Talk:Q215627

interwiki conflict

Interwiki conflict
Items involved: Q1077857Talk, Q6424155Talk, Q215627Talk	Status:    resolved

This item is suggested as allowed value for property P107. Discuss at Property talk:P107. Mange01 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Report and Q5480

"Bart Simpson" (Q5480) is on Wikidata:Database reports/Property inheritance/P21 not in P107.

Should Q5480 be added to "person" as well? --  Docu  at 07:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be already a discussion about this at Property_talk:P107#Fictional_character. --  Docu  at 18:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Persona

There is a separate entry for persona, so I removed it. Superm401 - Talk 05:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Person != literary figure

A person cannot be fictional, at least according to the English Wikipedia article person, so I've adjusted the description of this item to reflect that. This item is about a concept described in a Wikipedia article, not a high-level entity of the GND ontology. Emw (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DDC 126

{{maintenance|DDC=126|DDCMAIN=|TREEVIA=279|TANDEM=|TANDEMTREEVIA=}}
12:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC): draft, please use the template talk page for comments;

tree might be delayed by ~15 minutes; suggested values for TREEVIA and TANDEMTREEVIA: subclass of (P279) , instance of (P31) , part of (P361) , has part(s) (P527) , occupation (P106) , field of work (P101) , etc.

in order to see another language please change the WMFLCODE-parameter value in preview mode only
person (Q215627) · ^{purge · T · WLH · tree · reasonator} · DDC: 126 · DDCTANDEM: 000 · tree ^{using subclass of (P279)}

fictional character subclas of person

Not correct imho, because

• a person is by definition a beeing. A fictional character is not a beeing.
• a fictional figure can be a sword or an animal with no human attribute for all we know

I assume you made this for the same reason someone made the symmetric statement on the other item : a constraint.

My proposition : create an item fictional or real person, of which

• ⟨ fictional character ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ fictional or real person ⟩
• ⟨ person ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ fictional or real person ⟩

and use the fictional or real person for your constraint. TomT0m ^(talk) 19:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. As I see "Behemoth (Q4759868) is instance of person (Q215627)" is correct expression. Behemoth (Q4759868) is beeing in his realty. Maybe entity "en:person" is not the same as "ru:личность". — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Even there I don't agree. A fictional character can be a non (fiction) person, isn't it ? For example Bambi (Q2308402)    is a fictional doe. Otherwise I quote english Wikipedia A person is a being ... A fictional character never really die, or he dies a thousand times, every time someone watch the movie or read the story. It's a fictional begin, no question about this. TomT0m ^(talk) 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I use Russian meaning of person (Q215627), you use English meaning of person (Q215627). Russian person (Q215627) allows say "Behemoth (Q4759868) is instance of person (Q215627)", English person (Q215627) does not allow to say "Behemoth (Q4759868) is instance of person (Q215627)". It is typical case unfortunately. Different languages have different sets of terms. Many terms are similar, but not exact the same. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Then we need different items ... maybe there is an existing item that fits ? Could you translate the definition in english ? We could open an interwiki conflict to solve that. TomT0m ^(talk) 21:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your approach will separate person (Q215627) to 54 items :-) The most term items contain only similar entities. This is large Wikidata problem. ru:личность is about social side of human, but not only. Sorry, I know too little number of English philosophy terms to translate this. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata needs clear definitions, otherwise statements reads by a Russian will be true when read by an english or a french the statements will be false or with a different meaning ... It's supposed to be a language independant project. If the problem is to link item with similar topic, it is similar to the Bonnie and Clyde, we need to find a way to find automatically good articles to redirect to, for example using the whole part relationship in a lua template with rule such as if there is no article about the part, but one about a whole countaining the part, then redirect to the article to this whole. Or simply linking to a redirect with the classical trick remove the redirect, edit Wikidata, restore the redirect. TomT0m ^(talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is larger than your describe. Bonnie and Clyde is very simple case. ru:город and en:city is more interesting. Definitions clearing goal conflicts with linking goal unfortunately. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Two remarks:

1. the de:description of person (Q215627) explicitly states "individual (fictional or non-fictional)"
2. I don't know about everyday english usage of the word "person" (I cannot access how and how widespread related concepts like "personality", "character", "persona", "alter ego", "nom de plume", "pseudonym", "alleged something", "purported something" are used - the more common they are the narrower the meaning of "person" may be). However since en:description refers to "being" after consulting en:being it seems to me that historically there have been and still are many definitions around, some as narrow like implying subclass of human and others quite broad (and not restricted to physical beings). -- Gymel (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Consequently I cannot recall that there was or is a wikidata item for "fictional person" as fictional counterpart for "person": It is too abstract a concept to align with real/not real, physical/not physical or fictional/not fictional. -- Gymel (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This is too much of a change to make without prior discussion. The property should be restored until there is consensus about a change. --Haplology (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Haplology: Ivan change is actually very recent and I cancelled a few minutes after it has been made. Prior state is no statement. What are the actual consequences you are rereffing to ? PS: if the item is too philosophically loaded, we should keep it but actually refer to well defined items according to different philosophical viewpoints. TomT0m ^(talk) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@TomT0m: Maybe we are talking about different things? Since Izno added it in 2013 until two days ago, Q95074 was a subclass of Q215627. Then there was an edit war: it was removed, added, removed, added, and removed again. (Actually it has been removed a few times in between, proving my point that it is controversial. @Izno: you mentioned a discussion here, could you show us a link to that?) Because it is removed, constraints violations are flooded, including mandatory constraints which are very important to keep up with. It is also a big change if only because it is high up in the ontology. --Haplology (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I will need to do some history digging but will try to answer later today. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

moved from a disussion page because going big :) also @Pasleim: because related to User_talk:Pasleim#Fictional character

@Izno, TomT0m: No you seem to be right, I have a short memory and I did not check the history :) this is a long standing issue that we need to settle once and for all. TomT0m ^(talk) 16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My proposed solution : seeing for example the french WIkipedia article about persons, this (être, beeing, ...)is a very loaded and discussed notion. I think we should use this item as such and NOT using it to represent well defined things like for example constraint. We should restrain ourselves to identifiable items like human in the real world, fictional human, fictional character. If we need an constraint (which one by the way ?) that has for domain one combination of these entities, create an item like

• <fictional or real human>, and putting statements like
  ⟨ human ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ fictional or real human ⟩
  and
  ⟨ fictional human ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ fictional or real human ⟩

This item should be used only to refer to the (disputed) notion in philosophy. Maybe we should have a property to link items with clear definitions to this kind of blurry items. something like Pprecise definition of TomT0m ^(talk) 16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. Terms like person or being are ambiguous and it's not our task on Wikidata to change this situation. To have a well-working constraint system we should only use well-defined items. On position held (P39) I went ahead and changed the constraint [1]. But there are 109 more properties using person (Q215627) as constraint [2] and also all subclasses or instances of person (Q215627) should be reviewed. --Pasleim (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The item is used in thousands items. Maybe better way is excluding sitelink en:Person from Q215627. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a non-starter and you know it. Any way, its use in those items should be refined (I'm guessing that extensive use is because of Ladsbot migrating away from GND type), more likely replaced by human (Q5) or fictional character (Q95074) in almost all cases. --Izno (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Human qualities

I added surnames as a quality and added a qualifier to both given name and surname.

⟨ person (Q215627)    ⟩ has characteristic (P1552) ⟨ family name (Q101352)    ⟩
applies to part (P518) ⟨ human (Q5)    ⟩

My reasoning was that names are a human construct. Although, if some ape or dolphin were to be called a person, maybe they would by that point have acquired a name as well. Maybe the qualifier should only be added to surname and not given name? --Azertus (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, why not just leave this for the "human" specific item ? It's the right place for this. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I just added surname, while given name was already there. I have no strong feelings about any of this. I just left this note here for future reference. --Azertus (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Person is a human? --Fractaler (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference between a person and a human? (Person & Mensch)

What is the difference between person (Q215627) and human (Q5)? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

For example Koko (Q1348219) and Harry Potter (Q3244512) are person (Q215627). --Infovarius (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any documentation saying that fictional characters can't be human, or that they can be persons? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

1) "the fictional entity class tree<...>must be disjoint with the real entities tree to prevent fictional entities to show up in queries when only real one are wanted; 2) I don't know about persons - it is only my opinion. --Infovarius (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

person (Q215627) includes non-humans who have person characteristics, such as animal actors. human (Q5) is for humans only. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In the german Wikipedia the description is shown on smartphone, i deleted this: nicht zur Verwendung mit P31, in diesem Fall stattdessen Q5 Mensch verwenden). --Alex42 (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)