User talk:Ghuron/Archives/2020

Active discussions

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:
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 (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 J17190-3459C part 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), 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 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), 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)
Return to the user page of "Ghuron/Archives/2020".