Property talk:P814
Documentation
protected areas category by the World Commission on Protected Areas. Used with dedicated items for each category.
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P814#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P814#Type Q473972, Q23790, Q544008, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P814#Item P17, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P814#Item P131, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P814#Item P625, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P814#Item P2046, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P814#Item P18, SPARQL
Value unknown (Q24238356) will be automatically replaced to value SOMEVALUE. Testing: TODO list |
Value incognita (Q2743596) will be automatically replaced to value SOMEVALUE. Testing: TODO list |
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
“single” constraint?
[edit]Should we put a “single” constraint since most of the protected areas have only one category (with exception like de French National Parks)? --Fralambert (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Let's try. We can remove it if there too many false positives. -- Docu at 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
instance of constraint
[edit]Why is it required to have instance of (P31) to be exactly protected area (Q473972), and not allowing subclasses? That would require to add this field redundantly, even though it is already implicitly given by the actual instance. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Ahoerstemeier: I changed it for a type constraint. --Fralambert (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Area constraint
[edit]Possibly area constraint should be either dropped or it'd benefit from adding specifing conditions. This is because WDPA item doesn't have to be an area, especially regarding those of IUCN category III (natural monument). See also Talk:Q12362543. --90.191.81.65 14:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
IUCN management category
[edit]protectedplanet.org uses term IUCN management category. I think it's worthwhile to use this as property label instead of current "IUCN protected areas category". Then it's hopefully more clear that IUCN categories are not applied on only protected areas, but on individual protected objects, too. So hopefully there'll be less confusion around constraints (see comment on area constraint above) and classification of objects assigned into IUCN categories. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:DDF7:3D04:2313:191 09:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Related discussion
[edit]See Wikidata:Property proposal/protected region scheme. --- Jura 08:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)