Welcome to Wikidata, Prototyperspective!
Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Best regards! M2k~dewiki (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Prototyperspective/Archive 1 on 2023-11-21.
Hey,
I just reverted your recent edits to person (Q215627). "Person" is definitely not *an instance* of human, and by the definition we employ, not a subclass either. Feel free to explain your reasoning behind the two edits, but don't feel obligated, it's not a big deal either way.
Thanks!
One person is one instance of a human. It may also be a subclass if people do not consider e.g. infants to already be persons as per "A person is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility."
The main thing it is is missing from this page:
So please readd this. The main thing this is is missing, what else would it be if not instance or subclass of "human"?
1. if "person" was an instance of human, this would put it on the same ontological level as any single concrete human. So if anything it has to be a subclass of human.
2. Personhood might be, but also might not be exclusive to human beings. This is also reflected in the debate on the talk page, see here. Overall, the item is about the philosophical concept of personhood. For example the Wikidata POV implies that animal actors are actors hence artists hence persons, see e.g. Bart the Bear (Q809222). This does not necessarily contradict the definition you quoted and it's just how we use the item. (Also just in case you were unaware, human is already a subclass of person)
Edit: the animal actor example contradicts the subclass statement for "legal person", so I might remove this after some more coordination.
1.I wasn't sure if it being an instance of human would imply that. Subclass may make more sense.
2.I think that needs a separate term other than person – at least in current understanding and use the term wouldn't fit to let's say sentient intelligent living extraterrestrial-origin beings / aliens. One would need a separate term for that. Animals also are not persons, they may be legal persons for the lack of better legal terms/… but not persons in principle insofar the term has been established and is widely used.
3. Human is not a subclass of person but the other way around. Infants and probably few days pre-birth babies are humans but not necessarily persons. Please fix that.
4. In conclusion, please allow me to remove or remove subclass of person on the human item and add subclass of: human or, probably better, Homo. And if not specify exactly why or suggest me some place to take this matter for broader debate.
the right place is probably either the Project chat or, in case you don't mind writing basically an entire proposal how the structure should look like instead, the Requests for comment. At the moment, please don't change it without any coordination because it'd mess up a lot of existing ontology. I think there's some merit to what you're saying, but it might have to be handled in more complex ways than one or two subclass statements.
Hi! We usually add new genres if they have external identifiers or at least external url's describing the subject and its notability, which is required by Wikidata policy: WD:N. If you want to keep Drum and bass electronic rock (Q124791567), it is worth adding some articles detailing the concept in described at URL (P973) or other external IDs confirming its notability, otherwise it have to be nominated for deletion. Thanks.
Alright, makes sense. There are sources about it which I'll add, I just don't think they use this name but maybe I can find a source for that as well.
Yeah, the point is that the sources have to use exactly that term and describe the concept as a distinct genre/style.
What about changing it to something "Combination of drum and bass with rock" or something like that? Or is there another way fusions/hybrids are being dealt with here?
Nope, that won't work as it would violate Wikidata:Verifiability. We only create items for concepts that are established in the sources, and until then we have to use a combination of two separate items for every artist/release.
Okay, so if the sources don't use a specific term but only the concept and find it to be a distinct genre, then it can't be here as a new item.
So it can be deleted, I try to keep it in mind so that I'll revisit this if there ever are a few sources using a specific name for it.
Now the question still remains if there is some way that combinations can be explored / used via Wikidata – I guess one way would be SPARQL queries that list all musicians with both the genre drum and bass and rock (or any of either subgenres) set...is there any other?
Probably not, SPARQL is the only way to do it.