Le jeu. 2 mai 2019 à 15:42, Jean-Philippe Béland a
écrit :
> I think a map would be "depicts: map" not the park itself... the same way
> the flag of a country "depicts: flag" or even "depicts: national flag of X"
> (as the items may exist), but it doesn't depict the country itself.
>
> JP
>
I think a map would be "depicts: map" not the park itself... the same way
the flag of a country "depicts: flag" or even "depicts: national flag of X"
(as the items may exist), but it doesn't depict the country itself.
JP
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 7:27 PM effe iets anders
wrote:
> While I agree
In the case Uluru it does depict the whole protected area it's instantly
recognisable. People dont talk about going to Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National
Park they say they are going to Uluru... Uluru itself very much depicts
the Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park. Likwise the Pinnicles depicts Nambung
While I agree it is unlikely to accurately depict an 'area', wouldn't it
still be possible? You could have maps for example, or aerial photographs,
or something that clearly symbolizes the area? Maps and aerial photographs
would not be covered by 'located in'.
Lodewijk
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at
Hi y'all,
Yes, as you say if a depict a *place* you may could say so, but not an
*area*, an area is a concept too wide (both theoretically and practically)
to be depicted (ant it's not really useful as the place should connected to
the area on the Wikidata side).
For your example, a photo can
If an image depicts a place that is a shot of the protected area which is
readily identifiable as that place then it should say so... whether its
Uluru or Old Faithful people will say so, they're not going to say it
depicts a rock or a geyser. I understand that a plant or animal image it
will
