Open main menu

Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings

NPG (smithsonian) propertyEdit

Just a quick mention here that I spotted that there is no property yet for the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery object id. Instead these paintings, e.g. Carlton Fisk (Q47513245), only hold the id in inventory number (P217) and make use of described at URL (P973) to link out. Should be a fairly straight forward property proposal and migration for anyone with a little bit of time (which disqualifies me, hence the mention here). /Lokal Profil (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to get all the possible formats for the identifier? The Time magazine collection has examples like NPG.97.TC43, so I assume there may be many collections with slightly different formats. - PKM (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lokal Profil, PKM: National Portrait Gallery (United States) object ID (P6152).
Based on the Query you can probably make a regex to match the different cases. Multichill (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Much delayed thanks =) /Lokal_Profil 23:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

What are the best modelled items for your areas of interest?Edit

Hi all

Over the past few months myself and others have been thinking about the best way to help people model subjects consistently on Wikidata and provide new contributors with a simple way to understand how to model content on different subjects. Our first solution is to provide some best practice examples of items for different subjects which we are calling Model items. E.g the item for William Shakespeare (Q692) is a good example to follow for creating items about playwright (Q214917). These model items are linked to from the item for the subject to make them easier to find and we have tried to make simple to understand instructions.

We would like subject matter experts to contribute their best examples of well modelled items. We are asking all the Wikiprojects to share with us the kinds of subjects you most commonly add information about and the best examples you have of this kind of item. We would like to have at least 5 model items for each subject to show the diversity of the subject e.g just having William Shakespeare (Q692) as a model item for playwright (Q214917), while helpful may not provide a good example for people trying to model modern poets from Asia.

You can add model items yourself by using the instructions at Wikidata:Model items. It may be helpful to have a discussion here to collate information first.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

author name string (P2093)Edit

Hi!

For cases where we can't directly identify the creator, should we use author name string (P2093). to store it? Alternatively, should we propose an equivalent property "creator name string" so that it can be known that it should be replaced by creator (P170) instead of author (P50)? These seem like the only good options to store name strings (I read something about adding them to the English description, but not only that's clearly not the right place, but descriptions don't have sources, so it wouldn't be possible to store *where* the data came from).--Reosarevok (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is a good use of author name string (P2093). --Jarekt (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Reosarevok: Thanks a lot for bringing this up! After years, I recently had the same thought, just didn't write it yet. Multichill whose merit the biggest part of the painting imports here are has used the description field for this for years now and somehow this seemed to be the only/best option, even build this tool (loading takes long) around descriptions. As a scheme "painting by creator name string" plus if necessary the differentiation "(collection abbreviation + inventory number)" was used. This is not query-friendly (not even for the tool) and caused problems, e.g. here. This would also give a clean solution for only relatedness of a known name and the actual creator. And, Jarekt, I think author name string (P2093) for this is messy and gets us into trouble for items where both do or may apply, illustrated texts stuff and the like, as a solution for that we could use object has role (P3831) as a qualifier, but my gut feeling is its better to have a separate property "creator name string" of which author name string (P2093) would be subproperty of (P1647). A new property might also be useful for other projects outside visual arts. Any more opinions? (I somehow saw this section only now, pings appreciated :) ) Thanks, --Marsupium (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
As discussed at Wikidata:Property proposal/creator name string, I think a better way to do this is to set creator (P170) to somevalue, with qualifier stated as (P1932) giving the unmatched string.
This is a general mechanism that can be used for any property, and is easy to pick up in queries -- for example the "No Q" column in the "Titles -- statements" section of this dashboard for a 19th-century books project, generated by Listeria based on this query: goo.gl/R2Veya. (See the 'OPTIONAL' block, about half-way down). Jheald (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Magnus' post on museum collection importsEdit

I think this blog post deserves a reply from us/you, especially the last paragraph. What do you think about it? @Multichill, Jarekt: FYI. Thanks, --Marsupium (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If we have items for artworks that do not have collection and inventory number or a link to some museum page or some identifier than they net well defined and likely to get duplicates. I think we should definitely create items for all the artworks in that museum that have separate inventory number. --Jarekt (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I answered the blog and it broke. I would definitely use such a tool if it existed. I do this with my own hack all the time. If it was easier I could be more productive. Basically for each artist on Commons, all well-documented artworks should be on Wikidata. Ideally the other way around would be nice, except we have problems with copyright for modern artists. Jane023 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Automation should be scoped to unique one-off artworks (sculptures/paintings/drawings). As far as I know we don't have a datamodel for furniture, fashion, prints photopgraphs etc in place in wikidata as that needs an item for the concept and an item for the unique version/reproduction of that concept in that museum. Wikidata will double in size if we implement adding photographs. The Dutch fotomuseum alone has 700.000 photographs. --Hannolans (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I am very interested in having a data model for furniture and fashion that can handle the museum object and the (freely) licensed photo. - PKM (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Distributed Game - DepictsEdit

Folks have been busy playing the new Distributed Game - Depicts, which uses an AI/machine learning algorithm to analyze existing paintings in Wikidata, and then suggest depicts statements. Human volunteers then do the Yes/Skip/No determinations on whether to add depicts (P180) to the item. Here are links to:

It would be great to have feedback from SOAP participants on their experiences and new directions.

  1. Why paintings? I've focused on paintings as it's one of the most developed domains of art content in Wikidata. Two, it's easier to fit into the game dynamic versus 3D objects, sculpture, jewelry, etc.
  2. How have they been added? I originally loaded a bunch of different museums - The Met, Cleveland Museum of Art, Smithsonian, etc. Recently, I've been working through different collections so we might see some trends better - Rijksmuseum, and currently the Swedish Nationalmuseum. Is this a good approach? Is there something else we could be doing in adding collections either one at a time or in batches?
  3. What depiction labels should we examine? The proposed depiction labels come from areas where the AI did best - tree, mountain, horse, soldier, house, flower, boat and bird. These landscape painting-oriented features seem to do well because they appear with significant contextual clues. A boat is rarely just sitting on its own, but will have a sky above and water below. A horse will have a rider on it, or will be the main subject of the painting with well-defined features. For the same reason, dogs don't do as well with the AI, likely because of the many different ways they appear in art and the wide variety of breeds and sizes. We have stayed away from "gender determination" in people choosing man and woman, as this has been a general problem with state of the art in image classification and our results are not stellar either. What areas might you like to see tried? I can provide some investigation into how well our classification has done.
  4. What approaches for generating depiction candidates should we also try? Now that we have the framework for depiction games, we could try different ways to fill a queue of recommendations. One idea is to use the artwork title to suggest depiction statements. For exampe, in the process of checking the result of "horse" in the Depiction game, I was worried folks might misidentify donkeys as horses, so I made some queries to double check this. Instead, we could actually generate depiction candidates by looking for keywords in titles, and suggesting those. Example:
# Find paintings with "donkey" in the title but no depiction statement for it
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?title 
WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q3305213 .
  ?item rdfs:label ?title .
  FILTER(LANG(?title) = "en").
  FILTER(CONTAINS(?title,"Donkey"))
  FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item wdt:P180 wd:Q3537778 }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

Thanks for any insights or ideas. @Jane023, PKM, Multichill, Wittylama, Magnus Manske, Spinster: -- Fuzheado (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a very nice initiative and agree that you need to be careful that reducing the scope to yes/no questions leaves out difficult choices. I have set up lists of portraits of men by decade and portraits of women by decade as a first step to linking portraits of people to people items while allowing you to browse changing fashions. Now theye are in decade lists but these could be separated by year or by the country of the painter or sitter once we have a larger dataset. To show up in one of these lists the portrait must have genre + depicts woman/man. I suppose you could first do a pass of setting stuff to portrait for all titles with "(1" in them, since a lot of museums include the birth-death dates in their portrait titles. This would then allow you to upload the same set as possible depicts man/woman/child/boy/girl. Jane023 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks like an interesting approach. What software is being used? Anything open or is it all closed source? I've played around with computer vision to recognize images some time ago. Good to see it in action here.
Looking at top depicts and top genres I wonder if it would be possible to train it to find portraits while filtering out the religious art. Multichill (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jane023: where can I find those portrait lists? :-) - PKM (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I put the index pages here: Category:WikiProject sum of all paintings portraits and all pages are in Category:WikiProject Q5 since I created a Wikidata:WikiProject Women and a Wikidata:WikiProject Men. Now, revisiting them, I think I can create lists for boys and girls (we didn't have many children at all when I started). Jane023 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

title (P1476) and paintingsEdit

Input appreciated at Property_talk:P1476#How_to_use_for_paintings?. Multichill (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Property statistics dashboardEdit

Multichill (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC), focus on the Netherlands Husky (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) - Cool, i'd like to focus on building tools to visualise progress. Spinster (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Happy to help with manual finetuning that can't be done by bots, and anything else on the 'soft/wet' side of this project. I'm dreaming of complete artists' oeuvres on Wikidata! Rich Farmbrough (talk) Time to learn2Wikidata Jheald (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Kippelboy (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan paintings (subdivision of Spain) Mushroom (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) work on Dutch 17th-century paintings and landscapes of Haarlem; Most recently, the sum of all "attributed" paintings by Frans Hals, which is nearly done Missvain (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Zolo (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Swiss heritage institutions) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) KRLS (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan area museums) DivadH (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ,happy to help out with any questions in regards to the Europeana API, how to best query it, and/or our metadata Xcia0069 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Work on data related to Gianlorenzo Bernini and Artemisia Gentileschi. Work at Europeana too ! Susannaanas (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Fabrice Florin (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I can help in California later this year. Vaughn88 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I can help! Raymond Ellis (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Hsarrazin (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - will give a hand with Creators and AC :) louis-garden (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) for italian paintings (XIIe-XVIIe) Olivier (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Kopiersperre (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC) ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Micru (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Geraki (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (Focus on Greece) PatHadley (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Working to get data from the University of Oxford (Q34433) and its component institutions shared on Wikidata. Pablísima (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Carl Ha (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Shani Evenstein (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Nasty nas (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Sarasays (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Thierry Caro (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) John Samuel 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Reosarevok (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Subsublibrary (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Martingggg (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Argentine and Hispanic America Kruusamägi (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia SIryn (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC), focus on moving metadata from Commons to Wikidata Walkuraxx (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Omotecho (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC), focus on Japan GualdimG (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Léna (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Yann (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Paul Cézanne (Q35548) for a start... Abbe98 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject sum of all paintings

We (Liam and I) made a dashboard at Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Property statistics. Multichill (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

separate copies of the same engravingEdit

National Library of Wales (Q666063) has 2 copies of the same engraving:

All the properties of that item are almost identical except for inventory number (P217) and URLs. Two copies of the same painting or sculpture are kept as separate entities, but separate copies of prints like engravings, I think should be kept in a single item. Any objections in merging of this and similar items? Also @Sic19, Jason.nlw:, who worked on the upload. --Jarekt (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Same with
--Jarekt (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually the first one is not separate but similar versions, but they are the same version, just referenced from two sources. So yes, if the others are like this, then merge. Jane023 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Jane023, I don't understand what you mean. "similar versions, but they are the same version" seems contradictory to me? --Marsupium (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
"Separate, but similar" means "two different engravings of the same subject". If this were the case, then 2 items would be acceptable. This is not the case. Jane023 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Jarekt, yes, please don't merge them! If they are different physical exemplars it should be allowed to have separate items for them and we even need them for the photo or scan description on Commons because such a photo will be a photo of one physical exemplar. And Snowdon, North Wales (Q24176001) and Snowdon, north Wales (Q24176005) shouldn't have the same file in image (P18) because it's just of one of them (@Sic19). Or was File:Snowdon, north Wales.jpeg different from File:Snowdon, north Wales.jpeg? Then for evidence it should have been neither deleted nor redirected!
The inventory number should cases like Q24176001/Q24176005 be in the label I'd say or at least in the description.
Of course, we should also have an item for the edition/version of the two, but merging the exemplar items to a version item isn't a bad in my eyes. Perhaps the individual physical copies could be linked to the edition item with exemplar of (P1574). See Property talk:P1574#Widening for all works ?
For incunabula there are items like Biblia Latina [42 lines] (Q62052030) for individual physical edition exemplars and research projects like the Material Evidence in Incunabula database that collect such information. --Marsupium (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Inventory numbers certainly do not belong in the label and I prefer not to see them in descriptions - we have an inventory number (P217) property for storing this information. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 17:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, maybe not in the label. The first sentence of Help:Description though reads: “The description on a Wikidata entry is a short phrase designed to disambiguate items with the same or similar labels.” So if the inventory number is the only difference between the two disambiguating them it should be in the description, that's what descriptions are for. --Marsupium (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't start merging items. This is an project that involves research into the relationship betweeen the versions and merging is potentially detrimental to this work. Aside from that, this collection/project is frequently used as an example of how GLAMs can use Wikidata to augment their existing metadata and I am concerned that merging would mean we no longer have the whole collection in Wikidata. There are definitely improvements that can be made but it would be preferable to let the people involved with the project work without interference. Of course, if there are actual problems you should talk to us and the community. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 17:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Both items state quite clearly that they are part of the same book. Since they use the same image I assume they are of the same page. I suggest using the proper image and page numbers. As is, they should be merged. Jane023 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
If the National Library of Wales (Q666063) has two physical copies of that book edition and that print is in both of them they are clearly two different physical things, no? Then you think in general we shouldn't have items for physical copies of prints, but just for their editions? --Marsupium (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey if that were the case, then there would be two items for the books, but there is only one. Besides, this then becomes a wikisource issue, not a Wikidata issue. I am all for starting that conversation by the way, because I would like to see a new bibliographic project on top of Wikisource that gets rid of the language silos the works are locked into. I would also love to be able to directly reference all illustrations in Wikisource. But see Multichill's comments below - this has nothing to do with paintings. Shall we start a Wikiproject for engravings? Jane023 (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


@Jarekt: this is one of the reasons I started sum of all paintings and not sum of all art. You could call it the edition problem. We encounter it in multiple fields, most notably books, but of course also with prints and casts of sculptures. We generally have two things:
For paintings this is easy because the two are generally the same (exceptions like Bedroom in Arles (Q724377) of course exist). With prints with multiple notable copies you always end up with at least three items: One for the work, and at least two for the physical copies. Merging the copies becomes a nice mess of one work being in multiple collections, usually the use of applies to part (P518) is an indicator that it's time to split up the item. Currently I don't really spend a lot of time on fixing these kind of cases, because people keep importing statements to the concept item that should be on the physical instance item. Multichill (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for starting discussions on topics not directly related to paintings. I work with files on Commons that use "Artwork" template, many are paintings and many are not. I have an issue with objects which only differ by institution inventory number. It is unusual with paintings, but I had quite a few paintings where I could not import titles into labels because there was another item with a different painting, but with the same title and description in some language I do not speak. If we allow an item for every inventoried copy of the same print or a book, than we might be running into the same problem more often. --Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jarekt, Jane023: no worries about starting the discussion here, it's just a quite hard problem with a solution where it's hard to distinguish between the different items.
I would tackle this problem in the order: painting series (Q15727816), sculpture series (Q19479037), prints. Not item to use for prints here because series of prints (Q19960510) doesn't seem to be the right one. It's the same print, with different copies. Multichill (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, @Jarekt, Multichill, Marsupium, Sic19, Jane023: I have just seen this conversation. Taking the first example, I can confirm that these are two separate prints in the National Library of Wales collection. If you follow the links to our website at the beginning of the conversation you will see that there are different markings on each image. Most obviously, one has the name of the artist written in pencil in the bottom left corner. So we have two Wikidata items about 2 different (very similar) archival artifacts. A version of this print was published in a book as the data suggests but both now form part of the Welsh landscapes collection and the physical items are separate, loose pieces in this art archival collection - not bound in any volume. To add confusion, both wikidata items were using the same image from commons, but i have now corrected this. From a GLAM perspective its very important that we can share complete collections to Wikidata. Merging different items together breaks the link between catalogue entry and Wikidata item and reduces the accuracy and reuse value of the Wikidata. So please dont merge this or any other items which appear the same but have different identifiers/catalog numbers. Thanks! Jason.nlw (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info but you are not out of the woods yet. If we (as a group of insiders) can't see what the difference is, then others will just come along and merge them for all the same reasons: Same book and same image, whether or not the piece of paper has different marks. I suggest slapping on the "Different from" property for all of these confusing image pairs until you have established why we need two each of them to begin with. You are treading n the edge of Wikidata notabily rules here I think, because "we need a complete collection representation in Wikidata" is not going to help you make friends around here. Jane023 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jane023 thanks for the feedback. I'm a little surprised that artworks which are part of a national collection in a national institution might be considered not notable. I know they are not always the most aesthetically pleasing images, but they are of significant historical value none the less. We have also put in a fair amount of effort to insuring that these items have good descriptive data, and supporting items such as Printers and Publishers. I think adding the "different from" property is a good suggestion, and i will talk to @Sic19: about how we could go about doing that. Thanks for your patience Jason.nlw (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah welcome to my world! If it's a painting, you have a better chance, but other artworks are much less popular. And among the paintings we also have notability issues. We tend to hang out in our little GLAM bubble, but we do not have any policies that say "everything inventoried in national collections is worthy of an item". I would be inclined to vote yes on that one though, if someone writes it up. Jane023 (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Jane023, I am in broad agreement with the points you have made. While not directly relevant to the discussion about merging items, I think it is worth mentioning that these items were created over two years' ago and have been the topic of blogs and conference presentations. Generally, the response from the community has been positive. Obviously I am very bias, but, for me, the Welsh Landscape Collection remains a useful example of how Wikidata can be used to augment metadata and I would prefer that these items are not merged at the moment. The Wikidata items are now correcting the errors in the metadata on Commons (and thanks to MisterSynergy and Jarekt for their help) so there is some benefit to retaining separate items.
individual copy of book (Q53731850) can apparently be used for a digitised copy from a specific library. For example, On the laws and practice of horse racing (Q51514189) and On the laws and practice of horse racing, etc., etc (Q51425849) appear to be the same 1866, 2nd edition with the difference being the library stamps and markings on the digitised image. We don't even have images from these particular copies on Commons - the only image of this edition is from the Tufts University copy on Biodiversity Heritage Library (Q172266). To the best of my knowledge, neither the work nor edition are especially rare, valuable or of other special importance. If importing different digitised copies from archive.org is acceptable practice it would be inconsistent if we tell GLAM partners not to do similar with material from their collections. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 12:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
This issue is in two parts: 1) notabilty and 2) avoiding merges. For the first see my points above - no presentations will help you. That two years have passed is no surprise (this is not super popular stuff). For the second, you need to make sure it is obvious from the items that they are not the same thing and what their "claim to uniqueness is". Jane023 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The items are notable per WD:N#2. I don't see any problem here. The question is about the best modelling. I'll look into FRBRoo (Q5427036), might help. --Marsupium (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I think all those works are notable, however I was assuming that different copies of the same print are still the same print, even if the institutions might have different inventory numbers for them. It is kind of like with books, I imagine having items for individual editions but not for copies, even if a library has different bar code with unique ID for different copies of the same book. That way if a book or print has 100,000 copies we will not end up with 100,000 items for them. Items for individual copies would be OK for very valuable or rare items that might have unique provenance (object history) we want to keep track of, but if the only difference between 2 items is institution and inventory ID than I would vote for keeping them as one item. --Jarekt (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: we should keep separate items for separate copies if external references say so. So I wouldn't merge. And yes, having a structure like FRBR (wich is already use for books) could be useful to avoid to much redundancy in statements. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sic19, Jarekt, Marsupium, Jane023, Multichill, Jason.nlw: It would be useful to have an item other than print (Q11060274) for the items to be instance of (P31), when the item is intended to be for a single specific copy, rather than for a whole edition. For books we have individual copy of book (Q53731850), though it's not much used yet, and the name may not be brilliant (eg because one might want it to include a physical copy of a work with multiple volumes). Would a new item for "individual copy of a print" be a good idea? (Name could be up for improvement). Jheald (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: Thanks for bringing this forward!   Strong support for an "individual copy of a print" item, another label possibility would be "print exemplary", but "individual copy of a print" is perhaps even more clear. Please go forward and create the item! We could then also create a common superclass of that item and individual copy of book (Q53731850) which would be equivalent class (P1709) <http://erlangen-crm.org/efrbroo/F5_Item>, the FRBRoo class for "This class comprises physical objects (printed books, scores, CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMS, etc.) that carry a F24 Publication Expression and were produced by an industrial process involving a F3 Manifestation Product Type." --Marsupium (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support and "individual copy of a print" name sounds good. --Jarekt (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
New item individual copy of a map (Q63872468) now exists. Jheald (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I've renamed individual copy of book (Q53731850) to make it align the wording. --Marsupium (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: This seems like a good suggestion to me, and certainly fits in with the GLAM approach to cataloguing and describing items. I would support the creation of an "individual copy of a print" item, and would be happy to go back over past uploads and make use of it. Jason.nlw (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what your metadata looks like, but ideally, things that are *instance of* an "individual copy of a <fill word in here>" would link to the original thing (or supposed original, or former original no longer in existence or no longer known location etc). I think having items for multiple copies of notable prints is desirable, but maybe not if they don't link to each other somehow. Normally I would say the link (star-like linking concept) to the original is key, but I also know from experience that scholars disagree on origins of such things. The general goal is to reduce confusion for those that come after you on an item-by-item basis. Jane023 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

“individual …” items' detailsEdit

  • item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) is very vague and not very useful in my eyes. Its current English description is (since changed by Dominic in November) "defines an item, such as an object or document, that is a member of a collection or part of a repository". That makes it more or less useless as a superclass because instances of most classes may be in a collection or not. And the definition of a class of things by their (possible) presence in a collection is very vague. Currently, it is item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) subclass of (P279) physical object (Q223557).
    TL;DR: Can't we just skip item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) in superclasses and especially constraints and use directly physical object (Q223557) or does the intermediate step of item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) add any value? --Marsupium (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Marsupium: item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) is used (at least in my case) when importing from collections datasets that do not necessarily provide more specific data (or that hasn't yet been imported, or that hasn't yet been modeled, etc.) about the type of thing the catalog record is about. We have this catchall, at least, because we can confidently say it is an item in a collection if that is the basis on which we are importing it. I don't like how it is currently described, though, as not all items from a collection are necessarily physical objects—some are electronic records, audiovisual materials, etc. I don't understand why it is a subclass of that, really. Dominic (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Dominic: Thanks for your reply! I can understand that use case and it's a reason for having this item. It isn't a reason for this "catchall's" frequent use in the classification system though I think. --Marsupium (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Just catching up on the discussion above and this is related. It also applies to paintings before photography, in the time when "museums" were a new thing in many communities in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Creating "individual copy" for things like old casts of artefacts like dinosaur bones or the Nefertiti bust seems like a good idea for more things than maps, not just for paintings and prints of them. Jane023 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Cézanne's Catalogue raisonné online https://www.cezannecatalogue.comEdit

Is this catalogue used as reference on the project ? is there a property for it ?

Thanks for your help, --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: I added a note to Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Paul Cézanne some time ago. I think I stopped when I noticed I had to register. Multichill (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I registered. But, there is no password, for what I could see. --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

corporate art collectionsEdit

I want to add artwork of two corporate art collection (Q64153060) (item just created). Are there guidelines how to model artworks in corporate art collections? Do we prefer to map them to a special item 'collection of..' or trust, or to the main organisation? Are there already examples? --Hannolans (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Colour schemeEdit

The colour scheme in the "Property statistics" table applies to Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Property statistics/Sandbox, but doesn't fit with the colours used in Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Property statistics. Pietro (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Watercolors and lists of paintings...Edit

@Multichill, Yann: and Multichill (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC), focus on the Netherlands Husky (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) - Cool, i'd like to focus on building tools to visualise progress. Spinster (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Happy to help with manual finetuning that can't be done by bots, and anything else on the 'soft/wet' side of this project. I'm dreaming of complete artists' oeuvres on Wikidata! Rich Farmbrough (talk) Time to learn2Wikidata Jheald (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Kippelboy (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan paintings (subdivision of Spain) Mushroom (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) work on Dutch 17th-century paintings and landscapes of Haarlem; Most recently, the sum of all "attributed" paintings by Frans Hals, which is nearly done Missvain (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Zolo (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Swiss heritage institutions) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) KRLS (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan area museums) DivadH (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ,happy to help out with any questions in regards to the Europeana API, how to best query it, and/or our metadata Xcia0069 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Work on data related to Gianlorenzo Bernini and Artemisia Gentileschi. Work at Europeana too ! Susannaanas (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Fabrice Florin (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I can help in California later this year. Vaughn88 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I can help! Raymond Ellis (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Hsarrazin (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - will give a hand with Creators and AC :) louis-garden (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) for italian paintings (XIIe-XVIIe) Olivier (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Kopiersperre (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC) ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Micru (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Geraki (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (Focus on Greece) PatHadley (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Working to get data from the University of Oxford (Q34433) and its component institutions shared on Wikidata. Pablísima (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Carl Ha (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Shani Evenstein (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Nasty nas (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Sarasays (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Thierry Caro (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) John Samuel 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Reosarevok (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Subsublibrary (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Martingggg (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Argentine and Hispanic America Kruusamägi (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia SIryn (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC), focus on moving metadata from Commons to Wikidata Walkuraxx (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Omotecho (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC), focus on Japan GualdimG (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Léna (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Yann (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Paul Cézanne (Q35548) for a start... Abbe98 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject sum of all paintings

Hi,

As was said here, I added watercolor painting (Q18761202) as P31 to many of Paul Cézanne (Q35548) works. As a consequence, those are not listed in Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Paul Cézanne.

As watercolor painting (Q18761202) is a subclass of painting (Q3305213), shouldn't the query for the list be modified to include subclasses ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Redesign this pageEdit

Multichill (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC), focus on the Netherlands Husky (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) - Cool, i'd like to focus on building tools to visualise progress. Spinster (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Happy to help with manual finetuning that can't be done by bots, and anything else on the 'soft/wet' side of this project. I'm dreaming of complete artists' oeuvres on Wikidata! Rich Farmbrough (talk) Time to learn2Wikidata Jheald (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Kippelboy (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan paintings (subdivision of Spain) Mushroom (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) work on Dutch 17th-century paintings and landscapes of Haarlem; Most recently, the sum of all "attributed" paintings by Frans Hals, which is nearly done Missvain (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Zolo (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Swiss heritage institutions) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) KRLS (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan area museums) DivadH (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ,happy to help out with any questions in regards to the Europeana API, how to best query it, and/or our metadata Xcia0069 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Work on data related to Gianlorenzo Bernini and Artemisia Gentileschi. Work at Europeana too ! Susannaanas (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Fabrice Florin (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I can help in California later this year. Vaughn88 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I can help! Raymond Ellis (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Hsarrazin (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - will give a hand with Creators and AC :) louis-garden (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) for italian paintings (XIIe-XVIIe) Olivier (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Kopiersperre (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC) ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Micru (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Geraki (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (Focus on Greece) PatHadley (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Working to get data from the University of Oxford (Q34433) and its component institutions shared on Wikidata. Pablísima (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Carl Ha (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Shani Evenstein (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Nasty nas (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Sarasays (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Thierry Caro (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) John Samuel 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Reosarevok (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Subsublibrary (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Martingggg (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Argentine and Hispanic America Kruusamägi (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia SIryn (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC), focus on moving metadata from Commons to Wikidata Walkuraxx (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Omotecho (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC), focus on Japan GualdimG (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Léna (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Yann (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Paul Cézanne (Q35548) for a start... Abbe98 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject sum of all paintings This page is outdated and in need of a redesign. Anyone willing to pick this up? I would probably focus on:

Within these focus areas we have several views of the data based on properties:

And more like genre (P136), inception (P571), etc. Do have a look in Category:WikiProject sum of all paintings. It contains a lot of pages not linked from the main page. Who wants to help? Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Sandbox is probably a good starting point. Multichill (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Does

Multichill (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC), focus on the Netherlands Husky (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC) - Cool, i'd like to focus on building tools to visualise progress. Spinster (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Happy to help with manual finetuning that can't be done by bots, and anything else on the 'soft/wet' side of this project. I'm dreaming of complete artists' oeuvres on Wikidata! Rich Farmbrough (talk) Time to learn2Wikidata Jheald (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Kippelboy (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan paintings (subdivision of Spain) Mushroom (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Jane023 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) work on Dutch 17th-century paintings and landscapes of Haarlem; Most recently, the sum of all "attributed" paintings by Frans Hals, which is nearly done Missvain (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Zolo (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Beat Estermann (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (Focus on Swiss heritage institutions) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) KRLS (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (Focus on Catalan area museums) DivadH (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ,happy to help out with any questions in regards to the Europeana API, how to best query it, and/or our metadata Xcia0069 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Work on data related to Gianlorenzo Bernini and Artemisia Gentileschi. Work at Europeana too ! Susannaanas (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Wittylama (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Fabrice Florin (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I can help in California later this year. Vaughn88 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I can help! Raymond Ellis (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Hsarrazin (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - will give a hand with Creators and AC :) louis-garden (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) for italian paintings (XIIe-XVIIe) Olivier (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Kopiersperre (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC) ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Micru (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Geraki (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC) (Focus on Greece) PatHadley (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Working to get data from the University of Oxford (Q34433) and its component institutions shared on Wikidata. Pablísima (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Carl Ha (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Shani Evenstein (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Nasty nas (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Sarasays (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Thierry Caro (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) John Samuel 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Reosarevok (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Subsublibrary (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Martingggg (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC), focus on Argentine and Hispanic America Kruusamägi (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC), focus on Estonia SIryn (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC), focus on moving metadata from Commons to Wikidata Walkuraxx (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Omotecho (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC), focus on Japan GualdimG (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Léna (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Yann (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Paul Cézanne (Q35548) for a start... Abbe98 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject sum of all paintings

work now? Multichill (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes I got this ping. I agree it would be nice to redesign the page, perhaps with as little text as possible (due to translation concerns). Not sure how to approach the problem, but ideally we could make a "list of lists", maybe split out per country for national collections? Jane023 (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject sum of all paintings".