Property talk:P195

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search


art, museum or bibliographic collection the subject is part of
Description art, museum or bibliographic collection the subject is part of
Represents collection (Q2668072)
Data type Item
According to this template: mainly creative works, but also other items that are part of collections
According to statements in the property:
item of collections or exhibitions (Q18593264) and painting (Q3305213)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed values items of museums, collections, libraries, archives etc. (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Example Rosetta Stone (Q48584)British Museum (Q6373)
School of Athens (Q186953)Vatican Museums (Q182955)
The Starry Night (Q45585)Museum of Modern Art (Q188740)
Codex Sinaiticus (Q152962)British Library (Q23308)
Tracking: usage Category:Pages using Wikidata property P195 (Q21037764)
See also location (P276), series (P179), inventory number (P217), catalog (P972)
Proposal discussion Originally created without a formal discussion
Current uses 300,447
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Value type “entity (Q35120): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value entity (Q35120) (or a subclass thereof).
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P195#Value type Q35120, SPARQL
Item “inventory number (P217): Items with this property should also have “inventory number (P217)”.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P195#Item P217, SPARQL
Value type “collection (Q2668072), organization (Q43229), architectural structure (Q811979): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value collection (Q2668072), organization (Q43229), architectural structure (Q811979) (or a subclass thereof).
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P195#Value type Q2668072, Q43229, Q811979, SPARQL
Type “item of collections or exhibitions (Q18593264), painting (Q3305213): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “item of collections or exhibitions (Q18593264), painting (Q3305213)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)).
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P195#Type Q18593264, Q3305213, SPARQL
Qualifiers “start time (P580), end time (P582): this property should be used only with the listed qualifiers.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P195#Allowed qualifiers, SPARQL

Work in progress, figure out a common point in the tree -->

Pictogram voting comment.svg Missing inventory number
Items which have inventory number (P217) as a qualifier of collection (P195), but not as a statement
Violations query: SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?collection ?inventory WHERE { ?item p:P195 ?collectionstatement . ?collectionstatement ps:P195 ?collection . ?collectionstatement pq:P217 ?inventory . MINUS { ?item wdt:P217 [] } . } LIMIT 1000
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P195#Missing inventory number

Book collections too[edit]

Changed the description to include book collections too.--Micru (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How about archival collections?[edit]

Why are archival collections not mentioned? (well, in the German translation they actually are - but is this generally accepted?) --Beat Estermann (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

this was my decision to use it also for archives and libraries. Usualy this property is to be used with p217, so there was some need to change the definition of p217 also. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nesting collections?[edit]

I think there should be some guidance about nesting collections. - If an institution has collections c1, c2, and c3 - which structure should be preferred?

  • Inst has c0; c0 has c1, c2, c3
  • Inst has c1, c2, c3

In parallel, some thought may also be given to the nesting of institutions / departments within institutions. --Beat Estermann (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the notability of c0. If c0 ist notable and has own articles and therefore an own item, you might link c1, c2, c3 to this item. Otherwise I consider it to be better to link c1, c2, c3 directly to the "top level". There is no official rule so you can choose a way of nesting, that suits best in your eyes. The British Museum has incorporated lots of collections, not all of them are notable. The nesting problem is on the level of collections. As soon as it comes to single objects of the collection like a painting or a piece of pottery, it is better to use the top level with the inventory number and give three statements of collections, one for c1, one for c0 and one for Inst. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


How about item of collections or exhibitions (Q18593264)

  • {{Constraint:Value type|class=Q18593264|relation=instance}}

instead of entity (Q35120)

  • {{Constraint:Value type|class=Q35120|relation=instance}} ? --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I added entity (Q35120) as a temporary measure to see what's possible. We have about 30.000 work (Q386724) that use collection (P195). The targets should all be a subclass of some item (preferably not entity (Q35120)). It would be logical that everything is subclassed to collection (Q2668072), but maybe that feels a bit weird. Is a museum (Q33506) a subclass of collection (Q2668072)? Maybe museum (Q33506) -> public collection (Q2982955)? I don't think item of collections or exhibitions (Q18593264) is the way forward. Multichill (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I am working on this field for a while. We have museums, libraries, galeries, collections, buildings, churches etc. that can be targets of P195. There are two items out there for collections: collection (Q2668072) and art collection (Q7328910) they are allmost redundant, but can not be merged. I use art collection (Q7328910) in preference, because it has more langlinks and I doubt the other languages make the same distinction as nlwiki does bertween collections and collections of pieces of art. (Half of collection (Q2668072) in nlwiki is however not about collections but about art collections). Then we have collections for art and we have collections for items that are not art in its narrow sense. Museums usualy dont collect books, but some do. Unfortunately museums can collect allmost anything from samples of dust, over cut of bodyparts up to buildings in an open-air museum. Libraries are usually not museums, but some are, however many libraries are collections not only of ordinary books, but of manuscripts and incunables. I use instance of (P31)+art collection (Q7328910) with libraries only if they include such valuable items that deserve owm articles, in all other cases it is enough to give it p31+library. Latey I found two articles about concept-cars. I was lucky to be able to assign item of collections or exhibitions (Q18593264) to the items instead of assigning a whole class of cars to any form of collection. It´d be very easy to add new classes of collection items to item of collections or exhibitions (Q18593264). I have in mind that all items of collections also have inventory number (P217) and vice versa. item of collections or exhibitions (Q18593264) served very well to handle the constraints on inventory number (P217), it was just created for this purpose. Sometimes we have pieces of art beeing part of the architecture like frescos, wall paintings, mosaics, altars etc., these of course have no inventory numbers, some items have more than one inventory number just to proof the exception of the rule and to drive us crazy. Museums are not allways public collection (Q2982955), as there are some private museums out there, open to public, but still private, as well as there is no exact border to private collection (Q768717) that may be never open to the public. I also found a nice solution for all kind of weapons showed in museums: militaria (Q598227), unfortunately only the pural is used, the singular would be "militarium", because these are definitely collectors items, while most of all weapons are not. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, I was reverted by Swpb. Swpb, please adjust the constraints in such a way that the false positives at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P195 disappear. I'm working cleaning up this and these false positive reports make it hard. I'm afraid that your edits made these lists even longer. Multichill (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Attitude unnecessary. The false positives are because private collection (Q768717) is being used (perhaps questionably) as an instance of collection (Q2668072) ("Artwork X is part of [a particular] private collection"), but it was defined only as a subclass of collection (Q2668072). I've added the "instance of" statement on private collection (Q768717); private collections in general are a subclass of collections, but a particular private collection is an instance. (If you disagree with private collection (Q768717)instance of (P31)  collection (Q2668072), then you have to accept these as true violations, not false positives.) Simply adding private collection (Q768717) to the type constraint accomplishes nothing, since it is already a subclass of collection (Q2668072); that's why the constraint template says "or a subclass thereof". Swpb (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Swpb, that was more me fighting the constraint reports than being unhappy about your edit. I don't think adding instance of is correct. Any ideas for a more elegant solution? Multichill (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Multichill: All the options I can see for getting rid of the violations, in increasing order of effort:
  1. Leave the statement private collection (Q768717)instance of (P31)  collection (Q2668072)
  2. Remove all offending statements <item>collection (P195)  private collection (Q768717)
  3. Propose a new property, "collection type", which takes subclasses, rather than instances, of collection (Q2668072), and change all statements <item>collection (P195)  private collection (Q768717) to <item>"collection type"  private collection (Q768717)
  4. Modify {{Constraint:Type}} to allow instances and subclasses. {{Constraint:Type}} currently can require subclasses instead of instances, but that would not be appropriate here, since most objects of collection (P195) are instances. This change would require broad community input, since it is a very widely used template.
I'm agnostic as to which solution to go with; #1 was merely the easiest. Swpb (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Add both as standalone statement and as qualifier to inventory number (P217)?[edit]

I'm a little bit confused about this. Is the best practice to add collection (P195) both as a separate statement and as a qualifier to inventory number (P217)? Like so? Danmichaelo (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's fine. I'd be more likely to use inventory number (P217) as a qualifier of collection (P195), rather than the other way around, but either way works. --Swpb (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the two uses are linked or combined in the way Swpb suggests.
--- Jura 11:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Danmichaelo: collection (P195) should always be added directly and as a qualifier to inventory number (P217). That's also how the contraints on this page and at Property talk:P217 are set up. About 266.000 items use it in this way.
If you only add collection (P195) with qualifier inventory number (P217) (like Swpb suggests), it will trigger a constraint at Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P195#Missing inventory number. Multichill (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Use for creators[edit]

Can we use this property also to add in which collections a creator has work in the collection? I come across photographers, graphic designers etc that have work in a museum or archive, and it would be great if we could mention in the persons' qid a list of museums that have work of that artist without the need to add all those individual photographs and designs. Could we broaden this property or should we create a new one? --Hannolans (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that. The list would explode. If you want to know that you can do a SPARQL query. Multichill (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: that could work for painters as we have paintings in Wikidata, but not with photographs and graphic designers, textile designers etc, or should we start to add photopgrahs, book covers, chairs, fabrics, plates, posters etc to wikidata? Only if we have that we can sparql which museum collection has work of an artist. Or is there another trick? --Hannolans (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If we actually need these connections I think a separate property would be better. --Marsupium (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and that's a big if. Some creators would have hundreds of instances of such a property, with no means of separating the trivial from the important. Swpb (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)