Talk:Q27096220
Autodescription — natural geographic entity (Q27096220)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “natural geographic entity” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
natural geographic entity⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Distinction between this and physico-geographical object (Q20719696) and natural geographic object (Q35145263)[edit]
The intended distinctions between natural geographic entity (Q27096220), physico-geographical object (Q20719696) and natural geographic object (Q35145263) are obscure (at least to me). Let's try and pin them down. JesseW (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: distinguished them as follows:
- Q27096220=natural geographic entity / естественная географическая сущность : not necessary object, can be some boundary or space
- Q35145263 = natural geographic object / естественный географический объект :
geographical object created by natural causes / географический объект, возникший в природе сам по себе
- Q20719696 = physico-geographical object / физико-географический объект : more general (can be created by humans too)
Some of current subclass relations between them are: ( <- implying subclass of (P279))
- geographic entity (Q27096213) <- natural geographic entity (Q27096220) <- natural geographic object (Q35145263)
- geographic entity (Q27096213) <- geographical feature (Q618123) <- natural geographic object (Q35145263)
- physical object (Q223557) <- natural physical object (Q16686022) <- natural geographic object (Q35145263)
- geographic entity (Q27096213) <- geographical feature (Q618123) <- physico-geographical object (Q20719696)
- physical object (Q223557) <- physico-geographical object (Q20719696)
The first question this brings up for me is, what's an example of a natural, but non-physical, geographic entity? I can certainly think of artificial non-physical geographic entities (national borders come to mind, most obviously), but not natural ones. Suggestions welcomed. JesseW (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Another question that comes up is, what's the distinction between physico-geographical object (Q20719696) and geographical feature (Q618123)? They both have the same superclasses, and don't otherwise appear to be distinct. I've now marked it with said to be the same as (P460), and will actually merge it in a while if there are no objections. JesseW (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't any human-made physical-geographic object be an architectural structure, as in architectural structure (Q811979)? --Alexzabbey (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- example of a natural, but non-physical, geographic entity? Coastline, sea level... human-made physical-geographic object be an architectural structure? What about ponds or kurgan (Q5737)? --Infovarius (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)