Talk:Q21073936
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Andreasmperu in topic has part
Autodescription — uncle or aunt (Q21073936)
description: parent's sibling or parent's sibling-in-law
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “uncle or aunt” 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)
- ⟨
uncle or aunt⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
|
For an overview, see list of kinship types |
|
has part edit
@Fomafix: : has part "uncle" is invalid as "part of" is for example for more concrete part relationship, for example "my front wheel" part of "my bike" (see Refining_"part_of" for example). Please note that there is a proposition to solve this kind of case :
Under discussion
| Description | MISSING |
|---|---|
| Data type | MISSING |
| Example 1 | MISSING |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
. Vote for it ! author TomT0m / talk page 22:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do you want to use "part of" only for "my front wheel" part of "my bike", but not for "front wheels" part of "bikes"? has part(s) (P527) is wildly used in both ways. When you want to change this here please deliver an other property to keep the existing relation. --Fomafix (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Fomafix: I did make a proposal which is consistent with other property usage and discussions about part of and so on. You'll see nowhere in documentation that part of is intended for this kind of usecases. And definitions are important on Wikidata, or we could as well keep ambiguous words as definition.
@Andreasmperu: Please explain your revert. I exposed my arguments. author TomT0m / talk page 14:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sure: I understand your concern, but there is no point of deleting information without providing an alternative way of containing it. Also, there is no consensus about how to deal with these cases, so please just wait until that happens. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 17:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)