Property talk:P195

Documentation

collection
art, museum, archival, or bibliographic collection the subject is part of

Description

art, museum or bibliographic collection the subject is part of

Represents

collection (Q2668072), editorial collection (Q20655472)

Data type

Item

Domain

According to this template: mainly creative works, but also other items that are part of collections

According to statements in the property:
product (Q2424752), type specimen (Q51255340), physical object (Q223557), sequence (Q20937557), work (Q386724), class (Q16889133) or phonograph record (Q16629185)

When possible, data should only be stored as statements

Allowed values

items of museums, collections, libraries, archives etc. (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Example

Rosetta Stone (Q48584) → British Museum (Q6373)
The School of Athens (Q186953) → Vatican Museums (Q182955)
Codex Sinaiticus (Q152962) → British Library (Q23308)
Jean Walter-Paul Guillaume Collection (Q60363894) → Musée de l'Orangerie (Q726781)

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P195 (Q21037764)

Book collections too[edit]

Changed the description to include book collections too.--Micru (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about archival collections?[edit]

Why are archival collections not mentioned? (well, in the German translation they actually are - but is this generally accepted?) --Beat Estermann (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this was my decision to use it also for archives and libraries. Usualy this property is to be used with inventory number (P217), so there was some need to change the definition of P217 also. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting collections?[edit]

I think there should be some guidance about nesting collections. - If an institution has collections c1, c2, and c3 - which structure should be preferred?

Inst has c0; c0 has c1, c2, c3
Inst has c1, c2, c3

In parallel, some thought may also be given to the nesting of institutions / departments within institutions. --Beat Estermann (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the notability of c0. If c0 ist notable and has own articles and therefore an own item, you might link c1, c2, c3 to this item. Otherwise I consider it to be better to link c1, c2, c3 directly to the "top level". There is no official rule so you can choose a way of nesting, that suits best in your eyes. The British Museum has incorporated lots of collections, not all of them are notable. The nesting problem is on the level of collections. As soon as it comes to single objects of the collection like a painting or a piece of pottery, it is better to use the top level with the inventory number and give three statements of collections, one for c1, one for c0 and one for Inst. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constraints[edit]

How about item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264)

{{Constraint:Value type|class=Q18593264|relation=instance}}

instead of entity (Q35120)

{{Constraint:Value type|class=Q35120|relation=instance}} ? --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added entity (Q35120) as a temporary measure to see what's possible. We have about 30.000 work (Q386724) that use collection (P195). The targets should all be a subclass of some item (preferably not entity (Q35120)). It would be logical that everything is subclassed to collection (Q2668072), but maybe that feels a bit weird. Is a museum (Q33506) a subclass of collection (Q2668072)? Maybe museum (Q33506) -> public collection (Q2982955)? I don't think item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) is the way forward. Multichill (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this field for a while. We have museums, libraries, galeries, collections, buildings, churches etc. that can be targets of P195. There are two items out there for collections: collection (Q2668072) and art collection (Q7328910) they are allmost redundant, but can not be merged. I use art collection (Q7328910) in preference, because it has more langlinks and I doubt the other languages make the same distinction as nlwiki does bertween collections and collections of pieces of art. (Half of collection (Q2668072) in nlwiki is however not about collections but about art collections). Then we have collections for art and we have collections for items that are not art in its narrow sense. Museums usualy dont collect books, but some do. Unfortunately museums can collect allmost anything from samples of dust, over cut of bodyparts up to buildings in an open-air museum. Libraries are usually not museums, but some are, however many libraries are collections not only of ordinary books, but of manuscripts and incunables. I use instance of (P31)+art collection (Q7328910) with libraries only if they include such valuable items that deserve owm articles, in all other cases it is enough to give it p31+library. Latey I found two articles about concept-cars. I was lucky to be able to assign item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) to the items instead of assigning a whole class of cars to any form of collection. It´d be very easy to add new classes of collection items to item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264). I have in mind that all items of collections also have inventory number (P217) and vice versa. item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) served very well to handle the constraints on inventory number (P217), it was just created for this purpose. Sometimes we have pieces of art beeing part of the architecture like frescos, wall paintings, mosaics, altars etc., these of course have no inventory numbers, some items have more than one inventory number just to proof the exception of the rule and to drive us crazy. Museums are not allways public collection (Q2982955), as there are some private museums out there, open to public, but still private, as well as there is no exact border to private collection (Q768717) that may be never open to the public. I also found a nice solution for all kind of weapons showed in museums: militaria (Q598227), unfortunately only the pural is used, the singular would be "militarium", because these are definitely collectors items, while most of all weapons are not. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I was reverted by Swpb. Swpb, please adjust the constraints in such a way that the false positives at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P195 disappear. I'm working cleaning up this and these false positive reports make it hard. I'm afraid that your edits made these lists even longer. Multichill (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude unnecessary. The false positives are because private collection (Q768717) is being used (perhaps questionably) as an instance of collection (Q2668072) ("Artwork X is part of [a particular] private collection"), but it was defined only as a subclass of collection (Q2668072). I've added the "instance of" statement on private collection (Q768717); private collections in general are a subclass of collections, but a particular private collection is an instance. (If you disagree with private collection (Q768717)instance of (P31)collection (Q2668072), then you have to accept these as true violations, not false positives.) Simply adding private collection (Q768717) to the type constraint accomplishes nothing, since it is already a subclass of collection (Q2668072); that's why the constraint template says "or a subclass thereof". Swpb (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Swpb, that was more me fighting the constraint reports than being unhappy about your edit. I don't think adding instance of is correct. Any ideas for a more elegant solution? Multichill (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: All the options I can see for getting rid of the violations, in increasing order of effort:

Leave the statement private collection (Q768717)instance of (P31)collection (Q2668072)
Remove all offending statements <item>collection (P195)private collection (Q768717)
Propose a new property, "collection type", which takes subclasses, rather than instances, of collection (Q2668072), and change all statements <item>collection (P195)private collection (Q768717) to <item>"collection type"private collection (Q768717)
Modify {{Constraint:Type}} to allow instances and subclasses. {{Constraint:Type}} currently can require subclasses instead of instances, but that would not be appropriate here, since most objects of collection (P195) are instances. This change would require broad community input, since it is a very widely used template.

I'm agnostic as to which solution to go with; #1 was merely the easiest. Swpb (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add both as standalone statement and as qualifier to inventory number (P217)?[edit]

I'm a little bit confused about this. Is the best practice to add collection (P195) both as a separate statement and as a qualifier to inventory number (P217)? Like so? Danmichaelo (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine. I'd be more likely to use inventory number (P217) as a qualifier of collection (P195), rather than the other way around, but either way works. --Swpb (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the two uses are linked or combined in the way Swpb suggests.
--- Jura 11:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Danmichaelo: collection (P195) should always be added directly and as a qualifier to inventory number (P217). That's also how the contraints on this page and at Property talk:P217 are set up. About 266.000 items use it in this way.

If you only add collection (P195) with qualifier inventory number (P217) (like Swpb suggests), it will trigger a constraint at Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P195#Missing inventory number. Multichill (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nurni, Multichill: You both added collection (P195)exception to constraint (P2303)allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851)property (P2306)inventory number (P217): I removed it the first time and I'd like to remove it again, but: Why did you add it? There is consensus since 2013 ;-P and still (see this talk page section above) not to use the properties this way. Did I miss something? --Marsupium (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marsupium: like this edit? That would cause about 17.500 constraint violations:

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?collection ?collectionLabel ?inv WHERE {
  ?item p:P195 ?collectionstatement .
  ?collectionstatement ps:P195 ?collection .
  ?collectionstatement pq:P217 ?inv .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } .
}
LIMIT 25000

Try it!

I don't use it in this way, but nothing wrong with using it in this way. Just let it be, definitely no consensus to just remove these. Multichill (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: Like that edit, yes. Wrong with it is that the co-existence of two different schemata causes disadvantages for editing and querying the information (at/from two places). Is there any gain in storing it twice outweighing the disadvantages? I worry this constraint allowing it and existing cases encourage people to use the properties this way and increase problems that now are only small. Currently (only) 460 items with inventory number (P217) as qualifier to collection (P195), but not as mainsnak:

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?collection ?collectionLabel ?inv WHERE {
  ?item p:P195 ?collectionstatement .
  ?collectionstatement ps:P195 ?collection .
  ?collectionstatement pq:P217 ?inv .
  FILTER NOT EXISTS {?item p:P217 ?invstatement}
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } .
}
LIMIT 25000

Try it!

--Marsupium (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC), 16:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why inventory number (P217) is necessary with collection (P195) and as Swpb suggests, it should definetly be connected, because double edits are not state of the art. And I do not have time to add information twice. I remember that not all collections show them e.g. Gemäldegalerie (Q165631) not all, Bode Museum (Q157825), Gallerie dell'Accademia (Q338330), which causes a lot of constraint violations without solutions. Uffizi Gallery (Q51252) have parallel different inventory systems which are for all museums in Florence. We have e.g. Florentine musea Inventario 1890 ID (P1726),Florentine musea catalogue ID (P2242) and more which should be sufficient after editing it once.Oursana (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oursana: I think this edit was a good idea, removing collection (P195)property constraint (P2302)item-requires-statement constraint (Q21503247)property (P2306)inventory number (P217)! --Marsupium (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ja, thank you, the constraint violations have to be changed as well, have a nice weekend --Oursana (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use for creators[edit]

Can we use this property also to add in which collections a creator has work in the collection? I come across photographers, graphic designers etc that have work in a museum or archive, and it would be great if we could mention in the persons' qid a list of museums that have work of that artist without the need to add all those individual photographs and designs. Could we broaden this property or should we create a new one? --Hannolans (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do that. The list would explode. If you want to know that you can do a SPARQL query. Multichill (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: that could work for painters as we have paintings in Wikidata, but not with photographs and graphic designers, textile designers etc, or should we start to add photopgrahs, book covers, chairs, fabrics, plates, posters etc to wikidata? Only if we have that we can sparql which museum collection has work of an artist. Or is there another trick? --Hannolans (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we actually need these connections I think a separate property would be better. --Marsupium (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and that's a big if. Some creators would have hundreds of instances of such a property, with no means of separating the trivial from the important. Swpb (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will propose another property. Yes, I'm aware that this has limits for some wellknown top artists. --Hannolans (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"has cause" qualifier?[edit]

Hello,

I sometimes use "has cause" as a qualifier for this item, with arguments such as "gift", "lease" etc. to indicate provenance. At the moment, this raises a warning with the constraints system, which only allows "start time", "end time", "inventory number" and "applies to part" in this place. Is there a better way to describe the provenance of an item of collection, or should "has cause" be listed among the properties allowed as qualifier?

Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

How do we describe provenance in general (i.e. the entire ownership history)? - Wouldn't that information fit in there?

Cheers, Beat Estermann (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For full provenance you generally use these properties:

location (P276) for all the places it went through
collection (P195) for all the collections it is in or has been
owned by (P127) who actually owned it over time
significant event (P793) for things like sales, donations, auctions, see this documentation for more information

Based on that I'm not sure we need the has cause (P828) qualifier, but I'm not against it, it could be a nice link to the significant event. Multichill (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the has cause (P828) qualifier is used, should it point to the class of the event (e.g. "purchase") or to the actual event (e.g. a specific auction)? - It should first become clearer what exactly we are trying to model. The examples given by Rama could also be interpreted in terms of ownership status (an institution may be the holder of a collection, but is not necessarily the owner of all the collection items, as some items may just be on loan). --Beat Estermann (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Museum objects' organizational unit?[edit]

I'm trying to understand exactly how to use various properties like collection (P195), location (P276), or others to convey different concepts for physical/intellectual/organizational locations of museum holdings. I think there are at least three different concepts here: where is the physical location of an object (P276), what organization does the object belong to (P195), and what organizational unit/department/branch is responsible for the object (P???). Is there a property for that last one. For a concrete example, the Rosetta Stone (Q48584) falls under the Ancient Egypt and Sudan Department in the British Museum. For another example, I would like to say that a particular historical map belongs to an archives' cartographic branch, not just the archives is comes from and the building it is in. I think I shouldn't use collection (P195) for that, since we want the museum itself in this property (and that department is not necessarily itself a collection (Q2668072), or else maybe we could just but both in as values for collection), but I figured I would ask here as the most similar type of property. What property should I use? Dominic (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also be interested in an answer to this question. - PKM (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is maybe not the best place for this question, but I am hoping to bulk import a lot of records, so I am going to ask again, because I'd really like an answer on this. After thinking about this more, I can think of at least 4 different related concepts to model here:

This item belongs to X institution's collection. (collection (P195))
This item is part of the X collection. (???)
This item is curated/interpreted/cataloged by X unit. (???)
This item is physically located in X. (location (P276))

In some cases, these 4 could all have the same value. For example, a museum with one location, and no organizational sub-unit or named collections. In others, all 4 could be different values. Consider this example from the US National Archives with the values it would take from the 4 concepts:

Item: Mission Concept Diagrams of Project Gemini (NAID 7348584) (Q66425178)

The closest I can get for #2 is part of (P361), but I am not really seeing it used that way, and I am not sure it is specific enough about in what sense it is "part" of the collection. And, especially in archives with hierarchical description, where the relationship between parent and child records is more like ranked taxons than a simple part–whole relationship, this may not be descriptive enough. For #3, I see there is a property maintained by (P126), but I don't think that is the same concept as performing the kind of intellectual duties implied here with a cultural/scientific repository. Any thoughts? Dominic (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wrestling with this one - it's not clear to me that we have exactly the correct properties, but it's also not clear to me what the exactly correct properties would be. part of (P361) is used very loosely across a number of domains, and I would be happy to say that "X" is <part of> "Collection Y", and "Museum Z" <has part> "Collection Y".
I am also comfortable with using two "collection" properties. For example, WD doesn't currently mention c:Category:Berger Collection even though it's a (formerly) private collection that was donated to the Denver Art Museum in 2018. I think the paintings involved should have <collection> "Denver Art Museum" and <collection> "Berger Collection", but I've been holding off doing this. (Updated)
Similarly, we don't currently have a separate item for the Costume Institute at the MET, and I think we should, and should indicate when items are part of the Costume Institute collection. Ditto with the Brooklyn Museum collection which was donated to the MET but is historically a separate collection, and the Suffolk Collection of paintings at Kenwood House in the UK ("Suffolk Collection" is also missing entirely from WD).
Alternatively, perhaps we need a new property "museum department" AKA "subcollection" for a named department or acquired collection within a museum or gallery? This might be described as "organization within a museum or gallery responsible for acquisition, curation, interpretation, or cataloging of this item"? Could that cover both the "subcollection" and "maintained by" use cases (qualified with <object has role> when there are two or more)?
@Fuzheado, Pharos: do you have thoughts on this? - PKM (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For the last point, I think the "subcollection" and the "museum department" concepts are different, at least in the way I meant them. In one, the entity is an organization, and in the other, the entity is a described collection of objects. The "subcollection" was for the descriptive catalog metadata for a larger grouping of objects or records that is itself part of the catalog. This can be called a "collection," or a "series", a "file", or something else. In some cases, it may be the same as the department that is responsible for those records, if that is how it is cataloged. In other cases, the department itself could be responsible for many subcollections, or a single collection has multiple responsible departments for areas within the collection. Dominic (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

over on commons the c:Template:Artwork has institution field (displays as collection) and a department and credit line field. we should standardize the nomenclature so uploaders know what to do. Slowking4 ‽ (Rama's revenge) 19:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Location as qualifier[edit]

Often, artworks were at an historic property for generations. When marking these objects as collection = “private collection”, I’d like to qualify that with the historic property where the collection was housed, but that causes a constraint violation. I don’t think making an item for every individual collection is the right answer. Any objections? - PKM (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection in a year and I also need this for Collections with more than one physical location. Adding now. - PKM (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Label doesn't display, only "P195"[edit]

On some, but apparently not all items for works of art, where Property collection (P195) should read "Collection" only "P195" is displayed (at least in English). See for instance the missing label at Mona Lisa (Q12418), but the correct label at Peasants on the cart (Q28062102). I've checked on two different browsers, signed in and not, and the problem persists. Does anyone know what's going on? -Animalparty (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed it too. Probably best to file a bug. Multichill (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multichill I don't know how to do that. -Animalparty (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: sorry, I mixed you up with someone who is very active on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ . I meant a en:Software bug. I see you left a note at Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#Label_doesn't_display_on_P195_(P195). Let's see if it gets a reply. Multichill (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary constraint?[edit]

Why is there a contemporary constraint? Many artists die before the founding of the art museum that collects their work. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanimum: the artist is neither the subject nor the object. The subject is some work of art and the object is the collection. Looking like you're using this property incorrectly. Multichill (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zanimum that the collection (P195) (by definition) is created after the collection-item, and that there is no time dependency between them. So I believe this constraint does not make sense? Geertivp (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geertivp: that user was using collection (P195) incorrectly and never responded. What's your example where you trigger this constraint? Multichill (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q2033209#P195 Historical factories that closed before the museum where its collection is registered was founded. More examples at w:nl:Wikipedia:GLAM/Industriemuseum Gent/Wiki Café/Lijsten/Bouwfirma Serck nv/Bedrijven. Geertivp (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another case of incorrect usage of this property. After reading nl:Wikipedia:GLAM/Industriemuseum Gent/Wiki Café/Fotocollectie Serck nv it looks like you have some historical photographs which are in Museum of Industry (Q2245203) that depicts (P180) the various factories listed at nl:Wikipedia:GLAM/Industriemuseum Gent/Wiki Café/Lijsten/Bouwfirma Serck nv/Bedrijven. You shouldn't be using collection (P195) on these factories. Multichill (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to raise the question again. If I have an object in the collection (Q118687443), the object appeared in 1921, but the collection was created in 1993, why is there a contemporary constraint? --Tiefenschaerfe (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because your usage on Die Pritsche (Q118687443) is incorrect. That periodical is not in that collection. One or more (physical) editions of the periodical are probably in that collection. Multichill (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes - sure - that's correct. Thanks! Tiefenschaerfe (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a Collection or a Institution?[edit]

Both value are accepeted : Collection or/and Institution. For more details, see discussion in french on the bistro.--2le2im-bdc (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disentangling P195 and P217[edit]

I have started a discussion here. Opinions and contributions are welcome. Jonathan Groß (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P195

Contents

Documentation

Book collections too[edit]

How about archival collections?[edit]

Nesting collections?[edit]

Constraints[edit]

Add both as standalone statement and as qualifier to inventory number (P217)?[edit]

Use for creators[edit]

"has cause" qualifier?[edit]

Museum objects' organizational unit?[edit]

Location as qualifier[edit]

Label doesn't display, only "P195"[edit]

Contemporary constraint?[edit]

Part of a Collection or a Institution?[edit]

Disentangling P195 and P217[edit]

Navigation menu

Property talk:P195

Documentation

Book collections too[edit]

How about archival collections?[edit]

Nesting collections?[edit]

Constraints[edit]

Add both as standalone statement and as qualifier to inventory number (P217)?[edit]

Use for creators[edit]

"has cause" qualifier?[edit]

Museum objects' organizational unit?[edit]

Location as qualifier[edit]

Label doesn't display, only "P195"[edit]

Contemporary constraint?[edit]

Part of a Collection or a Institution?[edit]

Disentangling P195 and P217[edit]

Navigation menu

Search