Lucywood

I'm not sure whether it was a good idea to create new items such as Cambridge (Q21713103), Exeter (Q21886091) etc, when as territorial entities these items are exactly equivalent to the corresponding cities Cambridge (Q350) and Exeter (Q134672), with exactly the same boundaries. (As distinct from other cities such as e.g. Carlisle (Q192896) where this is not the case).

It means that we now have a mismatch between en-wiki, which has the most detailed articles on these cities including administrative history and structure simply as an aspect of the city, and wikidata which now has two separate items.

(It also means that we have lost the information that the city boundaries and the district boundaries are equivalent).

But in any case, if you are going to make a change like this, please update the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) hierarchy to place the city in the district, and the district in the county -- otherwise people can get very confused, and all sorts of data can get added inconsistently. Jheald (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Have done so, will check others. I thought as the settlements could just be about the settlement only and have items on the districts as separate entities. Lucywood (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

But does it make sense to make such a split? If we have a population figure for somewhere like Cambridge, the population figure for the district is also the population figure for the city and vice-versa. Similarly for the area. Rather than requiring the same information to be kept consistent on two different items, does it not make more sense to have only one item, where the boundaries are the same?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think that there is a case that needs to be made, as to whether this item division actually is useful / desirable. Jheald (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes I agree that the areas are nearly identical but I just thought as 1 is about the settlement and 1 is about the district (which also can contain parishes as well as wards. Lucywood (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

All those items now have sitelinks anyway now. Lucywood (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It took me a while to get up to speed with the process of running a bot to undo things. I finished a process last night to undo geo-nesting errors from my earlier bot run over infoboxes from Turkish Wikipedia. Clearly I must implement better constraint checking before I make another such run.

Please let me know if my 'undo' process missed anything, and I'll re-run.

Again, my profuse apologies.

Lisp.hippie.bot (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, its just that it is near impossible to deal with hundreds of edits, thanks for your contributions. Lucywood (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

1. ↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
2. ↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

I don't understand this pair of edits:

• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5331320&type=revision&diff=662990239&oldid=662928204
• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q29006919&type=revision&diff=662990208&oldid=589692847

Looking at the "relationships and changes" tab on the Vision of Britain entry and scrolling down, it is apparent that VoB '6087 refers to the Eaton which is in the Broxton hundred, ie Eaton adjacent to en:Eccleston, Cheshire (Q5331320), rather than the Eaton which is in the Eddisbury hundred, ie Eaton near en:Tarporley (Q29006919 / http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10175690#tab02 ). Compare the geo-coordinates on the two items, and the map of the different hundreds at en:Hundreds_of_Cheshire#Emergence_of_the_later_hundreds. Jheald (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jheald: Thanks, it looks like Vision of Britain has put the units with the wrong place, I have reverted. Lucywood (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I see you've taken on Woughton in Milton Keynes as well, which I got deeply confused by -- if I remember correctly, the OS now seems to apply the name "Woughton on the Green" to the new part of the now divided parish which doesn't include the village "Woughton on the Green" (or for that matter the Green), and doesn't appear itself corporately to use the name... What should connect to what, and how should it connect to Commons and en-wiki? I have no idea. I did try to make some adjustments, and promptly got (partially, and only on some sites) reverted by a local. So respect to you, if you got to the bottom of it! :-) Jheald (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think Woughton appears to be just a generic topic for the 2 current parishes. Lucywood (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on adding information for a set of UK council electoral wards to Wikidata. I'm doing this work in my job as a Data Analyst at mySociety (Q10851773) and it is part of a larger project to collect information on elected representatives across all countries. As part of this work I created Pembridge (Q56243412) which you merged into Pembridge (Q28836894). I've been discussing the approach with @jheald, Andrew_Gray, wroper: at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jheald#UK_Electoral_Wards. I created a new Pembridge ward because of the changes to the boundaries (which will bring changes to other potential properties like population etc.) and the number of councillors elected (from 3 to 2). I think this is sufficient reason to have two items one for Pembridge Ward pre-2014 (GSS E05000394) and one post-2014 (E05009400). Would you agree? Owenpatel (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Owenpatel: I've reverted my merge. Lucywood (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lucywood: thanks Owenpatel (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Why did you make the following two changes on this little village and community:

1. You deleted the fact that y Fali is a local government community (Q2630741)?
2. and your next edit, whereby, in the description, you also deleted the fact that Valley is a Community?
3. you changed P131 (located in the administrative territorial entity) from the local county council to itself (a village)?

Lastly, have you edited any other communities in Wales? Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Llywelyn2000: The community is at Q24636564, I merged those where possible like Q628633 but because there are 2 separate articles on 2 projects they can't be merged. Lucywood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've requested that both svwiki and cebwiki merge their articles. Two wrongs don't make a right!

Secondly, any views on my other questions please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Llywelyn2000: If there is an item on the community with the statement community, then that shouldn't be duplicated on the settlement item. Lucywood (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah! Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 16:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your edits! Can I make a small request? When you create items like Category:Stowe, Buckinghamshire (Q84077936), could you also add topic's main category (P910) to the main item (here, Stowe (Q1003761)), please? Like this: [1]. Then the links to the Commons categories from Wikipedia articles continue to work, instead of ending up in a maintenance category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, yes will do, I just thought the bots did that already though. Lucywood (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update: after a bit of work, Pi bot is now automatically adding the reciprocal topic's main category (P910) link when it's missing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unsure why you added a link to GfS's Cupar page, from Lower Milovaig (Q105062185). Was that a one-off mistake, or what? --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Tagishsimon it was a mistake, I've now added the correct id, thanks. Lucywood (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You marked Wexham Court (Q20081013) as former civil parish and gave it an end time, but afaics it's still extant, holding Parish elections only last month. Or am I missing something? Smb1001 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I've found [2] which backs you up, so it's OpenStreetMap that's out of date. Very confusing this local government stuff! Smb1001 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Smb1001: It indeed does appear to still exist, its abolishment appears to have been cancelled. Lucywood (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I just spotted the same thing [3] Smb1001 (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

You added Birker and Austhwaite (Q110491669). I assume you had a source. Maybe this one? Why not add the source in wikidata and the also for P31 add end time (Q24575125)? Maundwiki (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Maundwiki: Added end time, the source is already linked with Vision of Britain unit ID (P3615). Lucywood (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding end time. I an not sure how the source will work as in the future other things may be added.

Totally unrelated. Eastleigh Town (Q110644125) Thanks for adding information. Please understand my ignorance of how it works in England. What was it before? Did it belong to another civil parish? Maundwiki (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Maundwiki: "Eastleigh" Eastleigh (Q731069) was until 2021 an unparished area (Q7897276) when that was split between "Eastleigh Town" and Boyatt Wood (Q4952242), that's why Q731069 has "end time" 2021 for unparished area. An unparished area is generally from a district that existed before 1974 that didn't become a civil parish in 1974 when the district was abolished. Lucywood (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I will amend the Swedish article. Maundwiki (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I've just noticed that you merged Astley Bridge (Q105090468) and Astley Bridge (Q115760708) - these are not, in fact, the same place although it might look like it.

The The Bolton (Electoral Changes) Order 2022 (Q115760677) abolished the former (or will abolish in May next year) and creates the latter, with different boundaries.

I have reverted the merge, but please do let me know if you still object to the new item :) --M2Ys4U (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@M2Ys4U: Sorry, my bad, I though both said the end time was 2023 rather than one starting in 2023 and one being abolished then. Lucywood (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I removed town from your Brighton edit as It isn’t a town anymore https://www.kingseducation.com/kings-life/10-fun-facts-about-brighton#:~:text=An%20important%20first%20fact%20is,two%20to%20be%20separate%20towns but I kept city of Brighton and Hove. I hope this is good with you :). Greenfrog23 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Greenfrog23: That source makes reference to the towns to Brighton and Hove so both appear to be towns. Lucywood (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It says the towns of Brighton and Hove formed a unitary authority in 97 when both were separate towns, in 2001 city status was given. Here is another link that includes city. https://www.visitbrighton.com/ Greenfrog23 (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The districts were merged in 1997 but the towns still exist. Lucywood (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

No they don’t, I have emails from the mayor of Brighton and Brighton comms department I can send you 2A02:C7C:7A08:B200:F5EF:E02F:C08C:3681 19:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have sent your email to our Comms department who will be able to help. Thank you for getting it right. Wikipedia often gets it wrong so it's good if someone who cares edits the pages.

Kindest regards

Minna

Minna Robertson Civic Office Manager | Brighton & Hove City Council, Brighton Town Hall, Civic Parlour, Bartholomew Square , BN1 1JA

T 01273 291225 or 07824866987 | brighton-hove.gov.uk

Our customer promise to you

We will make it clear how you can contact or access our services | We will understand and get things done | We will be clear and treat you with respect

-----Original Message-----

From:

Sent: 06 May 2023 18:18

To: MayorsOffice <MayorsOffice@brighton-hove.gov.uk>

Subject:

This email originates from outside of Brighton & Hove City Council. Please think carefully before opening attachments or clicking on links. 193.117.198.82 (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous user

193.117.198. 2A02:C7C:7A08:B200:F5EF:E02F:C08C:3681 19:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your email, I share not only your concerns but also your frustrations!

This has been an ongoing issue for many years, we used to regularly go in and edit the page but every time we did someone else would then edit it back to say resort or town. Although thankfully the Wikipedia page retains both of the external links I added to the council website and to our official tourism site: www.visitbrighton.com.

As our resources are stretched instead of undertaking the Sisyphean task of updating Wikipedia, we focus on optimising the content of our website to ensure that we appear as the top result for Brighton-related searches. Please see below a screenshot of the search results for ‘Brighton’ on Google which shows that our VisitBrighton website appears before the Wikipedia entry - the majority of people use Google for online searches rather than Bing (84% Google / 9% Bing).

Thank you, Charlotte

Charlotte Barrow

Senior Marketing Executive

VisitBrighton

www.visitbrighton.com

Monday – Friday 8am-4pm 2A02:C7C:7A08:B200:F5EF:E02F:C08C:3681 19:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The current wikidata code for the Brentwood (LIRR station) is for a small commons gallery [Brentwood (Q4961750)]. This should be relocated to the commons category. --DanTD (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@DanTD: Galleries take priority over Commons categories, see Wikidata:Notability item 4. You can create an item for the category. Lucywood (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's funny. Most of the numbers have gone to the commons galleries for years. --DanTD (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've come across a number of items you have created, where you have used P31=Q1172903 (loch).

loch (Q1172903) should not be used as a P31 value for a lake, or for a sea loch. It is an item defined as a subclass of a body of water, but it is non-specific, and better P31 values exist. So for Loch na Creige (Q118874454), for instance, it is a lake, and the appropriate P31 value for the item is lake (Q23397).

You're also using Scottish parishes as P131 values. Scottish civil parishes were abolished as administrative territorial entities in 1975, and although there is no objection to their being used as P131 values, it would be ideal if you would include the local government area in which Scottish geolocatable items are found, since that is the de facto standard for P131s for Scottish geolocatable items.

t/y - --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply