Wikidata:Bot requests/Archive/2015/02

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello! Following renames done at Russian Wikipedia some time ago, please modify all labels starting with "

Список объектов Всемирного наследия ЮНЕСКО …

", replacing the capital

В

by lowercase

в

, like this: "Список объектов всемирного наследия ЮНЕСКО …". DmitTrix (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If it is going to be done, shouldn't the "Список" also be lowercased to "список"? --Shlomo (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it should, according to Help:Label/ru#Строчная буква в начале метки. Thanks for noting. DmitTrix (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

point in time (P585) for "date" of en:Template:Infobox earthquake

Some of the 1092 items on this could be populated from the infobox. --- Jura 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This appears to have been done incorrectly. It is rare for texts to state dates in the Gregorian calendar before 15 October 1583, the earliest introduction date for the Gregorian calendar. The Wikipedia article says the date was 23 January 1556, without stating a calendar, which very strongly implies it is a Julian calendar date. But the Wikidata item claims this is a Gregorian date. I therefore request that User:Pasleim review every entry on the list and verify which calendar was used for the date, and revert any item for which there is doubt about the date. Any date before 1 March 1923 requires investigation, since that is the date the last country changed from Julian to Gregorian (Greece). Jc3s5h (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I set the precision to 9 (=year) for all dates before 1923. --Pasleim (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, I forgot to check that. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Members of the Fruitbearing Society

Using this BEACON list, a bot could start looking for Wikidata items bearing the proper GND identifier and add the statement "member of" with qualifier "Fruitbearing Society". Ideally, the bot could also add the qualifier "pseudonym" in the same statement. The BEACON list contains these pseudonyms in brackets (). Wthat do you think? Jonathan Groß (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't nickname (P1449) be better than pseudonym (P742)? --Pasleim (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I didn't know about this property before, thanks. Jonathan Groß (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done for those GND identifier I could find on Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pasleim: Thank you. Could you give me a list of persons you did not find on Wikidata? Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Move all template ICD9 and ICD10 references to wikidata

I would be grateful if a knowledgeable editor could create a bot to go through every template in en:Category:Medicine templates and its subcategories to move references contained to ICD9 and 10 in the title field to wikidata. Relevant details:

Thanks! --LT910001 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

LT910001, resolving the constraint violations of P493 and P494 first could help. --Succu (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I apologise for not having responded more promptly. Whether or not there are existing constraint violations (by which I assume you mean duplicates and poor formatting?) won't affect the data that's already present in the infoboxes. It may even be more helpful to have that data on board here so that these violations can be addressed in a more comprehensive manner. Moving this from the English WP to WD would certainly help the english WP. I will respond more promptly in the future! --LT910001 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Add instance of (P31) from MusicBrainz Artist Type via MusicBrainz artist ID (P434)

We can leverage the existing links between Wikidata and MusicBrainz to populate instance of (P31) for the people and groups linked with MusicBrainz artist ID (P434). Specifically, the bot would add human (Q5) if the MusicBrainz Artist Type was "Person", and musical group (Q215380) if the Type was "Group". The reference would be imported from Wikimedia project (P143) MusicBrainz (Q14005), as with the MusicBrainz identifiers. If User:Mineo is interested, this could be an additional task for User:MineoBot -- or someone else could take it on. JesseW (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What about duos, orchestras, non-performing personnel (compsers, producers etc)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That shouldn't be a problem for the first case (adding human (Q5)). It's a good point about automatically adding "Group" entries, though. MusicBrainz now categorizes some items in more detail (with orchestras, choirs, etc.) so those might be useful. JesseW (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
We should not describe, say, Simon & Garfunkel (Q484918) as an instance of (a) human (Q5). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree -- and they wouldn't fall under the first case, as they are identified as a Group on Musicbrainz (as can be seen here), not a Person. Do you see any problem with the first case (adding human (Q5) to items linked to "Person"-type MusicBrainz entries)? JesseW (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I think "Group" in MusicBrainz is actually closer to instance of (P31) musical ensemble (Q2088357). According to http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?lang=en&q=Q2088357&rp=279, orchestra (Q42998) is not currently a subtype of musical group (Q215380), whereas in MusicBrainz "Orchestra" is a subtype of "Group". -- Nikki (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, musical ensemble (Q2088357) is a better choice. Thanks for finding it. Now we just need to find someone interested in coding and running it... JesseW (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I can take this from 24 January. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made ten test edits. May I proceed? What about types other than “Person” and “Group”? --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Should Anonymous (Q10920) be instance of a musical ensemble? Do anyone know how many groups that aren't realy about music exists on MusicBrainz? If there are only a few then I guess it's better to mark everything up and try to fix the few that's strange, however if there are many I think we need to make sure that the group actually is about music. --Pajn (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you SO MUCH for coding this up and making some test edits! Considering the Anonymous issue, it seems like running it fully automatically would produce too many false positives. I see two possible paths forward:
  1. Generate list pages for manual operation (with humans checking to make sure the entity is actually music-related)
  2. Cross-check against Wikipedia categories and only do ones that already have a music-related category on their associated Wikipedia entry.
In either case, it would be great to get a sense of how many items we are talking about -- could you generate such counts? Thanks again (and sorry for the delayed reponse) JesseW (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, of the Musicbrainz artist types, I think "Group" is probably the most ambiguous. You might have better luck working from "Person" (adding human (Q5), not anything more music-specific), or one of the new categories like Orchestra or Choir. JesseW (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Type Count Total MB Artists MB Artists with Wikidata links
Group 4,225 226,496 32,022
Person 578 455,522 74,148
Orchestra 54 1,343 458
Choir 50 933 129
Character 49 2,447 209
Other 45 1,320 125
N/A 146 241,961 1,441

--JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised at how few Person items there are (considering that there are nearly 500,000 MusicBrainz entities of that type). I'm also slightly confused by what this is a count of. Is it:
  1. A count of Wikidata items with links to MusicBrainz Artist entries of the specified type
  2. A count of Wikidata items with links to MusicBrainz Artist entries of the specified type AND without instance of (P31).
  3. A count of MusicBrainz Artist entries of the specified type with a link to a Wikidata item
  4. Something else?
These may not be the same because while User:MineoBot does try to keep them synced, I'm not sure if it is fully bi-directional. Looking at the numbers, I think doing the Orchestra and Choir ones would be useful (and small enough to manually fix after the fact (we'll need a way to mark false positives so they don't get re-done)). Regarding Person -- could you make a count of the Wikidata items that are linked to MusicBrainz Artist Person entities and lack instance of (P31) = human (Q5)? Also, maybe we should move this to your talk page, or some smaller page. Thanks for your work. JesseW (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The counts are of option 2. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Neat -- could you find the counts for option 1 as well? JesseW (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It would run for too much time, because of MusicBrainz rate limit. This was two and a half hours. --JulesWinnfield-hu (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You might be able to use http://reports.mbsandbox.org/ . (Actually, I will look into doing so.) JesseW (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC) (
OK, here's a report that provides option 3: http://reports.mbsandbox.org/report/295/view . I've added the results to the table.

Lists of listed buildings

As can be seen from https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=claim[1216]%20and%20noclaim[625], a number of "list of listed buildings in [UK place]" articles (for example, listed buildings in Brindley (Q15979098)) have multiple National Heritage List for England number (P1216) values. These should be removed, and replaced by the equivalent Q value, as has part(s) (P527). Where they have multiple coordinate values these should also be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone help with this? Perhaps User:Magnus Manske has an idea? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that many of these National Heritage List for England number (P1216) are Grade II buildings, many of which do not have a Q item yet. The WLM drive only called for grade I and grade II* buildings to get items. If there is will to do this, I recommend quick_statements. To create a new item for value, linking back to list (no leading spaces; separate by tabs):
CREATE
LAST P361 Qlist
LAST P1216 "value"

plus some "grade II" instance of, if the grade is known. (Note that I am using part of (P361) here; has part(s) (P527) could then be created as "counter-link"?) One should probably clear out double values for National Heritage List for England number (P1216) first. --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@pigsonthewing:@Magnus Manske: I'll take a look at the double values; most of the ones I've spot-checked so far are the list & the building, but not all. - PKM (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I have cleared out the list of doubles for P1216. There were two cases where two items have the same English Heritage ID because there are separate ENwiki articles for different tenants of the same building. Otherwise the National Heritage List for England number (P1216) should only be duplicated between a building's item and the list-of-listed-buildings item.
I have not added new, separate items for every boathouse, pumphouse, wall, and gate that are part of an estate, so a few items have multiple EH ID's. Does that need to be done? - PKM (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Should this job still be done? On one hand there are still 74 lists of listed buildings with National Heritage List for England number (P1216) claims but on the other hand, no single item out of 436 lists of listed buildings has a has part(s) (P527) claim. So it doesn't look to me that there is a consensus to use has part(s) (P527) on those lists.--Pasleim (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Bot_requests/Archive/2015/02&oldid=1102548831"