We use "subclass" to indicate that a class of elements is a subset of a more general one.

To
capture conceptual abstraction we however use instance of (P31) in the sense explained in
Help:Classification and en:metaclass (semantic web). Broader/narrower may serve another
purpose, maybe classify body of knowledges, but we're also discussing if they are subclasses
of each other in an abstract level : a science is a set of practices and a set of knowledge, a
more specific science is a subset of those practices and knowledge. A religion is a set of
dogmas and a set of cults, a subreligion may add its own dogmas and practices. This kind of
relationships can be expressed using "instance" and "subclass". author TomT0m / talk page
16:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Weird, I couldn't find creation discussions for no label (P2933) and no label (P2934). -Ladd chat ;) 16:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@legoktm: anything to say about that creation ? author TomT0m / talk page
17:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I responded on WD:AN. Apologies for the drama. Legoktm (talk) 00:00, 24
June 2016 (UTC)
@Legoktm: Are you shitting me? We just had a very disruptive discussion
regarding cites. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Um, I honestly don't understand why you're so upset about this.
Legoktm (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That's because there is non, Laddo. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Same situation with no label (P2932), regarding which Legoktm wrote here
"Hacking on importing EWPHP data into Wikidata at Wikimania with sj. Going to
skip the 7 day waiting period so we can work on modeling the data in a smaller
environment before doing a large thing". Taking this to WD:AN. Discussion on
this can be continued there. Let's focus here on whether "broader" and "narrower"
have any merit to them, shall we? --Yair rand (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers, I'll see how this works with subclass of (P279). Yes,
a group of us were sitting down @ a hackathon and trying to map a page
from an existing structured reference work into WD; sorry if this
contributed to any property drama. I'll take comments on this subthread to
the page Yair linked. Sj (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
+1. I think subclass of (P279) tends to work quite well for bodies of knowledge and
religions and such. There still might be room for a separate "narrower" property, but I
can't think of any examples where that would be necessary atm. --Yair rand (talk) 18:13,
23 June 2016 (UTC)
In the controlled vocabulary sense, "broader" and "narrower" refer to 3 different kinds of
hierarchical relations: (1) generic (= subclass), (2) Instantial (= instance of), (3) partitive (=
part of). The more specific terms should be used in wikidata - and we already have all of
these, so there should be no need for new terms for this purpose. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:54,
23 June 2016 (UTC)
I most often run across "broader" and "narrower" in the sense of general scope of
meaning. I feel these are often more flexible than "subclass". For example, scottish
kilt is definitely a subclass of kilt; it is narrower than traditional
scottish garb. I am less clear on whether it is a subclass of traditional
scottish garb. Sj (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
if an instance of "traditional scottish garb" is a piece of clothing or otherwise a
physical object of some sort, then the subclass relation is the right one. If "garb"
instead is referring to a style of fashion, then "part of" probably makes more
sense. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Support I'd support introduction of "broader" property as super-property of subclass of
(P279), instance of (P31), and part of (P361) if some examples are provided. Better a more

general such as "broader" than misuse of the more specific properties. -- JakobVoss (talk)
19:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)