Wikidata talk:WikiProject British Politicians
Historic Hansard matching update
I did another push on these last night and we're now back to 1950. Assuming we use Historic Hansard for 1832 onwards and History of Parliament before that, that means our status is -
- 11th-38th (28) still to import from Historic Hansard
- 39th-51st (13) imported from Historic Hansard and still need party affiliation and general tidying
- 52nd-57th (6) imported from MySociety and pretty good
The more recent parliaments tended to have party switches and so on actually coded into Historic Hansard - two seperate memberships even if the actual affiliation isn't there. Before 1974, this seems only to happen for the Speaker (and not always then). On the other hand, in 1974 and earlier, Historic Hansard is definitely missing some people. So far we have been able to backfill almost all of these by comparing Wikidata to the relevant Wikipedia category, but this approach will break down sometime around the turn of the century when we can no longer reliably assume we have a Wikipedia article for them.
For the record, my methodology for import is:
- Run import script offline (takes five minutes), process through QuickStatements2 (takes an hour or two, go and do something else)
- Do a quick check for any MPs with double term values, as these will have imported badly, and break them out. (These are rare in pre-1974 parliaments). Also check that everyone has a start/end date (the script should always provide one).
- Run a constituency report to find any which have matched to constituencies which were not yet created or had previously been dissolved. Create new items where necessary, update the MPs, and also update the Hansard constituencies match on mix-and-match. Where Hansard has a single entry for a constituency which we would otherwise subdivide (this is annoyingly common), relink it to the one most appropriate for the current matching round. This is a lot of work for the parliament just before a boundary change, fairly quick otherwise.
- Find missing MPs. First, run a petscan check for any MPs in the relevant enwiki category who don't have the appropriate P39 value - and manually confirm they are correctly categorised, and should not be merged into an existing Wikidata item. Then copy this over into Wikidata. This may not always be perfect (note the gap in 1964-66) so I'm looking for other ways of identifying a gap in the data here.
- Run the constituency report again after this import in case of mismatches.
- Quick sanity-check for completeness - do we have the right number of distinct constituencies reported in this time period?
- Update the tracker, update the import script values, and start over again.
It takes two or three hours to do a parliament (a bit more for complex ones like the one with the mass Labour to SDP defections). However, it's trotting along nicely, and I am hopeful we can get back to 1832 by early next year. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Suspension of Ian Paisley, Jr
@Andrew Gray: I see you've already created a new P39 for Ian Paisley, Jr. (Q575881) being suspended from his party. What's your thinking on recording his suspension from Parliament itself? We do have an item for the concept — Suspension from the UK parliament (Q7649223), via its enwiki page — though currently nothing is using it. --Oravrattas (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Oravrattas: I plan to do this but there's a bit of a weird snag - Paisley's suspension is in the future. As I understand it, he will be suspended when Parliament resumes in September - he's not suspended now, because otherwise they'd be in the situation of suspending him when Parliament wasn't in session anyway, making it a bit of a limited punishment! I've held off making these edits for now because I don't want to mess around too much with future dates.
- Having said that, it seems we don't actually model any of the people at w:Suspension from the UK parliament - I had thought we had for Jonathan Sayeed (Q6274334) at the very least. I will add this to the to-do list - end one term on day of suspension with appropriate qualifier, start a new one X days later, as though they'd very briefly resigned and been re-elected. Probably be a way down the priority list, though! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- That said, I don't really know what we should do come September. End the current term and leave it there - but that risks forgetting to update it on his return. We could add his return dated in the future, but that comes back to the same problem of "things that haven't happened yet". One to think about! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Constituencies "said to be the same as" earlier versions
The suggestion to use said to be the same as (P460) to tie together historic versions of constituencies seems a little odd to me. My understanding of that property is that it's used for articles that we'd like to merge, as they're believed to be conceptually the same thing, except there's either two different Wikipedia articles in one language, so we practically can't merge, or someone actually disputes that the two things really are exactly the same. Wouldn't this be closer to different from (P1889) (these might look at first glance like they're the same thing, but they're actually conceptually separate)? --Oravrattas (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)