Wikidata:Property proposal/letterer

letterer

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Done: letterer (P9191) (Talk and documentation)

Description	person responsible for drawing the comic book's text, word balloons, etc
Represents	letterer (Q658404)
Data type	Item
Template parameter	letterer in en:Template:Infobox_comics_creator
Domain	work (Q386724)
Allowed values	human (Q5)
Example 1	The Sandman (Q827099) → Todd Klein (Q7812477)
Example 2	Watchmen (Q128444) → Dave Gibbons (Q445765)
Example 3	A Death in the Family (Q266395) → John Costanza (Q6227215)
Source	w:Letterer
Planned use	Will add this property to works to distinguish the letterer.
See also	illustrator (P110)

Motivation

Currently working on a project involving comic books. Letterers are essential to comic books and have their own Eisner Award. Sandrileine (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support --Lectrician1 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't ping me NMaia (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 21:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is the borderline between contributions for which we should use contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) with qualifer object of statement has role (P3831) (yes, *object* has role) to indicate what the person did, as against making a new specialist property? My instinct tends to be against more and more specific properties that eg templates and queries then have to allow for the possibility of, as opposed to the more generic approach of a broad property with a narrowing qualifier. The ever-breeding number of "category for ..." properties is an example of where we've gone too far, and a more generic approach would have been better. I fear that the number of ever-narrower properties for different ways that people can contribute to a work is going the same way. Which side of the line "letterer" fall? I'm not sure. But I think it is something to think about. Jheald (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jheald: This is a very difficult question to answer. We definitely know that we can't stop people from using the many properties we already have for contributors. Some other questions to consider are "Do we document all of the contributors to a film (all of the credits) and their role with its own property? That would be an extreme example. Another concern is that usually properties could have qualifiers. This is because qualifiers cannot have qualifiers themselves, so creating a property is the only option. I can't think any qualifiers that could be used for this property, so that could be a possible limit.
  I personally think that anyone is free to propose any property that has widespread use in the format that is supposed to be used in. For example, this contributor role is used on basically all comic books, so it kind of makes sense to have it as a dedicated property out of sake for prominence. As for an example that is not prominent (going back to the movie credits example), a focus puller (Q1639269) having a property might be a bit weird because it is such a minor role (it has its own Wikipedia article though). I'm sure that if a property for a focus puller was ever proposed, it wouldn't pass because people would recognize it's lack in prominence. A focus puller is also not a role in every movie as well, so usage would also act as an indicator.
  Basically I think it comes down to subjective prominence and usage.
  --Lectrician1 (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an important property for the arts.--Arbnos (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandrileine, Lectrician1, NMaia, Tinker Bell, Jheald, Arbnos: Done as letterer (P9191). Thierry Caro (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thierry Caro: Please respect {{No ping}}! NMaia (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]