Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons compatible image available at URL (non-artwork)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Commons compatible image available at URL (non-artwork)[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons
Withdrawn
| Description | image with Commons compatible copyright status is available at the following URL. It could be uploaded to Commons to illustrate the item. |
|---|---|
| Data type | URL |
| Domain | non-paintings/artworks |
| Example 1 | Jacob Bunn (Q104008565) → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JacobBunn.jpg |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| See also | Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765): image with Commons compatible copyright status is available at the following URL. It could be uploaded to Commons to illustrate the item |
Motivation[edit]
As P4765 seems to be limited to artworks and this can be useful for other fields, here the proposal (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 12:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Oppose the constraint should rather be expanded in Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765). I see no reason for a separate property. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really care if it's one or two properties for the same, but if the paintings project prefers to work with a distinct one, I don't mind. --- Jura 12:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- When I look at the talk page of the property I don't see anybody opposing a bigger scope. I think that should be the first venue. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- See the edit history of the property and its deleted uses. Anyways, I cross referenced this proposal there. --- Jura 13:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do see a discussion about changing scope to be useful and edit history alone doesn't produce that. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually having a separate property for the paintings project has some benefits. Thus this proposal. --- Jura 08:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- To the extend that you believe that it has a benefit, it would be useful to be explicit about what you believe the benefit is. Anybody you wants to query "Commons compatible image" about paintings can easily do it via instance of (P31). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's much easier to define relevant constraints for images of paintings than for any image. --- Jura 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- To the extend that you believe that it has a benefit, it would be useful to be explicit about what you believe the benefit is. Anybody you wants to query "Commons compatible image" about paintings can easily do it via instance of (P31). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually having a separate property for the paintings project has some benefits. Thus this proposal. --- Jura 08:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I do see a discussion about changing scope to be useful and edit history alone doesn't produce that. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- See the edit history of the property and its deleted uses. Anyways, I cross referenced this proposal there. --- Jura 13:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- When I look at the talk page of the property I don't see anybody opposing a bigger scope. I think that should be the first venue. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really care if it's one or two properties for the same, but if the paintings project prefers to work with a distinct one, I don't mind. --- Jura 12:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment Actually, Wikidata:Property proposal/WMF hosted image that could be moved to Commons is closer to what I'd generally use this for and all values could probably be handled with similar tools. --- Jura 12:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)- Unless someone else has use for this proposal, I'd withdraw it given the other. --- Jura 12:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn by proposer. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 18:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
