[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-26 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. the correction is carried out by deleting the incorrect birth date and creating a new birth date property Deleting the statement and creating a new one will result in a new GUID. Changing the value of a statement will result in the same GUID. Or if there are two birth

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-25 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. In T105100#2629763, @Addshore wrote: The source of the dates are the values stored in the backend JSON, so what is in the database, and what you can see throguh the API. Yes, but the lists that are now provided in the task description use Wikidata Query Service,

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-25 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. In T105100#2665020, @Addshore wrote: Yes, so once added the statements are safe to remove, they will not be re added by a future run as I have a list of GUIDs to be skipped in the future! (the lists are essentially the same as the lists published earlier in this ticket).

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-24 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. In T105100#2663249, @Jc3s5h wrote: In T105100#2659241, @Addshore wrote: @Jc3s5h This should be as simple as removing the instance of qualifier. We of course have the lists of all statements that will be touched in this run of the script. If we do ever do a future run

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-24 Thread Esc3300
Esc3300 added a comment. In T105100#2662859, @Addshore wrote: The bot followed this tree up to the first level, at which point human intervention is needed. Naively, I thought you had found a way to do that ;) Maybe a task for WikiReading?TASK

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-24 Thread Lydia_Pintscher
Lydia_Pintscher added a comment. Yes please remove them where the statement was checked.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Addshore, Lydia_PintscherCc: Ymblanter, Edgars2007, Multichill, joeroe,

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-23 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. In T105100#2659241, @Addshore wrote: @Jc3s5h This should be as simple as removing the instance of qualifier. We of course have the lists of all statements that will be touched in this run of the script. If we do ever do a future run we will still have that list of guids

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-23 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. I verified the dates for In T105100#2659241, @Addshore wrote: @Jc3s5h This should be as simple as removing the instance of qualifier. We of course have the lists of all statements that will be touched in this run of the script. If we do ever do a future run we will

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-23 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. In T105100#2662859, @Addshore wrote: In T105100#2659966, @Multichill wrote: @Addshore looking at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Wikidata_Calendar_Model_Decision_Tree.svg your bot is not following it. The bot followed this tree up to the first level,

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-23 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. In T105100#2659966, @Multichill wrote: @Addshore looking at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Wikidata_Calendar_Model_Decision_Tree.svg your bot is not following it. The bot followed this tree up to the first level, at which point human intervention

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-23 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. {{u|addshore}} asked for some examples of off-by-one years where the year is less than one. One example is Pacorus I of Parthia who died in 38 BC. The accepted value in Wikidata is 38 BC, but a pending edit shows 37 BC, even though the reference in the pending edit shows

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-23 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. Okay, dates from the initial 2 planned lists are all tagged. I have also update the query links to include some extra information. List 1 stands at 24956 Results in 4370 ms (statement with mainsnak date marked as Julian that is more precise than 1 year) List 2 stands at

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-23 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. In T105100#2661357, @Esc3300 wrote: Would you tag all dates before year 1 (years BC) with a precision of 9 (year) or higher as well? Obviously, if they are not tagged for some other reason already. These may (or may not be) off by 1 year. Hmm, I could do, could you

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Esc3300
Esc3300 added a comment. Would you tag all dates before year 1 (years BC) with a precision of 9 (year) or higher as well? These may (or may not be) off by 1 year.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Esc3300
Esc3300 added a comment. That reminds me that QuickStatements adds all dates as Gregorian ..TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Addshore, Esc3300Cc: Multichill, joeroe, Esc3300, Candalua,

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. So most statements have already been tagged in the first run today: A SPARQL query for statements with mainsnak date marked as Julian that is more precise than 1 year can be found at http://tinyurl.com/j7f678d (24,956 in the list, 34 ish to be tagged) And a query for

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. In T105100#2660516, @daniel wrote: I suggest to mark only the most obvious cases now. we can still discuss making less obvious cases for manual checking later. Obvious according to what criteria? From the flow chart diagram this task is only tagging to 2 obvious cases.

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread daniel
daniel added a comment. I suggest to mark only the most obvious cases now. we can still discuss making less obvious cases for manual checking later.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Addshore,

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread joeroe
joeroe added a comment. @Addshore Erm, manually checking 155,000 records does not sound like "a bit of extra legwork" to me... I understand that it's hard to think of every edge case, but the lower bound issue was specifically brought up above. What is the point of using a bot if you are going to

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. When the tree was designed no lower bound was added as some errors that could often occurs while entering dates (manually, not by bot) could result in very unexpected actual dates. Thus all of the dates tagged should be checked, but there is a high probability that many

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Esc3300
Esc3300 added a comment. The tree seems to be about processing them, not taggingTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Addshore, Esc3300Cc: Multichill, joeroe, Esc3300, Candalua, Ricordisamoa,

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Multichill
Multichill added a comment. @Addshore looking at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Wikidata_Calendar_Model_Decision_Tree.svg your bot is not following it.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Multichill
Multichill added a comment. Edits like https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q19685912=revision=378251885=312157111 are a bit pointless. Please exclude these kind of records.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread joeroe
joeroe added a comment. I see a lower bound was discussed here, but was it implemented? AddBot has been tagging prehistoric dates, which are likely to be estimates based on radiocarbon or other absolute dating methods with error margins of decades or centuries, so the Gregorian/Julian distinction

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. @Jc3s5h This should be as simple as removing the instance of qualifier. We of course have the lists of all statements that will be touched in this run of the script. If we do ever do a future run we will still have that list of guids that we can avoid!TASK

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. Now that the bot has begun to mark items, what is the procedure to follow when a marked item has been reviewed by an editor and found to be correct?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-22 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. RunningTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: AddshoreCc: Esc3300, Candalua, Ricordisamoa, Jc3s5h, daniel, Tobi_WMDE_SW, Addshore, Aklapper, Lydia_Pintscher, D3r1ck01,

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-19 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. It looks like adding the restriction of precision > 9 to the second list brings the number of matches statements down dramatically (then roughly the same for each list). You can run this dump scan yourself using:

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-19 Thread Esc3300
Esc3300 added a comment. If you limit Gregorian before 1584 (or 1582) to precision > 9, do you get comparable numbers? That being said, many of the years marked as Gregorian on https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q208233=en seem to be off by one year. Unfortunatly not all. For years before

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-13 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. @Jc3s5h Here is the diagram that we cam up with (some time ago now) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Wikidata_Calendar_Model_Decision_Tree.svgTASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T105100EMAIL

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-12 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. Thanks to Addshore for the answer of Sep. 12, 17:54 UT. I'm not fully up on all the jargon. Is this link: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EntityData/Q4115189.json an example of what Addshore referred to in the statement "The source of the dates are the values

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-12 Thread Addshore
Addshore added a comment. The code that will be used to generate the lists can be seen at https://github.com/wmde/wikidata-analysis/pull/9 (although the code is now on gerrit) The conditions for list 1 are at

[Wikidata-bugs] [Maniphest] [Commented On] T105100: [Task] Run bot to mark dates that need checking for calendar model correctness

2016-09-12 Thread Jc3s5h
Jc3s5h added a comment. It might be useful to state what range of dates will be checked, and what the source of the dates will be, since JSON and RDF dates state dates in different formats, and in the case of the flavor of RDF used in this link the form of the date depends on whether the software