Wikidata:Property proposal/twin town sign

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

twin town sign[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Under discussion
Descriptionimage of sign with twin towns on it
Representstwin town sign (Q96279156)
Data typeCommons media file
Domainadministrative territorial entity (Q56061)
Example 1Ulaanbaatar (Q23430)UBTwinCities.JPG
Example 2Rennes (Q647)Jumelages de Rennes.jpg
Example 3Los Angeles (Q65)Los Angeles Sister Cities sign 2014-05-14.JPG
Example 4Oskarshamn Municipality (Q505006)Twin town sign Oskarshamn.jpg
Example 5Le Coteau (Q1164461)Panneau Jumelage Coteau 1.jpg
Planned uselink all possible photos from the Commons category
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoplace name sign (P1766), traffic sign (P14)


Many cities have signs indicating its twin cities. It would be great to have an overview of these relations with a photo. In addition, a sign can be seen as a reference per se. Baidax (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We already have a property that is widely used for place name signs (place name sign (P1766)), this property would therefore be a complementary addition to what already exists. Furthermore, having such a property would encourage people to take pictures of these signs. We could also add qualifiers such as location (P276) if the sign is on a town hall for example or part of (P361) if the sign is from a monument and even genre (P136). Baidax (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems a bit too specific; perhaps this is better modeled using image (P18) with qualifier depicts (P180) twin town sign (Q96279156)? Mahir256 (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Mahir256: A picture of a twin town sign isn't really relative to a global representation of an administrative body. In fact, it's not really a part of it. It's not that specific: there are already a lot of photos of this kind and imagine using your method for the examples I have provided. As we look at what already exists, we have different properties for specific images such as nighttime view (P3451) or winter view (P5252), and a property similar to what I suggest is place name sign (P1766) (or even traffic sign (P14)). Yet it was entirely possible to go with a qualifier for theses. We cannot have dozens of images with the image (P18) property since these are not a representation of the element itself. Moreover, going with qualifiers will complicate queries. I developed my arguments in the motivation section. Yours sincerely. Baidax (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. I'll use this property when available. Benoît (discussion) 18:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this idea! It's pretty niche but we have quite a few other specific-image properties and this one seems reasonably useful. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support good idea. As a side remark, I concur with @Mahir256: ideally we should use image (P18) with qualifiers but this ship has sailed a long time ago (we now have hundreds of specific properties "image of" the flag, the coats of arms, the logo, the seal, in winter, by night, and so on) so there is no reason to deny this property while we still use the others. I'm not against changing the statu quo but it should be done consistently and in an RfC not here. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait. Wikidata:Property proposal/black-and-white photograph is currently sinking into oblivion but this very specific thing about twin city signs is about to be created under everyone's applause? I'm sorry but I don't get it. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice Germartin1 (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)