Talk:Q8205328

Item label

I'm going to change the English item label from "artefact" to "equipment", so it will match its category Category:Equipment (Q6063063). That's also the name used in the linked enwiki category at en:Category:Equipment and the Commons category. "Artefact" in English often refers to items studied in archaeology, and we would need to use something like "useful artefact" to exclude works of art from the scope. Ghouston (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that category should be used with this item, though? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it has been merged from another item that had the label "equipment" and previously linked to the category. Google translate suggests that the articles are about right. Ghouston (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Why should we "exclude works of art from the scope"? In 2016 artificial physical object (Q15222213) was merged by Andreasmperu into this item (artificial physical object (Q8205328)). artificial physical object (Q15222213) was the result of the discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structure#Root item I had with Zolo in 2013. It was well defined and explicitly designed to comprise "useful artefacts" and "works of art" and not to distinguish between them. polyptych (Q1278452) and sculpture (Q860861) are still subclass of (P279) of this item (artificial physical object (Q8205328)). As in 2013 I don't think it is a good idea to strictly separate "works of art" and objects that aren't "art" in the classification system. It's not possible to define art that way it is needed for our classification system here and I don't think it is of any value to do so.

Anyway, the Commons category system for objects is the last source I'd use for the labels, descriptions and classification of objects. There are exemptions of course, but wide parts of the Commons classification through categories is quite messy. --Marsupium (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I can understand your doubts about the Commons category system. However, categories for "equipment" can also be found on many Wikipedias, including en:Category:Equipment, and I don't think that pure artworks (or toys) would be in scope for it. Category:Artificial objects (Q26991679) is a broader category that includes those things, along with buildings. Although, the enwiki category system seems to be even messier than Commons, as far as I can see. Perhaps this item has been hijacked at some point, I don't know. Ghouston (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

artificial object (Q16686448) also exists, maybe it should be linked with Category:Artificial objects (Q26991679), although I'm not sure if the latter is supposed to include non-material entities. Ghouston (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

However the current state was reached, with perhaps an inappropriate merge, it seems that an item for "artificial physical object" is now missing. I suppose it's necessary to either create a new item or undo some of the merging. Ghouston (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that "equipment" is a meaningful concept that should have an item in Wikidata, then the obvious thing to do is undo the merge by User:D1gggg of equipment (Q29960888) into this item. Ghouston (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that the category classification situation on enwiki isn't better. Too bad! Best we can do is not to use it as a guide I think. I'd like to recommend Art & Architecture Thesaurus (Q611299) linked with Art & Architecture Thesaurus ID (P1014) again!

Yes, I think artificial object (Q16686448) also includes non-material things, see Talk:Q16686448#Subclass!

I don't really overview the situation, but if there isn't a "artificial physical object" item, I'd be happy with a restoration on whatever way including undoing of former merges. --Marsupium (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll revert the merge with equipment (Q29960888), which will put this item back to its original state. Ghouston (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• AAT doesn't seem to have an identical entry for this particular concept. It fits somewhere under their "Objects Facet" 300264092, which includes practically everything, taking some of the items from other groups including buildings, furnishings and equipment, and Visual and Verbal Communication. Ghouston (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong approach

We should use more properties, not to pick definitions.

⟨ subject ⟩ use Search ⟨ protection ⟩

⟨ subject ⟩ use Search ⟨ comfort ⟩

d1g (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• "comfort" and "protection" are universal and would exist in many languages, while "Furnishing" isn't necessary in every language. d1g (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Does a concept need to be described in a single word in every known language before we can use it? If a Wiki in a particular language isn't interested in a concept, it can refrain from creating an article about it and then needs no link to Wikidata. Wiktionary has a definition of furniture as "Large movable item(s), usually in a room, which enhance(s) the room's characteristics, functionally or decoratively." It would be harder for me to work out what "items that provide comfort" would include. Ghouston (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

1. @User:Ghouston: My message in reply to your "we would need to use something like "useful artefact" to exclude works of art from the scope"

This is not efficient at Wikidata, we use even more properties, not to define artificial exclusions/inclusions

Works of art are physical objects in many worldviews and cultures, proper way is to filter on presence or absence of property has use (P366)

2. Current label "artificial physical object" is not ambiguous. d1g (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ghouston: Another example with clocks made by famous goldsmith (Q211423) - they would be work of art and functional clocks at the same time. d1g (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That discussion about "useful artefacts" now applies to equipment (Q29960888), not to this item. Physical works of art should be included in "artificial physical object". Ghouston (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ghouston: I agree, but

It isn't helpful to change labels to fit specific agreements on Wikidata (as opposed to what every professional would use for them-self in their vocabulary)

Or at least simple senses from dictionaries.

Simply use more properties, not just P31 and P279 all the time.

In some sense it is much useful to use simple word in many languages at 1000 items than complex words in one language at fewer items.

If you start with complex words edits will be slow. d1g (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

M not able to understand how to contribute.... So many links... Too complicated Ksupriya91 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)