User talk:MartinPoulter

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, MartinPoulter!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Barra Head Lighthouse[edit]

Hello MartinPoulter, Can you look into Berneray (Q31120052) you created? It seems duplicate of Barra Head Lighthouse (Q3378173). Also, when I follow the Historic Scotland link among the external identifiers, what I find is not Barra Head lighthouse... Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lymantria: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. They are not duplicates because the new item is an ancient hillfort and the old item is a 19th century lighthouse. The hillfort is located in what is now the grounds of the lighthouse. The Historic Scotland link is clearly wrong, though, so I've removed it and will look into what happened in that upload. It may be an error in the source database. Thanks again, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi Martin, I don't think it's a good idea to classify ancient vase shapes as subclass of "vase". Vase today has d different meaning than the archaeologicals use of the word. So in case of ancient vase shapes, it's always better to use "greek vases", "roman vases", "cypriot vaes" etc. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: Okay, understood. I can't remember the edit you're referring to, but feel free to revert it. I think the category tree for pots is a bit messed up, but I'll set out the problem and seek community advice before doing anything drastic. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC) PS. I think there ought to be a pathway from any vase (modern or ancient) to container (Q987767)
Looking again, I see I was just bringing about consistency with these (presently 10 items):
  ?item wdt:P279 wd:Q738680.
  ?item wdt:P279 wd:Q191851

Try it!

Feel free to change the category from "vase" to "container". MartinPoulter (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The way is the italian word "vas". But the modern vase for flowers did come a different way. A way over bigger pots, made of marble and stone in the Renaissance. And these came from ancient "vases" - but not the one made of clay, but the marble ones. The ways can be complycated... ;). Maybe we must split the archaeological term "vase" from the narmal use. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Glad to have someone involved who knows about this stuff. It's not my topic, although I'm negotiating with some academics in Oxford about it. Take a look at the category tree and please be bold in improving it. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: While you're at it, can you take a look at skyphos (Q1136095) stamnos (Q1421582) and pelike (Q1539580)? They have subclass of (P279) vase shape (Q24012047), so I expect "vase shape" is wrong for the same reasons. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I actually work in the whole field of ancient pottery. I will rework a lot. But this will need some time and will be not finished in a short time. I do it parallel here, on Commons, and at Wikipedia... Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Structured Commons focus group![edit]

Hello! Thank you very much for signing up to the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

How to organize ourselves?

This focus group is new and experimental, and I welcome your tips and thoughts on how we can organize this in the most convenient and productive way. For now, I have posted a few separate topics on the focus group's talk page. Please add your questions there too! If we all add that page to our watchlist, that's probably a good way to stay up to date with current discussions. Steinsplitter has also initiated a brand new IRC channel specifically for Structured Commons: wikimedia-commons-sd (webchat) which we invite you to join. Please let me know if you have other ideas on how to work together.

Current updates

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, Nov 21, 2017[edit]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

IRC office hour today, 21 November, 18.00 UTC
  • The IRC office hour about Structured Commons takes place at 18:00 UTC in wikimedia-office webchat. Amanda, Ramsey and I will give updates about the project, and you can ask us questions. The log will be published afterwards.
Tools update

Many important community tools for Commons and Wikidata will benefit from an update to structured data in the future. You can help indicate which tools will need attention:

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, December 11, 2017[edit]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

Later this week, a full newsletter will be distributed, but you are the first to receive an update on new requests for feedback.

Three requests for feedback
  1. We received many additions to the spreadsheet that collects important Commons and Wikidata tools. Thank you! Now, you can participate in a survey that helps us understand and prioritize which tools and functionalities are most important for the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey runs until December 22. Here's some background.
  2. Help the team decide on better names for 'captions' and 'descriptions'. You can provide input until January 3, 2018.
  3. Help collect interesting Commons files, to prepare for the data modelling challenges ahead! Continuous input is welcome there.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) - 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Two Jenny's Lantern related queries[edit]

Two things to ask, about Jenny's Lantern (Q31111167) and Atlas of Hillforts ID (P4102), if I may. (And thanks for the hillfort data import & maps - most excellent).

1. There was an existing Defended settlement, Romano-British settlement and field system 100m south and east of Jenny's Lantern (Q17646017) which describes the hillfort and adjoining field system, and to which the National Heritage List for England number (P1216) properly belongs, given ... so I've made

< Jenny's Lantern (Q31111167) View with Reasonator View with SQID > part of (P361) View with SQID < Defended settlement, Romano-British settlement and field system 100m south and east of Jenny's Lantern (Q17646017) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

and removed the National Heritage List for England number (P1216) from Jenny's Lantern (Q31111167). Does that work for you?

2. There's a constraint violation being reported in Jenny's Lantern (Q31111167) for Atlas of Hillforts ID (P4102): item requires statement constraint - An entity with Atlas of Hillforts ID should also have a statement instance of hillfort. Don't know if you want to worry about that. I'm flaky as to whether the constraint as specified in Atlas of Hillforts ID (P4102) should notice that a partial contour fort (Q31028314) is a subclass of hillfort (Q744099). thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: 1. Thanks for doing this. I think this is the ideal way to handle this. 2. The constraint should allow for subclasses, since most hillforts have instance of (P31) a subclass. I hadn't noticed this and I've raised a request on the talk page for Atlas of Hillforts ID (P4102). Thanks very much for bringing it to my attention. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Structured Commons - Design feedback request: Multilingual Captions[edit]

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons.

The Structured Data on Commons team has a new design feedback request up for Multilingual Captions support in the Upload Wizard. Visit the page for more information about the potential designs. Discussion and feedback is welcome there.

On a personal note, you'll see me posting many of these communications going forward for the Structured Data project, as SandraF transitions into working on the GLAM side of things for Structured Data on Commons full time. For the past six months she's been splitting time between the two roles (GLAM and Community Liaison). I'm looking forward to working with you all again. Thank you, happy editing. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - What gets stored where (Ontology)[edit]


There is a new feedback request for Structured Data on Commons (link for messages posted to Commons: , regarding what metadata from a file gets stored where. Your participation is appreciated.

Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please slow down[edit]

Hi, can you please slow down editing using quickstatements? You are causing noticeable dispatch lag. I'm aware that this is probably an issue with quickstatements, and we will contact its maintainer to get this fixed… but for now, please make sure you slow down or stop editing. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hoo man: Hi and thanks for contacting me. I didn't realise I was causing a problem. I have left a computer doing a batch Quickstatements upload overnight, so I don't have access to it now but it will stop in several hours' time. Can you recommend how many edits I should be making with the tool to avoid causing the problem? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
This is sad to hear, but for the sake of service availability I had to block you for now. I suggest to do no more than 10 edits a minute, especially with a non-bot account. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hoo man: Back at the computer now and I've stopped the Quickstatements task. Can you unblock me please? MartinPoulter (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, just seen that the block will expire in a few minutes anyway. No worries, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I've unblocked you now anyway. Thanks for reacting so swiftly. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

First structured licensing conversation on Commons[edit]


The first conversation about structured copyright and licensing for Structured Data on Commons has been posted, please come by and participate. The discussion will be open through the end of the month (March). Thank you. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ashmolean Museum[edit]

Hi MartinPoulter, some of your recent painting imports started popping up in my reports. I created Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/Ashmolean Museum to get an overview (linked from the UK page). The first thing I noticed is that the inventory number (P217) is missing on every painting (that made this list grow quite a bit) and that most of them are missing creator (P170) (that made this list grow a lot). You seem to have added inventory number (P217) as qualifier of collection (P195). That's not the correct usage. You should add inventory number (P217) directly with collection (P195) and have collection (P195) directly without the inventory qualifier. See no label (Q51236906) for an example of correct usage. Can you please correct this? Every item should have a creator (P170). If unknown, use anonymous (Q4233718). Could you please add the missing creators? You might want to bookmark Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structure for future reference.

Do you also plan on importing the other paintings or are you waiting for the new Multichill (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: Hi and thanks for this. I hadn't seen these lists or any guidance to suggest that my usage of inventory number (P217) wasn't correct. Can you point me to the consensus that establishes this? I don't see it on Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structure which lists inventory number (P217) and collection (P195) without implying which should qualify the other. The import is ongoing so more data about creators and times will be added. At the moment this is just a pilot with the oriental collections, but I'm hoping to persuade the University of Oxford to support a larger project. Thanks again, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Just do it like this, inventory number (P217) currently has 93% coverage and would you think we created pages like Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Missing inventory number if we didn't want to get it to 100% coverage?
If you want to challenge this, go ahead (and fail), but please stick to the established practice in the meantime. Multichill (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: There's no need to be rude. I didn't say anything about challenging the practice: I just asked to be pointed to the consensus. I've been following what was established practice when I started, but that was a while ago. If it's changed, fine, but it's fair to ask if it's a community decision. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC) PS looking at the history of Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Missing inventory number it seems one person created it: you. This isn't evidence of a consensus decision. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Rude? Excuse me? You're confused with directness.
These lists were discussed at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_sum_of_all_paintings/Archive/2017#Hunting_for_missing_inventory_numbers.
A lot of things on Wikidata evolved in a certain way over time. Would be nice if you helped keeping the data consistent. Multichill (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual captions testing is available[edit]


The early prototype for multilingual caption support is available for testing. More information on how to sign up to test is on Commons. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons IRC Office Hour, Tuesday 26 June[edit]


There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Tuesday, 26 June from 18:00-19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find more details, as well as date and time conversion, at the IRC Office Hours page on Meta.

Thanks, I look forward to seeing you there if you can make it. -- Keegan (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What properties does Commons need?[edit]


Structured Commons will need properties to make statements about files. The development team is working on making the software ready to support properties; the question is, what properties does Commons need?

You can find more information and examples to help find properties in a workshop on Commons. Please participate and help fill in the list, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible Atlas of Hillforts 4302 snafu[edit]

Martin - not sure if I should be laying a possible AoH snafu at your door, but iirc you imported AoH data and may either be interested or know who to pass this on to. In short there appear to be a couple of hillforts immediately to the East and West of Bewick Bridge in Northumberland. It is looking to me as if the AoC entry for the East hillfort points to the English Heritage listing for the West hillfort; that the West hillfort is missing from AoH entirely; and we have a a minor consequential cleanup to do on a wikidata item.

We have Bewick Bridge East (Q31112450) which points to HoC 4302.

HoC 4302 (and Q31112450) point to Historic England 1006433, a listing entitled "Site 1/2 mile (800m) W of Bewick Bridge".

Site 1/2 mile (800m) W of Bewick Bridge (Q17643130) also points to 1006433 - which seems appropriate.

In other news, we seem to have lots of hillfort item duplicates, based on the same P1216 value appearing on pairs of records - see, e.g. Magnus's Distributed Game. I'm slowly going through & merging some, linking others with part of / has part.

Quite understandable if all of the above is not of great interest, but I came across it & thought of you. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this Tagishsimon. I haven't had time to have a look at this, but I will get round to it. Any errors in that data set are of interest. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - Depicts statements draft requirements[edit]


A slide presentation of the draft requirements for depicts statements on file pages is up on Commons. Please visit this page on Commons to review the slides and discuss the draft. Thank you, see you on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - structured licensing and copyright[edit]

Mockups of structured licensing and copyright statements on file pages are posted. Please have a look over the examples and leave your feedback on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - copyright and licensing statements[edit]

I've posted a second round of designs for modeling copyright and licensing in structured data. These redesigns are based off the feedback received in the first round of designs, and the development team is looking for more discussion. These designs are extremely important for the Commons community to review, as they deal with how copyright and licensing is translated from templates into structured form. I look forward to seeing you over there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)