Wikidata:Property proposal/romantic orientation
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
romantic orientation
[edit]Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
Under discussion
| Description | pattern of romantic attraction of this person or fictional character |
|---|---|
| Represents | romantic orientation (Q4688879) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | item |
| Allowed values | instances of romantic orientation (Q4688879) |
| Example 1 | Yasmin Benoit (Q68549608)→aromanticism (Q52746927) |
| Example 2 | Seanan McGuire (Q3476794)→panromantic (Q96188028) |
| Example 3 | Joe Parrish (Q96333392)→quoiromantic (Q96195586) |
| Example 4 | Lilith Clawthorne (Q130762102)→aromanticism (Q52746927) |
| Source | Aromantic people, List of people on the aromantic spectrum |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| See also | sex or gender (P21) and sexual orientation (P91) |
| Wikidata project | WikiProject LGBT |
Motivation
[edit]Before anyone suggests it, romantic orientation is a concept completely different from either sex or gender (P21) or sexual orientation (P91) so these properties cannot be used instead. --Trade (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Fictional universes --Trade (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject LGBT has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --Trade (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)- Notified participants of WikiProject Narration --Trade (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Support! ~ RampantSpirit (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)- Support. --Wolverène (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Needed this at some point. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as proposed with the description that just repeats the term of the label. @Trade: saying "it's completely different" without specifying how it's different is not answering the issue. Spelling out the intent, so that people in the future can read the property proposal is useful.
- Wikidata is not supposed to be anglocentric. Properties should not focus on the meaning of English words, but you should seek to define them well, so that they can be used by speakers of other languages as well.
- Additionally, this seems to me like private information (property that may violate privacy (Q44601380)), so the idea of sourcing it from Wikipedia seems questionable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how this could violate privacy more than sexual orientation (P91). -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't stop people opposing sexual orientation (P91) back then.--Trade (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wd-Ryan If someone proposes a property, take the time to actually read the proposal in detail before you support it. Nobody proposed to just use Wikipedia lists/categories as source for sexual orientation (P91). sexual orientation (P91) is appropriately labeled with property that may violate privacy (Q44601380) indicating that it "should generally not be supplied unless they can be considered widespread public knowledge or openly supplied by the individual themselves". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- The field simply states a source for people to find items to use the property on. Whether or not people chooses to use the articles as a source in of itself is something i (for obvious reasons) have no control over
- Besides, why would i tell people to list the Wikipedia articles as source when none of the examples does so? Doesn't make sense Trade (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I do think that the general people we use the word source is to suggest places where you can use as a source for the statements. If your position is that items could be found there but they are not sourced you could say so explicitely in the property template form.
- I do believe, that it's worth making an effort to prevent privacy violations. If you take sexual orientation (P91) as an example, you could look at it and would see what we did to prevent it to be used in privacy violating ways. You skipped that step.
- Additionally, the point about defining the property in a way that's not relies on the particular meaning of an English term is still open. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree this property should have pretty much the same standards as sexual orientation (P91). The definition of this property can rely on the class of romantic orientation (Q4688879), of which there are dozens of instances. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have no way to add constraints to a property that have yet to be created. Unless you know something i don't Trade (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how this could violate privacy more than sexual orientation (P91). -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support this list lists some acespec biographies with their romantic orientations, so it might be useful for these bios. There are some more sorted here. Web-julio (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)