Property talk:P8409

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Amenity OBJECTID
identifier from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency geodata table with amenities related to protection areas
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Type “shelter (Q989946): item must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “shelter (Q989946)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8409#Type Q989946, SPARQL
Item “country (P17): Sweden (Q34): Items with this property should also have “country (P17): Sweden (Q34)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8409#Item P17, search, SPARQL
Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8409#Entity types

Why keeping this property?[edit]

This property isn't used in any item (except for a non-notable one created just upon the proposal), and its source seems to be discontinued. How should it be used? Is it useful at all?

Pinging the creator So9q and the property supporters: @ChristianKl, Salgo60, 轻语者: Horcrux (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no usage in 4 years so just propose the property for deletion. If the property proposer still claim the property is useful let them prove it by populating it, no point in asking for opinions. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, having a discussion about whether there should be a discussion to delete it is unnecessary. Just go ahead and propose it for deletion. ChristianKl20:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably more like this that should be deleted. Properties proposed willy-nilly and then discarded _should_ be deleted within a reasonable timeframe, I would say one year is pretty reasonable. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]