Talk:Q12362543
Autodescription — Fahle park (Q12362543)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Fahle park” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Fralambert, being a park (Q22698) is here a defining characteristic. It was a park before it was designated as a protected object, and if protection status will be lifted, then likely it will remain a park. protected park (Q47167727) merely describes its current status. So I'd keep this item as an instance of a park, especially since we have a separate property for heritage status. Note that this is different from protected areas like nature reserve (Q45754521) that essentially are protected areas, they exist because of their official status.
Secondly, inception year and current use of inception (P571) is problematic. "Status year" given at WDPA apparently shouldn't be read as inception year. I don't know what it exactly stands for, but as per environmental register the park was protected already in 1993, not in 2010. Neither do documents attached to this database entry reveal any significant change in protected area's legal status in 2010. Also, as park existed before it was protected, we can't really say that it was created with designation decision. Year could be qualifer under heritage status instead. Though, I'd prefer start time (P580) there. 90.191.81.65 16:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know wath is the way to work on the protected areas in Estonia. I just see that they add UICN catogories (IUCN protected areas category (P814)) for really small places, like trees. For this park maybe we are in the same case of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (Q422211) in England? So for the type constraint in IUCN protected areas category (P814), I think the best is protected park (Q47167727) in instance of (P31) and heritage designation (P1435) and put park (Q22698) as a prefered rank. I just deleted the 2010, the date the date of creation of the protected areas was not the the property constraints. --Fralambert (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't it more like a problem with the constraint itself? I'd tweak/remove the constraint instead of introducing poor workaround for many individual items with the sole purpose of satisfying the constraint. Maybe the constraint could check if either "instance of" or "heritage designation" is an area? Or maybe the constraint could be tied to certain categories, if that was of any help?
- All protected objects of type individual protected natural object (Q25499506) fall into IUCN category III which is for natural monuments. Natural monuments to my understanding don't have to be areas. Also, I checked some uses of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (Q422211) that you refer to, and I didn't find any that were currently instances of a (subclass of) protected area. It seems intentional for this type of objects too. IUCN categories are called "protected area categories", but don't seem to be limited for areas in strict sense. If this is the case, then perhaps the constraint could be dropped all together? 90.191.81.65 21:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)