Talk:Q21070568
Autodescription — human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “human whose existence is disputed” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
human whose existence is disputed⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Subclass of Homo sapiens sapiens (Q3238275)
[edit]ChristianKl, is there a reason for making this item a subclass of Homo sapiens sapiens (Q3238275)? Because there is the intention to keep the "real-entity-tree" clean of "not-real" entities (and the instances of this class are very likely not real), see also WikiProject:Fictional Universes. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Valentina.Anitnelav: Fictional humans do have human anatomy. Anatomy textbooks do often feature images of fictional humans. ChristianKl (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- That fictional humans are presented in human form is expressed by using fictional human (Q15632617) fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) human (Q5). Is there a use case where you would need this subclass-relationship? Because I see only disadvantages, practically (now possibly fictional humans will show up in queries for instances of subclasses of organism/human) and conceptually. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Addendum: Even if you stretch the semantics of "subclass of" to also mean "its instances are represented as" (which is not a good idea, in my opinion) there are still problems with the statement that human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) is a subclass of homo sapiens sapiens resulting from the presentation of its instances: Adam (Q70899) is currently an (indirect) instance of human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) (which seems sound to me). Adam is represented as being created by god, quite to the contrary of the concept of homo sapiens sapiens, which (if I'm not mistaken) rests upon the idea of evolution. So I actually don't think that Adam is represented as an instance of homo sapiens sapiens. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- That fictional humans are presented in human form is expressed by using fictional human (Q15632617) fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) human (Q5). Is there a use case where you would need this subclass-relationship? Because I see only disadvantages, practically (now possibly fictional humans will show up in queries for instances of subclasses of organism/human) and conceptually. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Name change
[edit]Name may be changed to 'Possibly fictional human'. Riteshmmec (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Potential merge
[edit]This entry, Q75855169, Q13002315, and Q21070598 are all very close to one another. Potentially there's really only one or two concepts here, not four, and they should be disambiguated better IMO. Any ideas?
Also note that on English Wikipedia, Q2107059's associated category is "Category:People whose existence is disputed". That seems a much better title, because "may be fictional" seems to overlap with Q13002315 ("legendary figure"). Except that niche seems filled by Q75855169 already ("hypothetical people")? If Q75855169 isn't legendary people nor hypothetical people, what's left? My loose suggestion might be to merge *0568 and *5169, and restrict it to "people whose existence is proposed by scholars but does not appear directly in any legends or works of unknown degree of fiction", but I'm not much of a Wikidata expert on the process, or if such a change would even be good. SnowFire (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, *0568 and *5169 seem very overlapping, I can't tell the difference. --Infovarius (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Especially with the current description of human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) hypothetical person (Q75855169) seems to be about the same concept and should be merged/deleted after sorting out all its instances (this would be the tedious part). The meaning of human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568) seems to have been changed slightly. The current English description from April 2023 puts it into an academic context (e.g. the existence of the person is hypothetised from historians or other scholars). In my memory the application of this class used to be broader, including legendary and mythical humans subject to (folk) belief and this application is still evident in its instances (e.g. Merlin (Q188044)). But I don't think it is of much use to collect people hypothetised to exist by historians and people "hypothetised" to exist by (folk) belief together into one class. All instances being people hypothetised to exist should go to to hypothetical person (Q75855169) and all instances from folklore, religious texts, etc. should probably go to imaginary human (Q122192387). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- For sorting it may help to have a look at the other classes an instance is said to be an instance of. Here is a query for that: P31 of instances of Q21070568. I think all instances of Q21070568 that are also instances of legendary character, mythical character, character of the Bible/Quran may be safely sorted into imaginary human (Q122192387) using quickstatements or similar. Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)