User talk:Louperibot

Welcome to Wikidata, Louperibot!

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, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. 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!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits to "Thomas More"

I note in this series of edits you added a number of dates which are labeled as Gregorian calendar dates but which predate the Gregorian calendars. Many editors who had no understanding of the difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendars have entered such old dates, leading to a lack of confidence that such dates have been added correctly. Thus I urge you to add citations to support the dates you added. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jc3s5h:, I suspended my edits after your message and I just resumed them with appropriate code to prevent errors. No date is added in case of incertitude. But there is a risk that other people add them manually or automatically without precaution. Louperivois (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good thing that P39 values are being completed. Thanks! I noticed you add offices with before/after qualifiers, but start/end dates are much more important. For US offices, dates in the 19/20th centuries shouldn't be problematic. You might want to include these. --- Jura 11:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Special:Diff/246611355. --- Jura 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Louperivois: I just noticed that your bot added start/end dates to one on Governors of Rhode Island. Do you think it could do the others as well? --- Jura 06:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Jura1: I ran the script on w:en:Category:Governors of Rhode Island just for you!! I have runned it on the ~7000 first articles while improving it, and I'm now running it again on these articles to remove mistakes and add data that the first round couldn't find. Ex: [1] Louperivois (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Looks quite complete. I had added missing P39-"governor"-items for all states yesterday. When checking people by age, I came across a few misplaced ones from prior imports. --- Jura 16:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Q880519 partially slipped through as he was in office for 3 non-consecutive terms. --- Jura 16:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Jura1: The multiple terms are not supported, im thinking more and more about that, and even some time it introduces bad information. I should solve that.

I just implement the support for series ordinal (P1545), I think you will like that. I ran the script again on the Rhode Island Governors to add it. Louperivois (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

P1454 makes checking easier, though I'm not always sure if some guy at WP didn't make them up.

Another sample with multiple terms: Q886006. I suppose we can't get around doing some manual edits. --- Jura 18:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly some articles list the earlier term first, others the later. --- Jura 20:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

P:P768

Hello @Louperivois: I notice that you've been using this bot to insert property P:P768 as a modifier of P:P39. I think it may be better to have "electoral district" used as a property in its own right; some individuals represent several areas during their life, or serve non consecutive terms. Q128956, Q9576 and Q129006 use the property in this way. What are your thoughts on this? Is it possible to easily move instances of P768 as qualifiers to be used as properties in their own right? Thanks, Rock drum (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Rock drum:, semantically, a district is carecterizing a political mandate, it is not intrinsic to a people. It is the way the information about the distict is organized in the infoboxes on Wikipedia, and the way also that the use is recommanded in the talk page of the property. When there is more than one for the life of a people we should have one P39 declaration for each of them.

In your example, the first mandate (1922-1950) is totally absent. We should add it and give Limehouse as qualifier value. And we should add the qualifier value "Walthamstow West" to the existing mandate.

Currently my bot try to qualifiy the district but it is not always possible. Furthermore it doens't support adding more than once the same position.

Louperivois (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing sourced statements (place of birth multiple values)

Hi, this bot seems to be removing sourced statements (i.e. with a reference other than imported from Wikimedia project (P143)) in favour of unsourced ones, e.g. Special:Diff/415820917, Special:Diff/415820944. Could you please make sure it doesn't do that in the future, and undo all the edits where it already did? - Nikki (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Rather than removing any of them, maybe the most precise one could be set to preferred.
--- Jura 15:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

We normally remove redundant statements unless there is a reason to keep them (such as a proper reference) and I don't see why that should change: An unsourced redundant statement increases maintenance (especially applicable to P131 since countries like reorganising their administrative divisions) while not actually improving our data in any way. If both statements have proper references, I agree that the more precise one can be set to preferred. If there is a more precise unsourced statement and a less precise sourced statement, I don't think either should be set to preferred. - Nikki (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What to do if both are unsourced (or merely logging import from different Wikipedias)?
--- Jura 21:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki that there should not be more than one claim other than because of real uncertainty about the place. It is a constraint violation for this property.

Here is the policy that the bot had for removing a claim:

• if claim 1 is the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of claim 2, remove claim 1 only if it has no source or if the only source have just one imported from Wikimedia project (P143).
• if claim 1 is the country (P17) of claim 2, remove claim 1 only if it has 0 or 1 source.

So the bot didnt remove any claim more precise that country (P17) unless it judged that the sourcing was very weak. It was less strict to remove countries because these are very imprecise statements. I can for sure extend the stricter policy to all the claims.

I have to tell that most of the removals implied located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) so i think if there is damage it is very limited. For next step we should prioritize sourcing the few precise claims that are left witout their sourced country claim instead of restoring the sourced countries that are very imprecise information. If you are patient I will go through the bot edits during the Holidays to find valuable sources to the remaining claims.

Louperivois (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw some removal that didn't remove countries in locations, but other places (which may be included in the former). Still, there is no automated way to determine that one unsourced is accurate and the other unsourced one isn't. I don't see a consensus for such removals. Please undo your edits.
--- Jura 10:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I got a shortlist of 82 edits that removed a source other than imported from Wikimedia project (P143) over the hundreds done. I'm going to review it one by one and source the remaining claim like this. Louperivois (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

updating ..

Hi Louperibot ..

Somehow this messed up my edits.
--- Jura 18:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Also at [2], it might have collided with the edit of someone else the day before. A simple solution might be to do a few queries once the import completed.
--- Jura 18:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jura, I think this problem will be attenuated by reducing the precision of qualifier date comparison from day to month. I made such correction in the script. Louperivois (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing on Italian ministers

Please, stop inserting positions for Italian Prime ministers and Ministers before 1946: I already inserted all the relevant data, taken from Chamber of Deputies of Italy (Q841424)'s website. Moreover, you're adding the wrong items (for pre-1946 in Italy, you're supposed to insert items that are subclasses of minister of the Kingdom of Italy (Q26243697), not Italian minister (Q3858501)). It's already the fifth time I'm removing your contributions, please pay more attention to what you're doing. Thanks. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 00:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sannita, I will seek and remove subclasses of both items you provided from the validated positions to insert. I adapt my bot by learning from mistakes that are reported. Thank you. Louperivois (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop duplicating mandates

Hello. Your bot is duplicating several mandates of member of the French National Assembly (Q3044918). As stated in Wikidata:Bots, "Bots should check that they are not adding duplicate statements (unless they are correct)". Some examples:

• [3] (August 28th)
• [4] (September 2th)
• [5] (September 5th)

Please fix your bot before continuing. Thanks :)
— Envlh (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Envlh, I fixed the First Secretary statement problem by reducing the precision of date comparison from day to month. For the Député statement, I will stop to include it because it seems that all the data have been imported from a better source. Thank you. Louperivois (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)