About this board

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Sic19/Archive 1 on 2019-03-07.

MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #434"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #433"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #432"
Mahir256 (talkcontribs)

I just want to commend you for taking on the arduous task of merging this item with its duplicate.

Reply to "Q57249806"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #431"

Merge with "does not exactly match"

2
Epìdosis (talkcontribs)

Hi! I've noticed here and here that your edits have been reverted. I would leave them for the simple reason that I think you have acted in the same way in hundreds of items, so it does not make sense reverting only two cases. I'd want to ask you: there was any discussion about the insertion of such statements (deprecated and having reason for deprecation (P2241) does not exactly match (Q42415624) as qualifier) in authors' items? If not, could you open such a discussion in Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books, so that a standard way of acting can be established? Thank you very much!

Sic19 (talkcontribs)

Hi @Epìdosis, I am trying to clean up a large batch of items that were created from Mix 'n' Match two years ago with only a National Library of Wales Authority ID (P2966) statement. The alternative would be a mass deletion of items, which I am trying to avoid.

I am going to open the discussion in project chat as the issue is broader than just author items and look forward to working constructively with you to find a solution.

Kind regards, Simon

Reply to "Merge with "does not exactly match""
Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Q1967405"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #430"
Addshore (talkcontribs)

It would appear I have lured you into my honeypot for discussing the modeling of hills vs tors! I just saw your edit here and wonder if you think infact these should be the same Item, or if instead the hill should have one Item and the tor another? I have been roughly working on this at User:Addshore/Dartmoor, and if split there are some interesting properties such as part of (P361) and located on terrain feature (P706) that could be used.

Sic19 (talkcontribs)

Hi @Addshore,

Thanks for your work on the Dartmoor tors. I noticed you had recently created tors whilst perusing WikiShootMe and mistakenly assumed it was a dataset ingest that overlapped with existing items. Thus, I merged Yes Tor (Okehampton) (Q96898243) into Yes Tor (Q8052773) but have just reverted my edits.

It definitely makes sense to have separate items for the hill and tor. I went up to Dartmoor yesterday afternoon for a walk and to take photos for Wikidata, including a few tors - my focus was very much on the rocky outcrop rather than the hill.

Adding the TOID (P3120) to the hills might be worthwhile as they can be used in federated SPARQL queries of the Ordnance Survey endpoint.

Addshore (talkcontribs)

TOID (P3120) is an interesting one as not all of the tors appear on OS maps (at least not my OS map...). But perhaps they still have these IDs.

I look forward to seeing your pictures appear on Commons and perhaps on some Items :) Which tors did you go to? I'll be up there again this afternoon!

There are actually a few other Items on Wikidata right now which represent both the hill and the tor which I havn't split yet. I'm also struggling a little to determine the difference between Tor and "Rock Formation" for various tors, but I'm sure I'll figure all of this out as time continues to pass.

Sic19 (talkcontribs)

My walk was a circuit from Drewsteignton past Castle Drogo and along the River Teign to Fingle Bridge - I've already uploaded a photo of Hunter's Tor (Castle Drogo) (Q96896374) and took pictures of Sharp Tor and possibly Hannicombe Wood Crags.

Here is an example query of OS data for items located within Devon with a label ending with Tor. There is also a query API: http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/datasets/opennames.

Might there also be instances where the hill and tor are indistinguishable and a single item for both will be sufficient? I've attempted a small number of edits related to geology and gave up because it seems to be an incredibly complicated subject to model.

Are you working on anything else Devon related in Wikidata? I've been doing some general tidying, although focused mainly on Exeter and the surrounding area.

Addshore (talkcontribs)

> Might there also be instances where the hill and tor are indistinguishable and a single item for both will be sufficient

I'm leaning toward the fact they should probably always be different entities, especially when it comes to statements like prominence, which would get confusing if both were represented by a single entity.

> Here is an example query of OS data for items located within Devon with a label ending with Tor. There is also a query API: http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/datasets/opennames.

Thanks, I added these to User:Addshore/Dartmoor#Links

> Are you working on anything else Devon related in Wikidata?

Just Tors, although apparently I took a month off and haven't looked recently, need to get back on track!

Reply to "Tors vs Hills"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #429"