Talk:Q23501
Autodescription — tomato (Q23501)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “tomato” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Q23501 and Q20638126 about the same plant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.76.214.74 (talk)
- Nope, one item is about the plant/species and one item is about the fruit/vegetable. - Brya (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- See Talk:Q20638126 for more discussion. - Nikki (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
LCSH sh85135924 edit
@User:Byra:- You reverted the application of LCSH sh85135924 to this item, asserting that the LCSH record says "this is about the vegetable." I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that it says that. Could you quote the part of the record that leads you to the conclusion that "this is [exclusively] about the vegetable"?
Regardless, the clearest indication that this particular LCSH heading is about both the vegetable and the plant is the presence of Solanum lycopersicum as one of the record's variant terms. This is how LCSH tells users that "Tomatoes" is the LCSH term applied to works about Solanum lycopersicum (the plant), in addition to works about tomatoes (the vegetable). If a U.S. library cataloger (or anybody making use of LCSH) is describing a work about the plant Solanum lycopersicum, they apply this LCSH term, Tomatoes, sh85135924. This is LCSH's only means of expressing the concept of Solanum lycopersicum (the plant), and its validity for that purpose is explicitly expressed by the inclusion of Solanum lycopersicum as a variant term. As seen here, there isn't a separate LCSH term that is applied to works about the plant.
I'm a university catalog librarian and a participant in the program by which new LCSH terms are created. I would be happy to do what I can to make it clearer that LCSH sh85135924 applies to both the plant and the vegetable -- but it definitely, definitely does. --TimK MSI (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am quite prepared to assume incompetence on the part of whoever runs this database, but I see no reason to let that affect how such an entry is to be treated here. "Variants" can mean anything, and in this case includes three terms, which are not interchangeable, that is these are not equivalents of each other, and so not of the term "tomatoes" either. Anyway, "Solanum lycopersicum" is not only a "Variant" but also a "Closely Matching Concept[...] from Other Schemes". And an "Earlier Established Form" is the generic name "Lycopersicon" (a whole different kettle of fish) which is also a "Closely Matching Concept[...] from Other Schemes". So, these terms are all out there, somehow connected, in some way with "Tomatoes" which they are, if one does not look closely. And indeed "Solanum lycopersicum" can be used to indicate the vegetable (even if this not commonly done).
- On the other hand, there is a "Exact Matching Concept[...] from Other Schemes" which goes to the USDA "Tomatoes" which are a subclass of "vegetables" (and of "tomato products" which is a subclass of "vegetable products"). So that is as unambivalent as can be (no latitude in "Exact").
- This is reinforced by the subclasses of the LCSH "Tomatoes": "Canned tomatoes", "Currant tomato", "Dried tomatoes" which are subclasses of the vegetable.
- If there is no LCSH entry for "Solanum lycopersicum" (or for any of the one to two thousand Solanum-species, for that matter), that is their lookout, and if there are librarians who put this entry to work in cataloguing for want of a proper entry, that is their lookout. But multiple errors do not make a whole. - Brya (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)