Wikidata:Requests for comment/Different concepts in a single item

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Different concepts in a single item" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

stale --Pasleim (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like some advice on this topic. Consider this example: Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies (Q3558578) currently houses (since 1961) The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. However, this Italian Villa has a long history of its own, prior to that date. Shouldn't the institution and the building have separate items, since they are different concepts? I had made such distinction some time ago ([1] [2]) but Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies (Q45134760) was now merged into Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies (Q3558578). —capmo (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capmo, I am not sure this requires an RFC: have you already discussed the merge with the author, Sp!ros? − Pintoch (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pintoch, I created a RfC because I wanted a general guideline for these situations, not just for the case cited. I'm sure that Sp!ros made that merger in good faith, I just am not sure if that's the best way to deal with cases like this one. —capmo (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Capmo: citing Wikidata:Requests for comment: You are more than welcome to open a new RFC process to get opinions over a topic, but that should be done after a long discussion via the other channels. − Pintoch (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. What other channels do we have, could you point me to the one more appropriate? It just can't be the item's talk page, because I want to discuss the topic in general guidelines, not a specific case, as already explained. —capmo (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when you open the Community portal, the link to RfC stands out as the second option under "General discussion", so I don't think I did anything wrong. I checked all other options in that page and RfC seemed to be the best fit. —capmo (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Capmo: in doubt, I would go on the Wikidata:Project chat − Pintoch (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, you may be right. —capmo (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how similar problems were resolved. To me seems this is the same institution/corporate name that in 1961 changed from a private library/villa to a university research center. In addition to that, creating two separate items means not being able to link them correctly with other vocabularies (i.e.VIAF record)Sp!ros (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to Mahir256 for bringing a similar case to our attention: Le Musée Régional d'Archéologie et du Vin de Champagne (the institution) versus Château Perrier (the palace that houses the museum). —capmo (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer separate items, as the institution could move away from the place (although improbable). --Sabas88 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.