Wikidata:Property proposal/references

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

references work, tradition or theory[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Under discussion
Descriptioncreative work, tradition or theory this creative work references by allusion, quote or similar means (for citations in scholarly and legal works use P2860, for other more specific properties have a look at "see also" on the property page)
Data typeItem
Domaincreative work (Q17537576)
Allowed valuescreative work (Q17537576), genre (Q483394), theory (Q17737), tradition (Q82821)
Example 1Lolita (Q127149) -> Au lecteur (Q17357164)
Example 21Q84 (Q208971) -> It's Only a Paper Moon (Q387410)
Example 3Buddenbrooks (Q326909) -> Oratio in Catilinam Secunda Habita ad Populum (Q42151775)
Example 4Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (Q217352) -> Genesis 4 (Q12490446)
Example 5Lolita (Q127149) -> psychoanalysis (Q41630) subject has role (P2868) parody (Q170539)
Example 6The Tin Drum (Q899334) -> Bildungsroman (Q223945)
Planned useThere are already some statements using cites work (P2860). I would move them to the new property.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See also


Intertextual figures are an important aspect of literary works, but also for other kinds of works their reference to other works is an important feature. I tended to use cites work (P2860) in those cases, but after some thought I think this is a bad practice and it would be best to reserve cites work (P2860) to formal citations and create a new property for all those non-formal references (allusion, unattributed quotes, parody) between creative works. This property would be equivalent to It would be a superproperty of cites work (P2860), has melody (P1625), samples work (P5707), has lyrics (P6439) and quotes work (P6166). Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Some comment about sourcing: References to other works may not be explicit and their detection may thus be a matter of background knowledge and interpretation. To be able to attribute such statements to a certain person, work and/or context they should be backed up by appropriate sources. What is "appropriate" depends besides others on the coverage of the work in secondary and tertiary literature and how explicitly the reference is made. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that cites work should be reserved for formal citation and that a property is needed to establish a link between works that simply pay tribute to others via reference --SilentSpike (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I broadened the scope of this property to include also traditions (in the broadest sense) and theories: I spotted some ill-defined uses of depicts (P180) with traditions in the broadest sense (especially literary conventions like genres) or theories that may be best placed within the scope of this new property. Sometimes secondary sources say that a work alludes to/replies to/is a parody of a genre, tradition, theory or other "body of thought" (e.g. Lolita (Q127149) being said to be a parody of psychoanalysis (Q41630)). This could be also used for references to traditional stories or literary themes like the one of Tristan and Isolde that can not be attributed to a single work. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: This seems well intentioned, but may attract a lot of trivial detritus from superfans. A single episode of The Simpsons (Q886) or Family Guy (Q5930) may have dozens of historical and pop culture references, sight gags, homages, musical parodies, etc, from Hamlet (Q41567) to Dogs Playing Poker (Q2963501) to Three's Company (Q245996), and a film, novel or non-fiction book may easily have hundreds. Will there be arguments over what references/allusions are most appropriate? Which are explicit and which are implicit? Is mere mention of a title enough to qualify (in Mallrats (Q39999), Brodie mentions The Punisher War Journal (Q7758751), Fletch (Q1428153) and at the end is said to become host of The Tonight Show (Q1338655), in addition to countless comic book and video game references. Do we need to model all of this?) I think the scope is far too broad, and question the practical merits. I see this becoming akin to the trivial "In popular culture" sections that plague so many Wikipedia articles. -Animalparty (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • References between works are not only a matter of popular culture and a topic of interest to some scholarly fields (traditionally literary studies, but it is also of interest to other fields in the humanities). References are dealt with in scholarly articles and explained in annotated works. So I think it has merit to be able to model this relationship and in many cases there are enough sources to back up one's claims. As to the number of possible statements: There are also academic works citing hundreds of other articles, which can be modelled via cites work (P2860). Of course there may be arguments if a certain supposed reference is really there, like there may be arguments about almost any statement in Wikidata. In the case of doubt the general rule should apply: The one who wants to keep the statement should provide a source stating that. One could develop lists and rules of thumb about accepted or rather controversial sources for certain types of works and genres. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Generally too many for long books; don't you think so? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC).
    • On average I expect less statements than cites work (P2860)-statements for formal citations in academic works. Lolita (Q127149) may be a good example with respect to how many references to other works a literary work may feature (Lolita is known for featuring an abundance of references to other works): Q127149#P2860 (currently indicated via cites work (P2860), would be moved to the new property, if accepted). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the example. This list is very long... Nomen ad hoc (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC).