Property talk:P530

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

diplomatic relation
diplomatic relations of the country
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Symmetric property: if [item A] has this property linked to [item B], then [item B] should also have this property linked to [item A]. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Known exceptions: Qumar (Q23057402)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P530#Symmetric, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Type “state (Q7275): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “state (Q7275)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P530#type Q7275, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Value type “state (Q7275), supranational union (Q1335818): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value state (Q7275), supranational union (Q1335818) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P530#Value type Q7275, Q1335818, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Mandatory qualifier “statement is subject of (P805): this property should be used with the listed qualifier. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P530#mandatory qualifier, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Qualifiers “start time (P580), end time (P582), statement is subject of (P805), diplomatic mission sent (P531), reason for deprecation (P2241): this property should be used only with the listed qualifiers. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P530#Allowed qualifiers, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)

Sources[edit]

Where do we find the source for this one? Danrok (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the use of diplomatic relation (P530) restricted to country with formal diplomatic ties?[edit]

  • The label for the wikidata property in most western language only say "diplomatic relationship" without referring to it as formal or not.
  • However the CJK label for the property refer to "Countries with diplomatic ties" signifying it should only be applied on countries that have formal diplomatic relationships.
  • In the original application for the property, it was not made clear, although the proposed qualifier for start and end date indicate it might mean formal diplomatic relationship.
  • In actual usage, the situation is mixed. For instance, in Taiwan (Q865), you see its diplomatic relation (P530) with countries like United Kingdom (Q145) and Panama (Q804) have been given an end date, there are also the like of United States of America (Q30), Australia (Q408) and Ukraine (Q212) that are not given an end date, especially the relationship between Taiwan (Q865) and Ukraine (Q212) were never formal but they're still linked there (with main article).
  • Could its meaning be standarized?C933103 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • On project chat, @ChristianKl: suggested that the property seems to be used to link articles about bilateral relationship which also cover informal relationship and thus suggest the property should be keep in this way. But if this is the case, then how should we treat those "start date" and "end date" quantifier for the property? C933103 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the information about when a former diplomatic relationship starts or ends should be moved to the individual items. Maybe use instance of (P31) "formal diplomatic relationship" along with "start time"/"end time". Afterwards the qualifiers could be removed from the actual property and the description changed to make it clear that it also includes nonformal relationships. ChristianKl () 12:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it would be best to standardize on the property being used for formal ties. They're a lot more clearly defined than informal ties. --Yair rand (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad UN! Bad! No diplomatic relations for you![edit]

"Entities using the diplomatic relation property should be instances of state (or of a subclass of it), but United Nations currently isn't." So...should its relations with the EU be scrapped from the item, or should something be done here? --Ehitaja (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)