Wikidata:Property proposal/exonym
exonym edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | name given to an entity in a language that is not the official language of the place or country of this entity (useful if the entity changed its name at some point and using the label could cause an anachronism) |
|---|---|
| Represents | exonym (Q81639) |
| Data type | monolingual text or lexeme-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype) |
| Domain | places, organizations |
| Example 1 | Examples can be found for example here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_renaming#Exonyms_and_endonyms |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| Planned use | avoid anachronism in infoboxes, per community demands |
| See also | official name (P1448)  |
Motivation edit
As stated in the description, some entity change their names. We handle this with official name (P1448) in the native language of the entity, but we don’t have an equivalent for names in different countries. author TomT0m / talk page 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- see also
- a discussion in Project chat Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2018/11#Questions_about_names_:_«_unofficial_»_names_given_by_foreigners_and_the_future_of_names_in_the_lexeme_era ( pinging participants @Jmabel, AnonMoos: ) author TomT0m / talk page 09:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Comment Would you consider having this as a Lexeme-valued property, rather than monolingual text? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)- Comment I agree it should be lexeme related property. KaMan (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose since this is still not clearly lexeme property. KaMan (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Answer @KaMan, ArthurPSmith: Actually I would have sweared I had putted « monolingual text or lexeme » as datatype in the proposal but it seems I did not /o\ Done now
(also
Notified participants of WikiProject Names author TomT0m / talk page 09:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Support OK, support as lexeme-valued property. Even though there are a lot of examples on the link you give, it would be nice to see some examples laid out explicitly the way you would like them done (also maybe one or two not in English). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)- Comment name (P2561) could generally be used. It avoids debating if the name is an exonym or not. --- Jura 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I’m unconfortable with this solution in this case, there is at least a need to discriminate between several kind of names and the generic property is not enough. A solution to define an exonym could anyway to create a mandatory qualifier « name given by », after all it’s a ternary relationship as an exonym is associated to an entity that gives the name, always. But it could also fit on the lexeme if we use the lexeme datatype which is the consensus at this point - another difference with this property. author TomT0m / talk page 12:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- What about name (P2561) with qualifier issued by (P2378)? --Pasleim (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I’m unconfortable with this solution in this case, there is at least a need to discriminate between several kind of names and the generic property is not enough. A solution to define an exonym could anyway to create a mandatory qualifier « name given by », after all it’s a ternary relationship as an exonym is associated to an entity that gives the name, always. But it could also fit on the lexeme if we use the lexeme datatype which is the consensus at this point - another difference with this property. author TomT0m / talk page 12:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- @TomT0m: Please put in the examples in the way the property is supposed to be used. That information clarifies the proposed semantics of a proposed property. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Given unclearness of the semantics. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
