User talk:Ghuron/Archives/2020

Jules Chifflet

Hello Ghuron!

Some time ago I edited the Wikidata record on Jules Chifflet, removing "cartographer" as profession. Since the French Wikipedia article on Jules Chifflet still contained Category & Portal links to cartography, you re-introduced this profession in his Wikidata record, with Wikipedia article as a source. Since there is not one source proving that Jules Chifflet has ever had anything to do with cartography (the only Chifflet that could be somehow labelled as a cartographer is his father Jean-Jacques, in his book Vesontio, with maps of Besançon in Roman times), I removed the erroneous category and portal links from the Wikipedia article, so that I could safely revert the Wikidata record as well. Hope you can agree with this?

Newton Earp

Hi Ghuron,

Newton Earp was marshal at Garden City, meaning town marshal, a former position during the time of the old west… Thanks. Genium. 19:29, Dec 10, 2019 (UTC+02:00)

Date of birth

Hi Ghuron, a few days ago I removed the date of birth from King Charles' entry. You put a date of birth back. Could you tell me where you got the information from? I can't seem to find his date of birth anywhere besides on unreliable (crowdsourced) websites. See the talk page on the English Wikipedia, where I wrote that I found no less than four dates but none properly sourced. Maartenschrijft (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Maartenschrijft: as you can see from the diff, I've imported that date from french wikipedia. Corrected statement to reflect uncertainty of birth date Ghuron (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. The French Wikipedia didn't provide a source for the date of birth, nor do any of the other Wikipedia's. The fact that a Wikipedia contains some information, doesn't make that information true. In my humble opinion we should be careful with just copying information from any Wikipedia without checking whether the information is correct first. Especially when it is something personal like a date of birth. Maartenschrijft (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Maartenschrijft: I've never pretended that this information is based on reliable source, quite contrary I clearly emphasized that it was imported from French wikipedia (more specifically corresponding category). Any client that is interested in subset of information that is based on reliable sources can easily filter unsourced statements. Common sense suggests that if that information is good enough for one of major wikipedias, I do not see why it cannot be automatically imported in wikidata (assuming that corresponding element has no information about date of birth). And yes, BLP has certain restrictions, but WD:BLP does not list date of birth (P569) as Wikidata properties likely to be challenged Ghuron (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

But I didn't say that you pretended to get the information from a reliable source. You did emphasize that the information was imported from the French Wikipedia. And it is precisely that, the fact that the information was imported from the French Wikipedia, that worries me. You seem to assume that information on a major Wikipedia is correct just because it is from a major Wikipedia. What common sense suggests to me, is that all information on any Wikipedia, major or small, is crowdsourced and therefor prone to error. All information should be based on a source and if a source is not provided, the information should not be blindly copied to any other Wikimedia project. But that is just my opinion. I see you changed the date of birth to somewhere in the 1980's and you provided sources for that. Thank you. Maartenschrijft (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Maartenschrijft: No, I do not assume that information in wikipedia is correct and your opinion is not baseless, because there is no simple and clear answer why I am importing unsourced information from wikipedias in wikidata. But let me give you analogy with Nupedia (Q17458) vs Wikipedia (Q52). Of cause it would be much better if all articles would be written by specialists. The only problem with this approach is that speed of writing will be 100x or even 1000x slower comparing to wikipedia and that's why nupedia died. In order to bring some order into encyclopedia, that is written by anonymous (Q4233718), it was decided to bring Wikipedia:Verifiability (Q79951). But does this rule enforced strictly? Do we completely prevent people from writing unsourced statements in articles? If new editor adds a couple of sentences that seems to be correct but did not provide source, do we really revert them immediately? No we don't do that due to couple of reasons. It is better to welcome new editors rather than scary them. It is better to have unsourced, but correct information rather than having no information at all. And even if information is slightly incomplete, it is better to have it because it would motivate knowledgeable people to correct it. There is certain tradeoff between wikipedia growth and error rate and we are willing to take it

I believe similar things are happening between Wikipedia (Q52) and Wikidata (Q2013). Of cause it would be better if each element would be manually curated by knowledgeable wikipedian with most reliable sources for the topic. But the problem is that currently we have >70M elements and >9B triplets here and it is still too little to be barely useful. Our community is too small to maintain this manually. Most of edits are done by automatic scripts, that used sources that can be processed automatically and has reasonable reliability. Of cause the most reliable source for King Charles (Q1338629) would be published biography. Their error rate would probably be so low, that we can consider it as 99.999% reliable for that topic. The problem is that even if this book will ever exist, currently we will not be able to extract structured statements from there automatically. So here we also have tradeoff between wikidata growth and error rate and it is slightly different comparing to wikipedia. The good news are:

• one can easily distinguish between sourced and unsourced statements (e.g. use only sourced statements in infoboxes)
• existing human community can effectively detect problems with automatically loaded data and revert not only one edit, but all affected by the problem

So yes, in ideal world I would never run import of unsourced data from wikipedia. But since we are far away from this world, we need easy obtainable (and license-clean) data even if its unsourced (or poorly sourced). This helps us to merge duplicate items. This helps us to spot data inconsistencies (e.g. birth date of the sun before birth date of the mother). Specifically for my import, this helps us to identify errors in wikiprojects. Ghuron (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the trade off! But we need to be extra careful with personal information. I like the solution you came up with. Thank you for your help, much appreciated, and I wish you all the best for 2020. Maartenschrijft (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

alvaro pirez

Bonjour, les dates de naissance et de mort d'Alvaro Pirez sont inconnues. Seule une partie de son activité est documentée entre 1411 et 1434 en Toscane, ce qu'indiquent tous les articles de Wikipédia. Il ne peut être né en 1411 et encore moins dans les années 1410. Cordialement, --Mandariine (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Google translate : Hello, the dates of birth and death of Alvaro Pirez are unknown. Only part of its activity is documented between 1411 and 1434 in Tuscany, which indicates all the articles in Wikipedia. He could not have been born in 1411 and even less in the 1410s. Regards,

@Mandariine: si la date de naissance est inconnue, je l'indiquerais en wikidata Ghuron (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

ok c'est bien comme ça merci de ta réponse ! Mandariine (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Data from Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature

Здравствуйте, коллега! Что касается исправления этих "диаметров", стоит сделать такое:

• убрать все нулевые размеры (нули в Gazetteer приведены для объектов, которые просто-напросто не измерены, в основном это объекты с сильно размытыми и/или непостоянными границами);
• для некруглых объектов перенести приведённые значения из свойства "диаметр" (Property:P2386) в свойство "длина" (Property:P2043). Некруглыми в первом приближении (исключения достаточно редки, чтобы можно было заняться ими вручную) можно считать все объекты, кроме кратеров, венцов и куполов (венцы имеют в названии слово Corona, купола - Farrum или Tholus, у кратеров в названиях специального термина нет). Но группы этих объектов (Coronae, Farra и Tholi), естественно, некруглые;
• убрать ложную точность. Сделать это ботом вполне корректно, к сожалению, невозможно - степень неопределённости границ у разных объектов разная - но можно быть уверенным, что если размер объекта больше 100 км, то доли километра в Gazetteer приведены от балды, надо округлять хотя бы до целого. Если между 10 и 100 км, точно надо округлять сотые доли километра, но десятые могут иметь смысл. Если до 10 км, можно оставить как есть.

--Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sneeuwschaap: нолики я выпилил, в течении пары дней соберу эксельчик с изменениями и перед тем как заливать - покажу Вам Ghuron (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sneeuwschaap: Посмотрите пожалуйста [1], насколько это похоже на то, что Вы хотели? Я собираюсь заместить "исходный радиус" либо на "радиус" либо на "длина", все числа в метрах. Ghuron (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Посмотрел, похоже, самое то! Sneeuwschaap (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sneeuwschaap: вроде сделал. Дайте знать если где-то косяки остались Ghuron (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Спасибо! Посмотрю. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Julian Ashton

Hi. I have been editing Julian Ashton and I noticed the "educated at" refers to King Edward VI Community College, which was created after his death. According to its English Wikipedia article, the college was named after the earlier King Edward VI Grammar School, so it may just be the wrong item. However, I have been unable to verify his attendance at any school (though he did live in that part of the country while he was of school age). You added the entry in 2018 and cited English Wikipedia,[2] but I've been unable to track down your source. Is this something you could clarify? Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: statement Julian Ashton (Q6306955)educated at (P69)King Edward VI Community College (Q6411522) was derived from the following facts:

1. en:Julian Ashton is included in en:Category:People educated at Totnes Grammar School
2. en:Totnes Grammar School is redirecting to en:King Edward VI Community College#History

So the assumption was that "King Edward VI Community College" is just a new name of "Totnes Grammar School". That assumption seems to be incorrect, right? Ghuron (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that is a useful explanation. I'll see if I can dig up some sources for the earlier school and create a new item. Thanks From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Imports of occupation:writer from Wikisource

Hi. Using Wikimedia projects as a source of information is generally a bad habit at Wikidata, and the edit [3] is a typical example of this. The fact that somebody was included e.g. into the category Czech authors in Wikisource means only that 1) s/he is Czech and 2) s/he is an author of something, for example of a single letter to somebody. It does not means that the person's occupation was writer. If you did multiple edits like this, I suggest to remove them all with the exception of those where you are able to confirm that the person's occupation was really a writer. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Thanks for reporting this. The problem with this specific edit is that for some reason, wikisource community is insisting to keep categories named like "Renaissance authors" in elements, that is clearly about professional writers like Category:Renaissance writers (Q7945380) (see User_talk:Ghuron/Archives/2019#Emma Jane Cave). My attempt to fix that was reverted with explanation that I cannot understand, follow-up question was ignored. Since linking of some obscure wikisource categories to wikipedia is more important that wikidata integrity, I'm going to revert all occupation (P106)writer (Q36180) that is sourced based on wikisource projects and going to correct definition of category contains (P4224) for category elements, that contains links to wikisource. For the first part of your assessment, please see User:Ghuron#FAQ Ghuron (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking care of this! As for the import from Wikiprojects: Despite your explanation at your FAQ page I still have to claim that such imports are evil. Wikipedia contributors are not allowed to use other Wikiprojects as a source of information, but they get there anyway through Wikidata. Wikidata will always be lacking billions of facts, using unreliable sources is a bad solution. Too often I find here wrong data and mistakes caused by this attitude :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A president is not the president

Hi Ghuron,

With this edit you linked Q47426 to Q30461 because Friedman is in Q10144700. The 'president' of an organisation is not the head of state. If you feel his function is important enough to be mentioned, Q1255921 is a more suiting indicator.

You made that change on February 10, 2019. I did not check if you made more of these erroneous changes, but as you took the time to look at it, it is likely you did. I hope you will find some time and energy to fix these mistakes. For what it is worth, I do think no persons should be connected to Q30461, as all of these are presidents of a specific country. That is the function to connect to, for instance 'president of France'. Thanks for your attention and (hopefully) corrections. RonnieV (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Gottfried Keller

Hello Ghuron

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q122370 This Gottfried Keller Q122370 was not member of the Swiss Ständerat. He was a writer, painter and Staatsschreiber (Canton of Zürich). Another Person with the same name (Q1252447 / https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1252447 ) was member and president of the Swiss Ständerat (parliament). To distinguish the two Gottfried Keller, please check https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/012024/ (writer) and https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/003773/ (politician, Ständerat)

Chrisaliv --chrisaliv (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chrisaliv: apparently fr:Gottfried Keller mixed-up those 2 people. Removed corresponding category there Ghuron (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Great. Thanks --2001:1715:9D90:C360:4489:7ADE:2336:F23E 20:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Fejér János

Szia! Biztos, hogy teljesen ismeretlen Fejér János születési ideje? Még évszázadra sem tudjuk? Az is értékes infó lenne. (Egyesek még olyat is beírnak, hogy „2. évezred”, de az nekem már túlzásnak tűnik, hacsak nincs hozzá pontosítás minősítőben – ha csak annyit tudunk, hogy 1001. január 1. és 2000. december 31. között született, akkor lényegében nem tudunk semmit… Mindenesetre az évszázad pontosságra ez nem igaz, az már sokat számít, hogy valaki XVI. vagy XIX. századi.) – Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: Ha vannak források, folytassa, és nyújtsa be a megfelelő nyilatkozatot Ghuron (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

КПСС и КПК

Добрый день! Проверьте, пожалуйста, были ли ещё случаи путаницы между КПСС и КПК (этот я исправлю). Спасибо, — Adavyd (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adavyd: я не забыл о вашей просьбе, но из-за изменений на лабс, у меня сломался инструмент, с помощью которого я вношу эти правки (и исправляю косяки). Как только починится - так сразу пофикшу. Category:First Secretaries of City Committees of the CPSU (Q30074835) пофиксил сразу Ghuron (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Gliese 667 (Q87391333)

I don't understand why you created this item separately from Gliese 667 (Q143821) - both are about the multiple star systems, not about individual stars. Can they be merged back together, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: correct me if I'm wrong, by my understanding is that star systems that contains >2 stars are usually hierarchical, specifically GJ 667 A and GJ 667 B are relatively close binary, the third star, GJ 667 C, orbits the GJ 667 AB pair (quote from en:Gliese 667). In order to model this hierarchy we have the following statements:

• Gliese 667 A (Q13569064)part of (P361)Gliese 667 (Q143821)
• Gliese 667 B (Q13569069)part of (P361)Gliese 667 (Q143821)
• Gliese 667 (Q143821)part of (P361)Gliese 667 (Q87391333)
• Gliese 667 C (Q13567754)part of (P361)Gliese 667 (Q87391333)

From the other standpoint we sometimes need a flat list of star system components with their designations, and this is what we have in Gliese 667 (Q87391333) (under has part(s) (P527)).

My understanding is that if Gliese 667 (Q143821)SIMBAD ID (P3083)HD 156384, that element is about AB pair, not the whole triple system. Simbad explicitly said it has only 2 children and designations like HJ 4935AB, CCDM J17190-3459AB, IDS 17121-3453 AB and WDS J17190-3459AB. Moreover WDS J17190-3459D specifically said Not physically linked to the triple system ** HJ 4935; discrepant proper motions Ghuron (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Astronomy gets messy when there are multiple designations at different frequencies/epochs. Personally I'd model it with a main item for the star system, and then individual ones for the stars, and then use something like 'orbits' (C orbits A + B, not AB) along with part of. Having the item for AB seems unnecessary. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I'm fine with any consistent model that allows me to run integrity checks. Having WDS J17190-3459Cpart of (P361)WDS J17190-3459AB is a problem when you are dealing with large datasets. Having a couple of hundreds "unnecessary items" is not perfect either, but less evil Ghuron (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit of remodeling, does that look OK or does it still cause problems? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I believe it will still cause the problem that I've described previously. We have tens of thousands of star systems on wikidata, it is impossible to curate them manually. It is only a matter of time when someone (not me) will disconnect Gliese 667 C (Q13567754) from Gliese 667 (Q143821) because the latter one is WDS J17190-3459AB not WDS J17190-3459AB,C Ghuron (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sir William Jardine, 7th Baronet (Q729969)

You added position held (P39)=United States Secretary of Agriculture (Q1029955), but it seems it is confused with another person (William Marion Jardine (Q464480)). The Russian Wikipedia article should be fixed.--GZWDer (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

[4] Ghuron (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated statements

In this edit, why did you mark these statements as deprecated? Are they factually incorrect? --Yair rand (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Because although they are stated in (P248)SIMBAD (Q654724), their validity can be disputed. I had an interesting discussion with professional astronomer (although cannot find it right away) and he demonstrated that "secondary" object types in SIMBAD are usually derived from the fact that object has ID in certain star catalogue. Specifically to the best of my knowledge Arcturus (Q12985) is a single star, but since it has designation CCDM J14157+1911A, SIMBAD added ** as secondary type. I believe it would be beneficial to import all secondary types with deprecated rank, and sort them out later in wikidata. Ghuron (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Table tennis is not same as tennis

Hi, regarding this edit, table tennis is not same sports as tennis. Stryn (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Title

Hey, I added "The biggest criminal of our time" as title/ Laqab Te to Bashar al-Assad (Q44329). It's ok?--Ruwaym (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ruwaym: I cannot read Arabic, but from what I can see it clearly violates WD:BLP Ghuron (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. But surely, he is. --Ruwaym (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar (Q1389167)

FYI: musician? --Igorp lj (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: так я вам там и ответил Ghuron (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Спасибо! --Igorp lj (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

completely wrong statement

Hello Ghuron,

You have mass added wrong statements to items example 1, example 2. The categories that you based on was for resistance fighter (Q1397808) not musician (Q639669). This is huge mistake which i don't know where it's come from. All of this: Category:Irgun members (Q8553767), Category:Haganah members (Q6430228), Category:Members of Lehi (Q9517444), Category:Palmach members (Q7633149) are resistance fighter (Q1397808) not musician (Q639669). I revert the two examples. Please revert the rest nonsense. Geagea (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do Ghuron (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just encountered many more of these errors myself (i.e. many such errors have not been reverted yet). Many you've originally added in late August 2018 and are still around. I've started reverting a few myself, but please go back and fix them all. For example: In Mússab al-Ghamidí (Q12243465), someone has manually removed the wrong "musician" occupation that you've previously added (based on Category:Saudi Arabian al-Qaeda members (Q7010573)), and then you've re-added it two weeks later. Please go back and review all such additions you've made and remove those that have not yet been cleaned by others. Thanks, Dovno (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, this has caused a cascade of related errors. Because of the incorrect "musician" occupation entry, others have been semi-automatically adding description text to these items (e.g. "Israeli musician") in numerous languages. These also must be fixed. Dovno (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, items that were described by Geagea were not reverted yet, I'm struggling with recent changes on toolforge. Once I'll have my tool working, I'lll use it to revert all affected items Ghuron (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

U:Geagea, U:Dovno: I finally managed to fix the tool and reverted affected items for Category:Irgun members (Q8553767), Category:Haganah members (Q6430228), Category:Members of Lehi (Q9517444), Category:Palmach members (Q7633149) and Category:Saudi Arabian al-Qaeda members (Q7010573). Please let me know if you see more problems. Ghuron (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

История изменений для «Категория:Графы Равенсберга» (Q9028083)

• Там нужны другие данные - в соответствии с другими Интервики (например https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Graf_(Ravensberg)Nicolas-a (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Nicolas-a: Что именно должно быть другое? de:Kategorie:Graf (Ravensberg) не содержит людей? Эти люди не графы? Ghuron (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Категория:Графы Равенсберга - нет соответствия с другими Интервиками (кроме нидерландской) - хотя должны быть.Nicolas-a (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Nicolas-a: См. Category:Counts of Ravensberg (Q7525360) Ghuron (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Теперь есть. Я сам не смог объединить. Спасибо.Nicolas-a (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Q24943492

My comment on this edit was about San Cristóbal, not Hospital Vargas.--ArwinJ (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

P17 and humans

Please remove country (P17) claims at human items, that you have added (like here). Thanks.--Jklamo (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jklamo: Thanks for catching, fixed Ghuron (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Publication dates on TV shows

Hi Ghuron, I see that you've been adding publication date (P577) statements to television series. Normally, start time (P580) is used for that purpose on TV series items (see here), because usually not all seasons/episodes are released on the same date. Greetings, --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kam Solusar: Thanks, fixed Category:2018 television series debuts (Q28824167), Category:2020 television series debuts (Q65088617) and all affected articles Ghuron (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That was really quick, thank you! --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Al Sayed Musa al-Sadr Q672145

Dear, you added a one information about Al Sayed Musa al-Sadr , about the place of death according to a source from the Italian Wikipedia, although when reviewing the article in the Italian Wikipedia, I did not find any reference to the information, but rather they put the information within the framework of (Presumed death) without any source or reference. As you know, this is not a reliable source for adding information. Especially since this information will appear on all Wikipedia pages for this article in various languages. i hope you delete this field because there is no reference.--Talal gharib (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Talal gharib: I guess that would describe situation correctly Ghuron (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sultans of the Ottoman empire

Hoi, in the category for this position is a subcategory for wives. They are all not Sultans. Please undo your changes. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@GerardM: I see only 2 other wrong items (besides Kamures Kadın (Q17479248)): Olivera Lazarević (Q458610) and Hanzade Sultan (Q6067217). Do you see more of that? Ghuron (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is because I removed them. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.225.129.40

Some edits are performed without logging in. Please see mw:API:Assert.--GZWDer (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This IP is still active.--GZWDer (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, finally moved to toolforge (at least it will not be able to make edits because ip range is blocked) Ghuron (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

list of World Heritage in Danger

Hello, P793 (significant event) is not the right property for this list, I think P361 (part of) is better. I saw you added this f.e. to Abu Mena.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sinuhe20: If you are referring to Abu Mena (Q9278) as far as I can see, I've made only 2 changes: [5] and [6]. None of them add any statements, it just fixes incorrect reference to source Ghuron (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ADS Bibcode errors

Greetings. I'm looking at the list of "Single value" violations for ADS bibcode (P819) (see [7]) . I think many of them, perhaps most, are a result of edits you made on 23 Aug 2019. I know that's a long time ago. If I'm not mistaken about this, is it possible to revert them en masse? I started individually deleting the error bibcode, but there's too many to continue. See https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q56881547&oldid=1000855830 Many thanks. Trilotat (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Trilotat: I did this intentionally because those articles are referred by 2 different ADS bibcodes in simbad. For instance: Eleven stars having variable radial velocities (Q56881547) 1909ApJ....29..224. and 1909ApJ....29..224C Ghuron (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Drat! I'll undo my deletes. Sorry. Trilotat (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Trilotat: Majority of them are very old articles, once I'll finish initial SIMBAD synchronization, I'll leave only "major" bibcode Ghuron (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't at all understand what that SIMBAD is, but I've seen it referenced. I am trying to add the bibcode to earth science (geology mostly) article items, but it's so very tedious how I go about it. Should I look into SIMBAD as a tool or is my ignorance so thorough that I'm contemplating an inappropriate use for SIMBAD? Trilotat (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Trilotat: My understanding is that primary source of ADS bibcodes are https://https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ SIMBAD contains small subset of astronomical articles. I am uploading information from SIMBAD, e.g. Theta2 Tauri (Q6145898)radial velocity (P2216)47.0 and simbad also provide reference [8] to this fact as 1909ApJ....29..224. Based on that I can add stated in (P248)Eleven stars having variable radial velocities (Q56881547) to the statement above. I don't think SIMBAD contains a lot of information regarding your area of interest Ghuron (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I truly understood nothing of that info you linked to. haha. Thanks, though, for saving me the time spent on researching SIMBAD. Have a great day and be well. Trilotat (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Throttling and maxlag

Hey Ghuron, you seem to be using automation with your regular account to merge items. Unfortunately, your throttling is not compatible with the Wikidata:Bots policy, as you are doing 80--90 edits per minute while the servers are under pressure (maxlag>5). Can you please implement a proper throttling mechanism that pauses editing while maxlag>5 in order to edit in compliance with the bot policy? Thank you, MisterSynergy (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: old script, forgot to add maxlag there. Fixed now Ghuron (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Gaia DR2 3695915157453728000

Hello, I have noticed this item and 4 million similar items about stars. Do they have any use? I mean you could import 1,7 billion stars but I don´t see that this is useful. If you need a way to link the Gaia DR2 identifier I´d suggest creating a property like "Gaia DR2 ID" instead that you can link to every star that has an article somehwere if you need to link a source. There is Gaia DR1, soon there will be Gaia EDR3, Gaia DR4 and Gaia DR5 or what ever the names will be with an estimated 10 billion objects combined. This is obviously not a good idea. Can you explain it? --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You seems to be assuming that the only legitimate use of wikidata item would be to has "an article somewhere". I don't think it is correct assumption, but even within wikipedias we might be able utilize items that has no sitelinks but are:

• components of star system (see infobox for ru:WDS J15296-1726AB)
• parts of notable star cluster (see list ru:Список звёзд в скоплении Плеяды)
• exoplanets (that are normally not notable, but can be row in exoplanet table in host star article)
• ...

In addition to that I do believe that astrodata in this project might be useful for external users as well. I don't know where Stellarium (Q119931) takes their data, but I hope at some point of time they will take it from wikidata and will help to convert their users to our contributors.

I'm not aiming to import 1.6 billions stars from Gaia DR2, it is just not possible from the technical perspective. Instead I'm focusing on importing data from SIMBAD (Q654724), which has more bearable 11 millions objects. I don't know criteria of inclusion into SIMBAD (do you?), but so far they seems to be reasonable. 90%+ items has more than one external identifier. Gaia DR2 3695915157453728000 (Q78739267) right now has only one identifier, but it is relatively bright and close to Earth. I am open to discussion for more strict WD:N criteria for astro-objects, but frankly speaking do not see any need for this. After all, we already have 36M+ for instance of (P31)scholarly article (Q13442814).

Neither I see any necessity for dedicated Gaia DR2 property. I am completely fine querying for p:P528[ps:P528 ?dr2; pq:P972 wd:Q51905050] for any practical purposes. If you see such necessity, please go ahead with property proposal. Ghuron (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I am quite aware that Wikidata has usages other than linking Wikipedia articles, that is why I asked. The point is that these stars probably have many different ID´s, not only a DR2 number but also DR1 number, an EDR3 Number, SIMBAD, USNO, 2MASS, Hipparcos, Tycho... So in short the star has many names, but it would be better to give the star one name and the ID of differen cataloges as properties. I do not have the ultimate solution, but it seems random to give a star the name of the Gaia DR2. I expect the ID of the final Gaia cataloge will be some kind of agreed and widely used identifier, once it is published and there will also be a software solution that connects every other ID from previous catalogues to this final Gaia ID. Someday it will be easier to just link or query directly to the Gaia-Source instead of importing it to Wikidata (except for those objects that have articles of course). The problem with importing is always that everybody can change the data in items at any given time, willfully or by accident. Objects can change names, get merged or deleted. So Wikidata might be useful, but it is not a reliable source to use for scientific projects etc.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK simbad support ~20000 different catalogs, when importing them to catalog code (P528) I recognize ~1000 most widely used. I don't think 20000 or even 1000 new properties make any sense right now. SIMBAD also has some naming schema (see this - they decided that LSPM is more recognizable than UCAC4) and I generally follow them. It is true that I do not spend a lot of time thinking about which label to assign. I'm more interested in importing data rather than assign labels and I know a lot of people who specialized in wikidata on assigning consistent labels/descriptions. Not my piece of cake.

Yes, ability to run federated queries across multiple catalogs might be helpful, but we are nowhere near that yet. Waiting for SPARQL (Q54871) federated endpoint even for DR2 source would probably take forever. Everybody in astronomy is bound with rusty ADQL that has no federated capabilities. CDS allows you to query for multiple "tables" but they have to host their own copy of data (and they already lagging in synchronization). But in 2020s we going to have hundreds of really big datasets beyond their capabilities so this approach will certainly fail.

So yes, wikidata (as well as wikipedia) probably will never be reliable source to use for scientific projects. Wikidata (as well as wikipedia) is hosting their own copy of data, extracted from reliable sources. Wikidata (as well as wikipedia) data can always be vandalised at any given time, get outdated, etc. But I don't think it should stop us in populating wikidata (or writing wikipedia articles). Unlike wikipedia, it is easier to stand on the shoulders of giants. I can synchronize changes that are made by simbad staff (renaming/merging/deleting) with only a few hundreds lines of python code (not there yet, but approaching it). And there are data, that might be interesting (e.g. notable for wikipedia article) for us and not that interesting (missing or inconsistent) for simbad (exoplanets, binary/multiple star systems, constellations, hierarchical structure of Milky Way (Q321), etc). Ghuron (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side notice, I will suggest you to add all catalog codes as aliases. This make items easy to find and reduce the rate of duplicates (for the second point, you should still check them before creation).--GZWDer (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I did aliases in the past, but someone (I don't remember who) reverted it because there were too many. So I decided to leavr this for people who specialized in labels/aliases/descriptions.

And I do check for duplicates but:

• simbad sometimes (quite often) merge items that initially were separated
• simbad itself is not perfect and sometimes contains duplicates
• wdqs replication lag sometimes allows duplicates to slip through

so in order to maintain integrity I am merging tens of thousands of items. Let me know if you see where I can improve. Ghuron (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Ghuron/Archives/2020,

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)