Dominic

Welcome to Wikidata, Dominic!

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! Emw (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Examples

Would you mind providing examples for your NARA property proposals at WD:Property proposal/Authority control? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided examples in the original proposal. Please see my comment in the discussion section. Dominic (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

NARA properties

Hi Dominic, what is the status of these NARA properties?

• P1222 (P1222)
• P1223 (P1223)
• P1224 (P1224)
• U.S. National Archives Identifier (P1225)
• P1226 (P1226)

A lot of them give broken links making them quite useless. I already pinged you on Wikidata:Identifier migration/1, but I guess you missed that. In the current state I'm probably going to propose to delete them, but maybe you can clarify things so it can be corrected. Multichill (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Multichill. These are definitely an issue. NARA's catalog changed its domain and identifier structure last year. This was a good thing for us, because we moved to a single unified identifier system, called NAID (National Archives Identifier) for all catalog records and authorities, instead of many different ones. Any link to https://catalog.archives.gov/id/{id} should now work. This means all the existing identifiers could be merged into a single new National Archives Identifier property. I think the broken links for some of those are a bug in the URL redirecting. It seems to be only affecting authority identifiers(?). I will report it to our help desk and see what they say. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Dominic, I changed U.S. National Archives Identifier (P1225) to become the new property, but now I realize it's probably easier to just reuse P1222 (P1222). Looks like there is no need to change the id there. Multichill (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Multichill:. I just removed all of the uses of P1223 (P1223), since there were only a dozen and they seemed all broken. Looks like the others are all not in use. So I suppose they can be deleted/redirected (or whatever is the proper action for Wikidata)? I've cleaned up P1226 so it is current. Are there properties for adding "former name" or "former URL"? I couldn't find anything useful. Dominic (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

NARA properties with issues

Hi Dominic -

I found another issue in the NARA database:

• https://catalog.archives.gov/id/10040241 Label is Marco (Tex.) but coordinates are on Marco Island, Florida.

Thanks! - PKM (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve matched Yellowstone National Park County to Yellowstone County (Q490283), since there is no other entry for Yellowstone County but there is one for the park. - PKM (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I have sent both of these along for correction. Dominic (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Muster Rolls

I've created a new item muster roll (Q65789047). I've added <has parts of the class> "muster roll" to your various NAID items (Muster Roll (NAID 3074205) (Q64531137) etc.). Should those be <instance of> "muster roll" now that it exists instead? - PKM (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@PKM: Yes, I think it could make sense to add that as a value, but still keep "collection" as well? I would note that that example looks like it is a series that is literally a single muster roll, but there may be other cases (or most cases) where a series is composed of multiple muster rolls (or a muster roll and related objects). Thanks! Dominic (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Size 0

Please see Property talk:P1436. --- Jura 11:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Dominic,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Item change request

Please change family name (P734) Wojtyla to Wojtyła (Q56541347) in John Paul II (Q989). Thanks!!! --151.49.60.38 22:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Dominic,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

cco license for Nagisa Palace from the Tales of Ise (Q60474748)

Dominic ,

That statement is wrong as this is license for the image and not for the original which in the public Domain. Different photographs of the same image might come with different license, so that info should be stored with the file on SDC. --Jarekt (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ouch, that's 35.000 items to fix. Can you please undo these edits?

I can help you with adding the right data on Commons as structured data on Commons. Multichill (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I will start removing License==CC0 statements from the items in your query, and if Multichill can add it to SDC than it will be all wrapped up. --Jarekt (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt:, @Multichill: Hi guys, sorry I didn't check my messages this weekend. I would have been happy to fix, but thanks for taking care of it! I was being a bit too literal with the data, you're right, but I'm also still in the middle of working through this dataset (especially the unmatched entities), for what it's worth, so I am still making improvements. Dominic (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cleveland no tiff

Hi Dominic, I still have User:Multichill/Zandbak (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:Multichill/Zandbak&oldid=956888345 permalink]) sitting around with items about paintings that don't use a tiff image. Want to look into this? Multichill (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Huh?

Why on earth are you making new items like this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q80000906

...that is just one copy of the David Roberts litographs, out of hundreds? thousands? There are many, many on commons, just look at the el-Deir lito (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jordan_by_David_Roberts)....are we going to have an item on wikidata for each of the 8 copies on commons? Huldra (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I am importing all of the artworks described by the Cleveland Museum of Art. This is a notable work described in a museum's collections database, and it is clearly in scope according to Wikidata:Notability. Can you explain further what problem you think this causes? I can't speak for other versions on Commons, as I did not do anything relating to them, but considering they might all be distinct physical manifestations with their own locations, provenance, physical condition, etc., and cataloged by reputable institutions, I wouldn't immediately reject the idea that they might merit separate items. Dominic (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The lithograph above (one of many!) is Plate 091 in vol 3 of en:The Holy Land, Syria, Idumea, Arabia, Egypt, and Nubia. Link here. If you look at the commons category there are at least 3 similar pieces on commons (there might be more, I have just not found them yet. In fact, there normally are 3 to 7 copies of each lithograph on commons. What you are doing is basically similar to creating a wikidata entrance of each and every copy of a Dickens 19century book: do you think this is sensible?? (even if every copy of his books have "distinct physical manifestations with their own locations, provenance, physical condition") --Huldra (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Labelling

Why are you adding accession numbers to labels? Help:Label indicates that the "most common name that the item would be known by" ought to be used, and that will typically be simply the painting's title. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata's software does not allow multiple items to share the same label and description. Using the title alone is often insufficient for a bulk import such as in this case when an entire museum's catalog has been added to Wikidata, since there might be works with the same title that would have the same description. From a data perspective, this should not cause any real issues, since if someone wants an item's official title, they should consult that property, and not the label. Dominic (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It would seem that the appropriate solution would be to elaborate the description, perhaps by adding the accession number there rather than in the label. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Sorry for being offline over the weekend. I am working on this now. My main concern was overwriting descriptions, that may have been added or improved by humans, to enforce the accession number. That is not an issue for labels, which should not change, so that's why I designed it this way. The import script I am using is kind of dumb in this regard, and just detects any differences and then updates the values, but will not distinguish between changes made by editors versus changes due to the data being out of sync. However, if this is the preference, I can go ahead with what you are suggesting, and assume that the risk in updating existing descriptions is small. As a demo, I just updated the first 50 artworks like so. Let me know what you think. Dominic (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely think that approach is better. If overwriting is a concern, is it possible to simply append the accession number without changing the existing description? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Teapot (Q79488050)

Hi, Dominic, wondering if the teapot you are refering to looks like this. :-) Lotje (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on "copyright license" (P275)

Hi Dominic,

your revert https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P275&oldid=prev&diff=1185781289 seems to have re-introduced an inconsistency that leads to errors. See discusson of copyright license (P275). Trilemma2 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Multichill's change. The inconsistency was a problem, but the way to solve it was not to just remove the valid constraint. Instead, if anything, the one that permitted "public domain" as a license should have been removed, which is what he just did. Your change, rather than solving a problem, was allowing people to put in a value that isn't allowed under the property's scope. Dominic (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Advice for new WD editors bulk uploading museum collection data?

Hi Dominic--

  Hope you won't mind me reaching out--I'm a relatively new WD editor working on a sizable batch upload of archaeological objects from the Yale University Art Gallery collection. I've noticed the Cleveland collection has a bunch of objects of similar type to those we're grappling with, and since you're handling that collection and clearly experienced with WD, I wondered if you might be open to advising my colleague and I on some of the gnarlier issues we're running into with getting our objects aligned for a batch upload. 
  We're particularly challenged with some issues around designating chronology of objects (specific date ranges for archaeological objects--of the sort where there's a sizable range when the object could have been produced: ie. 165-256 CE; also historical periods like "Roman", "Parthian", etc. where the colonial history of a single site means that the parameters for the relevance of such historical designations would be highly particular to that single site). I notice you haven't dealt with chronological statements on the archaeological objects from Cleveland (at least the ones I've been viewing)--I assume this is for good reason and that you might have thoughts on the complexity of dealing with chronology in WD, or might be able to point us to another experienced WD editor who might be helpful.

Thanks in advance-- Ahc84 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ahc84! I'm not working for CMA anymore, but I'm still doing Wikimedia work for DPLA, and happy to advise. If you want to reach out to my email, at dominicdp.la, I'd be happy to meet with you all and discuss Wikidata strategy in detail. My calendar is open on Thursday right now, if that works for you. Dominic (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Dominic,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Openaccess cma

Hi dominic, is User:Openaccess cma your bot? The edit summary looks very similar to code you used to run. Multichill (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill:: I gave them some code to run, but I haven't been in contact with them for about a year. They have staff who understand Python enough to be able to make changes to the script, but I think they are going to need instruction to understand what is going wrong. Dominic (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggested correction for items

Hi Dominic,

You (and maybe other people), created a lot of items about the collection (P195) Cleveland Museum of Art (Q657415) with the claim instance of (P31) book (Q571). But apparently, most of them are only page (Q1069725) and not book (Q571). I intend to replace book (Q571) by page (Q1069725) for all items of this query:

SELECT ?item ?label WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P195 wd:Q657415 ; wdt:P31 wd:Q571.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". ?item rdfs:label ?label. }
  FILTER regex (?label, " page ").
}

Try it!

What do you think? Is it ok? Do you see any false-positive (ie. items with " page " in the label but not page (Q1069725)?).

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Thanks for looking into this. I have a couple of thoughts, and I wonder if there may be a better way of doing this. Is there a way we could edit these not just to change "book" to "page", but to indicate these are a "page of a book"? Presumably, simply being a page loses the meaning that was intended in the original, which is that the artwork this item describes is cataloged as a book in the source because it is part of a book. I also think it is a good idea to keep that statement simply because it accords with the source metadata (e.g. [1]), even if we think it is less preferred. We can correct errors we find in metadata with additional statements, but I don't think we should remove sourced statements. My alternative suggestion: What about adding a P5102 qualifier to it, like Album with Views of Rome and Surroundings, Landscape Studies, page 47a: " Torre del Nero, Rome" (Q79941329)instance of (P31)book (Q571)nature of statement (P5102)partially (Q100349848), and then adding an additional P31 value of page (Q1069725) with preferred rank? Dominic (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Interresting questions thanks. For the context, I was cleaning and removing of instance of (P31) = book (Q571) (when it was a duplicate of others values, like literary work (Q7725634) ; and following the model on Wikidata:WikiProject Books) but indeed here it's a more special case (which is why I contacted you ).

We can keep the statements to follow the source; I'm not a fan of "partially a book" as "page" is already and more precisely a part of book (it's subclass of (P279) of folio (Q1363377), itself subclass of (P279) of book component (Q63285117), part of (P361) of book (Q571)) but if there is a preferred statement, it's ok. So I would stick with page (Q1069725).

That said, you raise a very interresting point and we should also add a statement part of (P361) = Album with Views of Rome and Surroundings, Landscape Studies (Q79941295) (to do the link between the page and the whole book).

What do you think?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Yes, I think a part of (P361) statement like that makes a lot of sense. When I first wrote the code for this project, I didn't really think about cases like this where some accession numbers are really describing component parts of another artwork with an accession number. Let me try to make sure I detect that programmatically. I am sure this occurs in the dataset in other cases, not just for pages and bound volumes. Also, that sounds good about page (Q1069725). I did not realize Wikidata already considered that item part of a book. (I guess that item is distinct from loose leaf (Q6676005), now that I look into it.) Dominic (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Good. For the programmatically detection, it should be easy, apparently the inventory number (P217) of part start with the same string as the whole object. For instance "1989.13" for the whole album Q79941295 and "1989.13.eee" for a page of this album (and apparently in order), see this query: https://w.wiki/vCf (which could be generalized).

Do you want to do it yourself or do you prefer me to do it? I'd let you try first since you know best these items but don't hesitate to ask me for help ;)

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: I just realized I never answered this question! Just to let you know, I am again working with the Cleveland Museum of Art. I am trying to help get them set up to run their own bot, and I have worked part of (P361) into the code for the future, as well. Can you take a look at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Openaccess cma when you get a chance? I haven't gotten a lot of response yet. Dominic (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Inventory number(s)

Hi again,

Could you take a the inventory number(s) on Presidential Inaugural Committee Administrative Files (NAID 74627080) (Q63908392)? (Special:Diff/1004299905)

My main question is: is it really one unique inventory number or is it several distinct inventory numbers (that should have each their separate value. Also, there is no comme between the last to numbers...

FYI, it's the longest on Wikidata right now ;) Followed by Segregated Artifacts (NAID 43290866) (Q64393672) that you might want to check also.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Yikes, that is definitely ugly. Looking at the source metadata, this is a result of messiness in the data. It's not that I put a list of values into one claim, but the original had all of this entered freetext in a single "local identifier" field value (and it's a multivalue field, if they had wanted to put it that way)—which also explains the missing comma. There are a lot of different things different NARA units put in "local identifier", and I actually have no real idea what the "OA/ID" even means to this institution, but they put it in there for some reason. In any case, we can definitely split it into multiple values or just remove it because it's not meaningful. (I haven't been working at NARA for about a year and a half, so I don't know much more than what you see. :) ) Dominic (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand. No problem do what you can, I just wanted to let you know. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mapping

I've been adding items from the Getty AAT and I noticed that some of them map to NARA items (as possibilities for <instance of> or <has parts of the class>?). Just FYI:

• building plan (Q107401755)
• check stub (Q107392820)
• ledger (Q107364266)
• presidential papers (Q107364222)
• executive records (Q107364227)
• government records (Q107364231)

- PKM (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Lt H V Atherton WW2 allied prosecution team

Dominic you kindly created Q64179129, relating to audio recordings relating to post WW2 trials. The middle initial of LT Atherton is incorrect. Please see Q101864856 - Henry Valpey Atherton. I think they should be linked. I leave you to consider whether this should happen or not. Thank you in advance Adin-Atherton (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional info - it is Q67578393 that mentions a Henry K. Atherton. It should be Henry V. Atherton Adin-Atherton (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Q83878453 seems like conflation

I was looking at Q83878453 and found the official website, but the Digital Maine Library seems to be the digital library while the DigitalMaine Repository is the DPLA hub according to the site even though the "library" or "repository" term is dropped from https://pro.dp.la/hubs/our-hubs representing the organization. What were you trying to represent in this Q? The organization or the service/part of the org as it should differentiate which official website is primary https://digitalmaine.org/ vs https://library.digitalmaine.org/ vs https://digitalmaine.com/ vs https://ourmainearchives.omeka.net/ should be applied and what additional relationships or Qs should be created. Wolfgang8741 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wolfgang8741: Sorry for missing this at first. My intention when I added this was to add the DPLA hub, which may be linked to as a contributing partner in Wikimedia Commons uploads. I think you are right in that "Digital Maine Library" is the online resource run by the Main State Library which provides access to research databases. Which is confusing, because the DPLA hub, which is referred to as Digital Maine on the dp.la site (which I was relying on), but also called DigitalMaine Repository at https://digitalmaine.com/—and while this project is also affiliated with the Maine State Library, it is a partnership that is engaged in aggregating archival materials from the state. And they both seem to fall under the umbrella of the "Digital Maine" as an initiative of the library. It seems the confusion here is largely caused by the organization itself being unclear, or maybe even that they rebranded on their own, but DPLA is not reflecting their current naming scheme. I think Q83878453 should refer solely to the DPLA hub that calls itself Digital Maine Repository (or DigitalMaine Repository, it seems inconsistent), though "Digital Maine" also seems to be a valid alternative name for that entity, based on the DPLA site. But maybe separate items would be warranted for the umbrella "Digital Maine" and/or "Digital Maine Library". What a mess! Dominic (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleveland Museum of Art follow-up

Please note Wikidata:Project_chat#Bot_work_for_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art and Wikidata:Bot_requests#Bot_work_for_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art. --- Jura 14:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

League: MLS (batch #74192)

This caught a bunch of non-MLS players, like George Best, Hope Solo and many others. Best was linked to the new Earthquakes club, not the NASL version. Solo was linked to the male team of Sounders FC. I fixed those two, but this should probably be reverted. There are too many mistakes. OBender12 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I identified these based on the existing statements, so any false positives are due to pre-existing errors in the data for the “team” property. I spot-checked these batches and found very few errors for other leagues, but I guess I should have checked closer for MLS. It’s odd that there is so much bad data for these players. We can certainly revert the batch. Dominic (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Q79496687

Hello Dominic, since you created the item, just wondering why the name seems so strange. Imo it should have been "Le grand marché aux pommes" or "Grand marché aux pommes", or like here: Le marché aux pommes. I thought you might be able too look into it. Thank you for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)