A more fine-tuned bot could actually auto-replace some, if the "new" country is the same or larger as the "old" one. But given the numbers, it is probably not necessary to toy with such forces (we can fix a few thousand "by hand" once; new entries should be low in numbers).Well, getting a list of "violations" per country would not be hard, given the dates. There are, for example, >2,300 UK citizens who died 1706 or earlier:It would be possible to generate a daily constraint violation report for more such conditions, given a list of valid data ranges (e,g, "Q145 / 1701 / now" for UK). I'd volunteer, if someone makes a machine-readable list (table?) on a wiki page :-)
https://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/?language=en&project=wikipedia&category=&depth=12&wdq=claim%5B27%3A145%5D%20and%20between%5B570%2C0%2C1706%5D&statementlist=&run=Run&mode_manual=or&mode_cat=or&mode_wdq=not&mode_find=or&chunk_size=10000On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:22 PM Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:This is an example of a more general problem, I think - "country" is
treated as an indefinite concept, which breaks down for historic
people as well. To take Magnus's example, Wikidata records that Henry
VIII was a citizen of the UK, which would no doubt have surprised him
(https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q38370).
Perhaps what we want is to figure out some way that "country" (P17)
and "citizenship" (P27) can have robust constraints based on date of
birth/death or on date of an event, so that - for example - anyone who
is reported as having citizenship of the UK has to have been born
before or died after 1707. For something like the battle, the
constraint would be that the event has to have happened while the P17
country was in existence.
I don't know if we can do anything this sophisticated with the current
constraints system - perhaps it would have to be organised on a
country-by-country basis, one report for the UK, then the USSR, and so
on as we define the cases. Perhaps something to look at doing a year
down the line, when we've imported a lot of data we can fix ;-)
Andrew.
On 13 April 2015 at 13:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The point is very much that the battle WAS in the USSR. It is not "not
> applicable" it is one of the most important battles in the second world war.
> My point is that we should not forget this. The battle of Uhud was not in
> Saudi Arabia either...
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 13 April 2015 at 12:10, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 2015-04-09 8:29 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
>> > Because the battle of Stalingrad as a battle was not fought by modern
>> > day
>> > Russia, it was fought by the USSR and Nazi Germany. Associating the
>> > battle
>> > of Stalingrad with modern day Russia is wrong on so many levels. At the
>> > time
>> > it was Stalingrad, hence the name. It will never be the battle of
>> > Wolgograd.
>>
>> I believe that you should have a "Not applicable" button to click for
>> these cases.
>>
>> C
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l