I closed the request as successful, but we still need to resolve the 2FA issue. Have you got 2FA in the meanwhile?
About this board
Welcome to Wikidata, NavinoEvans!
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.
- Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
- Project chat – Discussions about the project.
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.
Previous discussion was archived aton 2016-06-17.
@Ymblanter:That's great news, thank you very much indeed!
No I have not set up 2FA yet, are you able to give my account
(oathauth-enable) access? I think once that is done I'll be all set to finish the process from the Special:Manage Two-factor authentication page.
No, it does not look like I can. Let us do it differently. I have assigned the flag, please see whether this enables you to configure TfA. If not, please ask stewards ASAP.
Ok, thanks again. The 2FA page is now active for me. I'll go through the process right away and post back shortly to confirm it's all done.
All setup with the 2FA now. Thanks again for all your assistance! All the best.
Have you tried
My console reports
Many thanks for checking that, it looks like it may be some kind of race condition as I was able to get the script to load without errors by re-initialising the GuidedTour library directly before the tour script. It still did not show any slides though, and `debug=true` in the url gave me the following errors:
ext.guidedTour.tour.wbitemstest is not registered, probably because it is not extension-defined.
So seems it currently has to check the MediaWiki namespace for the tour script, but will investigate further.
Please add the missing properties (parent taxon!) for the items you created from IUCN assesments.
Apologies @Succu, that was on the way already just got a little held up in the middle. Should be all done within the next day or two.
You have to fix serveral thousands items. Have fun.
Hi @succu I just wondered if you had suggestions for matching the following parent taxons from the IUCN data?
- Kutikina - e.g. Kutikina hispida (Q81851061)
- Maafu - e.g. Maafu thaumasius (Q81847492)
- Kororia - e.g. Kororia palaensis (Q81847633)
- Kindia - e.g. Kindia gangan (Q82309312)
I can't seem to find any existing Wikidata items for them, but hesitant to create any new ones as these are the only species for each one. Let me know if you would prefer I just delete the 4 species items. Thanks! ~~~~
Hi! With the help of other databases I created the four missing genera.
That's a great help, thank you very much indeed!
here you got the wrong parent taxon.
here the genus is from the wrong kingdom.
here you added the existing parent taxon a second time.
Thanks for flagging that up, I will run through and fix them. FYI, there are also a handful of other incorrect matches to species instead of genus in my last batch, so I'm just sorting that out as well in case you spotted it already.
Looks like User:Seantime did a similar job.
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that there might be something wrong about this QuickStatements batch of yours. While I am no expert in taxonomy, it seems suspicious to me that a taxon could be a parent taxon of itself (as is claimed in this edit for instance).
Thanks very much for flagging that up! It's an error my matching of the genus from IUCN data Wikidata. I should have checked taxon rank for the matches first, will do that next time. I have now found which ones were species instead of genus so will setup some new batches to fix it on all items affected.
Let me know if you spot anything else. Cheers
Reminder: Community Insights Survey
RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Community Insights Survey
RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Historic Scotland coords
Hi Nav. Was just looking at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q56667349&action=history (now merged into Corrimony cairn (Q1135357), which you imported the data for in Sept 2018 from Historic Scotland.
The cooordinates seem to have been way off -- which is a particular problem if we're relying on coordinate matching to identify related and/or duplicate items.
Haven't looked at any of the rest you imported, but do you think that there may have been a systematic issue here? Does coord data for Historic Scotland items need to be regarded as potentially unsafe, needing to be checked and/or re-imported?
Jheald, if possible, it would help if you could quantify "way off". A common problem with coordinates is that coordinates that superficially look the same, for example, being given in degrees, minutes, and seconds of latitude and longitude, are based on different datums. A person familiar with the various datums in use in Scotland might be able to make a reasonable guess of what the problem is by knowing the general location and amount of the shift.
@Jc3s5h: For the above example, correct coords are (57.334444, -4.687833), but former coords were (56.107862, -3.760391), a difference of over 90 miles, and a quite different part of Scotland.
This is not just a difference of the order of 150 metres that might be caused by giving OSGB36 lat/longs instead of WGS84. Rather, it looks like there has been a problem in the matching of the Historic Scotland entry to the right Wikidata item. Alternatively something very wrong with the conversion from the National Grid reference to lat/long coordinates.
It's possible that User:Andrew Gray may be on the case -- a couple of days ago he was asking for an NG to lat/long converter.
What I think happened (presumably with this import, but maybe another as well?) is that something glitched and some sites got the exact coordinates of other ones - so it wasn't a conversion error, rather an import error.
I was considering doing a mass recalculation for all P709 sites (or at least all scheduled monuments) but I think this will have to wait until I can devote a bit more time to it since it's going to involve deciphering shapefiles and so on, not something I've worked with much before.
For the moment, I'm fixing up the worst ones (those visibly in the wrong admin area) using queries like this and manually merging or recalculating coords. It won't catch any that have been moved to eg the wrong end of Aberdeenshire, but it's a start, and if errors are randomly distributed then it should get ~90% of them. Should hopefully be done by the end of the week.
@Andrew Gray: Why shapefiles? Pages like appear to give a point NG reference, and point NG coords.
Also, if the errors are widespread, I'd have concern that subtle errors (eg out by say 10 km) may be even more dangerous than gross ones, because there may be more of a risk they pass unnoticed.
The individual pages give point refs (and it's these I've been using for manual corrections) but the bulk download is in a more complicated format, unfortunately, and I haven't had time to get to grips with it yet.
My guess re/ 90% is that if some items are getting the coordinates of another one essentially at random (there doesn't seem to be an obvious pattern), then the odds are high that they're going to get the coordinates of one in another region. It's a bit of a back-of-the-envelope guess though. Agree small errors are more dangerous ...
Second question, if we're doing an update, is should we be adding parish information? It seems to be readily available from the website, but is it appropriate to give it as a located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) ? They're sort-of not current administrative divisions, but in other respects they sort of are.
@Tagishsimon: has been looking into this - at the moment I think we're preferring sticking with council areas as P131 as it gets a bit hazy below that. location (P276) might be appropriate for parishes etc?
location (P276) seems to being used quite usefully to indicate a nearby settlement within the parish, eg Corrimony cairn (Q1135357) -> Corrimony (Q2482335) rather than "Urquhart And Glenmoriston", Poyntzfield (Q17575048) -> Jemimaville (Q2458656) rather than Resolis (Q18394105). I'm not sure that we would want to confuse this or give it up.
One option would be to have P131 with the council area as the preferred value, but also give the parish as an additional role, perhaps with qualifier object has role (P3831) = civil parish (Q5124673), or with an end time (though what would this be?)
We probably ouught also to be giving 1890s county, and 1970s district/region, at least for parish level items, with appropriate "end time" statements and perhaps end cause (P1534) = Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (Q6664037) etc
BTW I've recently put up a property proposal Wikidata:Property proposal/Highland Historic Environment Record ID -- Highland Council have created quite a nice site of their own for heritage places, which includes good cross-references to Historic Scotland and Canmore. So any support there would be welcome.
It also might be nice to have a property to link to https://www.scottish-places.info/ ("the Gazetteer for Scotland"), though I don't know to what degree the site is still being maintained or developed.
Historic Scotland IDs
Help me out with my understanding of items that share Historic Scotland IDs, please, NE.
Take Kirklands House, Kirkland (Q56617912) which has siblings Barn, Kirklands House, Kirkland (Q56617913) and Walled Garden, Kirklands House, Kirkland (Q56617914) all of which relate to a single listing - http://portal.historicenvironment.scot/designation/LB10029 ... meanwhile we don't have an item for the listing (as e.g. a cultural heritage ensemble (Q1516079)) which would allow us to have a parent-child set of records linked using has part / part of.
This approach seems to be widespread - https://w.wiki/6$4 - and leaves me puzzled. Equally, given the series ordinals, you all seem to know something - a source - that I don't. thx.
MWR on Mix'n'match Link Broken
The link for Memory of the World Register on Mix'n'match is broken. https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/#/catalog/232
This is the correct link
Sorry I missed this message somehow, many thanks for letting me know. This is actually a character limit issue in mix'n'match that I reported after importing the catalogue https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/mixnmatch/issues/16/catalogue-import-character-limit-on. I'll have another look into it to see if anything has changed.
Looks like no one picked it up. Is there a way to upvote an issue?
Yes there is, if you create a free BitBucket account (https://bitbucket.org/account/signup/) then log in, a link will appear on the page saying "upvote this issue". I assumed my vote was automatic as I created the issue, but it wasn't so I've now added mine too!
Changed entry for Q15750309
You Created claim: publisher (P123): Stellenbosch University (Q1066492) for item Q15750309. Please note that I have changed it though not referenced publisher information yet. Stellenbosch University only hosts the publication and it is our Association that is the publisher. I will also ask DOAJ to correct the information. The hosted online version doesn't contain the publication page, but I do have copies in the office and will reference the publisher as soon as possible. The other reason I know this is because I serve on the Executive Committee of the association and know that this is our association's publication.
Thanks very much for letting me know :)