Wikidata:Property proposal/scribe.amanuensis or copyist.illuminator
scribe, amanuensis or copyist edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
illuminator edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Motivation edit
According to the debate in the Wikidata:Property proposal/calligrapher: @Bodhisattwa, Hrishikes, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Mahir256: @Jason.nlw, Sic19, Kolja21:
For my part, according to History, the materials and media, the sense of occupation, the countries, a scribe, an illuminator, a letterer, a copyist (etc.) do not have the same meaning at all. By the way, if we take the WP pages to look at the meanings of each occupation, they have a diametrically different meaning. Scribe and copyist must be a property, illuminator must be another. In all wikis, there are many uses of scribe. In enwiki, there are already 22 uses of scribe in the Infobox manuscript template. There are 20 wikis using this template. The illuminators do not work only on manuscripts and there are many examples too. --Eihel (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --Eihel (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC) ... Many participants in this project:
@Helmoony, Yann, Epìdosis, Tpt, Thibaut120094, Alexmar983:, re-ping some project participants. --Eihel (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Comment I would use illustrator (P110) for illuminator and restore the original version of calligrapher (P6819) so it can be used for calligraphers and copyists. This was the original proposal: "calligrapher, scribe or copist of a work." --Kolja21 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- First, a thousand excuses, @Kolja21:. I made a mistake in translation: I mixed (from the French) initial (Q378408) and letterer (Q658404). So I changed P6819 into a calligrapher.
- In a modern comic book, there are illustrations, but none were the work of an illuminator. If we talk about illumination in the thirteenth century in many countries, it referred to the use of gilding, hence the term meaning to "light up", "illuminate", deriving from the Latin illuminare. In German, you do not have an Template:Infobox manuscript (Q14467483), but in other languages, there is a distinction of different works on a manuscript and therefore in the infobox. It is possible to say that the manuscripts were illustrated by illuminations, but if I faithfully translate "illuminate", it gives wiktionary:de:erleuchten and not illustrieren, with a sense of light (leucht). More concretely, when ordering a manuscript, the illumination also had a figurative meaning: to render a document with an extraordinary, divine light. In illuminated manuscript (Q48498), the description in German is mit Malerei, Ornamenten, Blattgold und farbigen Tinten dekorierte Handschrift. This is a particular work.
- For scribe, their works have a more administrative sense, much less artistic (Q3175423).
- For copyist, two definitions come to my mind: the one who copied an artistic work on any medium (painting, sculpture), then the one that copied a text. In both cases, it's a matter of making a copy, QED. In the first case, there is an undeniable artistic sense, but you prefer to see the Mona Lisa as its copy. In the second case, most often this work is related to the monk copyist in a scriptorium (Q655185). A job that is done today by printers. Copyists, like Leonhard Wagner (Q1819297), could combine the functions, but most of the time, it was a tedious job, without any artistic sense.
- Etymologically, calligraphy is the art of well forming characters. For example, in WD, a kanji (Q82772) is a manuscript that can host a calligrapher (P6819) (type constraint in the property). Calligraphy has no connection with a scribe, even if their work can be joined at certain points.
- When one appreciates additional, even capital information, it is good to have separate Properties to allow Values to be properly inserted into WP. But if these 2 properties are not retained, it seems important to separate the roles of each (calligrapher, scribe or copist). A property can not collect all the meanings of Template:Infobox manuscript (Q14467483). Several pages of WP already contain several roles held by several people. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose all. It becomes a real pain to have to deal with a myriad of different properties, both when preparing to write items, and when querying them. Use contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) with qualifier object has role (P3831) to give the contributor's role. Jheald (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why not, @Jheald:. In any case, if users want a property for scribe or copyist, they can not encompass all the functions and roles in a property (P6819). Otherwise, we include everything in author (P50) and this is not what is sought in WD. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Eihel: The MARC system used by libraries all across the world finds it sufficient to distinguish only "author" and "contributor". I think that should suffice for us too, especially given that we can identify the nature of the contribution with object has role (P3831). But as a second-best choice, I would accept the existing calligrapher (P6819), but with no without further fragmentation or additional narrower and narrower properties. Jheald (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why not, @Jheald:. In any case, if users want a property for scribe or copyist, they can not encompass all the functions and roles in a property (P6819). Otherwise, we include everything in author (P50) and this is not what is sought in WD. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose use existing properties per above. --Marsupium (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Jheald In MARC, I think that author is the person who is put forward as the main instigator, in any case the principal concerned. In some cases, for example Ptolemy I Soter (Q168261) probably dictated or told his Memoirs (Aristobulus of Cassandreia (Q544987)). I did not check, but Ptolemy is probably the author of his Memoirs in MARK system. In this case too, to treat Aristobulus as a simple scribe would be a challenge. If MARK attributes to a Franciscan scribe the role of author for copying the Bible, that's correct... in their notation.
- After 2 times the allotted time, I think these proposals can be closed like "not done". If everyone agrees, of course, and P6819 only qualifies a calligrapher? —Eihel (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)