Oppose Duplicates information which is more within the scope of Wikimedia Commons (and Commons categories often already have Wikidata items) -عُثمان (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't only the scope of commons.
It fits perfectly to the scope of wikidata to provide information, it works also with pictures have a look at properties like p109 or p1442 Z thomas (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally don't see the benefit of the property. I can't understand the intention of the image then being displayed in the Wikidata info box either. You have gallery pages on Commons to show stuff like that. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The images are shown in the wikidata Infobox. This is shown in the commons cat, the gallery pages is something different Z thomas (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems quite reasonable to me. For many professions and activities you cannot see the face of the person when this person is doing their job, - at the same time it's quite obvious to have a picture of the person dancing if they are a dancer. Ideally infoboxes could allow customers to switch between these two images. Андрей Романенко (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Did any of the people casting support votes even read the label? Having a property that addresses the person in a gendered way (his) seems to be an automatic no. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose this decision. According to Wikidata:Property creation, It is the job of the property creator to weigh consensus. The mere fact that there were three opposing votes against five votes in favour does not tell anything about the reasonable consensus. The objection of the colleague ChristianKl can be easily solved by renaming the proposed property into Picture of this person doing their job (English is not the mother tongue for the author of the proposal, their original German name of the property does not have this problem). Two other objections just read as "I don't understand why we need it"; in the meantime a clear explanation of why we need it is provided. According to Wikidata:Property creation, All opposing points of discussion should be addressed before creation occurs - this is exactly the case. @ZI Jony:, I believe you have to either elaborate your decision addressing the arguments in favour of this proposal or revert your decision and create this property. Андрей Романенко (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Андрей Романенко:, I understand your frustration, but it's important to note that the decision-making process involves considering all viewpoints. While three opposing votes (which are more than 37 percent) may seem significant, it's also crucial to assess the nature of the objections and the overall consensus. I’d suggest you to discuss with @ChristianKl, عُثمان, Gymnicus:, if they are willing to change their opinions, I'll be happy to mark as ready or revert my decision. Else, we have to consider as not done. Thank you. Regards, ZI Jony(Talk)11:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It simply does not work this way. All objections must be addressed, according to the rule. The rule does not claim that all the opposing users must change their opinions; they are even not obliged to come back to the discussion after giving their opinion once. If the objection is only about the name of the property (which is the case for one of the opposing users), it is your responsibility as a property creator to consider possible renaming (and I proposed this renaming). If some users opposed to the proposal and the author of the proposal replied, it is your responsibility to weigh (the word from the WD rule) the arguments. Андрей Романенко (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Андрей Романенко:, I've already taken my decision. If you want to overturn my decision, then you are full free to take this matter to AN. A administrator will revert/reopen the proposal for you. Thank you! Regards, ZI Jony(Talk)13:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy asks for arguments being addressed before a property is created. It does not ask for addressing points before proposals are closed. That's by design. We frequently have stale property proposals that we close even if there are a lot of unaddressed points made in a discussion.
When creating a new property I expect that people think about how to best name the property and I do think that both label and description matters and someone should do the effort to create good one's in English. " Picture of this person doing their job" is still questionable even if not as obvious. We don't capitalize the first word. The related properties that are listed all use the word image. There's no reasoning given why this one should deviate from that. Anyone who thinks deeply about this property should think about those issues and the fact that nobody did, means that nobody of the people who support this property engaged in the intellectual labor I expect before property creation (so I'm less sure about whether there are other issues that take me more than a minute to think up). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl With respect, it is not a valid reason to oppose a new property because the label used in the proposal uses inappropriate capitalisation. You are free to update the proposal with the correct capitalisation, now or at any time after creation. What we are looking for is relevant comments on the substance of the proposed property, not minutiae — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: As long as people vote without doing the bar minimum of thinking about what's invovled it's necessary to cast oppose votes to prevent bad properties to be created. That's the point of why we have the approval process. Preventing ill-thought out properties from being created. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, MSGJ. Let me once again stress the point: we expect from the main picture of a person to give the general idea of what their face looks like. But there are many professionals whose main activity shows them in completely different view. And it is quite reasonable that, for instance, for an ice hockey goalkeeper we'd be able to switch between this and this. I really don't understand wht's wrong in it and why we cannot have for people what we have for buildings. Андрей Романенко (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not a native English speaker, so it might even sound wrong, but alternatively I would suggest something like person's job image or image of a person's occupation as a label for the property. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma thanks for your suggestion. I'm fine with it. Everything that helps to improve the proposal is good. And your proposal hits the point well. Greetings from Germany Z thomas (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the opinion of @ChristianKl, who previously opposed the proposal because of the current label. What are your thoughts now on the new proposed labels and which one is more appropriate? Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are many subtypes of P18 already, so I think there is a decent precedent for that. I think, though, that we so many kinds of images we perhaps can think of other constructions to not overload the property space. E.g. perhaps a new property for "qualified image" and some structured system of qualifiers. The reusability in Wikipedia infoboxes is a very good argument IMHO. TiagoLubiana (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Duplicates information which is more within the scope of Wikimedia Commons (and Commons categories often already have Wikidata items) -عُثمان (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done, @Z thomas, M2k~dewiki, عُثمان, Gymnicus, Stefan Kühn, Lutzto: @Derbrauni, Андрей Романенко, ChristianKl: no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not a native English speaker, so it might even sound wrong, but alternatively I would suggest something like person's job image or image of a person's occupation as a label for the property. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Weak support Germartin1 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)