to a specific location (it´s out in the wood, now destroyed or specific location unnknown). In every possible case use location (P276) with the city, town, municipiality etc. The link to "Netherlands" goes upwards through the properties of the municipiality to county to province to country (or whatever the names of the next higher levels of administration units are). On the other hand Rijksmonument (Q916333) also implies a monument within the Netherlands.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (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)
(OBSOLETE) main type (GND) (P107) * geographical object (Q618123) * geographical object (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)
located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) * province
New Brunswick (Q1965)
Carleton County, New Brunswick (Q2429216)
Hartland, New Brunswick (Q1019096) - Somerville, New Brunswick (Q3489808)
invalid ID (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)
inception (P571) July 4, 1901
start time (P580)
end time (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-NB: 88 1984
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)
World Heritage Site id (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 Q3329240 (Q3329240). [2]. Vous pouvez aussi me répondre en anglais--Fralambert (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


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.


  • 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 located 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 (OBSOLETE) main type (GND) (P107) = geographical object (Q618123) (buildings and archeological sites) or (OBSOLETE) main type (GND) (P107) = 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 ( (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 (OBSOLETE) main type (GND) (P107) = geographical object (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 located on street (P669) and street number (P670) --  Docu  at 15:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if we already should start adding located on 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
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)
located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) * регион
населенный пункт
Lomonosov (Q157688) Lomonosov (Q157688)
invalid ID (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)
located at 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)
inception (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 Site id (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 Site id (P757)[edit]

I added the property for the World Heritage Site id (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 AAT identifier (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)> AAT identifier (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 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 » Q2935229 (Q2935229) and Q1033174 (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)

@VIGNERON: I think your solutions are correct. It's mosty how they are divided for the world heritage site. And it look like how they divided it in this external site (about Q15975351 (Q15975351)). --Fralambert (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

make sure that claims stay[edit]

How to recognice without a seperate list, that someone deletes the cultural heritage site status of an item? Thank you, Conny (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

Rijksmonumenten import[edit]

We already discussed importing monuments into Wikidata. I fixed up the monuments database over the last couple of weeks so now I have fresh data to import. My notes are at User:Multichill/Monument imports. Take for example the api output and Koningshof: double garage (Q17187818). This item is part of first test run. What do you think? Any feedback before I start importing more? Multichill (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to have the Dutch Rm title, the number, address and coordinatyes, but isn't it possible to identify the monument type (church, barn, facade, statue, city gate, etc)? Jane023 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jane, I've been thinking about that too. That data is not available through the monument database api. For this initial import I'll leave it out of scope, but I'll probably look into it later. We would have to map the fields "oorspr_functie" and "cbs_tekst" to Wikidata items. The most popular ones:
MariaDB [s51138__heritage_p]> SELECT `oorspr_functie`, COUNT(`oorspr_functie`) FROM `monuments_nl_(nl)` GROUP BY (`oorspr_functie`) ORDER BY COUNT(`oorspr_functie`) DESC LIMIT 20;
| oorspr_functie            | COUNT(`oorspr_functie`) |
| Woonhuis                  |                   20138 |
|                           |                    9045 |
| Boerderij                 |                    7521 |
| Werk-woonhuis             |                    3719 |
| Kerk en kerkonderdeel     |                    2977 |
| Tuin, park en plantsoen   |                    2712 |
| Bijgebouwen kastelen enz. |                    1552 |
| Industrie- en poldermolen |                    1257 |
| Kasteel, buitenplaats     |                     999 |
| Opslag                    |                     893 |
| Begraafplaats en -onderdl |                     867 |
| Dienstwoning              |                     747 |
| Erfscheiding              |                     612 |
| Industrie                 |                     574 |
| Kerkelijke dienstwoning   |                     549 |
| Brug                      |                     518 |
| Handel en kantoor         |                     486 |
| Onderwijs en wetenschap   |                     472 |
| Omwalling                 |                     443 |
| Fort, vesting en -onderdl |                     380 |
20 ROWS IN SET (0.72 sec)
And the second query
MariaDB [s51138__heritage_p]> SELECT `cbs_tekst`, COUNT(`cbs_tekst`) FROM `monuments_nl_(nl)` GROUP BY (`cbs_tekst`) ORDER BY COUNT(`cbs_tekst`) DESC LIMIT 20;
| cbs_tekst                | COUNT(`cbs_tekst`) |
| Gebouwen, woonhuizen     |              36390 |
| Agrarische gebouwen      |               7542 |
| Losse objecten, ed.      |               5308 |
| Kerkelijke gebouwen      |               4173 |
| Openbare gebouwen        |               1974 |
| Verdedigingswerken       |               1542 |
|                          |               1468 |
| Molens                   |               1276 |
| Weg- en waterwerken      |               1121 |
| Kastelen, landh. ed.     |               1015 |
| Liefdadige instell.      |                431 |
| Kerk-onderdl./object     |                213 |
| Horeca-instellingen      |                199 |
| Delen van geb/woonh.     |                190 |
| "Gebouwen, woonhuizen"   |                175 |
| Bijgebouwen              |                 40 |
| "Losse objecten, ed."    |                 21 |
| Militair verblijfsgebouw |                 17 |
| Gezondheidszorg          |                  7 |
| Losse objecten e.d.      |                  6 |
So we'll be using house (Q3947) a lot. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The commune (gemeente) is missing, the rest looks (superficially) fine. I think the construction year is not readily available.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Ymblanter: The municipality ("gemeente") is not always available. I check if the linked value is an instance of municipality of the Netherlands (Q2039348). That's not the case with Overveen (Q1847815) (that's in Bloemendaal).
Would be a nice improvement in the future to check if every Rijksmonument has it's province and municipality listed and maybe the locality (like Overveen) listed too (with (OBSOLETE) located in place (use P276) (P1134)). Multichill (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
OK I get the problems with the object descriptions and gemeentes. Can we include the image (if available) from the nl wikipedia list? Jane023 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, image is included if it's in the list. See for example Q17187828 (Q17187828). Multichill (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. This will become a problem very quickly if many of these complexes are documented like this. From the image you linked I assumed I would be able to fix the item with the item in the picture, in this case something like "Gate of the Jewish cemetery in Overveen" or ""Mortuarium of the Jewish cemetery in Overveen". However, when I go to the actual linked monument number, there only appears to be general info for the whole cemetery, so I can't see a difference between Q17187828 (Q17187828) or Israëlitische Begraafplaats (Q17187883). If this is just an edge case it's probably OK for now, but if the "cleaned" database has a lot of these you might get into trouble. Jane023 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops! My bad, I keep forgetting about that weird lack of fallback language. I use the English interface, so when I am on an item (or even reading the notes here) I don't see the labels + descriptions that you imported in Dutch. But when I am on one of these items and click "what links here", they appear by magic. Problem solved. Go ahead and import away. There is plenty of information to be able to flesh out these items once they are created well in Dutch. Jane023 (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Jane023/Ymblanter/others. Some things I would like to have input on.
  1. I skipped the description for now because I wanted to have a look at this later. What I'm thinking of now is 'Rijksmonument op %(adres)%' see for examples the addresses in * Haarlem and Amsterdam. So that would be something like 'Rijksmonument op Anegang 28' or 'Rijksmonument op Blauwburgwal 18'. What do you think?
  2. I found the original database with the complexes in it! So I'm going to add those in a second iteration.
  3. I plan to extract the street and link it to a street article (if available). Probably do that a bit later on.
Multichill (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds a lot simpler. Jane023 (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The object look good to me, about point 1: the addresses as a name, this will work, but for more complex address structures (see the Haarlem link) this might get a bit ugly. Examples: for "Anegang 22 / Frankestraat 1" we might prefer "Rijksmonument op hoek Anegang 22 / Frankestraat 1" for "Anslijnstraat 5 t/m 67 (behoort bij complex Rosehaghe/ Anslijnstraat ong.)" we'd like to skip the stuf between brackets. For an automated run the first one probably should be skipped (as not important enough), the second one can be taken care of by removing info between brackets. But for example with: "Bakenessergracht 71 A t/m J (voormalige Brood- en meelfabriek)" we probably prefer the part between brackets, althought if it's correct that one has a description. Don't most buildings have a description anyhow? Something in the line of "Herenhuis met kapitelen en 16e eeuwse lijstgevel"?
Point 2 and 3: nice, for the street addresses we could try if it's possible to somehow parse the streetname and number in a nice way. Maybe it's a good idea to start there with only the ones formatted like: "WORD NUMBER". Some of them have multiple adresses. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
We probably need a small test run. The irregular items (no address or no municipality) should be logged and taken care of manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Jane023, Basvb and Ymblanter. I made a number of adjustments. These are all in a way that older items get updated too
  • I now add the description based on the address. This might give some edge cases that don't look to pretty, but these can easily be corrected manually
  • I added some lookup magic so now the municipality gets added too it's something like "Overveen". It will find the item for Overveen and lookup the municipality item on that one.
  • I made another bot to add the streets. I created a lot of the missing streets in Haarlem and added these.
Wikidata query and Autolist is very useful for finding items that are not complete. It's a shame it doesn't contain labels and descriptions. Multichill (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree and I am surprised that no one has created a bot to fill in the labels for the items that have local Wikipedia articles. Half of the items I have merged the past month would not have been created to begin with if the original item had been labelled in the language it was created in. This may be a legacy from the early days, but I am surprised how often I see that. Nice work on the streets, but can't you go back through and add the labels in Dutch? Jane023 (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I would love to fix labels and descriptions but I'm really looking for a tool to easily hunt down the items which still lack it. Do I really have to do a query on the commandline to get this information? Multichill (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean like this? Here is the work of a bot on enwiki: Q15279151 Jane023 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
No, for me as a human. Tool should answer the question: "Give me all streets in Amsterdam that don't have label in English" (or something like that) so I can work on that. I know how to do it with a bot, that's easy. Multichill (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question! I just tried to make a list this way because I though P171 was the label property, but it doesn't work like the other properties. What I do to generate a list of items without labels is to dump a category item into Reasonator, then download the results and filter in excel for the empty labels - I am working with a large category (Painters). If it's a category with fewer than 500 items, then you can use the pop-up box to update the label when you hover over red-underlined items, so see for example this query for Engravers. Jane023 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating alias[edit]

It would be nice to add an alias name of each object with Rijksmonument identifier (P359) available, I propose a simple extra alias of the following format: "Rijksmonumentnummer 5xxxx" , so we can easily find a certain object in the search field of wikidata. Is that possible? Michiel1972 (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically possible: Yes, if we should do this: Not sure. You can use autolist to find a specific object. Doesn't that already suit your needs? If we would go for an alias I would probably prefer "Rijksmonument <id>". Multichill (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know for heritage buildings but for museum objects, adding the accession number as an alias would be useful. When looking for a single entry, it is much faster and more convenient than autolist, and referring to an object through its accession number is common practice. --Zolo (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Zolo, I am not sure what you mean. The accession number for collections is exactly the same thing as the heritage identifier. It just means the number that was given by the listholder when the thing (whatever it is, house or painting or whatever) was added to the list. Jane023 (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jane023:. I meant that I often see articles that refer to a painting with 'INV 2012', but never to a building as Risjksmonument XXXX", so that inventory numbers of artworks may be more useful aliases than Rijksmonument IDs of buildings. That said, it is true that it may be overkill to add it as an alias in every language. Plus if "INV 2012" refers to several artworks in different museums it would actually not be so convenient to use (and "Louvre INV 3493" is less intuitive than just "INV 3493"). --Zolo (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot about this thread. My answer is yes, having an alias like Rijksmonument XXXX for monuments or INV XXXX for artworks is a good idea. Jane023 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating UK entries in this table[edit]

I'm trying to add the UK lists to this table, but must have something wrong in the formatting, as they do not appear. Anyone able to help please? The lists are the four gb-xxx entries. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix Multichill. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Irksome issues with p31[edit]

Currently, it is recommended to provide information about the item's protection status (cultural property (Q2065736) or subclasses) using instance of (P31). I am not sure it is a good practice. A protected church is a church more than it is a protected monument. If the purpose of p31 is to provide basic info about an object, then p31: church is more relevant than p31: heritage building. Maybe we can have both statements on the same item, but it seems to make the overall structure harder to understand. Another solution would be a separate "protection status" (somewhat like we use IUCN conservation status (P141) rather than p31 for animal protection). Another reason for doing that is that sometimes, in France at least, the protection applies only to some parts of the building. That can be expressed with a applies to part (P518) qualifier but doing this on p31 is sort of strange. --Zolo (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. You can mark a protected church as instance of "protected church", then mark "protected church" as subclass of "protected monument", "church" and whatever. --Nemo 09:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
As there are many types of protected monuments (more than one per country), that would mean creating a lot of items (up to number of protection types * number of building types). However, the more important problem imo is that protection status has nothing to do with the type of the building, so it does not make a lot of sense to conflate the two in a single statement. For instance infoboxes, should not display "instance of: protected church" but rather something like "type of building = church | conservation status = heritage building". If information about both things are conflated in a single statement it will be tricky to split them automatically. --Zolo (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe a better property would be award received (P166). As it is par of the recognition of the buildings, but I am not sure the constraint is compatible. I understand the problem, like Louis Bertrand House (Q15701839) is a house, but is not a national historic site of Canada (Q1568567) or a classified heritage immovable (Q13789518) who are the regonition of the building. Probably a creation of a new property like IUCN protected areas category (P814) would be a solution. --Fralambert (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Zolo, Nemo_bis: A advantage of creating a new property will also to devellop a type constraint so we will be able to see all the different type of protected monuments, a little like we can see for P477 (Canada only). --Fralambert (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Fralambert: In many countries the heritage status is not just an award, as it has important consequences as to the status of the building (can't be destroyed, not altered too much, the owner may get subsidies, may have the open the building to the public, etc.). Another solution could be a general "legal status property that oould also be used for companies (like: legal status = limited liability company). But actually, it seems that for a company, using the legal status as the main p31 value could make sense. If we agree on creating a new property, how do we call it ? --Zolo (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Zolo: I will do a property proposal this evening. I have the property creator right, but I need to make a proposal on the main board first. --Fralambert (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support a "protection status" property. — Ayack (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Zolo, Ayack: The proposal is done Wikidata:Property proposal/Place#type de bien patrimonial. --Fralambert (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zolo, Fralambert, Nemo_bis: I've created a bot request to move values, qualifiers and references from instance of (P31) to heritage status (P1435). Please add the missing items in the list. Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the Quebec heritage types, for the rest of Canada, I will wait after my vacation. --Fralambert (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Multichill: could you clarify why you oppose moving Heritage monument values from P31 to heritage status (P1435). I think it really makes things unwieldy. P31 is useful to tell what the item primarily is, but what is most important to know about a building is wether it is a bridge or a castle, not wether is is a grade II liste building or a county landmark. Currently, many buildings should be marked as missing a p31 value, but they are not because p31 contains their heritage status listing. Beside, fr:Modèle:Infobox Monument uses P1435, but that misses all the relevant values stored in P31. Of crouse, the template could be changed, but that would makes things much more complicated and error-prone. --Zolo (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, this is an oldie. I'm generally a bit reluctant to mass moves of things that are actually used a lot. We're still very much in the process of deciding what to store in general properties ((instance of (P31)) and what to store in specific ones (heritage status (P1435)). I looked in my backyard and I think this might work. So for the Netherlands we would have instance of (P31): Church, statue, etc etc etc and heritage status (P1435) Rijksmonument (Q916333)/Rijksmonument complex (Q13423591)/voorbeschermd Rijksmonument (Q17698911). We would have to modify some template logic and run some bots, but that's not a big problem. It's probably better than the current situation. @Jane023: @Basvb: @Ymblanter: do you agree? Multichill (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Jane023 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
No problems with this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Properties of place of worship[edit]

I started curating Wikidata entries for historical churches in my home town in Italy, based on the amazing work of an Italian Wikipedian. There are a few properties of place of worship (Q1370598) that I'd like to be able to represent in Wikidata and don't seem to exist:

  • the religion or religious denomination of the place of workship.
  • its dedication (what deity, saint, idol, supernatural entity is worshipped in this place)
    • is there any property that could be used to express this or should I request one? "Dedication" strictly speaking only makes sense in the context of some religious traditions and I wonder whether this should be a generic property for all places of worship, regardless of their religion, or a series of properties specific to religious denominations. Note that en:Template:Infobox_temple has a "primary deity" field.

Having these two properties would allow one to query for all catholic churches in Lombardy dedicated to Saint Roch or all temples in India dedicated to Ganesha. --DarTar (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@DarTar: For the dedication, named after (P138) will be the best property. A church dedicated to Saint Roch is technicly a churh named after (P138) --> Saint Roch (Q152457). For the first point, religion (P140) seem to be human only. The solution is probably to add a «catholic place of worship» to all the catholic churches in instance of (P31). --Fralambert (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fralambert:, excellent I think I'll get started with named after (P138). --DarTar (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You should probably also add dedicated to (P825) for catholic churches and maybe diocese (P708) too. Multichill (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

New template[edit]

I've created a new template {{Cultural heritage properties}} to put on the talk page of cultural heritage properties:

Please, add the missing ones. Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tanks, I added some missing properties of Canada and Belgium. I think we should create a third goup for the subnational registeries. --Fralambert (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I added a new group for subnational registeries. --Fralambert (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

List of monuments[edit]

Note that we got this property, Property:P1456. It needs to be added into articles about localities, see Q891 as an example.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ymblanter and thank you ! I'll add it for France communes. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Classification of cultural heritage[edit]

I was thinking of something about the classification of the heritage monument. Actually we have:

< classified heritage immovable (Q13789518) (View with Reasonator) > subclass of (P279) miga < heritage immovable (Q13619657) (View with Reasonator) >
        subclass of (P279) miga < Quebec cultural heritage (Q3370013) (View with Reasonator) >
        subclass of (P279) miga < heritage place of Canada (Q14469659) (View with Reasonator) >
        subclass of (P279) miga < cultural property (Q2065736) (View with Reasonator) >

It is fine for the hierachical classification but what I ask myself if should we create new way to go to cultural property (Q2065736). Technicly, classified heritage immovable (Q13789518) is a provincial protected heritage property, so I can also say

< classified heritage immovable (Q13789518) (View with Reasonator) > subclass of (P279) miga < sub-national protected heritage site >
        subclass of (P279) miga < sub-national heritage site >
        subclass of (P279) miga < cultural property (Q2065736) (View with Reasonator) >


< classified heritage immovable (Q13789518) (View with Reasonator) > subclass of (P279) miga < sub-national protected heritage site >
        subclass of (P279) miga < protected heritage site >
        subclass of (P279) miga < cultural property (Q2065736) (View with Reasonator) >

. It could be a good idea, with the right classification, we could possibly ask for all the heritage monument by the municipalities in a county, or all the commemorative heritage designation (like national historic site of Canada (Q1568567)) in a region. --Fralambert (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Little problem about Rideau Canal (Q651323)[edit]

Rideau Canal (Q651323) I have a little problem about Rideau Canal (Q651323). With the canal, world heritage inscription also include the canal itself, but also five forts in Kingston, Ontario[4]. Should I create a new item for the world heritage site? We have somelike case in the Bistro and it generally finish by the creation of a new item. --Fralambert (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say creating a new item is a goor idea. The world heritage site is clearly notable. And it should be obviuosly connected to the forts and to the canal.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: ✓ Done With Rideau Canal (Q18087815) --Fralambert (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A another canadian problem (battle)[edit]

I have a another case for the canadian heritage site. Many old national historic site of Canada (Q1568567) are named in commemoration of battle, like Battle of Trois-Rivières (Q1247957) for the American Independance War, Battle of Stoney Creek (Q177470) of the War of 1812, and Battle of Cut Knife (Q963444) for the North-West Rebellion. I understand I have to create a item for the place and a item for the event, but how I shoud name them? the exact name of the battle with for description this is a national historic site of Canada (Q1568567)? --Fralambert (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Name them the same and add different descriptions.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Cultural Heritage, WLM, and the Main page[edit]

Hey all, I'm a member of the WikiProject Interesting Content which helps coordinate content to feature on Wikidata's Main page. The Main page is next scheduled for an update around October 7th and I thought it'd be nice to feature something related to the end of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition. Given the overlap of cultural heritage interest between this WikiProject and WLM, I wondered if anyone here had any ideas as to what might be a good thing to highlight for Wikidata's contributions to WLM? I'd love to hear your suggestions here or (even better) as a submission. Thanks. -Thepwnco (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

New property: P1551[edit]

I added a new property Exceptional heritage of Wallonia identifier (P1551) of the Q2218240 (Q2218240). --Fralambert (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research[edit]

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). It would be great if you would see room for interaction! Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Monuments in Portugal[edit]

I've been working with mapping Commons Institution pages to Wikidata items, and I have run across several Portugese monuments (identified by templates on their Commons category pages):

We don't have Properties to record these IGESPAR and SIPA IDs in. Even if we don't have a way to do a mass import at this stage, are there any concerns about requesting the Properties for manual entry? - PKM (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You can propose the creation of new properties here. If your ID are already in a template, they sould not be a problem to import it by a bot from wikidata. I done the same think with DGO4 identifier (P1133). --Fralambert (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Properties proposed. Please discuss. - PKM (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Baudenkmal Bavaria[edit]

I created a new item Mount Calvary Church (Q18755185) and I have tagged it heritage status (P1435) Baudenkmal (Bavaria) (Q17297633) - is that right? I couldn't find a property for the identifier. - PKM (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If I look Baudenkmal (Q15632117) you seem to have done the right think. There is probably lot of types of protection with no element. There is also a lot of property identifiers who don't exist in wikidata. The template about the identifiers is {{Cultural heritage properties}}. --Fralambert (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)