Wikidata:Property proposal/Related horses
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
related horses
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
Not done
| Description | horses related to the coach or to stable |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | human (Q5), stable (Q1300510), … |
| Allowed values | horse (Q726) |
| Example | André Fabre (Q353931) → Peintre Celebre (Q3374316) |
| See also | mount (P3091) |
- Motivation
Notified participants of WikiProject Horses
It's a property to indicate that a horse is related to this person (or stable, or maybe other items). Or maybe we can name this propety "related animals" that is more general. There is a third option, that is rename mount (P3091), but it's maybe not exactely the same subject. Tubezlob (🙋) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Notified participants of WikiProject Horses
Support, but only after we widen the proposal to related animals, so that we can, for instance, store pets with the new property. mount (P3091) would be a subproperty of the much wider one. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose "Related" is too vague. Suggestion: provide proposals for specific properties. Example: a property for "cares for animal". --Izno (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)- Oppose per Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, this data would be far too unstructured. "Related" is too broad. --Yair rand (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I think that the mandatory use of a qualifier is of course implied here. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's better to create several properties in this case. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support, create a property "related horses" or "associated horses" is necessary to fill a big gap. It's necessary for the horsetrainers' or stables' infoboxes : using mount (P3091) is not relevant, because obviously horsetrainers don't ride their horses. Rename mount (P3091) can be a good option too, so it could be used for both jockeys and trainers. The idea is to associate someone with horses' career. Glissando (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- No-one is disputing that there is data to be added. What is being disputed by e.g. me is that "related" is too broad. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is presently a proposal to create an all-encompassing X-to-person property (here). I believe that here too we are thinking about getting an all-encompassing new property, this time an X-to-animal one. For the moment, it's called “related horses” but it can probably be renamed to “significant animal”. After this, we would be able to document any X-to-animal relation where X can be an event, an object and, obviously, a trainer. Of course, another solution is to just wait for that other X-to-person property to exist and then have horse → significant person → trainer established on items for horses. Whatever, this is I believe what we are debateing about. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Thierry Caro. Maybe it's more logical to use “significant person” on the horse item than link the horse on the trainer item. But if we do this, we can't indicate stables. So should we create an other property “stable”? Tubezlob (🙋) 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- One might now use significant person (P3342). It has just been created. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Thierry Caro. Maybe it's more logical to use “significant person” on the horse item than link the horse on the trainer item. But if we do this, we can't indicate stables. So should we create an other property “stable”? Tubezlob (🙋) 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is presently a proposal to create an all-encompassing X-to-person property (here). I believe that here too we are thinking about getting an all-encompassing new property, this time an X-to-animal one. For the moment, it's called “related horses” but it can probably be renamed to “significant animal”. After this, we would be able to document any X-to-animal relation where X can be an event, an object and, obviously, a trainer. Of course, another solution is to just wait for that other X-to-person property to exist and then have horse → significant person → trainer established on items for horses. Whatever, this is I believe what we are debateing about. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- No-one is disputing that there is data to be added. What is being disputed by e.g. me is that "related" is too broad. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Related sounds to me too much like it's about family relationship. If the article is supposed to be broad *associated* would be a better label. I however don't see why the relationship between horsetrainers and horses should't get a more specific property. ChristianKl (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done no consensus, @Tubezlob, Tubezlob, Izno, Pigsonthewing, Glissando, ChristianKl: --Pasleim (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
