Wikidata:Property proposal/member of tribe

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

member of Roman tribe

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Motivation

[edit]
Jura
Epìdosis
llywrch
Jahl de Vautban
Alexmar983
StarTrekker
Mathieu Kappler
Tolanor
JASHough
Darellur
Ahc84
Liber008
User:Jonathan Groß
User:Luca.favorido
sarcanon

Notified participants of WikiProject Ancient Rome

Tribe (tribus) was an important part of ancient Roman life, specially in Republican time, as it specified where one's vote would count (a sort of electoral unit (Q192611), if you like). Prosopographically, it is also useful to allow distinction of various individuals who may have the same name but are part of different tribes. Just like we already have member of the deme (P2462) to specify Athenian deme, this property would allow for a more complete representation of ancient Roman society. Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • @Yair rand: what general property do you suggest to use ? If I have a look at what was proposed in the previous proposal, none really covers the scope of this property. member of (P463) is explicitely against social groups, which tribe are as they are passed from ancestors ; family (P53) won't fit, as tribes are way larger than a single family ; there were only as much as 35 tribes for the whole of the Roman society, which at is peak was several million people. It is not as well social classification (P3716), since members of different social classes could well be part of the same tribe (and indeed former slaves did took the tribe of their enfranchiser). Going further, it is not member of political party (P102), as it was not possible to choose one's tribe. As Romulanus already puts it in the previous proposal, one's tribe is wholly irrelevant to one's ethnicity, origin, social status or even localisation. As it is so tied in ancestors, you could well draw a parallel with the Swiss' place of origin (Switzerland) (P1321). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A generalized property is easily used in problematic ways. Having this specialized is good. ChristianKl15:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]