Wikidata:Property proposal/Royal Museums Greenwich ID
Ygfd
Royal Museums Greenwich artwork ID edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
| Description | numerical identifier for an artwork on the website of the Royal Museums Greenwich |
|---|---|
| Represents | Royal Museums Greenwich (Q105093902) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | work of art (Q838948) |
| Allowed values | \d+ |
| Example 1 | Dutch Vessels in a Strong Breeze (Q20854674) → 12214 |
| Example 2 | The Kongouro from New Holland (Q17009160) → 573621 |
| Example 3 | The ship Montezuma (Q50915714) → 14973 |
| Source | https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections.html#!cbrowse |
| 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://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/$1.html |
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/Royal Museums Greenwich. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Support - PKM (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)- Support - Yes this is helpful, but for the record, I really love their metadata but I honestly don't get why they exclude provenance! Hopefully this will be fixed one day. Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose incomplete proposal. The proposal inaccurately has Royal Museums Greenwich (Q7374509) 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 be created before a property is proposed.
As mentioned, we now have many requests on Wikidata:Bot requests where similar 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 in the past that even proposers can't create such items easily. Further, this avoids that people repurpose properties from one resource of an organization to another. --- Jura 10:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)- @Jura1: OK. So, here is another pending proposal with a vote from you. I have listened to what you said and just created Royal Museums Greenwich (Q105093902) so that the new property won't be linked to Royal Museums Greenwich (Q7374509) itself. I understand that you may want more now. I'll be honest with you, then. You are right – further considerations are trivial. If you wanna change things, though, feel free. Take the elements and the proposal the way you want. I do not oppose you imposing the exact stuff you need, as long as we deliver something that works fine enough without further bureaucracy plaguing every single move down here. Again: do whatever you want with it but please let people work on their own stuff without too much complications. Wikis are made for such logic, I believe. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:15, 28 January 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) 19:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Jura1: OK. So, here is another pending proposal with a vote from you. I have listened to what you said and just created Royal Museums Greenwich (Q105093902) so that the new property won't be linked to Royal Museums Greenwich (Q7374509) itself. I understand that you may want more now. I'll be honest with you, then. You are right – further considerations are trivial. If you wanna change things, though, feel free. Take the elements and the proposal the way you want. I do not oppose you imposing the exact stuff you need, as long as we deliver something that works fine enough without further bureaucracy plaguing every single move down here. Again: do whatever you want with it but please let people work on their own stuff without too much complications. Wikis are made for such logic, I believe. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
