User talk:Rouletteer

I noticed the to do list at Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/National Trust shrinking. Thanks for you work on these National Trust paintings. Multichill (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your edits to John Hutton (Q76113182) noting it as a duplicate of John Hutton (Q6240542) and I just wanted to check - did you know we can merge records? Help:Merge gives the details - this makes one ID redirect to the other and copies over all claims. In general, it's the best solution for cases like this - we try to avoid having duplicate items around unless it's technically necessary for some reason. I'm happy to sort these out for you if you'd like. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No-I didnt know I had the right to delete entries by merging - I will check it out. I'm afraid there are many duplicates and even triplicates on the file. Inevitable I guess when the data were assembled from different sources.Rouletteer (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a few merges, including John Hutton. I will do others as I come across them. Thanks for the tip.Rouletteer (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! You're right that most of these stem from duplicate imports - the Peerage one in particular brought out a lot. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case you feel like resolving more duplicates, see Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Duplicate paintings. Not all are duplicates, but especially the first section contains a lot of obvious duplicates. If you copy User:Multichill/common.css to User:Rouletteer/common.css, the already merged items will get a different color so it's easy to see what to skip. Multichill (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Landscape with a farm (Q17276090) from the Mauritshuis collection? [1] and [2] are clearly the same painting. The Mauritshuis website even mentions "aankoop door het Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. nr. SK-A-2351), met steun van de Vereniging Rembrandt, 1908; in langdurig bruikleen van het Rijksmuseum, sinds 1933 ". Multichill (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got it wrong - It was a confusing scenario - probably caused by the loan situation and the duplicate names. Thinking back I think I concluded that there were two similar paintings, one in eaxh collection. I have now attempted to rectify the situation - assuming one painting out on loan from one collection to the other. Rouletteer (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it might look a bit confusing. It's perfectly normally for a painting to have multiple inventory numbers and to be in multiple collections at the same time, see for example The Night Watch (Q219831)

Don't forget that this is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia only records the current situation in the infobox, here we also record what used to be true. I restored the missing data. Multichill (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rouletteer,

I noticed, that you removed the general accession number of the Uffizi at least twice, please stop it and restore if there are further items. The inventario 1890 number is the official accession number, https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/bacchus. Better is only to change things you are sure of, if you doubt or have a question you can always ask the editor of what you think is wrong.--Oursana (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little advice: instance-of-human items should not link to Wikisource biographical articles, but rather to Wikisource author pages, and Wikisource biographical articles should be linked to instance-of-biographical article items. ミラP@Miraclepine 18:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rouletter, since you added information already, I was wondering how and where to add further information. According to RKD (Netherlands Institute for Art History) https://rkd.nl/explore/images/124874, Mary Killigrew was born January 27, 1621 and died 27 August 27, 1677). Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lotje

Go to Mary Killegrew record at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3531945

Edit date of birth from 1627 to 27 January 1627. Add additional reference to RKD if desired.

Find an Add Statement command (at foot of record) and select Date of Death. Enter date and reference.

Hope this helps. I will check and complete afterwards if you wish

Peter Rouletteer (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Note RKD give birth as January 27, 1627, not as you stated in your message Rouletteer (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that each issue of the London Gazette up to No. 63508 has its own Wikidata item now--see e.g. The Oxford Gazette 1 (Q109110323) and The London Gazette 63508 (Q109232185). As a result you should cease adding raw URLs for these issues and instead use references with stated in (P248) (issue item) and page(s) (P304) (page number), such as at Q106828140#Q106828140$f34c3e8a-4c47-2df6-e3c8-c28387663be0. (Any existing URLs you have already added I will adjust myself later.) Mahir256 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos III leaving the Port of Naples, as Seen from the Sea (Q19904764) is about the Prado version. I created Charles III's Departure for Spain, Seen from the Sea (Q113239962) for the other version. You might want to expand it. It's a proper mess because the other version got mixed up too and I haven't found the Vienna versions yet. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you've sometimes added properties like "given name" to ancient Roman figures, but Roman citizens did not have such names, they had praenomina, nomen geniticulum and cognomina. When adding modern name values to these items it causes constraint violations. StarTrekker (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed the deprecated ID entries on Lady Caroline Paget, Lady Duff (1913 -1976) (Q52256027), which I had left to prevent bots from importing the incorrect data from the source websites. An automated edit later reinserted the incorrect ID undeprecated, which you had to manually revert. Is there a reason why you have removed the deprecated information here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I obviously hadn't understood the need or techniques to protect records from BOTS, which I naively thought were on our side. Rouletteer (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]