Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/number of people depicted

number of people depictedEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Descriptionpeople depicted in an image, such as a painting. Can be used to check completeness values in "depicts" (P180)
Data typeItem
Domainitems for works such as paintings, photographs
Allowed valuesitems for numeric values (e.g. "1", "2", "3", ">8"); not items for persons
Example 1Mona Lisa (Q12418)1 (Q199)
Example 2The Balcony (Q775407)4 (Q202)
Example 3The Last Supper (Q128910)13 (Q37141)
Example 4The Bull (Q2917717)1 (Q199)
Example 5Portrait of a Woman with a Squirrel (Q17335769)1 (Q199)
Example 6The Last Supper (Q128910) → ">8" based on heuristic (P887) TensorFlow (Q21447895) (fictitious sample, per request below)
Robot and gadget jobs
  • Could be used for complex constraint on P180,
    • Sample query: [1]
  • Could be added by bot for manual review
See alsodepicts (P180), relative position within image (P2677)


See applications above
--- Jura 04:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


  •   Support. @Jura1: Is not it better to use datatype "quantity"? Thank you David (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I hesitated about that. A bot could add an item that just says ">8". It might be harder to express/query it with quantity-datatype. What do you think?
      --- Jura 15:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: Is it possible to mention an example of the reason for the hesitation? Thank you David (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose use "depicts=Q5" (or, as in the case of The Balcony (Q775407), man, boy, named individuals, etc.) with qualifier "Quantity=[n]" if more than one. And items for numeric values are most certainly not how to represent quantities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support @Cwf97: 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, per Andy Mabbett. --Yair rand (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Yair rand: I can't make any sense of it, can you suggest a query that checks that the enumeration in "depicts" is complete? As I know Pigsonthewing doesn't write any SPARQL, I can't ask him.
      --- Jura 07:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment I asked for input on request a query as well, but given the lack of feedback, it seems the suggested alternative isn't possible. Accordingly, I'm marking this as ready.
      --- Jura 04:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: Andy's solution is much more generic. And the item datatype is puzzling - why would you prefer that over quantity? − Pintoch (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pintoch: please see above. If there is a preference for quantity datatype, we could change that. What is your suggestion for querying completeness? I'd would be good to have a SPARQL sample. Unfortunatly, we haven't had an suggestions yet.
      --- Jura 11:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: your request for a query states that there is a suggestion to use "depicts" recursively to check its own completeness. Is this doable? I don't understand where you see any recursivity here. Can you describe in plain English what you want to see as the output of your query? − Pintoch (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I added a sample query above that would work with this property. The idea is to do the same only with P180. When preparing the sample query, I noticed that I can't even to determine reliably the number of people from P180, but maybe I'm just using it wrong. Can you do it?
          --- Jura 09:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
          • I would just replace ?sample wdt:P369 / wdt:P1181 ?qt by ?sample p:P180 [ ps:P180 wd:Q5 ; pq:P1114 ?qt ]. You would need to change your wdt:P31* in the subquery to wdt:P31 so that this claim is ignored in the subquery. Maybe we actually need a property "depicts objects of class" to make the distinction between "depicts human" and "depicts Douglas Adams", that would solve your "recursivity" issue. − Pintoch (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
            • @Pintoch: That's not the way "depicts" is being used nor is it what you supported above ("man, boy, named individuals, etc."). The samples I added above all come from properties, so I think they are representative for the way P180 is meant to be used. Why the reluctance to create a new property? I don't see a downside. People not interested in it could just skip it.
              --- Jura 11:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
            • @Pintoch: BTW, could you create a query that matches your proposed query ("You would need to change ..")? I'm not sure if it's even possible without timing out.
              --- Jura 11:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
              • @Jura1: I'm not sure why you can't just do the changes I described, but there you go: (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I do agree that we should just use quantity (P1114) as a qualifier and that the proposed datatype is strange whatever. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Thierry Caro: What is your suggestion for querying completeness? I'd would be good to have a SPARQL sample.
      --- Jura 11:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, per Andy Mabbett. Relf PP (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)