Wikidata:Property proposal/NPG ID
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
National Portrait Gallery (London) artwork ID
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
Description | identifier for an artwork on the website of the National Portrait Gallery, in London |
---|---|
Represents | National Portrait Gallery (Q238587) |
Data type | External identifier |
Domain | work of art (Q838948) |
Allowed values | mw\d{5,6} |
Example 1 | Charles Darwin (Q18005116) → mw01728 |
Example 2 | Horatio Nelson (Q28048496) → mw04635 |
Example 3 | Sir Nicholas Poyntz (Q28042039) → mw07809 |
Source | https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/advanced-search |
External links | Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt]. |
Planned use | Template:Arts links (Q45312151) |
Formatter URL | https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/$1 |
See also | National Portrait Gallery (London) person ID (P1816) |
Motivation
[edit]This new Wikidata property to identify artworks (Q44847669) would be quite useful, given the important size of Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/National Portrait Gallery, London. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support very important collection. - PKM (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nice for prints as well as paintings Jane023 (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose incomplete proposal. The proposal inaccurately has National Portrait Gallery (Q238587) about the museum as its main subject (|subject item=) while the proposal is for use as of its website and/or one of its databases or catalogues. In order to be of use to Wikidata, Help:Sources#Databases requires an item about the resource itself. This should made before a property is proposed.
We have many requests on Wikidata:Bot requests where such items are missing and bot operators can't determine what resource of a given organization was used. While it may seem trivial, it was found just recently that even proposers can't create such items easily. Further, this avoids that people re-purpose properties from one resource of an organization to another. --- Jura 09:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)- On my talk page, neither Multichill nor VIGNERON seem to like the move. So the problem is solved. The requested split and further shenanigans won't happen. I mark the proposal as ready. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with them as well. I think you misunderstood my comment (above it reads database, not collection). --- Jura 06:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: OK. I get it now. But I believe that when it comes to museums, the most important splits would distinguish the building from both the institution and the collection. And yet most of the time, we have only one item for all three – and nobody really cares much in property proposals. Now you say let's have a specific entry for the database behind museum websites too. Well, to be honest, I don't really care, in the actual sense of not having any preference whether or not such items should exist. I say we should have the building, the institution and the collection separated first. But when it comes to the latter, collections, other users were unimpressed and called a split 'ridiculous', literally. So standalone items for museum website databases might be even less necessary! I don't know, really. I'll let you do your stuff whichever way you want and find suitable. Whether there is an independent item or not, this proposal is probably ready, eventuallly. I'll mark it as such. For again, you can decide by yourself what you need or feel is right. We cannot do it for you. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Property proposal are not the place to discuss buildings, institutions or collections. They are here to propose and discuss properties. Once full information is available, they can be created. Here you attempt to reformat thousands of items without providing full information what the property is about. If you don't want to provide this, please avoid flooding us with proposals for merely formal changes without full information. We can obviously attempt to help you with this, but we can't really do it in your place. Please refrain from personal attacks in these discussions. Your issues (the/a) politbureau aren't really relevant. If you need samples on how to make complete proposals, please check the ones by Epidosis. It's really quite simple. --- Jura 08:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: OK. I get it now. But I believe that when it comes to museums, the most important splits would distinguish the building from both the institution and the collection. And yet most of the time, we have only one item for all three – and nobody really cares much in property proposals. Now you say let's have a specific entry for the database behind museum websites too. Well, to be honest, I don't really care, in the actual sense of not having any preference whether or not such items should exist. I say we should have the building, the institution and the collection separated first. But when it comes to the latter, collections, other users were unimpressed and called a split 'ridiculous', literally. So standalone items for museum website databases might be even less necessary! I don't know, really. I'll let you do your stuff whichever way you want and find suitable. Whether there is an independent item or not, this proposal is probably ready, eventuallly. I'll mark it as such. For again, you can decide by yourself what you need or feel is right. We cannot do it for you. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with them as well. I think you misunderstood my comment (above it reads database, not collection). --- Jura 06:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- On my talk page, neither Multichill nor VIGNERON seem to like the move. So the problem is solved. The requested split and further shenanigans won't happen. I mark the proposal as ready. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro, PKM, Jane023, Jura1: Done. I did not fill in Wikidata item of this property (P1629), but used issued by (P2378) instead, to avoid the institution vs. collection vs. database distinction. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Vahurzpu: can you create the item for the database as well? There is no point in creating a new property for existing data if there is no improvement over the existing data. Please be careful with requests by Thierry Caro, as they seem to be imcomplete recently and rather than discuss them, he makes thousands of changes other users consider "ridiculous". --- Jura 07:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I have created National Portrait Gallery (London) online artwork database (Q105474875) and used it for Wikidata item of this property (P1629) and applicable 'stated in' value (P9073) on this and the closely related National Portrait Gallery (London) person ID (P1816); I suppose it's probably notable under the structural notability criterion. I don't understand your point with "There is no point in creating a new property for existing data if there is no improvement over the existing data." ― this property doesn't seem to exist under another name, and it's not identical to the accession number. As per the policy Wikidata:Property creators, I will only create policies when I am confident that they are adequately specified, consensus supports them, and serious objections have been addressed. As best I understood, the dispute centered not around "should this property exist", but "how should the property item be described", which is an issue that can be resolved before or after the property creation. In particular, there's no formal requirement that properties have a Wikidata item of this property (P1629); it's useful when you're importing referenced information from the database, but that wasn't the rationale Thierry Caro gave. Vahurzpu (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Vahurzpu: Have a look at the diff in the sample above. Proposals should be complete. We can't really determine if it should be created before that is done. Given that changes done by Thierry are considered "ridiculous" (quoted by himself), we really need to be careful. --- Jura 09:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I have created National Portrait Gallery (London) online artwork database (Q105474875) and used it for Wikidata item of this property (P1629) and applicable 'stated in' value (P9073) on this and the closely related National Portrait Gallery (London) person ID (P1816); I suppose it's probably notable under the structural notability criterion. I don't understand your point with "There is no point in creating a new property for existing data if there is no improvement over the existing data." ― this property doesn't seem to exist under another name, and it's not identical to the accession number. As per the policy Wikidata:Property creators, I will only create policies when I am confident that they are adequately specified, consensus supports them, and serious objections have been addressed. As best I understood, the dispute centered not around "should this property exist", but "how should the property item be described", which is an issue that can be resolved before or after the property creation. In particular, there's no formal requirement that properties have a Wikidata item of this property (P1629); it's useful when you're importing referenced information from the database, but that wasn't the rationale Thierry Caro gave. Vahurzpu (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)