Talk:Q38668629
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — Prince Louis of Wales (Q38668629)
description: youngest child of William, Prince of Wales, and Catherine, Princess of Wales
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Prince Louis of Wales” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}
.
Not an instance of human, meaning of date of birth (P569) = novalue
[edit]This is not an instance of human yet (and may even possibly never be), making stats on humans (like counting) wrong. Just ask around how many children the Duke of Cambridge has.
--- Redgolpe (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- What other species could it be? I think "no value" on date of birth makes it clear that it isn't born yet.
--- Jura 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)- Unfortunately there are a host of entries with no value on the date of birth, even if the correct value would be an educated guess, and actually the same goes for this entity (which would make its age negative, though). I hate leaving the instance field empty anyway, so I edited it to "human fetus" for lack of a better alternative.
--- Redgolpe (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)- The fact that other items are wrong doesn't prevent us from doing this one correctly. I don't think we need an item about the foetus. This is about the person and it is notable as it's #5 starting April 2018. Both P31 values you replaced were correct.
--- Jura 18:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)- I'm not arguing the person would be notable, I'm arguing it's a person. This item would only become a person (and notable as "#5") only if the pregnancy ends well, and thus it's not an instance of human in the wikidata sense (and we can argue if it is in a general sense). I'm also 100% for finding a better alternative to "human fetus", but also consider that at birth we'd just change "human fetus" (or whatever) to "human" and leave all properties untouched.
--- Redgolpe (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)- In general, we try to make statements that withstand the change of time other than a possible change of ranks. We could use nasciturus (Q19931235) with preferred rank and human (Q5) with standard rank. Upon birth the ranks of the two can be switched.
--- Jura 09:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)- Let's get this straight: I'm all for using instance of human right now, provided we find a way to identify the child is not born yet, and preferably using properties that do not need a change upon birth. Exploring the various possibilities, using an empty birth date in my mind is just as wrong as all other empty cases. We should make an educated guess, and in this case it's not even a guess: it's April 2018. I even added that and then I removed it after you added the "mother pregnant" event (why did I remove it anyway? Now I added it again...). That would be almost perfect as a future date would unmistakably define an unborn child, except come April, the date is no longer future. Similar reasoning for gender: I'm 99% sure the Duke of Cambridge already knows his child's gender, even if he did not make it public; also there are some instances of existing entries where the gender is actually unknown (like some obscure relatives of notable people). Then, I praise your idea about said "mother pregnant" event, but that still means nothing in a general way: my mother might as well be pregnant right now but surely I'm not a fetus. If no property can be found, I second your idea to use another identifier (but I'd go with human fetus (Q26513) or a variation whereof, because an empty value makes even less sense to me) and human (Q5) with a lower rank.
--- Redgolpe (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)- I don't think we should make guesses about your mother or anybody else.
Wikidata ideally just takes references and converts them to statements. The significant events are both referenced. The same can be used to reference date of birth (P569)=novalue. I don't think a reference for P569=April 2018 can be found unless you add it as a forecast.
--- Jura 09:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)- A forecast is exactly what I was looking for, I didn't even know it could be done. I modified the property to add April 2018 as forecast ("prediction" in wikidata jargon), removed the empty property and reverted to human. Feel free to make any other change you deem necessary (is the pregnancy event still needed for example?).
--- Redgolpe (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- A forecast is exactly what I was looking for, I didn't even know it could be done. I modified the property to add April 2018 as forecast ("prediction" in wikidata jargon), removed the empty property and reverted to human. Feel free to make any other change you deem necessary (is the pregnancy event still needed for example?).
- I don't think we should make guesses about your mother or anybody else.
- Let's get this straight: I'm all for using instance of human right now, provided we find a way to identify the child is not born yet, and preferably using properties that do not need a change upon birth. Exploring the various possibilities, using an empty birth date in my mind is just as wrong as all other empty cases. We should make an educated guess, and in this case it's not even a guess: it's April 2018. I even added that and then I removed it after you added the "mother pregnant" event (why did I remove it anyway? Now I added it again...). That would be almost perfect as a future date would unmistakably define an unborn child, except come April, the date is no longer future. Similar reasoning for gender: I'm 99% sure the Duke of Cambridge already knows his child's gender, even if he did not make it public; also there are some instances of existing entries where the gender is actually unknown (like some obscure relatives of notable people). Then, I praise your idea about said "mother pregnant" event, but that still means nothing in a general way: my mother might as well be pregnant right now but surely I'm not a fetus. If no property can be found, I second your idea to use another identifier (but I'd go with human fetus (Q26513) or a variation whereof, because an empty value makes even less sense to me) and human (Q5) with a lower rank.
- In general, we try to make statements that withstand the change of time other than a possible change of ranks. We could use nasciturus (Q19931235) with preferred rank and human (Q5) with standard rank. Upon birth the ranks of the two can be switched.
- I'm not arguing the person would be notable, I'm arguing it's a person. This item would only become a person (and notable as "#5") only if the pregnancy ends well, and thus it's not an instance of human in the wikidata sense (and we can argue if it is in a general sense). I'm also 100% for finding a better alternative to "human fetus", but also consider that at birth we'd just change "human fetus" (or whatever) to "human" and leave all properties untouched.
- I just found 5 humans with date of birth (P569)= no value of people who were born. I fixed those.
--- Jura 19:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)- Accordingly, I restored P569=none.
--- Jura 09:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Accordingly, I restored P569=none.
- The fact that other items are wrong doesn't prevent us from doing this one correctly. I don't think we need an item about the foetus. This is about the person and it is notable as it's #5 starting April 2018. Both P31 values you replaced were correct.
- Unfortunately there are a host of entries with no value on the date of birth, even if the correct value would be an educated guess, and actually the same goes for this entity (which would make its age negative, though). I hate leaving the instance field empty anyway, so I edited it to "human fetus" for lack of a better alternative.
pre-birth claims date of birth (P569) and sex or gender (P21)
[edit]The pre-birth claims
and
are no explicitly backed by the provided weblink (BBC). I also do not find any value in keeping them, as this is a condition which applied to each and every being at some point in the past. The planned delivery date with month precision has only very limited value as well, but I haven’t decided yet what I would do with it if I could freely decide. Any opinions? —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Based on the reference provided, I think they are valid statements (see discussion above).
I doubt there are available references and sufficient notability to create items that make this true for every other being, even for more than a few other beings.
To avoid that we have to re-do the discussion for every other similar item, I think it's important to keep them.
--- Jura 17:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)