traffic sign (P14) (the proposed property is a qualifier of statements with this property)
Motivation
Adding traffic sign (P14) by itself to most so-called "bannered routes" incompletely represents how these highways are signed. This property, used as a qualifier to the marker, will describe any banners used in signing the highway. -happy521400:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is for qualifiers of traffic sign (P14) statements. These banners qualify the main shield in the same way that directions qualify terminus statements. The example highway is not signed with the US 40 shield alone, but in combination with the banner shown at right. Who claims that "north" is specific to a particular highway's terminus? -happy521401:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if I've understood this correctly, the best way to do this is to create an image that combines US 40.svg with the "alt plate" image shown above, both images on Commons are public domain so I can't see why there would be an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That method would be grossly inefficient and a waste of editor resources. Much work has gone into implementing the linked templates using the current setup. Such a change to cross-project consensus would require unnecessary code modifications, and a Wikidata-only solution is simply unreasonable. -happy521401:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the two images can be arranged adjacent every time by templates then the two could be combined into a single image programatically via the same sort of coding with minimal use of editor time (and far less scope for things to go wrong with templates or data extraction for users and reusers). The two image solution, using two incomplete statements that are incorrect on their own to produce one complete one, seems the less efficient use of resources to me. I stand by my opposition. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is fine - what is confusing is the example isn't a full demonstration of how it would be used (if I understand correctly) - and our process for implementing property examples is tricky with qualifiers anyway. But I think what you mean here is something like you would have a statement U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Q453164)traffic sign (P14) "US 40 image" with qualifier highway banner "Alt plate image". That makes sense to me at least. Perhaps there's a more generic qualifier that already exists that would be suited to this though? But we probably don't have many commons media qualifiers... ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more, even if we do have such a generic qualifier I don't believe it would be the best way to implement the desired result in this case - a single image representing the single designation of the road being more appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal as stated just makes the best use case for the situation. The current templates build the needed sign assemblies using modular tools just like the highway departments do. Switching to special graphics to merge the auxiliary plates to the base markers in a single image would create a lot of work with little payoff when the current scheme already works, and works well. I could go into detail, but there are different color schemes for the auxiliary plates, the various different types of each plate (alternate, business), combinations of the plates (alternate truck appears in one state, alternate business has appeared in another), as well as the period-correct style base markers. Even the color of the toll plate has changed at one point from black on white to black on yellow, requiring a bit of thought as to which plate to use. By keeping things modular, each use can call the building block graphics needed, parts that already exist on Commons, instead of sending an editor off to a graphics request page or a graphics editor to create missing one-off images. Imzadi 1979→22:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Help:Qualifier and other pages, it seems to me that this is an ontologically incorrect use of a qualifier. A statement should be fundamentally correct in itself without recourse to a qualifier, which explains, constrains, qualifies or adds detail to the value. However, adding just a route 40 shield to route 40 ALT is fundamentally not correct as route 40 ALT is not route 40, and would never have just a route 40 shield it would always be a route 40 ALT shield. That the shield is usually composed of two physical signs is frankly irrelevant. Combined images for all combinations of routes, plates and colour schemes can easily be created and uploaded to Commons programmatically, requiring nobody needing to create or request a graphic. SVG files use trifling amounts of storage space so that is not an issue either. This may require changes to the templates on Wikipedia, but frankly so what - they'll need to be edited anyway to pull the data from Wikidata. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't mean that it is the best way going forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this brewing discussion on completely redoing these shields needs to be held elsewhere, such as on Commons, a talk page of either affected template, or w:WT:HWY. Changing such an existing consensus needs to involve a better context than a simple property proposal. -happy521401:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@happy5214:: Couldn't this just be a version of traffic sign (P14) requiring several (sequential) values? Sample:
Obviously, the qualifier currently proposed could work, but I think the users of Wikidata can generally expect the image of P14 by itself to be sufficient (which wouldn't work any more). --- Jura15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, this property isn't needed at all for the Lua modules on enwiki. They are already sophisticated enough (or easily could be coded as such) to automatically add the banner based on the highway types passed to them. If this property were to be approved, I'm not 100% sure if the modules would even use it. This was more of a Wikidata thing to ensure that all relevant signing data was included in some form. -happy521420:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Could you please list the variations you are referring to? There are several options listed, but none are really "variations" the way I'd define the term. -happy521420:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current status of this proposal? @Happy5214: Have you discussed this at the other venues mentioned? If so, what was the outcome? I've re-read all the arguments and still feel that using a single image for a single route designation is by far the better solution, so my opposition stands, but what do others think? Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thinking it over, I like it better than when I first read it. Still, I don't think Wikidata is as visual as this approach requires nor would it be a good idea to apply the qualifier to properties that are generally read without. A simpler approach might be to add a signing scheme property to each highway system item and have infoboxes build it from that. --- Jura14:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I was content to let this proposal simply die. I no longer have the time to defend it, nor to lead a discussion on possible global consensus. However, I will consult with some of the editors in WD:HWY before making a final decision on such a discussion, a venue, or possible withdrawal of this proposal. -happy521421:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rschen7754 00:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The image in the example (shown here) appears to be a generic marker, not something specific to the item in the example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment Thinking it over, I like it better than when I first read it. Still, I don't think Wikidata is as visual as this approach requires nor would it be a good idea to apply the qualifier to properties that are generally read without. A simpler approach might be to add a signing scheme property to each highway system item and have infoboxes build it from that. 
Neutral Wondering if this can also be used for railways/metros or not, e.g. File:JR_JE_line_symbol.svg for Keiyō Line (Q741145). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done unfortunately this proposal did not reach consensus and has been stale for almost two months. Closing as not done. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
