Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/YSObot

YSObot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: YSObot (talk • contribs • logs)

Task/s: Account for mapping Wikidata with General Finnish Ontology (Q27303896) and the YSO-places ontology by adding YSO ID (P2347) and for creating new corresponding concepts in case there are no matches.

Code: n/a. Uploads will be done mainly with Openrefine, Mix'n'Match and crresopoinding tools.

Function details: YSO includes over 40.000 concepts and about half of them are already maapped. The mapping includes

• adding possible missing labels in Finnish, Swedish and English
• adding YSO ID (P2347) with subject named as (P1810) values from YSO
• adding stated in (P248) with value YSO-Wikidata mapping project (Q89345680) and retrieved (P813) with the date.

Matches are checked manually before upload. Double-checking is controlled afterwords by using the Constraint violations report

Flag/s: High-volume editing, Edit existing pages, Create, edit, and move pages

--YSObot (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The bot was running without approval (this page was never included). I asked the operator to first get it approved. Can you please explain the creation of museum (Q113965327) & theatre (Q113965328) and similar duplicate items? Multichill (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  museo (Q113965327) & teatteri (Q113965328) are part of the Finnish National Land Survey classification for places. These classes will be mapped with existing items if they are exact matches by using Property:P2959.

  Considering duplicate YSO-ID instances: these are most often due to modeling differences between Wikdata and YSO. Some concepts are split in the other one and vice versa. These are due to linguistic and cultural differences in vocabularies and concept formation. Currently the duplicates would be added to the exceptions list in the YSO-ID property P2347. However, lifting the single value constraint for this proerty is another options here.

  Anyway, YSObot is currently an important tool in efforts to complete the mappings of the 30.000+ conepts of YSO with Wikidata. Uploads of YSO-IDs are made to reconciled items from OpenRefine. See YSO-Wikidata mapping project and the log of YSObot. For the moment, uploads are done usually only to 10-500 items at time few times per day max. Saarik (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not really how Wikidata works. All your new creations look like duplicates of existing items so shouldn't have been created. Your proposed usage of {{P|P2959} is incorrect. With the current explanation I  Oppose this bot. You should first clean up all these duplicates before doing any more edits with this bot. @Susannaanas: care to comment on this? Multichill (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This bot is very important, we just need to reach common understanding about how to model the specific Finnish National Land Survey concepts. I have myself struggled with them previously. There is no need to oppose to the bot itself. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  why do we want to maintain permanently duplicated items? this seems like a bad outcome. why not instead make these subclasses of the things they are duplicates of. or attach the identifier to already existing items. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this discussion went a little astray from the original purpose of YSObot.

  The creation of the Finnish National Land Survey place types were erroneously made with the YSObot account although they are not related to YSO at all. I was adding them manually with Openrefine but forgot to change the user ids in my Openrefine! I though that that would not be a big issue. The comments by @Multichilland @BrokenSegue are not really related to the original use of YSObot and do not belong here at all but rather to Q106589826 Talk page.

  About the duplicate question - Earliear, I did exactly that and added these to already existing items with "instance of" property. THe I received feedback and was told to create separate items for the types. So now I am getting to totally opposite instructions from you guys. Lets move this discussion to its proper place.

  And please, add the correct rights for this bot account, if they are still missing as we still need to add the remaining 10.000+ identifiers. Saarik (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose as per above. If you refrain from creating new items I would probably support it if I could easily see the flow of logic.
• I strongly encourage you to publish an actvity planuml diagram showing he logic of the matching.
• Thanks in advance. So9q (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]