User talk:From Hill To Shore

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, From Hill To Shore!

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, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. 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! From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

request help with merging[edit]


I saw your remark in the village chat. Could you help me with the merging of two items?

Alfa Romeo (Q622489) needs to be merged into : Alfa Romeo in Formula One (Q65960697). the items both concern the Formula 1 activities of the Alfa Romeo brand.

The last item is the newer one, however i still think this description (Alfa Romeo in Formula One) is a better/more specific description.

Thanks a lot! Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Saschaporsche: Hi. When quoting items, properties and lexemes you can use the {{Q}} {{P}} and {{L}} templates to produce a link and provide the corresponding name in the reader's language. For example, here I would use {{Q|Q622489}} and {{Q|Q65960697}} to produce Alfa Romeo Racing (Q622489) and Alfa Romeo in Formula One (Q65960697).
I'm not sure whether merging is the right answer here. One of the entries is listed as a Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) and is linked to multiple language versions of Wikipedia. Alfa Romeo Racing (Q622489) is listed as a subject of Alfa Romeo in Formula One (Q65960697). Merging at Wikidata would only be the correct answer if all language pages linked to Alfa Romeo in Formula One (Q65960697) are only about the one subject; in that case you would have to deprecate the incorrect subject statements prior to a merge. In this case I'd suggest seeking advice from the Project chat on whether a merge is appropriate; I have limited knowledge of motor sport so I am not comfortable with giving you a definite answer that may be wrong. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cattle as a source of gelatin[edit]

Hi From Hill To Shore, thank you for the welcome message, much appreciated! Would you have a moment to advise on my question at project chat? Happy editing. Scientific29 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliases and name corrections[edit]

I am a little puzzled by the note you added to the Peerage Corrections page. I don't know about other people, but I've been going to considerable trouble to figure out what the official spelling of people's names was during their own lifetime -- the best source is legal documents (probate, lawsuits, etc.), with tombstone inscriptions as second choice; you can't rely as much on christening records, marriage licenses, and such. Surely there's some reason to give that spelling preferred status. Mind you, I've almost exclusively been working with British data from the 19th and twentieth centuries, which makes the matter much simpler. I agree that earlier people, and some from other cultures, may be referred to in a variety of ways that all have validity (there is no reason to stop calling Francesco Petrarca "Petrarch.") Levana Taylor (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Levana Taylor: One example is the suggested correction of John Bardsley (Q15039903) listed at Peerage as Rt. Rev. John Waring Bardsley. Some sources give the name as Wareing but others give Waring, such as Debrett's House of Commons. I placed the warning there to encourage people to be a little cautious in their requests; while suggesting corrections of typographical errors is helpful, we shouldn't stray into making judgements about the superiority of sources. We should mark one instance as preferred on Wikidata (due to our structure needing a primary option) but we don't need to "correct" other databases that have chosen another valid spelling. At the end of the day, it is a decision of that site's owner on what name to record in their database. Editors are free to continue to leave their suggested corrections but the warning is there to remind them to consider what they are requesting. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true -- no reason that other sites have to use the official form of the name, even though for Wikidata purposes I wanted to establish what that was. Levana Taylor (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for merging my entries of the people identified in the photo. What clue did you have that my entries needed to be merged? I didn't even notice the correct entries, probably because I searched in Wikidata directly instead of Google. Google may have made the connection by substituting in variations on the name as part of the search. Are you interested in identifying the other two people? Are you interested in the project of identifying the people in the Library of Congress photos each Friday at Flickr Commons and linking them to Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons? --RAN (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the start of June we had a large import of the Kindred Britain database and then the Genealogics database. That has left a large number of duplicates, many of which start with a military title like Adm. Gen. or Capt. I've been searching for new items starting with those abbreviations and then searching for merge targets. I just did a search today for recent creations of "Capt" and found Q97369108 as the top item. Once that was sorted I took a quick look at your recent contributions and saw you had created one for Major Trench.
Usually when someone has a military rank above lieutenant, there is a good chance that someone has written about them and they have an entry here. I do a google search for their names and dates and spot any useful identifiers. For example, if they have an entry at The Peerage it is almost guaranteed that we have a duplicate. I usually insert the ID and reload the page a few minutes later to see if the system has identified a duplicate. The success rate of finding duplicates is diminishing as I work my way down the ranks from the generals and admirals to the captains and lieutenants.
In terms of identifying the others, I'll give it a shot. I'm not sure if I can devote a specific time slot to supporting a long term project but I will be willing to help out now and then. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The 4th man, Capt F Gill, could be en:Frederick Agnew Gill, British Olympic polo player, polo manager at Ranelagh and former officer of the 3rd Dragoon Guards. Sources:
  1. Polo manager at Ranelagh, Mr F A Gill of 3rd Dragoon Guards
  2. Frederick Agnew Gill, a 2nd lieutenant in the 3rd Dragoon Guards, 1898
  3. Frederick Agnew Gill, reinstated as 2nd lieutenant of Oxfordshire Hussars in August 1914 at outbreak of WW I
  4. Frederick A Gill, 2nd lieutenant of Oxfordshire Hussars, promoted to temporary Captain in December 1914
  5. Frederick A Gill, an officer in an Oxford unit, promoted to Captain January 1916
That might not be enough evidence for certainty but I think it is likely to be the same person. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Each Friday the LOC releases 50 images to be given context by crowdsourcing: this is the current page I have been even looking at the earliest ones again and finding information I wasn't aware of then. By Saturday most are given context. They all are already loaded to Commons here, but not in categories or given a proper date, we gave them all the year 1900 when they were uploaded. The current tranche at LOC is from 1922. I also create entries for the event or person, if there is not one already in Wikidata and add the image. For example: All Ireland Polo Club (Q97373600). --RAN (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Interesting. I'll see if I can help from time to time. I've confirmed the identities of the four people; they are mentioned in this book on google.[1] Sir William L A Goulding, John Trench, Lt. George Scott-Douglas and Captain Frederick Gill. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amazing detective work! Are we supposed to remove titles like "Captain" and "Sir" to harmonize the entries with other Wikidata entries, or are they supposed to be as exactly as they appear in The Peerage? --RAN (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure. I generally leave the rank in the alias column. My main concern is to remove the duplicates and leave it for someone else to tidy the labels, if needed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, I migrate it to the alias and also add in a short version like "Captain Smith" with just title and last name. Do you have a free account at Familysearch? A great resource. --RAN (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors[edit]

Dear From Hill To Shore,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at the King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me on or use this form with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.



United Kingdom[edit]

I have reverted your edits to the United Kingdom item. The erroneous impression that "United Kingdom" dates to 1927 needs to be avoided. GPinkerton (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason I have done this is because the current set up did not allow people who lived before 1927 to be labelled as citizens of the United Kingdom, which is causing all kinds of problems in infoboxes across numerous Wikipedias. Additionally, absolutely nothing happened in 1927 that was in any was significant to the usage of "United Kingdom". The entity's official name changed, not the entity itself. GPinkerton (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, lets take this to Project Chat. If you are going to make unilateral changes to major items, it is best to seek community input. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment[edit]

Dear From Hill to Shore,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at or use this form I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.


Kholoudsaa (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Francis W. Rockwell[edit]

I deleted the reference to Amherst College from Q5482680 because this seems to have been an inadvertent reference to Q1441770. The admiral entered the U.S. Naval Academy before the age of eighteen, so likely wouldn't have had time to attend another college beforehand. – Maliepa (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maliepa: I tend to opt for deprecation rather than deletion of statements as it stops incorrect entries from being reinserted. In this case the statement has been imported from the French Wikipedia and his article there still has him in the category for Amherst College. See fr:Francis W. Rockwell and fr:Catégorie:Étudiant du Amherst College. If French editors think he was at the college, deprecation will prevent them from restoring the statement without a valid source. Even if the information is removed from French Wikipedia, a false statement could still make its way back here from a mirror site of French Wikipedia. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking Advise[edit]

Please, can you check on my account issue on en.wikipedia? @From Hill To Shore

Your advice/opinion will be appreciated, thanks QDJ22 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As shown at en:User:QDJ22, you appear to have been blocked on the English Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts. I don't have any significant user rights at English Wikipedia, so I won't have access to the full range of information available to administrators. As at least four administrators have looked into your case and determined that you were in breach of policy, there is nothing more I can add. Unblocks are only ever granted where you show the administrators that you understand the reason for the block, you accept it and you will change your future behaviour in some way that prevents the same breach of policy from occurring again. If you can't cover those three things, I suspect that you will remain blocked there permanently. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ohhh okay
Thank you so much QDJ22 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would reply to you over there as appropriate, but there is a skin bug that prevents me from participating in any discussion topic there now.

Yes, I see what you are saying. I acted without much thought. I am perfectly open to being reverted or my actions modified as you see fit. No arguments. Elizium23 (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]