Open main menu

User talk:Andrew Gray



Welcome to Wikidata, Andrew Gray!

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, please ask me on my talk page. 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!

--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome from me, too. :-) James F. (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Philip MagnusEdit

Hi Andrew Gray! Usually my bot update the sitelink only of pages moved in the last few hours. However many users asked me to update also old pages moved, so I scan the move log of the last two weeks. But this is happens only one time (for the starting); now the bot runs normally and what you described will not happen anymore. --β16 - (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello, ORCID is now available as P:P496. However, I realized that in the example you provided you did not add the dash "0000 0002 1003 5675" instead of "0000-0002-1003-5675" in the Wikipedia templates/ORCID URL, was that an oversight or is there any reason for that ? --Zolo (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Unauthorized botEdit

You seem to be operating an unauthorized bot. Please pause, I don't want to block you. See Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Flooding of Special:RecentChanges. Multichill (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Lok SabhaEdit

You are adding Lok Sabha.. I am busy removing them one by one and replacing them by member of the Lok Sabha.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

My mistake you are doing exactly what I did by hand :) GerardM (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC) THANK YOU
Thanks :-) I was a little confused by the existing system, but I think it's good to do a wholesale change before any of them get qualifiers added - this would be a lot harder to fix! I'll try and do some other sets of parliamentarians tomorrow; it's a good opportunity to add country-of-citizenship as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


Suggestions for your consideration at en:Wikipedia:Geonotice Jheald (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge Alumni Database ID (P1599)Edit

Cambridge Alumni Database ID (P1599) is ready. -Tobias1984 (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary of Welsh Biography ID (P1648)Edit

Dictionary of Welsh Biography ID (P1648) is ready. Thank you for proposing the property. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)



I'd like to notice you this bug of the bot when there is special chars in the URL : [1]. The value added by the bot is listed as a format constraint violation : [2]

Regards, Louperivois (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd picked up the brackets but hadn't realised it had accented characters as well. I'll get this fixed in my script. (Looking at their links, it seems they even include smart-apostrophes... oh, dear) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

removal of ACAD identifierEdit

Hi! I'm curious about this edit. The identifier seems legit to me, which is why I recently re-added it to the item. Gabbe (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gabbe:. A bit of a long story, this one...
There was a bit of a problem with the ACAD identifiers when we first added them - a good proportion of the first few hundred that went on had a lot of false positives (we'd brought in the ACAD links used as references from the linked Wikipedia pages, but then realised that a lot of these were citations about someone's father, son, brother, etc). After a bit of discussion, we decided to roll back the first additions and start again, checking them with the matching tool. I'd hoped most of these initial removals had now been replaced but apparently not yet! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Andrew,

I like your stats at Wikidata:WikiProject_British_Politicians. Would you add P1412 as well? I can fill it in. It might be interesting to have the main ones for other countries as well. --- Jura 20:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

1412 now added and I'll re-run the script (it takes a while to complete but should be up in an hour or so). I haven't yet set up tracker pages like this for other countries but it's on the list, now we have Wikidata:EveryPolitician completed. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1: and done! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. P1412 should be complete. Personally, I'd do just one list for all other countries, maybe with a column including the dedicated property, if there is one (e.g. P1186 for Q27169). I'm wondering if that would be doable in SPARQL. --- Jura 14:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Footballers as Argentine SenatorsEdit

Hi Andrew:

I just discovered that on October 19th your bot mistakenly marked approximately 180 footballers as Argentine senators position held (P39) member of the Argentine Chamber of Senators (Q18711738). I am now removing those claims but if you have logs from that day it would be good if you can recheck it.

Best, Barcex (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Barcex: I think I see where the problem crept in - es:Categoría:Senadores nacionales de Argentina includes es:Categoría:Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, then subcategories about football teams named for him. Not sure why I missed that when checking! I'll remove all of the senator claims in that particular tree. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject British PoliticiansEdit

All the links are showing as Too many Wikidata entities accessed. Bazj (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks okay now. This seems to happen whenever WD feels there's too many links on a page (bit like the template transclusion problems) but can occasionally be triggered for no apparent reason... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Horror of the AntarcticEdit

The early birds gets the fattest worms, but I luckily do not like worms. This was really late, but I would like to report that your bot in November merged an item about a Horror film with an item about an island in the Antarctic. Based on this image, they probably had nothing to do with each other.   -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Goodness! No idea how I didn't spot that one. Many thanks for fixing it :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Simon FanshaweEdit

Simon Fanshawe (Q26234591) is a little bit confusing to me. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted - death-date was a typo. Thanks! Andrew Gray (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

American National BiographyEdit

Hi Andrew. Would you have time to look at the question I raised here? I eventually found Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/24#ODNB and noticed that you said in that proposal: "there's apparently the intention to expand it to other resources such as the ANB". (As an aside, this would explain why I found myself logged into the ANB after logging in to the ODNB - I hadn't realised they were all part of the same thing, really). I was going to propose the creation of a property for the ANB articles, but after seeing what you said in that discussion, thought it best to check with you first. Also, the documentation needed to propose and write a property looks a bit scary at first. I'll ping Charles and Magnus and Micru in case they have thoughts as well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

An ANB property might not be too hard a sell. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I would definitely agree that a "simple" ANB property would work fine. It has not yet been crossreffed with OBINs - but once it is, we can easily merge the data if we've been using a distinct ID before then. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, though I am not sure that '15/15-01098' is a simple property. I am not familiar enough to know if this format is uniform. I think '15' refers to the volume number but am not sure. Also, I thought I was logged in, but maybe not. Some articles I can access, some I can't. Sometimes the screen says 'logout', sometimes it says 'login'. Hmm. I will try and put together a proposal at some point, unless someone else does that first. I will copy the ODNB proposal and mention what is said here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it'll be more-or-less stable. Good enough for our purposes. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

CWGC memorialsEdit

Ooh! I noticed this. Would you have a view on how best to handle people with no known grave who are commemorated on a memorial? See here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. Usually we'd say "property on the person for place of burial, property on the monument for who it commemorates" - especially since it means we don't have to draw a fast line between "memorial in lieu of grave" and something more generic like statues, we can just identify the subject(s) of any given monument.
However, for something like the Dunkirk Memorial, it feels a bit unreasonable to link all the people commemorated - even if we only have items for one or two of them, the potential to get overly complicated is there. And imagine how we'd have to deal with Plymouth Naval Memorial (Q7205840) - every notable British person lost at sea in two wars! We might end up with dozens or more.
A new "commemorated on" property might work (placed on the item, referring to the memorial) but you do get into the scope problems mentioned for people like monarchs. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You already have 23 people with articles on Thiepval Memorial (Q1861419) (that tends to be people with Victoria Crosses and international sportsmen). Am also a bit unsure at the use of 'cenotaph' (empty tomb) for these memorials. To be fair, that is only 23 out of more than 72,000. The three naval memorials to the missing, plus the Tower Hill memorial come to over 100,000 for both world wars (and there are other memorials as well, for airmen in both world wars). I work a fair amount on the lists of memorials to the missing maintained by the CWGC. This is a very distinct sort of commemoration. Some war dead are also commemorated on village memorials (in fact, most are), so most notable war dead will also be on a local memorial. Some are also on the 'workplace' memorials as well. Not all these memorials will be listed, but some are. As there are so many names on these memorials, they function more like cemeteries, places of mass burial and commemoration (some memorials are in or adjacent to the CWGC cemeteries), rather than memorials which are usually to a named individual. Would it be possible to have a 'rule' that commemorates (P547) is used for a single commemoration and that your suggested new "commemorated on" property is used for memorials to more than one person? It would be nice at some point to be able to run a query that generates a list for all the people with articles that are in CWGC cemeteries or on those memorials. Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think a number-based rule would be quite difficult to maintain and lead to a lot of confusion, to be honest. There will be too many edge cases. I agree there's some kind of semantic difference between a memorial-in-lieu-of-grave and a statue, but it's hard to find a clear line to draw in data modelling terms :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comparison between coverage of Global North content and African contentEdit

Hey Andrew Gray

I am so sorry - for some reason, I only saw your response to my query today - I thought I had just dropped it into an empty void ;-). Thank you so much for your and Jura's work on this. I need to think about how to represent it. I guess one thing to find out is what the number of settlements in Nigeria are (and not just the number of articles on Nigerian settlements) vs. France, and that would give us a percentage coverage, yes? Thanks again ...! Islahaddow (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Islahaddow: - yes, I think that'd be useful - "France is 95% covered and Nigeria is 27% covered" would be a nice number to be able to throw around. Defining "settlements" can be tricky, though. Another interesting query is "things in Nigeria with coordinates" - this captures anything with a physical location, towns to mountains to organisations. There are 1152 items with a defined coordinate and marked as country:Nigeria, or ~2400 items with coordinates in the geographic bounding box around Nigeria. Bounding boxes are pretty imprecise and as you can see a good few hundred of these are in Cameroon (thanks to the diagonal border), but even so, it suggests that a lot of places in Nigeria don't have country (P17) set. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... this is the ~500 items from the last search with no "country" value. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

James Donald Garvey, Jr. (Q21538482)‎Edit

Sorry for adding a date of death, it turned out to be his father with the same name, good error correction, thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem! You might be interested in the list at User talk:Lugnuts/LivingDead, which is the report I was working from - people identified as living on Wikipedia but with a deathdate in Wikidata. Surprisingly many of them... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I run something similar. I look for American people born in years that would be caught in the WWI or WWII draft registration where we only know their year of birth. I use the draft registration to find their full date of birth and add it at Wikipedia and here, and add the document to Wikimedia Commons. The draft registration is an amazing source of information, too bad women are excluded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidate mis-matchesEdit

Hi Andrew. This is now below 1,000. I'll keep chiping away at it! And thanks again for posting on EN wiki with the query. Lugnuts (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Biographical Identifiers member listEdit

FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi Andrew,

I was wondering: do you have a way forward in mind for constituencies? I notice that en-wiki often amalgamates historic and current ("re-created") constituencies, and also ones that have suffered slight spelling changes (eg "East Fife"/"Fife East"; "Cotswold/The Cotswolds"), as well as periodic boundary changes. (Though in fact Q28529230 / The Cotswolds (Q987938) has two different items here on wikidata, though they are combined on en-wiki). Is it best, for the moment, to just follow en-wiki? I've recently added some GSS codes for constituencies in England, adding a named as (P1810) qualifier if the name wasn't quite the same -- mostly punctuation, though there is at least one inversion Milton Keynes North East (Q6861254). I've also scraped some constituencies from Vision of Britain, ready to add Vision of Britain unit ID (P3615), so those are also ready to go. Is there any reason to hold back on those, or just go for it?

One thing I did notice is that VoB tracks quite a large number of subclasses of constituency as different constituency "statuses":

University Constituency (UniCon) , District of Boroughs Constituency (DistBCon) (District of burghs (Q5283483)), Parliamentary Constituency (PCon) , Division of Parliamentary Constituency (PDivCon) , Parliamentary Borough Constituency (PBCon) , Division of Parliamentary Borough Constituency (PBDivCon) , County Constituency (CCon) , Borough Constituency (BCon) , Division of District of Boroughs Constituency (DistBDivCon) , Burgh Constituency (BurCon) , Borough Constituency (BorCon) , Cinque Port Constituency (CqPCon)

Is that something we should follow, or is it easier & more transparent just to keep everything a constituency of the House of Commons (Q27971968) ?

I was very impressed with the style-guide you made for MP's affiliations, so would be interested to know your thoughts. Hope to see you at the Parliamentary Data evening tonight, maybe discuss more then, if you're still planning to go? Jheald (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jheald: as promised, first draft up at Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians/Constituencies & Edinburgh South (Q1070093) prettied up as an example. Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: okay, new draft up now :-). Wikidata:WikiProject_British_Politicians#Constituencies. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks good! Jheald (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


I've had a quick look at the DemocracyClub website(s), following the talk on Tuesday evening, and I'm not sure how much (if any) is worth new properties for. Here's what I could find for some different sorts of things:

  • Candidates
Appears to be the most developed part of the site, having been the back-end for in 2015, now
Existing MPs and some other candidates have links to en-wiki, which could be used for matching
  • Constituencies
There appears to be no single identifier or URL for a constituency over time, just for particular elections, eg:
(where the number in the middle of the URL came from MapIt:
There's also a results site, but it currently seems to only have data for local elections for 2016 and (very limited) 2017 , eg:
On a different server, there are pages for elected organisations -- but these pages only link to ward boundaries, eg:
This server also has pages for particular elections -- but with no information, other than the election is taking place
The data on this server is also available in browseable JSON form in sub-pages of
and from the candidates service at
For a particular constituency, the API does seem to have data on the 2015 and 2010 election candidates on a single link, but not 2017:
... or rather, it does, but they've changed their identifier

I really don't know what to do with this. They do seem to be making it very difficult to have a single human-friendly URL that links to all the data for a single constituency. Jheald (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

AGbot mistakesEdit

The bot seems to be adding Category:Deaths from typhus (Q7214873) mistakenly as cause of death (P509) to entries. Hazmat2 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed it's doing the same with Category:Deaths from malaria (Q8366341). Hazmat2 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hazmat2 Thanks for spotting this - I'll rerun those two and check its other additions. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
All now fixed - I'd slipped up for yellow fever & smallpox as well. Thanks again. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop creating duplicates!Edit

I don't know how you do it but I'm getting pretty tired of cleaning up after you when you are creating half-empty items with only instance of (P31) given name (Q202444) as property when there are already existing items more complete. I know you are working on Dictionary of Medieval Names from European Sources entry (P1888), but please, read the pages. [3] for example explicitly said it was about the female given name; which was here: Jordana (Q11728238). There was absolutely no need to create a duplicate, with less complete properties, and no labels/descriptions to speak of. I had to merge too many of your creations these last days, I'm getting tired and you show no sign of stopping or cleaning after yourself. So please, do so now. Thank you very much. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Harmonia Amanda: Argh - sorry, I had no idea these were creating duplicates or that you were having to fix them. I did all the DMNES ones in a single run a while back and I don't quite remember the system I used, but I'm pretty sure I was checking each one before creating a new item. I don't know how these duplicates got in. Many apologies! Let me have a look and see what I can do to clean up... Andrew Gray (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Harmonia Amanda: Okay, I've done some cleanup work on this. I've run a script over every DMNES entry to find out what gender it thinks the name is (thankfully the website has it in a clear bit of the HTML), and I've run a bot now to update & source all the given name (Q202444) ones to have the correct gender association. (The ones that already do have it correctly assigned are getting DMNES listed as a source as well.) There are twenty where it's complicated -
a) eight cases like Bonaventura (Q892113) where DMNES thinks it's one gender and we think it's the other;
b) one case Yael (Q8046631) where DMNES thinks it's unisex and we think it's female
c) eleven cases like Morgan (Q1058731) where we think it's unisex and DMNES gives it a gender
I guess we can leave these as they are. There are now no DMNES names using just given name (Q202444) except for fifteen that are currently queued for deletion (they're entries that have been removed from DMNES and aren't linked from WP pages or used in items.)
Next step is to try and run a search looking for any DMNES items which have labels matching other male/female given names and merge them if appropriate. Again, I'm really sorry these slipped through when I did it the first time - sorry you've had to go to all this effort and thanks for letting me know about the problem. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I thought you were still creating them, if it was just one batch then it will be much easier to spot. I'll run a SPARQL query with given names with DMNES identifier sharing a label with another given name to spot items to merge. Knowing it will only have to be done once since no new item will be created that way should motivate me. Can you list (here or on my own discussion page) all the divergent genders cases? It could be vandalism, mistakes or genuinely different names, and I would like to verify that. If there are only 21 items, that's not an impossible task. Thank you for working so promptly! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
@Harmonia Amanda: Sure - I'm heading out just now but I'll post a list of the complicated cases for you later tonight.
I've just finished a check on duplicate labels for all male/female name items (not just those with DMNES). For female-names, 139 items share 66 English labels. Male names are much more complicated - 711 items share just 137 English labels (!!!) - although many of these are like Masaharu (Q6782322), which has 67 identical romanisations for different Japanese names, and so shouldn't be merged. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know, that's something I regularly work on. I have lists upon lists of "corrects" duplicates (sharing labels because it's the same transliteration for several different names) and of "to verify" ones. I'm slowly but steadily emptying the second ones. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here's the DMNES mismatches:

In the case of some of the latter ones, I think this is "was formerly only male, now unisex". But I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do with them! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

AGBot "member of" mistake"Edit

See old rev and old rev for examples

AGBot is adding North Carolina Senate (Q2269863) to position held (P39), which doesn't make sense. There would have to be an item for people who are "member(s) of the North Carolina Senate." Hazmat2 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hazmat2: You're quite right - this should have been member of the State Senate of North Carolina (Q19727887). I think it must have been a copy-paste error. Thanks for spotting it, and I'll run a batch to fix them tonight. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hazmat2: all now corrected. Thanks again for catching these! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

UK National Archives ID (P3029)Edit

It strikes me that it would be good to get a list of these TNA record creator IDs into mix'n'match. We do have a contact there, User:Zosterae who edits on enWP. I met him in 2015. @pigsonthewing:. Would someone like to chase this one? Charles Matthews (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I chatted to John Sheridan at TNA about this a while back, and he seemed interested. Will see if I can follow up. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Antarctic propertiesEdit

FYI: Template:Antarctic properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

done any work of baronet(cy)?Edit

I was doing some random work on newspaper obituaries at enWScopying data here, and started on Grant baronet of Monymusk (Q41799287) (from "parent" w:Grant baronets). My first thought is it an instance of a baronetcy (Q18759100) or baronet (Q282019). Then I went exploring for examples, and nothing evident from a rudimentary searching. I then left it for another day. Do you have any thoughts, pointers, etc. for this stuff? My humble roots (looooong descent from agricultural labourers and miners) have never really explored this stuff.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I haven't, but I've been meaning to do some work on titles - it overlaps a lot with politicians, as you might expect, and we're going to have to get it sorted out sooner or later. I don't think anyone's really attacked it yet.
Grant baronet of Monymusk (Q41799287) is very definitely instance of (P31):baronetcy (Q18759100) (the baronetcy is the title, a baronet is the person). Then the individual holders, eg Sir Archibald Grant, 2nd Baronet (Q7526036), should probably have noble title (P97):Grant baronet of Monymusk (Q41799287) and a series ordinal (P1545) qualifier for the number, plus date qualifiers if possible. However, a problem is that the enwiki pages tend to lump all the baronetcies of a certain surname together (argh) so in theory we'd need to break them up like you've done here. That could be a lot of work!
One thing I've been considering doing as a first step is import everyone as eg noble title (P97):baronetcy (Q18759100) - using the generic item for the time being - and then we can at least identify them with queries. Associating them with the specific titles can come later. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. The lumping pages at enWP basically serves as a glorified list, useful as finder. I am working from the other end with obituaries so I will be creating to the plan rather than anything systematic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

From an example that is a duke, the analogue to noble title (P97):baronetcy (Q18759100) seems not to work: noble title (P97):duchy (Q154547) really isn't right, the correct sense of "dukedom" isn't here, and noble title (P97):duke (Q166886) is superior. "Marquessate" is genuinely far-fetched. So for consistency I'd stick to noble title (P97):baronet (Q282019). w:Baronet#Baronetess: History and forms of address is quite fun as an edge case.

As for the different baronet creations: Grant baronet of Monymusk (Q41799287) part of (P361) Grant baronets (Q5596596) seems a fine triple to me. Just that Grant baronets (Q5596596) instance of (P31) group of humans (Q16334295) or suchlike is probably more appropriate, for a case of multiple creations. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, to be bold, for Grant baronets (Q5596596), I have done

  • instance of -> group of humans
  • part of -> Grant (family name)
  • subclass of -> baronetcy

I would also challenge that it is a "noble title", it is more accurately an hereditary title (Q5737899).  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I forgot to say - I ran an import from WP the other weekend and added about 4000 people as baronets. I'll do a query against History of Parliament in a bit and see if that fills any gaps. I agree on "hereditary" versus "noble" - but the property uses hereditary as an alias and it'll work fine for both cases. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I was meaning the subclass for the baronetcy, not the property.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

stop for a while pleaseEdit

Hey :) We currently have a very high dispatch lag. This causes changes to show up on Wikipedia only very late. This is not ok. Can you please slow down for a while until it is down? You can check it here: Special:DispatchStats. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@LydiaPintscher: Apologies - didn't notice your message. Now stopped! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot :) It looks better again now. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

ODNB editsEdit

Hi Andrew. Can you shed light on what I've said here? Am not sure why the bot edit was not producing a link for me. Are there job queue and cache issues that mean a link might not get generated? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Yes. Can sometimes just need to purge it in the interim period after  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Compliments of the seasonEdit

Hi Andrew. Best wishes of the season to you and yours! I've been hugely impressed by the progress you have been making on the MPs over the last few months -- such a mountain to climb, but you have been really carving your way through it. It's a time-consuming and painstaking task, assuring completeness and checking quality, but doing it takes the dataset to a whole new level of usefulness. So I wanted to really salute the effort you have been putting in. My own personal marathon (or one of them) is the BL mechanical curator maps project -- but at last I have got some prospective first batches taking shape, so hope to finally start getting some uploaded in the new year.

Take care, and best wishes, Jheald (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


Pinging you (amongst others) since you've done some thinking about the Parliament thesaurus, as to whether or not you think it would be useful to be able to record the "broader" field in thesauruses like this, allowing one to reference the thesaurus structure in WDQS queries. Property proposal at Wikidata:Property_proposal/broader_concept. Jheald (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

British Library system numberEdit

I've proposed a property for British Library system numbers, Wikidata:Property proposal/British Library system number.

As written, I've suggested using the older nine-digit format for it, as used in the Mechanical Curator release, eg on Flickr.

However, an alternative would be the 'BLL' + eleven-digits format, given by the Explore catalogue as the 'UIN'.

I'm not sure in practice what the difference between the two is -- whether the latter is intended to include a broader range of material, or be considered to be more future-proof; but if you think it would make more sense, do say so in the proposal discussion & I'll go with your recommendation.

All best, Jheald (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


[4] - Could you add {{s}} in front of your statement? 01:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thesis mismatchesEdit

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for drawing my attention to the mismatched authors in the batch of theses that I have uploaded. I have amended the theses/authors that you have highlighted and, as you suggest, I certainly will take a closer look at this batch and correct any other mistakes. I have to admit that my error was simply being overconfident that matching the author names against Wikidata items and checking they were educated at (P69) the awarding institution would be sufficient - that obviously is not the case.

Please do not hesitate to tell me if you spot any other problems with my edits and apologies for the inconvenience. Simon Cobb (Sic19 ; talk page) 00:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"musical work" / "song"Edit

Hi there! Saw your comment here:

While you're right in thinking "musical work" is technically redundant for an item with instance of = song, it's practically very useful as Wikidata currently suffers from a legacy conflation of song and single. By adding the "musical work" as we slug through the cleaning up of thousands of items affected it makes it easier to keep track of which items have been looked at and which might need some attention. It's not a hard rule though, so up to you. Moebeus (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moebeus: I suspected it might be something like that! I'm guessing this is like the conflation of novel (story) & book (edition) that we're struggling with for those as well. It's not a field I've done much work with so I hadn't seen it before, and I initially assumed it might be one of the weird once-off P31s that creep in sometimes and need cleaning up. But when I saw there were a few of them, I figured it was probably intentional and I shouldn't mess with it too much :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Do not add unreferenced statements to WikidataEdit

Hi Andrew Gray,

Please bear in mind that statements you add to Wikidata need, if challenged, be supported by a reference. See Help:Sources about ways to do that. Please avoid adding statements to Wikidata as a mere service to an acquittance of yours. It would be highly detrimental to the overall project if we would go there.

If you are unsure if a statement you are trying to reference is supported by the reference you add, please discuss it first. --- Jura 13:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

imported from Wikimedia project: DOI query endpointEdit

Hey Andrew Gray, with your bot account you have created quite a lot of references with reference qualifiers imported from Wikimedia project (P143): query endpoint (Q28946522), see for instance in the item William Henry Bragg. 1862-1942 (Q47476886). This does not make sense, as the property imported from Wikimedia project (P143) is not supposed to be used like that; there is currently a repair job running in which I am involved, in order to clean up wrong uses of imported from Wikimedia project (P143) in references.

I reckon you wanted to express that you somehow used the DOI query endpoint for your data retrieval, and you wanted to express that in the reference. Since query endpoint (Q28946522) is just an interface and not a work by itself, this information is not crucial for those references. I thus suggest to remove imported from Wikimedia project (P143): query endpoint (Q28946522) from all references where this reference qualifier + value pair shows up—unless you come up with an alternative approach here. The reference URL (P854) reference qualifiers with links to which are found in the same references should be kept, of course. Help:Sources provide available source models.

In order to avoid confusion: I do not expect you to make any edits; I am prepared to do them as part of the imported from Wikimedia project (P143) clean up. I just want to talk about the matter before I start, in order to figure out whether there are alternatives to the "fix by removal" approach I have suggested. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MisterSynergy Thanks for checking on this (and thanks for doing all the cleanup!). I don't recall exactly why I set the references up this way but I think it was copied from another recent scholarly-publications import and I presumed it was the correct way to do it :-)
I've gone back and checked the script I used to create them and can confirm that they all came from querying the crossref DOI endpoint. Your proposal sounds fine and makes sense to me. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the answer. My bot account is busy right now, but as soon as it is available for a new job—tomorrow, likely—I will remove the imported from Wikimedia project (P143): query endpoint (Q28946522) reference qualifiers from all references where they show up, and keep the bare reference URL (P854) URLs in the same references. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Special:Diff/938607984 is a sample diff. There are ~2000 items to be modified. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to bother you with another comment. While I played with the related queries a bit, I thought I should just have a look whether there are reference qualifiers of the style stated in (P248): query endpoint (Q28946522) out there, and it turns out that there are a lot of them: ~342k statements in ~37k items are referenced like that (complemented with reference URL (P854) and retrieved (P813), sample item Judicial Interaction on the Latham Court: A Quantitative Study of Voting Patterns on the High Court 1935-1950 (Q29027915)). Looks like User:Harej has added them a while ago. I am now reconsidering the plan, and think a move from imported from Wikimedia project (P143): query endpoint (Q28946522) to stated in (P248): query endpoint (Q28946522) could be more appropriate than a removal, in order to have a uniform situation. Such a use of stated in (P248) is a bit different than what we usually do, but if someone wants to clean it up, they could start from a cleaner situation. What do you think? (User:Harej may also comment, of course.) —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

MisterSynergy I think that might have been the batch I copied it from!
I've only ever uploaded these ~2k articles so I don't really know what the best approach is, and it's very hard to figure out from Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData what we should do. A lot of the existing article items don't really seem to have much sourcing. Your stated in (P248) idea sounds quite reasonable and we can always change it later. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Now done, with the "move-to-P248" solution. Thanks for your input! —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Blisse issueEdit

Q28065015 seems to be Stephen Bisse (Q64577142) but under a slightly different name. ... left for you to merge, lest Edward has some significance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


  • Edward Lee (Q25927448) again has P39=House of Lords when my reading of History of Parliament says he's an MP. Your bot's fingerprints. Not amended by me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Beats me where these two came from! Fixed. Thanks for spotting them. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Constituency snafu?Edit

Sorry to keep trying to drag you to wherever my whimsy takes me, but...

Today, I think we have a constituency snafu to consider.

We have 2,222 constituencies which are instances of constituency of the House of Commons (Q27971968), listed in Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians/MP terms by constituency.

We also have 278 constituencies which are instances of Constituency of the Parliament of England (Q27990982) listed at and these are employed in a shedload of P39s listed in User:Tagishsimon/junk.

There seems to be an overlap between the two sets. 215 of the Constituency of the Parliament of England (Q27990982) constituencies have an end date of 1707, but have exactly the same name as constituency of the House of Commons (Q27971968) constituencies which have start dates before 1707 and end dates after 1707 - they all listed here -

So that seems to me to be an indication that these are duplicate items. By way of example, we have an HoC Aldborough (Q4713453) with a date range of 1558 to 1832 and a PoE Aldborough (Q60576259) with no start date and an end date of 1707.

I'm thinking we should be merging the PoE constituencies which match by name, into their HoC counterparts; and if there are any that don't match by name, we should be changing their P31s to constituency of the House of Commons (Q27971968). What think you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: So, long story here, but short answer is "this is something I had been meaning to tidy up".
When I started doing the Historic Hansard import I found we had a lumping vs splitting question for constituencies - do we need just one item for all iterations of a constituency with a given name (as enwiki does), or so we want to split them out by dates/characteristics? (eg boundary changes, number of seats). There's also the question of whether we ought to distinguish between "UK", "GB", and "English" constituencies in much the same way that we distinguish between classes of P39 memberships. (Similarly pre-Union Scottish & Irish seats).
My current feeling is that, in the long run, splitting will make things a lot easier, especially given the way that since 1832 seats have often been recreated then abolished, or had dramatic boundary changes while keeping the name. Otherwise we'll end up having to do a lot of heavy lifting with qualifiers once we start including things like shapefiles, or a decent model for relating constituencies to places.
Most old constituencies will then have an English instance (to 1707), a British instance (1707-1801), and one or more UK instances (1801 onwards). This is what I started setting up when I did the initial batch of English importing.
The problem is that the dates for the "UK" constituency pages were imported ages ago and I just hadn't got around to fixing them to be consistent yet! I'll set up a batch for this shortly to trim all these to 1801 which should remove the obvious misalignments. (I can add dummy entries for 1707-1801 GB constituencies as well, but that may as well wait until we start importing that term data). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
That seems a perfectly cromulent direction of travel; it's the mess which distresses me, rather than a predisposition towards a particular solution. Right now it's unclear which constituency should be selected. Let me know your preference; I can have a fiddle, or keep my fingers off this area ... don't mind which. Clearly, the start dates pre 1801 & pre 1707 in UK constituencies will need to be moved to the EN constituencies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
TBH some of the start dates on UK constituencies are a bit dubious - I'm happy to move them but I don't know quite how robust they are. I guess we'll find out when we compare them to known memberships! I'll have a go at setting up an edit batch this weekend. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting question as to what you link the article for a constituency spanning EN, GB & UK. A fourth P31=group of constituencies item? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been keeping the link on the current (or failing that, most recent) one, and using said-to-be-the-same-as on the others - which is a bit of a hack but works well enough for now. See eg w:User:Andrew Gray/Missing MPs since 1832 where it's detecting said-to-be-the-same-as to generate WP links. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, morning update: I think I've fixed up the start/end dates for all English seats. and I'm just about to do a batch to bring all the UK ones with pre-1801 dates up to 1801. I'll then do a second batch to update descriptions w/ correct dates and standard terms. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Morning back. Consider this my (EC) - you cover much of this in your update :)
Helpfully, we also seem to have items like ... no P31 ... I'd have a word with its creator ;)
Per your tweets, I was trying to work out where you'd got up to, for which read, do we now have 3 items for constituencies that span the <1707 to the >1801. I know you spoke about delaying dummy constituencies for GB ... fwiw, I'd advise against & suggest a single job to sort constituencies.
Looking at as an example of a post-1801 constituency, let me raise two concerns: that its P31 "constituency of the House of Commons" might as easily apply to a GB or an England constituency and suggest that we should be implementing P31s on the pattern of the English constituencies - "Constituency of the Parliament of England", "Constituency of the Parliament of Great Britain" & "Constituency of the Parliament of the United Kingdom", each of which is a P279 of "constituency of the House of Commons"; and that we sort out the descriptions of the constituencies so it's clear to users which is which - again, the desc for gives no helpful guidance.
Sorry to be hyper-pedantic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"Constituency of the House of Commons" - I originally had this explicitly stating UK, and am ambivalent about whether it should be in there or not. Note thought that we do use Member of Parliament (Q16707842) for current MPs without also stating UK and that seems to work. All of the constituency types are subclasses of constituency in the United Kingdom (Q2064521).
I'm running a batch just now to add dates to all the descriptions, which should hopefully help with the potential for confusion on an individual basis. Will look into setting something up for the 1707-1801 seats. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay! Every post-1801 constituency should now have a start date no earlier than 1801, and a standardised description along the lines of "Parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom, 1832-1885" (or "to present"). All the English ones ditto, though there I've given the end date only (it seems simpler given there's a bit of ambiguity with some of them). Andrew Gray (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Good progress. I'll haggle with you later as to whether a <1707 or a 1707-1801 constituency should be a subclass of C~ of the UK. Clearly they were not at the time they were around & I'm unconvinced they should be today. But I mainly popped in to give you some more of the Hertfordshire-like waifs & strays: --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Ontological tree discussion... although I sense you're loath to change the structure, I'm fairly convinced that the first predicate (pre-1707 England is not in the UK) is true; I'm less certain about the other suggestions, having argued with myself for the last hour before pressing the Publish button in favour of a cup of tea and a walk outside. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
This discussion predicated on the assertion that this mapping, currently in use, is wrong for the reason that the UK was not a thing way back when.
A worked opening suggestion is all constituencies should be
English constituencies should be
< Hertfordshire (Q60578263)     > instance of (P31)   < <constituency in England> >
Scottish constituencies should be
< Hertfordshire (Q60578263)     > instance of (P31)   < <constituency in Scotland> >
and so on for Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, (France).
That we have three P279 statements in constituency of the House of Commons (Q27971968) as follows (1066 is a dummy date, other dates are illustrative):
< constituency of the House of Commons (Q27971968)     > subclass of (P279)   < <constituency of the Parliament of England> >
start time (P580)   < 1066-00-00 >
end time (P582)   < 1706-12-31 >
< constituency of the House of Commons (Q27971968)     > subclass of (P279)   < <constituency of the Parliament of Great Britain> >
start time (P580)   < 1707-00-00 >
end time (P582)   < 1800-12-31 >
< constituency of the House of Commons (Q27971968)     > subclass of (P279)   < <constituency of the Parliament of the United Kingdom> >
start time (P580)   < 1801-00-00 >
And, next level up:
< <constituency of the Parliament of England> > subclass of (P279)   < <constituency in Engand> >
< <constituency of the Parliament of Great Britain> > subclass of (P279)   < <constituency in Great Britain> >
< <constituency of the Parliament of the United Kingdom> > subclass of (P279)   < <constituency in the United Kingdom> >
< <constituency in Great Britain> > subclass of (P279)   < <administrative territorial entity of Great Britain> >
< <constituency in England> > subclass of (P279)   < constituency (Q192611)     >
< <constituency in Great Britain> > subclass of (P279)   < constituency (Q192611)     >
< <constituency in the United Kingdom> > subclass of (P279)   < constituency (Q192611)     >
Sigh. and even then, we have to go further up the tree.
< administrative territorial entity of England (Q171634)     > subclass of (P279)   < <administrative territorial entity of Great Britain> >
start time (P580)   < 1707-00-00 >
< <administrative territorial entity of Great Britain> > subclass of (P279)   < administrative territorial entity of the United Kingdom (Q717478)     >
start time (P580)   < 1801-00-00 >
Tea. Walk. Bye. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


We have just in the last few days added references derived from Wikidata references into infoboxes im no.wikipedia. Not without some resistance though. But that makes lack of refs here visible. That is why I'm now adding some more, and actually today could use the same source as reference to the resent death-date of a parliament member as I used as source when I started the article about him in 2006. We are making progress. Haros (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Haros: Awesome! Really glad to see another country being added to the sets of politicians. Let me know if you need any help with the data model or anything like that. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


Can you explain why 15th United Kingdom Parliament (Q21084432) and 15th Parliament of Great Britain (Q21095070) shouldn't be merged?--Avilena (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Avilena: Sure - 15th Parliament of Great Britain (Q21095070) was a term of the Parliament of Great Britain (GB = Scotland + England + Wales), from 1780-1784. In 1801, the Parliament was renamed as the Parliament of the United Kingdom (UK = Scotland + England + Wales + Ireland), and the numbering started again; 15th United Kingdom Parliament (Q21084432) was from 1847 to 1852. It seems the "Great Britain" ones don't have dates - I'll try and sort that out to make it clearer. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Andrew Gray".