Talk:Q2897374

Don't merge

@Triggerhippie4: Please don't merge Q53444085 (Tel Aviv Branch Office of the Embassy of the United States) into Q2897374 (Embassy of the United States, Tel Aviv). These are two different organizations with different statements (P31 (instance of), P571 (inception), etc.). Even if their Wikipedia articles might be merged for convenience, it does not follows that their Wikidata items should also be merged. An Wikidata item might even not have any link to a Wikipedia article. Your merger should be reverted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: It's basically the same thing, and separating it will cause confusion. It's no use to have separate entries for basically the same thing. The office changed from embassy to embassy office. It's still located where it was and it's still a diplomatic mission. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: They are NOT "basically the same thing". How can a branch office of the Embassy is basically same as the Embassy? The only same thing is just that they are in the same building. If they are basically the same thing, the world should not have paid so much attention to this change and so many people should not have died for it. It is merging these two items that will cause confusion. Please don't merge them. If you like, you can move all the Wikipedia links to one of the two Wikidata items. But the two Wikidata items should be kept separated even if one of them has no Wikipedia links. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: 2018 Gaza border protests was part of the annual demonstrations on anniversary of the Israeli independence. It started more than a month ago and the main protest on May 14 was planned long before. It's not caused by the embassy move. Both the protests and the move of embassy were scheduled on the same day because it was Israeli independence anniversary. Embassy move is mostly a symbolic thing. There's literally no benefits of having another item about the Tel Aviv location. It works as extension of the main office in Jerusalem providing diplomatic service in another city (very similar to how it worked before). --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Even if May 14 protest was part of the annual demonstrations on anniversary of the Israeli independence, it's unquestionable that the protesters strongly opposed the embassy move, and it's unquestionable that even many countries opposed the embassy move. How can basically the same thing cause so much controversy? And you did not merge Tel Aviv Branch Office of the Embassy (Q53444085) into the main office in Jerusalem (Q53492009). What you did was merging Tel Aviv Branch Office of the Embassy into the former Embassy in Tel Aviv (Q2897374). These two organizations are fundamentally different in nature. Wikidata is a scientific database and its item should have clear semantic definition, and should not be just a place storing links of related or similar Wikipedia articles. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: The controversy is caused by the United States acknowledging Jerusalem as Israeli capital, and it's not very relevant to the question we're discussing right now. Calling the Tel Aviv location downgrading from the main office to supplementary office "fundamentally different in nature" is exaggeration, of course. Please see these links (I'll look for better sources right now): 1, 2, 3, 4. Tel Aviv office status change can be shown here using statements (properties), not by creating new entry. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: The controversy is caused by BOTH the United States acknowledging Jerusalem as Israeli capital AND the embassy move. And what so many countries oppose are also BOTH the United States acknowledging Jerusalem as Israeli capital AND the embassy move. The Tel Aviv location downgrading from the main office to supplementary office is the key part of the embassy move. It is calling them "basically the same thing" that is exaggeration. I don't understand why you so strongly insist on merging the two items, which have clearly different semantic definitions. As I said above, Wikidata item is not just a place storing related Wikipedia articles. And you may move all the Wikipedia links to one of the two items, but the two Wikidata items should be kept separated even if one of them has no Wikipedia links. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: The controversy is not related to the question of whether we should create new entry when "Embassy of The United States" become "Embassy of the United States: Branch Office". See Branch office.

U.S. EMBASSY BRANCH OFFICE IN TEL AVIV (71 HaYarkon Street)

https://il.usembassy.gov // TelAvivACS@state.gov

"After May 14, the Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv (formerly the Embassy in Tel Aviv) located at 71 HaYarkon Street will continue to provide the same consular and visa services it provided before. The Branch Office in Tel Aviv will provide passport, citizenship, notarial, and emergency consular services to U.S. citizens in Israel, as well as to U.S. citizens in the West Bank and Gaza who are able to apply for consular services in person. The Branch Office in Tel Aviv will provide emergency assistance to U.S. citizens in Israel outside of Jerusalem. Individuals present in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza may apply for nonimmigrant visa services at the Branch Office in Tel Aviv. Consular services are available by appointment only." link --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: TOI: "There’s no longer any mention of appropriation from Congress, whose legislation had required the move in the first place — even if the House doesn’t flip against Trump in the midterms. “It is too early,” the official allowed, “to assess the likely cost of a permanent Embassy. We need to determine our needs, select a site, and start the design and contracting processes. We expect site selection, design, planning and permitting, and construction to take seven to nine years.” That is, the can is being kicked beyond Trump’s second term — if he gets it. But that doesn’t prevent him, or Netanyahu, from taking credit now.

“During this time,” the official stated, “most Embassy staff will continue to live and work in Tel Aviv.” The edifice on Hayarkon Street on Tel Aviv’s waterfront will henceforth be called “the Embassy Branch Office” – a branch hugely bigger, and with far more important functions, than the titular headquarters. Even Friedman “will continue to divide his time between his official residence in Herzliya and a residence in Jerusalem.”" --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Your sources do not deny that the Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv and the former Embassy in Tel Aviv are two different entities and cannot support your argument. Merging the two items makes some useful statements not applicable. For example, the US Embassy in Jerusalem (Q53492009) "replaces" (P1365) the US Embassy in Tel Aviv (Q2897374) with "point in time" (P585) 14 May 2018. But after you merged Q53444085 (Tel Aviv Branch Office of the US Embassy) into Q2897374 and changed Q2897374's label to "Branch Office of the Embassy of the United States in Tel Aviv", "replaces" (P1365) has become inapplicable to Q53492009 and you had to delete it. And Q2897374's "inception" (P571) is set as 1966, while 2018 (inception of the Embassy branch) has to be ignored due to the "single value constraint" (Q19474404) of P571. These downgrade Wikidata's quality and should be avoided. The question here is simple: Are the Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv and the Embassy in Tel Aviv two different concepts? The answer is yes, and, IMHO, separating them into two items raises Wikidata's clearness and quality. So they should not be merged. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: It's not necessary to have "replaces/replaced" statements. And the date of its inception is 1966. In 2018, it changed its sign and delegated (formally) some of its responsibilities to another location, while continuing (de facto, for years to come) to do what it always did. Having two separate entities will cause them having many identical statements, with the one without interwikis doomed to be forgotten. No one will go there to maintain/read it. Your approach multiplies entities without necessity. When American embassy in London moved to new site, the data was just replaced/updated. No new entry was created with "replaces" statement linking to the old one. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: What statements are "necessary"? And should an item only have "necessary" (minimum?) statements? Isn't adding "replaces/replaced" statements an improvement to Wikidata? And the inception of the Embassy in Tel Aviv is 1966, while the inception of the Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv is 2018, clearly. And probably you don't know that many Wikidata items do not have any Wikipedia link. A Wikidata item may not have any Wikimedia sitelink if it refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity..., or, it fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful (see Wikidata:Notability). How can you say "the one without interwikis doomed to be forgotten"? I also don't think it's necessary to create a new item when American embassy in London moved to new site within London, which is still the American embassy in London. But the Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv and the Embassy in Tel Aviv are clearly different in nature and should be kept separated. The merger decreases Wikidata's quality and should be reverted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: I know very well that a Wikidata item can be without a Wikipedia link. Difference between the subject before and after May 14 isn't pivotal enough for a separate entry. If new item created for Tel Aviv after May 14, the only appropriate "instance of" value would be "diplomatic mission". So it cannot have "inception" value other than 1966. It's another reason to not have additional item about former embassy. There's nothing wrong if Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv Branch Office of the Embassy of the United States will have symmetrical statements replaces/replaced-by with a qualifier "as embassy". Everyone would understand that the current embassy links to the former embassy after the transfer and name change. It would solve the problem more conveniently. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: If you "know very well that a Wikidata item can be without a Wikipedia link", why did you say "the one without interwikis doomed to be forgotten"? The embassy branch and the embassy are different enough to deserve separate items. Would the only appropriate "instance of" value for the embassy branch be "diplomatic mission" (Q213283)? The answer is No. As you indicated above, it can be instance of "branch office" (Q1410110) with qualifier "of" (P642) "embassy" (Q3917681), which is more accurate and appropriate than "diplomatic mission". And the inception of the branch office is 2018, not 1966. Even if its "instance of" can also be "diplomatic mission", it should be borne in mind that the diplomat mission as an embassy and the diplomat mission as an embassy branch are different in nature and have different dates of inception. And it only confuses readers if they see that an embassy "replaces" an embassy branch and that the embassy branch is "as embassy". I don't understand why you stick to this confusing solution. Apparently keeping the two items separated is more appropriate. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: Wikipedia is the flagship project where most of activity is centered. Bulk of users comes from there. If there's an item with interwikis, a redundant item without it will be no use. "Instance of" statement is the most basic and important part of any item that affect number of things, such as statistics, Wikidata automatic lists, constraint violations reports, Wikidata:Recoin script, suggested properties when you click "add statement" etc. The main quality of the subject is that it's a diplomatic mission, not some branch office (that could be anything) (see use: diplomatic mission, branch). Stop repeating that embassy and embassy office are "different in nature", you don't understand what you're talking about. And take a look at its new entry sign: before, after. Anyone who would look at "Embassy" item and see "REPLACES" statement linking to "Branch Office of the Embassy" will understand that the target is not named embassy because it was REPLACED and thus renamed. Let's not waste time anymore. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: How can you say that the embassy in Tel Aviv is a redundant item? It is of course not. Why should I stop repeating that embassy and embassy office are "different in nature"? They are indeed different in nature and you are just refusing to recognize this simple fact. It is you that names Q2897374 as a Branch Office. How can you say that it is not some branch office (with qualifier "of" (P642) "embassy" (Q3917681))? And please don't ignore that I have said very clearly that even if its "instance of" can also be "diplomatic mission", it should be borne in mind that the diplomat mission as an embassy and the diplomat mission as an embassy branch are different in nature and have different dates of inception. Stop saying that embassy and embassy branch are "basically the same thing". Do you really understand what you're talking about? It's clear that an embassy replaces another embassy and cannot replace an embassy branch. Don't presume that everyone has knowledge about the history of the embassy branch in Tel Aviv. Readers should not need to click the item in "REPLACES" to realize that the embassy branch was formerly an embassy. Please don't waste your time here. The merger will surely be reverted.--Neo-Jay (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: I provided you links saying that Tel Aviv office will function as it used to (for example, TOI). Do you have a source to prove your claim that its new function is "different in nature"? I just explained to you importance of "Instance of" property. You clearly don't understand Wikidata mechanism. "Branch" is incomprehensive value, and a qualifier doesn't change it. With instance of "diplomatic mission", the May 14 transfer doesn't change its inception date of 1966, because both embassy and embassy branch are diplomatic mission. "Replaces" statement have a qualifier "embassy" for readers to understand that it's the succession line of American embassy in Israel. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Your source (“During this time,” the official stated, “most Embassy staff will continue to live and work in Tel Aviv.” The edifice on Hayarkon Street on Tel Aviv’s waterfront will henceforth be called “the Embassy Branch Office” – a branch hugely bigger, and with far more important functions, than the titular headquarters. Even Friedman “will continue to divide his time between his official residence in Herzliya and a residence in Jerusalem.”") clearly clarifies that even "during this time", the office in Tel Aviv is the "Embassy Branch Office" and not the Embassy. How can we say that they are basically the same thing? Most Embassy staff will continue to live and work in Tel Aviv. So what? Its nature is still just an embassy branch, a strong symbol that Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, is recognized as the capital. As for the "instance of" property, let me make my point clearer: What I oppose is your argument that the only appropriate "instance of" value for the embassy branch is "diplomatic mission". It is not true. The embassy branch in Tel Aviv's "instance of" can have two values: "diplomatic mission" and "branch office". And it is crystal clear that its date of inception as a branch office is 2018. And even as a diplomatic mission, its date of inception is also 2018 because it is a special type of diplomatic mission, an embassy branch, not an embassy. It was founded as an embassy branch (instance of "diplomatic mission") in 2018, not 1966. If two items are both instances of "diplomatic mission", it does not follows that their dates of inceptions are same. For the case we are discussing, even if the embassy in Tel Aviv and the embassy branch in Tel Aviv are both "instance of" diplomatic mission, their dates of inceptions are still different. The May 14 transfer changes the nature of the embassy in Tel Aviv, and May 14, 2018 is the inception date of the new entity, the embassy branch in Tel Aviv. Moreover, the most appropriate "instance of" value for the embassy in Tel Aviv should be embassy (Q3917681), not "diplomatic mission" and "branch office" for the embassy branch in Tel Aviv, i.e., these two items still have different "instance of" values, and should be kept separated. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly  Support NOT merging. Right now this item is a mess - it has a replaced by (P1366) which is a property that generally indicates this item no longer exists. It has two instance of (P31) statements, one with a time bound. To be perfectly clear it might be best to have a single item for the "Embassy of the United States" as an organization (which has been in (at least?) two different locations), and then two separate items for the two buildings, and a fourth item to indicate this new branch office as an organization. But at the least we should have the 3 items that were here pre-merge, not attempt to collapse them into 2 with merged and confusing meanings. Extra items in wikidata isn't generally a bad thing if there are clearly defined distinct meanings, which is certainly true here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Same, two items seems better at all level; merging is a very bad idea. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Support not merging. When the meaning of every item can be well defined it's good to have multiple clearly defined items instead of mixxing up the meaning.

The buildings deserve their own items and the buildings aren't the same thing as the organisation of the embassy. It's useful to be able to specify whether a person works at the branch office or the main office and thus two different items for the two organisations also make sense. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the above discussion I've gone ahead and unmerged these items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)