Hi Peter and thanks for editing many locations in Wales. However, there are two things you should be aware of. First, Wales does not need 'UK' after it in the description. I see that you don't add 'UK' following 'England', so why do that with Wales? The buck ends with country (Wales) as with all other countries. Second, all {{P|131}} (located in the administrative territorial entity) should = the Principal areas of Wales = County councils. In this case], the administrative entity should be Denbighshire. Many thanks.
User talk:Peter James
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Country and sovereign state ("country" for P17) can both be included. For a while I just used England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and have switched between that and UK. I've seen items where I haven't changed the labels and some have "England" in English and "United Kingdom" in British and Canadian English labels; that and the disputes in Wikipedia are reasons I now use both the constituent country and sovereign state.
P131 was originally proposed for higher levels or administrative division, but by changing that to lowest level and using the P131 in the linked item to find higher levels (Property talk:P131#Clarity required in instructions), other properties in Property talk:P131/Archive#Replaced properties were no longer necessary. Putting the community in P276 means Q1965570#P276 links to the community and there is no link to the town, and where the settlement is in P276 as in Q99447597, there is no link between item and community. With the community in P131 (and the principal area in the community's P131) the P276 can be used for the locality.
Country and sovereign state are NOT needed. I looked at 10 locations you added in England and none had the UK. Adding UK after Wales is not needed as everyone knows where Wales is. Would you add Europe after the UK? Of course not. Adding UK after Wales is also political and devisive to many if not most people in Wales.
I see that there has been a change, a complicated unneccessary one at that! It would be much better in Wales if we have [within] Community council + [within] Principal area (County or Borough Council rather than this general, unspecified way - not getting at you, my friend! Thanks for your time on this.
Looking at items I've created, I was undecided as recently as 2022 ("village in East Sussex, United Kingdom", "area in Faversham, Kent, England") but in the last 2 years I have consistently used both country and sovereign state, with the occasional exception such as Q130525602 where I copied from another item and forgot to change it. Although I think there should be consistency, I don't usually edit a description just to add "UK", it's part of a change which is usually a correction or because the country or ceremonial county/principal area/council area is missing, or where it is useful to add a more precise location. I'll probably continue on new items I create unless there is consensus that it should not be used. I could leave existing items, but I still think it would be an improvement:
Q126689424: "milestone in Llanllechid, Gwynedd, United Kingdom"
Q122215825: "Grade II listed buildings in Wales"
Q122223390: "enclosed hut circle settlement in the UK" (the item was created with "scheduled monuments in Wales", but it was mistakenly placed as the Spanish description)
Q122221531: "chapel in Aberllynfi" (another with the original description placed in Spanish)
Using the principal area in P131 is not wrong, but replacing it with the community where applicable is an improvement, and nothing is lost by changing it; similarly I often replace Q811979 with something more precise for buildings or other structures.
Glad to see you adding some TOIDs today, even if there is no longer an OS online linked data service that they can be made to click straight through to.
It might be worth adding a note to Property talk:P3120 just to say that they can still be found, and are still useful to have and to add; also might be worth adding a reference (eg stated in (P248) = OS MasterMap (Q7073065) or wherever you found them), to help others know where to look.
But bravo for the additions and keeping them attended to !
I notice you patiently adding, as aliases, the correct spellings of places I've misspelled. I can only imagine your exasperation. I am, slowly, discovering each & every logographic crime, as I reconcile Scottish places with the GB1900 gazetteer, and, sadly, finding that in the majority of instances you got there first. Thank you, and do feel free to amend the label instead: I think we've established what the pattern here is.
Most of the spellings I have added to places in the UK are from Ordnance Survey maps or data; I don't know if they are the usual spelling, an alternative, or a misspelling (and there are misspellings and other errors in OS data) so I add them as aliases if the label is not obviously wrong. I've occasionally added names from the Gazetteer for Scotland, but particularly with the Gaelic names there can be a few different spellings, and I don't know which is more likely to be correct.
Hey Peter, do you think you could assist with making some edits to a Wikipedia page that needs attention?
Just wanted to post a simple thank you for helping with the reverts to Psubhashish's batch edits. I was beginning to tire out when you swooped in, so it was very much appreciated.
Hi Peter. I'm trying to keep the distinction between hillfort (Q744099), castrum (Q88205) and fort (Q1785071) the latter defended by artillery. It can be easy when importing from Cadw or Heritage England to pick up their use of the term "fort" and assign it to the wrong WD box. I fix the ones I see
There's also artillery fort (Q39535649), which doesn't link to a Wikipedia article or any external source and only has a vague description; is that the "defended by artillery" definition? Historic England recognises "fort" and "hillfort" (and others) as monument types, and there's nothing at https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=875615&resourceID=19191 to support changing P31 of Hallgarth (Q24661375) to hillfort (compare with https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=9936&resourceID=19191). It is described as a possible burh (Q88034) in the text but not in the monument types (although it is recognised as a type: https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=188490&resourceID=19191).
I wasn't aware of artillery fort (Q39535649), I'll look into it. Meanwhile I've reverted my Hallgarth (Q24661375) change
Hello Peter, coordinates from GeoNames are usually not very accurate; usually coordinates from OpenStreetMap (Q936) are better positioned. You could also use https://atlas.harita.gov.tr to verify the location of places in Turkey.
Thanks for the advice; I've been adding GeoNames IDs so I thought I would add the coordinates at the same time, although I've noticed they are often inaccurate and used nisanyanmap.com and more recently OSM if a place is missing from GeoNames or the coordinates were a long way out or pointed to the wrong place. I'd seen atlas.harita.gov.tr mentioned and had intended to look at it, although there are not many items with village in Turkey (Q1529096) or YerelNet village ID (P2123) left to be checked for GeoNames ID (P1566), and most already have coordinates. Peter James (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm checking the rural villages on OSM-side for missing wikidata/wikipedia tags and adding missing coordinates on wikidata-side. nisanyanmap is good too - also for old names which I add to osm too but lacking verifyable sources I hesitate to add those names to wikidata. Are you also editing on trwiki?
No I can understand most of what the articles are about (using Google Translate if necessary) but I can only write in English. Peter James (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you are english speaker and that it is of your interest. Could you have a look at these results (items that do not have any P31) : https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?max_sitelink_count=&labels_no=&format=html&search_query=&cb_labels_yes_l=1&show_disambiguation_pages=both&ores_prob_to=&wpiu=none&ns%5B0%5D=1&smaller=&templates_any=&links_to_all=&wikidata_item=with&show_redirects=no&cb_labels_no_l=1&project=wikipedia&wikidata_source_sites=&sitelinks_any=&langs_labels_any=&search_filter=&show_soft_redirects=both&referrer_name=&active_tab=tab_wikidata&wikidata_label_language=&search_wiki=&after=&language=en&sitelinks_yes=&links_to_no=&interface_language=en&depth=3&wikidata_prop_item_use=P31&categories=American+nuclear+weapons+testing&referrer_url=&outlinks_any=&cb_labels_any_l=1&search_max_results=500&outlinks_no=&manual_list=&common_wiki_other=&ores_type=any&doit=
Best
And oh there are perhaps still inacuracies inside this query https://w.wiki/73V4
It was something I had just started looking at after using "Random item" and found one with no statements. For now I'm looking at the items in the Norwegian Wikipedia categories as there are several items with no statements or no P31 that are likely to be duplicates of others. There was one confusing item I found, Q11958399, where the article has the name of an operation comprising three tests (Q98960720), describes it as one test with date of the first test in that operation (Q98960663) and a yield that doesn't match any of the three tests (or the American test it shares a name with, Q98447142). I'll look at the first query as it's the duplicates and P31s I'm focusing on with these items. Peter James (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh snakker du bokmål eller nynorsk? Jeg kan en litt bokmål... Nuclear tests are very difficult to model since they in fact were numerous, covered by secrecy etc. They could be "grouped" by some nicknames. One of good sources is eller https://www.nnss.gov/docs/docs_LibraryPublications/DOE_NV-209_Rev16.pdf or http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/tests/USA-ntests1.html Good luck
There is article pl:Bain (Lincolnshire) (about village). Article was created by bot of en:User talk:Kotniski.
I made request Afd: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:07:09:Bain (Lincolnshire). Malarz pl (dyskusja) 14:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I think geonames 303553 Ömeranlı is an incorrect geoname since it is miles away. Also there should only be one geoname in a wikidata object. The only correct geoname för Ömeranlı (Q1893399) is 299553 Tavşançalı. If you did it because Ömeranlı is missing in 299553 Tavşançalı I can add the name since in the nlwp the namechange was 2014. Maundwiki (disk) 21:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about that one. I have seen errors in coordinates before, but in this case there would have to be two - a wrong digit and either latitude and longitude switched or inaccurate/imprecise location. There are often multiple Geonames IDs for the same place; with villages this is usually because of name changes or different languages but sometimes IDs have been repurposed based on the nearest village instead of what they originally referred to - many of the coordinates in Turkey were originally very imprecise and with the name changes seems to have caused confusion. I think I decided to add it to Q1893399 as it had "Tavşancılı" in the alternate names.
I added the name Ömeranlı in 299553 and removed 303553 from Ömeranlı (Q1893399). If you think 303553 should be moved next to 299553 that can also be done. But the wikidata object should only have one entry. The name change from 2015 is now in the object for Swedish. Maundwiki (disk) 12:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)