Lucywood

Welcome to Wikidata, Lucywood!

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! Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge, etc

I'm not sure whether it was a good idea to create new items such as Cambridge (Q21713103), Exeter (Q21886091) etc, when as territorial entities these items are exactly equivalent to the corresponding cities Cambridge (Q350) and Exeter (Q134672), with exactly the same boundaries. (As distinct from other cities such as e.g. Carlisle (Q192896) where this is not the case).

It means that we now have a mismatch between en-wiki, which has the most detailed articles on these cities including administrative history and structure simply as an aspect of the city, and wikidata which now has two separate items.

(It also means that we have lost the information that the city boundaries and the district boundaries are equivalent).

But in any case, if you are going to make a change like this, please update the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) hierarchy to place the city in the district, and the district in the county -- otherwise people can get very confused, and all sorts of data can get added inconsistently. Jheald (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Have done so, will check others. I thought as the settlements could just be about the settlement only and have items on the districts as separate entities. Lucywood (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

But does it make sense to make such a split? If we have a population figure for somewhere like Cambridge, the population figure for the district is also the population figure for the city and vice-versa. Similarly for the area. Rather than requiring the same information to be kept consistent on two different items, does it not make more sense to have only one item, where the boundaries are the same?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think that there is a case that needs to be made, as to whether this item division actually is useful / desirable. Jheald (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the areas are nearly identical but I just thought as 1 is about the settlement and 1 is about the district (which also can contain parishes as well as wards. Lucywood (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

All those items now have sitelinks anyway now. Lucywood (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Cornwall, etc.

It took me a while to get up to speed with the process of running a bot to undo things. I finished a process last night to undo geo-nesting errors from my earlier bot run over infoboxes from Turkish Wikipedia. Clearly I must implement better constraint checking before I make another such run.

Please let me know if my 'undo' process missed anything, and I'll re-run.

Again, my profuse apologies.

Lisp.hippie.bot (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, its just that it is near impossible to deal with hundreds of edits, thanks for your contributions. Lucywood (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off 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. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off 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. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Eaton

I don't understand this pair of edits:

• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5331320&type=revision&diff=662990239&oldid=662928204
• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q29006919&type=revision&diff=662990208&oldid=589692847

Looking at the "relationships and changes" tab on the Vision of Britain entry and scrolling down, it is apparent that VoB '6087 refers to the Eaton which is in the Broxton hundred, ie Eaton adjacent to en:Eccleston, Cheshire (Q5331320), rather than the Eaton which is in the Eddisbury hundred, ie Eaton near en:Tarporley (Q29006919 / http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10175690#tab02 ). Compare the geo-coordinates on the two items, and the map of the different hundreds at en:Hundreds_of_Cheshire#Emergence_of_the_later_hundreds. Jheald (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: Thanks, it looks like Vision of Britain has put the units with the wrong place, I have reverted. Lucywood (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I see you've taken on Woughton in Milton Keynes as well, which I got deeply confused by -- if I remember correctly, the OS now seems to apply the name "Woughton on the Green" to the new part of the now divided parish which doesn't include the village "Woughton on the Green" (or for that matter the Green), and doesn't appear itself corporately to use the name... What should connect to what, and how should it connect to Commons and en-wiki? I have no idea. I did try to make some adjustments, and promptly got (partially, and only on some sites) reverted by a local. So respect to you, if you got to the bottom of it! :-) Jheald (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Woughton appears to be just a generic topic for the 2 current parishes. Lucywood (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

UK Electoral Wards

I'm working on adding information for a set of UK council electoral wards to Wikidata. I'm doing this work in my job as a Data Analyst at mySociety (Q10851773) and it is part of a larger project to collect information on elected representatives across all countries. As part of this work I created Pembridge (Q56243412) which you merged into Pembridge (Q28836894). I've been discussing the approach with @jheald, Andrew_Gray, wroper: at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald#UK_Electoral_Wards. I created a new Pembridge ward because of the changes to the boundaries (which will bring changes to other potential properties like population etc.) and the number of councillors elected (from 3 to 2). I think this is sufficient reason to have two items one for Pembridge Ward pre-2014 (GSS E05000394) and one post-2014 (E05009400). Would you agree? Owenpatel (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Owenpatel: I've reverted my merge. Lucywood (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lucywood: thanks Owenpatel (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on Y Fali (Valley (Q3400948))

Hi. Why did you make the following two changes on this little village and community:

1. You deleted the fact that y Fali is a local government community (Q2630741)?
2. and your next edit, whereby, in the description, you also deleted the fact that Valley is a Community?
3. you changed P131 (located in the administrative territorial entity) from the local county council to itself (a village)?

Lastly, have you edited any other communities in Wales? Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: The community is at Q24636564, I merged those where possible like Q628633 but because there are 2 separate articles on 2 projects they can't be merged. Lucywood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've requested that both svwiki and cebwiki merge their articles. Two wrongs don't make a right!

Secondly, any views on my other questions please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: If there is an item on the community with the statement community, then that shouldn't be duplicated on the settlement item. Lucywood (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Lucywood,

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) 16:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Lucywood,

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) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic's main category

Hi, thanks for your edits! Can I make a small request? When you create items like Category:Stowe, Buckinghamshire (Q84077936), could you also add topic's main category (P910) to the main item (here, Stowe (Q1003761)), please? Like this: [1]. Then the links to the Commons categories from Wikipedia articles continue to work, instead of ending up in a maintenance category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes will do, I just thought the bots did that already though. Lucywood (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: after a bit of work, Pi bot is now automatically adding the reciprocal topic's main category (P910) link when it's missing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Gazetteer for Scotland

Unsure why you added a link to GfS's Cupar page, from Lower Milovaig (Q105062185). Was that a one-off mistake, or what? --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon it was a mistake, I've now added the correct id, thanks. Lucywood (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Wexham Court CP

Hi. You marked Wexham Court (Q20081013) as former civil parish and gave it an end time, but afaics it's still extant, holding Parish elections only last month. Or am I missing something? Smb1001 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've found [2] which backs you up, so it's OpenStreetMap that's out of date. Very confusing this local government stuff! Smb1001 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Smb1001: It indeed does appear to still exist, its abolishment appears to have been cancelled. Lucywood (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I just spotted the same thing [3] Smb1001 (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Q110491669

You added Birker and Austhwaite (Q110491669). I assume you had a source. Maybe this one? Why not add the source in wikidata and the also for P31 add end time (Q24575125)? Maundwiki (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Maundwiki: Added end time, the source is already linked with Vision of Britain unit ID (P3615). Lucywood (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding end time. I an not sure how the source will work as in the future other things may be added.

Totally unrelated. Eastleigh Town (Q110644125) Thanks for adding information. Please understand my ignorance of how it works in England. What was it before? Did it belong to another civil parish? Maundwiki (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Maundwiki: "Eastleigh" Eastleigh (Q731069) was until 2021 an unparished area (Q7897276) when that was split between "Eastleigh Town" and Boyatt Wood (Q4952242), that's why Q731069 has "end time" 2021 for unparished area. An unparished area is generally from a district that existed before 1974 that didn't become a civil parish in 1974 when the district was abolished. Lucywood (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will amend the Swedish article. Maundwiki (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge of Q105090468 and Q115760708

Hi there, I've just noticed that you merged Astley Bridge (Q105090468) and Astley Bridge (Q115760708) - these are not, in fact, the same place although it might look like it.

The The Bolton (Electoral Changes) Order 2022 (Q115760677) abolished the former (or will abolish in May next year) and creates the latter, with different boundaries.

I have reverted the merge, but please do let me know if you still object to the new item :) --M2Ys4U (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@M2Ys4U: Sorry, my bad, I though both said the end time was 2023 rather than one starting in 2023 and one being abolished then. Lucywood (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal

Hi there, I removed town from your Brighton edit as It isn’t a town anymore https://www.kingseducation.com/kings-life/10-fun-facts-about-brighton#:~:text=An%20important%20first%20fact%20is,two%20to%20be%20separate%20towns but I kept city of Brighton and Hove. I hope this is good with you :). Greenfrog23 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Greenfrog23: That source makes reference to the towns to Brighton and Hove so both appear to be towns. Lucywood (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It says the towns of Brighton and Hove formed a unitary authority in 97 when both were separate towns, in 2001 city status was given. Here is another link that includes city. https://www.visitbrighton.com/ Greenfrog23 (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The districts were merged in 1997 but the towns still exist. Lucywood (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No they don’t, I have emails from the mayor of Brighton and Brighton comms department I can send you 2A02:C7C:7A08:B200:F5EF:E02F:C08C:3681 19:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have sent your email to our Comms department who will be able to help. Thank you for getting it right. Wikipedia often gets it wrong so it's good if someone who cares edits the pages.

Kindest regards

Minna

Minna Robertson Civic Office Manager | Brighton & Hove City Council, Brighton Town Hall, Civic Parlour, Bartholomew Square , BN1 1JA

T 01273 291225 or 07824866987 | brighton-hove.gov.uk

Our customer promise to you

We will make it clear how you can contact or access our services | We will understand and get things done | We will be clear and treat you with respect

-----Original Message-----

From:

Sent: 06 May 2023 18:18

To: MayorsOffice <MayorsOffice@brighton-hove.gov.uk>

Subject:

This email originates from outside of Brighton & Hove City Council. Please think carefully before opening attachments or clicking on links. 193.117.198.82 (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous user

193.117.198. 2A02:C7C:7A08:B200:F5EF:E02F:C08C:3681 19:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your email, I share not only your concerns but also your frustrations!

This has been an ongoing issue for many years, we used to regularly go in and edit the page but every time we did someone else would then edit it back to say resort or town. Although thankfully the Wikipedia page retains both of the external links I added to the council website and to our official tourism site: www.visitbrighton.com.

As our resources are stretched instead of undertaking the Sisyphean task of updating Wikipedia, we focus on optimising the content of our website to ensure that we appear as the top result for Brighton-related searches. Please see below a screenshot of the search results for ‘Brighton’ on Google which shows that our VisitBrighton website appears before the Wikipedia entry - the majority of people use Google for online searches rather than Bing (84% Google / 9% Bing).

Thank you, Charlotte

Charlotte Barrow

Senior Marketing Executive

VisitBrighton

www.visitbrighton.com

Monday – Friday 8am-4pm 2A02:C7C:7A08:B200:F5EF:E02F:C08C:3681 19:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Brentwood (LIRR station)

The current wikidata code for the Brentwood (LIRR station) is for a small commons gallery [Brentwood (Q4961750)]. This should be relocated to the commons category. --DanTD (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@DanTD: Galleries take priority over Commons categories, see Wikidata:Notability item 4. You can create an item for the category. Lucywood (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That's funny. Most of the numbers have gone to the commons galleries for years. --DanTD (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Loch

I've come across a number of items you have created, where you have used P31=Q1172903 (loch).

loch (Q1172903) should not be used as a P31 value for a lake, or for a sea loch. It is an item defined as a subclass of a body of water, but it is non-specific, and better P31 values exist. So for Loch na Creige (Q118874454), for instance, it is a lake, and the appropriate P31 value for the item is lake (Q23397).

You're also using Scottish parishes as P131 values. Scottish civil parishes were abolished as administrative territorial entities in 1975, and although there is no objection to their being used as P131 values, it would be ideal if you would include the local government area in which Scottish geolocatable items are found, since that is the de facto standard for P131s for Scottish geolocatable items.

t/y - --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

question about connecting Commons to Wikidata

Hi Lucywood, just had an error conflict when trying to change the description on 5a Shooters Hill, Cowes (Q119818437) in context of their new location at The Ale House (Q134583401) so though I'd say hello.

I've been unable to find a way to systematically find existing commons categories that should have a wikidata item but don't, for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dew_Drop_Inn,_Summertown which I've just found in the "pubs in Oxfordshire by location" category for Oxford. I understand WikiShootMe can be used to collect files into categories, but I'm more interested in making the wikidata connection for existing categories without having to learn how to use commons. Do you have any advice or tools that can do this?

On a separate note, there seems to be about 40 CAMRA IDs duplicated on 2 or more different items, which can be found on the identfiers "constraint violations" page here. Some of them are duplicated because the National Heritage List for England (Q6973052) contains entries encompassing several distinct buildings and have incorrectly been tagged as instances of pubs, where I'd probably remove the CAMRA ID and make a connection using part of (P361) for example. Others are duplicated because the same building has had multiple different names and therefore commons categories eg Yarrow Bridge (Q123047691) and Yarrow Bridge (Q123047702). Personally I'd be inclined to merge them, and if the information is available state when the names changed, but this would require merging them over at Commons. My second question is therefore what is the Commons approach to this? Could a building that has had multiple names be a single item with a single commons sitelink but multiple Commons category (P373) using a qualifier such as applies to name of object (P8338)?

I'm in no rush to learn the answers to these questions and would be happy to defer them elsewhere (although I've found other wikis aren't happy when I bring up problems / questions pertaining to wikidata, and the wikidata project chat doesn't always yield a response).

regards, Tæppa (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tæppa: Thankyou for you're work on pubs, unfortunately I don't know of a way of finding Commons categories for pubs that should have a Wikidata item, there is this that deals with Commons categories in general.

With ragards to duplicate items, if there is 1 pub like The White Hart Hotel (Q134006847) that has multiple different listed parts like The White Hart Hotel Bar (Q26299937), The White Hart Hotel (Part) (Q26299938) and The White Hart Hotel Restaurant (Q26650488) I'd just keep the IDs for the pub on the general item (134006847). If the pub The Three Tuns (Q116259707) is part of a listing that includes another distinct building like 34 High Street and Talbot Cottage (Q26496510) then the IDs for the pub can again only go on the item for the pub, if the listing includes only things like outbuildings or garrages etc like "The Swan (Including Attached Outbuildings)" then just have 1 item namely The Swan (Q17540078) (where the label should be modified to remove the extra bit) especially given curtilage listing often includes similar buildings anyway, I can't think making a distinction between a listing that includes outbuildings or otherwise generically named buildings like granaries etc. would be helpful. If there are multiple items (or Commons categories) for the same building with a different name then the items (and Commons categories) should be merged. I can't think having different items for the different organization occupying the same building makes much sense, see User talk:Dave.Dunford#Conflating businesses and buildings as it's unlikely any projects would have different articles for the building v organization and the Wikipedia article(s) often focus on the organization while the Commons categories often focus on the building so having different items often IMO unnecessarily splits the Wikipedia article from the Commons category. When it comes down to the likes of Sri Lanka (Q854) for the country and Sri Lanka (Q4526612) for the main island which is most of the country or Cambridge (Q350) for the settlement and Cambridge (Q21713103) for the district which covers a similar area. Even though such items are similar it is possible to have different facts about such similar (and clearly notable) concepts like population or area and a few projects have distinct articles anyway but with organizations v buildings I can't see how in most cases it would be helpful to split. With lower units like parishes many have been marked by User:Jheald as said to be the same as (P460) like Framlingham (Q24667768) though. When 1 organization has different buildings like 5a Shooters Hill, Cowes (Q119818437) and The Ale House (Q134583401) then different items will probably be appropriate and an item for the organization could maybe be created but I'm not sure in most cases you would need to as such organizations may well not be notable and better of covered in the buildings. Lucywood (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tæppa: Re: matching Commons categories to Wikidata items. Unfortunately I've just moved house recently and don't have proper internet, so I'm limited in my ability to research and write a proper full answer to you. But in the past, I have sometimes used Quarry queries to automatically generate a list of subcategories that are 2 or 3 levels below a category (eg one might look at c:Category:Pubs in England by county) and automatically return which cats do and do not have wikidata items. One may also be able to do something pretty similar using PetScan. But I'd need to do some archaeology on some of my old projects to try to remember exactly how. One approach I've used in the past for places that look like they should have wikidata items but aren't currently linked to one is to try to get coordinates for as many of the images as possible in the category, then see if there is a tight close grouping around a point, and then look up what wikidata items we have near that point of an appropriate nature. All of which can be automated to some extent, to produce lists of potential matches for final human review.

@Tæppa, Lucywood: Project archaeology still in progress, but it looks like I was doing some things along these lines in about June 2022. Here's a PetScan query that was trying to identify Scottish bridges with Commons cats but no Wikidata items: [4], and here it is adapted for pubs in Oxfordshire. [5]. Filtering the list to remove the word ' in ' (eg using grep) can remove a lot of the false positives. Here's a query to calculate average coordinates for files for a list of Commons categories: page, query: tinyurl.com/yh2rs744 (cf also Commons:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples#Camera_location_of_files_in_a_category this query in the Commons examples set, to see camera locations for the pix in a single category). I also have an offline script I use to find the geographically nearest items for a set of target coordinates A from of a set of potential items B (typically the results of a query download for items of the right sort), based on the Perl module Algorithm::SpatialIndex, though I'm sure similar library code could be found for other scripting languages. This can help to identify (or rule out) Wikidata matches based on location, if I have coordinates for a set of things. But let me know if any of this is of interest. Jheald (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tæppa: Some SQL queries using Quarry for Commons categories not linked to a wikidata item:

• Categories 2 levels down from "Category:pubs in Oxfordshire, by location";
• Categories 2 levels down from "Category:pubs in Oxfordshire", with a category that is a civil parish;
• Categories 2 levels down from "Category:pubs in Oxfordshire", reporting all categories that they are in;
• Categories 3 levels down from "Category:pubs in Oxfordshire", reporting all categories that they are in.

I find the SQL queries trickier than SPARQL, because they require a knowledge of the organisation of the databases that power the wikis; but they can be quite powerful. Jheald (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Going the other way, https://w.wiki/ELfj is a SPARQL query for items identified as pubs that are in Oxfordshire, that have no Commons category. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jheald, the queries work perfectly.

On an adjacent note, I'm grateful that @Lucywood adds pub signs where possible using logo image (P154). Perhaps eventually someone will attempt to migrate photographs of "logos" to a different property and require P154 be exclusively digital files, but I don't see that as imminent or as a real concern. However, what might be of real interest to us is migrating any instances of image (P18) that should be other properties such as logo image (P154) or image of interior (P5775), where a better or newly added image file exists for image (P18). The full(I think) list of sub-properties can be found here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P18#P1659 . Relevant categories: Interiors of pubs in the United Kingdom Pub signs in the United Kingdom.

After performing a cursory search I can't find any information (other than a seemingly unrelated paper published from University of Chile (Q232141), here [6]) that suggest the ability to query super-categories for images used on wikidata. If that makes sense (technically), are you aware of such a capability of one of the several querying services? Tæppa (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tæppa: I think it should be possible to make a query for this on Quarry, using the globalimagelinks table, which I believe supplies the info on a Commons image page regarding on which wikis the image is in use. So one can extract images that are in use on wikidata, and which items they are used on: [7]. I'm out of time now, but it should be reasonably straightforward to combine this with a requirement that the images need to be from a particular level of a particular category tree, eg by cannibalising this query: [8]. Jheald (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tæppa: Note that if you want to go through checking on the appropriateness of P18 images for pub, your best bet might be to go through county-by-county with a SPARQL image-grid query, like this one https://w.wiki/ENch for images of pubs in historic Oxfordshire. There are also about 2000 pubs with images (query: https://w.wiki/ENcW) where we don't seem to have a historic county (P7959) stated as yet. In all we currently seem to have about 11000 images of pubs in the UK; but you would probably find you could get through them surprisingly quickly going county-by-county about 500 at a time. (Posting up a list of counties on a user-page then Y ticking them off as you have gone through them can help). Jheald (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tæppa: If a new logo is made for a pub then the older ones could be marked as deprecated (rather than removed from the stetement) or otherwise the new one could be marked as preferred. Lucywood (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I would agree for using ranks rather than removing logo image (P154), especially given there's no property for linking to the commons category, where there are other properties such as category for the interior of the item (P7561). But my point was more generally about reserving image (P18) for a good image and transferring other images to more specific properties if they exist (which might only appear in the commons category after it's linked to wikidata and someone uploads a new photo).

To answer Jheald's point, Historic Counties can be useful to the extent people are interested in looking at specific HCs, but we have 240,000 items with image (P18) and historic county (P7959) [9] so QA / refinement of the image tag (which is automatically used on sites like Welsh Wikipedia) is probably best done on a semi-automatic basis using queries.

Once I figure out a query based on what Jheald linked to in the previous reply I'll let you both know. This will have scope for other subjects such as settlements, where I noticed a user (who has good intentions) added images of churches to many villages and hamlets and I manually reviewed settlements I'm familiar with to find more reflective images of the place.

Images are, in my opinion, the first thing people see on wikidata if they're exploring Wikipedia and decide to see what "Wikidata item" means, giving them an impression of how serious or "knowledgable" this project really is. No or an irrelevant image might discourage them from scrolling down and seeing the various identifiers like National Heritage List for England number (P1216) they might not know exist (I didn't until this year). Good first impressions are also a way to attract more people to contribute either here or on other wiki sites. Tæppa (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In terms of items-for-building vs items-for-function : Yes, it does sometimes happen, and there are people who believe in this quite strongly. It can come up for museums and galleries, where there may have been a number of locations where the museum/gallery was previously housed before its present home; and where the building has had its current use for only the most recent part of its history. In that case two items might well make sense, and there are editors who extrapolate from that to think that there should always be two distinct items.

Myself I tend to be lazier than that, and typically will only separate items if I think there is a real case for it. In the case of a pub building that has always been a pub, I would say start off with just the one item unless somebody really feels strongly that there ought to be two (but then be very ready to accommodate them).

It's the kind of question I still go backwards and forwards about. For example, User:Lucywood mentions the case of parishes. In the past I was perhaps as strong as anyone to argue that villages and parishes with the same name in England ought to share the same wikidata item, since the en-wiki article would probably treat both together, and otherwise the link from en-wiki article to Commons category might get broken. But contrariwise in Scotland the parish always has an item in its own right. And I (now) think that probably works better, as they are different things, with different boundaries, different matches on OSM, etc. So now I think it probably would make sense to split the English village+parish items. But to do that now probably needs an RfC, perhaps on a subpage d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_UK_and_Ireland, and the working-up of a plan to migrate the relevant properties and incoming statements appropriately, perhaps to then execute on a county-at-a-time basis, with suitable pilot phases, & negotiating suitable buy-in from eg en-wiki and Commons for putting in suitable plumbing of new redirects etc to make sure pages still link through to each other appropriately both ways.

So, if two items actually are appropriate, it can save a bit of heartache to go for having both of them right from the start. Though sometimes I still do think you can get away with one. But do ask around on this, because I think you will find quite a spectrum of views. Jheald (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jheald: Schools are another common one as well as museums etc, like with museums I have merged some over the years not properly realizing one was for the organization rather than the building but I still don't think (with the possible exception of when the organization has been in multiple buildings or maybe when the building has had different functions but still probably not a good idea) it normally makes sense to split.

In terms of English parishes, I would probably (at least for now) consider only splitting those where Lsjbot has created 2 different articles like with Ripponden (Q651797) and Ripponden (Q24669137). Interestingly the parish had a population of 7,604 (and is 54.84km² by area) while the BUA is 4,783 (1.499 km² by area) even though it includes Rishworth so while the BUA has over half the population of the parish it covers less than 3% of the area which arguably makes it significantly different but I'm not sure if we need separate items though. Lucywood (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to throw in my 2 cents quickly (and to prevent me opining about civil parishes / ontology and thus politics), I'd say any bulk splitting of CPs & villages of the same name should be done after we know what the new local authorities will be for May 2026, which I understand won't effect CPs themselves but will effect the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) many CPs are in. Also for physical things that straddle CP or Unitary Authority / Borough / etc borders, the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) they are in might change and it would make sense not to have to do mass Quality Assurance twice in a short period of time.

And to throw in a third cent, wikidata has gaps / errors in non-CP local government. In Northern Ireland & Wales I've found several instances of townlands / communities of the same name being complicated, and it's not even clear if they are the correct P131 class. Another example I've found and am vaguely familiar with is High Wycombe (Q64116), which is unparished and split into wards (not administrative, they're electoral). Until March 31 2020 it was in Wycombe (Q548974) (District Council) and thus many things in that former district have it as their located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). The new Buckinghamshire Council (UA, completely absorbing the old DCs) has 16 groups called Buckinghamshire Council Community Board (Q132130388) (zoom calls, local engagement, allocation of funds, made up of all relevant CP councillors) covering all ~200 CPs in the UA. High Wycombe Community Board (Q132133375) is one of them, which seems to be "administrative" insofar as P131 is concerned as opposed to High Wycombe (Q64116), which seems to now only describe the name and unparished area of the town. However, I'm not going to assert (by adding it as a P131) that an item I created & has no media coverage is a true administrative territorial entity, so we probably need a sanity check on what P131 even means in different parts of the UK and the extent to which WD contains, describes & locates them correctly. Tæppa (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)