Wikidata:Property proposal/commissioned for

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

commissioned for[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Under discussion
Descriptionbuilding, room, or other structure for which this work of art or class of artworks was commissioned
Representsarchitectural structure (Q811979)
Data typeItem
Domainwork of art (Q838948), art collection (Q7328910), artwork series (Q15709879), or their subclasses (there may be exceptions)
Allowed valuesarchitectural structure (Q811979) or its subclasses
Example 1Acts of the Apostles tapestries (Q76844726)Sistine Chapel (Q2943)
Example 2White House china (Q7994920)White House (Q35525)
Example 3Holy Grail tapestries (Q5885597)Stanmore Hall (Q17551623)
Planned useFor completing work on ~250 tapestry and tapestry series items
See alsocommissioned by (P88), commemorates (P547)

Motivation[edit]

Many artworks were commissioned for specific palaces, houses, or administrative buildings, or even for specific rooms those buildings. This is frequently different from the current location (or another location where the object may have been kept at some point in the past). This property is more specific than using location (P276) with start and end dates, as it captures the purpose and intent of the person or organization commissioning the work. PKM (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I'm not against this property per sé, but i do think the proposed label is confusing. I can definitely see people using this property by accident instead of commissioned by (P88), because something like Arc de Triomphe (Q64436) 'commissioned for' Napoleon (Q517) sounds valid (but isn't!). So maybe rename it to something like 'commissioned for structure' or maybe 'original location'? Husky (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree with Husky, would prefer "original location". But then why not use location (P276) with start date/end date? "Intended location" might work. Jheald (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Good points. Prepositions are always slippery in translation anyway... let me think about this. - PKM (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)