User talk:Peter James

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

June 2013[edit]

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Peter James!

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! ·addshore· talk to me! 23:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Lieckfeldt[edit]

I would be happy about an explanation. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You probably intended to add "Lieckfeldt" as a label, but you added "Q63440163". Peter James (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
OK - so I understand, thanks ;). -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Merging items[edit]

Hallo Peter James,
When you (want to) merge items, you may want to use the merge.js gadget from help page about merging. It helps with merging and removes the need to file a request on Wikidata:Requests for deletions.
With regards,- сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 10:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Partial repurposing during ongoing deletion discussion[edit]

Hi Peter James,

Item Q1805489 is being discussed on Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions. Rather that participating in this discussion, you started repurposing the item and leaving it broken: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1805489&action=history . I don't find that particularly helpful. I think you should try to comment in the discussion instead. --- Jura 11:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It was originally described as "Familienname". Peter James (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
We had to do a lot of cleanup on such items a while back, but that isn't a reason to break it once it's fixed.
Re-purposing items and leaving them broken isn't helpful. --- Jura 11:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
German Wikipedia has an article that combines surname and given name. This item was created for it, and was first defined as "Familienname". I was only improving its definition. A separate item can be created for the given name. Peter James (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata items are defined within Wikidata and descriptions should be in relation to P31 values. It's irrelevant what Wikipedia does or did. --- Jura 12:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
All statements, labels, descriptions, sitelinks and identifiers contribute to defining the item. If any are wrong or incomplete they can be changed, if we know the original purpose of the item. In this case it is a given name, but not only a given name. There is no policy that P31 is the most important part of the definition. Peter James (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems we disagree on this. I suppose one could see a Wikidata item like page that gets updated as a random wikipage. --- Jura 17:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hofheim am Taunus[edit]

Yes the ceb rubbish still exists - its the only one which dis dublicating items. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

According to de:Hofheim am Taunus, there is "Kernstadt Hofheim", with a population of 14562; that is the other item. OpenStreetMap has separate relations (414726, which is Hofheim am Taunus (Q14896), and 5807049, which is missing here[1]). Peter James (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The statistics in both items are for Q14896; the items probably need editing to make it clear which information is for the settlement and which is for the district. Peter James (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

heritage sites, the sum of all cultural heritage and lists[edit]

Thanks for this. The German description of cultural heritage (Q210272) describes it as the collection of all cultural property (Q2065736). In other languages it doesn't. I – reading the German label and description – thought this is the way to make sure that e.g. Bargteheide station (Q58400270) is not a list (Q12139612), which it shouldn't, but now is again. So apparently we need two distinct items. One describing the collection and one being it. CamelCaseNick (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The articles seem to be about the collection, but the way it is being used here is it more about status than either a collection or a register. It may be better to split, but would have to be discussed somewhere to avoid causing problems with constraints on P1435 (and possibly other properties). There was a recent change https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q210272&diff=1104904432&oldid=1052425130 that made it a subclass of heritage register (Q15097084); that's probably where "list" comes from - I removed that as I don't think it's accurate. Peter James (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Located in administrative territorial entity[edit]

I see you prefer to use the name of the civil parish rather than the local authority. This seems to be at odds with virtually all the other data entries I have seen for UK entities, which use: London Borough/Metropolitan Borough/Borough/District Council area/Unitary Authority area (or equivalent names in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland.) Similarly, English Wikipedia uses the local authority name. There are about 160 civil parishes in Northumberland alone, which would mean a massive amount of work to reclassify every entity.

It doesn't seem very useful to do so when you consider the insignificance of civil parishes. Wylam parish council raises about £40k from council tax a year, compared to the hundreds of millions spent by Northumberland County Council. It just seems odd to chose the civil parish unit over the unitary authority - which is the real administrative unit for the area. DrFrench (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It isn't being chosen over the unitary authority - both should be there, but the district or unitary authority can be found from the P131 on the civil parish, so to add it would be unnecessary duplication. What is used depends on the source of the data - some, such as listed buildings, use parishes (although the Grade I and Grade II* items were imported without anything in P131, and some Grade II items were added with the district or county - related discussion at Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/08#Large upcoming data import), others only have district, unitary authority or county. There are also many places that are not in a civil parish (almost all of London, and many urban areas), and some entities (roads, for example) pass through so many parishes that it is more useful to state the county. Peter James (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Duplicated hospitals in Argentina[edit]

Thanks for the merging of this items! I see you also found more from other provinces, i'm going to keep myself far away from the background jobs of QuickStatements. But im curious, how did you fixed them? I tried unsuccessfully to make a query to find only the ones duplicated :( Cheers! Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I assumed that all items in these batches with the same catalogue code were duplicates (which they seem to have been). The first query was for all items in the batch - similar to this query but the values for item1 and item2 were the full lists from EditGroups (using a spreadsheet to extract the Q numbers). This wasn't working with the other batch (probably because there were so many items in the list) so I used a query for all items with the same catalog code (P528) in Argentina. I don't know exactly how it works; I just copied and adapted from other queries I had seen. Fortunately there weren't too many and most were the QuickStatements duplicates. It still shows multiple results if there are more than two with the same identifier (e.g. Q2=Q1, Q3=Q1, Q3=Q2 where I would only want to merge Q2=Q1 and Q3=Q1) so I used a spreadsheet to remove them (and any others I didn't want to merge) from the list before creating the merge statements such as MERGE|Q2|Q1 which I copied to QuickStatements. Peter James (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Q26512946[edit]

I have restored the item, But I don't understand your message at all. Could you do what's next, please? (ie. merging). Esteban16 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have merged the items. Peter James (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Modification of Q190107[edit]

Hi Peter,

I see that you've modified a bunch of weather station (Q190107), but when I look at the historic, for example for Q60882798, I can't identify what is the modification. I can see that EN description has been updated, but to me the look the same.

Since I'm using a script to update all the MSC weather station data, I don't want to overwrite all your changes, which may be something the script will do, but would like to integrate the fix you've done.

Could you help me by identifying what is the update?

Thanks, Dirac (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It was just a change from "Meteorogical" to "Meteorological"; if anything else was changed in this batch (#37656) it was not intentional. There are also the automatic stations, where I'm changing "Meteorogical Service of Canada automatic's station" to "Meteorological Service of Canada's automatic station" (#37684). Peter James (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems that I was unable to see this typo... I've fixed the script, where the problem originated. Thanks for fixing all the stations, Dirac (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There's also the move of "automatic" to after "'s" (which should be on the end of "Canada") - it looks like that hasn't been changed in the script. Peter James (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Done! Dirac (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful work[edit]

Thank you so much for connecting my boring Wikipedia articles to Wikidata, I'll try to remember to do it myself when I start new ones now! I love Wikidata, it's just so streamlined and simple. Many thanks again. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

North Yorkshire (Q21241814)North Yorkshire (Q23086)Yorkshire and the Humber (Q48063) hierarchy[edit]

Hello! I just saw your edits trying to fix this problem. I have proposed a property that would avoid multiple filling of P131. What do you think about this? The idea is that for North Yorkshire (Q21241814), as well as for any other non-metropolitan county (Q769603), only ceremonial county of England (Q180673) should be filled in P131 with region of England (Q48091) can be specified by the qualifier. This will help maintain common approaches in queries, see examples in the discussion. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly a solution for P131 (I already use multiple P131 on some things, such as bridges that cross boundaries) but my edits were to correct the contains administrative territorial entity (P150) on Yorkshire and the Humber (Q48063), and to fix the constraint violation caused by the edits to that item. For the proposal, an inverse qualifier would also be necessary - or is there already one that can be used? Peter James (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I suggest applies to part (P518) at North Yorkshire (Q23086) as inverse qualifier for proposed qualifier. But if we have two statements at located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of North Yorkshire (Q21241814) then this makes the decision to maintain a hierarchy meaningless. The main idea is to specify only the next level of hierarchy in P131, this is more important than the curious constraint violation. It would be better to add exception to constraint (P2303) to property constraint (P2302) of contains administrative territorial entity (P150) for cases like with North Yorkshire (Q23086). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Interview Invitation[edit]

Greetings,

I noticed your editing stats in Wikidata, which led me to look up your profile. Thank you for all the great work!

I’m reaching out to you because I’m working on a research project about understanding what motivates editors like you to contribute to Wikidata. We’re also interested in learning about how you feel your contributions are being used outside of Wikidata. Since you are such an active community member, I thought you might also be interested in helping to build the broader community’s knowledge about Wikidata, and why it matters.

If you’re interested, let’s schedule a time to talk over Zoom, or whichever platform you prefer. If you are interested, please fill in a questionnaire. The conversation should take about 30 min.

Hope you have a great day,

Chuankaz (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing coordinates[edit]

I don't understand why, when I have actually visited these places and located them to a common standard on the OS map, you change them back to the often incorrect and inaccurate Historic England coordinates, which do not operate to a common standard. If I'm wasting my time here, please let me know and I will go away and take up knitting, but personally, I consider myself a reliable source because I do know what I'm doing. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, for example Q26587732. You redirected to an INCORRECT use of the English language. 1. Spaces should ALWAYS surround punctuation marks like "-". 2. Don't use Historic England names, they are not unique amnd often faulty. Wikidata expresses uniqueness through Q numbers but humans don't and we must make it easy for humans to maintain. In future, if you assume that the Commons category names are the optimal, and that I understand what I'm doing and why, Wikidata will be a defensible, and even a quality project. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
If there are multiple coordinates and some have a source and others don't (or are imported from Wikimedia projects) I keep the statements with a source and remove those without, unless the sourced statements are wrong. Unless I made a mistake somewhere, those I removed on the merged items pointed to the same buildings as the coordinates from Historic England. Creation of duplicates can be avoided by searching, for example "haswbstatement:P1216=1300428" for Q26587732 (using just the number works, although occasionally there are too many results). Labels are not intended to be unique or specific enough to identify something - for that the description is needed, and there are still many that are inadequate or missing. I agree Historic England names shouldn't always be used, and the descriptions based on Historic England can be improved (the descriptions were only added as better than nothing, possibly as the first imports didn't have descriptions and unrelated items were being merged). Dashes between numbers don't have spaces around them anywhere else I have looked - Wikipedia manual of style says not to use them, and looking for similar use of dashes in books, I found they were unspaced. En dashes seem to be preferred to hyphens (at least in prose), but they are not as easy to add in Wikidata. Peter James (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
And you've turned Q26587835 into crap too. I don't want my name associated with incompetent use of the English language; I have a reputation to maintain. Kindly stop dong this. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No label defined (Q3862955)[edit]

My settings are for British English, not English. So if you remove the British English labels, I see nothing. Could you tell me how that is helpful please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And you've turned Q26587835 into crap too. I don't want my name associated with poor use of the English language. Kindly stop reverting my good work into nonsennse. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
My settings are for British English, and if there's no label or description in British English, English is displayed instead. The only exception is after editing a label or description, they disappear from the title unless the page is reloaded. The edits to Q26587835 are correct; I edited to move the description and at the same time removed dashes. Historic England and Royal Mail don't add spaces around dashes or hyphens between numbers, and it's the same in books and newspapers; some use spaces around dashes between words, but not in ranges of numbers. Peter James (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree but I'm too old, frail, unwell and tired to argue for correct use of English. You say Wikidata do it because other people do it, so I'm assuming that you eat the same food, attend the same mosque, and have sex with the same people as your next door neighbour. If that makes sense to you, I'm giving up contributing to this project because I cannot stand my name being on low quality material. It never has been in the past and I'm not starting now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello Peter James,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

New items[edit]

Hi, it's fine to create new items like Barn to Shibden Hall Museum (Q99671124) and Batsford Park (Q99671085), but you can at least give a Label to them? It would be nice. --Fralambert (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I was moving identifiers to new items; I'll add the labels and statements in QuickStatements. Peter James (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
A ok, thanks then. --Fralambert (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)