Wikidata:Property proposal/Proposals for files

Proposals for files

Flickr File

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Not done

Description	File from Flickr
Represents	Flickr (Q103204)
Data type	External identifier
Example	Barbie (Q167447) 36065096436 →
Source	www.flickr.com
Formatter URL	https://www.flickr.com/photos/„$1
See also	Flickr user ID (P3267) image (P18)

Pixabay File

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Not done

Description	File from Pixabay
Represents	Pixabay (Q1746538)
Data type	External identifier
Example	Andromeda (Q161582) 279797 →
Source	pixabay.com
Formatter URL	https://pixabay.com/„$1
See also	image (P18)

Motivation

To overcome Derivative work problems because many articles and items can not contain images because of these requests --David (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC) David (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Oppose In neither of those cases I see a good reason to link to the image in the items. ChristianKl (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChristianKl:Do you mean that these files are not useful?It's opposite Commons files David (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commons does the job of storing images well enough. I see no reason to link Flickr Photos that don't have a copyright that's compatbile with WikiCommons to Wikidata. Commons has plenty of images of Barbie dolls ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Barbie_dolls ) I don't see why you would prefer the linked image over them. ChristianKl (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @ChristianKl:The files at those sites are different from Commons, in appearance and licenses David (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, the files don't have free licenses. Therefore it's not good to link to them. Linking to a file with a free license is much better. ChristianKl (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @ChristianKl:YouTube also contains videos that are not free but have a property David (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose image (P18) does an enough good job. --Pasleim (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pasleim: This property is for Commons, but the proposal for images from other sites are not suitable for Commons See "Motivation" David (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Flickr as YouTube also contains videos that are not free but [we] have a property [for them], Oppose for Pixabay (why not just reupload the file to Commons if it is CC0 already?), as image (P18) is restricted to files on Commons. Mahir256 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahir256: There are files not suitable for Commons See "Motivation" and the example David (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl, Pasleim, Mahir256: Those files are quite different from Commons files David (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- David, I don't have the feeling like you engage the arguments. Yes, those files on Commons are different but Wikidata is open data project and as such there's no good reason to link to unfree images. ChristianKl (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ChristianKl: What separates images from all the other non-free content Wikidata links to? Why link to non-free videos, non-free text, and non-free files but not non-free images? I think these questions are what David is trying to get at. Mahir256 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @ChristianKl: Flickr is like YouTube like all internet sites David (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikicommons doesn't host videos and as a result we can't host videos we want to link to our items directly. That makes video's different from photos.

When you say that Wikidata links to non-free text, what do you mean? We don't have properties like "New York Times article ID". A New York Times article gets rather linked in the reference portion. ChristianKl (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl: Are these not videos, then? Are Encyclopædia Britannica or the Great Aragonese Encyclopedia or Banglapedia not hosts of non-free text? Mahir256 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right and we do have 1540 commons videos interlinked in Wikidata.

When I look at the usage of the Youtube video property it's frequently used for linking music videos to songs. That seems to me like a useful function that can't be fulfilled by WikiCommons. I'm less fond on the usage on malaria (Q12156). To me it's not clear why this film should be featured on this item.

For a case like having a barbie image I don't see a similar need as Youtube videos of songs and I consider WikiCommons to be perfectly suitable for storing related images.

Encyclopedia's do contain text but they contain a specific kind of text that we consider to be useful to be crosslinked. ChristianKl (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both of them. Since a portrait of "John Doe IV" is not "the file of John Doe IV in Flickr/Pixabay" but "a random portrait of John Doe IV in Flickr/Pixabay", the use of these properties would be too problematic. Any way, it would be way more useful having a generic single-value property such as "external image url" than a "Pixabay/Flickr file", but, again, it would be gruesome selecting which random-not-free-licensed-photograph in the internet (or in Pixabay or in Flickr) we will promote in Wikidata about every existing thing (the result of any of these properties not being "single value" would be hilarious). strakhov (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Strakhov, Mahir256, Pasleim, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Not done, given 3 oppose votes and only one support vote. ChristianKl (✉) 13:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]