M2545

.

Party location

Sorry if the title got your hopes up. This is about this sort of party/location tuple

I believe located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) is wrong for political party (Q7278). The property is most often used for other administrative units. Parties are obviously entirely different from, say, a county. I guess the property is maybe used for government institutions in some cases? That's already borderline, but even if, parties are civil society organisations closer to companies than to government institutions. I believe operating area (P2541) is the proper property (pun intended, I must admit).

i tried to find out what common practice is, and the most notable result is that of 18,000 parties, just 500 have either of operating area (P2541), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), location (P276), or applies to jurisdiction (P1001) set. Of those, operating area (P2541) seems slightly favoured although it's not conclusive:

SPARQL Query

This is very low on the list of things I care about, so I don't mind leaving it as it is now. Just wanted to explain my thinking. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Matthias Winkelmann: Thanks for explaining. Possibly useful: headquarters location (P159). I included the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) in order to distinguish local parties from state or national parties. A national party could still "operate in" a locality, but only the local party is actually located there. -- M2545 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

wikisource hosts editions

Please look at Wikidata:Books for a better understanding of why the items for Wikisource editions of works are like they are. Please enquire if you don't understand why they are done as they are done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Dates of Massachusetts politicians

I see there seem to be quite a lot of Massachusetts politicians who we are saying were born or died on 1 January, with full exact-to-the-day precision: https://w.wiki/4bcz

This can create problems for eg the Wikidata:Database_reports/identical_birth_and_death_dates/1 report, which identifies items with identical birth and death dates as potential duplicates -- all the 1 January dates can create a lot of false positives.

Would it be possible to go back to the sources of these items, and see whether they are really claiming all these dates of 1 January ? If it is only a year that the sources give, it would be helpful to reduce the date precision to exact-to-the-year (... /9 in QuickStatements), rather than exact-to-the-day (... /11).

Thanks for any help you can give with this. Best regards, Jheald (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Also tinyurl.com/bdffyyxz : an extended version of the query, that looks to see if sources are cited for the DoB or DoD other than https://archives.lib.state.ma.us -- Jheald (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sample items with such dates: Q106889187, Q106889296, Q106889350.

If you need help fixing this, please add a request to Wikidata:Bot_requests. --- Jura 18:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Added it directly: Wikidata:Bot_requests#request_to_fix_MS_politician_dates_(2022-01-30). --- Jura 19:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)