Wikidata:Property proposal/tourist information point number

‎tourist information point number

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Transportation

   Done: tourist information point number (P12316) (Talk and documentation)

Description	identifier for a tourist information point (guidepost) in the Czech Republic
Represents	tourist information point (Q124169248)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	item
Allowed values	[A-Z]{2}[0-9]{3}
Example 1	Q123557480→SM076
Example 2	Q123739686→SM005
Example 3	Příhrazy (Q123517119)→MB078
Source	http://trasy.kct.cz/
Planned use	move the identifiers from catalog code (P528) to a dedicated property
Number of IDs in source	likely hundreds or low thousands
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	http://trasy.kct.cz/#/?q=$1
Single-value constraint	yes
Distinct-values constraint	yes

Motivation

Currently, catalog code (P528) is used as a sub-optimal solution. We can easily change these to a dedicated property.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Question remains whether we consider these signposts notable for Wikidata. Do we want them? It's a little bit like bus stops and we have those.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think they can be in Wikidata. Czech OSM community has project FODY (photos of signposts) – https://openstreetmap.cz/fody. Unfortunately CC-BY 4.0 only. :/ --Frettie (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

At the beginning of Fody, I lobbied for the signpost data to be kept on Wikidata (with the signpost images on Commons), but unsuccessfully. Not sure what “Unfortunately CC-BY 4.0 only” means. Unfortunately for whom for what reason?

And… I’m not sure having a couple of randomly selected signpost on Wikidata is that useful… There are low tens of thousands of signposts in Czechia. Machine import of those is highly improbable (KČT does not want the data to be open, import from OSM would not be legal), and would basically duplicate OSM data. We have 441 Czech fingerpost items on Wikidata; 438 of those are operated by KČT (and 123 with catalog code (P528)); 204 of those have an image, OK, that is basically the only useful thing there, I’d say (but just two of them have a Commons category).

So, I’m not going to propose deleting those items and forbidding creation of signpost items on Wikidata, but I don’t see its usefulness either, so I don’t really think having a special property is needed.

--Mormegil (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mormegil FYI, most of the items are new and the creator is planning to add more of them and also add the ID to the already-existing items. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mormegil: For your information, and for the record, back when Fody has been created, there was (beside other things) a question about relevance of all signpost images for Commons and whether (mis)using Commons and Wikidata to create a topic-specific database of (mainly Czech) signposts is a good idea. See cf. Commons:Project scope. I am still unsure, whether it would fit (and feel more that it wouldn't). YjM | _d^c 00:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Tobias1984 Vojtěch Dostál YjM Jklamo Walter Klosse Sintakso Matěj Suchánek JAn Dudík Skim Frettie Jura1913 Mormegil Jedudedek marv1N Sapfan Daniel Baránek Draceane Michal Josef Špaček (WMCZ) The photonaut Hartasek Zelenymuzik Gumruch Shadster Dænča M.Rejha Janek Jan Kameníček Eva Vele Linda.jansova Lukša Packa Fukejs Hugo Xmorave2 J.Broukal Lenkakrizova Steam Flow Pavel Bednařík Sanqui

Notified participants of WikiProject Czech RepublicVojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Skim (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Linda.jansova (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support JAn Dudík (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Steam Flow (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Support Zelenymuzik (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Support, an important property for tourism.--Arbnos (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done tourist information point number (P12316) Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Question. Hi @Vojtěch Dostál, I'm wondering why you created this property if you are both proposer and property creator at the same time. Did you know that you can't create your own properties? See WD:PCC (criterion #2). Kirilloparma (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kirilloparma The discussion was already marked as ready, so it was just a technical step for me. Do you think that's still a problem? I have been doing this for ages and nobody complained till now. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vojtěch Dostál The fact that a property can be marked as ready by anyone, yes, this is true, but its creation can only be carried out by the property creator who is not the original proposer or the only one who voted in favor of it. Here are two specific examples where properties were created with similar irregularities:

1. CNGAL entry ID (P10633): the property was created by a property creator (already former) who is the only one who supported the proposal.
2. Discover Moscow ID (P10504): even though this property received minimal support, it was created by the person who proposed it.

To avoid repeating such mistakes made by the mentioned property creator, I suggest to re-read WD:PPC and WD:PTC. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)