Wikidata:Property proposal/attributed by

attributed by edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person

Not done

Description	scientist who has attributed this work to an (unknown) artist
Data type	Item
Domain	alle Seiten, die Kunstwerke beschreiben, deren Schöpfer unbekannt ist, etwa bei der antiken Vase Q31395095 wird durch Q1467775 die Herstellung durch Q2560466 bescheinigt.
Example	archeologist nicolas coldstream, Q1467775, attribtes the creation of vase Q31395095 to the workshop of athens 894, Q2560466
Source	die Literatur dazu geht in die tausende, Struktur versuche aber gerade ich erst so richtig in die Sache über Wikidata zu bringen, darum fehlt das
Planned use	aktuell arbeite ich an Corpus Vasorum Q31389006 mit seinen 71 Einträgen. Danach sollen die übrigen 99 deutschen Bände des Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum mit etqa 10.000 bis 12.000 Einträgen folgen
See also	P1773 (P1773)

Motivation

In der Archäologie und der Kunstgeschihchte sind häufig die Schöpfer von Kunstwerken nicht bekannt. Es hat sich dennoch eine wissenschaftliche Form der Zuweisung von unsignierten Werken an bekannte oder auch unbekannte (Notnamen) Künstler heraus gebildet. Nicht immer ist man sich hier einig. Ob es nun eine allgemein anerkannte oder eine umstrittene Zuweisung betrifft, in Wikidata müßte man angeben können, wer denn nun ein Werk einem Künstler zugewiesen, zugeschrieben hat. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Marcus Cyron: I think this can be modelled in another way using already existing properties. attic geometric Neck amphora (Q31395095)creator (P170)Workshop of Athens 894 (Q2560466) (as it is now) is a good solution, only instead of the qualifier P1773 (P1773) I would use a reference tag: stated in (P248)Corpus vasorum antiquorum (Q1135179). Of course we should use more specific references, but that can be done by creating items for every CVA volume. Jonathan Groß (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan Groß: - no. This did not work. The CVA is onl in some cases the point of attributation. And it is important to tefer to the person, not to the place. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stopping us from creating items for other reference material (articles in journals, monographs, encyclopedic articles...). And the person can either be attributed using stated in (P248) in the reference item (article etc.) or as a qualifier (stated in (P248) as well) to the reference. Jonathan Groß (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These are the moments I wanna stop everything. Instead of helping others to let the work become easier, it al should become much more complicated. So then I stop my work here. No problem. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ich will Dich nicht ausgrätschen, nur über ein sinnvolles Datenmodell nachdenken. Soweit ich sehe, geht es Dir darum zu dokumentieren, welcher Forscher ein bestimmtes Gefäß einer bestimmten Werkstatt (oder einem bestimmten Maler) zugeschrieben hat. Ich finde es ebenso wichtig, zu dokumentieren, in welcher Publikation diese Zuschreibung zu finden ist. Bis jetzt bin ich der Ansicht, dass man beides mit den bestehenden Wikidata-Eigenschaften modellieren kann. Aber ich lasse mich gern eines Besseren belehren. Viele Grüße, Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with statement supported by (P3680) and statement disputed by (P1310) for this use-case? ChristianKl (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Use statement supported by (P3680) as per @ChristianKl:. If we create this prop, we'd also need "attributed on date", "attributed in publication", "formerly attributed by" etc etc. WD qualifiers are perfect for expressing the nuances of references. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir Alexiev, Jonathan Groß, Marcus Cyron: Not done, given that there's no support and no argument of why statement supported by (P3680) doesn't do the job. ChristianKl (✉) 13:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbeleavable. Thanks for the Sabbotage. So I will do my work not longer on Wikidata. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcus Cyron: If you think the comments since 4th of July miss some point, you could perhaps give reasons for that. Also to me statement supported by (P3680) looks quite fine … --Marsupium (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to discuss this longer. I've ended my work on and my work with Wikidata. I will not longer tell a person, that working on/with Wikidate would bring any profit. It is impossible to work here in a matter, that bring together scientific work and Free Knwoledge. Wikidata and it's community is not interested in this. So - here at this point my way with Wikidata has find an end. It's obviously wortless and useless. Not just one benefit to other collections of data. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My work in this field now stops since 2 years, because the Wikidata community is not willing to give the tools that needed. Congratulation! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]