[Wiki Loves Monuments] Moving monuments database to Wikidata

[Andy Mabbett]

On 26 July 2015 at 17:38, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Andy Mabbett, 26/07/2015 18:28:
>>>
>>> 1) the name of the object may not be unique hence we may be unable to
>>> satisfy Wikidata requirements on label/description uniqueness,
>>
>> Wikidata does not require unique names.
>
> If so, please fix the docs. "Uniqueness for a combination of a label and a
> description is a hard constraint that must be satisfied before a change can
> be saved." https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Glossary

We're at cross purposes. I read the slash in your "label/description"
as "or", you mean"and". Achieving a unique combination of label AND
description should not be beyond your resources.

Consider:

   Label: St John's Church
   Description: A church in East Birmingham

   Label: St John's Church
   Description: A church in North Birmingham

>>> 3) it must be fine to create items that contain no information other than
>>> the name;
>>
>> No, this is not OK (and they may be deleted); but nor is it necessary.
>
> How so? We often don't know more than the name-

You know that it's (say) a building or a protected monument, or both.

>>> 4) it must be as easy to add coordinates to multiple items as it is with
>>> an
>>> on-wiki table;
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because that's the process used to add coordinates.

That's a circular argument, and does not answer my question.

>>> 6) it must be easy to publish new groups of items on the go, because the
>>> list is built gradually (and very slowly) as we get new authorisations;
>>
>> It is.
>
> Needs to be verified with those who maintain the list (i.e. Cristian Cenci
> and WMIT secretariat).

No: it is. This is inarguable. I have done it, as have many others.

>> This is, I believe, possible. For example:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Wikidata_lists/Items_with_ORCIDs
>>
>> is built by a bot.
>
> That's a very trivial query, on WDQ just claim[496]. The query I described
> is way more complex.

The principles apply.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk