query-45bcb211c2bfd1dc2813d69cc484551c
Being buried in one's own grave - relevance and logic... Talk:Q2042 Moved from Good evening, or something... no less, the highly surprising information that Charles de Gaulle was buried in Charles de Gaulle's grave (!) ... infoboxFirst: I come to this from Wikipedia, just so that background info is mentioned. Second, it was as I was looking at Charles de Gaulle's article on my "home turf" that I noticed, in the here, and I paste a copy of here: talkpageIn short, here is my reaction that I misplaced on his quote begins: ???? in their OWN graveQuite frankly, and seriously, asked: WTH do people register that somebody is buried In some cases, yes, there is a special mausoleum, and so that needs to be described somehow - but frankly, when this guy was interred besides his daughter in the village cemetery, and this is no surprise to anybody older than, say, 18, ... Frankly, if WD is going to be taken seriously, you guys need to do something about this kind of ridiculous statements. Let the information be the field that says "Cimetiere de ...", and let people figure out for themselves that General Charles de Gaulle is buried beneath the stone that reads "Charles de Gaulle"! Honestly, this is a complete waste of everybody's time, but unfortunately, once the flaw is introduced, somebody has to waste more time correcting it - so please DO! Exasperatedly yours, quote ends.Now that my exasperation is down to a simmer, could I ask that somebody try to explain to themselves what the logic of such datapoints(/whatever you call these fields) actually IS ? I mean, is it surprising to anyone to read that a European statesman of the twentieth century was buried in a grave ??? (PS: I am grateful for WD's existence - I think... Items like this make me question the validity of WD; please assume that I won't be the only one to react to such - I can't even find a useful word for this kind of folly...)18:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)) talk (Autokefal DialytikerStill somewhat exasperatedly yours, 20:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)) talk (Tengwar qualifier value label in parentheses, resulting in an output that is useful to humans. But IMHO the main value should be the grave and the cemetery should be in a qualifier. (Not sure if P805 would be applicable in this case. Likely another property would be better.) This should result in reasonable treatment both in the Commons infobox and when the location is extracted from the main value. --(P805)statement is subject of You are right, apparently this infobox adds the 16:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)) talk (Emu Are you sure? The Commons Wikidata infobox sure knows how to use the information properly. --Tengwar@ 12:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)) talk (Tengwar qualifier, but this is only suitable for human consumption. A computer is not going to expect that it has to skip the main value and use the value from the qualifier instead. Wikidata is explicitly intended to be machine-readable. For human-readable content, just use Wikipedia. --(P805)statement is subject of from the grave to the cemetery should be reverted as the statement about the cemetery is less precise and informative than the statement about the grave. I see you left the link to the grave as a (P119)place of burial : Personally, I think the change of Emu@ .(Q2042)Charles de Gaulle to (Q142)France : (P119)place of burial ", but remember that treating sequences of labels like sentences is not the point of Wikidata. Wikidata is not meant to be a database of human readable sentences, but of machine-readable statements. And de Gaulle was in fact buried in that grave. If you are creating human-readable content and want to display e.g. the country of burial, you should extract that info from the item of the grave (or other burial place) instead of e.g. adding X's horse was riding X" statement. You might find it ridiculous to say that ": X's horse(P3091)mount was riding an unnamed, but notable horse, there would be a "XJust like if a person : I agree that there is nothing wrong with such a statement. He was buried in a grave and since the grave itself is notable, we mention it. If the grave was not notable, but the cemetery was, we would use the cemetery's item. If the cemetery was not notable, we would use the city item, and so on.Autokefal Dialytiker, @Tagishsimon@ 18:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)) talk (Tagishsimon, or whatever the hieroglyphic translation of that is. --caveat utilitor. It is well within the powers of an infobox code author to check the P31 value of a P119 statement value used in the template for place of birth, and to reject a value having a P31 of 'grave' and instead choose the location of that grave. Whoever wrote the template on whichever wikipedia boiled your piss did not do this. Unfortunate. Now, you could argue that WD should exclude the use of 'grave of x' items as values for P119, but I suspect that would enrage pharaoh Khufu, who went to the trouble of having the Great Pyramid of Giza built as his grave. And WD, as a matter of policy, refrains from enraging pharaohs. So right now it is really a case of [1] value - very few graves - 328 of them in fact, out of ~200k such values (P119)place of burial value; so region not country, locality not region, cemetery not locality, &c. And this continues through to the level of a grave. WD has - or at least uses as a (P119)place of burial WD tends to use the item having the smallest granularity for a Excellent rant, Autokefal Dialytiker, most enjoyable.I changed the statement because there seems to be some sort of a pattern for similar cases:
Use at
- https://query.wikidata.org/sparql
PREFIX wikibase: <http://wikiba.se/ontology#>
PREFIX wdt: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/direct/>
PREFIX pq: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/qualifier/>
PREFIX p: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/>
PREFIX bd: <http://www.bigdata.com/rdf#>
SELECT ?type ?typeLabel (COUNT(?subjof) AS ?count)
WHERE
{
?item p:P119 [ pq:P805 ?subjof;
].
?subjof wdt:P31 ?type.
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
}
GROUP BY ?type ?typeLabel
ORDER BY DESC(?count)