User talk:Mike Peel

Welcome to Wikidata, Mike Peel!

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, please ask me on my talk page. 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! —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Contents

User:Mike Peel/sandbox

Hi Mike. On the french version of Wikipedia, I create fr:Module:Infobox/Télescope. We speak about that in fr:Projet:Astronomie/Porte des étoiles and fr:Discussion utilisateur:Simon Villeneuve.

We should work togeter to elaborate a common infobox. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: Sorry for not getting back to you about this sooner. It's great to see that the French Wikipedia is also starting to use Wikidata for infobox content! We seem to be taking quite different technical approaches with the same aim, though: you're creating a Lua module to form the infobox in its entirety (utilizing other lua modules for the template), while I'm trying to adapt the standard en:Template:Infobox call to use information provided by en:Module:Wikidata. You're probably using the better technical solution, but copying it over to enwp is beyond what I'm currently interested in: I'm more focused on how to start getting the content onto wikidata and auto-included on wikipedia than I am about the best code/method to do this (although @RexxS: might be more interested in this).

So, perhaps it would be best if we collaborated on how to structure telescope information here on wikidata, such that both our approaches can incorporate the information? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: I've now updated en:Template:Infobox telescope/doc to reflect the current wikidata usage by that template. I'm not currently sure what to do about linking the other parameters for the template with wikidata - any suggestions? (also @RexxS: and @Filceolaire:.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Q2471197

Hi !

I removed the area (P2046) statement because of the imprecision of the property itself : 31000 square inches is obviously the area of the mirror of the telescope, not the area of the telescope itself

I agree the size of the mirror (both the diameter, area, and even concavity) is pertinent information, and I'd love to have that on Wikidata, but we need a property specifically for it - and trust me, I looked for one (to no avail) before outright removing the statement.

Alphos (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alphos: Ah, I didn't realise there was that distinction. I'm using this parameter in en:Template:Infobox telescope for "collecting area", and thought it would be fine to use the "area" property for this. I'll propose a new property for this immediately. Please don't remove it from any other telescope articles until the info can be migrated over! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alphos: Actually, before I propose a new property, what would you think to using something like applies to part (P518) -> "telescope surface" as a qualifier of the value? Where "telescope surface" is a new Wikidata entry (since one doesn't seem to exist at the moment). Would that work in place of a new property? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to say it's only my opinion on the matter, and I'm just a regular user on Wikidata ; but you seem to get the distinction I'm making too, and I thank you for that !

Let's put it this way : an individual telescope worth mentionning here sits in a building, usually with a round top and a slit opening with a closable door : that building has a ground area and an office-space area. A telescope rarely stands on its end, but rather on a mechanized pedestal, which has a footprint ; and the amplitude of movement of the telescope body describes a portion of a sphere, which projects to a circle of a given area on the ground. And it of course has a mirror of a given size, which is likely the most important info about the entity. All these are areas : would you have them share a property ? From my point of view (tiny pun intended), it seems awkward that they would all be statements with the same property, no matter what qualifiers are given.

I would fully support a new property for mirror area, and would certainly also think about a property for diameter (since not all mirrors are plain disks, with some even having gaps, especially on newer, wider implements with adaptive optics)

Alphos (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If we can describe all of those areas, then that would be great, but that's a lot of areas! I'm not sure that they will be available for most telescopes, as astronomers don't tend to report those values (I say this as a professional astronomer - these areas aren't relevant for observations, but they will be present on architectural plans). For flexibility on Wikidata, it is useful to be able to add all of those values with qualifiers whenever they are available. However, dish areas is one of the important parameters of a telescope, and it is something that is often quoted (although sometimes as antenna effective area (Q571946) that depends on frequency!) so I've gone ahead and proposed Wikidata:Property proposal/Collecting area - please comment on that proposal there. :-)

Diameters are another issue... They can be extremely complex for telescopes! See Radio Astronomical Telescope Academy Nauk 600 (Q1590725) as an example, which has an annulus surface for the primary mirror, and either rectangular or conical reflectors for the secondary, and then sometimes even a tertiary mirror! So we need to be able to describe various different topologies, even if we flatten them to 2D. And that's before we get to segmented mirrors ... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Eee-yup ! Let's not even mention segmented codependant optics like that of Q845304 or segmented optionally codependant optics like those of Q210997 (1, or 2, or 1 and 2 as an interferometer)…

Thank you for listening to my suggestion Alphos (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

100 wikidays

You deserve this barnstar for having completed the #100wikidays challenge on Wikidata. Lymantria (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Mike Peel (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Brazil properties

FYI:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: You're missing a few proposals there by @Sturm:. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

ITYM "we're missing" - be bold! ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Donations and links

Hi, I noticed some of your clueful remarks on Wikidata recently at the English Wikipedia. Thanks for that. I just opened a discussion about phabricator:T175230 (I would have liked some smaller venue but didn't find one). By the way, I notice that Wikidata:Data donation uses the incorrect term "donation" instead of "release" or similar: I remember when you helped get the "donate files" removed from UploadWizard, so you might be interested in this. I'm especially appalled when I see some people talk about "data donation" when they really mean adding links which are probably worthless for Wikidata users but potentially very valuable for the target domain owner. --Nemo 13:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Village and river

Hello, you merged village with river. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, reverted. Sorry. Mike Peel (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorting under Surname category in Wikidata infobox

I just noticed a problem with the surname category created by wikidata_infobox. The person needs to have a sort by their first name: [[:Category:Doe (surname)|John]]. Otherwise they all appear under the letter "D" for Doe. This is how categories for surnames should be sorted. --RAN (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I can't reproduce this - can you point me to a live example, please, or alternatively try using {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}} to see if that has fixed it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it was a temporary glitch, they are all sorting properly now. I would have noticed it much earlier if the error had been there all along. Thanks. --RAN (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mt. Wilson citation

Please provide a citation to a reliable source to support your edit to the location of Mount Wilson Observatory. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: The coordinates? [1]. The previous ones were quite a way off (and were also unreferenced), see [2]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

x Centauri

Note that en:x Centauri is not identical with sv:X Centauri to which you linked it on Wiki-data. X Centauri is a star with a variable designation. Deryni (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Deryni: Hmm, this is complex. As x Centauri (Q17041325) is instance of (P31)=Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), I'd say it's correct to have en:x Centauri and pt:X Centauri attached to that one, and that sv:X Centauri should be removed from it. We then have X1 Centauri (Q5097792) and X2 Centauri (Q5097795), which are the two pages linked to from the disambig pages. However, the new svwp article is not the same as either of those (the HD number is different), and it's not a disambig page, so I think it needs a new Wikidata item. So 4 items in total. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me, but x Centauri is not a variable designation, but X Centauri is. In EnWp X Centauri is a disambig page for the Bayer objects x¹ and x² but not a correct spelling. It should possibly be x Centauri. As for now there is also the disambig page Q50628067 with one article, X Centauri. If you study the template for stars of Centaurus I think you see why capital R-Z, A-Q and RR-ZZ and AA-QQ followed by the constellation name are reserved for variable designations. Please study this and then make your decision, for I can hear that you are more experienced with Wikidata than me. All the best! Deryni (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Deryni: OK, how do x Centauri (Q17041325) (with Q50628067 merged in) and X Centauri (Q50824512) look? Can you expand the latter with new properties? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That looks real good. I'll take a lot at the properties. Deryni (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Privacy and Living People

You are receiving this message because you commented at the above RFC. There are additional proposals that have been made there that you are welcome to comment on. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)

Commons

Hi Mike Peel, I noticed this edit by your bot. This is not helpful. There is a sad cycle happening in Wikidata:

1. Somebody puts in a link to a Commons redirect (hey, Commons has an entry, we should link to it)
2. Somebody sees there is a link to a Commons redirect and switches it for the Commons link redirected to, as if these two were interchangeable, instead of referring to two different concepts
3. Somebody noticed that there is a link which is not only redundant but also a misfit: it needs to be removed.
4. When it has been removed, somebody will put in a link to a redirect (hey, Commons has an entry, we should link to it)
5. Etc

- Brya (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brya: Hmm, this is an odd one. As far as I can see, the two topics are the same, they're just from different naming schemes - it's essentially a taxon redirect. So maybe this is one of the (few) cases where the link needs to remain as the redirect. The bot only makes that edit when there isn't another entry already using the commons sitelink, so I've reverted it and created Q53769091, which should prevent the bot from repeating the change. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is a recurring problem. Commons uses a Single Point of View perspective, while Wikidata needs to be compatible with a Neutral Point of View perspective. In this case the taxon concerned is likely to have the same circumscription in both items, but there are also cases where Commons adopts a viewpoint of a taxon that has been split or been merged as compared to items on Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding Commons category links based on ID's

Hi Mike, I noticed this edit and wondered if you could also run that for other subsets. See Commons:Category:Cultural heritage monuments with known IDs for good options:

• Commons:Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Austria with known IDs - Cultural heritage database in Austria ObjektID (P2951)
• Commons:Category:Rijksmonumenten with known IDs - Rijksmonument ID (P359)
• Commons:Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs - NRHP reference number (P649)

I'm currently running a bot with a different approach ([3]). The monuments database contains key + category information extracted from Wikipedia, but not so many Wikipedia's seem to be working on that. Multichill (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: Sure. It's now running through Cultural heritage database in Austria ObjektID (P2951), e.g. [4]. I've already run it through Historic Scotland ID (P709), Cadw Building ID (P1459), COAM structure ID (P2917), HPIP ID (P5094), and part-runs of NRHP reference number (P649) and National Heritage List for England number (P1216). If you can, please could your bot add the sitelink as well as the P373 (or instead of it, DeltaBot (talk • contribs • logs) copies it over to P373 later) - although one of the other tasks of Pi bot (talk • contribs • logs) should copy them over to the sitelinks at some point. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just wait for Pi bot to come along. Multichill (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Japanese family names

Hello, your bot is currently adding wrong properties family name (P734) for many Japanese people. Some examples:

• Atsushi Kazama (Q757805) family name (P734) is Kazama (Q26229817) (風間), not Kazama (Q27167753) (笠間)
• Atsuo Takanishi (Q757801) family name (P734) is 高西, not Takanishi (Q27320233) (高階)
• Yoshimasa Suda (Q729738) family name (P734) is Suda (Q26157629) (須田), not Suda (Q27156403) (隅田)
• Takashi Kano (Q744354) family name (P734) is Kanou (Q26203565) (加納), not Kano (Q27209090) (管野)
• Jun Maeda (Q683407) family name (P734) is 麻枝, not Maeda (Q40104003) (真栄田)

--Santer (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Santer: Thanks for letting me know. I've stopped the bot until we figure this out. The bot currently does English label minus given name (P735) to get family name (P734) - which apparently doesn't work here since the English version of the family name is the same (except for the Kano/Kanou example, is that a typo in the English label?) Is there a way of doing the same in Japanese? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Takashi Kano (Q744354) family name (加納) depending on its pronunciation could potentially be linked to 3 nearly similar names: Kanoo (Q26203566), Kanou (Q26203565) and Kano (non-existing yet). The English label would suggest that the third one is correct, but according to the name in kana (P1814) (カノウ タカシ) it's actually the second one. I think that for Japanese family names the safest way would be to check (1) if the native label (P1705) (or Japanese label) in the family name (P734) item is the same as the first characters of the person's name in native language (P1559) (ex. Kanou (Q26203565) "加納" – Takashi Kano (Q744354) "加納孝") and (2) if the name in kana (P1814) in the family name (P734) is the same as the first part before the space in the person's name in kana (P1814) (Kanou (Q26203565) "かのう" – Takashi Kano (Q744354) "カノウ タカシ" → "かのう たかし" (in this case there's an additional step to convert it from katakana to hiragana)). Santer (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Santer: I've written some code to check the name in native language (P1559) values against the native label (P1705) from family name (P734), and then to check that the native label (P1705) value is in either the English label or name in native language (P1559). If things don't match, then it adds them to User:Mike Peel/Problem family names for manual review. The code's going to take a while to run, and adds names to the page as it finds them. Can you have a look and see if the ones it's catching are the bad cases (and once it's completed then we can check if it's missed any)? I'll add the checking code into the main script, and hope to start that running again soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Santer: The list at User:Mike Peel/Problem family names has finished compiling, it has around 2,000 items on it, including the ones you mentioned above (apart from Jun Maeda (Q683407) that you already fixed) - not all added by the bot. Pi bot's running again with the new checking code in place, so it shouldn't cause any more of these - please let me know if you spot any other problems arising. @Harmonia Amanda: you might be interested in this as well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Harmonia Amanda: Thanks for talking earlier. As discussed, the bot's now stopped, and I'll set it running again for people with country of citizenship (P27) of the UK/US/specific countries, probably next week. For the problem I'm trying to solve, see the categories commons:Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no given name and commons:Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no family name. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons category filter tweak

After this edit another bot does a correction. I noticed this on a whole bunch of pages. Probably some hidden character that you could also filter out yourself. Multichill (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Multichill: That's weird. It's not editing pi bot's change, which is to add the sitelink - it's editing the P373 value. Maybe @Ivan A. Krestinin: can you help figure out what's happening here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikimania 2018

Hi Mike,

I'm Charlie from the WMDE UX-Team. We briefly talked about Wikidata Infoboxes via Email. I saw here that you'll be attending Wikimania and I'd love to get a chance to talk to you in person about this topic in more depth. Let me know if you'd be interested and we could set up a time to meet during the event. I know the Wikimania days are pretty busy for everyone so I'm totally happy with a small slot sometime in between that matches your schedule :) cheers --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE): Definitely! Maybe talking some time during the hackathon would be the easiest? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hackathon sounds great! I'll be there on both days. I'll try and find you during the first day :) thank you, and see you then! --Charlie Kritschmar (WMDE) (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, see you there! If you can't find me, ping me here and I'll come looking for you. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving commons category sitelink to category item

Could your bot please stop "Moving commons category sitelink to category item" for items like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21191 ? I find this "category item" a completely unnecessary complication, which does nothing but confuse and require extra clicks when navigating.--Hjart (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hjart: Please see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 6 for the background. As far as I'm aware, the bot is following the consensus here. I'm happy to not run it for a bit if you want to raise this for wider discussion, though (say at Wikidata:Project chat). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hjart: I'll probably set this running again tomorrow, unless you want to raise it for wider discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

connecting

I am watching your lunch time session on data/commons connections. Wanted to just add a reminder/prompt for a step by step somewhere if that doesn't happen? Thank you, so amazing! --Heathart (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

To your attention: Trigger for Commons category

Hello MIke Peel,

I just wanted to take your attention to Trigger for Commons category on the talk page of DeltaBot. Feel free to react there. Best regards. Robby (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

List article items linked to Commons categories

I noticed your bot's been doing some labelling work, adding English labels from Commons categories. Quite a few seemed to be list items, at least in the immediate snapshot of edits in the history when I looked.

Probably better for those items to have some label rather than no label. But all the same, should we be a bit skeptical when labels that don't start "List of" are being added to list-article items?

More broadly, should list-article items be sitelinked to Commons categories at all? Or would it be better to create new category items for the Commons categories, related to the list article by category related to list (P1754) / list related to category (P1753) ?

Not anything that I'm particularly agitated about; but I just happened to see it, and thought I'd flag it up to see what you thought. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: Ideally I guess they would have separate items, although in cases like list of cultural heritage monuments in Fell (Mosel) (Q1843614) the label seems to be OK even though it doesn't start with "List of". I could tell the bot not to add labels to items with instance of (P31)=Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) if needed, but as you say, having some label rather than no label's a step in the right direction. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

English labels from Commons categories not in english

I have recently noticed your bot adding a lot of en labels from categories not in english (example: Q12341380). Are you aware of this?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hjart (talk • contribs).

@Hjart: Category names on Commons are largely in English. The exceptions are cases where the building only has a name in another language, which looks like it's the case here - so that's generally the best option we have for an English label without showing raw QIDs (as the fallback language tree ends up at English). In cases where that's wrong, some manual/other cleanup is needed, probably both here and on Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The label in this example is really a description, not an actual name. --Hjart (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I'm not sure why @Palnatoke: didn't create the category using English, then. I'd suggest translating the label and moving the Commons category as appropriate, if you can. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It can be discussed if the objects (buildings) in the Danish Open Air Museum have actual names or just descriptions. They are used with such consistency that I think it is fair to see them as actual names. --Palnatoke (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Translating the label in the given example from "Væverhus fra Tystrup" to "The weaver's house from Tystrup" would be very helpful to most foreigners though.--Hjart (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hjart: I've added that label in the example. The bot can't do that automatically, though, as it doesn't know which labels need translating and which are OK as they are. I've paused that bot task for now, but want to start it up again soon as most of the edits look to be OK. I'm happy to look into other examples to see if the bot code could be improved, though. Thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your bot could realistically do anything about this. Categories named in languages other than english doesn't appear all that uncommon though, and I just wanted you to be aware of that. A differet problem I noticed is i.e. churches with non-unique names like i.e. Q12334604, where the last part of the category name isn't actually part of the church name. Last year I spent quite some time cleaning up the danish names.--Hjart (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hjart: Would it help if I split anything in brackets out of the label and into the description? I think it's worthwhile having the English labels set, even if some of them need to be translated later on. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If possible, for churches in most cases it would make sense to split out brackets and have something like "church in [content of bracket]" in the description.--Hjart (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Links to deleted pages on tg.wikipedia

Hello Mike,

As discussed during the Wikimania I've now got an exemple for a deleted article on tg.wikipedia which is still listed here on wikidata. In the item Q30023365 there is still the link to tg:Камран_Алийев despite the fact that this article was deleted on 17th October 2017 there. As I found already quite some similar examples (mostly (if not all) linked to tg.wikipedia) it would be nice if there is a possibility to deleted all of these links as well here on wikidata. Best regards and thanks for your feeedback. Robby (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Robby, that's weird. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): is this a known issue, or should this be filed on phabricator? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a ticket with a few examples. We need to look at why they failed. Some cases might be because of permissions and others because of bugs. Thanks! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not manage to find previous examples (thelist of my previous edits in wikidata is too long) but I am quite confident to find some more examples.Robby (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robby, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): I've filed a bug report at phab:T201371. I've also written some pywikibot code that looks through tgwiki sitelinks to find ones that return error 404 (page not found), and logs them to User:Mike Peel/tgwiki sitelink problems - it's finding quite a few cases, although it looks like they might have all been deleted on the same day, which is interesting. I could probably modify the code so that it removes the bad links, but there's a more fundamental problem here that needs to be fixed server-side. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@VASHGIRD: Can you provide some background info here? It looks like you deleted a large set of people-related articles from tgwiki on 17th-18th October 2017? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I wi delete it for the wrong name and not encyclopaedic writing. But now I have myself corrected and revitalized the article. - Thank you. VASHGIRD (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@VASHGIRD: I am not objecting to any specific article being deleted, or why you deleted the set of articles (circa 4,000 of them in 2 days?) - that's tgwiki's business. I want to understand *how* you deleted them, and why Wikidata didn't track those deletions. Did you use some sort of special tool, or were they manual deletions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@VASHGIRD: Would you be able to run a test, please? Could you link a tgwiki test page to a Wikidata item and then delete it from tgwiki, to see if the sitelink in the wikidata item is automatically removed or not? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, just looked through your contributions, and see that it worked OK at Q13201301 and Q9729338, so it must have been a temporary glitch. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Pi Bot

Hello Mike, your bot is sometimes making a mess like here: the province of Genoa no longer exists, no point in linking to Wikidata element a redirect category (on Commons Province of Genoa redirects to Metropolitan City of Genoa); the same with East Germany national football team, which redirects to German Democratic Republic national association football team... -- Blackcat (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Blackcat: If you remove both the sitelink and the corresponding Commons category (P373) value (in these cases, both from the category item and the topic item) then the bot won't try to add them again. You might also want to remove them from the Wikipedia articles so they aren't re-imported into Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I understand. The problem is, in the Italian wikipedia we have established some bots that periodically remove manual links to the other chapters forcing the articles to acquire those present on the correspondent item on Wikidata; English Wikipedia don't rely so much on Wikidata and various commonscat links are still manual. Either Commonscat should be forced to acquire the wikilink from Wikidata or the field should be blanked via bot. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I'm planning on doing an RfC on enwp soon to try to systematically sort this out there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As well

This looks like a complete mystery: a commons link to a completely unrelated item. Not a P373 in sight, either. - Brya (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed it. Very odd. Not sure why @Termininja's bot added that topic's main category (P910)! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, weird. - Brya (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

What happened here?

Not sure how this edit happened. Coderzombie (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nor am I... There are a number of cases like this from a bot run last night, I'm writing some code to fix them at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed many similar cases relating to Commons items that are watched by me… See this case—only the first edit of 10 was a good one. Gumruch (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I know. The bot found the correct sitelink for the item and added it, and then somehow cached the item and added the next commons categories to be checked to it as well. I'm working on code that will revert back to the first edit (or remove it completely if needed). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hope you will revert these bot edits [5]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am currently running code to fix these, will report back here once I'm done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Coderzombie, Gumruch, Pp.paul.4, Robby: and all: all of the erroneous edits should now have been reverted/fixed. Please let me know if you're aware of any that I've missed, and I'll investigate them. I'm going to take a break now, and will see if I can figure out how this happened when I get back (that particular bit of code will not be running again until I figure this out). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think I see what went wrong now. The script was looking for a Wikidata QID on Commons, and if it found one or didn't find one then it was fine (and so I thought the script was fine overall). However, if it found something it *thought* was a QID but wasn't, it would try to fetch the page given by that ID, fail to find that page, and then rather than stopping there it would continue to use the previous page. Hence the duplicate edits. Mea culpa, I should have checked the logic more carefully before. That bug is now fixed, and if/when I re-run the script I'll do extra checks to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Thanks for pointing out the error, and for being patient with me while I fixed it! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Add commons sitelink based on interwiki on Commons

Hello Mike Peel,

When adding the commons sitelink here on wikidata based on interwiki on Commons like here is there a specific reason you do not as well delete the interwiki on Commons? (for this example i've deleted now this iw on Commons). Robby (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robby: It's because @Zhuyifei1999, Gabrielchihonglee: run bots that will tidy up the interwiki links - although they aren't running too quickly at the moment... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the information I was not aware of these botsRobby (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Why does the bot links to the category page? For instance, [6]. Isn't that what Commons category (P373) is for? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: Commons category (P373) basically creates a one-way link to Commons - if you're browsing Wikipedia or Wikidata then you can see it, and you can click through to Commons, but Commons doesn't know about the link and there's no way to go from Commons to Wikipedia/Wikidata. Using the Commons sitelink, however, creates a two-way link. It causes the interwiki links to appear in the Commons category; it is automatically updated if the category is moved (P373 isn't); and it enables access from the Commons category to the Wikidata information, which lets us do things like this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What would happen if we (in this specific case) create a page on Wikimedia Commons called "Leon Sebbelin". Should we then change the commons link? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: The standard convention is that the gallery page would have priority in the main item. Since Wikidata can't support more than one sitelink to the same wiki per item, if you want both to have sitelinks then you need to create a second item for the category along the lines of Category:Denmark (Q4367478), and then use category's main topic (P301) and topic's main category (P910) to link the two items together (the infobox will then follow those links to show info about the topic rather than the category). Personally, I'd discourage you from creating the gallery page, though, as they are currently static (unlike categories) and tend not to be maintained in the long term (there are so many that were last edited by a human editor in 2010 or so!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally (and I know a few others feel the same) I much prefer the commons links to stay pointed to the category page. Gallery pages (or those I've seen) are very often the work of a single contributor and don't get updated too often, while a category often is much more dynamic and interesting.--Hjart (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hjart: I think we agree there. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Link to deleted page on en-wikipedia remains here on wikidata

Hello Mike Peel,

I just noticed that Q1665416 contains a link to en:Renate_Hoffleit although this page on en-wikipedia was deleted 8 hours ago. Is there a bot deleting such links on wikidata? Or is there another automated procedure to deal with this and if so what is the frequency of these bots or procedures?Robby (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robby: Odd. The links should be removed when the page is deleted, and should appear as edits by the deleting admin. I guess just keep an eye out and see if you can spot any patterns with why it's not happening. BTW, pi bot's running through the tgwiki sitelinks at the moment to remove the deleted ones of those. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is another similar example: Q11409002 where the link to en:Hakubutsukan-Dōbutsuen Station remains on wikidata although it is deleted. If i got it right both pages have been moved in en-wikipedia from the main namespace to the draft-namespace without creating a redirect and so have been implicitly deleted on em-wikipedia and this usecase might not be implemented on wikidata for the generation of the deltion of the link to the corresponding wikipedia language version. Robby (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mike Peel, I found another example which fits to the same usecase Q2257375 where the link to en:La_Manga_Club remains on wikidata although it is deleted. here as well this article was moved to en:Draft:La_Manga_Club without creating a redirect. Unfortunately I do not know whether this is a bug or a feature. Robby (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned at phab:T201371. I think this needs wider investigation... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I found another example which fits to the same use-case Q21122386 where the link to en:Suhana_Khan_draft remains on wikidata although it is deleted. Here aswell this article was moved to en:Draft:Suhana_Khan without creating a redirect. Robby (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Another example for the same behaviour Q57382574 but when I check https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29907 I am not able to find the item there (I searched for both Q57382574 and 'Highland Park'.

Moreover I suggest to close phab:T201371 (as it initially deals with tgwiki) and create an new phabricator ticket for the scenario described here respectively on Wikidata:Request_a_query#Identifying_interwiki_links_that_no_longer_exist dealing with just the move of articles on enwiki to the draft namespace. Robby (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Robby: I've re-run the query, and the results now include that item (if you just view the query results then they are cached from when the query was last run). With Phabricator, that plan of action sounds good - go for it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons categories and the templates that use them

Hello! I was trying to figure out how to manage the two links to commons categories that show themselves via templates (especially at source).

There is an almost decades old rule that galleries need to be made at commons. I think it was a way from the regular wikis that was used to prevent people from making too many galleries on articles -- but that is mere conjecture on my part. The "make galleries" rule seems to persist no matter how useful they are (in the case of books at source for instance, the gallery at the commons should come after the book is proofread and in fact, the proofread book might be considered to be a gallery -- sorry for my written musings).

Someone here was making separate Category entries and they worked with the commons infoboxes, pulling information in from the main wdata entry but it seemed cludgy to me. The taxonomy people ("specifically" the plant people, pardon the pun) managed cats via an attribute similar to the wikidata infoboxes "qid" attribute.

So, I removed the duplicate link at "other" leaving that datapoint open for the gallery making enthusiasts. And the templates at wiki.source stopped looking stupid -- they assume that the link to commons at "other wiki" is a gallery and your bot replaced them.

I am not on one side or the other with the exception of how I am going to spend my time. Maybe the bot shouldn't do that? I can provide links to examples, but not so early in my day....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: --RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Sorry for not responding quicker. In general, I prefer sitelinks over manual QIDs (and P373 values) as they work in both directions - merge a wikidata item into another, or rename the category, and the link automatically updates. Plus they're a lot easier to handle by bot (since you can query / easily extract them without messing around with different formatting). It sounds like the templates here need some work - I would suggest using commons:Template:GetQID (which calls commons:Module:WikidataIB), which either returns a manually defined QID (if you pass it one); the page/category QID; or if category's main topic (P301) is present then the destination of that. I'm happy to help implement that if you point me to the templates that are currently having problems. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ha! The first one I looked at your bot hasn't gotten to yet. s:Tales_from_Shakespeare/The_Tempest.

s:Tales from Shakespeare/A Midsummer Night's Dream is after the bot. Truly, and I feel deeply about this and out of respect for those I worked with through that war, and for the simplicity of the data entry, allowing the gallery the main link is the very very best thing. If necessary, I can dig out my old user names....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Ah, so the problem is the 'Commons gallery' link in the top-right 'sister projects' box? That seems to be due to s:Module:Plain sister assuming that a Commons sitelink is always to a gallery. It's coded in Lua, which I don't know particularly well, but I'll try to work on a fix - unless @RexxS, Jarekt: or someone that knows Lua can have a look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That's it. Thanks. Jarekt been around for a while.... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: As a basic fix, [7] might work - it means that there will only be one commons link, but it will be preferentially to the gallery where that's available unless a sitelink to a category is present. Can you see if that works OK? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not yet working on Midsummer Nights Dream, even after a page purge. That's lua? It doesn't look different from python.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: It's not in the main version as I didn't want to risk breaking things. Try adding {{Plain sister/sandbox}} to the page and preview it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Neat! That was both new too me and fun. And it worked fine and looks good.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: OK, it's now live. If any problems arise, please revert this edit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The book cats on commons more beautiful than I could have imagined. I was just thinking about that and thought I would drop that here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to arive late at this discussion. Is there anythink to help with? RaboKarbakian I remember the days of wars of categories vs. galleries on Commons, with some people investing a lot of effort into beautifull galleries and removing categories. In the long run it seems like categories won and very few people keep maintaining galleries on Commons, which are slowly becoming obsolete. At the moment we have 6M categories and a little over 100k galleries, and large munber of them are so out of data as compared to the category that in my opinion should be removed. Of course there are some great ones too, but rare. Soy preference is to set sitelinks to Commons galeries as rarely as possible.--Jarekt (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: It seems like my fix has caused other problems, any chance you can have a look and see if you can figure it out? See [8]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Pi bot - dangers!

Repeated erroneous edits of your bot, linking the category (illustrations to the article in Wikipedia) in the vidium is not an article, but a category in Wikipedia that has an indirect relationship to the article [9][10]. Ural-66 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ural-66: The convention here is that if the category item exists, then the commons category sitelink should be there (if there isn't a category item, then it goes in the main topic item). Things like the infobox on Commons then follow the category's main topic (P301)/topic's main category (P910) pair. If Category:Regional medical clinic №1 in Chelyabinsk (Q32216833) is not the main category for Regional medical clinic №1 in Chelyabinsk (Q16716529) (I can't tell if that is or is not the case here), then remove the category's main topic (P301)/topic's main category (P910) properties and the bot will no longer try to move it to the category item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Binding the category in Wikipedia to the category on Wikimedia has been removed (the category in Wikimedia has been removed, which in this case is of no use), but all the same it is necessary to modify the bot, without parsing such edits making it leads to a destructive in essence, created categories to them binds data. I apologize in advance for my English - google translation. Ural-66 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Maybe @Ymblanter: can intermediate here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ural-66:, правила о том, как и с чем надо связывать категории Викисклада, менялись много раз, но сейчас именно так, я сам одобрил этого бота. Если у Вас есть существенные аргументы, лучше не обсуждать их с Майком, а высказать на общем форуме (Project chat).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, к навигационной категории в википедии, к которой бот привязывал (создавал тоже саму категорию в викиданных?) альбом с фотографиями с викисклада - это так положено? Данная навигационная категория мной в википедии вынесена к удалению, так как она излишняя и никакой ни информации, ни нагрузки не несёт. В ней находилась ссылка на статью о больнице и об 1 человеке в ней когда-то работавшем и это при том, что в самой статье о больнице имеется ссылка на статью об этом человеке. Пополнение указанной навигационной категории вообще сомнительно, учитывая, что сами статьи-то ещё под вопросом и нет даже нормальных авторитетных источников в них. Я конечно другие правки бота не отслеживал, но в данном случае бот привязку сделал по принципу "Category:" связал с "Категория:", а не "Regional medical clinic №1 in Chelyabinsk" с "Челябинская областная клиническая больница". То что я больницу назвал "medical clinic", а не "hospital", так это разные значения слова "госпиталь" на английском и русском языках, в Челябинске кроме больниц есть и госпитали, а обзывание всех больниц госпиталями внесёт суматоху. Ural-66 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Да, всё верно. Если удалят в русской Википедии категорию - значит, удалят, останется категория Викисклада.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

В чём верность-то? В категории викисклада фотографии больницы. В результате правки бота из страницы про больницу невозможно из интервиков посмотреть эти фотографии и перейти к ним, так как эти фотографии привязываются тогда к навигационной категории, а не к статье о больнице. не знаю может вы путаете первую областную больницу с первой городской, но это разные больницы. Кстати, насчёт областной - в википедии статья о ней без номера (напомню, что статья требует доработки), в своё время она так и называлась и была единственной, но сейчас в городе существуют ещё 2-я областная и 3-я областная больницы. Поэтому, чтобы не переделывать в дальнейшем категория на викискладе указана с номером. Что касаемо ошибочности ваших суждений: тогда привяжите категорию на викискладе "Chelybinsk" к навигационной категории в википедии "Челябинск", а не к статье "Челябинск"... Смысл тогда интервик? Ural-66 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Простите, я не понимаю ровным счётом ничего из того, что Вы написали. Видимо, Вам надо перейти обратно на английский и продолжить разбирательства уже без меня.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Вот категория на викискладе [11], а это статья в википедии о том, что на викискладе [12] (слева в интервиках написано "викисклад", нажиматет туда и попадаете в папку (категорию) с фотографиями). Бот же эту категорию на викискладе с фотографиями привязал вместо статьи к вот этой навигационной категории [13] в википедии, в результате в статье ссылка на фотографии на викискладе естественно исчезла. Я исправил это, бот переправил обратно. Я снова исправил и сообщил здесь, заодно ещё страница была создана в викиданных к этой навигационной странице в википедии, её я тоже удалил, автор бота его восстановил почему-то, я его ещё раз удалил в результате. Ural-66 (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ну, так добавьте категорию через P373, и всё в статье будет отображаться.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons category

Hello. Why [14]? Category:Mesa_Geitonia is for Mesa Geitonia (Q649368) and not for Category:Mesa Geitonia (Q55510271). Xaris333 (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Xaris333: If there is a category item, then the current convention here is for the commons category sitelink to be there rather than in the topic item. For more background, see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 6. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Dupplicate of Neuquén Ground Station

Hi Mike,

You've recently created Q54678456 but I found an item created in which match exactly what you wanted: Q20014921. I suggest to merge them. Since you are the only editor and if you agree with this, can you please merge them? (I'm not aware of how to do it). Romain2boss (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted, I've merged them together. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Template bot

Hello! Please create a local user page and add this in it:

{{Bot|Pi bot|flag=yes}}

Or at least link your request for permission in your edit summary. Thanks :) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Valerio Bozzolan: The bot doesn't have a local user page - I maintain the list of bot tasks on meta. I've added {{Bot}} there. You should be able to see the list of bot tasks here at User:Pi bot via the GlobalUserPage extension. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Flagged Wikidata bots should use {{Bot|Pi bot|flag=yes}} in their user page, also to be properly categorized. You need a local user page to do it, because setting {{Bot|Pi bot|flag=yes}} globally can be confusing, because you have not a flag on meta or you have not a flag in every wiki. Morover the template {{Bot}} can not exist at all in every wiki. Please, consider to create a local user page like every bot :) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. I prefer to just have a single user page for the bot. I'm happy to add clarifications there if need be. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, please at least link your actual bot consensus in your edit summaries... --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That seems easy to find in User:Pi bot, what's the problem? --Nemo 19:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Just did this minor edit to fix the link. Just having one central page at meta seems like a good strategy to me. Currently your bot doesn't show up in Category:Bots with botflag. It's just a shame you can't combine it with local categories and/or template. Or is that already possible? .

Technically you're in violation of Wikidata:Bots because the user page doesn't include {{Bot}}, but that would be wikilawyering. Multichill (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving category on Commons changes link to Commons correctly but P373 remains unchanged

Hello Mike Peel,

while checking Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P373 I noticed that (at least in some cases) for categories that are moved on Commons the link to Commons project on wikidata is changed correctly while the property P373 remains unchanged. For illustration please have a look at Q7135392 as well as the corresponding move on Commons Commons:Category:1992 Summer Paralympics athletes and in order to find more examples you may look on [15].

From my perspective changing the link to the category on Commons should as well lead to a parallel change of P373. What are your thoughts on this? Robby (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Robby: My bot checks cases where the sitelink and the P373 value are different to see if one of them links to a redirect to the other. However, that doesn't work when the old category has been deleted from Commons rather than redirected to the new one... I'll see if I can figure out a way to automatically identify and fix these ... maybe by looking through the history of the wikidata entry. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

items created unintentionally twice in wikidata

Hello MIke Peel,

i wouold like to take to the following post I made on wikidata projectchat: Wikidata:Project_chat#Items_created_unintentionally_twice_on_several_occasions Robby (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Bot links to Commons subcategories

Hi Mike - I've noticed a few cases where your Pi bot has incorrectly linked a Commons subcategory to an item, instead of the main category, e.g. here. Where I've noticed them, I've corrected then (here, in the above example), but I suspect there may be many more similar cases that will need checking. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPF: Thanks for catching those. I'm not sure how to program the bot to avoid these false-positives, but I think they are only a small percentage of the total, so I'm hoping that it's OK to manually fix them when they happen. Once the sitelink is set, then the bot won't try to add it to another item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspect many/most of them will be cases like this, where Commons only has photos of museum specimens, none of live individuals. Would a search of wikidata for the exact phrase "(museum specimens)" work to find others? - MPF (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPF: Maybe a sparql query could look for that just in the commons sitelinks? Something for Wikidata:Request a query maybe. The bot mostly walks through the category structure on commons (starting from CommonsRoot), so hopefully it'll come across the main category before the museum specimen category in most cases. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you be able to do that please? I don't have a clue how to go about it ('sparqul' means nothing at all to me ;-) - MPF (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPF: See Wikidata:Request_a_query#Commons_sitelinks_containing_"(museum_specimens)" - the query seems to return two results, Cream-striped Bulbul (Q851684) and Myiophonus melanurus (Q841130), can you investigate those and fix as appropriate? (I'm at a conference, so am focusing on other areas atm.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! I'll investigate shortly - MPF (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Done them, and also experimented with putting 'museum specimens' in wikidata's search, which found another 3, also dealt with now - MPF (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons sitelinks moving

Hi Mike,

Maybe the bot should check if there is another sitelinks, e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q47519267&curid=48562464&action=history --- Jura 11:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: I see it's at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q47519267 - that's probably the best solution here... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think the bot should add them there by default. Otherwise users have to delete statements linking to the category first. --- Jura 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The bot doesn't create them, it only moves the link if the category item already exists. So normally there should be some other reason why the category item was needed in the first place... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

As you probably saw, someone created the category in violation of Wikidata's notably policy. Here two users fixed that, but your bot kept re-adding the incorrect link. Please ensure your bot doesn't attempt to do the same edit twice. Furthermore, please ensure that it does not create or maintain categories in violation of Wikidata's notability policy. Until the bot is fixed, you might want to stop it. Thanks. --- Jura 14:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Just remove the topic's main category (P910) and category's main topic (P301) links between the two, and the bot won't do the move again. Or better still, just delete the category item if it's not needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Good examples of galaxies on Wikidata

Hi Mike

I'm trying to collect good examples of items of different types for new people to understand how to structure items well, we're calling them Wikidata:Model_items. It looks like galaxies are the second most common type of 'instance of', could you suggest some well modelled galaxy (Q318), could you suggest some good examples? I'd like to provide at least 5 to show a diversity of items within that type of item. Also if you have any suggestions of other astronomy subjects, telescopes, stars etc please do add them or just list them below and I'll put them in.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Have a look at Andromeda Galaxy (Q2469), South Pole Telescope (Q1513315), Lovell Telescope (Q555130) and Jodrell Bank Observatory (Q1569783). I can't promise that they are model items in Wikidata terms (they probably have constraint violations etc.), but they are the ones I've been using to test infoboxes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Mike Peel:, they don't need to be perfect, just so people can copy the structure --John Cummings (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Item creation based on Wikimedia Commons categories?

Hi,

I just noticed the creation of Juliet Barbara (Q60439088) (got a notification as I created Category:Juliet Barbara ages ago). Is Pi Bot creating Wikidata items about people based only on the existence of a category on Wikimedia Commons?

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Mike, please stop this bot. These items don't meet the notability criteria and shouldn't be mass created. Multichill (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Judging from your edits your not around so I stopped the bot. Creating tons of items that fail Wikidata:Notability hurts this project. I see you did do Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 10, but I don't think User:Ymblanter realized that this would cause 100.000+ items of questionable notability to be created.

For the Wikilaywers and Notability:

1. Fails it because it's only sitelink to Commons
2. Fails it because no references
3. Fails it because it's an orphan

If you remove the job from your schedule, I (or any other admin) can enable the account again.

Leaves us with a ton of non-notable items that should probably be deleted. Multichill (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill: It's stopped, you can unblock it now. Obviously, I disagree with your point of view. These are perfectly notable items, as they have a category on Commons that is being sitelinked to. The bot was not malfunctioning, it was operating as per bot approval. Clearly we need to discuss this somewhere more publicly than this talk page: want to suggest a venue? Mike Peel (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

So you're claiming rule one "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons. ", but that has a very specific exception "In addition, sitelinks on category items to category pages on Wikimedia Commons are allowed if and only if they are linked with category pages on other Wikimedia sites." which applies to all of these items. So why do you think these items are notable? Multichill (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not creating category items (which is where instance of (P31)=Wikimedia category (Q4167836)), it's creating topic items. As far as I'm concerned, that falls under the "a page on" part - it's just that Commons categories are the equivalent of pages on Wikipedia etc. Mike Peel (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's not clear enough, then maybe we need to ressurect something like @Jheald's RfC about this, which looks like it ended up being archived without being properly resolved. Mike Peel (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: Yes, so that infoboxes can then be added to the categories to show more context multilingually, and to help with structured commons later on (along the lines of 'this photo depicts this person'). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Multichill: Note footnote 8 at WD:N which says that it is not currently clear whether the clause you quote is or is not still applicable.

According to footnote 8, your clause derives from this Nov 2013 RFC. It is strongly arguable that the close of that RFC, by a user who has since been banned, and against the most supported view expressed in the RFC, was not proper in the first place. But quite apart from that questionable original legitimacy, the current position is that the page and the RFC it contained are now of historical interest only, and no longer of any current practical relevance. As the hatnote at the top of the page declares: "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." The reality is that the policy prescription supposedly discovered by the 2013 RFC was never fully adopted by the community, and has now been completely abrogated. So a clause said to be resting on this failed 2013 RFC for its justification cannot in any sense be considered safe or conclusive.

In my view, seen from where we are at now in 2019, rather than where we might have been back in 2013, items of the kind that Mike's bot has been creating fulfill a structural need, that moreover is urgent. They are the container required for structured storage of the information needed to fill a Wikidata infobox on Commons; of the information needed to electronically understand the meaning and content of categories on Commons; and of the information that needs to be amassed now to be available to write into the upcoming Commons structured data for individual images. These are very significant structural needs, and ones that it is urgent to address.

Currently only 30% of Commons categories are available to be understood through properties and statements between items on Wikidata. Increasing this percentage will more systematically let us identify categorisation links that are currently missing but ought to be present between categories on Commons; property/statement links that are currently misssing but ought to be present between items on Wikidata; and items for some significant people, places, concepts and things, currently present in the structure of categories on Commons, but that on Wikidata do not currently exist.

The items of the kind Mike has been creating, and more like them, are what are needed to describe and electronically understand the category structure on Commons. As a bonus they then allow the meaning and relevant data for what those categories represent to be communicated to users internationally and multilingually through the Wikidata infobox, which has gained overwhelming support in the Commons community. And it's the gateway to getting the data in place for the SDC project. It's not appropriate for people to stand in the way of something of critical value to a sister project. Jheald (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this discussion from the admin noticeboard. For what it worth, I support the creation os such items, that's seems to feet within the scope of structured data for Commons. It seems that the notability policy predate the true possibility for the Commons commutity to retrieve the infos from Wikidata to Commons. And inside the exact same line, I will also fully support the possibility to create specific properties, without particular consensus of the Wikidata community, for the only purpose to retrieve the needed infos via the infoboxes. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've now posted this at Wikidata:Project_chat#Creating_new_items_for_humans_based_on_Commons_categories. @Jean-Frédéric, MisterSynergy: I didn't mention you there, but you might be interested in commenting. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Category items

I just saw your revert at [16]. The bot's working correctly there, see the discussion at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 6. In general, consensus here is that the commons category sitelink should be on the category item if one exists, not the topic item (but if there is no category item then it's fine to be in the topic item instead). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel, Thanks for the message Bot is wrong: it affects Reasonator => blank ; unless you merge 'Topic's main category' with 'Main Topic' . Thanks for looking into it. And please let me know. Cheers'--DDupard (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel. What it does is link Q item: Topic main category to Reasonator instead of Q item: main Topic. Please stop the Bot.--DDupard (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this in the Commons infobox, or elsewhere? In commons:Category:Roberto Minczuk, which is a similar case to the one you reverted, that does link to [17] rather than [18]. That's a bug, and I'll fix that in the infobox code shortly. If you're getting the link to Reasonator from somewhere else, please let me know where so that I can investigate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's it Mike Peel, thank you for checking. --DDupard (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I found the bug, it's a bit of old code. I've updated it in the sandbox version of the infobox, and added that temporarily to commons:Category:Roberto Minczuk. Does that work as you expect it to? I'll deploy the updated code in the infobox soon, probably this weekend. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel seems to be OK, (I do not understand coding). Have a great WE. ;).--DDupard (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The change is now live. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel, Now there is another problem, the common's category is no longer linked to wikidata. Please fix bot or stop it. Reasonator seems to have lost associated media see Pablo Picasso [19] --05:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In case you did not get notification, I move the section here. I read your presentation on your user page, and begin to question the neutrality of the edits.--DDupard (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@DDupard: I don't get it, everything seems to be working fine? What exactly is the problem? Mike Peel (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel, when common's category (other sites Item) is moved to another Q page, it impacts Common's category page and reasonator for the main subject, so if there is a bug in the code, let's just leave it at what it is now (status quo). Thanks.--DDupard (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@DDupard: As far as I can see, the bug in the commons infobox has been fixed? I can't see an issue on reasonator itself? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes fixed by restoring 'Other sites' link to 'Commons category' in proper main subject Q.Item, and removing it from 'topic's main category' Q.item.--DDupard (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@DDupard: No... Look back at commons:Category:Roberto Minczuk - is there a problem with that one still? That has the commons category on the category item. Mike Peel (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion: It might be ok in some cases but not all. I noticed errors in at least two instances. So do not apply changes systematically but prudently.--DDupard (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@DDupard: It should be fine in all cases. Go look at commons:Category:Olavo de Carvalho now that I've manually redone the bot's changes. Does that look OK now? Mike Peel (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It should, but is not. Just acknowledge what I am saying, and let's stop this lengthy exchange please.--DDupard (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

How is it not OK - what needs to be fixed? Mike Peel (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to repeat the same question Ad nauseam (problems indicated above). When something works properly there is no need to fix it for some unexplained advantages. As I see, objections were already raised but overlooked in discussion: Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 6--DDupard (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Ï

OK, I think this is resolved then. The bot will keep on running, please try not to revert it in the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Bug seems to be fixed, and for the record, I only revert in case of bug, which was the case.--DDupard (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Still something unusual

Hi Mike Peel, there is still something strange on this page [20] stating a link to WD (Q729048) while in the left column 'Wikidata item' , links to (Q32398192). Please fix. otherwise, I am afraid, I'll have to revert again--DDupard (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@DDupard: That's normal MediaWiki behaviour, and the left column is not something I can change as it's outside of the infobox. If you think that should change, then I'd recommend taking this up with the wider community at Wikidata:Project chat, just reverting won't help. Mike Peel (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Might be the simple fix, instead of having the community revert the whole process of placing 'other sites : commons category' on the wrong page. Up to you.--DDupard (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@DDupard: The community wanted the current setup of commons category links being on category items wherever they exist. Personally I don't mind either way, I just think it should be consistent. So if you think it should be the other way, then please get community consensus for that, and I'll happily reverse the logic in the bot to move the sitelinks to the topic items wherever possible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

For info: section opened on Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts/Unresolved/2019.--DDupard (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that will go anywhere. The place to discuss this is on the project chat. Mike Peel (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)