Wikidata:Property proposal/terminology

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

   Under discussion
Descriptionterminology where the sense is used
Representsterminology (Q8380731)
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesterminology (Q8380731)
Example 1ipso facto (L227969), sense 3 → legal terminology (Q76419834)
Example 2window (L3327), sense 1 → computing terminology (Q3457057)
Example 3note (L4316), sense 2 → music term (Q20202269)
Planned useusing on many lexemes
See alsolanguage style (P6191)


I've suggested this on Wikidata:Property_proposal/part of terminology, but I didn't proposed it formally. --Tinker Bell 05:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes I think lexemes is the place for this, and I guess we don't currently have a property that's quite right for it. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I approve of the idea, but I don't like the requirement of a terminology item. If only since even within computing or legal terminology subfields may apply different definitions... Circeus (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Circeus: do you have an example? --Tinker Bell 07:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Leaning towards Symbol support vote.svg Support Clearly Symbol support vote.svg Support. I'm just wondering: are we sure we couldn't use other properties (maybe facet of (P1269)?) and if terminology (discipline) (Q1725664) is probably not the right item, here it's "terminology" as in « The set of terms actually used in any business, art, science, or the like; nomenclature; technical terms. », the second sense en:wikt:terminology while terminology (discipline) (Q1725664) is more about the first sens of the same entry « The doctrine of terms ». A new item is needed (and would useful for other items like nomenclature (Q863247)). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: I've corrected the item. --Tinker Bell 23:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks (somehow I missed this item, no need for a new item then). And what about my first question? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Before opening this proposal, I considered using part of (P361). But I realized a sense doesn't belongs to a terminology, but its concept, so I'm pretty convinced this new property is necessary. I don't see how facet of (P1269) can be used here. --Tinker Bell 08:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
TBH, I'm not sure either, I just wanted to be sure you consider other options. Thanks. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I support adding information about field of use. Just a question - is it necesary to limit the values to terminology (Q8380731)? Would be linking to mathematics (Q395), architecture (Q12271) or card game (Q142714) not sufficient enough? --Lexicolover (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Lexicolover: I think it's useful to restrict the allowed values to a set of topics that can be identified and referred easily. For example, the sense about mouse (Q7987) could use computing (Q179310) or computer (Q68)? I would prefer using computing terminology (Q3457057) because it's clearer: the topic isn't too specific, nor too broad. --Tinker Bell 07:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)