Talk:Q5891007
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Mushroom in topic Relation to human (Q5)
Autodescription — anatomically modern human (Q5891007)
description: member of the species Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with modern humans
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “anatomically modern human” 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)
- ⟨
anatomically modern human⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
This isn't necessarily a duplicate of Homo sapiens sapiens (Q3238275), since Homo sapiens idaltu (Q131686) can also be considered anatomically modern. Ghouston (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, this explanation makes some things more clear. I've separated sitelinks according to this. --Infovarius (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Relation to human (Q5) edit
human (Q5) was a subclass of this item, and this item was marked as subclass of human evolution (Q83944). I have removed those statements since they would make human (Q5) a subclass of occurrence (Q1190554), which makes no sense. I think this item should be a subclass of human (Q5), instead of the opposite. Since human (Q5) said to be the same as (P460) homo sapiens and this item represents one or more subspecies of homo sapiens, then human (Q5) must be the broader class. Mushroom (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- set human, subsets: 1) homo sapiens (superset - species, supersuperset - systematics, abstract world), 2) person (superset - real world) --Fractaler (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Mushroom: I don't understand what means. It seems totally incorrect as it would mean that any modern human is an instance of human evolution. Which would mean that a person is an instance of a process of evolution. It's kind of weird, isn't it ? From what I understand the process of evolution occurs on a longer period than a single human life ... Second, is this really a class ? Do you think that there could be several instances of "human evolution" ? It seems to me that human evolution is an instance of something, localized in time and space (a long time and a vast space). author TomT0m / talk page 11:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @TomT0m: Yes, it seemed wrong to me as well for anatomically modern human (Q5891007) to be a subclass of human evolution (Q83944), I'm not sure why it was set that way. I eventually replaced subclass of (P279) with part of (P361), but this property is too generic. A better solution could be:
- Make anatomically modern human (Q5891007) a product of human evolution (Q83944) (using P1056);
- Make human evolution (Q83944) an instance of evolution (Q1063);
- When I wrote the post above I was mainly interested in making human (Q5) not a subclass of occurrence (Q1190554), so I didn't change the current classification of human evolution (Q83944). But I agree with you, it is clearly not a class. Mushroom (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @TomT0m: Yes, it seemed wrong to me as well for anatomically modern human (Q5891007) to be a subclass of human evolution (Q83944), I'm not sure why it was set that way. I eventually replaced subclass of (P279) with part of (P361), but this property is too generic. A better solution could be: