Wikidata:Property proposal/clan

clan

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

   Not done

Represents	clan (Q211503)
Data type	Item
Domain	human (Q5)
Example 1	Kim Dae-jung (Q45785) → Gimhae Kim clan (Q493888)
Example 2	Park Chung Hee (Q14356) → Goryeong Park clan (Q12584184)
Example 3	Rosamund Kwan (Q714188) → Gūwalgiya (Q5627766)
See also	family name (P734), country of citizenship (P27), family (P53), member of the deme (P2462), gens (P5025), member of Roman tribe (P11491), Wikidata:Property proposal/Tribe

Motivation

Clan infomation is useful to represent Bon-gwan (Q846706) or Manchu surname (Q20687684). South Korea previously banned marriage between men and women who have the same surname and sharing the same ancestral home(Bon-gwan (Q846706)). Marriage between men and women who belong to related bon-gwan was taboo. Modern Manchu people have Manchu surname (Q20687684) regardless of their modern sinograms (Q8201)-based chinese surnames.

Because there are posibilities that some Koreans in the past without Bon-gwan (Q846706) adopted neighbor's Bon-gwan (Q846706), we can't use family (P53) for Bon-gwan (Q846706). ChoKukSuho (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Request: Please explain why Gimhae Kim clan (Q493888)instance of (P31)family (Q8436) + Kim Dae-jung (Q45785)family (P53)Gimhae Kim clan (Q493888) is wrong. 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:B4D6:18D9:5E63:F68C 21:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• «we can't use family (P53) for Bon-gwan (Q846706).» => Why? 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:B4D6:18D9:5E63:F68C 21:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• Are/were those Manchu and Korean grouping formally recognized/acknowledged by the local State like deme (Q672490): administrative unit in ancient Athens and tribus (Q938560): grouping of Roman citizens were? 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:B4D6:18D9:5E63:F68C 21:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  If this is the case, then it would be a strong argument in favor of a (dedicated) property. 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:141:C262:8BA7:4741 08:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Because of their population. ChoKukSuho (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Support I support this proposal on the condition that it will replace member of Roman tribe (P11491) with a more general datatype (but less general than member of (P463)). /ℇsquilo 08:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Why should it replace it? They are different concepts from different cultures. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with Jahl, clans and tribes are not at all the same thing, Roman tribes had very specific legal implications that most clans do not. Hard no to any replacement.StarTrekker (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• What's the difference to family (P53)? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 03:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment extremely populous clans are not families. such as Korean Bon-gwans. ChoKukSuho (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Consider making sure the property won't end up co-opted for Scottish clans? Unless the intention is indeed explicitly to cover that use case? Circeus (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

In any case this property would need a description to be more clear about it's usage. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support but there are already several properties for clans by specific culture (such as Roman gentes) so maybe there should be a description that makes it clear that more specific properties are avalable.StarTrekker (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Chinese clans are using family (P53). Chinese culture is not very different from Korean. Midleading (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• Request: Please explain why Kim Dae-jung (Q45785)tribe (P12011)Gimhae Kim clan (Q493888) is wrong. 2A01:CB14:D52:1200:F961:9D20:3702:4DD9 18:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ChoKukSuho:, could you please clarify the all comments above. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time. Also, didn't response the comments above. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)