Talk:Q164240

Revert of monument

@Hjart:. Hello! Why are you reverting the claim of megaliths being monuments? Thanks. -Theklan (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Theklan:First, these items are used for building monuments. They are building materials, not monuments . Second you tried to claim it as an instance, where you should have used subclass. --Hjart (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hjart: Nearly all of the uses of megalith (Q164240) are for monuments, not for the building material itself. The proof is easy, you can query it and see how there are thousands of items with coordintaes claiming that instance of (P31) is megalith (Q164240).

#defaultView:Map
SELECT ?megalito ?megalitoLabel ?koordenatuak WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?megalito wdt:P31/wdt:P279 wd:Q164240.
  ?megalito wdt:P625 ?koordenatuak.
}

Try it!

On the other side, if you query how may items are using megalith (Q164240) as made from material (P186) you will find only one!:

SELECT ?megalito ?megalitoLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?megalito wdt:P186 wd:Q164240;
}

Try it!

So, if the 99,99% of the instances of megalithic monuments are using megalith (Q164240), then, definitively, megalith (Q164240) instance of (P31) of monument (Q4989906).

But it is not only about the current massive use: is that descriptions of the items in all languages I can understand except the English one are saying that this is about the monument, and not about the material. If you think that there should be a material item, then you can create another one, but this is currently used for the monument everywhere. - Theklan (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Theklan:Ok, but several wikipedias (including the english and german) describes this item as a building material, so all of those uses are clearly errors. --Hjart (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hjart: That's not true. The English article is about the monuments, not about the material. Look at the second paragraph: Most extant megaliths were erected between the Neolithic period (although earlier Mesolithic examples are known) through the Chalcolithic period and into the Bronze Age.. It clearly referes to the monuments, as it is talking in the next 60.000ish bytes.

I'm not confident enough in German, but it seems that the German articles is, indeed, about menhir (Q193475). Nevertheless, this item is being used for monuments, nearly all the descriptions are about monuments and the Wikipedia pages associates are about monuments. So I will add the monument claim in instance of (P31) because is the most obvious use. -Theklan (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Theklan:I'm fairly with both english and german languages and I disagree. Please note that the first paragrahp in the english article reads: "A megalith is a large pre-historic stone that has been used to construct a structure or monument, either alone or together with other stones". Also please note that i.e. Damestenen (Q1158650) is an instance of glacial erratic (Q372934). --Hjart (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hjart: Indeed! The English article starts citing that it is a construction material and then, all the other 60.000 bytes are about monuments, not about construction materials. -Theklan (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Split into new element for megalith

Seems obvious there will be a disagreement here about how to use the name «megalith». According statistics the most use is for describing monuments. Also some Wikpedias articles describes them as monuments (at least ESwiki). Another plus is this is including identifiers with the same use as monuments as P8814, P1051, P4212, P6058, P6385, P268 and P950 among others (not the case of P6366, P8408 and probably others).

As the immense of instances are for a megalith monument seems to me the easier would be to create a new element for the building stone (Q2314751) subclass and to move there all the related properties and wikilinks.

Ping @Hjart @Theklan —Ismael Olea (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theklan: If that's really the case, I suggest you create a new subclass of monument (Q4989906), move all the monuments over there and leave this item alone.--Hjart (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Come on, @Hjart. Not only on most Wikipedias, you can find also at the Encyclopaedia Britannica that megalith is a kind of monument: https://www.britannica.com/topic/megalith. Is not about what we think it should be, is about what the "megalith" topic is about in nearly all the references, both internal and external. Theklan (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think redefining this item is a really really bad idea. Please create a new subclass for those monuments and leave this one alone.--Hjart (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No one is redefining. Is the common usage for this item. Query it, if you don't believe me. Theklan (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theklan: Yes, you are. I also think all those monuments were added in error. Solution: move them.--Hjart (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hjart you know it is immensely easier to move the non monument uses to a new element than the inverse. Also, looking element history you can check the first statement is a link to megalith monuments in Commons. So historically first use is related to monuments.

@Theklan and me could move all related info to the new element. Just need your agreement to not undo changes. —Ismael Olea (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Olea: I really think redefining this item will be a mistake. I just had a look at the megalithic monuments currently defined as megalith (Q164240) and it's clear to me that there are much more appropriate and specific existing properties for allmost all of them. I've edited a lot of monuments in Denmark and never had to resort to megalith (Q164240).--Hjart (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

What did you move to? Theklan (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theklan, Olea: Options I often use are dolmen (Q101659), passage grave (Q1426772) and long barrow (Q1652352). Telling the difference between various types of megalithic monuments often requires a fair bit of insight, which many editors just plain do not have, which I think is why the wikidata representation of the field is qurrently quite a mess. Also please note the first sentence in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which says "megalith, huge, often undressed stone used in various types of Neolithic (New Stone Age) and Early Bronze Age monuments." The article clearly says that megaliths are building blocks used to construct megalithic monuments. It does not say that megaliths are monuments in their own right.--Hjart (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, read the title: Megalith | Ancient monument. In the title. There. For everyone to read. Theklan (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read the sentence right under the title. That's what counts here. Hjart (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theklan, Olea: A more general option is megalithic tomb (Q10521078). If you're not sure whether it's a tomb you could use megalithic site (Q53336805).--Hjart (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hjart So you are recognizing exactly our point. Still you keep the point that the word «megalith» is strictly and only the meaning of construction part. Practices out there show there are a common ambiguous use in controlled vocabularies as I pointed out with the P8814, P1051, P4212, P6058, P6385, P268 and P950 (maybe others) values. It could be possible to fine tune the elements? Theorically yes. In practice... who knows. In my direct experience with the Digital Guide to the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia (Q97319067) there are 108 elements tagged megalitos with the meaning of monument as their explicit thesaurus states (it links to the ESwiki equivalent at DBpedia which uses the meaning of monument). In this case I don't have the criteria (neither the time) to amend the source (invalidating the references BTW).

I think here all agree:

• there are two very clear different concepts using the same label;
• it's appropriate to distinguish them with their own elements, adding a nice different from (P1889) statment;
• there is a massive use (inside and out Wikidata) of the monument one (external vocabularies and lots of interwiki pages;
• and seems most of the elements in WD describe monuments.

The only point I understand we disagree is how to correct the ambiguity. @Theklan an me just want the most practical approach.

I would agree keeping Q164240 as you propose if conceptually in the past had had that precise meaning, but as wiki pages (and element history) shows the ambiguity started since with the monument concept the element beginning.

So, honestly and with all my respect as the active and caring editor you are I ask you let us proceed with the dissambiguation. It's time to be practical. Please. —Ismael Olea (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree to redefine this item. I absolutely think the most correct and appropriate action is to start moving all those monuments to somme of the more appropriate existing options.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hjart (talk • contribs) at 25 December 2021 (UTC).

@Theklan, Olea: since @Hjart: is going into an edit war again... Not sure what to do (it seems borderline bad faith and cherry picking of references and words ; Special:Diff/1579753813 last comment say " according to the british encyclopedia it's often an "undressed" (natural/not quarried) stone" meanwhile the same Britannica says in the subtitle "ancient monument" and gives "Alternate titles: monolith, standing stone" and undressed obviously doesn't mean natural!), should we contact the admins? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/undressed can mean "not cared for or tended" = basically "natural". Hjart (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hjart: no. First, stop cherry-picking and changing your sources. Your last source, Britannica clearly says it's an artificial monument and thus says the opposite of what your are stating. Then, in your last source (online Merriam Webster) "undressed" has different meaning, for a stone, what the Britannica mean is (most likely) "natural surfacing" and not "natural stone". The bottomline is that the vast majority of sources clearly stated that this is either a monument or a man-made stone, it both case it's artifical. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I've been using the same sources over and over again here (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Please also note that you as well could be accused of "cherry-picking". Hjart (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If I look the Grand dictionnaire terminologique, who is a place without megalith, they specify a megalith as "erected". Termium plus describe also the megalith as a "prehistoric monument". Large stone are generally a boulder (Q581776). Fralambert (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica states that this are monuments. But whatever. I should call an admin, but I'm tired of this edit war that is counterproductive and leads to inconsistency. Theklan (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)