Talk:Q16334295

The subclass seems wrong, it could be any group of people dead or alive.. RobotGMwikt (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@RobotGMwikt, GerardM: This is supposed to be a reference to life, not to alive. Maybe a better english labelling like organisms would fit ?

A group of humans is both a subclass of human (every human on earth) and has human members (the members of the group). Please do not remove. Inwind (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Arkady and Boris Strugatsky (Q153796) is instance of sibling duo (Q14073567). sibling duo (Q14073567) is subclass of group of humans (Q16334295). You say group of humans (Q16334295) is subclass of human (Q5). So Arkady and Boris Strugatsky (Q153796) is instance of human (Q5). But object Arkady and Boris Strugatsky (Q153796) is not similar to human (Q5). It contains 4 eyes instead of two and 2 brains instead of one. In general: every concrete group of humans is subclass of humans. But human groups as set of concrete groups is not subclass of humans. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably I see where the confusion comes from. Each specific group of people such as Arkady and Boris Strugatsky (Q153796) is a class of human (Q5) (for each of human we can derive if they belongs to the class or not). So group of humans (Q16334295) is a class of such classes but not a class itself. So if one wants to put some subclass of (P279) statement here it should be subclass of (P279) of "class(es) of people". --Infovarius (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Inwind: Are you OK to remove claim group of humans (Q16334295) <subclass of (P279)> human (Q5)? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• I added the claim, since a lot of properties related to <occupation (P106)> require the linked entry to be human. If the group of humans (Q16334295) is not <subclass of (P279)> human (Q5) then all <screenwriter (P58)> who are groups, for example the Wachowskis (Q195719) cause a Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P58 Inwind (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• occupation (P106) documentation does not describe application this property to human groups. Are you sure that this usage is correct and does not produce conflicts in some infoboxes or another clients? Anyway there are another ways to resolve this issue without creating logically invalid claims. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• BTW: it happened that "town in China" appeared as a subclass of person (town in China -> town -> community -> social group -> group of humans -> human -> person) - this should not happen ;) --Katpatuka (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed "town->community". --Infovarius (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that all of these items that are instances of this item are problematic. --Yair rand (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  I am pretty sure they can be correct. Group is class, isn't it? --Infovarius (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Infovarius: No, I don't think so. I don't see how that could work. Do you think human (Q5) is a subclass of group of humans (Q16334295)? That would imply that any given instance of human is also a group of humans, which is obviously not the case. Classes have instances. Groups don't, but they may have parts. --Yair rand (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Image

I added an image. If you don't like it, replace it with a better image. Don't remove it. Multichill (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

this really helped  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.162.234.204 (talk • contribs) at 2021-08-10T09:33:38‎ (UTC).