Talk:Q56886750

Destroyed?

@Pharos: there is a dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) claim in the item. I do not think that this is appropriate, as the work continues to exist. It has been significantly modified, and probably it is even more expensive now. Can somehow we modify this? —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is information about the destruction is in two statements, here in brief, and here in more detail. The first property may or may not be appropriate specifically to paintings, but it seemed helpful to use a property with a simple date value. The second allows more detail. I do think the artwork was in some sense destroyed, and it is valuable to be able to query it with other destroyed artworks, but obviously in another sense has not ceased to exist or have value. I'm uncertain, but one solution would be to say that its status as being destroyed would be a deprecated or at least not preferred value--Pharos (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the object has been described as consisting out of subparts (the painting or the stencil, and the shredder), one could argue only that part (the painting) has been demolished; not the (entire) artwork itself? -- Martix (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

À propos: Property P2670 ("has parts of the class") denotes "Picture Frame" and "Shredder" but the picture (or rather the screen print) is omitted as one of its parts? -- Martix (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to include the part screen print into P2670 (stated above), but not sure if I used the correct qualifier, or used the qualifier correctly -- Martix (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not a screen print, but a painting on canvas. For a painting, I think the basic materials are here, while the "has parts of the class" are the things that are extrinsic to the painting. I've qualified cause of destruction to try to express just which part has been destroyed and how.--Pharos (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: I stand corrected with regards to 'screen print'; that was an invalid assumption/assessment. Thanks for making the appropriate changes to the object (such as the title as well, discussed below). Just out of curiosity: I agree that 'materials used' (P186) seems/is a (sufficiently) complete enumeration (it lists everything used, though one could perhaps argue if a 'paper shredder' is really 'a material' (but rather a tool or an office device or what have you)). But why should the (now partially shredded) canvas with the painting not be listed under P2670 ('has parts of class'). Is perhaps this whole property now 'overkill' or redundant, considering P186 is an extensive/exhaustive? I'm asking this to better understand the nuances between some of the properties, to help me in my future attempts in creating/editing/expanding wikidata objects (kindly note my question is in no way any form of criticism, I just want to learn/do better ever next time). Regards, -- Martix (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata, to be useful and queryable, is largely about convention. P186 is generally for raw materials that do not have a specific form - paint, canvas, wood, stone, bronze. Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings, which is the particular convention in place here, has certain materials that use P186. My idea is that a tool or particular forms of a material should use P2670, and I think painting frames ad certainly paper shredders should be classified that way, though it has not been specifically prescribed.--Pharos (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, another significant event is a "name change" or "renamed" (to "Love in the Bin") (various sources, among which CNN), but for which I cannot find a proper Q-object (the simple "name change" seems to apply to humans only, which cannot be published (saved) into the object/is not accepted; I conclude it is best left to those who have more knowledge of Wikidata and how to define art (changes over time) into it. -- Martix (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I've implemented the name change appropriately now. I also made the new title the primary label for this item.--Pharos (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: Again, many thanks; the title property denotes a comprehensive timeline of the original title, and its subsequent changed title. Not wanting to be stubborn, I still believe it could be listed as a notable event as well, but I believe/as I understand it, wikidata presently simply lacks a suitable property (code) which allows to reflect this in that specific section (and hence we have to 'make do' with the multiple title-entries and their dates of inception and ending (and one has to deduct/can only determine that the painting was renamed by querying the title-property (and there is as of yet no way to determine the change of title by querying the P793 property(?) Just asking in order to learn and better myself/avoid mishaps and undesireable edits in the future. Regards, -- Martix (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

While adding the contributions and expressing my gratitude above, also some further thoughts and questions popped up in my mind, but it got so lengthy that I put it here on my Talk page first (and am also considering just asking it at the helpdesk or at another appropriate help-section). However, I would appreciate if someone/anyone reading here would have a look-see and tell me if my thoughts/ideas are valid or not, and could spare the time to explain to me if and why some of my thoughts are less, more or undesirable (or flat out bad ideas - I do not expect them to 'be the way things are done' as it would probably already be done like that, but I'm trying to better grasp the structure (and then some)). Thanks & regards, -- Martix (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)