Wikidata:Property proposal/photographer of

photographer of edit

Invalid topic given

Under discussion

Description	is photographer of, has taken a photograph of, known for photograph of, known for photographs of
Data type	Item
Domain	photographer (Q33231)
Allowed values	physical object (Q223557), geographical location (Q2221906), building (Q41176), human (Q5), occurrence (Q1190554), activity (Q1914636)
Example 1	Félix Bonfils (Q2915801) <photographer of> Temple of Bacchus (Q1991217)
Example 2	Sébah & Joaillier (Q46941849) <photographer of> Bosporus (Q35958)
Example 3	Philippe Halsman (Q704572) <photographer of> Marilyn Monroe (Q4616)
Example 4	Walter Chandoha (Q60691543) <photographer of> house cat (Q146)
Example 5	Mathew Brady (Q187850) <photographer of> American Civil War (Q8676)

Motivation edit

Currently, the only way in which to link a photographer to an item X that she or he has photographed is indirectly through two statements: (1) Photographer (Q33231) <notable work> (P800) Photograph (Q125191) and (2) Photograph (Q125191) <depicts> (P180) X. The proposal intends to be used as a “shortcut” to link the photographer directly to notable items that she or he has photographed. This will be especially useful in cases of photographers (Q33231) who are known not because of any one (or several) notable photographs but because of the particular kinds of objects or activities that they photograph. TMADChi (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

I support this proposal. It is very helpful to have this property, as many photographers work with certain subject, or geographic region. Larkot567, 26 January, 2021

I support this proposal because we want to define relationships between photographers with the subjects of their work. In addition, the inverse relationships would be very helpful. Jala360, 26 January 2021

Oppose. I think this property would be prone to accumulation of loads of irrelevant but "technically true" data, as well as data so vague as to be functionally meaningless. Mathew Benjamin Brady (Q187850) might be "photographer of" American Civil War (Q8676) (certainly not all aspects of it, mainly just studio portraits of participants in it), but also Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Harrison, Andrew Carnegie, and hundreds of other people both prominent and forgotten. Rather than potentially attaching thousands of individual subjects that a person photographed at least once, I think it would be better to use genre (P136) or field of work (P101), with potential values of portrait photography (Q182956), theatrical photography (Q612277) war photography (Q605789), wildlife photography (Q966880), etc. For individual photographs that are notable, notable work (P800) could apply, but given that every single photograph in the Library of Congress is notable under Wikdiata criteria (it has an ID number and can be described!), not to mention every painting and work of art in museums, notable work (P800) could also become bogged down with detritus in the not-to-distant future as robots and robot handlers continue to import masses of institutional data. -Animalparty (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in current state. The description looks like a list of aliases instead of a description. Photographers protograph lots of things. To the extend that some photos of a photograph constitute a notable topic, this aspect should be part of the property definition. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AnimalParty. Tetizeraz (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose notable work (P800) should be used instead and point to an item for the photograph, not the motif. /ℇsquilo 12:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]