Wikidata:Property proposal/member of tribe
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
member of Roman tribe[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
| Description | Roman tribe in which one was inscribed |
|---|---|
| Represents | tribus (Q938560) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | human (Q5), human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568), prosopographical phantom (Q64643615) |
| Allowed values | tribus (Q938560) |
| Example 1 | Cicero (Q1541) → Cornelia (Q3538787) |
| Example 2 | Julius Caesar (Q1048) → Fabia (Q3538791) |
| Example 3 | Catiline (Q75826) → Tromentina (Q3538812) |
| Example 4 | Gaius Memmius (Q11923620) → Galeria (Q3538795) |
| Planned use | first correction of incorrect use of member of (P463), then manual addition over time |
| See also | member of the deme (P2462), electoral district (P768), Roman praenomen (P2358), Roman nomen gentilicium (P2359), Roman cognomen (P2365), Roman agnomen (P2366), gens (P5025) |
| Single-value constraint | oui |
| Wikidata project | Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome |
Motivation[edit]
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)
Discussion[edit]
Support of course. --Epìdosis 10:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)- Support Yes makes sense! --Tolanor (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This property doesn't exist already? If implemented, it might need triggers (I think that's the correct term, I'm rusty on database terminology) to keep it only applicable before c. AD 300, since that property was not used after that point. -- Llywrch (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- We call them constraints here :) -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 04:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I told you I was rusty. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: I just found out that it was already proposed back in 2018, but failed to gather support. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- We call them constraints here :) -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 04:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support JASHough (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi - I'm not familiar with this at all, but we do have a bunch of seemingly similar properties like gens (P5025) - is this at all related? Should it be in the related properties list? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: they are indeed related and I have added them as such ; together they all participate in the naming convention of ancient Roman (in Republican times at least), however they do cover different aspects of it. If you take Julius Caesar (Q1048), his full identity was
C. Iulius C. f. C. n. Fab. Caesar, withC.as Roman praenomen (P2358)Gaius (Q5517401)),Iuliusas Roman nomen gentilicium (P2359)Julius (Q29871072), and therefore gens (P5025)Julia gens (Q510193),C. f. C. n.the praenomina of his father and his grandfather,Fab.the above-proposed tribe, and finallyCaesaras Roman cognomen (P2365)Caesar (Q1025414). Now Julius Caesar is a well know individual whose identity isn't in doubt, but I have recently came across Lucius Memmius Gal. (Q88870158) and Lucius Memmius (Q115754261) for which the only difference seems to be the tribe. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: they are indeed related and I have added them as such ; together they all participate in the naming convention of ancient Roman (in Republican times at least), however they do cover different aspects of it. If you take Julius Caesar (Q1048), his full identity was
Comment Pinging @Romulanus, Pigsonthewing, Theklan, Germartin1, Yair rand, Cwf97: as voters in the previous Wikidata:Property proposal/tribus. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Insufficiently generalized, in an area that could use general properties to cover this kind of thing. --Yair rand (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- A generalized property is easily used in problematic ways. Having this specialized is good. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
