Talk:Q660310

Autodescription — Lötschberg Base Tunnel (Q660310)

description: 34.6km tunnel opened in 2007

Useful links:

Pretty display of data  (with Wikidata:Reasonator)
Pretty display of data (with Wikidata:Sqid)
View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
Scholia
Report on constraint conformation of “Lötschberg Base Tunnel” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
Number of statements about Lötschberg Base Tunnel by property (query)
All claims about Lötschberg Base Tunnel (query)
List of items with same label (query)
List of lexemes with sense Lötschberg Base Tunnel (query)

See also

This documentation is generated using {{Item documentation}}.

Is this about the tunnel or the railway line? Or both? Wouldn't it make sense to separate the railway line from the tunnel object in Wikidata, and let the railway line "use" the tunnel? --Dieterdreist (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any contradiction between the two statements.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dieterdreist: this item is clearly about the railway tunnel (Q1311958) (which item has already itslef

⟨ railway tunnel (Q1311958)  

 ⟩ part of (P361) ⟨ railway line (Q728937)  

 ⟩

, BTW another property would be more appropriate here). So, I suggest to remove

⟨ Lötschberg Base Tunnel (Q660310)  

 ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ railway line (Q728937)  

 ⟩

which is redundant (and which, FYI, was a bot edit). PS: same proposal for all items in the same situation. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]