Wikidata:Property proposal/detail of painting
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
detail of painting
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons
Withdrawn
| Description | image shows a detail of this painting |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Allowed values | items for paintings |
| Example 1 | File:Napoleon III visiting Genoa in 1859-Theodore Gudin-MnM 2003.28.1-IMG 6330.JPG → Napoleon III in Genoa (Q66091522) |
| Example 2 | File:Joaquim Lobo da Silveira auf dem Wiener Kongress.PNG → The Congress of Vienna (Q66120851) |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| Planned use | add to some on c:Category:Artworks_without_Wikidata_item |
| See also | depicts (P180), digital representation of (P6243), extracted from (P7009), part of (P361), main subject (P921) |
Motivation
[edit]Somehow these should be linked together. Here is a suggestion for an approach. I think it's preferable over P180 with some convoluted qualifier, digital representation of (P6243) (as it's not the full view), extracted from (P7009) (as it's not necessarily generated from the other file), maybe part of (P361). --- Jura 18:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Oppose Use main subject (P921) David (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @David: I hadn't thought of this one. but wouldn't Commons likely use main subject (P921)=Napoleon (Q517) on the first sample above? Similarly, digital representation of (P6243) is used instead of main subject (P921). --- Jura 07:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Based on my comment and your response, there are properties that can be used and we do not need a similar new property David (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- @David: Why wouldn't the value for main subject (P921) not be Napoleon (Q517) ? --- Jura 07:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- You answered above:The other property already exists David (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand. The property exists, but is used for something else. Why would you want to use another value in this context? --- Jura 08:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- You answered above:The other property already exists David (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- @David: Why wouldn't the value for main subject (P921) not be Napoleon (Q517) ? --- Jura 07:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Based on my comment and your response, there are properties that can be used and we do not need a similar new property David (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- main subject (P921) is used for something different. --Marsupium (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @David: I hadn't thought of this one. but wouldn't Commons likely use main subject (P921)=Napoleon (Q517) on the first sample above? Similarly, digital representation of (P6243) is used instead of main subject (P921). --- Jura 07:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Neutral to Oppose. I would have thought that depicts (P180) = Napoleon III in Genoa (Q66091522), with a qualifier depicted part (P5961) = eg central part (Q27956567) or = an item for "detail", to indicate that only a part of the whole painting was shown, would be the most natural way to do this. This would seem to be exactly the job that qualifier P5691 was made for. A further qualifier analogous to relative position within image (P2677) to state the position within the object image might be useful, however. Jheald (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Jheald: "A further qualifier analogous to relative position within image (P2677) to state the position within the object image might be useful" that's what is proposed here to my understanding. --Marsupium (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Marsupium: What is proposed here, going by the examples at least, is a property linking the cropped image to the item for the painting of which the crop represents a part. This seems to me redundant to what is already possible with depicts (P180) + depicted part (P5961). In any case, it's quite different to relative position within image (P2677) which identifies what part of an image a statement relates to. Jheald (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jheald: "A further qualifier analogous to relative position within image (P2677) to state the position within the object image might be useful" that's what is proposed here to my understanding. --Marsupium (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Q22004703 currently labelled "Portrait of Queen Anna Jagiellon as a widow (detail)" reminded me of this .. --- Jura 07:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{s}} under the condition that it is not restricted to paintings. "depicts part" would be a better name, corresponding to the "depicted part" parameter added by Jarekt to the c:Module:Artwork template family, cf. c:Module talk:Artwork#New |detail= parameter?. --Marsupium (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)- Not sure. As long as it's 2D, I wouldn't mind. For 3D, you always only get a part. --- Jura 13:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I've misunderstood the proposed meaning. Thought the value should describe the part depicted, not what the depicted is part of. Sorry, --Marsupium (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure. As long as it's 2D, I wouldn't mind. For 3D, you always only get a part. --- Jura 13:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment I should point out, that I am having difficulties in understanding what such property should handle. From the examples presented, it looks to me that the goal is to describe, its is a case of a derivative work, e. g. a crop. So I think that in such cases we may use derivative work (P4969), which is even more general than this proposal and covers a wide range of file types. If I am wrong in understanding of what did you mean, please explain it the other way. Juandev (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- derivative work (P4969) could indeed be applied to a wide range of files. So it's unclear what it would actually mean in a given context and if the item would still need digital representation of (P6243) or not.--- Jura 11:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment withdrawing this due to a lack of support. Besides, Commons tools are still far from being able to make use of any structured approach this. --- Jura 16:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
