Wikidata:Property proposal/tag
tag[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons
| Description | tag for the image/file |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | commons files |
| Example 1 | c:File:Родовые столбы сэргэ.jpg → shamanism (Q42042) |
| Example 2 | c:File:Родовые столбы сэргэ.jpg → Lake Baikal (Q5513) |
| Example 3 | c:File:Родовые столбы сэргэ.jpg → sunrise (Q193294) |
| Example 4 | c:File:Родовые столбы сэргэ.jpg → tradition (Q82821) |
| Example 5 | c:File:Родовые столбы сэргэ.jpg → orange (Q39338) |
| Example 6 | c:File:Родовые столбы сэргэ.jpg → Siberia (Q5428) |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| See also | depicts (P180); main subject (P921) |
Motivation[edit]
Having a simple statement to tag images like on platforms like Flickr or stock photo archives. depicts (P180) is more for the real object on the image and main subject (P921) should have only a small amount of values per file as it is the "main subject". This Tag should more be "all subjects". --GPSLeo (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- I see the value in this. We want to be able to add as many relevant terms to an image as we would like. I think the label is a bit unclear, though. "tag" is used in many ways, and I assume you mean it in the sense of w:Tag (metadata), but I would choose a more meaningful label, such as "related subject" or "keyword". The problem is that the line between this and depicts (P180)/main subject (P921) is pretty fuzzy. P921 itself seems already fairly confusing. According to the strict definition, it was supposed to be about listing the primary subject of a published creative work, but it is used much more expansively than that, probably already as "all subjects" by many. I wonder if, rather than making a new catch-all property, we just need to formally re-scope P921 to match the way it is used, as containing all relevant subjects for many categories of items.
Part of the reason that I'm hesitant about "tag" is also that it might perversely encourage people to lazily stick all related terms in "tag" statements, rather than use more descriptive properties that exist for attributes like genre, medium, format, and so on. This would dilute the value of having structured data at all, and partially defeat the purpose. Dominic (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per above, too broad. --Haansn08 (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- For "keyword", see Wikidata:Property proposal/subject facet.--GZWDer (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link but the discussion there was not about the usage of this on commons. Of course generally this is the same property. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose no, a tag is a string. Statements are things. This is too broad. Multichill (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this is the right way to do. We have decided to use Wikibase, so let's use wikibase and the current system. --Juandev (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This proposal hasn't been commented on for a long time and lacks support. Closed as 
Not done. Multichill (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)