Wikidata:Property proposal/plan image

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

plan image[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

DescriptionImage representing the plan of a building or place.
Data typeCommons media file
Domainbuildings, archeological sites, any place that cannot be represented by a map in sufficient detail
Allowed valuesstrings representing valid Commons files
ExampleStejărișu fortified church (Q18548156)File:Planul_fortificatiei_din_Stejarisu.jpg
Planned useThe Romanian heritage monuments list has a specific parameter for images describing the plan. I plan to import these to Wikidata
Formatter URL$1
See alsoplace name sign (P1766)

Such a property would be very useful for sections describing the architecture of the building, as well as to allow a general view of a very large building (think: castle) when an equivalent image is not available. Strainu (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could be useful in other domains, too, such as vehicles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I can also forsee uses for this with plans of battlefields for military history items and for plots of damage from things like tornadoes, so I think the domain should be broader than proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    I agree to broadening the proposal, although for battlefields detail map (P1621) might work too.--Strainu (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great idea - a really valuable thing to have. I can imagine it being useful for some things like ships, as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Use sectional view (P2713), which is exactly for this use. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I disagree that sectional view (P2713) is relevant - a cross section image and a plan image are neither the same thing nor interchangeable.Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • For the moment I believe it is OK to confuse them whatever. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
For the moment they're perhaps interchangeable, because there are under 10 items. But if we want to make the difference it's better to do it now rather than when we'll have thousands of items. I'm particularly worried about the subject item of this property (P1629)computed tomography (Q32566) association made in sectional view (P2713), which kind of limits the purpose of the property.--Strainu (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
OK. I withdrew my opposition. But there will be a lot of instances when the plan image is also a sectional view. Thierry Caro (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done: @Strainu: please make good use of it.
    --- Jura 11:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)