Talk:Q8242

I just split this entity with literary studies (Q109607955). Now this entity refers to the set of literary works, while literary studies (Q109607955) refers to the academic discipline that studies this set of works. Maybe literary studies (Q109607955) is the same as literary studies (Q208217) or literary criticism (Q58854) (I don't know), and if someone wants to merge literary studies (Q109607955) with one of them, I'm not against it (but be sure before doing so). However, this entity (literature (Q8242)) should not refer to a discipline, but to the set of literary works (contrary to what has been done until now). I tried to reallocate the good entity (literature (Q8242) or literary studies (Q109607955)) to each entity which was "subclass" or "part" of this entity (literature (Q8242)). I may have done some errors, please feel free to correct. CaLéValab (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I'm opening a discussion here because the use of this entity on wikidata reveals some differences in how "literature" is understood.

In short : should French literature (Q6689) (and other "literature", like Spanish literature (Q238499), Italian literature (Q74217), etc) be a subclass of literature (Q8242), a part of literature (Q8242) or an instance of literature (Q8242) ?

In long : literature (Q8242) is the set of every literary work (Q7725634). So French literature (Q6689), as the set of every literary work (Q7725634) written in French, is a subset of literature (Q8242). So French literature (Q6689) is part of literature (Q8242). However, I don't know if it's correct (but at least it doesn't feel incorrect), we can say "French literature (Q6689) is a literature". So French literature (Q6689) could also be an instance of literature (Q8242). But if we do this, medieval French literature (Q766221) should also be an instance of both French literature (Q6689) and literature (Q8242) (unless we also added French literature (Q6689) "subclass of" literature (Q8242), in which case medieval French literature (Q766221) would automatically be an instance of literature (Q8242)). But doing this could quickly become complicated.

So, should we standardize the use of this entity, or should we keep "part of", "subclass of" and "instance of" ? And if we standardize, which type of use should we standardize to ? CaLéValab (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that applies to all areas of creative work and is set by existing project schemes.

For example, this also applies to film, music and dance. This is mainly solved by creating a subject like "art form by country". This is not a metaclass, as it is a subclass of this form and aspect in a geographic region (Q74817647). But I don't really understand how to describe these categories created specifically for wikidata, now p31 = by country (Q19360703) is used for some of them. But it feels like a temporary measure to group things together. It should probably be a permanent thing with p31 = not yet created "Wikidata meta category". There are currently about 50 such items: https://w.wiki/4RL3 . There are also similar category categories like aspect by ethnic group (Q106727146).

cinema - cinema of France (Q242080) - cinema by country or region (Q67515288)

music - music of France (Q672134) - music by country or region (Q75054287)

dance - French dance (Q3702441) - dance by country (Q108436453)

All of these items are subclasses of cinema/music/dance with "... by country" in p31. For literature we should probably use the same approach (at least until we decide to redefine all spheres according to the new scheme), with creation of "literature by country" to use this in p31 and to build "geographical hierarchy" via subclasses of literature items, like:

• literature
  • European literature *(see P.S.)
    • French literature
      • Aquitaine literature

P.S. * Keep in mind that on English Wikipedia there is a rule that any thing related to a country should be named as "something of/in country": en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)#Guideline. In Wikidata it is correct to label them as "Country's something", i.e. "Literature in France" on enwiki or "Literature of France" on wikisource = "French literature" on wikidata with both in/on in AKAs. Given that such policies often affect the articles of ethnic groups, this rule had led to a huge number of duplicates and confused concepts in different areas (especially dance). Solidest (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solidest: Are you claiming that Wikidata structures data strictly according to principles used on Wikipedias? If so, that is not true. WikiProject:Books uses the FRBR structure used internationally by libraries, and which exists independent of the Wikipedias. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really what I've been saying. I rather state that there are established schemes worked out by each project of creative arts on WD. And I'm also saying that within scope of these arts, similar approaches should be used on Wikidata for them. I mean we should make wikidata a standard/unified directory with unified model instead of collecting different approaches of various classifications for different areas from various external sources. Wikipedia just adds complexity with their classification and naming of their categories/articles which we have to deal with. But yeah, we shouldn't base on wikipedia categorization, given their lack of a unified approach for different areas and many errors/inconsistencies within these areas. However, I don't know what approach FRBR model uses to deal with 'literature by country' structure to compare it with what I described above. Solidest (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask in part because your response focuses only on geographic subcategorization. It does not address genre (Gothic literature), form, period/date (Renaissance literature). or any other method of classification. It also does not answer the question that was originally asked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the question, since CaLéValab already created sub-set of literature (Q109551565) as a metaclass for types of literature, which should mark things like Gothic literature. The question, to me, was the categorization of geographical directions, and in general which model to follow for "literature" - instance of (P31), subclass of (P279) or part of (P361). As I showed in the hierarchy above, I think the p279 model is the most appropriate, primarily because it is already in use in other areas of arts. And for specific classifications by geography or time period, it is worth creating separate items ("metacategories") that are subclasses of "aspect of...", such as "literature by country" and "literature by period of time", which are the ones that already in use in other domains as well. Solidest (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]