User:Pelagic/Journal/2020/11

November 2020.

Fri 27

Thu 26

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Announcing_xCite:_Templates_eXported_from_Wikipedia

Monday 23 Nov

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Gallery_New_South_Wales_Art_Gallery&oldid=725862170 versus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_Gallery_of_New_South_Wales&oldid=754117551#Asian_Art_Gallery_expansion

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2020/11/23/platypus-bushfire-impact-threatened-species/

Not-so simple, onion weed

I thought finding an identification for the locally-common and well-known "onion weed" would be a simple web search away. Yates and Flower Power say Nothoscordum inodorum [1][2], Lawn Solutions says Nothoscordum sp. [3] So far, so good. Tas., Vic, and NSW dept's of Primary Industries have Asphodelus fistulosus, which appears to be a completely different plant going by the same common name. [4][5]

However, our article N. indorum was moved to N. borbonicum then changed into a redirect to Neapolitan garlic: history. The pictures of Allium neapolitanum flower heads and leaves look unlike the onion weed I know (except this one, which is probably mis-classified).

Our article Nothoscordum × borbonicum looks more like it.

Google image search for "onion weed" gives a variety of results: Allium neapolitanum, nodding flowers of Allium triquetrum (esp. NZ sites like [6]), the star-like Asphodelus fistulosus, Guildford grass Romulea rosea, "dune onion weed" Trachyandra divaricata Trachyandra divaricata (Q15605895) /Anthericum divaricatum [7][8][9]

For what it's worth, I have a couple of photos to upload, though some existing ones by John Tann and Harry Rose are better.

Good pics from commons:

flower (side)
flowers
seed pod
seeds

My two:

umbels at different stages
umbels top view

Various species of "onion weed":

A. neapolitanum
N. borbonicum / gracile categorised as A. neapolitanum
N. gracile?
N. gracile
A. triquetrum
Asph. fistulosus
Asph. fistulosus
R. rosea (ZA)
R. rosea (AU)
R. rosea fruit

Description of N. borbonicum Kunth (Latin) [10]. Flora of Australia says "N. inodorum has also been misapplied to this species [in Australia]" [11]. Illustration (as Allium inodorum), plate 1129 in Curtis' botanical magazine, no. 28 (credit "F. Sangsom sculp. Syd Edwards Del") [12].

"Examination of the holotype (BM) of Allium inodorum Aiton (1789), basionym of Nothoscordum inodorum (Aiton) Nicholson, reveals this as conspecific with Allium neapolitanum Cyrillo (1788) and not a member of the genus Nothoscordum Kunth (Alliaceae). The correct name for the widely naturalized weedy species known as N. inodorum or as N. fragrans (Vent.) Kunth is N. gracile (Aiton) Stearn, syn. Allium gracile Aiton (1789). The current misapplication of the epithet inodorum goes back to an illustrated article by Ker-Gawler in Curtis's Botanical Magazine 28: t. 1129 (1808) where N. gracile is depicted as A. inodorum; his later (1810) correction has been overlooked or ignored." Stearn 1986 [13] (paywall, JStor available via Wikipedia Library).

So is it borbonicum or gracile? Nothoscordum says that gracile is widely naturalised, but doesn't make the same note about borboicum. But the photos at Nothoscordum gracile (Q15524066) look different.

J.K. Small, Addisonia 13: t. 433 (1928), as Nothoscordum fragrans [14]

N. gracile WCSP IPNI; N. &mult; gracile [15].

Saturday 21 Nov

meta:Community Tech/Status report for 2019 wishlist# Night Mode - declined.
meta:Talk:Community Wishlist Survey 2021#Why just for this tiny team?
meta:Movement communications insights. Focus groups, consultants, funding for attendance. W?F still don't get it.
d:Wikidata:Project chat#Wikidata vandalism is perplexing. ToDo: find Phab ticket about changing mobile app to save descriptions to w:en instead of d:

Friday 20

Shame d:Wikidata:Property proposal/detail of painting didn’t get up, it could have been useful for SDC. Though if one file is a crop of the other, then file extracted from (P7009) file. What might be needed is a property that combines file ⟨digital representation of detail from⟩ Q-item. Could a qualifier like "subject has role = detail" do the job?

Similarly, for books, you would have images for separate pages, so file ⟨digital representation of part of⟩ Q-item for manifestation. "digital representation of (P6243) item (applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) page n)" doesn’t work, because applies to part requires an item not string. How about "digital representation of (P6243) item (page(s) (P304) page n)"? Is that an abuse of P304?

The difference I see is that general "part of" could be a well-defined subpart, like "page n" or "excluding frame" or "central panel of triptych", then it’s a conceptual 'thing'; but "detail of" a 2D work is an arbitrary rectangular region.

Monday 16

(Actually after midnight, but I’ll count it as still Monday. 01:08 Tue 17, AEST)
(Continued Tuesday morning ... and Friday)

Paintings and photographs

ABC Landline showed an article on Arthur Streeton, coinciding with the current Streeton exhibition at AGNSW. Falling down the rabbit-hole of art works on Wikidata and Commons has left me with more questions than answers.

Wikiprojects

Materials and support

Current Wikidata practice is to use two made from material (P186) statements, one with qualifier applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) = painting support (Q861259). In contrast, Commons appears to have specific templates for common combinations, like c:Template:Oil on canvas, c:Template:Oil on canvas panel or c:Template:Oil on panel.

But what about something like Tom Roberts' drawing of Streeton (commons), where the material is catalogued as "charcoal on off-white laid paper on thin cream card"? [16] If paper is the drawing surface, then what qualifier can be used for the card? Similarly how would you distinguish stretched canvas vs. canvas-on-board?

support (Q1058733) is "point in a structure at which loads are transferred between structural elements" or "vertical structural element" and is a subclass of Point. Sheesh! Don’t we have any item for the more general concept of "supporting structure"? Then we have support (Q33123524) "material to which media is applied to create an image" which is more like painting support (Q861259) than physical support.

And it's not just about materials: the source gives dimensions of both the paper and the card.

Framed and unframed dimensions

I created items framed (Q101698846) and unframed (Q101698787) for use with applies to part. Afterwards I found Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Archive/2015#Size of a painting.

...

Nearly a week later, found discussion of framed and unframed dimensions at d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Archive/2019#Format. Dimensions of framed work may be already expressed as (outer) dimensions of the frame. (05:39 Fri 20, AEST)

IIIF

I used relative position within image (P2677) for a textual description "lower left", but seems that it’s intended for IIIF coordinates only.

Genre, movement, and painting style

...

Collection, institution and location

...

Other

"Do we have a property to say that a work is a study for another artwork?" Zolo d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Archive/2017#Duplicate ?
"The property for credit line was shot down as being a text-based property" Jane, 2017 d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Archive/2017#Donation/gift
d:#"Credit line" from Commons artwork template
d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Archive/2017#Materials used – d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Material

Sat 14 Nov

Happy Diwali everyone!

c:commons:Glamorous