Wikidata:Property proposal/related to (see also)

related to (see also) edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Not done

Description	-
Data type	Item
Example 1	MISSING
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING

Consider item: Ajoure (Q4699945) metal decorating technique similar to filigree

I added: different from (P1889) - Ajouré (Q4058082) decorative textile technique
Now I want to add: related to - Filigree (Q1001313) delicate kind of jewellery metalwork

I'm surprised that I can't find an appropriate prop.

relation (P2309) is only for property constraints, and the example at Property_talk:P2309 is not any good: "relation ==> Instance (Qxyz)")
related property (P1659) is only for properties. I suggest to change it to apply to any item. Do you agree? If not, I'll make a proper prop proposal.

--Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose having miscellaneous "related to" relationships, as they are not structured data. Such proposals have been rejected several times in the past. --Yair rand (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yair rand: So you don't find it useful to connect ajoure (Q4699945) and filigree (Q1001313) ?

They should be probably related. But not this way. We should think of the right way to link them. What do they have in common ? They are both subclasses of Jewellry metalworks for example. We should probably be able to express precisely what they have in common using precise properties. Inventing new one if needed. author TomT0m / talk page 11:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general please follow the usual way of proposing a property with the "property proposal" template. As far as this particular issue goes, if ajoure (Q4699945) and filigree (Q1001313) are related because they are similar kinds of metalwork there's likely a superclass for that kind of metalwork. I agree with TomT0m and Oppose. ChristianKl (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir Alexiev, Yair rand, TomT0m: Not done. ChristianKl (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]