User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)

Welcome to Wikidata, Richard Nevell (WMUK)!

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! MisterSynergy (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Empty items

Hey Richard Nevell, there are 141 “empty items” you have created recently (i.e. items without any statements and sitelinks). They seem to be about castles mainly, but maybe there are others as well.

How do you plan to improve them? Right now they are threatened to be deleted, as they are not clearly identifiably in many cases. It would thus be useful if you add some basic claims to the items, such as P31 with a proper value and external identifier properties which link the items to an external database.

In case of questions feel free to ask on this page. I’ll have it on my watchlist for some time now. Best regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello MisterSynergy. The items come from a single dataset relating to medieval fortifications in Wales (motsly castles, some urban defences, and a few fortified ecclesiastical sites). Now the dataset has been matched to Wikidata, the import will follow using Quick Statements. Statements will include P31, P131, P625, and the property for the dataset they come from. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks, sounds good. There are plenty of similar cases in which such items have been created accidentally, thus I'm asking.

Can you estimate how much time you need to add those claims? Regards, —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping to do it later today (fingers crossed!) Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Why bother with reverts

Hoi, when you revert and then add something else... well you could but what is the point? What do you tell me in this way?

It seemed an easy way of removing the statement then merging a duplicate item. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Claiming RHS Wisley is a castle

Hi Richard. You've added a claim that RHS Garden, Wisley (Q5679170) is a castle. It isn't, it was founded in 1878, and as far as I can see the VocalEyes website does not claim it is, either in the reference url given or elsewhere. Vicarage (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Vicarage, thanks for pointing that out. That looks like a pretty straightforward error. I've checked the underlying dataset (to check if there was an error in my part, so as a mistake while reconciling) and it categorises Wisley as a castle which looks like a mistake. It admittedly doesn't look like a castle to my eye! As such I've deprecated the statement. VocalEyes have shared the underlying data for their assessments.

I have also checked whether the has facility (P912) statements are still applicable to Wisley, but they are at least correct. I'll see if I can come of up with a couple of queries which may highlight unexpected results around P31. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Welsh roman or hill forts described as artillery forts

Hi Richard. I've been fixing some of your additions from Cadw like Pen-Toppen-Ash Camp (Q122217398) where they are described as "fort" "Roman period" at Cadw, but you've mapped them to fort (Q1785071) which in WD terms is a much later artillery fort. I've remapped them as castrum (Q88205). Similarly hillfort (Q744099). Its an example where an external source's category is too broad for us. Vicarage (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Vicarage, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Using this query, I checked to see if there were any others which would fit that pattern and I think it should just be Clyro Roman fort (Q122217395) which I've updated. I had thought that fort (Q1785071) was for forts generally rather than artillery fort (Q39535649). I had forgotten that I had created the latter item, but that makes sense given I thought there was a distinction. Would it be worth merging the two? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In the UK with our tradition of castles, the distinction (artillery) fort/castle/hill fort is clear, even if people might use Roman fort, not castrum. The problem is that in other cultures, like the Middle East and especially India, forts cover all periods, and in the US, frontier camps were called forts, though they often didn't have guns, and sometimes didn't even have walls. I'm leaning to reclassifying stuff as artillery fort (Q39535649), but there are so many judgement calls to make. Lots of eastern Europeans categorise their medieval structures as fortress, even if a small castle. The French are fairly consistent with chateau/chateau fort, but the Germans have a raft of festungs, burgs, burgruines and schlosses that make my head spin.

Its frustrating as I try to develop https://warlike.expounder.info that I want the artillery stuff but don't have a good selector. Vicarage (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a tangle, which I why I often stick with UK sites! I bought a copy of Glossaire: Burgenfachwörterbuch des mittelalterlichen Wehrbaus in deutscher, englischer, französischer, italienischer, spanischer Sprache (1975) to see if that might help untangle some things as it's multi-lingual, but I've yet to go through it properly.

On a related note, perhaps Device Forts (Q5267014) would be better off as a subclass of (P279) of fort (Q1785071) rather than fortification (Q57821) as it currently is? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to set up fortification programs, like the Device Forts, Maginot Line, Palmerston, etc as fortifications because they are integrated schemes with varied components, with much less uniformity than say the Martello towers. So they are groups of structures, and Walmer Castle (Q2543161) is part of them, rather than one of them. Vicarage (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

ah I see, that makes sense. It might be worth putting a note on a talk page somewhere to capture that line of thinking. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)