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]
@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]
@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]
@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]
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]
@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]
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]
@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]
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]
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]
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]
@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]
┌───────────────────────────────────────┘ Preventing archiving. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata weekly summary #518
Tech News: 2022-18
19:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Twinkle and Redirects
Hi Qwerfjkl, I'm having issues adding templates to redirect's with twinkle. Can you help? Maybe with some screenshots or photos. Comr Melody Idoghor(talk) 21:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Idoghor Melody, To use rcats with Twinkle, when on a redirect, select TW → Tag, and then select any rcats to tag the redirect with. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for helping erase the tens of thousands of "Wiki(p/m)edia list article" descriptions. I think it was such a success that we should expand the bot's scope to remaining articles not beginning with "List", and maybe even expand the strings it searches for (looking at you, "Aspect of history"). And I'm sure you noticed that there's a steady flow of editors adding back the removed descriptions. What do you think? Thrakkx (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thrakkx, to expand the bot's scope, there first needs to be a discussion (probably at WT:SD) in support of the idea. As for editors adding back these short descriptions, it would be simple to just run the bot again on the pages. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Ive been looking through Category:Pages with template loops, and ive noticed pretty much all of your /scripts/ pages have popped up in them. Looking further into the issue, it seems to be originating from User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/template, which has confused me quite a bit. First of all, the onlyinclude tags dont seem to be doing much work, if any. The page displays the same no matter how i change it. Second of all, the reccursion is probably comming from the call of {{#invoke:string|match, and how you fetch its own content. Ill let you decide how you want to fix it, since it still seems to give the content back. Hope this helps. Aidan9382(talk) 05:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out im mistaken. The issue of template looping is originating from the call of {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />Script installation text}} in User:Qwerfjkl/tempscript. Looking deeper, the issue seems to originate from this line (<includeonly>{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#if:{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#invoke:String|match|s={{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />:{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />FULLPAGENAME}}}}|[[Category:Wikipedia scripts]]|plain=true|nomatch=}}||{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#switch:{{{categorize|{{{cat|}}}}}}|never|no=|{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#switch:{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />NAMESPACENUMBER}}|2|4=[[Category:Wikipedia scripts|{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />SUBPAGENAME}}]]}}}}}}</includeonly>) in {{Script installation text}}. I dont really know enough to understand the full extent of this line, so I'll leave it to you to decide if its posible to/worth fixing the looping. Aidan9382(talk) 06:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan9382, It transcludes the page onto itself in order to check if the page has the category. I suppose {{Find page text}} might be better. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gave what you suggested a try and its worked (AFAIK) perfectly. Those were also the last pages in Category:Pages with template loops, so i can officialy consider that as (hopefully) empty now. Thanks for the suggestion. Aidan9382(talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by mistake?
I believe P_talk:SARS-CoV-2 was created in mainspace by mistake when making the portal redirect. If you want to G7 it or move it where you believe it should be. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that makes sense. I hadn't heard of that bug before, but I'm glad I know about it now. Cheerio. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 06:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom, I read those; however, users can be partially blocked, but the block is a partial block. The edit request is not partially blocked; it is a partial block edit request.w ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that. This one actually seems better. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 05:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting
First of all thanks a lot for all your work at CfD! Regarding the 3rd relisting of this discussion, I hope you are aware that relisting more than twice is a bit unusual? See also WP:RELIST about that. Fwiw, personally I am even a bit more reluctant with relisting than that. I would mainly relist a second time when there has been some more discussion since the first relisting but nothing conclusive. But in case of no further discussion and if I am too uncertain about it I would usually not relist it a second time but rather leave it to an administrator to close. (In this particular case I might have closed the discussion as rename though.) Please just treat this as a minor comment, not as serious criticism. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you recently reverted an edit at List of Australian Aboriginal group names that had changed 'lillup' to 'lollup'. I'm just letting you know that I'm going to delete 'lillup' as an alternative name to Alura. I'm a linguist and work with Australian languages and have been trying to find how/why this name came to be inserted as an alternative to Alura (who actually prefer to be known as Jaminjung) but it seems pretty clearly an error. There is a plant from Central Australia known as 'alura' (in the Alyawarr language) which has an alternative name of 'lilup' and I think that's how the confusion arose. Anyway, as you made a relevant edit I thought I'd let you know.
I've granted page mover per your request at WP:PERM; guidelines for usage of the right are found at Wikipedia:Page mover. If you have any questions, or in the future decide that you do not intend to use the tool, you can contact me or any other administrator. Hog FarmTalk 20:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged this category for deletion but it still has 68,291 pages in it so I'm going to remove the tag. The category has to be emptied first and I think you need help from an admin who closes CFD cases for this one. LizRead!Talk! 03:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 721 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 1041 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do 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. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #521
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
I think in this discussion you accidentally moved the nominated category to the wrong target. Can you have another look please? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind reversing this closure? Per WP:BADNAC, A non-admin closure is not appropriate [... when] the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. That argument seems to apply here. * Pppery *it has begun... 15:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery, Not much I can do for Wikipedians who oppose rebranding the WMF, but I've reverted the rest. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was my mistake (I was only intending to challenge the no consensus closures, not the earlier relisting I conflated them with). For what it's worth I don't think the relisting there accomplished anything either, but that's water under the bridge now. * Pppery *it has begun... 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery, the discussions have been closed as no consensus by Fayentic London. ― Qwerfjkltalk 13:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[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. scope_creepTalk 15:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can find an admin who will delete a full category based on a CSD tag. All of the contents of this category need to be recategorized first to the new category, prior to this page being deleted. But you should be familiar with this process since you regularly close CFD discussions now so I'm a little bit confused by your request. LizRead!Talk! 19:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, the pages can't be recategorised because it is the category page; it needs to be deleted so that the other category can be moved in its place. On second thoughts, a round-robin move might have simplified this. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it would also be appropriate for you to state your rationale for merging to only one parent, as suggested by User:Zxcvbnm, rather than to all parents, as suggested by me.
I have no objection to you processing CFDs manually, as you are leaving a clear edit summary, but feel free to list them instead at WT:CFDW, so that an admin can then feed the donkey work to a bot. – FayenaticLondon 09:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, Looking at it again, if there is consensus to keep Works set on fictional X, then the categories should probably have upmerged to both. I'll fix the closing statement and upmerge to the other categories based on my contributions, though it'll take a while - some of those categories had over 400 pages. It's mostly easier to manually process them, as with Cat-a-lot I can manage <90 pages in about 20 seconds, so it's easier, although any more than that and I have to wait another minute to avoid the rate limit. Once I remove d ~1300 pages from a category, and that took around half an hour. ― Qwerfjkltalk 11:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Don't feel you have to do that just because I asked, though. There was some weight against my suggestion, and you may be able to find consensus for a single upmerge... but if so, the justification should be documented.– FayenaticLondon 12:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Video games set on fictional planets. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Masem (t) 14:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New editors were more successful with this new tool.
The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
Hey! Your bot's Task 10 (converting source to syntaxhighlight), understandably, missed a lot of .js and .css pages due to protection. However, I've noticed that quite a lot of the remaining pages have no visible reason for not being edited. They also all seem to be related to documentation of js pages or of source code (E.g. 12345). Is there any reason these pages seem to have been heavily excluded from Task 10? Aidan9382(talk) 14:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan9382, Might be a flaw in the regex (I know it missed {{#tag:source}}); I ran it on the category. I could always re-run it. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rerun might be worth it. I didn't even think of {{#tag:source}}. If its fine according to the bot rules, then I think a rerun with #tag could help clear out the last of the fixable (I'm not gonna try clear the category further than that, I don't think an interface admin would be happy to wake up to 400 edit requests ). Aidan9382(talk) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan9382, I'll probably ask the BAG member who closed it if it's okay. I'm sure an interface admin can run the regex on their own account. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah thats alright. If you are gonna use it on an interface admin's account, I'd make sure to be safe you dont overwrite anything thats simply picked up on accident (E.g. a script designed to remove source tags), cause the MW software detection for use of the source tag is fucking ass (At least it was with the enclose attributes on syntaxhighlight which I also cleared recently). The only way to fix that is to add //<nowiki> on the first line and //</nowiki> on the last line (Like here).
I'll also note that most of the errors seem to be by the user scripts, for whatever reason, have // <source lang="javascript"> in them, probably copied wrong. At that point, removing may be a better take. Idk. Other than that though, should be all ok. Aidan9382(talk) 17:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]