Talk:Q11499929
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — man of letters (Q11499929)
description: collective term for writers and literary scholars
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “man of letters” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Generic queries for position
This section is generated using {{Generic queries for positions}}
- List of people holding the position, sorted by starting date (query)
- List of people and their ID's on other systems (query)
- Number of people having hold this position by gender (query) – List of people having hold this position with gender (query)
- Number of people having hold the position by country of citizenship (query) – List of people having hold the position by country of citizenship (query)
- People having hold the function by length of term (query)
- List of people having hold the position by total duration in the position (query)
- List of people having hold the position by gender at the starting date (query)
- List of people holding the function with employer as qualifier (query)
- List of people having hold the position as qualifier of employer (P108) (query)
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
English term[edit]
Bilingual dictionaries give e.g. "scholar of literature; literary person; man of letters" for this term in Japanese at least. "Learned literary" does not make sense in English and should not be used. Innotata (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Innotata That doesn’t fit the meaning of the item, i. e. a collective term for writers (playwrights, poets, …) and literary scholars alike. It is not a duplicate of literary scholar (Q17167049). Could you come up with a more suitable term? --Emu (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst Did you maybe overlook this discussion when you merged the items? --Emu (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I will unmerge, and no I didn't see the conversation. I did a quick google translate and there were no overlaps, no equivalents, and no "different from" which are the best way to prevent merges. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Emu: I think that there needs to be a better differentiation as already it is a mess if they are indeed different terms Special:WhatLinksHere/Q11499929 and Special:WhatLinksHere/17167049 as the users see them as equivalent. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst I would imagine that many if not all instances were created because of previous faulty merges (bot jobs etc.) of which there were several. --Emu (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- The true value in proactive use of different from (P1889) or its early reactive use. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst I would imagine that many if not all instances were created because of previous faulty merges (bot jobs etc.) of which there were several. --Emu (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Emu: I think that there needs to be a better differentiation as already it is a mess if they are indeed different terms Special:WhatLinksHere/Q11499929 and Special:WhatLinksHere/17167049 as the users see them as equivalent. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I will unmerge, and no I didn't see the conversation. I did a quick google translate and there were no overlaps, no equivalents, and no "different from" which are the best way to prevent merges. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst Did you maybe overlook this discussion when you merged the items? --Emu (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)