Wikidata:Property proposal/offers view on
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
offers view on
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place
| Description | Things, places another place offers views on |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | scenic viewpoint (Q6017969), summit (Q207326), multi-story urban building (Q11755959), room (Q180516) with a window (Q35473) or another aperture, etc. |
| Allowed values | Most of the time a geographic location (Q2221906), but really any physical entity that might appear from the viewpoint |
| Example |
- Motivation
We have a property – depicts (P180) – that allows one to store what an onlooker might see when observing a painting or any work of art. But there is no equivalent property to document what a visitor might see from a scenic viewpoint (Q6017969) and from other places and perhaps individual windowed rooms that offer interesting views on certain landscapes. How do we connect Piton de la Fournaise (Q1049644) and Pas de Bellecombe-Jacob (Q3367142), where people stop to look at the volcano? This new property would just do that. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Support although I think architectural structure (Q811979) rather than multi-story urban building (Q11755959) would be better - single storey buildings, buildings not located in urban areas, bridges, etc can have views too. e.g. Pontcysyllte Aqueduct (Q158822) → River Dee (Q1043657). Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not big fan of the label though but have only just thought of something I prefer - "has view of". Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support Since I proposed to Thierry Caro the basic constraints. --Fralambert (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support basic viewpoint property, no identified modelling problem. author TomT0m / talk page 06:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This could quickly become ridiculous. The modest hill near where I live affords a view of at least 100 objects with Wikidata items, probably more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- All in in the "could", isn't it ? :) More seriously, maybe it could be a geoshape datatype but we don't have it yet and no way to express a polygon (I proposed to do this as a list of items a long time ago, why not as qualifiers for convex shapes like union of (P2737)
does now that I think about it again? but at the time it was not very popular). But I think it's too complex for the need. author TomT0m / talk page 13:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- All in in the "could", isn't it ? :) More seriously, maybe it could be a geoshape datatype but we don't have it yet and no way to express a polygon (I proposed to do this as a list of items a long time ago, why not as qualifiers for convex shapes like union of (P2737)
- It's quite easy to add a lot of data to Wikidata. It would be possible to add the daily weight of a famous person for the timespan of multiple years. At the same time we don't do that. I would expect that this property wouldn't be overused and therefore Support. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianKl (talk • contribs) at 12:30, 9 Septemeber 2016 (UTC).
- It's quite easy to add a lot of data to Wikidata. It would be possible to add the daily weight of a famous person for the timespan of multiple years. At the same time we don't do that. I would expect that this property wouldn't be overused and therefore
Comment Have a look at https://www.mountainpanoramas.com/___p/___p.html?panoid=2009_90 and count how many entities with an item you can identify :) --Pasleim (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pasleim: In such a case I guess it could be useful to zoom out on the items and refer items that are composed of those entities :) author TomT0m / talk page 08:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Thierry Caro, Thryduulf, TomT0m, Pasleim, Pigsonthewing:
Done ChristianKl (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)