Talk:Q889659

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Autodescription — mineral resource (Q889659)

description: natural resources (including non-mineral substances) with economic value deposited in the Earth's crust
Useful links:
Classification of the class mineral resource (Q889659)  View with Reasonator View with SQID
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
⟨mineral resource⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1)
Generic queries for classes
See also


Sources for "mineral resource"[edit]

Sources of definitions of the English term "mineral resource":

Dan Polansky (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solid or not[edit]

The sources linked in the section above require "mineral resource" to be for solids. This excludes mineral oil and petroleum. I added "solid" to the definition based on the sources. This may impact Wikipedia links and definitions in other languages. Dan Polansky (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The English term cannot be definitive for all languages: there is no corresponding article in English, but there are in other languages, and their content contradicts your definition. For example: "(1) Bodenschätze sind mit Ausnahme von Wasser alle mineralischen Rohstoffe in festem oder flüssigem Zustand und Gase, die in natürlichen Ablagerungen oder Ansammlungen (Lagerstätten) in oder auf der Erde, auf dem Meeresgrund, im Meeresuntergrund oder im Meerwasser vorkommen." (de:Bodenschatz, [1]). Rather, the English term itself should be clarified. Leon II (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Let us assume the entity is defined by German Bodenschatz and not by its English label. For the English label, I created another section on this talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English label[edit]

I changed the English label from "mineral resource" to "mineral resource or fluid or gaseous mined resource": editors require this entity to include liquids and gases as per the recent reverts and as per long-term use of German Bodenschatz to label this entity, but these do not come under "mineral resource" as per the sources listed above on this talk page. A "mineral resource" is solid by definition, and so is "mineral".

The resulting label is long, which is bad, but accuracy is of prime importance. We may figure out a better solution, but accuracy should not be compromised. Leaving the English label empty seems poor. Using German Bodenschatz in the English label could be fine as for accuracy, but would be suboptimal since German label is not readily undertstood by those who only know English.

Are there any Wikidata policies or guidelines that apply and could help? Any similar problem and a good solution for another entity? Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should seek for matching terms that are actually used in English language instead of making up an ad hoc one that we consider accurate. It is confusing, but common English equivalent for "Bodenschatz" nonetheless seems to be simply "mineral resource". One of the sources you list above[2] also clarifies that "mineral" has two different meanings in this source and in phrase "mineral resource" it is "any substance that comes from the Earth". So we have "mineral resource" in broad sense (this item here) and "mineral resource" in strict sense (solid or mineral (inorganic) substance ~ Q12131447). Description field exists for definitions and for any necessary clarifications and distinctions. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:C51B:5F67:D0C0:57F3 13:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'common English equivalent for "Bodenschatz" nonetheless seems to be simply "mineral resource': You can trace this to authoritative sources using the structured data approach of Wikidata. Thus, I created a structured claim in the entry that this entity can be solid, liquid or gas, and you can expand that claim with references to sources that use "mineral source" in this way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, discussion in Talk:Q12131447 is mostly about the same issues. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:1C7:D8A3:686D:B3A1 09:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groundwater[edit]

If we take German Bodenschatz to be the defining term for this entity, groundwater is excluded from the scope: "(1) Bodenschätze sind mit Ausnahme von Wasser alle mineralischen Rohstoffe in festem oder flüssigem Zustand und Gase, die in natürlichen Ablagerungen oder Ansammlungen (Lagerstätten) in oder auf der Erde, auf dem Meeresgrund, im Meeresuntergrund oder im Meerwasser vorkommen."[3]. Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with the above, I changed the description/definition to the following: "natural resource, whether mineral or non-mineral, with economic value deposited in the Earth's crust, but not groundwater". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and scope of German "Bodenschatz"[edit]

  • Duden[4]: "im Erdboden vorhandene Anreicherungen meist mineralischer Rohstoffe, die abgebaut werden": The use of "meist" makes the definition not wholly clear, and the term "mineralischer Rohstoffe" is not perfectly scoped either.
  • geothermie.de[5]: "Bodenschätze sind mit Ausnahme von Wasser alle mineralischen Rohstoffe in festem oder flüssigem Zustand und Gase, die in natürlichen Ablagerungen oder Ansammlungen (Lagerstätten) in oder auf der Erde, auf dem Meeresgrund, im Meeresuntergrund oder im Meerwasser vorkommen." Does the phrase "mit Ausnahme von Wasser" mean that Wasser is included or excluded from the term?
  • chemie.de[6]: "Bodenschätze sind nutzbare Rohstoffe, die in der Erdkruste auf natürliche Weise angereichert sind. Zu den Bodenschätzen zählen Minerale, Gesteine und Grundwasser sowie fossile Energieträger wie Erdöl, Erdgas und Kohle." Highlight: Grundwasser (groundwater) is counted here as Bodenschatz.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else (a native German speaker) can clarify, but the first passage ("meist mineralischer Rohstoffe") probably means that the subject is in most cases a mineral raw material (inorganic substance), but may as well be organic substance (like peat). 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:C51B:5F67:D0C0:57F3 13:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by IP 2ed4[edit]

As for Special:Diff/1864542112, at a minimum it removed this:

I don't see what justifies removal of this accurate statement tracing to a reliable source.

It further moved statement of difference from:

The edit summary stated this: "undo arbitrary user commentary, and restore actual labels matching sources and attached Wikipedia articles; see Talk:Q12131447". As far as I can tell, the edit summary does not match the edit as per the removed statements above; it is far from only about "commentary" and "labels".

As for the dispute about the label, the current label has the defect of not being used outside of Wikidata, but has the plus of being accurate in reference to the definition actually used, which is not constrained to solids. In this case, my guess is that accuracy trumps wide use of label.

Summary reversals by an anonymous editor that appear to remove valid information cannot be accepted. Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the problems that my edit dealt with are mostly the same that were discussed in related talk page Talk:Q12131447. This is why I already referenced this other talk page above to avoid parallel discussion over the same issue on two talk pages, and this is why I also referenced this other talk page in edit summary.
In edit summary I didn't touch the disjoint statement in particular, but I pointed out its problems to you previously in yet another related talk page Talk:Q7946. This statement is also quite obviously wrong. The classes of solid, liquid and gas include many other substances that are not mineral resources (neither broad or strict sense), and so mineral resource class quite clearly cannot be a disjoint union of these classes.
If by "statement of difference" you mean P1889 statement then this was restored prior to your revert.
My edit summary focused on the main and most noticeable issues with item label. Other problems were previously discussed in related talk pages and I did reference it in edit summary.
You may consider current label accurate but this nonetheless is not what label field is meant for per Help:Label, and non-standard use of label field is in any case confusing and misleading. Your label actually doesn't even look like an accurate description as apparently you've written it under impression that "mineral resource" has one correct meaning in English language. This, as pointed out in previous discussion, is not true. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:DD4D:3D4F:EC5A:2ED4 13:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the best way to encode via Wikidata statements that this entity can be a liquid and a gas and not only solid, assuming that you are right that the current statement is wrong? Should we encode this statement textually using "comment (deprecated)", since that would obviously work, as a workaround?
Are there any reliable sources that define English "mineral resource" to include liquids and gases?
What reliable sources have you perused? (So that I can read the same sources as you and be on the same page.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is the best way to link gas, solid and liquid item. There might not be a good way. To me it doesn't really seem necessary to link these items here. There already is/was a broad description that doesn't rule out any of these three. No, as already pointed out to you also by other users, "comment (deprecated)" property for this purpose is wrong.
I once again refer to previous discussion in Talk:Q12131447 where I already pointed out that at least one particular source that you linked at the top of the page uses "mineral resource" in borad sense (not excluding liquids nor gases). 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:DD4D:3D4F:EC5A:2ED4 13:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without you posting sources that you are using to establish the identity of Q889659, I don't see how to move forward. I don't think I can take an anonymous editor as an authority on anything.
We need a statement to the effect that liquids and gases are included, since only such a statement can be traced to sources and authorities; a description in the Description field cannot be traced to anything in the mainspace. I am fine with that statement being textual as a workaround, and I am happy to work with people skilled in marking things up in Wikidata properties in creating that statement using better means. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now realized that I was inaccurate at the top of this thread. The statement that you are challenging is this: "X is a subclass of a disjoint union of solid, liquid and gas". I made the mistake of omitting "subclass of". I don't see how this statement is wrong; it says that X is a subclass, not that it covers the entire union of solid, liquid and gas. It seems perfectly fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As said, you already posted the relevant source about "minera resource" in broad sense yourself, and I already quoted a relevant passage from this source (I now notice that earlier I also repeated it here above, see #English label).
I don't think you get this "subclass of" statement right. A parent class (i.e. "sublcass of" value) is something that any subclass or instance of this class in turn is. Compare to other two "subclass of" values – any mineral resource individually, like iron ore, oil, sand or peat, is also a natural resource and a substance, but none of these examples is disjoint union of solid, liquid and gas.
I think you might want go to respective Wikipedia article (or create one in English) and add definition related sources over there. This information is less useful here as part of structural datasets. Wikidata likely isn't meant for this information if it doesn't have an obvious way to provide it and you need look for various "workarounds" (that at the end don't really work at all). 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:DD4D:3D4F:EC5A:2ED4 15:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above interpretation of "union" makes some sense on the language level, but not on the conceptual level. It is true that, say, "iron is not a union of solid, etc."; it is merely a member of that union. If a union of classes is a class, it seems fine to say that this mineral-resource-like-entity is a subclass of that class, even if it is not so straightforward to render in idiomatic English. Your solution seems to be to drop that statement and leave the statement-based definition impoverished, which does not seem to be an improvement.
I don't get why you don't post a specific link that you have in mind here again; it's not laborious. It will make it perfectly clear what you have in mind; I posted multiple links at the top and do not know what you mean. I have bad experience with people refusing to post specifics especially when posting specifics is easy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite get what this "subclass of" statement has got to do with language. It is about what classes are in essence and how they are modelled in Wikidata as per Help:Basic membership properties. Given statement implies that, say, petroleum (Q22656) by means of subsumption is a disjoint union of solid, liquid and gas. The latter obviously isn't true and this indicates an error in Wikidata's class tree.
I find it rude the way you pretend that previous discussion didn't happen and the way you try to force others to repeat passages of previous discussion over and over. I already provided exact source link and quote multiple times. It isn't laborious either to just follow the directions and actually read what has been said already (in last comment I even pointed you to exact relevant comments above on this page). 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:FD8D:C06C:7B48:59F1 07:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q889659&oldid=1865173903"