Wikidata:Property proposal/Notable role

Notable role edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Done: notable role (P10606) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Roles in performing arts that the person is particularly known for.
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Example 1	Alice Marriott (Q60557333) → Prince Hamlet (Q2447542)
Example 2	Françoise Fabian (Q456668) → Mata Hari (Q82180)
Example 3	Elizabeth Taylor (Q34851) → Cleopatra (Q635)
Planned use	Will be added to the infobox in Commons categories
See also	notable work (P800): notable scientific, artistic or literary work, or other work of significance among subject's works

Motivation edit

This came up at en:Talk:Mary Bulkley, where we want to be able to query for other 18th century women who have played Hamlet, but that data isn't currently stored in Wikidata. It would also be more generally useful for describing important roles that actors have played, within their item rather than having to use inverses, which can then be used in infoboxes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Thank you for starting this property proposal. I'm aware that Elizabeth Taylor is especially known for playing ̃Cleopatra, i.e. when you think of Taylor, you might initially think primarily of the Taylor-Burton relationship, the diamonds, and the Cleopatra role (I don't know anything about Fabian). But the public today don't think about Mary Bulkley in respect to anything at all, since she is largely forgotten. In her lifetime, she was known in her prime for her beauty, her scandalous private life, and the Shakespearian comedies. It's certainly worth having a list of actresses who played Hamlet in the past, when one is examining a particular general trend. But I don't believe that Mary Bulkley was ever defined by the Hamlet role in the way that e.g. Alice Marriott was. Marriott was a serious actress who took the role seriously. Even if Bulkley took the role seriously herself, she did attract a rather frivolous audience who might prefer to remember her for her comedies. So in your list above, I suggest that you substitute Marriott for Bulkley as the Hamlet actress. Apart from that, I think your idea of a new property, which associates actresses with their defining roles, is a good one. Storye book (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changed in the list of examples, although I think it would still be added to the Mary Bulkley item. Also, it wouldn't be a single value - any notable roles that the actor has played could be included. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Since there already exists a property for notable work (P800), a property for notable character roles would make sense. There need not be a hierarchy between the act of creating a work and the act of executing it on stage. Here are a few thoughts about this proposed property:

The label or the description should be clear enough to avoid ambiguity with other types of roles than character roles (i.e. a position held within an organization - which ought to be stated with position held (P39)). While misuse can be avoided with a type constraint, it is better to reduce ambiguity with a clear description.
Notability is subjective. In order to avoid unsubstantiated or self-promotional statements, references should be required.
start time (P580) and end time (P582) would be suitable qualifiers.
If the notability was substantiated by an award, the character roles for which the performer was given an award should probably be stated as a qualifier.
I don't know if the adoption of this property will ever be broad enough to reach the completeness required to run queries. But the property might still meet other needs.

Fjjulien (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

notable work (P800) is generally used for this. --- Jura 06:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems ambiguous, as that could refer to character creation, authoring books about them, etc. (Mostly I've seen it used for books/other publications, which is what I would have expected.) I think having 'role' explicitly makes it much clearer. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, the role would generally have a performer statement with the person. Notable works aren't necessarily linked by author (P50), especially for films. --- Jura 09:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an important property for art.--Arbnos (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel, Storye book, Fjjulien, Jura1, Arbnos: Done as notable role (P10606). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The second and third examples are not correct. They should point to the character item from the work that the person played, not the real life person. For example, Elizabeth Taylor is known for playing the role of Cleopatra in the motion picture, not for playing the actual person Cleopatra. I've substituted the example of Elizabeth Taylor playing the role of Martha in the film Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in the the created property notable role (P10606). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]