Wikidata:Property proposal/Global Geoparks Network ID (new)
Global Geoparks Network ID
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place
| Description | identifier for an item in the Global Geoparks Network(Q2411651) |
|---|---|
| Represents | Global Geoparks Network (Q2411651) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | UNESCO Global Geopark (Q53444003) |
| Allowed values | ([A-Z][a-z]+)+/\d+ |
| Example 1 | Bohemian Paradise (Q341327) → CzechRepublic/12516 |
| Example 2 | Luberon Regional Nature Park (Q2138343) → France/12520 |
| Example 3 | Vikos–Aoös National Park (Q376436) → Greece/12534 |
| Source | text search · map search |
| Formatter URL | http://www.globalgeopark.org/GeoparkMap/geoparks/$1.htm |
Motivation
[edit]I won't explain here why the concept of UNESCO Global Geopark (Q53444003) is important.
Until some minutes ago, the links generated by the current property Global Geoparks Network ID (former scheme) (P2467) were not working (example), so I fixed them in this way. Anyway, the current identifiers are based on this list, which is not updated any longer. This makes the current property obsolete.
The problem is that the new identifiers are not deducible from the old ones. Some examples:
Also notice that the URL body (not only the ID part) is different and that the data contained in the old description page does not overlap with the new one.
Thus, a new property is necessary and the old one should be declared obsolete. --Horcrux (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Protected areas --Horcrux (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- This needs a different name to the existing property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Are you sure this is the usual/sound way of handling cases like this one? Here we have a different kind of URL and a different ID for each item. Making all such changes in the current property may cause inconsistencies with its current external usages.
- Also, here is a precedent of which I can remember. --Horcrux (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: Here's another precedent (that you supported). --Horcrux (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure my point is correct; and the name of that property (in English) is "Flora of Australia ID (new)" (and in fact I didn't express support for it, though I had no objections). I said nothing about "Making... changes in the current property". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misunderstood your suggestion. --Horcrux (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure my point is correct; and the name of that property (in English) is "Flora of Australia ID (new)" (and in fact I didn't express support for it, though I had no objections). I said nothing about "Making... changes in the current property". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: Here's another precedent (that you supported). --Horcrux (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Update the exiting property. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Thierry Caro: Do you see that the new ID belongs to a distinct dataset and that the data contained in the old description page does not overlap with the new one? --Horcrux (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think th new one is enough. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Thierry Caro: Do you see that the new ID belongs to a distinct dataset and that the data contained in the old description page does not overlap with the new one? --Horcrux (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I work a lot with UNESCO and if there are any questions for staff I could try and ask please ping me. --John Cummings (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @John Cummings: My main question would be: what's the point in having two different pages for the same geopark (e.g. [1] vs. [2]) and why for the new page they didn't reuse the content of the old one? --Horcrux (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - There are only 169 entries, the IDs don't appear to stable and based on the map data, the IDs also appear to only be the numeric part (watching the network requests, the data returned includes the keys "GeoParkID" and "GeoParkURL", e.g. GeoParkID: 12508, GeoParkURL: "/GeoparkMap/geoparks/Austria/12508.htm"), meaning that the URLs can't be determined from the ID alone. I think described at URL (P973) should be used instead. - Nikki (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done - no support for the proposal --DannyS712 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)