Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P1336
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Property kept. No consensus to delete and lack of detail provided on alternative methods of recording this data — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
territory claimed by (P1336): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
Based on this RFC, I think it's now the good time we deprecate it, it's already enough to say something is conflicting between two and more countries, by adding qualifiers to their country (P17) values. —Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment Who will move current uses to a new ontology ?. I think we cannot delete until there are no uses of it.Amadalvarez (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Amadalvarez: Just merge em back to P17, see RFC for details. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep not only a country can claim territory. Michael FV (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Michael FV: Please read that RFC carefully before such voting keep, thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Recognised etc. from the RFC could qualify “claimed by” just as well as it could qualify country (P17) or located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). And what about something like Palestine (Q23792)territory claimed by (P1336)Palestine Liberation Organization (Q26683), where the claimant is an organisation, not a state? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Michael FV: Please read that RFC carefully before such voting keep, thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Some uses of this are countries claimed by another country, or by each other. With this change, would Cyprus would only have "country: Northern Cyprus" and Northern Cyprus only have "country: Cyprus", or would the items also have P17 statements linking to themselves? There are probably others that are similar. Peter James (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep given the points mentioned in the rfc --- Jura 11:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
j*:@Jura1: Which point. --2409:8902:9001:1F4F:1444:B367:16E3:3F84 00:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete Given that this is spammly used to make so-called claim e.g. wrongly says that "Shenzhen is a part of Hong Kong". --117.136.54.109 22:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Replacement available. --223.104.7.115 22:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I repeat my concern that the current information should be move to new ontology before delete. Liuxinyu970226 told me that "I follow RFC", but I'm user of this information in WD powered infoboxes. I'll take care handling new structure in infoboxes code, but not migrating data, because IMHO it should be move in a batch process when the change were full approved. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- In addition, could you please write down the final ontology with
{{Claim}}or similar. I'm not sure if "new properties" described in inital proposal have been created (and what are?) or you decide use some other proposed in the discussion. What are the final combination of property and qualifiers for each circumstances described in "Proposal section" ?. etc. Maybe in your mind it's very clear, but a RFC is open for "comments". So, if it is still open, please ping me when we have a final ontology. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Could you give an example of new modelling for instance in the very famous Taiwan (Q865) and People's Republic of China (Q148) ? I'm interested as I'm having a topic here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#est/a_%C3%A9t%C3%A9_en_conflit_avec Bouzinac 💬●✒️●💛 20:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The idea is to replace the property by 4 others ones ; The properties "recognition" (qualifier only), "recognized by", and "not recognized by" and "de jure"/"de facto" properties. It should result in very long lists of countries in the infobox (among 200 countries, who recognises, who does'nt ?), et complicate the problem. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm totally confused by your propose of re-using it, repeating will only waste RAMs of Wikimedia servers, aren't they?
- If you think we need better way, to not delete P1336 and, in your opinion, to re-classify the disputed territories, write them on that link RFC, otherwise as someone anonymous said above, Replacement available. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)