User talk:2001:7D0:81F7:B580:299E:A91:B1F3:A29F

Protected natural objects in Germany

Please do not change the definition of protected area of Germany (Q20296613) this item is used in many times and a change like this needs a discussion first. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

User:GPSLeo, I just looked through these uses and they should be fine now. All in all I think it makes more sense now as not all protected objects (Nationales Naturmonument and Naturdenkmal, already were subclasses of this class) are protected areas. Also in this way this root class for protected natural objects in Germany is better defined, i.e. we can refer to a law text instead of inventing a loosely defined combination of national and internaional protected area designations. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:299E:A91:B1F3:A29F 13:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

These item should not be the root class for every nature protection in Germany. Nature monuments do not have to have an area but by law they are protected areas and in most databases they are in the same category like the "real" areas. If you think there should an item for this you should create a new one. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

User:GPSLeo, what law provision you refer to by saying "by law they are protected areas"? Generic "geschützte Teile von Natur und Landschaft" category from Bundesnaturschutzgesetz to my understanding isn't necessarily a protected area. How comes that they are in the same category like the "real" areas if there are separate categories Nationales Naturmonument and Naturdenkmal?

Currently, as protected area of Germany (Q20296613) is a subclass of protected area (Q473972) then all instances of Q20296613 are also classified as protected area < geographic region, e.g. König-Ludwig-Eiche (Q16459) as an instance is protected area and geographic region etc. What I did in my opinion was a rather straightforward way to fix this.

If "protected area of Germany" is a separate class then how exactly is it defined, how do we know what are appropraite subclasses? For instances, is "geschützter Landschaftsbestandteil" along with all its instances a subclass of "real" protected area, or are they more like individual objects of class Naturdenkmal? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:299E:A91:B1F3:A29F 13:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright I'll create a new item "geschützte Teile von Natur und Landschaft" then. Also I hope you don't mind if I use it in place of "protected area" for Nationales Naturmonument and Naturdenkmal in order to make classification more accurate. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:299E:A91:B1F3:A29F 14:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In Germany there are 8 types of protected areas defined by the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (Q1006423).(There are areas by international and European law too, but they always are protected by the national law too) The structure on commons and dewiki is also not differing if the protected area really has an area and natural monument in Germany (Q21573182) can also have an area. And also if the natural monument in Germany (Q21573182) is just one tree it is not a dot the tree has a width, that is just not mentioned in the most cases. May we should discus if subclass of (P279) geographic region (Q82794) at protected area (Q473972) should be changed. --GPSLeo (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

8 types of national protected objects is what I also found from law text. But I still haven't found where does it tell that these 8 types are all areas.

At least in German Wikipedia Naturdenkmal category isn't a subcategory of protected areas. It is indeed in Commons and English Wikipedia, but this seems to be a mistake.

Well, trees, boulders and other smaller objects, even if not merely a dot, are generally not described as areas, are they? Possibly Naturdenkmal has some sort of limitaton zone of radius of, lets say 10 meters, surrounding it. If there is such zone and it should be considered as part of the protected object then we should also consider the tree and the project object as different entities and there should probably be different Wikidata items. Is this the case and are you suggesting that? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:299E:A91:B1F3:A29F 14:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we cant decide if we change this or not yet, we should discuss this here: Wikidata talk:WikiProject Protected areas --GPSLeo (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Instances of rock etc.

Hello, I'm Hazard-Bot. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. Feel free to use the sandbox for test edits. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Hazard-Bot (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)--NewDataB (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

User:NewDataB, what exactly is the problem with these edits? In my opinion they are straightforward error corrections. As described in edit summary: item is about particular location (a landform), so it should not be set an instance of rock (Q8063) or metamorphic rock. Instance of rock (material) would be particular piece of rock, not a landform. Also, why would you keep erroneous duplicate coordinates for Motuhaua Rock (Q32283472)? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:299E:A91:B1F3:A29F 14:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)