Wikidata talk:WikiProject Public art

Latest comment: 9 months ago by Spinster in topic Newly introduced data modeling - what to do?

Examples of well-modeled and fun examples of public art? edit

I think it would be very nice to make the 'homepage' of this WikiProject attractive by including a gallery of diverse and cool public artwork items, with beautiful photos, that are also particularly well-modeled here on Wikidata. Any suggestions / favorites? Cheers, Spinster 💬 19:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia Monument (Q18201640) might meet both criteria of being well modelled and fun... Ham II (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Great suggestion! I (belatedly) added it. Spinster 💬 07:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also fun: Fountain (Q54680022), which has an animated GIF for an image. Ham II (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hey Ham II, so cool that you discovered this one. I have created and added that animated gif - partly as an experiment. Is it too silly? I'd be happy to replace it with a (still) photo. Spinster 💬 07:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Spinster! Sorry for my own belated reply. I don't think it's too silly at all – perfect for a fountain! Ham II (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

instance of.... edit

I would like some clarity on when to use public art (Q557141) and when to use sculpture (Q860861) (which has as an alias "public sculpture", and is not [currently] a subclass of public art). Wittylama (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Wittylama: I've noticed that most editors active in public art use genre (P136)public art (Q557141) - I just updated the homepage of this WikiProject to reflect that. I would use sculpture (Q860861) and a few of its subclasses as instance of (P31). What do you think? Does that make sense? The data modeling page is not really well developed yet and I think it would also be good to add more documentation in WikiProject Sculpture. I'll see if I can put some elbow grease into that in the upcoming weeks/months. Spinster 💬 18:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Public Art that gets moved, and replaced with a replica edit

In tidying up data about public art in Estonia, I'm having to deal with a few cases where, for example, a statue has been moved from its original public location to a museum, but a replica has been installed at the original location. (One other really famous of example of this would be David (Q179900).) One possible approach would be to create a separate item for the replica, but unless the replica itself is particularly notable in its own right, that seems like it could be overkill. So I'm wondering if there's a better way, perhaps something as simple as adding a new location (P276) statement at the original location, qualified with subject has role (P2868): replica (Q1232589)?

Interesting question - locally we have a set of statues that get trashed now and then, so the actual works are in storage and plastic casts are placeholders which can easily be cleaned and replaced. No idea how to model these in Wikidata! Jane023 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Role of Wikidata and sources about public art edit

Hello, all -- what a fantastic group! I'm thinking through how Wikidata could/should be incorporated into research projects on public art in Boston. Basically, as researchers do deep dives into a piece, what elements of their research are suitable for inclusion in a Wikidata item and how? The data model you've put together is quite helpful there, and I can see how we could add or update statements with a good citation to appropriate records.

I'm also wondering how common/helpful it is to use the "described by source" or "described at URL" properties. In cases where we might have a source that describes the piece (or artist), but that isn't necessarily used in another statement. As we do research, should we also add as many items as possible there? Is there another way you'd recommend doing this?

This is of course also dependent on how much labor I can muster for the project :) --AmandaRR123 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Newly introduced data modeling - what to do? edit

Spinster 💬 Mx Lucy Husky (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) Walkuraxx (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Missvain (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Oravrattas (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Ham II (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Garrettn (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Jane023 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC) AmandaRR123 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Bello Na'im (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Idieh3 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Notified participants of WikiProject Public art

In this (loose) group, we have been using data modeling conventions for quite a while as follows:

I have seen that very recently, one Wikidata user has created a new item Q116182859 and has started using this as instance of (P31) for public artworks. A second user has adopted this item too. This second user recently did a large-ish data import, not using the genre (P136) approach; see Astral Grating (Q119221748) for an example item of that import.

I totally understand that this WikiProject with its conventions is not easy to find, and that lack of more detailed information about the exact instance of (P31) of the works may have informed this action. (Personally, when I do imports of public art to Wikidata, I try to research and correct each individual work's instance of (P31) but indeed, if data sources don't explicitly mention that, it can be tedious.)

I do think our long-term approach above has reached some level of consensus, has many benefits for querying (separating the type of work from it being in public space), and re-usability (it's good to have uniform modeling in general, also across WikiProjects). I would like to propose to

  • ask the two users to adopt this WikiProject's consensus
  • merge Q116182859 with public art (Q557141)
  • perhaps create a cleanup report (Listeria list) to catch future cases of this

I will be happy to help adjust the affected items to the data modeling practices here. What do other folks think?

Cheers, Spinster 💬 18:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If that is the long-running practice (and I'll take your word that it is), then delete Q116182859, because it's not the same thing as public art (Q557141). Swpb (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for tagging me, @Spinster! As you predicted, I hadn't managed to find this project's data model when I created those items last week, but now that I have, I've gone ahead and updated all the items from that batch to use instance of (P31)work of art (Q838948) and genre (P136)public art (Q557141) as outlined, as well as adding values for country (P17), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and coordinate location (P625) to bring the items further in line with the model. --Infopetal (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't like public art as a genre, though I get that works commissioned by municipalities in the public space are often a complete world unto their own. An equestrian statue of a specific person, no matter what century it was created in, should have "equestrian portrait" as genre, no? I realize sculpture is way behind paintings, but what we have done for paintings can become a template for further work with sculptures. Jane023 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The Art and Architecture Thesaurus does classify public art as a genre. I understand it feels weird but it's - certainly on Wikidata - a convenient convention to make it possible to query for all artworks in public space in an easy and uniform way, regardless of their other characteristics. Any other opinions? Spinster 💬 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Return to the project page "WikiProject Public art".