Property talk:P180

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


depicted entity (see also P921: main subject)
DescriptionEvent(s) (historical or mythological) depicted on work (book, painting, opera, etc). Rather use main subject (P921) for the main subject.
Representssubject of depiction (Q53001749), depiction (Q1166770)
Data typeItem
According to this template: creative works - work (Q386724)
According to statements in the property:
work (Q386724), image (Q478798), artistic theme (Q1406161), pictogram (Q52827), heraldic attribute (Q834104), archaeological artifact (Q220659), heraldic attitude (Q1243409), literature (Q8242), printed matter (Q1261026), film set (Q1415274) and content descriptor (Q68183127)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed valuesany item (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
According to statements in the property:
The Balcony (Q775407)Berthe Morisot (Q105320)
The Last Supper (Q128910)Jesus Christ (Q302)
The Bull (Q2917717)frog (Q3116510)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Commons example
Tracking: sameno label (Q42533350)
See alsomain subject (P921), relative position within image (P2677), shown with features (P1354), characters (P674), has decorative pattern (P5422), depicted part (P5961), digital representation of (P6243), sitter (P2634), inscription mentions (P6568), narrative motif (P6962)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses
Main statement439,86489.8% of uses
Qualifier49,83110.2% of uses
Reference37<0.1% of uses
Search for values
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): scholarly article (Q13442814): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): biographical article (Q19389637): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
None of architecture (Q12271), history (Q309), Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), Wikimedia list article (Q13406463), Wikimedia human name disambiguation page (Q22808320): value must not be any of the specified items. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P180#none of, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)


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 index term (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)

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 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)

depicts (P180) field (Q372254)?[edit]

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
⟨ subject ⟩ depicts (P180) View with SQID ⟨ field (Q372254) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
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 geologic 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)

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)