Property talk:P180
Documentation
entity visually depicted in an image, literarily described in a work, or otherwise incorporated into an audiovisual or other medium; see also P921, 'main subject'
| Description | Event(s) (historical or mythological) depicted on work (book, painting, opera, etc). Rather use main subject (P921) for the main subject. | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Represents | depicting object (Q45025858) | ||||||||||||
| Data type | Item | ||||||||||||
| Domain | According to this template:
creative works - work (Q386724)
According to statements in the property:
When possible, data should only be stored as statementswork (Q386724), image (Q478798), artistic theme (Q1406161), ideogram (Q138619), heraldic attribute (Q834104), archaeological artifact (Q220659), heraldic attitude (Q1243409), literature (Q8242), printed matter (Q1261026), film set (Q1415274), banknote (Q47433), charge (Q1424805), content rating category (Q23649976), content descriptor (Q68183127), rock formation (Q631305), emoji (Q1049294), emoticon (Q31963), smiley (Q11241), Unicode character (Q29654788), folktale type (Q47451145), human (Q5), person (Q215627), title of Virgin Mary (Q1509831), mythical object (Q20203727), beverage can (Q1121690), motif (Q68614425), paleographic sign variant (Q118867680) or physical sign (Q105449313) | ||||||||||||
| Allowed values | any item (note: this should be moved to the property statements) | ||||||||||||
| Example | According to this template:
According to statements in the property:
When possible, data should only be stored as statementsThe Balcony (Q775407) The Last Supper (Q128910) The Bull (Q2917717) Mehr abad (Q3821251) Washington Crossing the Delaware (Q509806) → George Washington (Q23) Delaware River (Q143762) James Monroe (Q11815) Nathanael Greene (Q366113) longboat (Q9588290) Washington's crossing of the Delaware River (Q7971587) flag of the United States Of America (Q42537) | ||||||||||||
| Commons example |
| ||||||||||||
| Tracking: usage | Category:Pages using Wikidata property P180 (Q20990009) | ||||||||||||
| See also | main subject (P921), relative position within image (P2677), shown with features (P1354), characters (P674), has pattern (P5422), depicted part (P5961), digital representation of (P6243), model (P2634), inscription mentions (P6568), narrative motif (P6962), commemorates (P547), has graphical element (P9344), motif represents (P6875), manifestation of (P1557), simulates (P12328) | ||||||||||||
| Lists |
| ||||||||||||
| Proposal discussion | Proposal discussion | ||||||||||||
| Current uses |
| ||||||||||||
| Search for values |
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Type Q386724, Q478798, Q1406161, Q138619, Q834104, Q220659, Q1243409, Q8242, Q1261026, Q1415274, Q47433, Q1424805, Q23649976, Q68183127, Q631305, Q1049294, Q31963, Q11241, Q29654788, Q47451145, Q5, Q215627, Q1509831, Q20203727, Q1121690, Q68614425, Q118867680, Q105449313, SPARQL
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL
Replacement property: genre (P136)
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL
Replacement property: genre (P136)
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL
Replacement property: instance of (P31)
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL
Replacement property: instance of (P31)
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL
Replacement property: instance of (P31)
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL
Ambiguous[edit]
Please see also main subject (P921). As far as I understand P180 is only for works of art. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- This property was originally intended for all kinds of works ("book, painting, opera, etc"). I think they should be merged. Apart that it makes nicer labels, I cannot see any point ih having two properties - and it makes it harder to grasp the general structure --Zolo (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The properties are our language. If we reduce this language to much, we can't talk about motifs (art), themes, and genres. It would be like eliminating the taxonomic ranks. We should try to improve the accordance of the translations. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Specialized properties are useful when they add some information. It seems to be the case for Léonore ID (P640) and characters (P674). But I do not see what additinal information we get from differentiating between p180 and p921. They both have a rather generic meaning. Necessarily, if something is a text, it will depict things with words, and if something is a painting, it will depict things with paint. But we do not really need two properties for that.
- A potential difference is that p921 means "main" topic while p180 does not specificy "main". But I do not think that makes a valid case for keeping two properties. If we were to go this way, we should also use p921 for visual works, and that would become really complex.
- Echo cc Micru, user:GZWDer. --Zolo (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, but merging properties is quite tricky. Right now, at least in some languages, P180 is about a motif (Q2382800) (art and literature) while P921 is an subject heading (Q1128340) (subject heading). Of course the labels and translations of P180, P921, Q2382800, and Q2382800 vary and still being changed. We would also need to check all items that are linked to these properties. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Specialized properties are useful when they add some information. It seems to be the case for Léonore ID (P640) and characters (P674). But I do not see what additinal information we get from differentiating between p180 and p921. They both have a rather generic meaning. Necessarily, if something is a text, it will depict things with words, and if something is a painting, it will depict things with paint. But we do not really need two properties for that.
- The properties are our language. If we reduce this language to much, we can't talk about motifs (art), themes, and genres. It would be like eliminating the taxonomic ranks. We should try to improve the accordance of the translations. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of what was the original intention of this property I would recommend to use both properties as follows:
- depicts (p180): it is sourced directly 1:1 from an image/artwork. If there is a dog in the picture, it depicts a dog. Maybe a better name would be "depicted in picture" (or motif)
- main topic/subject heading (p921): it is inferred from the work and sourced by an organization (LoC, and others).
Both properties can coexist if the difference is made quite clear.--Micru (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- +1. If you see a young woman on a picture, the motif is "girl". The theme or the subject can be something else. For example: wealth, class differences, melancholy etc. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- This seems to be a commonly made distrinction, so I can't really oppose it, but I can't say I am very clear about it either. It seems to essentially boil down to abstract versus concrete, and in that case, we get back to the initial issue that it does not really add information. And in the case of a literary description, should we use "depicts" or "main subject" ? The Dublin core also seems to have only one "subject" property ([1]).
- I should probably mention that some well-regarded ontology (can't remember which, sorry), makes the distinction between subject that are obvious from an image (like this a a man) and those that require background knowledge (like this is Cicero). I have to say I find that a bit puzzling, as the cutoff seems rather arbitrary. --Zolo (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Later, when we have the list function, it's time to look at the use of these properties again. For literature we also have characters (P674), what is pretty close to subject, depict, motif etc. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
obituary → decedent[edit]
It seems to me that a newspaper obituary depicts its (human (Q5)) decedent in precisely the same way a photograph would, so I'm using this property. --Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- That depends on how you define a photograph. A photograph can be an artistic work or a kind of documentation. Generally speaking a photograph is closer to a painting than to a written work. For non-fiction works, including obituaries, imho main subject (P921) is more accurate. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
changing/permitting constraint[edit]
changing/permitting constraint for using motif/icon class theme--Oursana (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am afraid your post might not be clear to everybody. It seems to be connected to this post. We should indeed consider to allow some more values for instance of (P31) from the currently used but not allowed values listed by Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Types statistics. Somebody has to figure out the highest classes to allow! A problem might be that Template:Constraint:Type does not permit to allow several classes? --Marsupium (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Things like: "depicts: Madonna and Child" are currently a bit problematic because we do not really know if the painting is a Madonna and Child or if there is a painting of Madonna and Child depicted on it. Beside if we want to say that Mary is wearing a blue robe using qualfiers, we need to have "depict: Madonna and Child" + "depict: Mary with a blue robe", so that there appears to be to Mary. I would probably support a "theme" property or something like that to solve this but in the meanwhile I would say that things like "depict: Happiness" ar ok, so that it may not really solve type-inconsistency issues. --Zolo (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Which domain?[edit]
The domain (or subject type constraint (Q21503250)) of shown with features (P1354) is image (Q478798), of depicts (P180) it is work (Q386724), I think they should have the same. For now, I've simply added image (Q478798). Which one or both? You may also take a look at the items currently fallen through the constraint. Thank you, --Marsupium (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC), Marsupium (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Does this make sense? Does a flag (Q14660) or escutcheon (Q331357) depict its field? If anything, the field is what any objects are depicted upon. --Palnatoke (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I know I've made use of that combo. In party because there isn't a better set of properties to use for heraldry. The mainreason for using is to state its color (P462). That could probably be added as a top level property instead. It becomes more problematic if its not a one colour field (Q372254) though. Then color (P462) would probably not be the right property to add the needed qualifiers to. /Lokal Profil (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Should I use to depict rock units on a geologic map?[edit]
Should a geological map (Q193842) depict the lithostratigraphic unit (Q3550897) in the map's stratigraphic column (Q3815198)? Trilotat (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- An example of this proposed usage is P31=scholarly article AND geologic map where the map depicts the rock type. Currently that usage creates a constraint violation as scholarly articles cannot also depict something. Trilotat (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bump. Trilotat (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
636 depictions of Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira (Q188916)[edit]
@RenanSchwyz: Looks like something went wrong here. Sample: Q59824304. Can you fix/remove them? Not really convinced about the other statements in there. --- Jura 15:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- fixed them myself. --- Jura 20:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
"determination method" as a permitted qualifier[edit]
I have added "determination method" as permitted qualifier, to be used in cases where AI is used to identify objects on images (example). --Beat Estermann (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
"inscription mentions" as permitted qualifier[edit]
I’ve added inscription mentions (P6568) as a permitted qualifier, so that both inscription (P1684) and inscription mentions (P6568) can be used alongside each other to qualify a depicts (P180) – for instance, I use this to annotate some protest signs, as in File:Selbstbestimmungsgesetz demonstration Berlin 2020-06-19 6 – TSG – Total Schlechtes Gesetz.png (to explain what TSG
refers to). --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Should this be for Commons only or also for Wikidata? If you add it here, it will only have an effect on Wikidata, but not Commons. To use it on Commons, you need to check there. --- Jura 17:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, Commons reuses the Wikidata constraint definitions. The file I linked had a constraint violation reported before I added the qualifier; now it doesn’t complain anymore. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, we don't want that on Wikidata. --- Jura 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- According to whom?
- Anyways, this constraint definition is causing real problems on Commons. commons:Special:Search/"P6568" -haswbstatement:P6568 suggests there are almost 100 uses of inscription mentions (P6568) as a qualifier which your revert turned into constraint violations. Your proposed solution, the “property constraint for Commons” property proposal, has not found any support yet, and would take time to implement even if it was accepted. And I fail to see any real problem of adding the inscription mentions (P6568) qualifier, apart from some abstract concerns about the division of responsibilities between Wikidata and Commons.
- As such, I strongly suggest that inscription mentions (P6568) is allowed as a qualifier again. Do others agree or disagree? --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are you still paid by WMF/WMDE to work on constraint definitions and this request directly affects the work you are paid to do? --- Jura 22:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints
Support allowing inscription mentions (P6568) as a qualifier. - PKM (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's unclear how that would be useful at Wikidata. --- Jura 22:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see a good reason for this property to have the "allowed qualifiers constraint" in the first place. Various other properties like date of birth (P569) and date of death (P570) can also be used. Can someone gives the case for why this qualifier provides value here? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
use appropriate for maps?[edit]
There are many items with P31=scholarly article (Q13442814) that are also geological map (Q193842), so using this property on these items generates a constraint violation. If it meets consensus that depicts (P180) is appropriate for maps, would adding say, a particular fault (Q47089) to the "scholarly article"–"geologic map" be appropriate?
Notified participants of WikiProject Geology Thank you. Trilotat (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Related question: #Should_I_use_to_depict_rock_units_on_a_geologic_map? Fgnievinski (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- An actual example would help. In principle, a geological map is a work, so it should be covered. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Allow sex or gender (P21) as qualifier[edit]
I was tagging an image of a mallard (Q25348) on Commons and tried to put a qualifier to mark that this is a male organism, but it gave me a warning that sex or gender (P21) is not an allowed qualifier. Is there a good reason not to allow this qualifier? Belteshassar (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Belteshassar: I think that P21 (sex or gender) can be allowed to be a qualifier, and I have added P21 as an allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) to P180 (depicts). Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Add "has decorative pattern" as allowed qualifer[edit]
Does anyone object to adding has pattern (P5422) as an allowed qualifier, as used at Q104649190#P180? - PKM (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Added. - PKM (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Allow "named as" as a qualifier[edit]
subject named as (P1810) would be a useful qualifier for sitters in portraits that don't have Wikidata items. Any objections to adding this? - PKM (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds like a good idea! Ainali (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Added "operator" as allowed constraint[edit]
Due to its similarity to already allowed "manufacturer" - the organization responsible for the operation of an object is usually not the same as the manufacturer. So, for this image, structured data depicts a mobile light tower with manufacturer Ingersoll Rand and operator Baltimore Police Department.
--Middle river exports (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Suggested multi-value constraint[edit]
@Vollbracht: can you explain this removal because your edit summary makes no sense to me. This property is currently as a statement about 600.000 times. A large chunk of these are works of art where you would expect more than one depicts statement. On Commons depicts is used over 8 million times and should also generally have more than one depicts statement. Based on that it seems a good suggestion to add more than one statement (that's why I added the constraint scope (P4680)constraint checked on main value (Q46466787)) later. Can you please explain yourself? BTW, the bot needs to be fixed first before adding it back. Multichill (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yes of course! It is good to expect many pieces of art to depict more than just one object. But it's not o.k. to stipulate this. In the end anything depicting something is a matter of communication. Many art works do that but not all. In history glyphs did that and could be described as art works. Nowadays glyphs are still pieces of communication depicting atomic parts of a language. Currently 145.000 unicode characters rarely depict more than one of these parts (letters, diacritics, punctuation marks). Vollbracht (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also think this constraint should be removed. Many, many sculptures just show a single object e.g. Q113131508 and I don't like to see a contraint hint for years. This seems unnecessary and confusing. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am also against this restriction because it only creates unnecessary errors. Since Vollbracht, Gerd Fahrenhorst and I oppose this restriction, I've undone your edits due to the non-existence of a consensus. --MKBler (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Open questions on how to use this property on Commons talk:Structured data[edit]
There are two questions waiting to be answered:
Commons:Commons talk:Structured data#Depicts property of photos of an architectural model? and
Commons:Commons talk:Structured data#Scanned page of a book: Depicts page(Q1069725) or book(Q571)? -- Juergen 217.61.195.60 23:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Allow subject type (Q193762)[edit]
Add subject type constraint for hieroglyph (Q193762). Est. 2021 (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
depicts (P180) should be authorized for temporary exhibition (Q29023906). Léna (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Allow visual depiction (Q115491523) subject type[edit]
Currently histogram (Q185020) descends only from visual depiction (Q115491523). 2620:15C:84:7:75BB:1284:CB00:54E3 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)