Wikidata:Property proposal/writing style
style of script edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
| Description | style of script of a document or typeface |
|---|---|
| Represents | handwriting style (Q33260112) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | work (Q386724), typeface (Q17451) |
| Allowed values | handwriting style (Q33260112), "type style" |
| Example 1 | Uncial 053 (Q667250) → uncial script (Q784235) |
| Example 2 | Qur'an in naskhi script (Q50811945) → Naskh (Q1510712) |
| Example 3 | Times New Roman (Q213048) → Roman type (Q484023) |
| Planned use | see below |
| See also | writing system (P282), typeface/font used (P2739) |
Synonyms edit
- script style / handwriting style / type style
Proposed actions edit
- rename handwriting style (Q33260112) to 'style of script' to distinguish it from script (Q63801299).
- add a none-of constraint (Q52558054) on writing system (P282) to prevent it taking values of class Q33260112.
- deal with violations by making writing system (P282) = one of Latin script (Q8229), Greek alphabet (Q8216), Arabic script (Q1828555), Cyrillic script (Q8209), etc, with this new property as qualifier to specify the styling of the script.
Motivation edit
Currently writing system (P282) is sometimes used for this. But that property's companion item, writing system (Q8192), says that:
- writing system (Q8192) has part(s) (P527) = script (Q63801299): set of symbols of a writing system, orthography (Q43091): set of conventions for writing a language
- but it does not has part(s) (P527) = handwriting style (Q33260112): style of handwritten document
This proposal would distinguish
- the broad writing system that a document was written in, eg Latin script (Q8229), Greek alphabet (Q8216), Arabic script (Q1828555), which would continue to be the domain of writing system (P282), from
- the style of the script used, eg uncial script (Q784235), italic (Q344098), secretary hand (Q16933853), Kufic (Q29647) etc., which would be the domain of the new property.
This would be particularly valuable for cases like uncial script (Q784235): writing system for Greek and Latin where the style does not necessarily identify the writing system (Q8192). (It might be Latin or Greek).
The property could be used as a qualifier on writing system (P282), or as a main statement in its own right; but when P282 is present the property would be used only as a qualifier.
(For some languages writing system (P282) might be considered to be implicit from language of work or name (P407). It is suggested that in such cases standalone use of this new property could be acceptable to indicate the style of script. For some other languages that will not be the case, eg Yiddish (Q8641), Judaeo-Spanish (Q36196))
Discussion edit
- Proposed. Jheald (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Support Strong support for the distinction between writing system and script style. - PKM (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)- Support I've been making this distinction using language of work or name (P407) and writing system (P282), but this carefully reasoned proposal shows that to be truly comprehensive across languages we need to be able separately identify language, writing system and style. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Notified WikiProject India, for input re scripts used in India. Jheald (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think Indic scripts like Bengali (Bangla alphabet (Q756802)), Devanagari (Devanagari (Q38592)), etc. would qualify as distinct writing systems. Although most are abugidas and are structured the same way, you could say the same about the similarities between alphabets (Latin, Greek, Cyrillic). There might be different styles of, say, Nagari or Devanagari recognised by paleographers which could benefit from this property. Pelagic (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support Valuable for manuscript items (museum or library holdings) and could also be used as a qualifier for inscription (P1684). Though “writing style” might be a confusing label in English. How about “script style” with alias “handwriting style”? Pelagic (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Pelagic: Good suggestion. I've updated the proposed name. Jheald (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
