Talk:Q2174038

This item is about period in history of the country. Country in this period is not considered a country of its own. Properties like end/start time, time dissolved, followed by, are subject of a country itself which is another item. Hence I'll remove these properties from here. 90.191.81.65 11:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably you are right. From one hand, the territory is the same so it can be regarded as a period in history; from other hand, this periods (1920-1940 and 1990-) are separated and have their own properties. How do you imaging the statement

⟨ Estonia (Q191)    ⟩ dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) ⟨ 6 августа 1940 ⟩

or

⟨ Estonia (Q191)    ⟩ followed by (P156) ⟨ Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (Q130280)    ⟩

? While here these statements are appropriate and useful. --Infovarius (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

To me it seems that Wikidata isn't a good platform to describe course of history in detail, and this necessarily isn't the purpose here. So a couple of these statements might be better dropped as not so useful to describe complex concepts. We could consider adding date dissolved to country item using qualifer statement is subject of (P805). But I didn't add it at the moment as concept of dissolving is dubious here. I believe that what this date stands for needs to be described in greater depth than a statement allows. Start of an occupation necessarily isn't dissolving. The same way it's hard to make a straightforward claim on "followed by" like this as earlier entity necessarily didn't end, but is also considered to have co-existed with the latter entity in a de jure form, see state continuity of the Baltic states (Q7603672) on this.

Regarding other statements that you restored. This item already is part of "history of Estonia" which in turn is an instance of history of a country or state (Q17544377), so the latter shouldn't be necessary here. 2 February 1920 as an inception date with a qualifer may be added to country item, but I doubt if it's necessary. Wikipedias generally don't mention this as an inception, and also, inception and recognition (this is a date of recognition by particular country) are generally different concepts. Lastly, Estonia Governorate (Q720496) is mentioned in country item using "replaces" qualifier instead of "follows" statement.

Either ways, period item should have statements that describe period, and ones describing counry should belong to country item. 90.191.81.65 18:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, it is a question if this item is about a period or a different state (or administrative unit). Another example: the state Interwar Lithuania (Q8272919) != the state Lithuania (Q37). --Infovarius (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it isn't considered a different state in Estonia and generally not elsewhere either (see article about state continuity above). It seems to have been mixed up based on fact that in relevant articles some Wikipedias use the same infobox that they use for countries and it allows mechanical import of infobox data. If it is considered a separate country widely enough too in some sources, then I believe sources need to be given to show what the exact claim and its interpretations are, e.g. if the claim is that Baltic states joined the union on their own accord then what is its relation to state continuity. If there is something then based on that it should be figured out what of it is straighforward enough to be presented in form of statements here, what would be appropriate qualifers, or, perphaps, whether there should be a separate item. As it widely isn't considered to be a different state, then merely saying the opposite is simply misleading. Lithuania seems to have been mixed up the same way (by the same user). 90.191.81.65 06:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It currently seems at least two users (Bouzinac and Infovarius) have decided to ignore the discussion above for reasons unknown. --Ehitaja (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)