Wikidata:Property proposal/Glacier Status

glacier status

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Done: glacier status (P7442) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Indicates whether a glacier is retreating, surging, or stable. Qualify each value with "point in time" (P585) to indicate when.
Represents	glacier (Q35666)
Data type	Item
Allowed values	retreating, surging, stable, extinct
Example 1	Arapaho Glacier (Q4784181) → retreating point in time (P585) July 2019
Example 2	Grinnell Glacier (Q634287) → retreating point in time (P585) July 2019
Example 3	Panmah Glacier (Q7131340) → surging point in time (P585) July 2019
Planned use	Add statuses to glaciers currently in wikidata

Motivation

This is a very valuable indicator so that users can be able to tell the status of a glacier, particularly as their melting has advanced in recent years. this will allow users to be able to collate and correlate glacier statuses with particular areas Etradio1 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support David (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there existing organizations that model glaciers this way? If so, can you provide a few links to them? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl:The WGMS probably is the entity that most closely matches it, but their terminology is somewhat predictably towards glaciologists and hence might be too granular (WGMS-FoG-2018-06-F-SPECIAL-EVENT found at https://wgms.ch/data_exploration/). This type of information is usually derivable as in the NSIDC's GLIMS database (https://www.glims.org/) but isn't explicitly indicated.Etradio1 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that they say on their homepage that their data is freely available and thus we might want to import their data directly. For that it would make sense to use the same classification. Do you see a reason against this approach? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: That makes sense to me Etradio1 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Etradio1: Are you yourself interested in running such a bot import or do we need someone else for the bot work? In anycase I think we should specify here how certain data on the wgms website should be translated into Wikidata before we create the property. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I could probably find some time to do the bot import unless you know somebody else eager to work on this.

Comment item datatype would probably work better with a series of new or existing items as values to pick from. point in time (P585) as qualifier is probably needed. --- Jura 11:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jura here. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already changed to item @Iwan.Aucamp: Etradio1 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Apologies for a probably dumb question, but is there a way to add the qualifier into the property proposal?Etradio1 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it above. Feel free to revert it. --- Jura 13:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Depending on the reference at hand, maybe start time (P580)/end time (P582) could work too.--- Jura 13:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Etradio1 (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This could be the job of an extended state of conservation (P5816) that would not focus on buildings only. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Glacier can be retreating and not have some conservation classification, not sure this is a good approach. There may be more generic properties that could make sense but this may not be it. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Iwan.Aucamp: Etradio1 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I agree with Thierry, so Oppose at the moment --Sabas88 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment@Sabas88, Thierry Caro: My concern with folding it into that category is that the terms used to define states for buildings is going to be quite different than for natural objects - i.e. demolished vs. surging. I think there could be some substantial semantic mismatching here. Etradio1 (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Etradio1: The question about the datatype is still open. Can we change this to item? --- Jura 09:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment@Jura1: I'm open to changing it - what's your rationale? Etradio1 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The value is a concept, not a word and there are just couple of possible values to pick from. Besides, it's good if these can be translated. --- Jura 13:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - i've adjusted it Etradio1 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support amended proposal --- Jura 14:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think this may be a bit too temporal to make sense - but still I think it would be good to see how it works. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anarchivist (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]