Property talk:P9493

Value type “organization (Q43229), collection (Q2668072)”: This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value organization (Q43229), collection (Q2668072) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9493#Value type Q43229, Q2668072, SPARQL

Qualifiers “described at URL (P973), applies to part, aspect, or form (P518), URL (P2699), inventory number (P217), subject named as (P1810), level of description (P6224), title (P1476), location (P276), retrieved (P813), start of covered period (P7103), end of covered period (P7104), access restriction status (P7228), use restriction status (P7261), collection (P195), collection creator (P6241), type of document(s) held (P11868)”: this property should be used only with the listed qualifiers. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9493#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9493#Entity types

Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9493#Scope, SPARQL

Type “person or organization (Q106559804), group of humans (Q16334295), work of art (Q838948)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)” with classes “person or organization (Q106559804), group of humans (Q16334295), work of art (Q838948)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9493#Type Q106559804, Q16334295, Q838948, SPARQL

Hello @Aceven, Fuzheado, ASR06, Infopetal, Arbnos, Sp!ros: @Artchivist1, Berthoudh, UWashPrincipalCataloger:,

I would propose to change the Labels of this Property. Is't possible to rename it :

• (in English) "documentation files at" or "documented files at" instead of "artist files at"?
• (in French) "dossier documentaire détenu par" au lieu de "dossier d'artiste détenu par"?
• etc.

It's a more general concept and it will be certainly usefull. Otherwise we will have to propose the creation of the proterty "documentation/documented files at" with a meaning very close of this one.

A documented file could be about a lot of subject. Not only artist. By example:

• a painting (as you already mentionned trough your examples) artist files at (P9493) of American Gothic (Q464782).
• a mythical humanoid race artist files at (P9493) of Prometheus (Q83160)
• a political person artist files at (P9493) of Nelson Mandela (Q8023)

Thanks for your opinion!

Poke @Gilliane, Anchardo, LuciOle, Flor WMCH, Shonagon: @Hsarrazin, VIGNERON:

--SAPA bdc (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SAPA bdc Good point about more general application of a property as opposed to a narrower application such as artist files at (P9493). However, the proposed new term, "documented files" would hardly convey the ephemeral nature of the material type. And not commonly understood by users as in the art and artist environment. The material type, ephemera, is unique and unambiguous. Practitioners of the art community abides to the professional guide and its best practices (alluded to by Sherman.clarke). Did you not find archives at (P485) property a good alternative property describing your items? jshieh (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"artist file" is a term in common usage within the art library community, and the property was proposed with this specific use case/need, so I'm not sure there would be support for changing it to something broader. I have never heard the term "documentation file" before, and I am not sure if it is used in any community. I have seen terms like "vertical file", "pamphlet file" and "clipping file" used for clippings on a topic held by libraries, so perhaps one of those might be more appropriate. The Smithsonian site Art and Artist Files describes artist files as "files that contain ephemera such as exhibition announcements, newspaper and magazine clippings, press releases, brochures, reviews, invitations to gallery shows, illustrations, résumés, artists' statements, small catalogs, and/or reproductions." The concept clearly isn't limited to files on artists. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with @UWashPrincipalCataloger Sp!ros (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "archives at" (P485) mostly meet the same need as "documentation files at"? "Documentation is such a non-specific term and could mean almost any sort of record. The "artist files at" property (P9493) was specifically created to fulfill a need that several museum librarians and archivists identified, and is a term well-understood in the art world. I wouldn't want to see it diluted by changing the title to "documentation files at"; perhaps that is a term worth creating a new property for, but I would favor leaving the property for "artist files at" as is. Uncommon fritillary (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, "archives at" would not be the same. At my previous institution, we had vertical files in file cabinets on the main, public floor of the library, available to anyone to peruse. These were in no way archival collections, and the pamphlets, clippings, photographs, offprints, maps, etc. (i.e., mostly ephemera) in them could be checked out by our users. If a broader property to "artist files at" is needed, probably "vertical files at" would make more sense to me than "documentation files at". I think "vertical file" is a well known and comprehensible term. There is an entry in the Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science for it and a Wikidata item for it already. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with those who have spoken in favor of retaining "artist files at" as the term has value for the user of art library collections. It is a specific type of documentation or archive, and even not simply miscellaneous ephemera. The Art Libraries Society of North America has published Artist Files Revealed which includes a statement of purpose as well as being a guide to best practices. Sherman.clarke (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all your precisions. To following your advices, I have propose to create a new property "documentated files at". Don't hesitate to participe to the discussion. SAPA bdc (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]