Tomukas

talk talk talk

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Tomukas/Archive 1 on 2019-08-21.

Hola Tomukas. He procedido a modificar la fecha de defunción de Eduardo Barriovero e indicado la referencia.

		The Wikidata Barnstar
		Congratulations on 40.000 edits throughout the Wikiverse. Thank you for your time amd contributions! You are one of the unrecognized heroes of knowledge in the 3rd millenium. Tolanor (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hola, Tomukas. En esta dif https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5945721&oldid=1172690474 has indicado la supuesta fecha exacta de defunción de José Sánchez Marco (30.11.1948), pero en la fuente que indicas no aparece dicha fecha, sino que solo pone que fue en el año 1949. ¿Serías tan amable de indicarme de dónde obtuviste el dato? Muchas gracias.

Hola @Raderich, siento llegar tan tarde a responderte. Tenía la información del congreso, pero creo que haya cometido un error aquí. He borrado la declaración. Gracias por señalarlo.

Hola! electoral district of the Second Spanish Republic (Q88181507) circunscripción electoral de las Cortes republicanas (Q32984849) son lo mismo?

Hola @Davidpar, sí, son lo mismo! Lo siento 😬

Hola! Aquí la circunscripción de Barcelona está dividida entre Barcelona (capital) i Barcelona (provincia). ¿Sabes porque está diferencia no se hace en las fichas de los diputados en la web del Congreso? No lo acabo de entender.

Hola @Davidpar ¿cómo estás?

He revisado de nuevo los datos originales del congreso. No distingue entre la provincia y la ciudad. dice que no solo fue Barcelona pero tambien Madrid.

No sé qué hacer con los diputados que actualmente están catalogados como Madrid y Barcelona. Y desafortunadamente no sé dónde hay fuentes similares con estos datos. Tienes una idea?

Muchas gracias!

Sí, yo tampoco lo entiendo. De momento, me parece bien seguir el criterio de la web del Congreso porque es oficial. A ver si encuentrames referencias que lo aclaren...

Aquí se encuentra el resumen del Diario de Sesiones del Congreso. Es un documento original del época y, por tanto oficial. A partir de la página 121 hay la lista de diputados y las circunscripciones están diferenciadas según capital o provincia. Si quieres, nos podemos repartir la lista para revisarlo manualmente.

Buen trabajo, muchas gracias! Deberiamos dividirnos el trabajo? Yo hago los de Madrid y tu los de Barcelona.

Mi recomendacion es convertir las circunscripciones acutales en las de la capital y despues solo tenemos que cambiar los de las provincias?

En 1931, había 10 circunscripciones-capitaltes (Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia, Sevilla, Málaga, Zaragoza, Murcia, Vizcaya, Córdoba, Granada) y en 1933 y 1936, 8 (Vizcaya, Zaragoza, Barcelona, Valencia, Murcia, Madrid, Sevilla, Málaga). Según es:Legislación electoral de la Segunda República Española, en 1931 el límite eran capitales de más de los 100.000 habitantes, pero a partir de 1933, el límite eran 150.000 habitantes.

@Davidpar hahaha! Gracias a ti! Si quieres ayudarme, hay una agenda aquí. También hice el documento del congreso buscable aquí.

 Done

👏👏👏 Muchisimas gracias! Super bien solucionado, también con los sitios que tienen capital, provincia y ambos, como Córdoba (Q88182542, Q91119045, Q88182542).

Hay diputados en la Segunda República Española que representaban más de una circunscripción a la vez. Como es el mismo cargo, partido, y fechas, he procedido a unificarlo en un mismo statement (e. g. José Antonio Aguirre (Q380878)). Si las fechas eran distintas (e. g. Álvaro de Albornoz (Q251413)) lo he mantenido por separado.

Hola @Davidpar, primero pensé que era un error. Pero no, muchos han presentado a las elecciones más de una vez. Creo que cada candidatura debería estar representada de forma independiente.

Algunos ejemplos (todos aqui):

• Alejandro Lerroux (killing it con 5 escaños en la primera legsilatura!) Q451370
• Cándido Casanueva Gorjón: Q932283
• José Calvo Sotelo: Q539845
• José María Gil-Robles y Quiñones: Q504061

En tu caso: las fechas (alta y baja) no son lo mismo: Vizcaya vs. Navarra.

Mi impresión es que los diputados querían asegurarse de entrar en el Congreso. Si fueron elegidos más de una vez, entonces dejaron un escaño.

Sí, lo estaba repasando y no los he fusionado. Había fusionado José Antonio Aguirre (Q380878) porque estaban mal introducidas las fechas de alta y baja, y coincidían. Ya lo arreglo. Gracias!!

Ah, lo siento. Ahora entiendo el problema. Gracias por la corrección. Tuve errores al principio.

En las fechas del congreso, empecé con los cortes franquistas primero. Aquí tuve que unir diferentes participaciones en una sola legislatura.

Las fechas de la segunda república son, por supuesto, diferentes debido a las elecciones. Por lo tanto, tuve que corregir esto. Comprobaré los otros datos como precaución.

Gracias otra vez!

Hi! I used it because it is the most concrete part, but I don't have any preference. I didn't create subparts. I will do what consensus will establish.

@Davidpar, I tried to create a discussion, but didn't get much feedback there. :-( But what is your perspective on my points? Thanks for the quick answer ;)

Hola! IMHO:

1) Subparts are useful for a more detailed information. For instance, Q75169736 have detailed information of every candidate. Otherwise, it's higher item Q67795085 would have 208 instances of elected candidates and and endless list of candidate (P726) (maybe more than 1,000).

2) It's a structure used in other elections (e.g. 2019 Salford City Council by-election in Walkden South (Q71989821), 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts (Q60519354)).

3) Ideally, there should be a structure for the other legislaturas, but as many other things in Wiki projects, it is incompleted. But that should not be an argument to start with the present Parliament.

Said that, I undestand that (in this scenario) "elected in" and "electoral district" qualifiers have the same information. To avoid redundancy, I think that one of them should be removed: or the elections subpart or the "elected in".

Hi @Davidpar, please excuse my late answer.

I think it's complicated to give a simple answer for all of these needs. It pretty much depends on what people might want to do with the data.

• Regional election objects for election results: I understand the need to have a regional object for the elections to track its results. I think it makes sense to have all this here.
• "Position held" statement for deputies: I think this does not necessarily stand in contrast with the usage in the "position held" statement as a deputy - as this statement can be made independently. I still would assume that people querying data related to the deputies would use the elections (as a national event) instead of regional election parts - and might be confused by them or their missing translations.

In a nutshell: I think having a mixed solution makes sense here. Election results in the regional objects while keeping national objects as a reference for the "position held" statement. What do you think?

I just read a pretty similar question that you have been asking in the "every politician project" - for me it is pretty much the same here: I would always argue for simplicity over complexity meaning that less objects and more qualifiers should be used. I think it will be easier to maintain and use this.

Knowing this now: Next time I'll try to start a discussion there.

Thank you for your time!

Ok, I think mixed solution is right, but I have another question. What about candidacy in election (P3602)?

Hi @Davidpar, I would suggest the same solution, as the problem is pretty similar:

• you probably want the election results on the object of the regional part of the election
• on the other side, I would say that the candidacy for the election is holding this information in its "electoral district" qualifier - so, I would say that the regional election object is not necessary on the candidates object.

Unfortunately we usually have to maintain this information twice anyway, right?

Hello Tomukas,

I am a French contributor working mostly on local representatives at the moment. I have seen your work on Spanish parliament members: it looks really promising and similar to mine.

I also saw your comment on User:Davidpar talk page. I think you describe the same problem I had! There is a solution, explained on this page: Wikidata:WikiProject every politician/Political data model#Holding Political Office (see "approach 5"). It consists in creating an item for each legislature, and then linking to that.

It works very nicely, BUT it comes with a warning: I implemented it, only to find out later that someone else who did not know better had deleted my work! So I would recommend some caution before doing things right, as it might not be understood by non-specialists.

I hope this is somehow helpful to you. In any case I would be happy to share more about our edits.

Best regards, ~~~~

Hi @arpyia, thanks for joining this conversation. This is a great description for the data I've been recently updating. I found some additional information that I could potentially add in the future. However my question is a more technical one: Imagine a legislative term has just started - we update the data of the current politicians of that current legislative period and its qualifiers (especially starttime). Then depending on its length the legislative period ends. How can I bulk update my initial data by adding a qualifier which determines the endtime - withough having to add the whole statement again and deleting my initial one? I'm trying to do this as efficient as possible ;-) Thank you!

Thank you for your answer.

I think we have the two faces of the same problem, which is updating data about a specific term:

- I haven't tried, but I understand you use OpenRefine, and everytime you want to edit a statement, il creates a new one, which is bad. I am no expert of OpenRefine but to my knowledge, nothing can be done about that.

- In my case, I used Quickstatements, which does the opposite: it adds the new qualifier (like an end date) in an existing statement, but not the right one: for example the new end date goes to an old legislative term.

This second method has a solution, which is creating a different item for each term. Then you know precisely which statement should be updated.

In other words, you are currently at "Approach 4" in my previous link, and you would need to go to "Approach 5" and use Quickstatements for your new data.

Let me know if that actually relates to what you want, and feel free to tell me how it sounds to you.

Hi @Arpyia, thanks for the patience with me. I got it now - and it totally relates to my problem.

I see that it's a pragmatic solution to the problem, however I think the information structure would be too complicated and I would have to redo 13 legislative terms again. I think I'm going to stick to the "solution" of adding it completely new and deleting the old statement. Thanks a lot, I was really not finding any other description to the problem.

You're welcome!

Sadly, in my case your solution would not work, because deleting the old statements would mean deleting the other interesting information, some on which I entered manually.

Could you tell me if you used a specific tutorial for your edits with OpenRefine? I'm familiar with OpenRefine and I already use the "reconcile" function a lot, but how do you set it up for adding content? I think I could find a way to make use of it.

Hi @Arpyia, do you happen to have all the data that you entered in some kind of csv file/database? At the moment I would be still creating the whole statement in the object, so it would be better if you have all the necessary information in one dataset. I watched one tutorial (or some minutes of it) and was simply playing a bit with it. With the use of the facets, you can make sure to test-upload some of the data before messing up everything ;-)

If you have any specific questions, let me know, if I can be of any help.

Thanks! I will definitely have a look at the video and later make some tests. I'll tell you about it!

Hi @Arpyia, so how did this work out? And did you maybe happen to run in an explanation of how qualifiers could be easily added to existing statements? ;-)