Wikidata:Property proposal/meronym 2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
meronym
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes
Not done
We probably still need something like the above. Good samples still need to be added. --- Jura 12:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose This is relation between concepts and it should be modelled on items connected to senses with item for this sense (P5137) KaMan (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment I know this is a relation that WordNet uses and there's a psychological justification, but the structured data of Wikidata provides for much finer meaningful relationships between concepts so I really don't think this is helpful or useful in the Wikidata context of Lexemes. Also, we have examples in the template for a reason - please use them so it's at least clear what we're discussing here! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Funny that you mention samples in this context ;) There is a sample on the initial proposal (Wikidata:Property proposal/meronym) and more can obviously be filled in.
Whether this is used by other sites or not doesn't matter that much, but it's a key element of one of the few basic ways of defining terms. Similar to the reason that we have samples in proposals.
The problem we might eventually end up with is that some users just add the same in an unstructured way in the gloss. Oddly, possibly the same who think this is unstructured. Possibly some left-over habit from print dictionaries. --- Jura 09:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you're worried about unstructured data in glosses, let's put together some guidelines on writing glosses that addresses that. I don't see how this helps. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Using meronyms to define a term is perfectly valid. It's just better to do this in a statement than in a gloss. --- Jura 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you're worried about unstructured data in glosses, let's put together some guidelines on writing glosses that addresses that. I don't see how this helps. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done: no change was made since the last proposal, so there is no reason to expect a different outcome. Next time you want to revive old proposals, filling the required fields in the property proposal template would be the bare minimum. Adding more motivation would probably help too. Please also ping users who took part to the previous discussion. Overall, there needs to be good reason to resubmit the same proposal. − Pintoch (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)