Wikidata:Property proposal/inscription image

inscription imageEdit

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons

   Under discussion
Descriptionimage of an inscription on the subject
Representsinscription (Q1640824)
Data typeCommons media file
DomainItem
Allowed values(?i).+\.(jpg|jpeg|jpe|png|svg|tif|tiff|gif|xcf|pdf|djvu|webp)
Example 1war memorial Vösendorf (Q96319335)File:War memorial for World War I in Vösendorf, Lower Austria, Austria-name plate PNr°0739.jpg
Example 2Biedermann-Huth-Raschke-barracks (Q55185320)File:Biedermann-Huth-Raschke barracks in Vienna, Austria-inscription PNr°0751.jpg
Example 3war grave Vösendorf (Q90730716)File:War grave for World war II on the cemetery Vösendorf, Lower Austria, Austria-inscription PNr°0657.jpg
Example 4war grave Mauer (Q89814150)File:2016-01-16 GuentherZ (19) Wien23 Friedhof Mauer Sachsengrab.JPG, File:2016-01-16 GuentherZ (20) Wien23 Friedhof Mauer Sachsengrab.JPG, File:2016-01-16 GuentherZ (21) Wien23 Friedhof Mauer Sachsengrab.JPG, File:2016-01-16 GuentherZ (24) Wien23 Friedhof Mauer Sachsengrab.JPG (=> multiple entries can be used if necessary)
Example 5wayside cross Perchtoldsdorfer Heide (Q89024686)File:Wayside cross on the Perchtoldsdorfer Heide near Perchtoldsdorf, Lower Austria, Austria-inscription PNr°0606.jpg
Example 6Schönkirchner Tor (Q91347430)File:Schönkirchner Tor north east of Gänserndorf, Lower Austria, Austria-inscription PNr°0681.jpg
Example 7wayside shrine (Eisenstadt, Gölbeszeile) (Q88759838)File:Wayside shrine in Eisenstadt, Burgenland, Austria-inscription PNr°0594.jpg
Example 8Franz Heindl and Viktor Mrnustik memorial (Q87779813)File:2016-01-09 (05) GuentherZ Wien23 Siebenhirtenstrasse16 Widerstandsdenkmal fuer Heindl und Mrnustik.JPG
Example 9Wilhelm Kress monument (Q38006937)File:Wilhelm Kress monument-part3 PNr°0395.jpg, File:Wilhelm Kress monument-part4 PNr°0396.jpg, File:Wilhelm Kress monument-part5 PNr°0397.jpg
Planned useon items that have available images of their inscriptions
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:$1
Robot and gadget jobsmaybe (convert P18+img with P180+Q1640824 to using property)
See also

MotivationEdit

An earlier property proposal was shut down because we can use existing properties with qualifiers. Well OK. There is already a property for images so I used image (P18)+img with depicts (P180)+inscription (Q1640824). Then somebody said image (P18) is only meant to be used with a single image and removed the inscription image.
Well, what now? I really don't care about how it is included. Since there is an ass full of other image properties we might as well create one for inscriptions as well.
As explained on Property_talk:P18#How_many_images? I think images can be added to P18 as long as:

I really don't care if this proposal turns into a property or not. I want to use Wikidata and not fizzle around with details like wether an image is added in property A or B. So I see two possible results:

  • proposal is approved > images will be added using the new property
  • proposal is declined > images will be added using P18+img with P180+Q1640824

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that all listed examples were taken from items I worked on. The potential use is for all pages on Special:WhatLinksHere/Property:P1684. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Yeah, probably. I updated the list with a few more examples --D-Kuru (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral In general, I'm not neutral as a maintainer and someone who does a lot of identification and categorization work on commons, which touches also wikidata. Multiple uses of multiple images increases maintenance work and danger of inconsistencies. We have:
  1. Wikipedia articles overloaded with images
  2. Commons categories (often violating Commons:COM:OVERCAT)
  3. Commons galleries (created, but rarely maintained)
  4. Influencing the sorting order in categories by using a sortkey at the beginning of the collation sequence or quite naturally and clever, using filenames with iso-dates at the beginning (e.g. a File '20200101_xxx', which will stay at the first page of a category till we reach the year 10000, or get images from the last century).
  5. Files (miss)using in the Information template, parameter 'other_versions', a gallery of images of the same event, photo excursion etc. (but not another version of the same image (rotated, cropped, deframed, b&w, etc.). Interestingly enough, I've seen a lot of such galleries in individual files, but always without photos from other photographers.
  6. and there is a lot of various image types for WD-items besides image (P18)
  7. and there is this multiple use of image (P18). Some WD-items have been filled by bots adding all images from a wikipedia article to image (P18) without selection.
  8. and, if there is no place to add the image, WD-items for that image are created on purpose, not creating a full description, but only what is rudimentary necessary.
Photographers want to promote their photos in as many places as possible, this increases the chance that someone else will find it and reuse it. QI is just another way to promote images. Promotion of images is quite often combined with weird / explicit / TLDR non-standard licences. The whole image part of the wikiverse is more about promotion than about contribution.
The purpose of the first image in image (P18) is to show it in many places (infoboxes, small languages) automatically. What is the purpose of the second, third, etc. image for the wikiverse? For external users of WD? What is the purpose of having a dedicated image for inscriptions in the very example ([1]), if this is not done in the same way (=enforced by rules and recommendations) for all (most) war memorials we have images of plaques of the fallen soldiers. Again, one image for a such a plaque is not enough, most war memorials I remember have more than one such plaque. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@ 1) Not related to Wikidata and P18. If a certain Wikipedia feels overloaded, they reduce images.
@ 2) Not related to Wikidata and P18. The people who categorise their images/resort categories are the ones who have to care about this.
@ 3) Not related to Wikidata and P18. The users who create the galleries have to care about this. In my opinion galleries have shown to be quite useless as they are right now.
@ 4) Not related to Wikidata and P18. The users who upload images are responsible for the names. If you want to change it, you have to force a general name scheme onto Commons.
@ 5) Not related to Wikidata and P18. The users who add images to this section are responsible this.
@ 6) I don't see your point here. Either there is a special property for specific usecase or there is not.
@ 7) So the problem is the bots doing nonesense and not the property beeing bad. As said above a second image for P18 should "be described with a Qualifier and an Item". If bots add a multiple images to one item, they are just poorly written.
@ 8) Created by bots or by humans? Bots: Per 7). Humans: Either the item is legit and can stay or it is not and can be deleted.
Taking good images and trying to get the best out of them takes a lot of time. So I see it as natural that photographers usually take images to use or show them. Some push their images more than others. To me QI is not really about promotion, but about having some kind of approval for all the time and effort you put into images. Literally noone cares about you, your work, your time, your effort or the money you spend on your equipment, personal education or that image in particular. In the end people end up not even caring about the licence at all and use them as they like. So the little QI stamp is one of the few approval stamps we have on the Wikimedia system. The altruistic people who did not force their will (or images) onto others got chased away by smartpants who do exactly that. But again this is not something that is the point of the discussion of this property.
What is the use of all the other other image properties on Wikidata:List of properties/Wikidata property linking to a representative image if one image is enough for the entire item? If there are not qualifiers that tell in a standard way what the images seperate, then yes, they are probably not needed most of the time. Just because it's not done right now does not mean it can not/should not be done in the future. A dedicated property would certainly help here.
In general WP overloads you with help pages and things you should do. WD has some pages, but you have to know them. I have never seen a (semi) official list that shows what should be included for an item about X (so a new item about eg. a person, an artist album, a building, plants, etc.). So WD is incredibly bad about guiding people around what things are done. And then we discuss at the wrong end of the stick about if property X should be handled in way A or B
--D-Kuru (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems generally useful for monuments and buildings. Avoids overloading P18. In some cases may help support a factual statement (e.g. building opened on date / (qualifier) stated in inscription; inscription <text>; inscription image <pic>). Pelagic (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)