Talk:Q336
Autodescription — science (Q336)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “science” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
science
⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
Union and disjoint queries
- Instances of science (Q336) that are instances of none of the classes natural science (Q7991) , social sciences and humanities (Q33122512) and interdisciplinary science (Q1665984) [1]
- Instances of science (Q336) that are instances of none of the classes fundamental science (Q580234) and applied science (Q28797) [2]
- Instances of science (Q336) that are instances of none of the classes empirical science (Q18060904) and formal science (Q816264) [3]
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}
.
Subjects are instances, not classes edit
We never say A is a science, right?
Please don't use subclass of (P279) or instance of (P31) to link this. You may use part of (P361) instead.
Btw, I do want to see some specified version of part of (P361).金亦天 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
What is science (Q336)? edit
Interwiki conflict | |||
Items involved: Q8027727Talk, Q336Talk, Q475023Talk | Status: not resolved | ||
some languages (de,es,pt) link a term to science (Q336) that also includes arts and humanities, but in enwiki it is en:science which does not include arts and humanities. Diskussions: de:Diskussion:Wissenschaft#Comment_on_meaning_on_other_languages en:Talk:Science#Interwiki-Links--Hokanomono (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
There are the following distinct notions:
These have to be split. exact science (Q475023) is very close to the English science, but maybe slightly different. en:exact science is not very precise about that. The disambiguation page Science (Q1294710) includes links to some pages with a totally different spelling. I will split them out. --Hokanomono (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
See also
|
wiki | article | subject, scope |
---|---|---|
dewiki | de:Wissenschaft | a notion that includes science, mathematics, logic, engineering, philosophy, theology, jurisprudence and humanities. see also [1] |
dewiki | de:Naturwissenschaft | natural science |
dewiki | de:Realwissenschaft | empirical sciences |
enwiki | en:Science | not clear, probably science covering natural sciences, social sciences and formal sciences. cf. en:Science (disambiguation), en:Talk:Science#Distinction from philosophy, en:Talk:Science/Archive_6#Interwiki-Links |
enwiki | en:Natural science | natural science |
lawiki | la:Scientia (ratio) | a notion that includes science, mathematics, logic, engineering, philosophy, humanities, jurisprudence, theology and astrology |
nlwiki | nl:Wetenschap | generally discusses science in the English sense; section on mathematics debating whether it should be included; pure and applied science; but also mentioning in passing nl:Geesteswetenschappen which includes studies of language, history, culture, art history and theology. |
User:Andreasmperu and User:Eulenspiegel1, while you're over here anyway, could I get your thoughts on this problem? w:en:Science is not the same subject as w:de:Wissenschaft – not in Wikidata terms, no matter how much each editor naturally wants their cultural viewpoint to be anointed as the One True Science™. The fact is that w:en:Science will never countenance something like art criticism as actually being a form of modern science, even though everyone ought to agree that art criticism is Wissenschaft. (The fact that these words have significantly different meanings is why philosophers who work in these areas specify the German word so often: they need to be precise.)
So on a purely factual basis, we should make Q336 either about "Science as it's commonly understood in English" or "Wissenschaft, just like the philosophers say", and split the rest of it to a different article. But if we do that, we'll end up with another "tomato" (plant vs fruit) situation, in which Wikidata is absolutely factually correct in asserting that these are technically separate subjects, but all the Wikipedias will be mad at us because their muddled interwiki links will break. (For example, I suspect that most German Wikipedians will be surprised if w:de:Wissenschaft starts correctly linking to the w:en:Wissenschaft stub, and that most English Wikipedians will be confused if there seems to be no article on "science" at the German Wikipedia.) What do you recommend? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- We have Q336 where "Science" is defined as used in englisch. And we have Q8027727 where "Wissenschaft" is defined as used in german. The two lemma exist both and are correct integrated. The question is: Where do we integrate de:Wissenschaft? Do we put it to Q336 (the practical correct way) or do we put it to Q8027727 (the theoretical correct way)? In this case, I prefer the practical way. So put it to Q336. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
DDC 001 edit
{{maintenance|DDC=001|DDCMAIN=|TREEVIA=361|TANDEM=Q901|TANDEMTREEVIA=279}}
12:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC): draft, please use the template talk page for comments;
- tree might be delayed by ~15 minutes; suggested values for TREEVIA and TANDEMTREEVIA: subclass of (P279) , instance of (P31) , part of (P361) , has part(s) (P527) , occupation (P106) , field of work (P101) , etc.
- in order to see another language please change the WMFLCODE-parameter value in preview mode only
science (Q336) · purge · T · WLH · tree · reasonator · DDC: 001 · DDCTANDEM: 000 · tree using part of (P361) · TANDEM: scientist (Q901) · purge · T · WLH · tree · reasonator · tree using subclass of (P279)