Wikidata:Property proposal/Mummy of a person

mummy of a person

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Not done

Description	mummy of a person
Represents	mummy (Q43616)
Data type	Item
Domain	item, mummy (Q43616)
Example 1	Ahmose I (Q7222)→Mummy of Ahmose I (Q130250337)
Example 2	Tutankhamun (Q12154)→Tutankhamen's mummy (Q7856908)
Example 3	subject→value

Motivation

Could also be generalised as ‘mortal remains’.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Rename to "remains of this person" for precision, otherwise Support: there is a clear domain, range, and relationship, and no appropriate existing property for that relationship. (Closest I can think of: has effect (P1542)? Neither replaced by (P1366) or followed by (P156) is appropriate.) Raises the question of how to model the inverse, given of (P642) is (eventually) going away: has cause (P828)? Swpb (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a generalization to include any body parts used as relics like Uncorrupted hand of Saint Teresa of Jesus (Q5991616) --Melderick (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are talking about any body parts wouldn't it be better in the inverse direction? Currently part of (P361) is being used but I wouldn't mind having a more specific property for this... ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think part of (P361) would be intuitive for a (more or less) complete mummy. One advantage (for what it's worth) of having the property in this direction is being able to see on a person item that there is an item for their remains, without needing to expand "Derived statements". Swpb (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Sinuhe20:, could you please clarify all comments in this proposal? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @ArthurPSmith, would you like to give your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 22:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry I don't have any strong opinion here, and we have two conflicting arguments in the comments right now on this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the current formulation. I think it would be better to link from the item of the mummy to the item of the person. I would also prefer something more general so that it can be used for individual body parts as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, both as to when where to apply it, and to make it general enough to include saints' relics, and medical museum artefacts. Vicarage (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no support for creation. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]