User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2013

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

Wikidata Property P107

Hey could you please look up the Propertytalk Property Talk:P107 you added many false values to some items. At the top of the Talk page there is a list of correct values. All other values should be removed or corrected. --Sk!d (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

All done. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, though I am not sure that the top of that page is particularly helpful either, nor a place where it is obvious to people to look. I again ask for that community to have some clear examples available for review, and ideally to have them more readily available from main ns pages. If there are a limited set of options for a field, then why aren't the available responses limited to only those? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarity into which 'Main type' a ship falls would be helpful. There is no clarity, and it isn't obvious. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata RfD

Thanks for your recent deletion requests. Just a note, before requesting deletion please make sure you have completely merged the two items (i.e. including statements) because there were some instances in which you only moved the interwiki over without putting the statements on. Thanks! --Mark91it's my world 10:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hi Billinghurst, I saw you created Dame of the Order of Australia so I thought I'd let you know I have used it as an example at WD:Notability for getting an exception made to the notability policy for similar titles/awards. /Ch1902 (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I am pointedly keeping out of the politics of Wikidata, except to make comment about where we need better help/guidance information for clarity reasons. All I know is that some wikis concatenate separate notable components into one article, generally for readability, or to increase the size of one article rather than multiple small articles. Doesn't reduce its notability and cannot remove the fact that it existed at a point of time. As it is a data point as relevant as others, it will presumably will be required for infoboxes. I can see that these 'awards' will eventually have a date component too, and hopefully a citation component.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Property:P409

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you first proposed its creation. --  Docu  at 11:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thx muchly  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Property:P466

Hello, I have created, Property:P466 (occupant), I hope it will help with clarifying the the building / organization confusion.--Zolo (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

noble title

I have undeleted Property:P97 (noble title) and used it in Q5975278. Regards, --Stevenliuyi (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing P373

Please, see Wikidata:Project_chat#kategorie_na_Commons_.28P373.29_vs._sitelink_to_commons. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretty certain that I have been adding the Commons interwiki link in addition to the body version. Where the link has been wrong (I am working slowly through a constraints page) then I may remove the incorrect/duplicated version, and put a corrected in the interwiki Commons space. Anyway, when there is a simplified page that gives ready instruction, rather than that tl;dr interminable discussion, let me know.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource

You may want to be aware of Wikidata:Wikisource. Integration is planned for January. --Rschen7754 21:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thx  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Bibliothèque nationale de France ID (P268)

Bonjour Billinghurst! Please see property talk:P268#Prefix_and_check_character and please take a look at the history of Garnet Wolseley, 1st Viscount Wolseley (Q336077) . I removed the value cb12034490x from P268 which was there beside the value 12034490x.
Are you using a tool to import the values? If so which one?
Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

<sigh> so much variation across the wikis, and expecting people to have to look to arcane places for the simple addition of a simple code. Stupid implementation to only have some of the code after the forward slash, no matter that it is common. Once we have the authority code, having to know to trim the first two letters ... ugh! and agh! ... Though thanks for letting me know. With regard to the tool used, it is enWS authority control code lookup s:en:Mediawiki:Gadget-addViafData.js and since adapted for Commons. We do need such a lookup tool at WD.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Instances of human

Hallo Billinghurst/Archives/2013,

I've raised a Request for Comment for this issue involving the items Q14896454, Q14914342 and Q14870023. As you were involved in one of the Requests for deletions I wanted to point you to it.

With regards, -Cycn (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fili (Moscow Metro)

Hello, I have a couple of questions about your recent changes to Fili. First of all, you've replaced instance of (P31) = "metro station" with instance of (P31) = "architectural structure" and P168 (P168) = "metro station". I have queried previously which is the best solution, but no one has replied yet. Could your edit be regarded as an official precedent? If so, could you please post an answer there, with some statements on why it should be so? And second, I've only recently been answered that in would be OK to use start time (P580) for the date of opening (no other entries on Moscow Metro stations provide one as yet). However, I though to use it as a standalone property, while you used it as a qualifier for instance of (P31) = "architectural structure". Why? P.S. Could this be added to some centralised guideline? YLSS (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

To start, I don't think that I am making policy, just interpreting it, and nothing that I do should be interpreted as being official, not here, I hold no rights, no special knowledge, just a contributor trying to assist. [Can we converse here, ensure that we have a common understanding before taking it elsewhere.] Breaking down the answer ...

• I based the architectural structure around Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P84 and Property talk:P84 which indicates that if it is a built and a designed work it gets that instance, and after that it gets a designation of the structure type. To me this is akin to people being p31 = human and an occupation = xxx
• Re underground v. metro v. railway station v. something else, it is all quite difficult as it is all so subjective and all seems to pick up a local linguistic reference where we are just trying to indicate that a train stops to pick up people and there is a building there and it becomes even harder with people's translation added to the mix.
• Qualifiers are another interesting beast, especially with dates and places, and not one in which I have seen good examples at the site, though I have been provocative in my use. In this example I have tried to look at to what instance the date is relative, especially as an object can have many interpretations or ambiguities. So to me dates are generally subsidiary and are mostly qualifiers ... Is it the opening of the building? Opening of its use? What if the function changed and it opened something else. (Also see the property for significant events significant event (P793) and how it is used.) Further a START date should always be considered with an END date, so here a date of opening for a structure, no matter its purpose, seemed more relevant, whereas a start date maybe relevant for the function as a station as it may have an end date, so both would be relevant in different places on the same item.
• There does need to be better guidance and examples both for object types, and also applicable qualifiers, and I started such a conversation about this last week (where it is to), though I am not here at WD enough, nor with enough mental energy nor time (with what I do around the WMF) to lead a project to get it done.

I hope that answers the questions. It is a quick response as time is a little short, apologies ahead of time if I missed something.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I understand your logic with P168 (P168), it seems to be quite fair, but after browsing through more entries on various structures, I think I'll start a topic at the chat (thnx for the link!) to solve the conundrum with its use. WRT dates, now that I've seen how significant event (P793) is used, I would prefer dates to be included via that property. On the one hand, using start time (P580) for "architectural structure" IMHO would mean not that is didn't exist before that time, but that it wasn't an architectural structure but something else. However, it both existed and was an architectural structure for some time before that, although an unfinished one. On the other hand, using a significant event (P793) set would provide more flexibility, and will be more easily parsed by infoboxes. (About good examples - don't you think Salle des États (Q10292830) is one?) YLSS (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dates are generally qualifiers and occasionally markers, and then it becomes what are you qualifying marking. So to me it is where the most relevant space can be, and the rule has to be set broader than structures. A war is an event, and it will have a start and end date that qualifies the event, and so on. It is all new, and truly could do with better examples. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dunno... If we continue this analogy, then dates of birth & death would be used as qualifiers for instance of (P31) = human. Or is that your intention? YLSS (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Wikidata:Project chat#Structure type conundrum, your input will be appreciated! (I did not refer to your reasoning WRT P168 (P168), but I agree with you.) YLSS (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Welcome

Thanks for your welcome. --Lkcl it (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Q183

I notice that you reverted my label change to Germany (Q183). Could you take a look at the talk page? Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)