User talk:AHIOH

Hello

Welcome to my talk page AHIOH (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect use of subclass of (P279)

Hello –

This statement on "glade" was incorrect. Errors with basic membership properties create false inferences. Before using subclass of (P279), check the item descriptions, and make sure your statement is true. (In this case, area (Q11500) refers to the abstract geometric quantity associated with a shape, rather than to a physical region.) Thanks! Swpb (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there @User:Swpb

Good observation. I think I was hesitant of limiting it to physical region for some reason and so looked for a more general statement but it appears I didn't read into it well enough at the time. AHIOH (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

dish

You made dish a subclass of concoction, but concoction is a subclass of process whereas dish is not a process but an end-result. So dish is not a subclass of concoction. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! A concoction is a "process in which according to a recipe of raw materials or a given process, a product is produced." The concoction is the product. A dish is "specific food preparation with cooking finished, and ready to eat, or be served". A dish is a prepared/processed food product made according to a recipe of raw materials. All dishes are concoctions of food of different types. The activity that produces the concoction is concocting. An instance of dish is a type of concoction that is concocted.

In other words The term "concoction" implies that something has been created or mixed together, which applies to all types of food dishes, whether they are simple or complex. AHIOH (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Also wanted to mention that a dish is not necessarily an end result. An instance of dish is first prepared. It may never convert to a completed dish, depending on the cook :) AHIOH (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"process in which according to a recipe of raw materials or a given process, a product is produced" is the process, not the product. Dish appears to be the product. I see that you changed concoction (Q5158735)'s English description. Does that match the descriptions in other languages? I see that you also changed its superclasses to match the new English description. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree the subject of the statement is the process, however it is a process with a resultant product. When you order a dish, an instance of dish is created. This is a process that has values such as start time, preparation time, recipe, quality, status, etc. The instance is not a "prepared dish" as the description would leave one to believe rather it is a dish that "is prepared". The dish class is similar to the term concoction in that it refers both to the process as well as the product. It's essentially a blueprint of a prepared dish.

I did create an item for the term "concoction" as well the concept for concocting. The other languages should still be associated with the concept "concoction" rather than the ambiguous term or concocting. I figured if it is an article for the ambiguous term they would be moved to that, or if they are limited to only "concocting" rather than "concoction" they could be moved to that item.

For the concept of concoction (Q5158735), I believe artificial object (Q16686448) best encompasses the idea, allowing the representation to be the product of a process regardless of whether it is conceptual or actualized.

What do ya think? Does that seem reasonable? Thanks @Peter F. Patel-Schneider AHIOH (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem with concoction (Q5158735) is that it appears to have existed for a while as a subclass of process and several descriptions have this wording. If you are sure that it will remain as an object then go ahead and remove the deprecation on dish being a subclass of concoction. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll take a look at those items and see if I can identify any issues. @Peter F. Patel-Schneider AHIOH (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There does appear to be a subclass of concoction that is a process - gift wrapping (Q1516291). You should check all the information about concoction and see whether it matches the process or the result. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe I got the them sorted out. I'll go ahead and remove the deprecation on it. Will be interesting to see if it is utilized more now that there is more clarity on what it specifies. AHIOH (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

military equipment types

I don't really understand what you are trying to do here, but can you please write up your proposal on Wikidata:WikiProject_Military_History for review before making further changes, as I don't think your approach is correct. Vicarage (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I was trying to allow having a general metaclass of weapon type that wasn't limited to weapon function. For instance large and small weapons, antique or modern weapons, and so on. I essentially made it so it wasn't so specific and created a different item for weapons classified by function. The list of weapon types that links to it includes weapon from different eras and what not so it didn't really align.
weapon type (Q124078422)
type or kind of weapon. General metaclass of weapon/s

weapon by functional class (Q136770442)
weapon class defined by the purpose for which the weapon is designed
Does that seem reasonable? AHIOH (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

military equipment types

I'm not sure about military equipment types. I have created type of military vehicle (Q136750414) This was to allow identifying and classifying the various types of military vehicles. Like the weapon types, there are various ways to classify military vehicles and there was previously no second order class item. The other item I created was type of equipment (Q136770063) to the same effect. Adding these metaclasses doesn't harm anything that I know of and helps create a more refined structure of the classification of all the items allowing more efficient queries.

An example is Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (Q16971021) and Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicle (Q21685502)
These are diffierent items with the same name that are a type of tracked armored personnel carrier as well as multi-purpose vehicle made in different countries.
They would both appear to be a general type class of military vehicle unless you examine each.
Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicle (Q21685502)'s description is currently "type of light armoured vehicle" even though it is an instance of vehicle model
further examination shows it has country of origin Germany
By having a general class, or at least more generalized class, it allows filtering objects using the class structure. One can examine the class structure and then look up items that are instances of a particular class type (or subclasses of those types).
Without this, it makes it difficult to perform certain queries, such as what are all the main types of military equipment, or armored vehicles, and so on.
I'm happy to discuss any items, statements, values, etc. that are inaccurate however I'm not sure that I am proposing anything new as far as a way of doing things. Was there any particular statements that were inaccurate or don't make sense?
If you want to tag me in a discussion on the particular items it would probably make it easier to collaborate on any particular one and perhaps get some more feedback. Thanks. @Vicarage AHIOH (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thread copied to Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Military_History#military_equipment_types, where I will respond. Vicarage (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you stop making weapon ontology changes

... until we've come to a consensus. It is bad form to continue making changes to a subject area when there is an ongoing discussion about it. Vicarage (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe I've made any additional changes in regard to class structure. I've added subclass of weapon type for the new weapon by functional class (Q136770442) I created previously but as it is a new item to be used it was just to show how it would allow a class heirarchy if we decide to use it. Other than that I had just set deadly weapon as an instance of weapon type. This will allow setting the characteristic of weapon type being a deadly weapon. I was planning to do the same for non-lethal weapons.
I can understand not modifying the class structure but I don't see any issue with adding characteristics, properties for types, disputing items, and so on.
Broad discussions often get little traction and tend to not reach a concensus. I prefer to utilize built in statement dispute tools and discussion pages within the particular item of discussion. This way each instance can be looked at and refined based on concensus and the overall structure tends to build itself. By adding examples and counter-examples within the topic items statements, it help move things along more efficiently.
The ultimate question here is whether weapon type should be limited to weapons by function. I'm not planning on changing items to the new seperate class I created until that question is answered.
Are there any particular kinds of additions, or changes that are incorrect or you would prefer I not make? Not making any changes to a subject area is pretty broad. Is the scope weapons, tools, objects?
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss and work with this with me on the issue by the way. Will be looking forward to hopefully coming up with a good way forward. AHIOH (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Clarifying the ontology for routes, itineraries, roads,... and outdoors activities

Hi! I saw that you're actively working on some parts of the Transport ontology, which actually needs some work. As for myself, I looked because I need to clean up the outdoors ontology (path, trail, route, trail system, etc) and it interacts a lot with transports concepts. Interested in discussing this through a more practical channel? StC (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! It is good to see others are interested in improving this aspect of the ontology. I see you created Wikidata:WikiProject Ontology/Modelling Travel (thanks!) I'll see if I can help build upon that. I've been taking a break but will probably get back into it soon. I usually just use the built-in discussion tools so others can benefit, but depending on what we run into might be up for some other method of communication if that's what you were referring to. AHIOH (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm actually not the one to credit for creating that page. That would be Ege. But I sure played along as much as I could. Most of the discussion about the page so far has happened on the Ontology Telegram channel, where apparently Ege and I are more at ease to talk than on the wiki. Also, I don't get notified when I get responses to my messages here... StC (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

aircraft family

I don't understand why you added the specific term airliner to the much more general aircraft family (Q15056993) Vicarage (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to Q15056993#P5869 where I added the model item airliner?
The model item is just an example of a representation of a form of the item.

As airliner is a "group of related aircraft models sharing the same basic design" as well as being a type of aircraft within the group. I thought it would be a good item example to show how the class can be used and test whether the item description, aliases, and statements remain valid and accurate. Unique test cases can often help refine the definitions. The reasons items don't fit are often the requirements that define the class.
We could add some more examples such as jet, plane, UAVs, etc. and other families of aircraft vehicles/aerial machines. However, usually a few suffice for model items.

I've been working on sorting out "families". I've added type of family to identify the various types. The hope is that the sub-classes of types of families can be identified and some of the ambiguity as to what constitutes different types of families can be better determined.
For instance rather than type of family, type of vehicle family/vehicle family type could be used. Type of aircraft family could also be created and used as a type of sub-family for aircraft. This would show the class relationships between types of aircraft family -> vehicle family -> product family -> family (group concept). This would also allow querying instances of aircraft types that are within the sub-families instead of needing to rely on attributes.

I'd also set associated family functional classes as sub-classes of product family types (Families of products by function). Aircraft functional class is both a classification and type of aircraft. It's a classification of "types of aircraft (objects) classified by function". AHIOH (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you should revert that change, and wait for Ontology concensus Vicarage (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What, the model item? AHIOH (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You probably meant adding the type of family. What's wrong with that? Doesn't change the status quo. Existing queries are not affected. In addition to all the other benefits, it actually helps validate the classification of items.
This also allows the classifier plugin to be used to submit when things aren't classified correctly. If an object isn't assigned a class it isn't part of a class structure and the links can't be examined. This would honestly be this best way to determine and report any issues with the way things are classified. This ensures the items are in alignment with the ontology.
Overall it seems you are saying that creation of metaclasses should not be allowed? AHIOH (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)