User talk:Ipoellet

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Ipoellet!

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!

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Renaming a item[edit]

Hi, thanks for your work on the National Register of Historic Places! It's fun that at least one other user is interested in the subject in North America. Just a note, when you rename the label of a item, like NRHP district (Q20856087), just put the old name in the aliases, so the user who use the old name could find it. --Fralambert (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Great point! Will do in the future. Btw, I am in the process of proposing some new National Register-related properties for use as qualifiers to heritage designation (P1435):place listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Q19558910). Take a look at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place. As a relative newbie on Wikidata, I'm being bold but would appreciate a second opinion from someone familiar with the NRHP. — Ipoellet (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I seem the proposal and I suported it, it seem a good idea. I work primally on the heritage properties in Canada. I finished all the provincial and municipal heritage properties (or monuments) in Alberta and Quebec and I work slowly in Prince Edward Island (PEI Register of Historic Places ID (P763). I am actually working to complete the Registered Heritage Place (Q14897292). But if you think to add some contraints on NRHP reference number (P649) or even some complex constraints in Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P649, let me know, I will help you. --Fralambert (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Redacted not part of sourcing circumstances (P1480)[edit]

P1480 is about the truthfulness of the value, whereas "redacted" is about a statement in the source in a work, not about the truthfulness of the value. As such you shouldn't be using P1480 to indicate that a reference statement is redacted. P1480 is a qualifier, whereas what you seem to be wishing to do use as part of the reference. I have undone your addition of redacted as a suitable qualifier.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Copied to Property talk:P1480. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

unknown value in P625[edit]

Intead of create a long list of exceptions for the archeological sites, maybe use unknown value? I made thsi adition to Haputo Beach Site (Q20658354) what do you think? --Fralambert (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fralambert: If using unknown value avoids triggering a constraint violation, then I'm happy to use it because it's easier. Thanks for the suggestion. A longer-term philosophical issue would be that these coordinate locations are only unknown publicly: there is a difference between "unknown" and "confidential". Is it fundamentally appropriate to use unknown value if the value is in fact humanly known, just held confidentially? — Ipoellet (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Another issue I noticed in Cronin Point Site (Q23926608), where you removed address restricted (Q47460806) from location (P276) to a qualifier of coordinate location (P625). The problem is that when people in other projects query NRHP data from Wikidata, we're giving multiple different properties to look at for "address restricted" info. Personally, I'd rater leave address restricted (Q47460806) uniformly under location (P276) across all items for consistency and downstream user frendliness. — Ipoellet (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Re [1], "you only need to add one" isn't the same as "you must only have one", there's no singular value constraint on the property. In this case, the values are shown in the infobox at en:Arecibo Observatory, where the location either reads "Arecibo, US" or "Arecibo, Puerto Rico, US" depending on this edit. Originally, Puerto Rico was set to the country, but @Fralambert: disagreed (see the edit history of the page). I think Puerto Rico needs to be mentioned *somewhere* in the properties, as it's not trivial (or server-cpu-friendly) to have to follow the links through multiple Wikidata items to find it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I was wondering if you might parse the instruction that way. I'm kind of torn, because on one hand I get and am willing to comply with the current concept of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) that we should let the lowest level of the hierarchy imply all higher levels. OTOH I feel that approach leads to ambiguity where subdivisions aren't perfect (e.g. a point in Salem (Q43919) might be in either Marion County (Q484408) or Polk County (Q495393); merely specifying Salem doesn't determine which county the point is in). Using P131 to capture all levels of hierarchy rather than just one could solve that. Then there's your PR concern, which is also a real issue. So I'm just going to back off and let you proceed to have both Arecibo and PR statements. Please forgive me for stirring up a mess in the first place. — Ipoellet (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: For Puerto Rico, it could be put as a country, since it's a associated state and have is own ISO 3166-1 code (PR), but we have probably to change how we see colonial or oversea territories in Wikidata, or at least the way we look at it in the United States. Is United States of America (Q30) reprensent only the 50 states + DC or it aslo include the other territories? I also see that Puerto Rico (Q1183)} have neither country (P17) and located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), who is strange. Ipoellet For the municipalities who are in more that one county, maybe you sould use territory overlaps (P3179) for the county and use the state for the city in located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)? --Fralambert (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

subject has role (P2868)[edit]

Hi, before I ask my complex contraint in Wikidata:Request a query for , what are all the type in subject has role (P2868), I know NRHP building (Q47162123) and NRHP district (Q20856087), but i'm not sure what are all the others. --Fralambert (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fralambert: Thank you! The five NRHP types are:
— Ipoellet (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi! You say that say my edit was unexplained. In fact I referred to a discussion which covers the problem. In short: there are settlements (cities among them) that are not administrative units (e.g. settlements in Estonia) or not even designated territorial units with specified borders. So particular cities that are not administrative entities are currently wrongly classified as ones. The solution is to use Q56061 for instances/subclasses (e.g. Q15063611) that actually are administrative entities. 06:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@ I apologize that I failed to notice that you did indeed cite a prior discussion. I also looked over that talk page and failed to identify that discussion as relevant to this issue - another oops. I can't say I necessarily agree with the reasoning in that discussion, but a discussion was had. The solution you suggest is one that has previously occurred to me, although for different reasons. (Specifically, that "city" as constitutionally defined in my state of Oregon is very different from e.g. the notion of "city" in the UK. Heck, Greenhorn (Q721338) has a census population of 0.) So anyhow, I see your point and I'll leave the matter alone. Thanks. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Blackstone Canal[edit]

I'm am not sura about Blackstone Canal (Q4923399). The entry of 1995 (95001004) should a another item or not? --Fralambert (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fralambert: The available National Register documentation appears to treat the Rhode Island segment (71000030 and 91001536) and the Massachusetts segment (73000328 and 95001004) as two separate NRHP listings. The structure of the list articles at enwiki also follows this pattern. In addition, it also looks to me like 95001004 is just a continuation/expansion of the same listing started in 73000328, rather than a separate listing. I suggest keeping Blackstone Canal (Q4923399) as an item relating to the canal as a whole but without NRHP information. That item can then be linked through has part (P527)/part of (P361) to two new items relating to the respective segments in each state. These two new items are where the heritage designation (P1435) and NRHP reference number (P649) statements would be found. If you like, you can just leave it up to me to carry out my suggestion - your choice. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done with Blackstone Canal, Massachusetts Segment (Q57084142) and Blackstone Canal, Rhode Island Segment (Q49242758) (I merged the part in Rhode Island with a duplicate if cebwiki.) You can check the two item if they seem fine. --Fralambert (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Fralambert: Thank you for working on that thorny problem! I have made some edits to the two new items that made sense to me - I hope they work for you as well. I also made some edits on enwiki and Commons to reflect what we have done here. — Ipoellet (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem, it was not really different of when I slipt Rideau Canal (Q18087815) and Rideau Canal (Q651323), the World heritage site including the Kingston Fortifications (Q18085382). --Fralambert (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)