Topic on User talk:KRLS/Structured Discussions Archive 1

Hi, I was just looking at Q27517165. It is a great description of PD artwork, but are you actually planning to upload the artwork? Otherwise the metadata without the image or URL to the image seems perfectly useless.

Hi Jarekt! Sorry, but I don't agree with you. An image or URL description is not a basic necessity to be useful artwork item, because it has a inventory number (unique item) and it's part of the permanent collection of an important museum (notability). Right now, We can list all artwork in Poster Section (Q23681654) of Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya (Q861252) where it can be sorted by year, author, dimensions, owner, etc. At least, I add your proposal in my future projects in Wikidata, because URL description and photos are interesting data too.

Hi again! You have added full work available at (P953) in no label (Q27517165), but is it better using described at URL (P973), isn't it?

I usually usedescribed at URL (P973) if there is a page with metadata. I picked full work available at (P953) because I thought the page had only image, without metadata, although Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) would have been better. I guess the item with metadata for specific inventory number is useful, but it would have been much more useful if you also upload the image. With current version of Commons c:template:Artwork template the commons description page could be just {{Artwork|Wikidata=Q...|Source=...}}. By the way, your references seem to violate value type constraint.