Wikidata:Property proposal/provisions

provisions

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Not done

Description	provisions often available at the location of the item
Data type	Item
Domain	shelter (Q7493941)
Example 1	Q96278337 → firewood
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING
Planned use	in describing the non permanent facilities at lean-tos

Motivation

In groups of hikers it is often published whether there is a place for firewood and whether it is stocked at the moment. I don't know if or how we should best model this. Maybe modeling only the firewood shed (with has facility (P912)) is the best option? In some cases there is firewood present but not a dedicated shed for it (it might be left inside the lean-to along the walls e.g. It would be very nice to also model who stocks the firewood so hikers can ask for replenishment.--So9q (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Oppose This is too fine detail, and too volatile, for Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I would recommend using something like has facility (P912):firewood (Q35808) - the firewood is a facility, if a pretty low-tech one. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray: So your solution would be to add facility (Q13226383) to firewood (Q35808)? Otherwise what do you suggest to solve the issue of the constraint? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: (have corrected my comment, thanks for spotting it was the wrong item!) I think there are basically three options for describing things like this:

a) a dedicated property (this proposal)

b) has facility (P912):firewood (Q35808) and broaden the constraints on P912 to eg include subclasses of fuel

c) has facility (P912):supply of firewood - a new item which could be a subclass of facility (Q13226383)/storage (Q9158768) (this is like the suggested option to model the firewood shed, but without necessarily saying it's a shed...)

I'm not sure which of these is best, but I think b or c would be a better overall solution than a. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! :)--So9q (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray, Pigsonthewing, So9q: Not done, use has facility (P912). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Q_Item_that_has_no_name could be linked to what? –To nothing. —Eihel (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]