Talk:Q15632617
Autodescription — fictional human (Q15632617)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “fictional human” 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)
- ⟨
fictional human⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
No description. Q28020127) - "human being that only exists in fictional works" --Fractaler (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
All humans, fictional or not edit
So, Pigsonthewing, now this was separated from Q5. And what common class now should we have for fictional human (Q15632617), human (Q5), human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568), legendary figure (Q13002315)..? (We need it for some constraints, for example, given name (P735)) Change Q215627->Q97498056 is a disrupture I suppose. --Infovarius (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- The claim "this was separated from Q5" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- No. They both were subclasses of one class (person (Q215627)), now not. --Infovarius (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- So? The claim "this was separated from Q5" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Once more: they were siblings in class tree, now not. And their common class is needed. --Infovarius (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- So? The claim "this was separated from Q5" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- No. They both were subclasses of one class (person (Q215627)), now not. --Infovarius (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Doubt edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Fictional universes for more opinions.
@Infovarius: How can fictional human (Q15632617) be a subclass of fictional humanoid (Q28020127)? According to the description of the latter, individual humanoid only appearing in fictional stories. Thus, from the description of humanoid (Q502931) (fictitious analog and part of the description of fictional humanoid (Q28020127)), something that has an appearance resembling a human without actually being one. From the description of fictional human (Q15632617), human being that only exists in fictional works, would be impossible. Besides, a human is a human, not a human-like, it seems to me.
I have expressed a similar doubt on this talk page about another dubious classification, in my opinion.
Regards. --Fantastoria (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fantastoria: I believe that humans should not be excluded from "human-like creatures" because they/we ... do look like humans. --Infovarius (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Infovarius. The point is that a fictional humanoid is not a fictional human by its very description, so a fictional human could never be a subclass of a fictional humanoid. What you raise is not the description of fictional humanoid: fictional humanoids are not creatures like humans (or human-like creatures), but "non-human entities" (or "resembling a human without actually being one" according to the previous description). That's the starting point, not your own description of a fictional humanoid, whatever that may be. --Fantastoria (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)