Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/worn by

worn byEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Done: worn by (P7376) (Talk and documentation)
Representsperson who wore a garment
Data typeItem
Domainclothing (Q11460) or any of its subclasses
Allowed valueshuman (Q5)
Example 1black dress of Rita Hayworth (Q4010432)Rita Hayworth (Q42745) character role (P453) "Gilda" (does not exist)
Example 2Casaco: Smoking (Q61766153)Alberto Santos-Dumont (Q313211)
Example 3dark plum Vera Wang dress of Keira Knightley (Q5223542)Keira Knightley (Q42581)
Planned usefor documenting extant garments in museum collections
See alsowears (P3828) (inverse), owned by (P127), commissioned by (P88)


This property is required to correctly document clothing in museum collections and other notable clothing. The existing properties "owned by" or "commissioned by" will not always work. In many cases, the person who wore the clothing did not own it or commission it (film and stage costumes, red carpet dresses, runway models).

I suggested this property in passing in the property proposal for "wears" back in 2017. I know there is some opposition to adding inverse properties, but in the case of museum objects the person who wore the object (and the occasion for which it was worn) is a significant part of the item's metadata.

Additionally, in some cases the wearer is known but not otherwise notable. In these cases that metadata can be captured with the construction <worn by> "some value" <stated as> "Jane Smith of Waco, Texas"

I am open to extending use of this property for fictional clothing (for values fictional human (Q15632617), fictional character (Q95074), human who may be fictional (Q21070568) if others think that is appropriate. PKM (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

PKM (talk) Wittylama (talk) Thierry Caro ( talk) Ainali (talk) Spinster 💬 13:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Pharos (talk) Jane023 (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC) Tris T7 TT meFuzheado (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Camelia (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Arkirkland (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Notified participants of WikiProject Fashion


  • I'm not sure if a inverse property is necessary. In many situations, a SPARQL query can be used to obtain the item that wears some cloth.

Anyway,   Weak support --Tinker Bell 04:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support David (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Because of the need to enter data for people for whom we don't yet have items via a <worn by> "some value" <stated as> construction. ChristianKl❫ 15:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why not "wears", on the reverse? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
    • Explained in the "Motivation" section above. (Just as a comment, I think "worn by" on a significant object is preferable to "wears" on a person, who may have worn dozens of notable garments in a museum collection.) - PKM (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment seems to make more sense than the inverse .. --- Jura 21:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment as qualifiers for depicts (P180) (either here on items or on Commons on media) "wears" is needed. --- Jura 21:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - We have needed this property for a while now for modeling fashion and costume collections. If you look at museum databases like the Smithsonian [1], they use the synonym "wearer" in their metadata fields, so this should not be controversial. And we should add that as a synonym. It is a well-established and useful field that we are encountering all the time. -- Fuzheado (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Also useful for Structured Data on Commons where the prominent item in the photograph might be an object, with a wearer, rather than the other way around. Sadads (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unless the inverse property is to be deleted. --Yair rand (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question black dress of Rita Hayworth (Q4010432) currently uses the statement used by (P1535) Rita Hayworth (Q42745). What advantages would the proposed property have over this? --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "Worn by" should probably be a subproperty of "used by", but I think the more specific property is better especially for garment that was worn on a specific occasion or for a specific role.
@Fuzheado: you added that statement to black dress of Rita Hayworth (Q4010432), do you have thoughts here? - PKM (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above, we have needed this property for a while now for modeling fashion and costume collections, as many databases use "wearer" as the field, and "used by" is too imprecise to capture this. Also, "wears" is used in many depictions statements right now, so I don't think it's prudent to delete it as it's used in different ways and should be preserved. For example, in the following wears (P3828) is a qualifier in a depicts (P180) statement: painting->depicts->woman->wears->hoop dress. In the other direction, "worn by" or "wearer" would be used like this: Wedding dress of Wallis Warfield->worn by->Wallis Warfield. So the property in each direction has particular uses for descriptive metadata. -- Fuzheado (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ChristianKl, Kam Solusar, Nomen ad hoc, Fuzheado, Sadads: @PKM, Jura1, Yair rand:   Done: worn by (P7376). − Pintoch (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)