Just to say I strongly disagree on your characterisation of the use of
this ID as a "hack" and that it should be actively discouraged. Not all
countries are as fortunate as others, and having comprehensive coverage of
all the relevant sites on Wikipedia with unique identifiers from state
bodies is a massive hurdle to overcome for many of us. Assuming that the
whole world can meet you at the standard you are accustomed to is
incredibly unfair, and dismisses the difficulties many countries face in
In the Irish context we have found the P2186 a very neat solution to a
systemic issue we face regarding data on Irish monuments and other listed
buildings, and in the 4 years since we started using those IDs with
Monumental, it has not only facilitated a huge amount of participation, but
the Irish system has not been updated to a point that we have
another system of unique IDs to fall back on. And this is an EU country
with supposedly all the benefits that that entails. An alternative
"scalable solution" has yet to otherwise manifest.
Fair enough if you don't like a particular system of IDs, but I don't
think completely writing it off is fair on those for whom it has been
On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 22:40, Maarten Dammers <maarten(a)mdammers.nl> wrote:
On 29-04-2021 11:27, Josephine Lim wrote:
Hope you are all safe and well. After having finalized our plans for
WLM integration into the Commons app based on community feedback
posted to this mailing list a couple of months
ago), we have started
work on implementation.
Good to hear you're working on this! One of things I
see on that page is
the mention of the importance of the unique ID. That was always the case
before we had Wikidata. Now every Wikidata item has an unique qID so
that makes the unique identification a lot easier.
We have run into a bit of an issue, however, that we are hoping to get
help with. The initial plan (based on the discussion at
and at the abovementioned wiki page) was to use
Wikidata as our data
source, displaying all Wikidata items with the identifier property of
P2186 (Wiki Loves Monuments ID) on our map.
I'll say it a bit stronger than
the other commenters: Don't ever use
P2186 (Wiki Loves Monuments ID). That's the horrible hack/work around
that got introduced for countries that didn't have a well documented ID.
However we have now found out that some countries don't use P2186 at
all. Someone kindly linked
me, and based on that it seems that there is a
rather large variety of
identifiers that different countries use.
Realistically speaking, it would be really difficult for us to account
for every possible identifier that every country uses, and it would
also make stability and maintenance much more tricky. We can try, but
it would be risky and tedious.
On the other hand, it was suggested to me that if there is WLM
community consensus that P2186 should be used as a universal
identifier, countries might be willing to adopt P2186 for the sake of
Relic from the past. Usage should be reduced, not expanded.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Why do you need the ID again? What problem are you trying to solve?
Every in scope item should have heritage designation (P1435) on it. You
can just query SPARQL for that with distance or bounding box to get
Also because most (all?) heritage properties need this P1435, it's
usually added as a constraint for which you can query, see
For fun and to show what's possible, a query of all different types of
monuments around the tripoint where Belgium, German and the Netherlands
I'm sure we can figure out a nice scalable solution.
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
PhD in Digital Media
Project Coordinator Wikimedia Community Ireland <http://wikimedia.ie>
Vice Chair of Women in Technology and Science <https://witsireland.com/>
Secretary of the National Committee for Commemorative Plaques in Science