Wikidata:Property proposal/dam
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
dam
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place
| Description | construction impounding this watercourse or creating this reservoir |
|---|---|
| Represents | dam (Q12323) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | watercourse (Q355304) or reservoir (Q131681) or flood control basin (Q41577841) |
| Allowed values | Instances of dam (Q12323) or its subclasses |
| Example | |
| Planned use | Q46849340 and Q46849415 |
| See also | reservoir created (P4661) |
- Motivation
The relation between a watercourse (Q355304) and its dam (Q12323) is so basic I feel like we should have a dedicated property, easy to use on Infobox templates such as Q46849340, instead of the currently unspecific has part(s) (P527), crosses (P177) or has facility (P912). This new Wikidata property related to dams (Q46641179) would also be used on any reservoir (Q131681) as an inverse property (P1696) the recently created reservoir created (P4661) (while not having reservoir created (P4661) as its inverse property (P1696)). We'll be able to store and use everything very easily after that. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
Comment @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ArthurPSmith, Pintoch, PKM: Pinged for your interest in reservoir created (P4661). Thierry Caro (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Support David (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I think these relationships are captured now via located in/on physical feature (P706) on the dam, so I don't think we need an inverse for that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: The thing is when a big reservoir (Q131681) is created by a dam (Q12323), the latter may appear as it is no longer really on the incoming river, which makes located in/on physical feature (P706) akward. It's then much more connected to the lake into which the rivers now flows, and this we capture through reservoir created (P4661). But the connection between dam and river is left to deduction. I believe a new direct property should cover this, maybe renamed impounded by, if this makes things better. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support (note, I tend to support inverse properties in general.) - PKM (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support I, too, support inverses. I don't think that a dam is in any meaningful way "located on terrain feature" of the lake it created. Right now we lack a clear pointer from the lake to the dam that causes the lake and like TC I'm completely unconvinced by the workarounds currently employed, and convinced the relationship is obvious enough that it deserves an unambiguous property. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Can we add flood control basin (Q41577841) to the domain for this property? See Sepulveda Flood Control Basin (Q41577577) and Sepulveda Dam (Q7452396) which are currently unlinked. - PKM (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- @PKM: Yes. This is OK, as far as I'm concerned. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Thierry Caro, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, PKM, Tagishsimon:
Done ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
