Talk:Q917904
Autodescription — typology (Q917904)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “typology” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
typology⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
The enwikipedia page "Typology (archaeology)" is linked with the frwikipedia page "Typologie lithique", but they are about two different subject: the en page is about a method for categorizing or classifying any kind of artcheological artifact (it could be ceramic ora capitals or anything), while the fr page is about the actual categorization of a specific kind of archeological artifact, i.e. the stone instruments used in Paleolithic.
About the other wikipedias, according to their title, the da, no e sv pages should be "about the method", as the en page, while es and gl pages should be "about the stone instruments", like the fr page.
Unfortunately I can't read fa, he, hu, e ja pages and I don't know if they are as en page or as fr page.
I think we (but, I'm sorry, I'm not so clever in this domain) should create a new entry for wikidata about Lithic typology (that should be "under" Typology (archeology), like it should be about Ceramic typology or other pages like this. We should then ask to the wikipedians in the different languages to place their own page to the right "place" (if we can't understand this by ourselves: but we should read the text and not only the title as I did for at least some of them).