Wikidata:Property proposal/NPG ID

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

National Portrait Gallery (London) artwork ID[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Descriptionidentifier for an artwork on the website of the National Portrait Gallery, in London
RepresentsNational Portrait Gallery (Q238587)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainwork of art (Q838948)
Allowed valuesmw\d{5,6}
Example 1Charles Darwin (Q18005116) → mw01728
Example 2Horatio Nelson (Q28048496) → mw04635
Example 3Sir Nicholas Poyntz (Q28042039) → mw07809
Sourcehttps://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/advanced-search
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Arts links (Q45312151)
Formatter URLhttps://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/$1
See alsoNational Portrait Gallery (London) person ID (P1816)

Motivation[edit]

This new Wikidata property to identify artworks (Q44847669) would be quite useful, given the important size of Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/National Portrait Gallery, London. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

User:Zolo
Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vincent Steenberg
User:Kippelboy
User:Shonagon
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative[reply]
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Musedata102 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martingggg
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:7samurais
User:mrtngrsbch
User:Buccalon
Infopetal (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Karinanw (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
Ahc84 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:BeatrixBelibaste
Valeriummaximum
Bitofdust (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mathieu Kappler
Zblace (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oursana (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ham II (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support very important collection. - PKM (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice for prints as well as paintings Jane023 (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose incomplete proposal. The proposal inaccurately has National Portrait Gallery (Q238587) about the museum as its main subject (|subject item=) while the proposal is for use as of its website and/or one of its databases or catalogues. In order to be of use to Wikidata, Help:Sources#Databases requires an item about the resource itself. This should made before a property is proposed.
    We have many requests on Wikidata:Bot requests where such items are missing and bot operators can't determine what resource of a given organization was used. While it may seem trivial, it was found just recently that even proposers can't create such items easily. Further, this avoids that people re-purpose properties from one resource of an organization to another. --- Jura 09:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my talk page, neither Multichill nor VIGNERON seem to like the move. So the problem is solved. The requested split and further shenanigans won't happen. I mark the proposal as ready. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with them as well. I think you misunderstood my comment (above it reads database, not collection). --- Jura 06:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jura1: OK. I get it now. But I believe that when it comes to museums, the most important splits would distinguish the building from both the institution and the collection. And yet most of the time, we have only one item for all three – and nobody really cares much in property proposals. Now you say let's have a specific entry for the database behind museum websites too. Well, to be honest, I don't really care, in the actual sense of not having any preference whether or not such items should exist. I say we should have the building, the institution and the collection separated first. But when it comes to the latter, collections, other users were unimpressed and called a split 'ridiculous', literally. So standalone items for museum website databases might be even less necessary! I don't know, really. I'll let you do your stuff whichever way you want and find suitable. Whether there is an independent item or not, this proposal is probably ready, eventuallly. I'll mark it as such. For again, you can decide by yourself what you need or feel is right. We cannot do it for you. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Property proposal are not the place to discuss buildings, institutions or collections. They are here to propose and discuss properties. Once full information is available, they can be created. Here you attempt to reformat thousands of items without providing full information what the property is about. If you don't want to provide this, please avoid flooding us with proposals for merely formal changes without full information. We can obviously attempt to help you with this, but we can't really do it in your place. Please refrain from personal attacks in these discussions. Your issues (the/a) politbureau aren't really relevant. If you need samples on how to make complete proposals, please check the ones by Epidosis. It's really quite simple. --- Jura 08:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thierry Caro, PKM, Jane023, Jura1: ✓ Done. I did not fill in Wikidata item of this property (P1629), but used issued by (P2378) instead, to avoid the institution vs. collection vs. database distinction. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/NPG_ID&oldid=1360288934"