Wikidata:Property proposal/proper name of astronomical object

proper name of astronomical object edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Not done

Description	The astronomical object has a proper name
Represents	proper name for astronomical object (Q13560177)
Data type	Monolingual text
Domain	astronomical object (Q6999)
Example 1	55 Cancri b (Q50665) → Galileo (en)
Example 2	42 Draconis b (Q849267) → Orbitar (en)
Example 3	Mintaka (Q680341) → Mintaka (en)
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974) for the near future

Motivation edit

Stars and Exoplanets usually have only catalog code (P528). But some also have proper names. Right now, there is no way to query for those. so why don't we add the proper name as a separate property? Shisma (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Astronomy

Discussion edit

Comment Now we have lexemes in Wikidata. I would prefer store these names in lexemes rather than monolingual text, together with their etymology, flexion and other linguistic data. KaMan (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KaMan: like this: Orbitar (L37620)? --Loominade (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Loominade: Yes, and like this Orbitar (L37621) with more complicated flexion, gender etc. KaMan (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orbitar (L37625) --Loominade (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

quick note: Lexical category: astronym will not work for everything: Vulkan (L37798) --Loominade (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Loominade: Actually I think astronym should not be used as lexical category at all. Instead lexical category should be set to noun or proper noun and astronym should be property of sense. I already adjusted Orbitar (L37621) to it. KaMan (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KaMan: agreed --Loominade (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to make lexemes about names, but it shouldn't be the only way to store the official name of an item. --- Jura 09:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aside from the lexeme issue, wouldn't official name (P1448) satisfy this need (with perhaps a qualifier specifying what the "official" responsible body is, etc.)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @ArthurPSmith: 42 Draconis b and Orbitar are both official but only one of them is considered a proper name--Shisma (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You could qualify that with "object has role". --- Jura 07:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @ArthurPSmith: Well, if « official name » is as its description suggest, supposed to mention the name « in the official language of the place », then we know how aliens living on asteroids name their world, this is a fantastic news :) author TomT0m / talk page 12:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with ArthurPSmith - use official name (P1448). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mike Peel: This does not really solve the problem of the discrepancy of the intended use of the property and the use that is suggested to do. Not really saying it’s a bad thing but see for example the proposal WD:Property proposal/exonym where the definition of « official name » is used to motivate the proposal. Maybe we need a whole RfC to clarify the guidelines of name properties and the logic of the scheme of properties and how to use them … I mean for example a name is very close to an identifier in spirit, and for identifiers we have one property for database, in spirit it’s very close to have one property per country which state the official name of one country according to another. We also have scientific name Search to identify taxon according to the biology community. Maybe now that we have a little bit of experience about all this and that the lexeme namespace is a new thing that concerns names, it’s time to rethink all this … author TomT0m / talk page 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - 'official language' in this case seems to apply not to the place, but the language that the name has been specified in. So it's somewhere between 'English' and 'Latin'... From my perspective, adding extra properties causes extra work (e.g. in the infobox on Commons) that can be avoided if an existing property is reused (with an extra qualifier if needed), and if there is also uncertainty over lexemes (which I haven't got my head around yet - I don't even know how to access them through a parser function or in lua at the moment) then using an existing property in a temporary manner at least would make sense. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mike Peel: 'official language' in this case seems to apply not to the place, but the language that the name has been specified in No it’s not, the description is pretty clear about it. This would add pretty much no information. Is there languages that are official and « unofficial languages » ? Pretty much all language we can specify have some kind of official-ity, so this would not add information anyway. The language specified for the name is by definition the language of the name. No, this mean that if the subject of the item (say « Paris, France » is, say in France, the name is the name given in the language used in this country, so french in this case. I think the whole point of this property, if any is to maintain this property, or we would just use name (P2561) which you may want to replace. author TomT0m / talk page 16:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @TomT0m: You know, that occurred to me when I looked up the property - you're right, 'exonym' might be the better choice for something like this! ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this fall under Wikidata:WikiProject Names or is that exclusively for names of people? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed description doesn't tell me anything about what's meant with "proper name". Apart from that I would prefer to use lexemes. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no support. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]