Wikidata:Property proposal/scientific illustration
reference illustration
[edit]Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
| Description | an illustration of this subject to provide a detailed reference for its appearance. It should be ideally tied to the primary literature on the item. |
|---|---|
| Represents | scientific illustration (Q63385677) |
| Data type | Commons media file |
| Example 1 | Gallotia simonyi (Q268724)→File:Gallotia_simonyi-female.norarte.jpg |
| Example 2 | optic chiasm (Q1071710)→Gray773.png |
| Example 3 | spur-thighed tortoise (Q504549)→File:Testudo_graeca_-_1700-1880_-_Print_-_Iconographia_Zoologica_-_Special_Collections_University_of_Amsterdam_-_UBA01_IZ11600011.tif |
| Example 4 | goniometer (Q1126161)→File:Britannica_Goniometer_Contact.png |
| Planned use | Manually fill technical/scientific illustrations for subjects of interest, in special biological taxa |
| See also | image (P18), schematic (P5555) |
Motivation
[edit]While we do have a property for schematics (schematic (P5555)), in several cases there are informative scientific illustrations that are not schematic, but rather detailed representations of a particular subject.
For some cases where a photo is available (e.g. spur-thighed tortoise (Q504549)), the use of image (P18) for the illustration would be disputable, justifying the need of a more specific property.
TiagoLubiana (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Edit: besides the content in the template, it would be good to add "scientific illustration" and "technical illustration" as aliases. TiagoLubiana (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- 
Support - Jvcavv (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Tend to 
Oppose for the following reason: simply put it into the image property. --Prototyperspective (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see the point there, but I argue there are many cases where a dedicated property for a particular facet exists for image (P18), like aerial view (P8592) or image of backside (P7417).
- The illustrations add extra visual information, thus complementing P18. Overloading P18 with multiple kinds of image is usually a bad idea, because it limits reuse, say, on infoboxes or dedicated queries. TiagoLubiana (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- You could argue the same a thousand times for each and every subtype of image.
- Having a separate property for this type of image is also a problem
- it's not showing up in queries for image
- lots of files have these illustrations in image instead (and most users will not learn there's a separate prop for this either btw)
- Also when people don't see a file in scientific illustration they may assume no such exists/is set when it's in the Images tab
- like videos these then won't be suggested for Wikipedia articles via structured tasks
- I don't think any concrete tangible need or benefit for splitting it out like that. The infobox can already show scientific illustrations by making that the primary image and when there is a photo of an animal enabling the user to easily see the illustration is not needed and more cluttering than anything else.
- Prototyperspective (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Biodiversity TiagoLubiana (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support - Do not see the harm in it and it may be beneficial for those seeking this subset of images. Loopy30 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - I think this would be a welcome enrichment of Wikidata. However, I find "scientific" a bit to vague, which leaves room for different interpretations. How about calling this property “Reference illustration”, instead. --Andrawaag (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Good point! "Reference illustration" makes sense. I am okay with the name being "reference illustration" and having "technical illustration" and "scientific illustration" as aliases. Would that work? TiagoLubiana (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Support and support of rename and aliases as just above. Ainali (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I also support the rename as it makes the property of more general application. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am somewhat neutral as it is currently defined. If your going to make a reference illustration of a scientific object such as a species for example, to be classified as a reference illustration there should be a high degree of certainty that it is what it is intended to be, not some random photo from Commons that purports to portray the species. So it should be an illustration/ photo that is tied to the primary literature on the item. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good point. I think both cases are valid, but it is, indeed, not 100% clear. Would it improve the situation if I added to the description saying that the image should be ideally an "illustration that is tied to the primary literature on the item"? TiagoLubiana (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- yes that should help and I would support it then. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am a bit on the fence for such a long name, leaning towards not. Yes there is the issue of uncertainty with the images on commons, but don't you think that the reference and qualifier feature on statements on wikidata provides the means to say something on the provenance of the selected image or illustration. --Andrawaag (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- To add that we might also build on the possibility to use the statements coming with SDC in commons. My preference would be to stick with the short name and then use those features in both commons and wikidata to say something about the provenance --Andrawaag (talk) Andrawaag (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good point. I think both cases are valid, but it is, indeed, not 100% clear. Would it improve the situation if I added to the description saying that the image should be ideally an "illustration that is tied to the primary literature on the item"? TiagoLubiana (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Support this will cover a large number of historical illustrations in commons.Lmalena (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment I would prefer an expansion of schematic (P5555) which could have this title as alias, but also "historical image", "architectural drawing" (which would work well with image of design plans (P3311), "symbolic representation", etc. A schematic for the tortoise could be this: File:Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural history) By Richard Lydekker (1888) (20571159432).jpg. I also think for species in particular, some sort of image property qualifier for common region- or season-specific variants could be proposed.Jane023 (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
_By_Richard_Lydekker_(1888)_(20571159432).jpg){kind=link}