Wikidata:Property proposal/APPF registration status

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

APPF registration status

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

   Not done
DescriptionExternal ID for the Authority for European political parties and European political foundation
RepresentsAuthority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (Q28000601)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainEuropean political party (Q24649)
Allowed valuesstring based on URL
Example 1European People's Party (Q208242)has ID20201022CPU32631
Example 2Party of European Socialists (Q220945)has ID20201022CPU32633
Example 3Alliance for Peace and Freedom (Q19834410)has ID32018D1116(02)
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useFollowing the creation of the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations, political organisations are required to register with the APPF to obtain the status of European party or foundation. The goal of this property is therefore to distinguish between entities that are currently registered as European parties or foundations, that were previously registered with the APPF, or that never registered with the APPF (but were still valid European parties or foundations before the APPF was created). Currently, "instance of" Q24649 is not sufficient to make the difference between these three categories. EDIT: following discussions, the proposal is now to create an external ID linked to the APPF and to record the status using the "subject has role" property.
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
CountryEuropean Union
Distinct-values constraintyes

Motivation

[edit]

I'm working on European parties, and I note that current European parties are marked as "instance of" European political party (Q24649), but so are former European parties. It is right for former European parties to be marked as "instance of European parties", but it means that this information alone is insufficient to tell current and former European parties apart, given the registration requirement to qualify as a European political party. This is all applicable to European political foundations.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julius Schwarz (talk • contribs) at 13:50, August 3, 2024 (UTC).

Discussion

[edit]
PAC2 (talk) User:NGOgo (talk) (Focus on Non-profit-Organizations) ArthurPSmith (talk) PKM (talk)

Notified participants of WikiProject Organizations Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julius Schwarz: I think this could be more useful if we created an external ID property for APPF registration pages, which could then have statements with existing qualifier subject has role (P2868) whether the party/foundation is currently registered or removed from the register. For example, this would look like European People's Party (Q208242)AFFP party/foundation ID20201022CPU32631subject has role (P2868)currently registered. –Samoasambia ✎ 15:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea! I am not familiar with IDs; how does this work? we can just create an ID out of thin air (since the APPF does not really provide one)? In this case I think you took the string from the URL, but this could change on the APPF side, at some point. Is that an issue? Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julius Schwarz: Yes, we can take the strings that APPF is using in their URLs. It is possible that the IDs won't stay stable but it is not a huge problem. If APPF changes them in the future we can easily change them here too since the number of entries is pretty low (23 at the moment). That happens quite often with other externals IDs on Wikidata. –Samoasambia ✎ 13:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the way forward? Can this request be amended or should I submit a new one for the revised property? Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julius Schwarz: Yes, it's fine to amend the existing proposal. Please say if you need any help. –Samoasambia ✎ 17:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: what ID would you take for the parties that were removed? The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether an ID is the right move. Like, what are the concrete benefit to have an ID as property instead of the proposed property? Knowing also that the string found in the URL for existing parties can already be entered as reference number if needed (but, even then, what does that add compared to just adding the URL as a reference?). Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samoasambia Any follow-up on this? Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samoasambia ? Julius Schwarz (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julius Schwarz: Sorry for the delay! Removed parties don't seem to have any pages, just links to the deregistration decisions published in the Official Journal. I used them as a source for the legal form statements with end time (P582) qualifier (example). I think this is adequate enough that the tell people that the party is not registered at APPF anymore. Having an ID property instead of using the URLs just as a referenced makes it easier e.g. for Wikipedias or third parties to find the right APPF page and use that data. Samoasambia ✎ 12:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samoasambia, would you like to give your opinion? I believe the proposal not amended yet as you suggested! Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that this makes it easier, though? Because if you have a URL, you go straight to the source. If you have an ID based on the URL, you have to know what the ID is for, you have to re-build the URL based on the ID, and this is still not going to be valid if the party gets de-registered. What is the concrete gain? Julius Schwarz (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short question. If both (European political party (Q24649) and European political foundation (Q7210312)) are a legal form (P1454), why is it not enough to mark it as that with a start and end date?
You could query that. If it has the legal form and no end date, it's currently registered, if there is an end date to the legal form it's formerly registered, if it's none of it, it's never registered. That withstanding, is the idea of an external ID for active ones. NGOgo (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the current criteria for recognition as a European party is registration with the APPF (itself based on other criteria), so if you're not registered with the APPF you are not officially a European political party. However, that's only been the case since 2017. Before that, the APPF did not exist and, as a result, there are entities that used to be European parties but that never registered with the APPF.
So you can indeed use legal form (P1454) to see whether an entity ever was recognised as a European party or foundation, but it is not the same as APPF registration status. Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could be solved by splitting European political party (Q24649) into 1) the post-2017 legal form that should be used only on P1454 and 2) the wider consept for P31. I just think that it is not really ideal to create a new general property when there's only 20 items where it could be used, and the same thing could be adequately modelled through existing general properties (P1454 with qualifers for start and end dates). For an external identifier 20 use cases is more acceptable if we want to create that. Samoasambia ✎ 09:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not recommend splitting European political party (Q24649) into two, as there is no such thing as "the wider concept", European parties pre- and post-2017 are European parties just the same and belong to the same category. Simply, registration criteria have changed and a specific registration is now required. But splitting this would create an arbitrary distinction. To be clear, I am not against an external identifier, I just fail to see how that's better. Julius Schwarz (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain doubtful that an external ID is the best course of action, since this has not moved since August, I just changed the property proposal in line with the discussion. @Samoasambia @ZI Jony Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we then approve this as amended? Julius Schwarz (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Julius Schwarz, we didn't get sufficient support for the proposal! In addition, I believe that there is no need to create a property for 23 items, so I would suggest you to withdraw the proposal. Samoasambia what's you opinion? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The initial proposal was indeed to create a property. Following @[[User:Samoasambia|Samoasambia]'s advice, and despite my reluctance, I changed this to creating an external ID, which I understood from the comments was better (and acceptable) for a small number of items -- in a way that, indeed, a new property was not. Am I missing something? Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of ids is a fact, also we couldn’t set a formatter URL as external identifier! Instead you may use official observer status in organisation (P10624) with qualifier subject has role (P2868) and described at URL (P973). Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 20:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The number of ids is a fact"; I am not sure what this means. Also, if you go back to @Samoasambia's initial message, I don't think the proposal is to use a URL as identifier. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony ping to follow up on this. Re-reading your message, I wonder whether you meant that you were trying to be able to use the external ID as a URL; is that right? If so, it should work as the European People's Party (Q208242)'s ID would be "20201022CPU32631" and "https://www.appf.europa.eu/appf/en/european-people-s-party/products-details/20201022CPU32631" takes you to the relevant page. It's different for parties/foundations that have been removed from the register, but it might be possible to find an ID nonetheless, and @Samoasambia was suggesting using the URL of the official document announcing the party/foundation's removal. Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Julius Schwarz, we specifically don’t have the number of ID's required for property creation! However, we consider minimum 100+ for a new property! My suggestion was similar to Samoasambia, instead of creating new property, you could use official observer status in organisation (P10624) with qualifier subject has role (P2868) and described at URL (P973). Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 20:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
official observer status in organisation
Preferred rank Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations edit
subject has role currently registered


add value
Oh ok, thanks, now I understand better. I was under the impression (from another property request) that the limited number of use cases was an issue to create a "real" property, but not for an external ID. It's true that the number of political parties, even assuming a continuous turnover (which isn't really happening in reality), is never going to be super high, that's just part of how the system is designed. I personally think it would be unfortunate to be limited by this (I would think this argument would be more relevant for properties where the number of items is low *but* has the clear potential to grow, which is now the case here).
As for the suggestion to use official observer status in organisation (P10624), I really do not think this is the proper way forward. I mean, European parties and foundations are by no means "observers" in the "organisation" that the APPF would be. That might work for some countries at the UN, but here we are talking about entities that are regulated by a supervisory body - there is no concept of membership/observer status, etc. I understand you are trying to find a solution, and I appreciate, but that just seems too far from the proper description of what that relationship is. Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any opinions on this, @ZI Jony? Julius Schwarz (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Julius Schwarz, I'm sorry to say that I couldn’t support the proposal at this point. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Then how do we take this forward? I have tried to show flexibility and have revised my original proposal along what @Samoasambia was proposing. You say this is still not acceptable. I am ok with continued work to find a solution, however I really think the official observer status in organisation (P10624) option described above is not the way to go. Any way out? Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Julius Schwarz, I already suggested you to withdraw the proposal! However, I ping some users here, let's get thier opinions also, else will have to close as unsuccessful. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm confused as to how withdrawing the proposal would bring this forward. There was an initial proposal, there is an amended proposal, and I believe we are discussing options. Withdrawing the proposal without a solution means the initial underlying issue. Am I missing something? Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had an epiphany. We can use described by source (P1343) and set it to Register of European political parties and foundations (Q60310569) with start time (P580) and, if relevant, end time (P582). With this, only the parties/foundations registered with the APPF will have those dates, and we can tell them apart from the parties/foundations that never registered. Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/APPF_registration_status&oldid=2258657799"