Talk:Q115252411
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Valentina.Anitnelav in topic Myth + Fiction?
Autodescription — imaginary horse (Q115252411)
description: horse whose existence is not proven
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “imaginary horse” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
imaginary horse⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Myth + Fiction? edit
It's a bold (and arguable) practice to join them... This should be discussed globally somewhere (Wikidata:Wikiproject Fiction?) Infovarius (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. There is a category:imaginary creature which is the root category of the Project:Imaginary creatures on French Wikipedia, constituting a joint between myth / religion, fiction and cryptozoology.
- It seems that on Wikidata it is the word "fiction" that is used as the root-concept that gathers myth / religion and works of fiction. However, in french this join does not work because the word "fiction" designates primarily what is created for literature, cinema, television, etc., and it is shocking to use it for mythology / religion. That's why the word "imaginary" was chosen. Tsaag Valren (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Tsaag Valren, in the moment myth and fiction are not joined but are left separate. mythical entity (Q24334685) is a subclass of hypothetical entity (Q18706315), fictional entity (Q14897293) a subclass of artificial object (Q16686448). The question at hand is if there is a need for a third item joining fiction and myth. One advantage could be that we need only one item, e.g. <imaginary horse>, <imaginary duck>, <imaginary falcon> instead of two, e.g. <fictional horse> and <mythical horse>, <fictional duck> and <mythical duck>, etc. If a certain character is mythical or fictional could be determined on the instance level, e.g. Cheshire Cat (Q934013) instance of (P31) <imaginary cat>; instance of (P31) literary character (Q3658341). On the other hand in many cases we already have items for the animal in myth and the animal in fiction. Also there are many Wikipedias writing explicitly about a certain concept in myth.
- At the moment it seems to me that imaginary horse (Q115252411) is not really needed, as we already have items for mythical horses and fictional horses. If unicorn (Q7246) should represent a kind of mythical horse it should be made a subclass of mythological horse (Q24296329). I'm rather hesitant if this is the case as, according to the English Wikipedia, they are not necessarily depicted as horses or horse-like, sometimes they are depicted as goat-like. We have an own item for unicorns in fiction: unicorn in a work of fiction (Q30167264). Kind regards, - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- If Category:Fictional horses (Q8448313) should represent a category comprising both, fictional and mythical horses, should we clean it up? The German category "Category:Fiktives Pferd" does certainly only cover fictional horses (no mythical), the same is the case for the English category "Category:Fictional horses". Should they be moved from Category:Fictional horses (Q8448313) to Q32119221? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)