Kerry Raymond

Welcome to Wikidata, Kerry Raymond!

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!

I cannot believe someone hadnt welcome you to data - how slack JarrahTree (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Boyne River

Hi Kerry, Can I ask you to take a look at the possible duplicates: Boyne River (Q18208207) and Boyne River (Q31843660)? I'm slowly working through a list of Aussie items with duplicate Geonames IDs. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@99of9: As it happens there are two Boyne Rivers in Central Qld ("it's such a great name, why not have two?!" said my ancestors), but only one is notable enough for Wikipedia article and the two Wikipedia articles (English and Swedish) are talking about the same river. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to detect duplicates (well, at least on Qld, I have less level of knowledge for other states) and happy merge any that are duplicates if you can tell me *how* to merge two Wikidata items. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

So on those items it looks like the geonames IDs should be fixed up. For merging, enable the gadget at the top of the list in your preferences ("Merge: This script adds a tool for merging items"). Then you'll get an easily usable drop-down button in your "more" actions tab on every item page. --99of9 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, merge is installed and dropping-down, but asking it to merge these items in either direction produces the error message:

Error while "Please wait...": A conflict detected on svwiki: Q31843660 with svwiki:Boyne River (vattendrag i Australien, Queensland, lat -23,93, long 151,35), Q18208207 with svwiki:Boyne River (vattendrag i Australien, Queensland, lat -25,63, long 151,22)

However, waiting doesn't seem to achieve anything, so eventually I cancelled. I presume the merge box is asking for the Q-number of the other Wikidata item . Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what went wrong with Boyne River but I successfully merged the two Blackstones, so clearly I have mastered merging at some level! Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Boyne River is that the items are attached to two different sv-wiki articles. A merged item would not be allowed to link to two articles in the same wikipedia. So the merge is not allowed. But I thought you said there really are two different rivers? So we can just leave the two items, and make sure they point to different Geonames IDs (and different svwiki articles). --99of9 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are two Boyne Rivers and yes Swedish Wikipedia has an article on both BUT I think we still do have a problem in that the two Swedish Wikipedia articles are connected to the wrong Qnumber (they should be swapped around to the other Q number). Meanwhile the "ceb" Wikipedia entry appears to be a copy of the Swedish article for the "lesser" Boyne River only and so it too is linked to the wrong Qnumber. The way to tell the rivers apart is that the "important" Boyne River has a mouth on the sea (and hence a red dot on the coast on the map) while the "lesser" Boyne River is a tributary of the Burnett so its "mouth"/"red dot" is inland. Do I just go in and edit these manually to fix the "connection" to the Wikiepedia articles or is there some other magic I need to know.? Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can manually edit them to swap around the connections. You may have to remove them from one before adding them to the other, because there is probably a check that the same article is not linked from two wikidata items. --99of9 (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I give up. I can remove a Wikipedia link with the rubbish-can icon (easy), but I cannot work out how to add one in. I So I am going to the empty entry at the bottom of the list and trying to type "en" over the "wiki" which works but nothing happens. I was expecting a text box to appear for me to paste the Wikipedia article name. What's the secret? I looked at this help but its screenshots does not resemble anything I cam seeing (possibly out of date?). Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Try typing "sv" instead of "en". Then you will get a blank "page" field, which you can add the name of the Swedish wikipedia article to. (or "ceb" if that's the one you're moving). --99of9 (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't work with "sv" either. But forgetting the UI for a moment, I've been looking at a random selection of duplicates that the query generates and the problem almost always seems to involve one of these Swedish generated articles. Garbage into Swedish Wikipedia, garbage out into Wikidata, that's what seems to be happening. For example, there are two Swedish articles on Lake St Clair (which is one of your duplicate pairs). Are these duplicates really our problem? Are you seeing any evidence there is an en.WP problem here? I don't feel my obligations extend to fixing Swedish Wikipedia (even assuming I could speak Swedish). Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is then. I've just switched them around (it worked for me, but I may not have been describing the process well). I agree that many of these issues come from Lsjbot which autocreates articles in sv and ceb from geonames IDs. When these become wikidata items, they often need merging with the item associated with the en-wiki article. The nasty ones are when sv already had a hand-created article. In that case I've often had to suggest merges on sv-wiki (luckily they use the same template, so I don't need to speak Swedish). I agree it's not really our problem... but they are about Australia... --99of9 (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Next question. If I re-run the SPARQL query, I still see two Blackstones on the list. Should I? My reading of the query is that there is no check for redirection, so I guess the two Blackstones should keep appearing. But is there a way in SPARQL to filter those out? Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I just reran the SPARQL, and can't see Blackstones. So I think you were successful, it just took the cache a while to catch up. --99of9 (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

So a case of "patience, grasshopper". That is so not me! Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Bondi Beach

The Swedes and their copycats have it as an instance of beach Bondi Beach (Q21919992), whereas Bondi Beach (Q673418) derived from English Wikipedia has it as a suburb but is the article in which they also discuss the beach itself. Meanwhile the CS (whoever they are) have two articles, one for the beach called cs:Bondi (beach) and one for the suburb cs:Bondi Beach and that prevents any merge. So what should we do about this? Just leave it alone? If so, should we be documenting this in some way so it doesn't keep coming up as a duplicate because the "instance of" is different. Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --99of9 (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done The simplest change is to change the Geonames ID for the suburb item to the "populated place" ID in Geonames, and leave the "beach" ID on the beach item. These can usually be spotted by opening the link to geonames, zooming out a tiny bit, and looking for a pin/label of a different colour with the same name.--99of9 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Queensland Place Identifier

Hi Kerry. I'm not sure how important this identifier is, or whether it is used for anything, but you may be best placed to look through the Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P3257. --99of9 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@99of9: It's the reference number for the gazettal of towns, suburbs, rivers, mountains, etc in Queensland. It is a parameter in the Template:Cite QPN (cite Queensland Place) on en.WP which probably should appear (but of course doesn't always) in the lede of any articles about a town, suburb, river, mountain, etc in Queensland, which should take you to the appropriate entry on the Queensland Place Names search website, e.g. the entry for the Fitzroy River, the first item on their list. However, if en.WP article talks about another place (for example, the Capricorn Coast is defined as the coast between the mouth of the Fitzroy River to Somewhere Else), this results to another citation to the Qld Place Names database for the Fitzroy River within the Capricorn Coast article. This explains the first "clash" being reported. Running my eye down the list shows that most of the "clashes" are of geographically-related places. For example, the second "clash" is the two Bangalees in Queensland, presumably they are mentioning the other in a "not to be confused" way and citing the other's QPN entry. Maybe there is a genuine error lurking there in this list but I am not sure I can be bothered because all the ones I recognised are "clashing" with something that is obviously geographically related.

This constraint violation is a good example of what happens when Wikidata creates items for something they don't understand. As the person who maintains the template and is its biggest user, I think if they had bothered to contact people associated with the template's history, I could have told them that, while this number uniquely identifies a place in Queensland, it does not logically follow that citations using this number would only occur in one Wikipedia article. So, having created this mess for themselves, they expect someone else to "fix" it, when the problem is bad modelling in the first place. Kerry Raymond (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, all good info. So it sounds like the import of values (scraping them from the templates?) was the error? --99of9 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because the template can be used both for "definition" but also for "cross-reference" and the scraping assumed the only use was definition. Maybe if they had confined the scraping to the lede para, it would have had a lot better results as the definitional use generally will occur there, but the cross-reference uses are generally less likely to occur in the lede (although a few do). What really should should have been scraped is a dump of the QPN database itself. Every now and again I get hold of a spreadsheet which captures the current version of the database (albeit with some truncation of some of the narrative parts) which is mostly adequate for my article generation purposes (most of my locality articles are initially generated for the lede, chunks of the infobox, navbox, categories etc) but the difference between me and the Swedes is I roll out each one individually double-checking what it does and adding some manual facts as well. Ditto my Queensland Heritage articles. Generation is a means to an end but it shouldn't be the end. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Automated report of empty item: Q113686343

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Automated report of empty item: Q113678267

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)