1

I don't understand these two tags. I use them all the time. I fear I'm exacerbating a problem in doing that.

What's the difference between these two? How can something be named after without being dedicated to, and vice-versa.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Definition of "dedication" from Wikidata:

expression of friendly connection or thanks by the author towards another person

Nothing in this definition says that "dedicating to" necessarily implies "naming after" (even though naming after can be a form of dedication). A few examples:

  • The novella "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde " is dedicated to Katharine de Mattos, but isn't named after her.
  • The weapon "Molotov cocktail" is named after Vyacheslav Molotov but isn't a dedication to him, as it wasn't meant to honor him, but to mock him.
  • The museum Mani Bhavan is dedicated to Gandhi, but not named after him.
  • The Dallas Hilton is named after Conrad Hilton, but not dedicated to him.

Now, it's often the case that Christian buildings are named after the saint they're dedicated to (in fact, I couldn't find examples where it isn't the case), but these buildings may have changed names throughout history, and can also have multiple names (e.g. the "Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of Christ, Canterbury" dedicated to Jesus is much more widely known as the "Canterbury Cathedral"). So I guess it can make sense to distinguish between "named after" and "dedicated to" even in the case of Christian buildings.

You could ask on https://christianity.stackexchange.com if you're looking for examples of churches or abbeys that don't have a formal name related to the saint they're dedicated to.

Now, if you fear you might not follow the correct use of these tags on wikidata, why not discussing directly the issue with the wikidata community? You'll probably get more useful feedback, as this stackexchange website has currently very few active users, who don't necessarily participate in wikidata.

Improve this answer
6
  • Yea, my case is government buildings. Are those dedicated to, or named after? Commented Aug 28 at 16:08
  • The two tags do not seem to be mutually exclusive, so I'd simply add the two tags, assuming that naming the building is meant as a form of dedication to someone. Commented Aug 28 at 16:45
  • I don't think you've shown mutual exclusivity at all. The case of the "Canterbury Cathedral" is predicated on "widely known" or a common name. That doesn't satisfy either named after or dedicated to. That seems like an aside. But I do think your argument that something (including a building) could be not-named after the person it's dedicated to seems logical. The question then is can a building named after someone not be dedicated to them. In such a case the two seem to be dependent. Commented Aug 28 at 16:54
  • 1
    @EvanCarroll I think that a few hotels fit the "named after but not dedicated to" criteria, e.g. Hilton, Hyatt, etc. Commented Aug 28 at 16:58
  • 1
    Yeah, I visualize it as a Venn diagram, where the two concepts ("named after"/"dedicated to") may overlap partially (as sometimes something can be simultaneously named after and dedicated to someone, but not always). Commented Aug 28 at 17:13

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.