_______________________________________________Hi Rebecca,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 this regard.
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 incredibly useful.I think that what Maarten meant to say is that, in the pre-Wikidata era, the requirement to have a unique ID for monuments (in the Wikipedia lists, in the UploadWizard and in all the rest of the tooling) led to the creation of the "WLM ID" for such countries that indeed did not have an ID system.But now, any monument with a Wikidata item, whether or not it is part of a national ID system, will have an identifier: the Q-ID itself − hence why (at first glance at least) there is no need anymore for the legacy custom ID. As I understand it, P2186 was only ever meant as a transitional measure, so that whatever was relying on the previously assigned WLM-ID could have a path to get to the Qids.I would also like to point out that just using "heritage designation" is potentially quite problematic. For example, here in Ireland a huge number of national monuments and listed structures are private property (in the case of the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, private homes, hospitals, care homes) which may have Wikidata items, but for the purposes of Wiki Loves Monuments we cannot be seen to encourage people to trespass or infringe on people's property or privacy by including them on a map or other upload platform. Having the WLM ID allows for greater control over what structures are within the remit of the competition, and protects not only us as the organisers, but our participants as well.Ah, I see! You are effectively using P2186 as a way to curate a subset of P1435. That’s a neat trick ; before deprecating P2186 we should indeed find a suitable way to achieve the same result.@Josephine: Rebecca mentioned Monumental − indeed Monumental already had to solve the same problem (querying Wikidata for monuments, displaying them on a map, allowing upload with the right templates/etc.). Was there ever an issue with the way monumental does it? If not, I’d suggest using that methodology as starting point.I believe the relevant source code for it is:* For WLM-Monumental (ie https://maps.wikilovesmonuments.org/) : https://github.com/hatnote/monumental-wlm/blob/master/src/services/campaigns.service.js* For classic Monumental (ie https://monumental.toolforge.org/ ): https://github.com/hatnote/monumental/blob/HEAD/src/components/main/dashboard/dashboard.js#L97-L123
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list