Wikidata:Property proposal/possibly reproduction of

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

image may represent[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons

   Under discussion
Descriptionimage should be using "digital representation of" (P6243), but it's not entirely clear if the value used here is the correct one
Data typeItem
Example 1File:'Quarry, Pontoise' by Camille Pissarro, c. 1874.jpg] → The Quarry, Pontoise (Q21673134) (likely yes)
Example 2File:'Elizabeth Boott Duveneck' by Frank Duveneck, Cincinnati Art Museum.JPGELIZABETH BOOTT DUVENECK (Q46956757), Portrait of a Lady (Elizabeth Boott Duveneck) (Q28788745), ELIZABETH BOOTT DUVENECK (Q46959040) (not clear which one and if there might not be duplicate items)
Example 3File:'Ducks and Turkeys' by Edvard Munch, 1913.JPGDucks and Turkeys in Snow (Q18889772) (possibly part of a series)
Example 4File:L'empereur Napoleon III de Franz-Xaver Winterhalter.jpg → <new item for "L'empereur Napoleon III"> (one of several known copies, original thought to be lost according to c:Category:Emperor Napoleon III in Coronation Robes (Winterhalter))
Example 5File:'Cloud Study', by John Constable, 1822, Tate Britain.JPG → some of Special:Search/Cloud Study painting by John Constable -Yale or Special:Search/Cloud Study painting by John Constable
Planned usefor c:Category:Paintings without Wikidata item: temporary statement
See alsodigital representation of (P6243), Wikidata:Property_proposal/detail_of_painting

Motivation[edit]

To sort through the 88000 files of c:Category:Paintings without Wikidata item, it should be possible to determine that we might already have an item, but it's not sufficiently certain to add a statement. Accordingly, a temporary statement could be helpful. Above a property for that. A specialist might more easily determine the correct statement. Please add more samples above. If the samples are resolved in the meantime, please don't remove them. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 10:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need a more generic mechanism for items that have been identified (possibly by machine) as "best guesses", but require confirmation or assessment. Rather than to create a bespoke property for the present niche application, it would be good to agree a more general way to indicate this. One approach used on wikidata is to add the statement but with deprecated rank and reason for deprecation (P2241) = unconfirmed (Q28831311). Other ways of signalling a provisional nature of a statement could also be envisioned. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Interesting thoughts, though I don't quite see the disadvantage of solving the problem now, even if the solution may only be temporary (it's meant to be an temporary statement anyways). Otherwise we might end up like the guys with some other database field: they keep discussing the optimal solution, but x years down the road, their field is still a mess. --- Jura 11:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Having a bespoke solution for this use-case seems problematic and would invite a lot of other bespoke solutions for similar cases. Using the depricated rank as Jheald suggests seems to be the best with the tools we have currently, but it's still cumbersome. Maybe we need a 4th rank type for this (depricated/uncertain/normal/preferred)? ChristianKl❫ 13:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Why would this be problematic? There is no numeric limit on the number of properties we can create. --- Jura 13:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)