Wikidata:Property proposal/depicted without

depicted without

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Not done

Description	image illustrates the absence of this object. Only use with values that are present in similar images or that could have be assumed as present. Compare with "depicts" (P180), "does not have part" (P3113)
Data type	Item
Domain	CommonsMedia
Allowed units	n/a
Example 1	File:Tower of Pisa Italy detail top.jpg → Dal Pozzo (Q95982109)
Example 2	File:Unidentified roses with sign 'Astrid Lindgren'.jpg → Rosa 'Astrid Lindgren' (Q4048433)
Example 3	File:Times Square - 49874280633.jpg → crowd (Q13430821)
Example 10	without Dal Pozzo (Q95982109) with Dal Pozzo (Q95982109) (for comparison with previous) without Rosa 'Astrid Lindgren' (Q4048433) (misidentified per discussion) with Rosa 'Astrid Lindgren' (Q4048433) (for comparison with previous) without crowd (Q13430821) with crowd (Q13430821) (for comparison with previous)
See also	depicts (P180) ↔ ? has part(s) of the class (P2670) ↔ does not have part (P3113) has characteristic (P1552) ↔ does not have characteristic (P6477) including (P1012) ↔ excluding (P1011) has cause (P828) ↔ does not have cause has effect (P1542) ↔ does not have effect (P7167)

Motivation

Commons uses depicts (P180) to describe what's visible in an image. Some images are suitable to illustrate elements that can be expected there, but aren't. Obviously not any value should be used with this property. Generally, there would be another image with that element visible. For the first sample this would be File:T de Pisa, Pisa, Italia, 2019 01.jpg.

Given that does not have part (P3113) is meant for has part(s) of the class (P2670) or has part(s) (P527), I think we lack a suitable property.

Please add more samples. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 Oppose - I don't understand this proposal. I think you need some more samples, because for now 'depicted without' could be filled with any random item. Husky (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Husky: the description attempts to capture that possible risk. I agree that more samples are needed before proceeding. I will added some as I come across. Maybe COVID emptied streets that are generally full of people? --- Jura 07:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: - Okay, now i understand a bit more what you're trying to do with this property (with the COVID example). It would basically be a way to model something like 'empty street' (street depicted without people). I still feel this would be overly complicated, if i want to model an empty street i could simply say: 'depicts empty + street', or perhaps 'depicts street --> qualifier: excluding people'. Husky (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use it for empty streets in general, but places that are otherwise not deserted. Another use could be File:Unidentified roses with sign 'Astrid Lindgren'.jpg. --- Jura 12:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So why would this picture have the 'depicted without Rosa 'Astrid Lindgren' (Q4048433)' property? Husky (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The sign used there "Astrid Lindgern" usually implies that the rose next to it is Rosa 'Astrid Lindgren' (Q4048433). --- Jura 12:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, i kind of get the usecase now, but this property would still be far too ambiguous in my opinion. Should all the pictures of Stan Laurel (Q72869) get a 'depicted without' Oliver Hardy (Q72911) if he's not in the picture? For pictures that might be ambiguous, like the roses you mentioned, i think we can do fine with just captions and/or descriptions on the file page. Trying to model this using Wikidata properties would be both overkill and very hard to explain to people. Husky (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment File:Times Square - 49874280633.jpg could be a nice sample too. We should be able to find a picture "with" at a comparable time (8:29 am). --- Jura 12:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment This looks like computing. I haven't understood, why we need "negative" statement. BTW, the first image of Pisa Tower includes the bell also. --Juandev (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There are also two other bells further to the right (Terza (Q95982115),Q95982112), present in both. c:Special:SuggestedTags isn't always that efficient in computing what's present, so I doubt it could find these. --- Jura 06:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Oppose I do not get it. --Jarekt (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I re-wrote the description. Is there some aspect that I should clarify further? --- Jura 06:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess I understand it now but I am still not sure if it makes sense, for absence of an object to be noticeable I would have to have expectation for the object to be there. If a file is named "Portrait of President Obama" but he is not in the photo than it is a problem with a file name that should be corrected, but without a clue based on the filename I do not have expectation to see him in the image. I can not think of any useful queries one would do with this property. --Jarekt (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: how about the rose or the noticable absence at Times Square? It might take some time till we get a decent series or images, but one could make it into a "what's missing" quiz. For items in general, we have the comparable does not have part (P3113). --- Jura 14:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I just can not imagine many uses for this property and if we create it, I am agfraid we will have couple proper uses and a whole lot of incorrect uses by people that do not understand it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment I completed the gallery of samples with comparison images. --- Jura 20:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Clear lack of consensus. JesseW (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)