User talk:Craigysgafn

Welcome to Wikidata, Craigysgafn!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

Introduction – An introduction to the project.
Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
Community portal – The portal for community members.
User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
Project chat – Discussions about the project.
Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Hello.

Can you translate and upload simple:National Archive Department of Azerbaijan, en:National Library of Azerbaijan (which is the national archive repository) and « Category:Archives in Azerbaijan » (Q22029602) in Welsh Wikipedia for these two articles?

They should not be long.

Yours sincerely, Matricatria (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)

Please note that if you've already stated that Brampton, Westmorland and Furness (Q611732) is in Long Marton (Q1869407) you don't also need to state that its in Eden (Q301637) since Long Marton (Q1869407) already states its in Eden (Q301637), thanks. Lucywood (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucywood:@Llywelyn2000: There are entirely practical reasons for doing this. (This kind of thing happens on lots of other pages too, of course.) Wikidata is now used to generate the data for infoboxes for place articles on Cywiki. On Enwiki the data in the equivalent infoboxes (for English places at any rate) is still entered on the individual article page. (Cywiki used to do this too, and I imagine that in the long run Enwiki will want to make the move to Wikidata-generated content.) Enwiki articles for English placenames have infoboxes that list both civil parish (where there is one) and the surrounding local authority area. Both pieces of information are relevant, particularly because of the overlapping functions of the different levels of local authority in England, which are unpredictable and do not form an orderly hierarchy. (I.e. with all the mess of unitary authorities, non-metropolitan areas, parished and unparished areas and what have you.) I want to be able to give the same key information in the Cywiki infoboxes about civil parishes and local authorities that are shown in the Enwiki boxes.

Now I'm as keen on neat hierarchies as the next Wikipedian, but since the "located in the administrative territorial entity" statement allows multiple fields, it seems reasonable to me to enter both civil parish and local authority information in that statement. (It wasn't me that started this, by the way. I was simply following a pattern I'd found on other Wikidata pages.) Do you know if there a way of including this sort of information within the present structure of Wikidata pages that would allow me to get it onto the Cywiki pages? Otherwise what I've been doing seems like a practical and useful solution. Craigysgafn (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes on Cywiki could surely be modified to work the P131 as a chain so that it knows that X being in a parish also means it knows that X hamlet is in X parish's district and so on, the Wikidata Infoboxes already do this, otherwise we would need to add every hierarchy that a place is in. P131 does specifically state "You only need to add the most local admin territory, but check that item also has a P131, with the next level, and so on." so I would suggest its the infoboxes at Cy that need modifying. Lucywood (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't administer the infoboxes (that's Llywelyn2000's territory), so I've no idea how feasible that is. I just enter data. It sounds like a can of worms to me, but the suggestion has now been passed on. Craigysgafn (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch! I'll take a look at the WD Infoboxes, as I'm sure it's possible; could be a week or so. Do note that a parish, community councils (Wales) or even many town councils are not administrating bodies (other than dog fouling etc); I'd say that the county borough / council level = admin territory. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lleolir yn yr ardal weinyddol

Henffych gyfaill! Paid a gofyn i mi ymhle, ond mae located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) - yng ngwledydd Prydain - yn gofyn am y sir / awdurdod unedol gan mai hwnnw yw'r llywodraeth leol. Mewn gwledydd eraill fe all fod yn dref neu bentref hyd yn oed. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: Ni ddylai P131 fynd i lawr i'r lefel y gymuned, felly? A dyma finnau'n gwneud cawlach o'r pentrefi Cymru? Os yw hynny'n wir, sori: mi af i yn ôl a thrwsio'r gwybodlenni dan sylw. Yn Lloegr, mae P131 yn mynd i lawr i'r plwyf sifil, ac roeddwn i'n ceisio dilyn yr un patrwm ar gyfer Cymru. Rwy'n hoffi cadw pethau'n dwt ac yn (gymharol) gyson. Ond dyw hyn ddim yn fater rwyf am frwydro drosto. Hwyl! Craigysgafn (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigysgafn: Ymddiheuriadau! Ond wele fi! Mae gennym ni location (P276) ar gyfer y dre agosa, ac mae located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) ar gyfer y Sir, gan fod honno'n gweinyddu llawer mwy na thref neu blwyf neu bentref. Ro'n i am son am un o brif bethau a weinydir gan fy nghyngor tref lleol, sef cachu ci, ond gwell peidio! Mae na sawl sgwrs am ddefnyddio sir yng Nghymru wedi bod ond dwn i ddim ymhle mae'r canllaw diffiniol!

Mae'r rhestr yma'n un eitha da gan ei bod yn hawdd gweld os oes un yn anghywir! Os medrwn sicrhau fod y rhestr yma'n gywir o ran yr holl golofnau, yna mi fyddwn mewn lle da i ymosod ar ddata'r cyfrifiad pan y daw. Cofion cynnes! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: Gwych! Roeddwn i'n gallu gweld yn y "Newidiadau diweddar" dy fod yn brysur yn gweithio ar dy restr cymunedau. Bydd hynny'n sicr o fod yn ddefnyddiol. Byddaf i'n brwydro ymlaen! --Craigysgafn (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks

Ranks are not intended to fix problems with infoboxes in your wiki (like here with this edit). Fix your infobox and do not use ranks for it. Wostr (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: Then what are ranks intended for? This seems an entirely legitimate way of solving a problem with minimum fuss. And that problem is that at any time anyone can add multiple images to WD fields, and that breaks the cywiki infoboxes. Does using ranks break any other wikis? And is it correct to argue that it's in the cywiki infoboxes that the problem lies, and that it's there it should be fixed? (@Llywelyn2000: A oes ffordd i ddewis y gwerth cyntaf mewn maes data?) Craigysgafn (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons selects the first image on WD for its image, automatically, with no human input! Selecting the best image is best done by humans - thanks Craigysgafn for enxsuring that the best image is selected on Wikidata. As far as the secondary question here is concerned: (Wikidata infoboxes on x-wiki (other language Wikipedias) also prefer the best image, not the first in the WD list of images. To reiterate Carigysgafn's question, Wostr, what are ranks intended for if not to select the best / preferred image? Nadolig llawen! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only legitimate way to solve problems with your infoboxes is to fix your infoboxes on your wiki. It's only the coding problem of your infoboxes that the preferred value is chosen to be displayed, I don't see such problems on my home wiki, where e.g. qualifiers are used to determine which value should be chosen. Data in Wikidata is not meant exclusively for Wikipedia infoboxes, WD is used by many external websites, so we can't favor one website (Wikipedia) over another. For chemical structure (P117) property we have orientation (P7469) and criterion used (P1013) qualifiers which you can use to display the proper image, preferred rank is used only when the IUPAC rules prefer one way of graphical representation of chemical structure over another – but this preferred rank comes from an authoritative, external and highly reliable source and then reason for preferred rank (P7452) is also used. For image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224) property we use depicts (P180) qualifier to allow you to select the graphics accordingly by infoboxes etc., but – again – this is not done by misusing ranks, but using qualifiers. In cases like [1] or [2] these images are equally valid, if you have any IUPAC source that prefer one way of representation over another – just give it here. And as for the statement that all infoboxes work that way – I don't see that problem in Commons... commons:Category:Lysergic acid diethylamide. So again, fix your problems in your project, not here. Wostr (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: Thank you for trying to explain. I confess that I had failed to notice the orientation and criterion qualifiers on the Chemical Structure field might be used to differentiate. Very likely we can use that to select a unique result at our end at cywiki. I had previously been facing the problem of contributers using the Image field as a kind of undifferentiated photograph album, and Rank was an acceptable way of dealing with that. (Ar gyfer sylw @Llywelyn2000:) Craigysgafn (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated rank

Hi, I've reverted your changes on Washington Commanders (Q212654), which changed the ranks of historical logos to be deprecated. Deprecated rank is only meant for erroneous/flawed statements; accurate historical information should be marked with a normal rank. Please see Help:Ranking#Deprecated rank for more info.

I notice the conversation above this talks about infoboxes on cywiki, and I do see that after my revert, the infobox on cy:Washington Commanders is now broken. The correct way to implement the infobox is to have it only use the preferred rank logo. This is how infoboxes on other wikis do it; see commons:Category:Washington Commanders for example. Best, IagoQnsi (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi, Craigysgafn: My fault! It was an error in the template, as you suggested. All is now well. Thanks for your help. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]