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: 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=10000
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 :-) 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). On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 2:22 PM Andrew Gray <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> 2015-04-09 8:29 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>: > >> > 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 > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > > -- > - Andrew Gray > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
