Talk:Q48204
Autodescription — voluntary association (Q48204)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “voluntary association” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
voluntary association⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Relationship with association (Q15911314)[edit]
What is the relationship with association (Q15911314)? Is voluntary association (Q48204) a subclass of association (Q15911314) that is voluntary? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Fnielsen: it's not a subclass. Some association (Q15911314) are also voluntary association (Q48204) but not all voluntary association (Q48204) are association (Q15911314). --MB-one (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Mixed up items? spolek (Q61747587), voluntary association (Q48204), association (Q15911314) and non-governmental organization (Q79913)[edit]
There are these items currently, with there relations
- non-governmental organization (Q79913) - subclass of juridical person (Q155076)
- voluntary association (Q48204) - subclass of non-governmental organization (Q79913)
- association (Q15911314) - subclass of voluntary association (Q48204), subclass of juridical person (Q155076)
- voluntary association (Q48204) - subclass of non-governmental organization (Q79913)
- spolek (Q61747587) - Czech legal form, subclass of voluntary association (Q48204), subclass of juridical person (Q155076), instance of type of business entity (Q1269299)
it seems to me that at least one of them is not necessary. I see at least these problems in this:
- as all of these are subclass (directly or indirectly) of juridical person (Q155076) none of them can denote a general "group of people" wchich is not necesarilly "legally registered body" (juridical person (Q155076)). I think that either voluntary association (Q48204) or association (Q15911314) was originally meant for that.
- If the item voluntary association (Q48204) is left under juridical person (Q155076) than it sould probably be merged with spolek (Q61747587) but it would need to be investigated whether their instances are really juridical person (Q155076)
Note: the item spolek (Q61747587) should exist in some form or other, because it is Czech legal form of forming NGO (according to Q12042071) Gorn (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Czech translation[edit]
V současné době existují tyto položky, s následujícími vztahy
- non-governmental organization (Q79913) - podtřída juridical person (Q155076)
- spolek (Q61747587) - česká právní forma, podtřída voluntary association (Q48204), podtřída juridical person (Q155076), instance type of business entity (Q1269299)
zdá se mi, že alespoň jedna z nich není nutná. Vidím minimálně tyto problémy:
- protože všechny jsou podtřídou (přímo nebo nepřímo) juridical person (Q155076) žádná z nich nemůže označit obecnou "skupinu lidí", která není nutně právně registrovaná (juridical person (Q155076)). Myslím, že k tomu byl původně určena voluntary association (Q48204) nebo association (Q15911314).
- Pokud bude položka voluntary association (Q48204) ponechána pod juridical person (Q155076), měla by být partně sloučena s spolek (Q61747587), ale bylo by třeba prozkoumat, zda jsou všechny jejich instance skutečně juridical person (Q155076)
Poznámka: položka spolek (Q61747587) by měla v nějaké formě existovat, protože je to spcifická česká právní forma (podle Q12042071) Gorn (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
P921[edit]
@Newt713: I don't think it's quite right to list individual legal forms using main subject (P921) like this. If item actually is for Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) that may have main subjects, then it shouldn't be regarded as a class item at the same time having conflicting P279/P31 values. I also doubt this really should be considered as an item for Wikipedia article. This item quite surely isn't for any particular legal form, but may still be about (voluntary) association in some non-legal sense (hard to say which definition applies, though) and it may have instances. I'm not sure if it's useful to link every related legal form here, but if necessary then it may be more straightforward to use different from (P1889) instead of P921 for this purpose. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1AD:EAE:3CF:72EB 12:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hey not logged in user. It would be cool to have you logged in to be able to ping you. I have not found a better instance of (P31) statement yet to make clear, that this is a collective concept for quite different legal forms in different countries. So in some Wikipedias there are different Articles for different national legal entities, in some it's mixed, which would match the usecase for Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471). I'm not sure how to state that better at the moment. To list the legal types as different from (P1889) would be an option, but only combines with a good instance of (P31). Best --Newt713 (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)