Wikidata:Property proposal/Artist
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
artist[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
Withdrawn
| Description | artist(s) for this work, such as a video game, film or book |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Template parameter | "artist" in en:template:infobox video game |
| Domain | works (video games, films, books, etc) |
| Allowed values | person human (Q5) |
| Example | The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Q735613) → Yusuke Nakano (Q4023281) |
| Planned use | Wikidata-enabled infobox |
| See also | Related properties used for video game credits: producer (P162), designed by (P287), programmer (P943), author (P50), composer (P86) |
- Motivation
Part of effort on enwiki to implement Wikidata in en:template:infobox video game. This is the one field that corresponds to credits in the template that does not appear to have a suitable property to pull values from. "Infobox video game" on other languages appear to have had the same issue, as can be seen at cs:Šablona:Infobox_-_videohra, where they left artist without a property. -- ferret (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Oppose we have author (P50) as a generic property, and P1773 (P1773), possible creator (P1779), performer (P175), screenwriter (P58), composer (P86), lyrics by (P676), cover art by (P736) and maybe others as more specific ones. If you want to propose one more specific for video games then it will be considered, but if not just use author (P50). Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- author (P50) is already in use by the infobox for "writer", as is composer (P86) for composer. These are not artists who designed covers, so cover art by (P736) does not describe it. I assure you I spent a fair amount of time checking for applicable properties that might work. There does not appear to be any property that narrows down to someone who provides art as part of a work. As you just said, we need one more specific for our infobox, that's why I've made a request. Properties like "creator" (Creator of what? The video game? That's not right in this context.) or "attributed to" (We are not describing a piece of art, or an unlikely creator) don't clearly describe WHAT the person did. Performer, screenwriter, or lyrics by likewise describe other jobs. While my goal is for the video game infobox, this field could likewise represent other artist positions such as those that produce backgrounds or other art assets for films, etc. I see no reason to make a property named "video game artist" when there are other potential uses, but wouldn't have any issue with it in the end. -- ferret (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- I acutally meant creator (P170) as the generic with author (P50) as one of the specifics. However "artist" is I think still too generic for what you seem to be trying to achieve. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm perfectly fine with something like 'asset artist' or 'video game artist'. While writer -> author is a logical enough jump, artists aren't typically viewed as "creators" of a video game. When discussed by sources, creator is often more about an individual who drove the game's development from a lead perspective, i.e. Will Wright created the Sims series or Sid Meier created Civilization. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: See comment below, since I too would support a "video game artist" to start--I think there's scope for broader use, however. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm perfectly fine with something like 'asset artist' or 'video game artist'. While writer -> author is a logical enough jump, artists aren't typically viewed as "creators" of a video game. When discussed by sources, creator is often more about an individual who drove the game's development from a lead perspective, i.e. Will Wright created the Sims series or Sid Meier created Civilization. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I acutally meant creator (P170) as the generic with author (P50) as one of the specifics. However "artist" is I think still too generic for what you seem to be trying to achieve. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- author (P50) is already in use by the infobox for "writer", as is composer (P86) for composer. These are not artists who designed covers, so cover art by (P736) does not describe it. I assure you I spent a fair amount of time checking for applicable properties that might work. There does not appear to be any property that narrows down to someone who provides art as part of a work. As you just said, we need one more specific for our infobox, that's why I've made a request. Properties like "creator" (Creator of what? The video game? That's not right in this context.) or "attributed to" (We are not describing a piece of art, or an unlikely creator) don't clearly describe WHAT the person did. Performer, screenwriter, or lyrics by likewise describe other jobs. While my goal is for the video game infobox, this field could likewise represent other artist positions such as those that produce backgrounds or other art assets for films, etc. I see no reason to make a property named "video game artist" when there are other potential uses, but wouldn't have any issue with it in the end. -- ferret (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Use creator (P170), with a suitable subject has role (P2868) qualifier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's not sufficient, since the artist is distinctly not the creator of the work, per ferret. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ferret's argument is interesting, but utterly unpersuasive, the artist is evidently one of a team of creators. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's not sufficient, since the artist is distinctly not the creator of the work, per ferret. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Support a limited "video game artist" to start. My opinion is that there's a missing scope for e.g. artists included in written work but who neither a) created the work nor where b) the artist's work in the written work are not themselves notable as e.g. in textbook on painting. So, I'd support a larger scope for the property, at least for later. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)- Comment: So if we took the example of Doom (Q189784), you can see on en:Doom (1993 video game), there are two en:Game artists, namely Adrian Carmack (Q372751) and Kevin Cloud (Q738896), neither of whom are included in the Wikidata entry for Doom. Are the objectors suggesting that Doom should include these two game artists as author (P50) or creator (P170) with a qualifier of subject has role (P2868) having the value video game artist (Q3191582)? That would mean that one type of "creator", e.g. cover art by (P736) who does the graphics for the cover art on the box is treated differently from another type of "creator", the game artist who does the graphics within the game. How much sense does that make? How do you propose we would deal with the situation where one game artist was replaced by another at a point in time? Qualifiers of qualifiers? You're turning this into a nightmare for anybody trying to develop generalised functions to fetch information from Wikidata into other places. It's all very well creating a pure ontology, but it becomes a white elephant when it is too difficult to create and maintain a consistent framework to make use of it. --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Qualifiers of qualifiers" is a little fabricated; what would be done is to qualify the one artist with "start date" and/or "end date", and conversely "end date" and/or "start date" for the other. That aside, I think the comparison to cover artist is a good one. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- But if this is denied, when I'm writing code to fetch values from Wikidata, I would have to write a different call to deal with author (P50) from any other property call. (1) When fetching authors, I would have to check for authors possessing qualifier subject has role (P2868) having the value video game artist (Q3191582) and disregard them; while (2) when fetching game artists, I would have to accept only authors possessing qualifier subject has role (P2868) having the value video game artist (Q3191582), and then amongst that subset, look for other qualifiers like start time (P580). In that sense, they become "qualifiers of qualifiers" because I have to filter on a previously filtered set. That's no way to construct a consistent framework for working with the data held here, as I mentioned above. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was commenting strictly with regards to start/end time, which would not be qualifiers of qualifiers in Wikidata terms. There should be support regardless for end/start/point in time given their ubiquity as qualifiers. The rest of your comment is poignant. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- But if this is denied, when I'm writing code to fetch values from Wikidata, I would have to write a different call to deal with author (P50) from any other property call. (1) When fetching authors, I would have to check for authors possessing qualifier subject has role (P2868) having the value video game artist (Q3191582) and disregard them; while (2) when fetching game artists, I would have to accept only authors possessing qualifier subject has role (P2868) having the value video game artist (Q3191582), and then amongst that subset, look for other qualifiers like start time (P580). In that sense, they become "qualifiers of qualifiers" because I have to filter on a previously filtered set. That's no way to construct a consistent framework for working with the data held here, as I mentioned above. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Qualifiers of qualifiers" is a little fabricated; what would be done is to qualify the one artist with "start date" and/or "end date", and conversely "end date" and/or "start date" for the other. That aside, I think the comparison to cover artist is a good one. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear I am happy to support a "game artist" or "video game artist" property for this use case, but I still think that "artist" is too generic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- That would be fine with me. -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I am waiting for this discussion to close before continuing code efforts for the infobox on enwiki. It appears there are three out of four (Not including myself) editors in favor of a more discrete "game artist" or "video game artist" property. Can this be done? -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest you make a new proposal for the specific property, linking to this proposal as background information. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done. From that point of view, this proposal could be closed as 'not done'. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest you make a new proposal for the specific property, linking to this proposal as background information. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)