Wikidata:Property proposal/Attraction to

attraction to

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Done: attraction to (P8824) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Sexual attraction or arousal arising from an entity.
Represents	item sexual orientation (Q464859)
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Example 1	urolagnia (Q457251) → urine (Q40924)
Example 2	coprophilia (Q464215) → feces (Q496)
Example 3	pubic hair fetishism (Q613747) → pubic hair (Q54795)
Example 4	foot fetishism (Q463859) → foot (Q15807)
Planned use	I am planning on integrating this property with the Gender, Sex, and Sexual Orientation (GSSO) ontology (https://github.com/Superraptor/GSSO) which will be re-integrated into Wikidata once OBO Foundry approves the GSSO's inclusion (https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/1258).
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)

Motivation

There were no connections between such items as "urophilia", "coprophagia", and "pedophilia" and the objects which those attractions are associated (urine, feces, and children, respectively). I tried to think of what would be appropriate for such connections and could not find anything I thought worked. This was the first idea I thought of, and hopefully it works! Thank you so much for your time! If I made any mistakes, I apologize, this is my first time adding a property.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superraptor123 (talk • contribs) at 01:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC).

Discussion

This is currently expressed using subclass of (P279) with qualifier of (P642). See triskaidekaphobia (Q13) for example.--GZWDer (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: Understood, so the usage of subclass of (P279) of sexual attraction (Q464859) with qualifier of (P642) and then the object of attraction is standard practice as of now? (Edit: Just thinking about this a bit more... This is both (in my opinion) a little cumbersome and not entirely accurate. "subclass of sexual attraction of urine" for urophilia is a little awkward and difficult to express in non-Wikidata ontologies which don't typically allow subclasses on "subclass of" statements unless you duplicate an "is_a" statement (my main development platform is Protege, so this may be a platform specific issue). Of course, I'm not super familiar with the Wikidata platform so it might make more sense in this context than in my use case, so I will definitely cede to the majority opinion here.)  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superraptor123 (talk • contribs) at 15:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC).

Hello Superraptor123 Do not forget ~~~~ at the end of your discussions. —Eihel (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eihel: I’m so sorry! Won’t happen again! Thank you so much! Superraptor123 (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Support copying properties that other ontologies use to make statements that we currently can't make well is good. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Comment This seems to have similar semantics to interested in (P2650). Perhaps that property's domain should be expanded to include intangible items such as fetishes? –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: That would definitely work for the purposes of my ontology as long as the domain is expanded! I would support that if it's the path of least resistance, so to speak. Superraptor123 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Support maybe this can be a sub-property of interested in (P2650) or could use interested in (P2650) with a qualifier? --Hannes Röst (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Support --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 02:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Superraptor123, GZWDer, Eihel, ChristianKl, IagoQnsi, Hannes Röst:  Done --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 19:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)