Wikidata:WikiProject Fashion/Specific items

Home

Discuss

Items & Properties

Taxonomy

To Do

Specific items

Tools & Tips

PKM (talk) Wittylama (talk) Thierry Caro ( talk) Ainali (talk) Spinster 💬 13:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Pharos (talk) Jane023 (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Tris T7 ^{TT me} Fuzheado (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Camelia (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Arkirkland (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC) NettieLibrarian (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Shani Evenstein (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Samantha Levin, MSLIS (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Lukutroel (talk) 12:14, 06 November 2021 (UTC) Wallacegromit1 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Fashion

Use this page to comment on or discuss issues with specific items, especially items with two AAT IDs, two Europeana Fashion IDs, or IDs assigned to two or more objects. It is likely we'll have several of these and they may be the best solution where AATs level of refinement is not required in Wikidata or where various Wikipedias are more refined than the vocabularies.

Waistcoat/vest

AAT 300216053 is "waistcoat" the (usually sleeved) thigh-length 18th century garment; 300209904 is "vest" the waist-length sleeveless 19th century and modern garment. EuFashion matches "vest" to 300216053 but from their image selection clearly means 300209904. I have assigned both AAT IDs to vest (Q958210): sleeveless garment for the upper body, usually worn over a shirt and below a coat; it covers the back, shoulders and bust - PKM (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Agave fiber

EuFashion has matched their "agave fiber" to the AAT ID for the taxon sisal (Q159221) rather than the AAT ID for its fiber, sisal (Q847423). I'm going to ignore that and match the EuFashion ID to "sisal". Labels still need clean up. - PKM (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Palm fiber

EuFashion has separate entries for plam fiber and palm tree (wood), but their wood is mapped to AAT300014049 "palm fibre" . I have mapped both to palm fibre (Q384711). - PKM (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

High collar

I don't know what EUFashion means by "high collar". A search of their site returns no ressults and there's no AAT ID. I may be what Fashion Dictionary calls a "choker" but absent more data I can't make an item for it. Marked "N/A" in Min'n'Match for now. - PKM (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Patch

EuFashion has three terms for patch: the spot you wear on your face patch (Q29512748) and the embroidered emblem as both a costume component and a costume accessory. I have combined the last two as patch (Q384074). The translations and the tagging at EuThesaurus are a bit confused. - PKM (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I have these sorted now. EuFashion has three terms translated "patch":

• 10184 is the spot you wear on your face patch (Q29512748): imitation beauty spot, sometimes in decorative shapes, applied to the face or decollatage for ornament.
• 10174 is the embroidered emblem as a costume accessory patch (Q384074): embroidered or printed emblem or logo for attaching to clothing or hats.
• 10057 is the costume component patch (Q2058306): piece of textile or leather applied to clothing as a reinforcement against wear or to mend a damaged spot, like elbow patches and patched jeans, and it is now mapped that way (we have a German article "patte").

The translations at EuThesaurus are a bit confusing. (Especially see the DE translations.) I have used some of them but I'd like to verify that they are correct. Checking with MoMu. - PKM (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Watchcase

Now watchcase (Q29528168). The AAT item matched in EuFashion refers to the outer component of the watch that holds the mechanism, and many of theimages in the thesaurus are consistent with this. But David Ring's drawing and the translations provided seem to indicate rather a box for storing a watch. These should probably be separated at some point, but for now I have left it as I found it in the sources. - PKM (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mechanical transformations

EuFashion's "mechanical transformations" category covers a variety of processes and techniques that are not related in Wikidata's structure, from spinning and carding fiber to distressing costumes and draping on a mannequin. I've marked this item N/A in Mix'n'Match and made the items subclasses of the appropriate technques in Wikidata. - PKM (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: many of these are ending up as textile process (Q7708485): process or technique for working with textile materials. My instinct is to separate processes that make textiles from process that do things to or with finished textiles, even though AAT does not make this distinction. Leaving it for now. - PKM (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Bandolier bag

EFV's bandolier bag 10135 is linked to AAT's Native American bag bandolier bag (Q29572285), but many European languages use bandolier bag to mean messenger or cross-body bag, and the EFT linked images include these, so I have also added 10135 to messenger bag (Q890094). - PKM (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

coatdress and robe manteau

Getty AAT considers coatdress (Q16949531) (coatdress) to be synonymous with coatdress (Q29583057) (robe manteau) whereas Europeana considers them two separate things. -- Fuzheado (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: in every language except English, Europeana uses the same labels for these two items. I've tried to find some distinguishing characteristic and utterly failed. I'd suggest merging them and putting an exception to single value constraint on the resultant item. Does that work for you?

There are other open questions about the EU Fashion Thesaurus - they have plans to do a version 2 but there's been no movement that I am aware of. If we merge these, I'll add coatdress/robe manteau to our shared list of EFV/Wikidata differences. - PKM (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: no one objected, so I have merged these into coatdress (Q16949531). - PKM (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Now a category in Commons as well. - PKM (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Maison Vignon

@Fuzheado: I'd like to fix the redlink Creator template on Met objects for "Mon. Vignon." Here's the rub: The label "M^on Vignon" has been variously interpreted as standing for "Monsieur Vignon" and "Maison Vignon". Madame Vignon made the Empress Eugenie's wedding dress, and I am pretty sure "Maison Vignon" is the correct interpretation. (The V&A has "Monsieur Vignon" on one page and "Madame Vignon/Vignon" on another, more recent page for the same dress.) Do you think anyone at the Met would be unhappy if we change the creator template to just "Vignon"? The WD item is Vignon (Q64836086). Still looking for better quality references ( - PKM (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Good question - I'll bring it up with the Met folks I know and see what they think. -- Fuzheado (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fashion in film

We have a number of dresses that were made famous in movies, and I'm wondering about the best way to model these. Specifically, these seem to immediately come to mind:

• black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn (Q4000130): dress from the opening of the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's
• black dress of Rita Hayworth (Q4010432): iconic dress worn by Rita Hayworth in the film Gilda
• pink dress of Marilyn Monroe (Q4010435): dress in the 1953 film Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
• white dress of Marilyn Monroe (Q247262): dress worn by Marilyn Monroe in The Seven Year Itch

So there are some open questions about these:

@Fuzheado: Comments inline below. - PKM (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• instance of (P31) - right now, these are instance of dress (Q200539) and fashion in film (Q29642824). Seems to be the right way to go, though some have added work of art (Q838948), especially if it's currently in a GLAM collection.
  • This sounds good to me. Also, I think black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn (Q4000130) should be <instance of> little black dress (Q824385), not <genre> = little black dress (Q824385). @Jane023:, do you agree? Or should we make "LBD" a genre? - PKM (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • All dresses should be instance of dress (Q200539). They can be "published in a larger work", i.e. film. "little black dress" is indeed a genre of dress, but also a whole line of fashion, so I think there needs to be a new property for "fashion line" where you could have "casual jeans", "neckties", "Gibson girl blouse" etc. Jane023 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• How to point to the film that made the dress famous? It seems that present in work (P1441) should be used, though some have used part of (P361). I don't think "part of" is the right fit.
  • Definitely not "part of". The problem with "present in work" is the definition: "work in which this fictional entity (Q14897293) or historical person " appears. Using this property on a physical object doesn't throw a constraint violation for type since "entity" is a valid value. If we're going to use "present in work" for costumes and physical props, we ought to update the description to include those classes of items. - PKM (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• What was the inspiration for the dress? For some dresses, there was a direct inspiration from another work that has a Q item. The black dress of Rita Hayworth (Q4010432) was based on the Portrait of Madame X (Q2664039): portrait painting by John Singer Sargent. Should we use based on (P144) and/or inspired by (P941)? I put in both for now.
  • Both "based on" and "inspired by" accept creative works as their values. I would tend to use "based on" when the value is another physical garment and "inspired by" when it's an artwork, but both are certainly valid for Rita Hayworth's Gilda dress. - PKM (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Who made the dress? designed by (P287) or creator (P170) or manufacturer (P176) or some combo? Sometimes the designer, firm or fashion house are different.
  • I would suggest using creator (P170) for all of these qualified with object has role (P3831) indicating "costume designer", "tailor", "fashion house", "manufacturer", etc. This might give us a way to deal with Givenchy/Edith Head claims over the Breakfast at Tiffany's dress. - PKM (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Who wore the dress or made it famous? Is used by (P1535) the right property? This one I'm having difficulty with as no property seems to fit cleanly. Both wedding dress of Meghan Markle (Q53771947) and wedding dress of Catherine Middleton (Q599) have used by (P1535). And should it be the actress or the character in the film who wore it, and "used" it? So should it be Holly Golightly or Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's?
  • we might propose a new property "worn by" (inverse of wears (P3828)). I suggested this back in 2017 at the property proposal discussion, but I didn't take it further. We'd need a robust proposal to convince the editors who oppose inverse properties on principle. I like the logic <worn by> "Audrey Hepburn", qualifier <character role> "Holly Golightly".
  • For couture and wedding dresses, we could use commissioned by (P88).
  • For costumes, I don't know that we have a suitable property "made for" or the like. - PKM (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• When was it made famous? It's possible the inception (P571) date does not equate to the significant event that made the dress famous. How might we describe this in an item?
  • I would think significant event (P793) with some relevant value, though I can see the values being mushy (fashion coverage in Vogue? Public outrage?) - PKM (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)