Wikidata:Property proposal/twin town sign

twin town sign edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Done: twin town sign (P8667) (Talk and documentation)

Description	image of sign with twin towns on it
Represents	twin town sign (Q96279156)
Data type	Commons media file
Domain	administrative territorial entity (Q56061)
Example 1	Ulaanbaatar (Q23430) →
Example 2	Rennes (Q647) →
Example 3	Los Angeles (Q65) →
Example 4	Oskarshamn Municipality (Q505006) →
Example 5	Le Coteau (Q1164461) →
Example 6	Paris-Gare-de-Lyon (Q747541) →
Planned use	link all possible photos from the Commons category
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
See also	place name sign (P1766), traffic sign (P14)

Motivation edit

Many cities have signs indicating its twin cities. It would be great to have an overview of these relations with a photo. In addition, a sign can be seen as a reference per se. Baidax (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a property that is widely used for place name signs (place name sign (P1766)), this property would therefore be a complementary addition to what already exists. Furthermore, having such a property would encourage people to take pictures of these signs. We could also add qualifiers such as location (P276) if the sign is on a town hall for example or part of (P361) if the sign is from a monument and even genre (P136). Baidax (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Oppose Seems a bit too specific; perhaps this is better modeled using image (P18) with qualifier depicts (P180) twin town sign (Q96279156)? Mahir256 (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahir256: A picture of a twin town sign isn't really relative to a global representation of an administrative body. In fact, it's not really a part of it. It's not that specific: there are already a lot of photos of this kind and imagine using your method for the examples I have provided. As we look at what already exists, we have different properties for specific images such as nighttime view (P3451) or winter view (P5252), and a property similar to what I suggest is place name sign (P1766) (or even traffic sign (P14)). Yet it was entirely possible to go with a qualifier for theses. We cannot have dozens of images with the image (P18) property since these are not a representation of the element itself. Moreover, going with qualifiers will complicate queries. I developed my arguments in the motivation section. Yours sincerely. Baidax (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. I'll use this property when available. Benoît (discussion) 18:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this idea! It's pretty niche but we have quite a few other specific-image properties and this one seems reasonably useful. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support good idea. As a side remark, I concur with @Mahir256: ideally we should use image (P18) with qualifiers but this ship has sailed a long time ago (we now have hundreds of specific properties "image of" the flag, the coats of arms, the logo, the seal, in winter, by night, and so on) so there is no reason to deny this property while we still use the others. I'm not against changing the statu quo but it should be done consistently and in an RfC not here. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Wikidata:Property proposal/black-and-white photograph is currently sinking into oblivion but this very specific thing about twin city signs is about to be created under everyone's applause? I'm sorry but I don't get it. Oppose. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thierry Caro: As a creator of property, you must also maintain a certain neutrality even more than a normal contributor. You shouldn't vary your opinion here based on the opinions you receive for any of your proposals, so this is a conflict of interest. Wikidata is above all a collaborative project, not a competition for who will propose the best property. (And in the case of a strictly unfavorable opinion in any case, I ask you to be careful of ambiguous formulations.) In addition, I forgot to do it but I rather wanted to encourage your proposal. Regarding the "specific thing" for the property here, I will give a summary of the different solutions available. Baidax (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice Germartin1 (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is less awkwardly handled by structured data on Commons. NMaia (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NMaia: By this principle, a lot of properties would be called into question. Structured data is not yet well enough developed and popularized but on the idea both would be good: structured data could also allow to specify the twinning relations. On the French Wikipedia, I used a template that allows you to retrieve information about twinning relations, an image (the best chosen) could thus be put automatically with the template. Baidax (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial support Wikidata tries to structure the data between them. This specific case is the opportunity to associate many item-requires-statement constraint (Q21503247) in connection with town twinning. The demonstration that specific cases have already been created renders opposing arguments such as these null and void imho. —Eihel (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a usefull property. --Fralambert (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Baidax, Mahir256, Benoît Prieur, VIGNERON, Andrew Gray, Thierry Caro: @Germartin1, NMaia, Eihel, Fralambert:

Done twin town sign (P8667) Pamputt (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]