Talk:Q9238344

On Polish Wikipedia there's no article for grandfather (relationship). There's only https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relacja_rodzinna#Linia_prosta_pokrewie.C5.84stwa For kinship. 62.61.46.117 16:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Grandfather also a father?

@Infovarius: referring to your revert-revert: Then the value shouldn't be father (Q7565) but a "male ancestor" item. Otherwise we have to remove a lot of sitelinks, labels and the statement father (Q7565)Wikidata property (P1687)father (P22) from father (Q7565). --Marsupium (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC), 09:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marsupium: I mean: if we take a class of all grandfathers, we obtain some subclass of all fathers, because each grandfather is father of somebody. Why should we remove anything? --Infovarius (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Grandfather also a son for great-grandfather (Q2500621)--Fractaler (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Infovarius, Fractaler: Sorry for responding only now. I'm still not completely sure about this issue … But I think grandfather (Q9238344) should not be about the "class of people who are grandfathers" (they are also fathers indeed) but about the "type of relation grandfather" (this kind of relationship isn't also a father relationship), thus it shouldn't even be a subclass of (P279) of man (Q8441). But perhaps Wikidata talk:WikiProject Parenthood is a better place to discuss this since it is more of a general question I guess? --Marsupium (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess both of you misses some aspects of the language problems here. When I studied a little biblical Hebrew, I learned that "father" was not only the person who made your mother pregnant, but also that persons father, your mothers father and all male ancestors you had a name on. (That explains how Jesus could be the "son of David".) On the other hand, in my language, Swedish, I cannot add a good label to Q9238344 at all, since we do not have a word in Swedish for grandfather. "förälders far" is not a real label, it is a description of the relation between two persons. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the ways of expression of different languages should affect the structure and meaning of items. It's totally fine if "förälders far" is a description. --Marsupium (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

First, the expression "David is father of Jesus" could be understood differently in different languages. And secondly, for a language like mine, it would be more useful to use items like Q20776692 and Q19682162 than this one. This item is in my language a superclass that does not make sense in text. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Concerning "David is father of Jesus": There has to be a item with unambiguous labels/descriptions for one and the other possible meaning of the ambiguous human language expression.
2. Concerning maternal grandfather (Q20776692) and paternal grandfather (Q19682162): I also think this is a problem, not for the item structure here, but for external text composition, e.g. in c:Module:Kinship where I try to do that. I think it would be good to have a way to indicate which items/meanings are commonly used in a language. Do you have an idea how that could be done? --Marsupium (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, describing every "node" between two persons is often enough, including telling the age-difference. (Some Asian languages has one word for "older brother" and another for "younger brother".) As far as I know, not even that is always enough to describe every "in-law"- and "step"-relation, but it solves most cases. (I for example do not see a person married to my father as my step-mother if I never have lived with the person myself. And I do not see the person married to my "morbror" as my "moster", if I do not personally know the woman in question.) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marsupium: Ok, I understand your doubts. But Q9238344 and man (Q8441) are obviosly related, how else would we express this relation? --Infovarius (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Infovarius: Hm, good question, perhaps someone on WD:PC knows a property or other solution?. --Marsupium (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC) PS: @Infovarius: I've asked for input at WD:PC#How to tell a machine what an uncle (Q76557) is?. --Marsupium (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Opposite of grandson, criterion used: inverse function

Currently one of the statements reads this in English. I wonder if it shouldn't read "grandchild", but maybe this is another opposite and/or language dependent.
--- Jura 05:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

GrandChild is probably more symmetrically opposite of GrandParent than of GrandFather.

And I guess granddaughter would be opposite of this with "criterion used: invers function + gender".

-- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe inverse family relationship (Q42248293) helps: I added that and will try to include a column on Wikidata:WikiProject Parenthood/lists/kinship types listing it for all items.
--- Jura 07:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: I think grandfather as a binary relation, would probably have "grandchild" as inverse relation. But I am not sure "opposite item" is the same thing as "inverse relation". From my perspective, I had two grandfathers. If I had started to get a family before I got too old, I could have had grandchildren. My (potential) grandson is then the opposite of my grandfather. My grandfather and grandson are mirroring each other, they are opposite. And my granddaughters would mirror my grandfathers both in the direction of the relation and in the gender aspect. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think we could probably have more complements and as long as we add criteria the describe how they work, it should work out fairly well. Maybe there is a better property than P461, but I think the list at Wikidata:WikiProject Parenthood/lists/kinship types worked out fairly well.
  --- Jura 17:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)