Wikidata:Property proposal/National Gallery of Victoria ID
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
National Gallery of Victoria artwork ID
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
| Description | identifier for an artwork or other object on the National Gallery of Victoria website |
|---|---|
| Represents | National Gallery of Victoria (Q1464509) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | work of art (Q838948) or any relevant object |
| Allowed values | [1-9]\d* |
| Example | |
| Source | https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/explore/collection/ |
| 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.ngv.vic.gov.au/explore/collection/work/$1/ |
| See also | National Gallery of Victoria artist ID (P2041) |
- Motivation
I believe this would be useful, as the museum is listed in Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Top collections. Thierry Caro (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
WikiProject sum of all paintings has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead..
Notified participants of WikiProject Australia. Thierry Caro (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Vote
Support of course, like all other permanent museum ids --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment Same concern as with other museum ID properties, eg Wikidata:Property proposal/National Gallery of Art ID. I am not sure that this approach scales. The design of the vocabulary of Wikidata is to have many "nouns" (Qs), but only a small number of "verbs" (Ps), so that one can hold all the most important verbs in one's head, and be familiar with them. If we mint new individual properties for anything up to perhaps 10,000 museums and galleries then we break that model, and I think that has consequences. Jheald (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jheald: What kind of problems do you forsee? There's some effort in having property discussions for creating properties for many museums but I don't see how they are a significant issue. ChristianKl (✉) 17:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is ending up with too large a total number of properties, which becomes too big a set for people to mentally navigate. We already have almost 5000 properties. In my view we should be cautious about letting the number get any much more than this. Jheald (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's an issue better raised on Project Chat, so that we can develop policy (or a technical fix), rather than as an objection to an individual proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is ending up with too large a total number of properties, which becomes too big a set for people to mentally navigate. We already have almost 5000 properties. In my view we should be cautious about letting the number get any much more than this. Jheald (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jheald: What kind of problems do you forsee? There's some effort in having property discussions for creating properties for many museums but I don't see how they are a significant issue. ChristianKl (✉) 17:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support David (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Thierry Caro, Hsarrazin, Jheald, Pigsonthewing, ChristianKl, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2:
Done ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
