Wikidata:Requests for comment/Why do we have an item for dogs and another one for ''Canis lupus familiaris''?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is that these items represent different entities whose relationship is indicated by their statements. − Pintoch (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
| An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Why do we have an item for dogs and another one for ''Canis lupus familiaris''?" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
I wonder why we are making separate instances for dog (Q144) and Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265). We don't do this with house cat (Q146). -Theklan (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- [repeated here]
- Actually we do, see Felis catus (Q20980826). We just failed to also split off Felis sylvestris catus (at least so far); an oversight, perhaps cats are not as popular as dogs? - Brya (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And why is the former classed as an "instance of common name"? Common names don't have legs, or teeth, or tails... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that common names would be Lexemes, but dog (Q144) is the same as Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265). And even the same as Canis familiaris (Q20717272). -Theklan (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- a comparable issue: dandelion (Q3091399) vs Taraxacum (Q30024) or Chrysantheme (Q15102622) and Asteraceae (Q25400). In both cases, the issue seem to come from the fact that some Wikipedia editions have articles for both. -- Maxlath (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be that, but then the scientific data must be in Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265) and the "cultural data" in dog (Q144), isn't it? -Theklan (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As the only project in Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265) was Wikispecies, I have merged both items. -Theklan (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be that, but then the scientific data must be in Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265) and the "cultural data" in dog (Q144), isn't it? -Theklan (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia page says that dog is called "Canis lupus familiaris" when considered a subspecies of the gray wolf and "Canis familiaris" when considered a distinct species--Malore (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- [repeated here]
- There are any number of reasons, but the two main points are:
- retaining information. There are three concepts: Canis lupus familiaris, Canis familiaris, and "dog". There exists a great deal of literature out there, and if there are three items all references can be put in the item that the reference in question refers to (an article on Canis familiaris can be included as a reference in the item Canis familiaris, an article on Canis lupus familiaris can be included as a reference in the item Canis lupus familiaris, etc). This retains information which may well be important. If everything were to be dumped into one item, this information would be lost, and anybody to whom this information is important will need to re-examine all references to recover it. The purpose of a database is better served by retaining relevant information, rather than by eliminating information because it does not fit in the software used by a particular user, at the time, or in the ideas of a particular user, at the time.
- ease of editing. In maintaining items, it is much easier if they are on clear concepts. The item Canis familiaris (Q20717272) is much easier to maintain than a "mixed" item because it is very similar to Canis aureus (Q128098), coyote (Q44299), etc. The same goes for incoming links.
- Brya (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But then the biological aspects of dogs should be inside Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265) and not inside dog (Q144). Common words don't have biology. -Theklan (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically yes, and mostly they are, except for some properties of pets. - Brya (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But then the biological aspects of dogs should be inside Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265) and not inside dog (Q144). Common words don't have biology. -Theklan (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't these at least be connected by said to be the same as (P460) or exact match (P2888)? - Jmabel (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There already is a relationship indicated, more exact than could be done by P460. The property P2888 is not even possible: it has datatype "URL". - Brya (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]