User talk:Dhx1/Archive 1

Country_subdivision_task_force/Australia

Hi Dhx1, it seems you set up the Australian task force to work on the country subdivision, but nothing much seems to have happened. I would be interested in helping out a bit as I think most of it should be possible in some automated way.

Do you know what the status is? The task force page has a list of properties to be used, some of them you questioned yourself. Any more clarity? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Country_subdivision_task_force/Australia

Thanks RolandBeck 23:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this project since my last edit in mid 2013. Back then, the properties listed at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Country_subdivision_task_force/Australia were not defined very well and I was guessing as to whether they were applicable. I agree that an automated approach would make a lot more sense, as a lot of the data is freely available from the Australia federal and state governments. Dhx1 (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Embassies in France

Hi,

Why did you remove the claim country (P17) = France (Q142) on the embassies in France? As embassy (Q3917681) don't have extraterritoriality (Q843915), country (P17) = France (Q142) seems fine to me, what is wrong? (plus then if you remove country (P17), it creates a constraint violation as it's expected by Property talk:P131)

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed in the interim until the property descriptions are updated or there is further consensus. I was planning to add some suggestions to Wikidata:WikiProject_International_relations regarding how to use country (P17) with embassy (Q3917681). Given that an embassy (Q3917681) is a subclass of (P279) of organization (Q43229), I would argue that an embassy (Q3917681) can be an occupant (P466) of a chancery (Q2750585), and can be located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) (or visiting in the case of travelling embassies) a subclass of (P279) of geographic location (Q2221906). The use of country (P17) with embassy (Q3917681) then creates ambiguity as to whether the value is the country (P17) sending the embassy (Q3917681), or the country (P17) receiving the embassy (Q3917681).

My bad, I was thinking about the embassies as building not as organisation (I work a lot around buildings on Wikidata). I was mislead by located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and coordinate location (P625) which are for building and not organisation. I think we should split the claims between the organisation and the building.

For example, Embassy of Russia, Paris (Q2841832) was located in Hôtel Thellusson (Q688670) (1818-1863), Hôtel d'Estrées (Q16642856) (1863-1978) and 40-50 boulevard Lannes (1978-now). All the localisation property should go only on the buildings (and other like image (P18) ; plus, country (P17) would be obviously the location country there). I'll let you deal with the organisation part. What do you think?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with an embassy (Q3917681) being an occupant (P466) of a chancery (Q2750585) (or other subclass of (P279) of building (Q41176) in the case of occupation of a shared building (Q41176), such as a hotel (Q27686)). The chancery (Q2750585)/building (Q41176) can then be located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) located in a city (or other location). There are some instances (for example, in the 1800's) where an embassy (Q3917681) visited foreign countries, but were never really an occupant (P466) of a chancery (Q2750585)/building (Q41176), so I still have to find a way to handle this "roaming embassy (Q3917681)" situation. Dhx1 (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

diplomatic mission sent (P531)

Hi, I reverted the examples on diplomatic mission sent (P531) given that this property should have as value an item that is a diplomatic mission, not a country. Im glad of your interest over the question of the intl relations. Regards, Louperivois (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a mistake there. I agree with what you've said. Dhx1 (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)