Wikidata:Property proposal/archaeological site of
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
archaeological site of[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | at this archeological site the object has uncovered |
|---|---|
| Represents | archaeological site (Q839954) |
| Data type | Item |
| Example 1 | Teotihuacan (Q103133838) → Teotihuacan (Q172613) |
| Example 2 | archaeological site of Kish (Q102885646) → Kish (Q132272) |
Motivation[edit]
Archaeological site exist at different timeperiods then the uncovered objects and thus it's benefitial for them to have separate objects. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- So if I understand correctly, you are proposing we split existing archaeological site (Q839954) instances (of which there are 495) into two items each? I don't know that we need a separate property for this. If the intention is to separate, say, Teotihuacan (the defunct city) from Teotihuacan (the geographic place where that city existed), I think you can link those two items with the existing location (P276) and contains settlement (P1383) properties. In the one example you gave though, I'm not sure the items need to be separate at all -- both of the 2 statements on Teotihuacan (Q103133838) currently seem like they could be placed on Teotihuacan (Q172613) instead. --IagoQnsi (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes sense to say that an entity that doesn't exist anymore is a World Heritage Site (Q9259) and the city of archaeological site (Q839954) doesn't exist anymore.
- In this case the archeological site doesn't have a clear start date but there are archeological sites where there's a clear year where the archeologists established the site. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly support separating archeologic sites // ancient city : they differ on discover date, who owns it, who rule(d) it, opening time to visit is obviously appliable to archeological site, not the old city, etc. Different concepts.
- But it's true, can be doable with for instance that kind of statement without specific property : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q102885646#P31 Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- of (P642) can be used but it translates poorly into some languages as the scope of the English word is quite specific to the particularities of the English language, it's generally desireable to have specific properties then to use of (P642) to express important meaning. of (P642) makes queries more complicated as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Support There are sites that are instances of archaeological site (Q839954) and religious object (Q12910132), necropolis (Q200141), hillfort (Q744099) or many others at the same time. The problem is that the latter are types of archaeological site (Q839954) and they can't be added alongside using instance of (P31), so we need another property that will allow to add them and avoid conflating with the class they belong to (please see my initial proposal about this but this one could help do the same thing).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
