Talk:Q12418

To do

• In item

• significant event (P793): needs to be expanded (purchase by Francis I, more details about theft etc.):
• exhibition history (P608): document the exhibition in Tokyo (a Japanese speaker may help)
• Date property: need to read some stuffs, as there has been several hypotheses

• In related items:

• person depicted in Mona Lisa (Q11879536): complete (ranking would be an useful feature as various explanations have been advanced but rejected by most)

Title / P357

If the P357 (P357) is the original title given to the work no one of the three are good. The painting was made in Italy by Italian for Italians people so it's difficult to have a P357 (P357) in French. Furthermorethe title given by Joconde database was forged a long time after the artwork was made. In this database there is no distinction between label and title but Wikidata does it ; the threee "titles" are actually labels. There is no original title of this artwok and it is a big issue in Art History. IMHO the value for P357 (P357) should be {empty}.

"title" has a much more vague meaning for paintings than for books. I would be fine with using it for only titles given by the artist in a somewhat official fashion. But sometimes, people like to know the title of an institution-given or art-historian given title. I guess the main reason for that is that if institution X says "Portrait of Mrs X", that tells us that the institution thinks it is a portrait of Mrs X. We do not really need to use the title property for that, but still, it may be nice to keep it, just in case. POssibly as a qualifier, like in the exhibition history of The Oath of the Horatii (Q476458) ? --Zolo (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Indeed, using a qualifier for title given by the institution is a specific information which can be set with this property. The point is that there are differents types of titles (written, given by artist, set by institution, common title...). If for the common title there is the label, for others there is an issue on which I don't see currently no simple solution.--Shonagon (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Louvre website

Should't we use official website (P856) instead of described at URL (P973)--Oursana (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Oursana: I suppose so. To me it seems a little odd to have an "official website" that's actually just a webpage at another website, but I agree that "official website" makes more sense here than "described at URL." — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@PinkAmpersand: webpage at another website I do not get, thx for your comment, I will do--Oursana (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can equate a page about Mona Lisa on the Louvre's website with an "official website" of the Joconde. "official website" does not imply that the page is about the item (the NYtimes website is not mostly about the NYtimes). Beside, there are various pages about the Mona Lisa, the one that might look most like an "official website" would seem to be musee.louvre.fr/oal/joconde/indexFR.html . Looking at how Handle ID (P1184) is used, it might be an usable property here, but I do not really get what "handle" exactly means. @Multichill: ? --Zolo (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

in rue.wiki

Please, who can add the rue.wiki link to the list of languages of the Mona Lisa articles ? Somehow I am not able to do that. Thank you very much. Here is the page: https://rue.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%B7%D0%B0

Laborec (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. FallingGravity (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)