Wikidata talk:WP EMEW/Archives/2021

Ports

Although the focus of Viae Regiae and EMEW is on inland transportation (both land and inland river), ports will be an important set of places in the transport networks we map and analyse. This is because much traffic volume on inland road and river routes will take goods from inland to coastal ports, large and small, from whence these goods will be (a) tranported to other coastal ports within England and/or Wales on ships of different types (b) transported to other coastal ports in countries or administrative units within countries other than England and Wales. These will include Scotland; Ireland; the Channel Islands; the Isle of Man; and of course countries outside the sovereignty of the Kings/Queens of England and Scotland.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColinStuartGreenstreet (talk • contribs) at 23:42, 18 February 2021‎ (UTC).

@ColinStuartGreenstreet: I will add "ports" to the scope on the home page. - PKM (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Jheald (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jheald: Agreed -- ColinStuartGreenstreet (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Slave ownership database

Re identifiers. You might consider adding the Legacies of British Slave-ownership P8587 and P3023 to the list. While they are well out of period, they do link people to places, and I've used them successfully in combination with British History Online and National Heritage listings to disambiguate estates and houses with similar names.DrThneed (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Y Added at Wikidata:WP EMEW/People/Identifiers#Properties for people outwith the period and Wikidata:WP EMEW/Place IDs/IDs and Coverage#Information sites Jheald (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Jheald (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Connecting people and places to maps they are mentioned in

Something that surfaced recently on the Viae Regiae slack channel: How to say that a place X appears on a map Y (also possibly a person X1, as Lord Burghley's copy of the Saxton maps includes his notes of the reliability of individual people.

Possible properties:

• present in work (P1441) -- but this has the rubric "this (fictional or fictionalized) entity or person appears in that work as part of the narration (use cites work (P2860) for works citing other works, part of (P361)/published in (P1433) for works being part of other works, described by source (P1343) for entities described in non-fictional accounts)"
• described by source (P1343)

Making this more difficult is that this is potentially a very many <-> many relationship. Very many places will be mentioned on a particular map; and a place may be mentioned on many maps. But perhaps its appearance on only a few of those maps is of such significance as to be worth noting - eg key pioneering series of maps, such as Saxton, Speed, or Pont/Blaeu for Scotland. Others can perhaps be handled elsewhere (cf discussion in this tweet-thread to User:Spinster, who's now moved on to better things).

My initial feeling on this: described by source (P1343) ought to be for resources that really do describe the subject-item, in text (eg articles, entries in reference works, detailed prosopography entries etc). Merely appearing as a word on a map is not like that. To me, inclusion in P1343 would be out-of-place, annoying, and cluttering. It would not be a good approach, I think.

On the other hand the rubric on present in work (P1441) states in strong terms that it is for fictional (or fictionalised) people in narrative works. There is a need to keep the world of fiction strongly contained away from the world of reality, and items for fictional (and fictionalised) people strongly away from items for real people, otherwise we get queries picking up results like

Æthelflæd (Q235250)unmarried partner (P451)Uhtred of Bebbanburg (Q7878021).

But the current constraints on P1441 do allow human (Q5) as possible subjects, not just fictional entity (Q14897293). And I see biblical place (Q12404340) is also given as possible, so it would seem the property has been used for places, though maybe or maybe not wisely.

Possibility 3 would be to propose a new property, though ISTR proposals for lighter-weight version of described by source (P1343) may have been rejected in the past. (from memory, not checked), albeit perhaps when the community was being a bit more parsimonious about doling out new properties.

This may be something we need to think about for a bit, and perhaps refer up to Project Chat for wider consultation, when we've got a bit more time. We may not have data for a few weeks, so we can afford to think for a bit. Jheald (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/named place on map now proposed, to sit on the file or the item for the map. Not clear if we also need "mentioned on map" in the other direction for places (probably not?) or people (maybe?) Jheald (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata talk:WP EMEW/Sources/Data modelling

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Jheald (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Massively annotated image files

User:Spinster says in her tweet that m:User:FRomeo_(WMF) and m:User:GFontenelle (WMF) are now leading on GLAM coordination, and may be the people to talk to in relation to the wider question of how to store maybe a thousand annotations on an image.

As I said to Spinster [1] the model we use for paintings, using wikidata or commons-wikibase with depicts (P180) statement for each annotation could handle it, but I am not sure it would handle it well -- an item with a thousand statements on it with the regular interface would be nigh on unusable. So in such circumstances some other method for recording annotations might be necessary; or perhaps some specialist user interface, different from presenting them as garden-variety statements on a WD item or on a Commons' image's structured statements tab.

It looks like there was a Phabricator ticket phab:T214405 in this area, but work in this area seems to have been put on indefinite hold in March 2020 phab:T214405#5938998. (Actually I'm not sure where things are at with any of the SDC project at the moment).

Anyway, ticket phab:T275286 now filed to give advanced notice of what may be coming. Jheald (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata:WP EMEW/Map uploads -- Jheald (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Jheald (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Modeling estates and manors

I'm curious about the best way to model a historic manor or estate and heritage items within the estate. My first inclination is that a listed park or building should be part of (P361) the estate (and the inverse), as well as link to it via location (P276). Here's an example set of items:

• Newnham Paddox (Q105609346): estate in Warwickshire, England, owned by the Feilding family since 1433
• Newnham Paddox House (Q104783296): historic house in Warwickshire, England, demolished 1952
• Newnham Paddox (Q104783214): historic park and garden in the United Kingdom (listed park)
• Feilding family (Q105609334): English aristocratic family

Also, we should probably record residence (P551) for the Earls of Denbigh (and their predecessor barons) at Newnham Paddox - should the residence be the estate or the house?

How might we model all of these relationships? - PKM (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata:WP EMEW/Manors/Data Modelling -- Jheald (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Jheald (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)