User talk:Cdo256

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Cdo256/Archive 1 on 2020-09-10.

From Hill To Shore (talkcontribs)

Hi. Can you please explain what you are trying to achieve with removing the instance of (P31) from lots of different items? You are creating multiple constraint violations across the database where linked items are looking for P31 on the parent item.

From Hill To Shore (talkcontribs)

Also, please note that you should never remove a deprecated statement. A deprecated statement is already inactive and your removal of it just makes it more likely that it is reinserted later as valid. See Help:Deprecation.

Cdo256 (talkcontribs)

Hiya Shore. Sorry for creating issues with constraints. Most of what I wanted to do was make ensure that items that have subclasses and aren't metaclasses should be P279 instead of P31. I also removed P31's that appeared to be wrong. Could you give an example of what constraint violations I've created? In general do you know how I could see a report of what constraint violations I've caused recently? Regarding deprication, that was a mistake is there a way to see removal of depricated statements?

The query that I've been using is as follows:

The following query uses these:

  • Properties: subclass of (P279)  , instance of (P31)  
     1 SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?item2 ?item2Label
     2 WHERE 
     3 {
     4   VALUES ?item3 {
     5 wd:Q488383  
     6 wd:Q1554231 
     7 wd:Q6671777
     8 wd:Q16532276
     9 wd:Q16686448
    10 wd:Q18706315
    11 wd:Q21522864
    12 wd:Q23958946
    13 wd:Q23960977
    14 wd:Q24238356
    15 wd:Q58415929
    16 wd:Q96196009
    17 wd:Q96196524
    18 wd:Q99527517
    19   } .
    20   ?item2 wdt:P279 ?item3 .
    21   ?item p:P31/ps:P31 ?item2 .
    22   ?item0 wdt:P279 ?item
    23   SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
    24 }
    25 ORDER BY DESC(?item2)
    26 LIMIT 3000
    

The idea behind it is that it's looking for cases where it sees P279/P31/P279 which can only be correct for meta-classes and then I look at the results and decide whether P31 should be changed to P279. I used the the description of P31 and P279 from Help:Basic membership properties and also by looking at the description and examples on instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279).

From Hill To Shore (talkcontribs)

I can only give you a partial answer here as I am not familiar with the query side of the system. I'll bring this up on Project Chat to see if someone can offer further advice. However, I suspect that there won't be any reports that can pinpoint constraint violations yyou have caused or your removal of deprecated statements as they are the result of blanking data; the query won't be able to identify the absence and link it to you.

For what I can answer, an example of the constraint violations is your removal of instance of (P31) related to occupation (P106). occupation (P106) has a value type constraint (Q21510865) with a qualifier for relation (P2309) = instance of (P31).

Reply to "removal of P31 on multiple items"
Hjart (talkcontribs)

I think your removal of instance of (P31) for churches, windmills etc is a really, really bad idea and should be wholly reverted.

Cdo256 (talkcontribs)

Reverting this now.

Reply to "removal of P31 for churches etc"
There are no older topics