Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings

See also: Wikidata talk:WikiProject Visual arts and Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Questions

Georges Rouault - 623 paintings in the MNAM alone

Sometimes the most obvious things are the ones you see last. Only today did I look which painter had the most paintings in the collection of the MNAM, and I was startled to see that it was Rouault, with a staggering 623 works. That man's productivity is severely underestimated, especially here on WD, where almost none of his MNAM paintings is listed. Edelseider (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a lot! I agree he is underestimated, but I also think you will find that we have other huge gaps in French painter oeuvres, mostly because we don't have that many people working on French paintings. I myself am responsible for adding many Dutch painters and their paintings to Wikidata, but I still come across Dutch painters I never heard of (mostly from the parts of the country furthest from the major cities). My impression from various museum collections is that, in general, the biggest gaps today are among Scandinavian and Central European painters of the 19th century. Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

French collections + French painters are globally underrepresented, but less so than Italian collections + Italian painters, and Japanese collections + Japanese painters. Italy and Japan are still the least well represented countries on WD in proportion to their actual painterly heritage, more so than Scandinavian and Central European painters of the 19th century. Still, the case of Georges Rouault and the Musée national d'art moderne is the most extreme that I have seen so far. Nobody will transfer all these paintings by hand on WD, unless they are paid to do so. I intend to ask Magnus Manske or Multichill to devise one of their clever bots. Edelseider (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jane023, please see here: Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Georges Rouault --Edelseider (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Fun fact: By 1917, Rouault had already made 770 paintings, and in 1948, he burned 315 of his own paintings from that period. He must have produced about 2,500 paintings in his lifetime. Edelseider (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Maurice Utrillo has more than 2,800 paintings in catalogs, and Paul Klee is said to have made around 10,000 works of art. MNAM has 930 works by Kandinsky. Yann (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Help us bring more visibility to your WikiProject on Wikidata

Hello everyone,

The Wikidata team is exploring how we can bring more visibility to WikiProjects on Wikidata. Right now, WikiProjects are difficult to find unless you already know where to look. This makes it harder for new editors to connect with like-minded contributors and share knowledge around their areas of interest.

As a first step, we’re working on a gadget that displays the relevant WikiProjects associated with an Item directly on its page. This should make it much easier to see which projects are connected to which Items.

We’ve gathered some initial ideas for how WikiProjects could be linked to Items, but we’d love your feedback:

👉 Wikidata:Increasing the visibility of WikiProjects

How should we represent your WikiProject? Are there important data models or properties missing? Do you have better suggestions for how to connect WikiProjects to relevant Items?

Please join the discussion on the project talk page and feel free to write there as well if you have any questions. Your input will help shape the direction of this work. Thanks, -Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE) (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Any Rembrandt experts here today?

Hi all, could somebody please check these items? I have some existential doubts but Rembrandt is not my strongest area of interest. Thx. Elya (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

could you please specify what are your doubts ? attribution ? something else ? Hsarrazin (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

a) For Rembrandt and his circle, I would expect to find more references that prove the existence e.g. of A Polish Nobleman (Q131986533) than a paper on academia.edu b) the name of the creator and the only source are quite similar (and there are similar paintings like A Polish Nobleman (Q9351747) which makes it tricky (at least for me) to check) c) Copper Painting Rembrandt (Q131983701) has references that seem to exist only on Wikidata [1] d) ok, I did not check the third one, Portrait of a Lady with Hands Folded (Q28031733) which is in the Royal collection. I don't want to blame anybody, maybe I'm missing something here but shouldn't there exist plenty of database entries for Rembrandt paintings? Elya (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

not an expert on painting at all - merely as someone who looks at sourcing and referencing (librarian)...

I agree with you... Academia only publication is a little suspect... - at least the article should have been published or discussed in art history places... the author of articles also has a strange profile for and art expert - no question about "homonyms", the profile pic is the same...

other fun fact : the time of edits seems to be the exact same period these articles were posted on Academia... easy to check by selecting "posts" in Activity of the profile...

and the source for Portrait of a Lady with Hands Folded (Q28031733) is the Wasa IV article, where the portrait only appears with "Rembrandt 1637 mistress Hedwig Łuszkowska ", as if attribution was already clear, when the official site of the RKIN says "style of Rembrandt", (Hendrickje Stoffels?)"...

I do not know how to indicate that the attribution is incertain or contested... Could someone help, here, please ? @Shonagon ? - sorry, you're the only "art expert" and "wikidatian" I know :) Hsarrazin (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Multichill, Jane023: Can either of you help here? - PKM (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating! Thanks for the heads up. I agree Academia only is "suspect" but looking at the evidence I am inclined to agree. From experience I know the Royal Collection always errs on the side of conservative doubt. In this case where the painting Q28031733 has been in situ since the 18th century it's quite possible it's a Rembrandt and I am inclined to believe the story of the sitter, so I added both the unknown creator with RCIN reference and added the academia article as reference to the Rembrandt attribution as well as the to the sitter, who now has an image as well. Let the next generation of experts have at it (someone will have to invest in cleaning off the old nicotine-stained varnish and do the dendrochronology, etc. I suppose). Jane023 (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much... :) Hsarrazin (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Complex modelling - locket containing a portrait miniature

The Lyte Jewel (Q137006020) is a jeweled locket that contains a portrait miniature James I and VI (Q137008607) by Nicholas Hilliard. I'd appreciate any feedback on my modelling - I'm not sure how much of the collection info etc. needs to be duplicated on the miniature. I'll try to find a high res image somewhere.

@Jane023, Multichill: - PKM (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I just looked at it and it seems you did a thorough job on it. Though it seems like information overload, I would duplicate the basic collection, location, & inventory numbers per part, just so it will show up in various queries per P31 used on each part. The main item for the whole thing is what usually gets a Wikipedia article, but it's the actual painting/sculpture/whatever that shows up in creator lists. Jane023 (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

How best to describe uncertain date spanning the end of a century

For Capital (Q116243282), https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/466554 gives inception (P571) as "late 12th–early 13th century". Help:Dates does not seem to provide any analogous example, and probably should if things like that are to be handled with any uniformity. (I asked this question on the Project chat and was sent here.)

Please ping me if responding. - Jmabel (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: [2]. Normally we would use refine date (P4241) for end of (Q40719766) or beginning of (Q40719727), but that's for the inception, not for the qualifiers. Multichill (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. The inability to qualify a qualifier is sometimes very limiting. I understand that we ended up with this problem because the designers of wikibase were trying to limit recursion, but we still ought to have some consistent standard way to describe this situation. - Jmabel (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

E.g. "always use the later century for the primary value, and qualify with [a newly defined item] for sourcing circumstances (P1480)." - Jmabel (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Or take what you did in Capital (Q116243282) and combine it with my followup there just now to use object stated in reference as (P5997) to be explicit about how it was described in the reference (how this one now stands).

Or put this as "circa 1300", also with the reference as I just added.

But we really should pick one and document it in Help:Dates. - Jmabel (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

WD:SOAP is being killed

Hello everybody. I was an eager participant to the project, but now it seems that it is about to die. According to Yann (talk • contribs • logs), an administrator, Christie's and Sotheby's are now to be considered as collections, the Christie's ID is now to be considered as an inventory number, the difference between "painting", "watercolor painting", and "gouache painting" is to be erased, etc. In other words, anything goes now, and all our efforts for precision, clarity, and conciseness, are absolutely going to shit. I was not expecting a painful demise, but there it is. We can all go home now and throw away the key. Edelseider (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

hello @Edelseider

What are you talking about ? Hsarrazin (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am fine with setting the instance as "painting", "watercolor painting", or "gouache painting", but then the pages should be adjusted, here and on Commons, to show all paintings.

But some of your changes are obviously wrong:

• It explicitly says: The value for collection should not be private collection. Use `unknown value` qualified with `object has role` (P3831) `private collection` (Q768717);
• described at URL (P973) is always necessary. Actually, this is the most important parameter. It is needed as a reference. And I have seen cases where the object ID doesn't lead the page description.
• Paintings sold at auction were, even if they are not now, within Christie's or Sotheby's collection at a time. A time limit could be added, but I don't see any reason to remove them. And so far, these are accepted to describe "collection".

Honestly, your staging is poor and very badly acted. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I've always understood the specific painting material/support NOT to be put as P31... why "gouache painting", "watercolor painting", and not "oil painting" or other ...

shouldn't the "watercolor" and "gouache" be put as P186 instead of P31 ?

for all the paintings I've been working on, it's always been made that way P31 - and we have worked on this specific project for quite some time with @Yann and @Multichill - this then allows the retrieving of material and support in the Commons templates and also the automatic listq by Creator. Hsarrazin (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I’m not an active SOAP participant, but for what it’s worth, that was also my understanding. Numbers-wise, per this QLever query, instance of (P31)painting (Q3305213) is north of 1M uses, but instance of (P31)watercolor painting (Q18761202) follows with a not insignificant 20K (2%). So, yeah, project-level clarification and agreement would be good.

(For arguments on why a broad P31 is good in other cultural domains, see @Spinster:'s post about movies and my own about games.)

Hope that helps, Jean-Fred (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Apparently this is a discussion between Edelseider and Yann about the way collection (P195) and inventory number (P217) are being used on Église de Limours (Q137841734). Sigh. I guess this all comes back to the discussion about how to model auction items. I forgot where that is, but I have been using significant event (P793) for this. I suppose you could use Christie's or Sotheby's for collection (P195) but it would be a lot like using "private collection" so I don't think it's a great idea, but in any case I would put a qualifier point in time (P585) on it for the auction date and the link to the auction record, since if they have it, they don't keep it for long. With the auction modelling we have more qualifiers now so I do think significant event (P793) is better and more useful. Jane023 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think using an auction ID as inventory number (P217) is useful - we already have lot number (P4775) for that. Jane023 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah I found the art auction discussion here Wikidata:WikiProject Provenance/Auctions. Jane023 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I have tried to use lot number (P4775), but it gives a warning, while inventory number (P217) doesn't. And how do you use significant event (P793)? I will now add point in time (P585) whenever it is possible. Yann (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to check back here. My short answer is there's not really a perfect approach, but one important thing to remember is information you enter in Wikidata should be easily findable by query. Here's an example of a complex painting I have been working on as part of a group of similar triptychs: Triptych with the Adoration of the Magi (Q137691350). This one uses owned by (P127) as well as significant event (P793) for the art auction info. I tried to find the discussion about whether to use art auction (Q74570489) or auction (Q177923) but I can't find that one. Jane023 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Fortifications au nord de Paris (Q137858471) is a good example of why information should not be removed. It was sold by Christie's in 2023, and again by Sotheby's in 2025. This information should not be removed. They present the painting differently, so both are useful. Yann (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't be shoehorning data into the wrong fields. This is just plain incorrect. The fact that you don't know how to do it properly doesn't make it right to put this data in the wrong fields. I would do it like this. Multichill (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Multichill for how to deal with these important data

I've never had to enter data for an auction, but clearly, Christie's ans Sotheby's are only auction houses, NOT collection owners :) Hsarrazin (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, what is, and what is not a collection is not defined. I would say that any place which displays works of art can be considered a collection, at least for the purpose of WD. Auction houses do display works of art for a certain period of time (which can lasts for several years in some cases). Yann (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Stop acting like a jerk and accept that you're doing it wrong. We have clear agreement what collections are. You're the only one trying to use it differently. Multichill (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Multichill: Do not insult me. I have been doing this for years, so at least this deserves a proper discussion. Yann (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I have added lots of art galleries to collection (P195) statements with point in time (P585) in the past, but those are generally historical galleries that pre-date Christie's and Sotheby's. I do think that both Christie's and Sotheby's invest in art and hold pieces for longer periods, so I won't say never use them in collection (P195), but in this specific case having read the auction record, the metadata is very brief, so if you don't have the catalogue for Maurice Utrillo all you have are the previous owners and auction dates. I would refine the dates with the actual auction days, but I don't expect everyone to go to the trouble to add art auction statements in significant event (P793) the way I do. It's nice that you can add the Christie's ID as a shortcut now! Someday someone who cares can go follow the data to update the item. Jane023 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It is not possible that adding or not Christie's and Sotheby's as collection to be based on the duration they keep the works. First this information is usually not available, except for some notable cases (e.g. Salvator Mundi (Q1892745)). Secondly, it is really too cumbersome to check that. Yann (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There are also cases (Église de Pont-Saint-Martin (Loire-Atlantique) (Q137718839)) where museums do not keep artworks. This painting was given to the heirs of Štefan Osuský, ambassador of Czechoslovakia in Paris in 1940. It was seized by the Nazis, and was found in Austria in 1951. Yann (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Separate lists for gouache, watercolor, etc.

Hi, I tried, but it doesn't work. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

{{Wikidata list
|sparql=SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q18761202 . ?item wdt:P170 wd:Q108301 . MINUS { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q15727816 } }
|section=
|sort=P571
|columns=label,P18,P571,P195,P276,P217,P528,P186,P2048,P2049,P973
|thumb=128
|min_section=
|freq=30
}}
{{Wikidata list end}}

Looks like there are no watercolor painting (Q18761202) from that particular painter. This should work − add or remove types from the VALUES as needed

SELECT ?item ?type WHERE {
  VALUES ?type {
    wd:Q3305213
    wd:Q18761202  # watercolor
    wd:Q21281546  # gouache
  }
  ?item wdt:P31 ?type;
    wdt:P170 wd:Q108301.
  MINUS { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q15727816. }
}

Try it!

You can also drilling down the class tree, but that usually tanks performance:

SELECT ?item ?type WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q3305213;
    wdt:P170 wd:Q108301.
  ?item wdt:P31 ?type.
  MINUS { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q15727816. }
}

Try it!

Jean-Fred (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually I only use painting (Q3305213) because the digital experience between an oil painting, tempera painting, gouache painting, or pastel painting is the same. The material used to create the image should be in made from material (P186). I know that all paintings that are susceptible to fading (such as watercolors) are generally only in storage in museums, but we can show them every day of the year. However, if you want all the things to show up that museums call "drawings", then you just need to remove the painting restriction from the listeria list query. Jane023 (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. There are a number of items where painting (Q3305213) was replaced by something else. I will revert them back. Should gouache/watercolor/etc. be added with painting (Q3305213)? What would the advantage or the inconvenience to do that? Yann (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No title

Hi, What should be the value in such cases, File:Paul Klee, Ohne Titel (untitled), catalogue raisonné 6536, 1933, photo 1.jpg (source: [3])? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

in Wikidata ? "no value"... in Commons : is there a multilanguage template that says "no title" ? Hsarrazin (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: OK, merci ! BTW what "genre" is this? Yann (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Size of mount

Hi, There is often, in addition to the size of the artwork, the size of the support (mount), i.e. Q138331903. How to specify this? And can it be displayed on Commons? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

bonjour @Yann

avec le qualifier applies to part (P518), non ? Hsarrazin (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Oui, ça je sais. Mais je n'ai pas trouvé "mount" ou un équivalent. Je vois que tu as ajouté frame (Q860792), mais "mount", ce n'est pas exactement ça. Bon nombre d'oeuvres sont collées sur un autre support (du papier sur un autre papier ou du carton, ou un carton sur un autre carton, du bois, ou une toile). Et l'info n'apparait pas sur Commons. Yann (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

(English translation) Yes, I know that. But I haven't found "mount" or an equivalent. I see you added frame (Q860792), but "mount" isn't exactly that. Many works are glued onto another support (paper on paper or cardboard, or cardboard on another cardboard, panel, or canvas). And that information doesn't appear on Commons.

More generally, a list of all possible properties for a given instance would be useful. Yann (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake : maybe mat (Q1472602)? or its subclass framing and mounting equipment (Q56148148) ? Hsarrazin (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: En fait, en français, ça s'appelle simplement un support. Mais il n'y a pas cela dans painting support (Q861259) ou support (Q33123524). Yann (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

non, parce que c'est deux là sont considérés comme le support "direct" de l'oeuvre (donc, la toile par ex.), pas le support d'encadrement :( Hsarrazin (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Faut-il créer une nouvelle entité ? Yann (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I created mount (Q138339678). Yann (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, this already existed at mount (Q107105674), but I didn't find it. Yann (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

and there certainly shouldn't be a capital T on "Transfert"... ^^ Hsarrazin (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Je n'ai jamais entendu parler de "transfert" dans ce contexte. Pour moi, c'est un "support". Yann (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

je suis tout à fait d'accord... je me contentais de faire une remarque de convention typographique...

quant à l'élément, en regardant l'historique depuis l'origine, c'est clairement ce que tu cherchais... "passe-partout", "support", (en) "mount, secondary support on which a drawings photograph, or other work or paper or vellum is attached"...

c'est le libellé "Transfert" qui t'a sans doute empêché de l'identifier... - je propose un retour à "support"

pour moi, le "transfert" consiste à reproduire une image (par exemple) à l'aide d'un procédé ; ça n'est pas un objet, encore moins un support de montage... Hsarrazin (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, corrigé. Yann (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

How to propose a property for deletion? P8574

Hi this NYARC Discovery ID (P8574) is a mess of my own making - this property for old photos of paintings in NYC archives appears to no longer work and the underlying photo database appears offline. Where do I go to have this deleted and cleaned up? Thanks in advance Jane023 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to add a sample item - see Triptych of Nativity, Adoration of the Magi, Presentation in the Temple (Q106417617) - dates from when I though triptychs could only be uploaded to Commons without their frames! Guess who told me that (kidding, no answer necessary). Jane023 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jane023

Indeed, I don't understand at all how this site works : gives access to different resources (like Europeana) and what else ?

it is presently working, and a search on "Triptych of Nativity Pieter Coecke van Aelst" actually gives 5 results, but I don't understand at all how to access them, and the Permalinks seem very different from what you used... perhaps they changed their site ?

to propose a Property for deletion, see Wikidata:Properties for deletion :)Hsarrazin (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes exactly! This property stopped working soon after I started using it and I recall a short tweet exchange (on then-Twitter) with the project manager who was responsible for the software upgrade but he couldn't help me because the project was finished. I'm afraid the photo database ran into copyright issues or something and I don't even know if the Frick has their photo database online anymore. Jane023 (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)