Wikidata:Bot requests/Archive/2015/03

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Could a bot go through and add instance of (P31) is legal case (Q2334719) to the 20K+ cases en:Wikisource:Category:United States case law. There are just too many of them to do this with autolist. For added accuracy, one could start with titles that include "v." and then manually check the remaining pages. Thanks, Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Also some 3200 pages are yet to be added to wikidata from this category if I am not mistaken.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Those 3200 pages are mainly subpages, e.g. s:en:Zane_v._Soffe/Opinion_of_the_Court. Should such subpages also be importeted? --Pasleim (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If they are subpages then they should not be imported. Only the index page belongs here.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pasleim: Seems you completed this task? Can it be archived then? -- Bene* talk 12:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Can be archived. I will still try to add the missing ~900 sitelinks from en:s:Category:United States case law to the corresponding items but this is actually beyond the original request. --Pasleim (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Move cultural heritage status from P31 to P1435 (new list)

After some hesitations it seems that we have some consensu on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Cultural heritage to move data about the heritage status of buildings from instance of (P31) to heritage designation (P1435). Requests that had been made in Wikidata:Bot requests/Archive/2014/08# Move values, qualifiers and references from nature de l'élément (P31) to statut patrimonial (P1435) appear to have been carried out. However, other values should also be moved from P31 to P435 (as usual, including references and qualifeirs, no autolist):

--Zolo (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Might this leave some articles with no P31? What should be done in such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not see any issue with that. They just (temporarily) won't have any p31. At least, this will be easy to notice and fix, compared to the current situation where the absence of a meaningful P31 is hard to notice. --Zolo (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
A bot to log the ones which no longer have a P31 at that point would be a good idea. --Izno (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is really necessary. If we want a list of items with heritage designation (P1435) but no p31, we can find that through autolist. It does not really make any meaningful difference that it used to have its p1435 value in P31 or not. --Zolo (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Category as value

I suppose that categories usually cannot be a value of property (major exception: topic's main category (P910), and arguably subclass of (P279)). So can anyone generate a list of most popular categories (like Wikidata:Database reports/Popular items) - it would probably contain some items to correct. --Infovarius (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Infovarius: see Wikidata:Database reports/Most linked category items --Pasleim (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Gray's Anatomy data

This section was archived on a request by: Was a bee (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Would you process following Gray's Anatomy data?

1. Get "GrayPage" data in en:Template:Infobox_Anatomy in English Wikipedia, and store it at this place.

2. Get P1698 (P1698) data, and save it at this place.

Background of this request: Gray's subject data was formerly imported from EnWp by other bot requests (1, 2). But situation was bit changed from first plan through the discussion at property proposal (3). Changed from "Saving data in certain specific properties (e.g. P1698)" to "Saving data to described by source section". This current bot request is the result of that discussion. And major part of "Gray's subject" data exist in infobox_anatomy in EnWp though, some of "Gray's subject" data had been already erased at EnWp after the bot requests mentioned above was processed, like this. So the second part of this current bot request is "moving data from section to section within Wikidata", rather than importing from EnWp. Thanks! --Was a bee (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support Result of consensus work. At last step delete P1698 (P1698): this property should be deleted. Snipre (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support a little bit complicated but as I can make out "Gray's Anatomy" will be treated as a source and each entry will have a page and subject. Given this, I support what's proposed. It's a very useful (and more logical) arrangement, and I hope for both templates and eventually anatomical articles. --LT910001 (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
One month passed from last edit. I think this is because this request is bit complicated. So I decided trying to challenge this by myself. See Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Wasabot. Thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done--Was a bee (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Wanted footballers

I want to update these lists. I created Template:Wanted footballers for that reason. This template will help to update lists. I put this template on discussion page of some footballers like Talk:Q823064. However, Maybe there are hundreds of thousands of footballers. Too many. So, I can't put on all footballers. I want a bot to put this template on all footballers. Can you this task? --Japan Football (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To create the Wanted footballer list, you don't need that template. With http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-terminator/?list&lang=en&mode=tx&q=claim%5B106:937857%5D you can directly create these lists. Just replace lang=en in the URL with another language code to get the other lists. Also categories likte Category:Footballers-Japan are unnecessary. Use http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?lang=ja&q=claim%5B106%3A937857%5D%20and%20claim%5B27%3A17%5D to get a list of all footballer players from Japan. --Pasleim (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to use those sites. Please tell me how to make a Wanted footballers lists from those sites. --Japan Football (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

see now Wikidata:WikiProject Association football/Wanted footballers --Pasleim (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Occupations on lists

Hi, I need a bot for changing occupation (P106) to is a list of (P360) moving occupation (P106) claims on Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) items to qualifiers of is a list of (P360) (if the claim exists). It's a part of my occupation cleanup sprint, any help will be greatly appreciated. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone for this task? Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P106#Type Q5, Q95074 is still one big mess. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
moved some claims, claim[31:13406463] and claim[106] should now give zero results. BTW: I'm not sure if the type constraint on occupation (P106) is right. An item can be about a occupation (Q13516667) or can be a subclass of people, but imo not both at the same time. --Pasleim (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The constraint maybe doesn't make sense but I would say
⟨ politician (Q82955)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ human (Q5)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
and
⟨ politician (Q82955)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ occupation (Q13516667)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
are correct. I have introduced it rather to clean up the mess (it has already taken two months) and to make and maintain a "tree of occupations". Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
We have been discussing that privately before (User talk:Gymel#Property talk:P106). I finally understood the logic in Matěj Suchánek's reasoning, it is based on identifying the profession with the set of all individuals with that profession, identifying sets of individuals with classes of individuals and therefore any profession is a subclass of "human" (or rather person?). At least for the German language it is hard to argue against the validity of that reasoning, because for any profession you can express "he is an architect" likewise as "Er ist ein Architekt" (profession as attribute) and as "Er ist Architekt" (profession as membership). However I'm still opposing this way of viewing upon occupation (P106) because a) any property mostly suitable for objects of a class A can be used to define a subclassing of A, thats tautological. And b) having subclasses of A you can express the original property equivalently by means of instance of (P31). So this approach to occupation (P106) has similarities to the current discussion about sex or gender (P21) at Wikidata:Project chat#gender question (message_moved) and the "usual" questions arise how to deal with (fictitious) occupations of fictitious or other non-human entities, whether professions don't have definitions of their own and therefore should not be seen as mere subdivisions of mankind, and if "wikidata" really wants it this way. -- Gymel (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dates

I have set more than 8000 dates via "Wikidata - The Game" and because of that I can safely say that a bot could also do this with a efficiency of 95 - 99 %. The bot should only take a look on articles where two brackets and withing these brackets date(s) are. If the date of the death of the person is missing, the bot should enter the date after the "-", the "†" or the word "death" as the property. If the date of the birth of the person is missing, the bot should enter the date before the "-", the "*" or after the word "born" as the property. This could be also done with other languages just by translating the words "born" and "died". --Impériale (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have set more than 100,000 dates via "Wikidata - The Game", and I highly disagree that this is something that can be done by bot -- there are just too many irregularities. In the case where dates are added with templates it can be done very reliably, but not in cases where the dates are stored in plain text. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Haha, good work! What irregularities do you mean? I'll try to explain the bot better (i have a bit experience with programming):

::If in the first line are numbers and parentheses then:
:::If a "*" or a "born" is between the parentheses then:
::::If there is one! date between a "*" or a "born" and a "†" or a "died" then:
:::::If the date of the persons birth is missing in wikidata then:
::::::transcribe it wikidata
:::::Else:
::::::go to the next article
::::else:
:::::go to the next article
:::elif a "†" or a "died" is between the parentheses then:
::::If there is one! date between a "†" or a "died" and the ")" parentheses then:
:::::If the date of the persons death is missing in wikidata then:
::::::transcribe it wikidata
::::else:
:::::go to the next article
:::elif a "-" is between the parentheses then:
::::If there is one! date between the "(" and the "-":
:::::If the date of the persons birth is missing:
::::::transcribe it to wikidata
::::else:
:::::go to the next article
::::If there is one! date between the "-" and the ")":
:::::If the date of the persons death is missing:
::::::transcribe it to wikidata
::::else:
:::::go to the next article
:::else:
::::go to the next article
::else:
:::go to the next ariticle
I know that there are probably some mistakes but in my imagination this bot could not solve set all dates (there would be still a lot of work for us), but I think it should work nearly without mistakes and help us a lot. --Impériale (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: go over all 8000 additions and make sure you know whether each and every date was in the Gregorian or Julian calendar. This has been discussed before in this forum.
For example, this edit claims that David Leslie Melville, 6th Earl of Leven, was born 4 May 1722, Gregorian calendar. But this source says that he was born 4 May 1722 in Leven, Fife, UK. At that date and place the Julian calendar was in force, so the date 4 May 1722 appears to be a Julian calendar date, not a Gregorian calendar date. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you probably know how many articles are proximally affected (in percentage) by this? --Impériale (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If you mean how many in all of wikidata, I would say all dates before 1583 are suspect. Also, dates of people from the British Isles, Canada, and American colonies before 1752. Russia before 1918. Greece before 1923. I don't know what the coverage is for persons from various areas and time periods, so I couldn't guess what the percentage is. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
So after this dates the bot wouldn't probably make any mistakes, right? --Impériale (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Since the bot will usually not know in what region a dated event occurred, it would have to assume the latest date. The latest adoption date for the Gregorian calendar (where the previous calendar was the Julian calendar) is documented at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200307523
That date is March 1, 1923. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think even that would affect a few thousand entries. Is there anyone who could realise this? --Impériale (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If you mean, can anyone make the corrections with a bot, I don't know how myself, but I guess the procedure might be something like this:

  1. Obtain a list of all the edits made by the bot that didn't know about Julian/Gregorian.
  2. See if the date is greater than or equal to 1 March 1923; if so, do nothing.
  3. See if the current date matches the date inserted by the bot; if the dates do not match, do nothing.
  4. See if any references have been added since the bot edit; if so, put the article on a list for manual inspection.
  5. If no references have been added since the bot edit, delete the date.

Jc3s5h (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

✓ OK your list looks great but i think the last point is not necessary because there are manually also no references needed. --Impériale (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The point about references is that if the references are the same as when the bot imported the date, there is no new information to show if the date is right or wrong. But if a reference was added, that means a human editor probably looked at the date, decided it was right, and added a reference. A bot should not override a decision by a human editor.
At some point in the process, there must be a step where the suspicious date is deleted. Otherwise the process never does anything and there is no point in the procedure. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "In the case where dates are added with templates it can be done very reliably" - In en.Wikipedia infoboxes, many (sadly not all) dates use en:Template:Birth date, en:Template:Birth date and age, en:Template:Death date, en:Template:Death date and age, en:Template:Start date, en:Template:Death date, en:Template:Film date, or suchlike. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is fortunate that some infoboxes do not use the templates listed by User:Pigsonthewing because all those emit metadata which is specified to use ISO 8601 and the Gregorian calendar. But since it is contrary to normal writing customs in the English language to use the Julian calendar before 15 October 1582, or for any event that occurred at a time and place where the Julian calendar was in force, any such date placed in one of the listed templates would be false information, either to the human reader, or to the metadata user. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Could someone have a Bot compare (a) the articles linked to at en:Template:German Type VII submarines and sub-templates with (b) pt:Predefinição:Tipo VIIA, pt:Predefinição:Tipo VIIB, pt:Predefinição:Tipo VIIC, pt:Predefinição:Tipo VIIC/41, pt:Predefinição:Tipo VIID, pt:Predefinição:Tipo VIIF; and, when both en.wp and pt.wp articles exist, but aren't linked on Wikidata, merge the Wikidata items? I have done two ([1], [2]) by hand as proof of concept; it would be quite tedious to manually go through the entire list. Thanks! It Is Me Here t / c 20:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Bot_requests/Archive/2015/03&oldid=254308425"