Hey, I know I reverted your edits, but would like to extend an offer to work with you to get the statements correct. I've been working on Wikidata Every Politician which has similar succession and office holder boundaries.
For positions like the judges replacing another - on the position's talk page (or page of your own) you can create tables from the format I suggested with Template:PositionHolderHistory on Wikidata. Which Talk:Q5589680https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q5589680 is a good example of the extra help it creates to check consistency of start/end and persons replaced or replaced by, but this may not work if there are more than one office holders for the Q (which might be split to seat if able to be distinguished by some differentiation consistently). If you have other questions if your format is correct, I encourage to ping me and/or post to Wikidata:Project_chat. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wolfgang8741: I ran the edits from OpenRefine, and I still have the files on PAWS (here, if you can view them). I'm not entirely sure what format you want the data in, but from your example at BOTREQ, it appears it needs data other than the successor and judge. By the way, please just ask me to revert my edits, because now I have about 500 notifications. Thanks for taking the time to clean up my mess! ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: Apologies for the excessive notices from the reverts, my first time catching something like this at scale. I do not have permission to view your openrefine, but an example schema config for a position would look more like the following screenshots from openrefine and based on creating this demo you may also need to create some of the positions and clean up some existing Qs for the judge positions. Yes, you probably need to create a few more columns to make a statement that fits both the established practice. I think most positions require a start time which if they were confirmed, but never started the start time would be no value I guess unless the start is at the point of appointment. That is not a nuance I know the answer. It may be that confirmation date needs a new property to represent given the difference between appointed, confirmed, and starting in the role.
A quick look for Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (or similar) didn't exist - now Q111274584 and Q23933765 wasn't linked to the court - checked by viewing What links here.
You can create the position name in plain text in a new column from the table to try to mach what the position should be called and if they don't resolve, create new positions which would be another schema to configure. I'd look to Q20706330 to know what should be added when creating any new instances of judge positions related to a court listed in the table. Ideally the death date column wouldn't include the age as it makes matching less effective.
The new position schema would be a different statement you can export together or do this in two rounds. The first round to create all missing positions then second to add all the statements for persons holding those positions. For each position adding their respective qualifier of "start time" and "end time" as well as "replaces" and "replaced by" qualifiers for the position, the confirmation date (which I don't know a good property to use as a qualifier so you might ask on wikidata project chat) and "appointed by" property also would be a qualifier for the position.
Two more columns are needed on to the table which would include the person the judge replaces for bidirectional movement through the statement and the position that they will hold which is part of the "Court" that you currently have in the table as mentioned above. I hope this helps to clarify a little? Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wolfgang8741: clean up some existing Qs for the judge positions - What exactly do you mean by this? I used {{Get QID}}, which follows redirects, so might be inaccurate. I could ignore redirects if that would help. I think most positions require a start time which if they were confirmed, but never started the start time would be no value I guess unless the start is at the point of appointment. - I have additional data where I initially got the data from, mentioned in the BOTREQ. Ideally the death date column wouldn't include the age as it makes matching less effective. - I can easily use some regex to remove the template that gives the age (or just subst it and remove the age). Two more columns are needed on to the table which would include the person the judge replaces for bidirectional movement - harder to do automatically, though maybe possible in OpenRefine? ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
clean up some existing Qs for the judge positions - not all existing positions link to their respective court Qid so to get the most out of the linked data, you may need to verify positions link to courts, have applies to jurisdiction values and other cleanup tasks to have consistent statements across the positions. I'm not aware of a model existing for judge positions, but basing off the example cited above it should be a good template of what statements should be on the judge's position.
I think most positions require a start time which if they were confirmed, but never started the start time would be no value I guess unless the start is at the point of appointment. - One the postion held statements require a start time for context of period of time the person was in the role. Though start time is subjective possibly to different interpretation based on the job. Defining what is the start time for a judge and if it is the same or different from when they are confirmed. I'm talking more about how to represent the data. Without a start time the position statement is flagged as missing that qualifier unless the value is set to unknown or no value.
Ideally the death date column wouldn't include the age as it makes matching less effective. - This is more of a comment of table and data design than something hard to cleanup with regex or openrefine split column.
Two more columns are needed on to the table which would include the person the judge replaces for bidirectional movement The infoboxes (if accuracte) could be one source to extract the value or if you have another source at your disposal with this information. This was more of a comment comparing the table to what might be needed to make a more useful statement for the position. Really its not critical, but the more complete the statement the easier it is to query, walk through the links in either direction, visualize, etc. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wolfgang8741: I think I'm going to re-generate the table, using updated data, so all rows have a successor. Then, I can get the predecessor, which is typically just above it in the infobox. I think I've created most of the positions needed. Can you see any that are missing? (I wrote a QuickStatements batch to create a few.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would help to provide to link(s) to resources you want me to review. I believe you wanted me to look at batch 79292? I don't have anything to compare to for a complete list off hand and courts are not my area of expertise. Format wise for the positions, it would be useful given the defined boundaries to add the position's the jurisdiction with P1001 as well as which court the position is affiliated via P361 of which court ie Q111295760 is part of Q7889771. A query for the list of courts to be part of: https://w.wiki/4yjB When you have the position statements ready, I'll check them out too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgang8741 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wolfgang8741: Am I right in saying that P1001 should always be Q30? If not, can you give an example of what it should be? ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the US is too broad for jurisdiction as these courts either have jurisdiction of an entire state's geographic area or sub region of a state's geographic area. An example would be the Q111295760 the first sentence states the jurisdiction to the entire state of Delaware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Delaware and appeals to the 3rd circuit as this map shows (not sure if this is most current, but it would be a guide on what Qids might be named or need to be created). While in this case I think the jurisdiction and state area are the same it probably requires a separate Qid to represent the jurisdiction that is equivalent in area to the state of Delaware as it is instance of a jurisdiction rather than instance of a state (so the concepts are similar, but different on type). An example of a jurisdiction only of a portion of a state is the Western District of Washington Q111295799 which would be a part of the state of Washington and a second Qid would represent the Eastern District of Washington. The development of the model for representing the jurisdictions may be better suited for the Wikidata Project Chat discussion.
There would be a relation between the jurisdiction and the state as part of the state of Delaware with different Qids, instance of, and description similar to how electoral districts are sub components of the state, but part of the state. This is where creating new positions have a lot of inter dependencies and deciding how to model can enable teasing out the differences between concepts with the same name, but in doing so allows for much richer queries once the Qids exist. New Qid for the district jurisdictions would probably be an instance of Q5982983 or a subclass of this to specify US district jurisdictional areas as a group or something like this. You might query the instances of this Qid to find what jurisdictions exist and for those that do not, create the Qid for each of the district areas as Q5982983 named the same as Q7889771 (United States District Court for the District of Delaware), but has an instance of Q5982983 or a subclass of Q5982983 being "United States District Court Jurisdiction" which would allow for alternative naming of the jurisdictions as "District of Delaware" with description "jurisdiction of the District Court. I was thinking of the jurisdictions to be modeled similarly to how electoral districts ie Q192611 and modeled, but it may be this concept needs more eyes and would benefit from a modeling discussion on the Wikidata project chat or related Wikidata project. This all said, if this is getting too complex, the jurisdiction can be left off for a later person to complete or put on hold to further discuss how to model them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgang8741 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, just some cleanup of the duplicates created like Q106071810 and you should be good to add these to the people holding the position with the qualifiers you wanted to add for replaced and replaced by, etc.Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, are the judges you want to create District Court Judges or Court of Appeals Judges? I think the subclass is incorrect. The name of the position d:Q106071810 aka Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York would imply this is a district court judge ie subclass of d:Q58412318 not d:Q58412251. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wolfgang8741: Do you know how to replace the property using QuickStatements? I keep on getting errors, and I can't check them as I'm on a mobile device. (List at User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox). ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JohnDatVertex, unfortunately, I was added to the list by a bot, and the request seems to refer to a PDF which are hard to open on mobile devices. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tech News: 2022-28
19:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
OneClickArchive destination
Hey there, I notoiced you used a tool to archive part of User talk:Joeytje50/JWB into User talk:Joeytje50/Archive 1. While I appreciate archiving the posts that have been resolved, I would like to inform about the destination page for the archival. I'm not sure if this is a convention on this wiki, or if this is a potential oversight of the OneClickArchive tool, but wouldn't it make more sense to archive it to 'User talk:Joeytje50/JWB/Archive 1'? That way, I'd keep the archives of the subpage separate from my main talk page. If this is something that is not generally done on this wiki I'll not bother keeping them separate, but I do want to make sure first.
Also, if this is indeed an oversight of the OCA tool, then please let me know when this oversight is fixed, so that I can move the archive page to the appropriate subpage, without inadvertently breaking future one-click archivals. Joeytje50 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joeytje50, this is a problem with OCA. I'll follow up with the maintainer and fix the archived threads. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slywriter, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Dil Tanha Tanha, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.
If you wish to contest the deletion:
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.
If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slywriter}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@Slywriter, I know this was delivered automatically, but you might want to notify @Qwef1234 instead. I just created the redirect. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do. Wish the tool had options for editors to notify because sometimes the major contributor is neither the creator nor redirector. Slywriter (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Qwerfjkl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Armand, bishop of Vienne, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Qwerfjkl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Michael Kovach, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.
I saw you posted on Bbb23's talk page that I am a "sock" of "TheFattyClan". Please tell me what you mean. I am new here and have not edited before. If my IP is being connected with this account for some reason, please note I use a proxy VPN because I'm travelling in Cuba at the moment and I don't want the communist government constantly looking at my internet so I used a special VPN. Please remove the message from Bbb23's talk page ASAP. Just because I made requests for redirects similar to TheFattyClan's doesn't mean I am him. It looks like he hasn't edited in months. AussieRulesFan123 (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay at least include the info above when talking to Bbb23. His talk page is protected for some reason, so I can't have any input whatsoever. AussieRulesFan123 (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello mentor, keeping in mind the feedback I've received on Draft:Rana X. Adhikari I've made the necessary edits. Could you advise on what further improvements can be made? Thanks in advance. --Quentinhotwater (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quentinhotwater, you might want to ask @Gusfriend for what they found promotional. Also, a few of the references are related to the subject, such as their website, so are unreliable. Also, websites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc. aren't reliable. This doesn't mean they're unsuitable; they just aren't necessary trustworthy. ― Qwerfjkltalk 14:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess something goes wrong with the processing of the outcome of this discussion because the merger has not taken place two days after closure of the discussion. You mentioned some redlinks in a ping message but I do not see any redlinks. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You closed this CfD with "The result of the discussion was: rename" only. I strongly object to this. First of course, you did not summarise the discussion nor clarify how you ended up in this conclusion. Second, I (being the main contributor & creator to these categories), have made strong and repeated arguments that the proposed new names do not reflect the content full stop. IOW: they are incorrect. I also proposed a practical route to end up with correct new category names. None of this is visible in your closure. In short: the closure does not follow from the discussion, and results in incorrect names. I propose you reconsider (into closing as: no consensus), and halt the change. DePiep (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DePiep, you disagreed in the discussion, and consensus was against you, whilst you did not give a clear policy-based reason to object. You are welcome to open another CfD with your preferred names. I don't feel it is necessary to summarise the discussion, and the result was clear enough that it didn't need explaining. Please don't assume ownership of the categories. If you really believe my closure was incorrect, you can object at WP:DRV. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The argument is: the proposed names do not reflect the content. Nothing to introduce "ownership" pointing, I only mentioned my involvement to support that argument: I know what they are about. The other contributors have not acknowledged or researched that. To me it is illogic that !votes against such factualities can stand, let alone be named 'consensus'. -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you mean to tag this category for deletion? You closed the CFD discussion but there's been no action yet on the category under question. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 01:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Liz, I've been listing closures at WT:CFDW, so they may take a while to be processed. It looks like the category has now been deleted. Happy editing! ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What could I change to make it look more professional --Giles Hill (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Giles Hill, Welcome! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Specifically, the draft does not follow WP:EL, or WP:NPOV. You should also read Help:Referencing for beginners. Happy editing! ― Qwerfjkltalk 13:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara
Guideline and policy news
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
So I know you probably have a good reason, which is why I'm asking, but why did you put every single character in your code at this BOTREQ inside of <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags? It seems like it would be easier to just wrap the entire {{#if:{{str find|{{{website}}}|{{((}}url}}|{{{website}}}|{{url|{{{website}}}}}}} in a single pair as I have done here (plus it's a hell of a lot shorter). (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recent Comments