User talk:MB-one/Archive/2019/03

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata weekly summary #354

Wikidata weekly summary #355

caution about conflating conglomerates

@MB-one: Please be careful not to conflate the following:

I replaced an edit, but I wanted to send a follow-up. Regards. Trilotat (talk)

@Trilotat:,
Thanks for notifying. Can you point me to the specific item, so I can investigate, what went wrong?
Cheers --MB-one (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@MB-one:You marked Hotauta Conglomerate Member (Q57655368) as the legal form of conglomerate (Q778575). Not throwing stones (pun intended). Trilotat (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Trilotat: Oh, now I see. My query picked up on Hotauta Conglomerate Member (Q57655368)instance of (P31)conglomerate (Q778575), where it really should have been Hotauta Conglomerate Member (Q57655368)instance of (P31)conglomerate (Q191704) all along. Thank you for fixing this. --MB-one (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I think the geology project would have us mark it as instance of formation and material used conglomerate. That's a problem for another discussion, though. Cheers.Trilotat (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #356

Wikidata weekly summary #357

I note that currently there are 7579 items for which legal from is set as voluntary association (Q48204). Most of it seems to be set by you. Q48204 is a generic class that isn't associated to particular legal form in any particular legal system. For these items it should be found out what the actual legal form is, i.e. whether it's eingetragener Verein (Q9299236), association under the French law of 1901 (Q11513034), registered association (Q7383772) etc. It's also possible that among these 7579 items there are entities that don't have their own legal form, e.g. in case they operate in composition of another entity that is a legal entity instead. Since legal form being set as Q48204 is rather meaningless and misleading, I'd suggest removing these claims. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:DDE8:7CDA:8A0B:94CB 13:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your message. The question you should brought up, question should be discussed on Talk:Q48204. If voluntary association (Q48204) isn't a subclass of (P279) of legal form (Q12047392), then of course it shouldn't be used as a value for legal form (P1454). --MB-one (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm asking you since you added this relation to many items. Even if it was an instance (not subclass) of legal form then what made you think that it was an appropriate legal form for all these items? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:1917:69C6:F537:A0C4 07:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
voluntary association (Q48204) was indeed classified as an instance of type of business entity (Q1269299), which is a subclass of legal form (Q12047392), at the time, the statement was added. --MB-one (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)