Proposal talk:Artwork subject=sheela-na-gig
Punctuation
I suggest artwork_subject=sheela_na_gig (i.e. underscore _, not dashes -) in keeping with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_values Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's for multiple words in place of whitespace. This can be a hyphenated compound word, as seen from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-39705545 and the https://heritagemaps.ie/documents/SheelaNaGig.pdf it reported. The referenced song title is also hyphenated --- Kovposch (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I used this form when I mapped one 3734662115
3734662115 a few years back. SK53 (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Welp sculpture=* would be defined values, while *subject=* is freeform text. --- Kovposch (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- All tags are free-form text ("any tags you like"), and if there is a difference between keys, one may discriminate between ones which are unlikely to have any form of validations (e.g., name=* and those that dont. If artwork_subject=* is truly in this latter category it surely does not require a proposal for a given value. I'm suggesting that these should be mapped as a type not as a subject (although the subject would be implicit), whether that be as sculpture or something else doesn't really concern me too much. I don't regularly encounter these so according to OSM first principles I used tags which seemed appropriate (broadly speaking I still think they are appropriate), and I'm certainly not going to raise a proposal so I can map something. SK53 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Welp sculpture=* would be defined values, while *subject=* is freeform text. --- Kovposch (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I used this form when I mapped one 3734662115
Sheelas already mapped under different tags
I cannot change the proposal now, so I'll just leave them here for the record:
- Molly the Púca at Ballinacarraiga Castle as
artwork_type=sheela_na_gig
B-unicycling (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Also 3734662115 3734662115 in the churchyard at Braunston, Rutland. SK53 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
wikidata link
I kind of get what people are saying about the subject:wikidata=* key, but how do you suppose to link to Wikipedia/ Wikidata to give general information about them? Would you have known what they are? Would you be curious, if you came across one without any explanation nearby? If so, how would you go about finding out? Should there be an artwork_subject:wikidata=* key instead? B-unicycling (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Generally, when I want to know what some OSM tag (like "artwork_type=sheela_na_gig") is about, I visit OSM wiki for that tag, which contains explanations (and possibly further links to wikipedia, wikidata, etc). It would be highly unpractical and huge waste to add tag with explanation to every instance of type of an object! E.g. imagine if you wanted to know exact difference between "pub" and a "bar" on OSM -- you should then look at OSM wiki for those keys (e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=pub and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=bar), and not expect every "pub" OSM object to be marked with same "subject:wikidata" key of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q212198 (and every "bar" marked with same https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q187456)! Same here, you'd lookup https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:artwork_subject=sheela-na-gig (when it's created, of course) --mnalis (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- (1) follow link to documentation on OSM Wiki (2) google the "sheela-na-gig" term using my favorite search engine. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is not my intended use for subject:wikidata=* - I was aiming at people using a satnav app like OSMAnd or OrganicMaps who do not even know there is an OSM Wiki, but come across a sheela and just click on the artwork icon in the app. I thought that that was owhat all the wikipedia and wikidata links were for, not for internal mappers' use. I doubt anyone going into a pub/ bar wants to know the difference, as long as they can get alcohol in there. B-unicycling (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- subject:wikidata=* is supposed to be describing subject of artwork - not its form. sheela-na-gig is not subject of typical sheela-na-gig. It seems that "I want to display link in OM/Osmand" is a case of Mistagging for the renderer here Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm utterly lost now; I cannot follow your reasoning at all. How is a sheela-na-gig not a sheela-na-gig? If you had a statue of St. Patrick, what wikidata/ wikipedia link system would you use, if there isn't a wikipedia article about that specific statue? B-unicycling (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to have lost "is not subject of" part of the "sheela-na-gig is not subject of typical sheela-na-gig" sentence. It is important, that's why dropping it makes the statement confusing. To clarify answer to your question about St. Patrick: if there isn't specific wikipedia/wikidata entry about that specific statue, then you would not use subject:wikidata=* at all. The whole point of subject:wikidata is that it is about that specific subject. If there is no wikipedia/wikidata entry about that specific subject, then you either do not add "subject:wikidata" tag, or you create wikipedia/wikidata entry about that specific subject and then use "subject:wikidata" tag to link to it. Is that clearer? There are good reasons why we don't link to wikipedia/wikidata about generic terms, that I've tried (seemingly unsuccessfully) to explain above with "bar"/"pub" analogy (i.e. horribly problematic useless database bloat), so asking "how do I do that" is wrong question. What you probably want to ask (or so it seems to me) is probably something like "how do I make OsmAnd/etc. display an explanation of the some generic feature on the map to the interested user?", which is a good question but should be asked on their communication channel instead. What I can say here is only that abusing "subject:wikidata" is most definitely not the way. --mnalis (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- To make it more confusing: I would be fine with using subject:wikidata=* to link specific saint (and wikidata=*/wikipedia=* to link entry about specific statue). But sheela-na-gig seems to be a type of statue, not the actually depicted thing, right? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- "How is a sheela-na-gig not a sheela-na-gig" sheela-na-gig is sheela-na-gig, not a depiction of sheela-na-gig (what it depicts is not really solved). In the same as wooden sculpture is a wooden sculpture and typically not a depiction of a wooden sculpture. (does it make sense?) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- It hasn't made it clearer to me. If I see a sculpture of a bearded man with a key on a church, I know it depicts St. Peter. If I see a relief of a naked woman with an exaggerated vulva, I know it is a sheela-na-gig. We might not know what it symbolizes, but the subject of the artwork is still a sheela-na-gig, just like the subject of the artwork for a bearded man with a key is St. Peter. Maybe I just don't understand the tag subject:wikidata=*. I guess I'll just have to write wikipedia articles about every sheela I've mapped and will be mapping, and that will "simplify" the tagging. B-unicycling (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm note sure if you're being sarcastic there (about creating separate wikipedia page about every instance of sheela-na-gig), but please do note that Wikipedia has its own rules about what may be added, especially WP:Notability. If some specific sheela-na-gig had its own separate story and is easily distinguishable from all others (like "St.Peter" is distinguishable from other "Saints"), then it might satisfy WP:N and new article about that specific sheela-na-gig might be included. If it does not, than new wikipedia article is not acceptable (and if I were to guess, I'd guess that for the vast majority of them, new wikipedia article would not be acceptable). --mnalis (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- "If I see a sculpture of a bearded man with a key on a church, I know it depicts St. Peter" - "depicts St. Peter" - therefore it is subject of this artwork. "is a sheela-na-gig" - so it is specific subtype of artwork called "sheela-na-gig" but "sheela-na-gig" is not a subject of artwork. Similarly if there would be a blue statue of St. Peter then St. Peter would be subject of artwork, but colour blue would not be Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- User talk:B-unicycling, perhaps distinction about "generic category/type" vs. "specific instance/individual" would be clearer if you approach if from the other side and ask yourself "what can I say about this specific X that is incorrect about all other related Y?" There are many things you can say about "St.Peter" that are incorrect about all other "Saints", so it is OK to have subject:wikidata=* to link to St.Peter/Q33923. But it would not be ok to have subject:wikidata=* link to generic Saint/Q43115. What can you say about some specific "sheela-na-gig" that is provably incorrect about all other "sheela-na-gigs"? If there is some, then it perhaps might qualify for it's own wikidata entry, and you can use subject:wikidata=* to link to that specific entry. But if there are not, you may not use subject:wikidata=* to link to generic Sheela-na-gig/Q509424. Does this clear it up? --mnalis (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- WRT to the Statue of Saint Peter, I disagree that wikidata:subject=Q43115 (Saint) would not be ok. It is less specific then Q33923 (which would also imply it is a Saint, i.e. it should be preferred), but the subject is still a Saint, and if you do not know more than it is a Saint, it would be perfectly fine to add this information, much better than nothing. It can always be retagged later to a more specific value (would be even relatively easy to find out which wikidata:subject tags are pointing to generic objects). The wiki by the way does not specify anything more concrete than "it is the subject". --Dieterdreist (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- ...and if we're not sure if the Peter was canonized (thus becoming saint), we should use wikidata:subject=Q17573152 "believer"? But perhaps we aren't even sure of that, so we might use Q215627 "person"? It quickly goes down the rabbit hole. Also, if "more broad" data is OK, shouldn't we then also add wikidata=Q860861 "sculpture" to all sculptures that we don't know exact details of? And artist:wikidata=Q15978631 "homo sapiens" if we don't know who the author was exactly, but we're pretty sure they were human? Surely you notice the database bloat and useless repetition of (non-)information if one chooses to go down that way? --mnalis (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- WRT to the Statue of Saint Peter, I disagree that wikidata:subject=Q43115 (Saint) would not be ok. It is less specific then Q33923 (which would also imply it is a Saint, i.e. it should be preferred), but the subject is still a Saint, and if you do not know more than it is a Saint, it would be perfectly fine to add this information, much better than nothing. It can always be retagged later to a more specific value (would be even relatively easy to find out which wikidata:subject tags are pointing to generic objects). The wiki by the way does not specify anything more concrete than "it is the subject". --Dieterdreist (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- It hasn't made it clearer to me. If I see a sculpture of a bearded man with a key on a church, I know it depicts St. Peter. If I see a relief of a naked woman with an exaggerated vulva, I know it is a sheela-na-gig. We might not know what it symbolizes, but the subject of the artwork is still a sheela-na-gig, just like the subject of the artwork for a bearded man with a key is St. Peter. Maybe I just don't understand the tag subject:wikidata=*. I guess I'll just have to write wikipedia articles about every sheela I've mapped and will be mapping, and that will "simplify" the tagging. B-unicycling (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to have lost "is not subject of" part of the "sheela-na-gig is not subject of typical sheela-na-gig" sentence. It is important, that's why dropping it makes the statement confusing. To clarify answer to your question about St. Patrick: if there isn't specific wikipedia/wikidata entry about that specific statue, then you would not use subject:wikidata=* at all. The whole point of subject:wikidata is that it is about that specific subject. If there is no wikipedia/wikidata entry about that specific subject, then you either do not add "subject:wikidata" tag, or you create wikipedia/wikidata entry about that specific subject and then use "subject:wikidata" tag to link to it. Is that clearer? There are good reasons why we don't link to wikipedia/wikidata about generic terms, that I've tried (seemingly unsuccessfully) to explain above with "bar"/"pub" analogy (i.e. horribly problematic useless database bloat), so asking "how do I do that" is wrong question. What you probably want to ask (or so it seems to me) is probably something like "how do I make OsmAnd/etc. display an explanation of the some generic feature on the map to the interested user?", which is a good question but should be asked on their communication channel instead. What I can say here is only that abusing "subject:wikidata" is most definitely not the way. --mnalis (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm utterly lost now; I cannot follow your reasoning at all. How is a sheela-na-gig not a sheela-na-gig? If you had a statue of St. Patrick, what wikidata/ wikipedia link system would you use, if there isn't a wikipedia article about that specific statue? B-unicycling (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- subject:wikidata=* is supposed to be describing subject of artwork - not its form. sheela-na-gig is not subject of typical sheela-na-gig. It seems that "I want to display link in OM/Osmand" is a case of Mistagging for the renderer here Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is not my intended use for subject:wikidata=* - I was aiming at people using a satnav app like OSMAnd or OrganicMaps who do not even know there is an OSM Wiki, but come across a sheela and just click on the artwork icon in the app. I thought that that was owhat all the wikipedia and wikidata links were for, not for internal mappers' use. I doubt anyone going into a pub/ bar wants to know the difference, as long as they can get alcohol in there. B-unicycling (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
As JeroenHoek pointed out on the mailing list, the inclusion of subject:wikidata=* in this proposal may have stemmed from a typo I made on Key:artwork_subject a while back. [1] I apologize for the confusion and have corrected the mistake.
The semantic arguments above would've been less fraught had the proposal recommended artwork_subject:wikidata=* instead; however, in that case, we'd still be debating the utility of making a specific *:wikidata=* value synonymous with another more readable tag. The alternative would just be to link a data item to a Wikidata item. In this manner, data consumers can automatically infer the meaning of denomination=apostolic_assembly_of_the_faith_in_christ_jesus by looking up the Wikidata concept (P12) statement of denomination=apostolic_assembly_of_the_faith_in_christ_jesus (Q21316) that's set to d:Q3625552. There's no need to tag each church, school, or cemetery associated with this denomination with the same QID.
From the perspective of OpenStreetMap, Wikidata QIDs are an implementation detail for fetching more information automatically. They aren't intended to be shortcodes that applications would present to the end user so they can look up this information manually.
– Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Artwork Subject or a Type of Artwork in its own right
Instinctively I see sheela-na-gigs as being highly distinctive artworks in their own right, rather than purely representational art. Their primary purpose is or was as fertility symbols, so I think that moving their purpose to an at-one-remove tag seems counterintuitive. There certainly are sheela-na-gigs which are representational art, the most obvious to my mind is the one in the corbel table at Kilpeck
. Wikimedia has a number of other examples of sheelas as part of overall decorative schemes in early medieval churches. However, the Braunston example, possibly not truly a sheela-na-gig is quite different, and was used for fertility offerings in the modern era (1970s IIRC). My understanding is that the proposal relates much more to this latter type than those which form a minor part of a more complex artworks. In other words I'm with the Irish heritage bodies: these are highly distinctive things rather than purely an unusual example of representative art. I would therefore prefer another key. SK53 (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)