Property talk:P2614
Documentation
selection criteria for UNESCO's cultural and natural 'World Heritage' designation since 2005
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2614#One of, values statistics, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2614#Item P1435, search
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
Creation discussion[edit]
|Replaces P2609; see Wikidata:Project chat#Wrong datatype for 'World Heritage criteria (2005) (P2609)' property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
P2614 as a qualifier of P1435[edit]
I just added World Heritage criteria (P2614) as a accepted qualifier of heritage designation (P1435). My question is more if World Heritage criteria (P2614) sould have a qualifier only violation or not. For exemple I have Miguasha National Park (Q631128) as a qualifier and Llotja de la Seda (Q588009) as not. --Fralambert (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Fralambert:Sorry for the delayed answer. When I asked for this Property, I was thinking it should be a qualifier of heritage designation (P1435) when World Heritage Site (Q9259) similar to start time (P580), as it appears in Miguasha National Park (Q631128). However, after creation NavinoEvans uploaded all values from Official site as an independent Property. In order to not overload items with several properties, I rather the first option, but fix it now is not on my hands, cause it should be done by a bot (i don't known, sorry). Actually, I'm preparing Infobox (in catalan WP) to get data from WD and it's a good moment to close a decision. Probably @NavinoEvans: can help us. Thanks, --Amadalvarez (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fralambert, Amadalvarez: It's not to hard to revert to the qualifier method if that is preferred? It sounds slightly better to me as well. I originally just added it directly to the items because the example that is given in the property creation box above showed it used that way. What do you think? Should we do a mass switch? I'm happy to do the edits and it shouldn't take too long. Cheers, NavinoEvans (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fralambert, NavinoEvans:, I just build an Infobox for any kind of building which recover several items from WD, specially all the heritage protection. You can see it at ca:Plantilla:Infotaula edifici. So, now I feel a little bit lazy to make changes. More over, I never used a multivalue qualifier. Is it possible/easy ? Does it looks like as in Palau de la Música Catalana (Q327940) ?. Thanks a lot!.--Amadalvarez (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Amadalvarez: I you want a exemple of a items with multiple values, I have Grand-Pré (Q1100749) and Rideau Canal (Q18087815). --Fralambert (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fralambert, NavinoEvans: I see. It's like I thought, but I don't know how recover it. I use module:wikidata to access Property (single or multivalued) and single Qualifiers of a Property (even multivalued), but a multivalued Qualifier of a multivalued Property it's unknown to me. Do you know how ?. Thanks,--Amadalvarez (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Amadalvarez: I you want a exemple of a items with multiple values, I have Grand-Pré (Q1100749) and Rideau Canal (Q18087815). --Fralambert (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fralambert, NavinoEvans:, I just build an Infobox for any kind of building which recover several items from WD, specially all the heritage protection. You can see it at ca:Plantilla:Infotaula edifici. So, now I feel a little bit lazy to make changes. More over, I never used a multivalue qualifier. Is it possible/easy ? Does it looks like as in Palau de la Música Catalana (Q327940) ?. Thanks a lot!.--Amadalvarez (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fralambert, Amadalvarez: It's not to hard to revert to the qualifier method if that is preferred? It sounds slightly better to me as well. I originally just added it directly to the items because the example that is given in the property creation box above showed it used that way. What do you think? Should we do a mass switch? I'm happy to do the edits and it shouldn't take too long. Cheers, NavinoEvans (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Amadalvarez, Fralambert: I don't have any experience with module:Wikidata yet, so not sure about that one. Maybe we should just leave everything as is for now as nothing is actually broken? We can always return to this later if we really feel we need to change the structure to the preferred qualifier method. By the way, super work on the Wikidata sourced infoboxes Amadalvarez! NavinoEvans (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fralambert, NavinoEvans:. Yes, better to me. Thanks for your congratulations. It was hard, but it really does worth (when wikidata is full informed, of course). See you, --Amadalvarez (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Repurposing/reforming this property[edit]
A discussion is under way about changing this property so that it can apply to heritage programs beyond just World Heritage. See: Wikidata:Property proposal/NRHP criteria. — Ipoellet (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)