Template talk:Concept
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Can a concept get "interests", or something that makes sense to get SMW linking? -- Sunvalley (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have been adding "interests" to some concepts over the last year, in anticipation that this feature would be added later. A very quick and handy to get things linked together. Terje (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)---
- Smartdust and MKULTRA ; Nanobiotechnology and "COVID-19/Vaccine" Terje (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)---
- Is it not? I thought so. Anyway, Billionaire is concept, but has interest Transhumanism and social control. One could make it group but that is beside the point, I think it is a good way to bring topics together, ie linking them - Transhumanism being very good example, others not so good since not exactly in the logic of the sentence "xyz has an interest" (can have an interest) ... still the aspect of bringing stuff together prevails. -- Sunvalley (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I should clarify, you are right that the SMW does link the data, but on a semantic level. Being able to automatically hyperlink related data is just a handy side effect. I'm not convinced that we need |interests for concepts by any of the examples you gave. i.e.
- Smartdust is not interested in MKULTRA. The converse might be true, but MKULTRA uses Template:Event, which already has this option
- Nanobiotechnology is not interested in "COVID-19/Vaccine". "COVID-19/Vaccine" is not interested in "Nanobiotechnology". If they are are an example of it (I'm no expert on either) |constitutes would apply
- Billionaire (the concept) is not interested in transhumanism or social control. Peter Thiel may be interested in both, and he may constitute a billionaire, but this is an indirect relationship, and one that we can already express with the existing SMW properties.
So while I don't rule out |interests for concepts per se, I didn't yet find a very convincing need for it. SMW is a very powerful system, and has a corresponding potential for complexity, which is one reason I have a preference for using fewer rather than more properties. -- Robin (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is mainly for linking on my (our) end, and yes, the semantics are a bit off then. As for Billionaire, social control could still fit imo, but that is an argument in psychology and what too much money does with your thoughts in terms of ruling over others (have no citation for it). Other options are there, better leave it at that. -- Sunvalley (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- I won't make a fuss about it, but imo "interests" or something similar is a mightily handy way to make a quick association between relevant topics that otherwise would otherwise disappear in the sheer number of articles. I do it all the time for that purpose with groups and people: Just now Pia Union and René Schneider. The other way of doing it, to go into the linking article and connect it back, is cumbersome.
