User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2017

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Curious about beign an admin

Hmmm, im kind of curious to becoming admin here. Odds of passing? MechQuester (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I would not be able to say, I mostly keep out of the politics locally, and each place is different. My assessment is always on where the person says that they are going to help, ie. focusing on the task that needs work, that they demonstrate the skills for the task, and whether they will reduce any backlog — why we need admins! I see that we currently have 26 active admins, so that is neither high nor low. I have no idea about admin tasks, so my question would be have you read those local pages, and how do you think that the place will be better for you being an admin (ie. think benefits, not features, of you).  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

UN Doc

Hi, I was wondering if this is appropriate for WikiSource. Thanks MechQuester (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@MechQuester: s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes ... it is freely licensed and peer-reviewed so would fit. You can upload from toollabs:url2commons though please use c:Template:Book rather than information template.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. MechQuester (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Item to be delete

In RFD there are one or more item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate --ValterVB (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Cantharidus and Category:Micrelenchus

You have moved en:Category:Cantharidusi from Q16795885 to Q14977825 but Q14977825 is "Category:Micrelenchus". It was an error or Micrelenchus and Cantharidusi are the same thing? --ValterVB (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: I was aligning the enWP category and the Commons category, the Commons looks to be aligned somewhat with names and they belong under one name or the other. No expert knowledge.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge items

Hi Billinghurst!. Items Category:Capitals (Q5743744) and Category:National capitals (Q7214555) need to be merged. They are the same items about capitals category. I am facing some conflicts while merging. Need your help! --Aswn (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aswn:, not done. They are separate categories on pages and different items. Thus cannot be merged. MechQuester (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aswn: Agree with MechQuester. If you look at the Commons Cat you will see that it could be considered the parent to "National capitals".  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

family name

Hello! You are creating many family names, which is great, but can you add native label (P1705) systematically? Even with a "mul" value as language. It would be so much easier to complete them afterwards. Thank you very much! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Harmonia Amanda: Not sure that it is great <grumble mumble> there has to be better way <fiddly faffing around!!>. Can't I just run a tool through to populate them at a point of time? It is fiddly enough adding what I have been adding.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well it's the system chosen by the project years ago: a string, an item. So we can differentiate between similar names, names in different writing systems, etc. I don't care if you run another tool right after creating the items instead of directly creating them cleanly, that's your choice, but it should be done hours after at most, and not days. Thank you --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

These are Wikisource-centric entries, and we are a looooooong way off using this data (mind you we are 2400 entries closer). @Multichill: Might you be able to design a pywikibot job to do this task? I can set up Wikisource-bot to push the addition task at the end of a session of creations. Otherwise I will look at the existing tools to see which will be able to best do that even more drudge work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Harmonia Amanda: The monotonous and repetitive task of pasting the name entered, and then to replicate it into a specific "native label" with mul seems pretty pointless, and maybe I don't sufficiently understand the point and use of the label itself. I would have thought that the native label would be taken as replicating the descriptor if left empty, or where left empty that we would have a bot going through and doing that stuff, not utilising people time. My purpose for entering family names is to give my langauge Wikisource the ability to run queries and write reports utilising the given/family names, and the more that I have to replicate data added is time not spent populating missing (useful?) data.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst: well, P1705 is the important statement. We can add labels based on this one, and we do. But we can't do the reverse, because we don't know when we have a label if it's the original name or a transliteration of the original name: Yamamoto (Q231555) isn't Yamamoto (Q24090378) isn't Yamamoto (Q26229828) isn't Yamamoto (Q26000288). I never asked that you do it manually! You can use CSV2QS (which would mean duplicating a column in a .csv, not exactly time consuming) then QuickStatements. I seriously hope you are not creating family names manually but using QuickStatements or another script right now (in which case, doing it properly isn't difficult). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am doing manually, as I am populating surnames for authors (and creating where needed), and that is the only way to do it as one has to search for the names existence. If the top label is least important then we need a means to start with a native label and populate the other way, especially as this is the only ready means to find items.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Meaning that it would be great when creating an item to be able to coincidentally set the label field AND the native label with the creation process, not sequential actions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no, don't do it manually. Either you can start a .csv, adding lines to it as you discover missing names and then create it as a batch when you have enough; or you can go to the French IRC chan (#wikidata-fr on Freenode) to use User:DæghrefnBot script. It's not surprising you are weary of creating missing names if you do it by hand! You should maybe talk to @Hsarrazin:, she did similar work to yours for the French Wikisource. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me you at least activated the gadget labelLister in your preferences and added Auto descriptions in your common.js. Because if not, I can't even understand how tiring it must be. We have tools to help us, absolutely no need to do work that can be automatized. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm that the use of User:DæghrefnBot script through the #wikidata-fr is very quick, efficient, and all you have to do afterwards is go to the item and add the native label (P1705), which is the only way, for users of other writings to distinguish between transcriptions and languages... :)

the "Konstantin" case would be its name on the Name project ;D Hsarrazin (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

contributed to creative work (P3919)

Thanks for getting this property created. It was on my mental list of things to do. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

VIAF ID (P214) of Khlong Toei (Q1403340)

I wonder why you removed the VIAF ID (P214) of Khlong Toei (Q1403340) [1]. The VIAF page is very cryptic for me, but I doubt they really mean to assign that number to Khlong Toei (Q7187981), one of the subdistricts which make up the district Khlong Toei. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The VIAF ID was used on two terms, and they are supposedly unique, so link to one. I left the term to which VIAF linked to WD.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

SDrewthbot

Your bot has been listed at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Inactive bot accounts as being inactive for over two years. As a housekeeping measure it's proposed to remove the bot flag from inactive bot accounts, unless you expect the bot will be operated again in the near future. If you consent to the removal of the bot flag (or do not reply on the deflag page) you can rerequest the bot flag at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot should you need it again. Of course, You may request retaining your bot flag here if you need the bot flag. Regards--GZWDer (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@GZWDer: Thanks for the contact. I have already made comment on the page. I have the choice of either running such queries from this account or from the bot. I don't mind which I use, and will take the guidance of the community. The account is secure and monitored.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Please take time to explain your addition of 364 and 407

Revision as of 04:27, 24 July 2017 The edit was again applied, with a link to the general conversation. I do not see that P2439 has been agreed as the replacement. This should be discussed rather than enforced.

edit edit

• Consensus to merge
• Recipient: P364

None of above is "decided by me" or "unaddressed".

Status of P2439 isn't clear (e.g. Strakhov to keep only P2439) but you removed message twice without any meaningful explanation. d1g (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have two comments on the talk page of the page, which is where we are meant to discuss changes to a page. The consensus to merge P364 is to P407, not to P2439, which is how I read your proposed edits. I see nothing about P2439 on your provided links beyond your own opinions, and not a consensus. If you wish to amend that page to only mention P407, then go for it, to that I have no dispute.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

explain your addition of 364 please?

both messages are quite meaningless (but I commented both of them). d1g (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add P364 specifically, I simply undid your edit and took the matter to the talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Revision as of 06:07, 24 July 2017 There is simply no consensus for P2439, please do not add it. If you think that it should be added then the appropriate place for that discussion is here in the project talk page, not on some discussion to delete.

I see nothing about P2439 on your provided links beyond your own opinions, and not a consensus

@Billinghurst: 1. do you realize that User:Strakhov and me are different users? 2. who except of you insist of "P2439 as the only property to use"? Who said that? Me? Where?

@Billinghurst: your false accusations are everywhere on wiki: mainspace, talkpage, this page. d1g (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: consensus to use P2439 for anything d1g (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@D1gggg: The edit "bold, revert discuss" process, and I am trying to discuss and you keep putting the same statements back in. That is not the wiki way for consensus. The process for these WikiProjects to develop the guidance for addition, not for one person to come and impose their wishes. Please have the courtesy to discuss on the WikiProject talk page and stop imposing your PoV until there is a consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst: You seem to ignore questions. Consider this is as last warning. d1g (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

STOP

your third edit

• You added P364 again - any explanation?
• You removed notice about "P2439 or P407" (while claiming it is about "only P2439") - any explanation?

d1g (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Me stop? Care to say why my following the process is wrong, but your readding your PoV is right? My commentary is in the undoing of the edit, and the talk page of the reverted page. Which bit of wikis do you not get?  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: absolutely no answers from you but even more personal attacks. d1g (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed on the talk page that you edited. Good wiki protocol.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: you had 7 hours to answer why do you re-add P364 - even when YOU agree to remove it.

Any healthy person see how "everything is fine" at your talk page.

I didn't add anything d1g (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Do not misquote me. I said "I didn't add P364 specifically, I simply undid your edit and took the matter to the talk page." That is what I said, and I have also said that I have no issue with removal of P364, and if that is your concern, I will edit the page so that is clear.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst: True! I'm guilty. You are the only allowed to unlimited defamation spree, right?! d1g (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Billinghurst: You removed notice about "P2439 or P407" (while claiming it is about "only P2439") - any explanation?
• You removed link to current discussion, why you did this? d1g (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, you can clear off my talk page. I have explained what I would do, and I have done it. On this matter I will now only enter into conversations with you on the Wikidata_talk: page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, policies, wikilayering, pure bad faith assumptions, not using friendly words (ever), never asking users about their intend.

@Billinghurst: Lood luck in life! d1g (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikinews categories

Regarding your reverts like this one: AFAIK wikinews categories should be linked to articles in other projects. See Wikidata:Wikinews/Development#Interproject links. But indeed I forgot to remove the

⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ Wikimedia category (Q4167836)    ⟩

. I wil fix that. Lymantria (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lymantria: Then we are going to need some clarification as the process as professed is merge categories with categories, not to merge them with items. It is a problematic rule to manage that the Wikinews categories don't align with the other categories, and similar items. It has also been problematic when the general "Category:YYYY Olympic Games" are merged to "YYYY Summer Olympics" especially for those years that have both winter and summer games, as has been done in the past couple of days.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand. The second problem is a clear one. But the merge of wikinews categories to wikipedia articles is not a new issue. In fact wikinews categories should not have Wikimedia category (Q4167836). Lymantria (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. I see that there are many misplaced wikinews category links. Perhaps this is worth a discussion at project chat...

@Lymantria: not having them labelled as Wikimedia categories clearly differentiates the issue, and does allow us to give that clear guidance needed ... "only merge a Wikimedia category item with another Wikimedia category item" AND it won't cause the conflicts that I saw when merged. proper instances seems like the first fix.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

And that seems to be a problem - quite a few are misplaced and do indeed have a instance of Wikimedia category (Q4167836) claim. Maybe worth a bot request. Lymantria (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

VIAF ID of Behringen

Hi Billinghurst, why did you remove the VIAF ID of Q27477041? VIAF ID 295467181 seems right to me. --ChristianSW (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --ChristianSW (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

for your comment, could you sign it? I don't want to {{subst:unsigned}} you :-) --78.53.71.61 14:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

oops, it was the last thing that I did prior to heading to bed. Apologies.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Easy creation of work item from edition... with WEF edition

Hello,

I accidentally found today that it is perfectly possible to create the work item directly when editing the edition item with WEF edition...

When you edit the edition item, in the "edition of" field, you can search the work item... and if you don't, by typing a label that still doesn't exist (like "title (author)", the little pen for editing the work changes to propose the Creation of item as.... work... and automatically links it :)

This + the script for moving claims have allowed me to easily create works from editions today (which is much easier than the other way round)...

Hope you'll find it usefull :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

PS : this of course does not solve the problem of finding the original title of a translated work... Goethe was very mean to me this afternoon, but I finally managed to complete all plays we have on wikisource, including one that it not in wp, not in fr, nor in en, nor in de… thanks Google books… I searched with the name of characters ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Grant baronet of Monymusk

Grant baronet of Monymusk (Q41799287); could you please add more info? I have no idea what this item is about… Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: I am trying to dig up other similar items to see how they have been classified, whether they are considered as a baronet or a baronetcy, not found a style guide for this sort of thing. I needed a placeholder. It is sitting open at home and will try to get back to it tonight.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I just wasn’t sure whether it was forgotten. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Authority control

Hi Billinghurst, please do not copy authority control from English Wikisource without checking the IDs. 2014 I've tried to correct Wikisource but gave up, since my edits were reversed. KasparBot made a list with one widespread error (User:KasparBot/GND Type N). Till now nobody did a clean up. --Kolja21 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kolja21: I don't copy them from there to here, never have. As a community we haven't even had them at Wikisource for over a year, as we solely pull that data from here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Authority control should identify a person. "Raleigh, Henry" for example is just a name (= placeholder; VIAF "undifferentiated", Wikipedia "disambiguation").

1. GND 10216973X (name): Raleigh, Henry
2. GND 189387874 (name): Raleigh, Henry P.
3.  OK GND 1142577708 (person): Raleigh, Henry (1880-1945), American illustrator

Please only ad personalized IDs. This was the discussion we had on English Wikisource in 2014. (For further information, see Help:P227.) --Kolja21 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just working from https://viaf.org/viaf/95974146/ , not working directly from DNB. I must have missed the "undiff" bit at the time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing an Id on Guillaume de Machaut (Q200580) ?

Hi Billinghurst, I notice that back in June you had removed a lot of identifiers and especially the Bibliothèque nationale de France ID (P268): there. It seems to me that the record in BnF authority catalog was correct before you remove it but I am wondering if there is something I missed? Symac (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Symac: I was working off a whole lot of incorrectly applied VIAF and other extended authority control data and it was more effective to remove the applied data, and re-add with the authority control tool. It is possible that I removed correct data, though I would have thought that the tool would have successfully reapplied that data, I may have missed it. [We had a situation where one piece of bad data within the AC then had bots and people filling extra data. Ugly circle.]

Q1064802

Hi Billinghurst,

Most identifiers on that item seem to amalgamate the two persons. This is why I had left them there. I think if we add them elsewhere (or remove them), it's likely to perpetuate this.
--- Jura 09:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: I wasn't planning on adding them, especially as they are already on the other items, and flagging violations. You have already added a veracity statement to deWP which should manage that side, and with the flags added to the item, that seemed sufficient to manage this without further propagating errors. Are you aware of the way that VIAF is picking up the crud mistakes that people have made? They tend to propagate, embed and become hard to fix. Apart from being embarrassing, we simply do not want known bad data to remain from local careless errors.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it seems to be incorrect at LOC/GND etc, not just WP. Oddly the bot readded it to Q26222216 despite Topic:U0ad018o6jmj2sdd.
--- Jura 09:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I see your issue about LoC, I have emailed them to address a fix. I have also contacted archive.org through general channels, and if that fails, we can try inside channels. I much prefer direct action to sitting and watching. That will be an old error based on the books being authored by "Colonel Churchill", it looks as though it took enWP a while to separate the two gentleman. I would almost recommend pulling all the crap assignations.

As a further general comment, I am really sick of those who bots that blithely and blindly apply data. Bot operators don't take responsibility for the added cruft and mistakes. Their lazy comments or approach that someone else can fix it is both insulting and irresponsible. Yes, it is quicker, but I hardly think that becomes appropriate for building a quality data set. Yes, I am grumpy, and yes I understand that mistakes occur, and I have had my share of those errors. Elsewhere operators are responsible for their bots, here it doesn't seem to be the case. Expediency of data addition seems to outweigh quality of addition.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikidata way of dealing with incorrect data is to deprecate it. I don't think we should wait for everyone else to fix their problems especially if they could monitor Wikidata to improve their data (as does VIAF), but don't try to do that.
As for the bot edit, I would have brought it up on Magnus talk page if you hadn't removed the statements. Now it's just bound to re-occur for sure.
--- Jura 09:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I think that I have returned, deprecated and hopefully accurately reflected the ids. Had a good response from archive.org, and awaiting LoC, prior actioning, and we will look to fix the MARC records.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I re-opened the topic on Magnus' talk page. BTW aren't they all conflation (Q14946528)?
--- Jura 12:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't MM's that I was complaining about this time, there are others who are cavalier. They could all be conflation, some just looked more the other way, but maybe I misinterpreted their authorities' pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope so, as without him most WMF sites would probably not be where they are. I think I moved the ones that didn't have the years in the label at VIAF, but they probably all have different criteria what they consider conflation and what it just an incorrect P569/P570 ;).
--- Jura 20:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Edition and translation

Hi,

I don't want to flood the Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books but I really want to understand, could you explain to me what is the problem of considering that translation are edition? and where do you draw the line between translation and edition? For instance (a bit dumb example but to know where you stand), if we are precise, Shakespeare's plays were written in Early Modern English and not in English, should we consider Shakespeare's plays in English as edition or translation?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright data belongs to a work, rather than an edition, as in new editions do not start new copyright clocks. Translations bring new copyright data, they have extra authors. We also have new provenance. I wouldn't have called Shakespeare's English to English works translations; though anything to another language would be. Any person who did a first language translation of S's works should be granted copyright. If you want a more complex example, the Bible. Under your system, We will have one Bible (work), and all translations are editions. The King James Version (Q623398) is the best example that springs to mind of something that needs to be managed.

If someone does a remake of an English language movie to another language, is that an edition or a new work? The model that we are building is for creative works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(sorry, I was a bit away)

I hear you but I fail to see what and where is the problem with the current model.

For a movie, if it's really a remake (with different actors, places and everything), it's obviously a new work (and it is how it's done with the current model). If it's just adding subtitle and dubbing (or even some minor changes, like different cuts), it is an edition.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: If you say a remake of movie is a new work, then so is a new translation a work; same conditions, and intellectual property applies.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain a little more, I don't understand this logic. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding sport (P641): wrestling (Q42486) for professional wrestlers

Can I ask why you are adding Q42486 as the sport for professional wrestlers? That is for the sport of wrestling. Professional wrestling is Q131359. See for example Chris Jericho (Q44144) Silverfish (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Silverfish: I was back tracking on numbers of Commonwealth countries for their wrestlers, and it would appear that the Canadians have their professional wrestlers mixed with their sporting wrestlers at enWP unlike the other nations (who probably don't have professional wrestlers). I will look at the queries that I have when I am back to my PC, and will then remove the professional wrestlers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done it was only some. so there must have been a mix of them inside another category, and that the categorisation for those inconsistent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you've missed a few British and Irish professional wrestlers. I've done a query ([2])of people with Occupation: Professional Wrestler, and Sport: Wrestling, and there are 11 left, from the British Isles, I think. By the way, I assume most of your edits are probably correct. I just happened to have quite a few professional wrestlers on my (enwiki) watchlist. Silverfish (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Silverfish: I just worked from the Canadian professional wrestlers category at enWP to remove the sport wrestlers. I will extend it a little for UK+I people. The additions were from the categories, so they just reflect what others have done, not my judgment. As I have done the Commonwealth countries to match CGF identifiers, I am not planning on more additions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)