While on this concept of modelling Wikidata items for multi-concept
Wikipedia pages, I would like to remind you of another case, in which
cross-project spam is deleted in only a subset of language Wikipedias,
leaving a few links or just the Wikidata item. I would like there to be
some trace of the previously existing Wikipedia links, that each link to
the deletion discussion in the associated Wikipedia. Is this possible?
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Markus Krötzsch <
markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
Me again. After some coffee and digesting the edit
that Eric made to
address the Samoan Clipper issue, I can see several (better?) alternatives
to my first proposal. This also takes into account some comments of James,
Mohamed, and Purodha.
I can see three patterns to solve such issues:
== (1) Main concept + sub-concept ==
Situation: There is a "main" concept, but it is closely connected to
another concept (such as a particularly notable event). Most Wikipedias
have both described in one article.
Example: The plane "Samoan Clipper" and the crash of that plane.
Solution: Keep all Wikipedias connected to the "main" concept (the plane)
and create a new items for the subconcept (the crash) that is not linked to
any Wikipedia. It can be somewhat arbitrary what we pick as the main
concept in cases like this. This is what Emw did on
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7409943.
== (2) Two first-class concepts ==
Situtation: There are several distinct concepts, even if some Wikipedias
only have one article that includes a section on the other.
Example: "The Beatles" and "Paul McCartney".
Solution: Keep distinct items with distinct language links. Try to decide
for each Wikipedia with only one article whether it is more about the one
or about the other concept.
== (3) Several first-class concepts + multi-topic page(s) ==
Situation: Several Wikipedias have distinct articles for two distinct
concepts, but in some Wikipedias there is only one article that combines
the two.
Example: Wangerooge (island?, municipality?, both?)
Solution 1: Select a "main concept" for each article involved and link it
only to this -> pattern (2).
Solution 2: Create a third item in the way that I suggested earlier (a
page for the combined item that is linked to but distinct from the
individual items).
== What's the best pattern now? ==
Of the above patterns, (1) has the most interlanguage connections. (2) has
a medium amount of connections, and (3) has the least amount of
connections. There is a kind of natural transition from (1) (split only
inside Wikidata) to (2) (split visible in Wikipedias) to (3) (split and
combinations visible in Wikipedias). It's the natural transition from
coarse-grained/unified to fine-grained/diverse presentation in Wikipedia(s).
Considering all this, I would use my earlier suggestion ((3) with solution
2) only in exceptional cases. Indeed, Edward asked his original question
since he saw a problem when trying to add *more* language links in a
situation that applied pattern (2) so far. My suggestion would not fix this
issue at all but rather reduce the linking further. I think (3) really only
makes sense in cases where any assignment of a "main concept" would seem
unacceptable for some article.
The main thing we have to take care about when splitting into several
items is to ensure that we don't import statements from Wikipedia into the
wrong item. Despite the obvious concern that an item should not be a plane
and a crash at the same time, it would also be really bad to have two items
about the same crash (one specific on the crash only and one combined with
crash and plane) -- even counting the plane crashes on Wikidata would lead
to misleading results then.
== What to do with Wangerooge? ==
It seems to me that (2) is already optimal in this situation from a
Wikidata viewpoint. To get additional language links displayed in English,
you could manually add them to the article (yes, I agree that this has
other issues). Also, I don't know if you can have language links to
multiple pages on the same other Wikipedia using manual links (which seems
what Edward was trying to do by connecting the same enwiki article to
multiple items).
Cheers,
Markus
On 09.09.2014 13:50, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Am 09.09.2014 13:36, schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
My proposal became more clear to me over lunch:
For articles that are really about multiple different things that cannot
be
reconciled in a single natural concept:
* State "intance of:Wikipedia article with multiple topics" (we already
have
several other classes of Wikipedia articles).
* Use some property, say "has topic", to link to items about the
individual topics.
* Optionally: use a property like "subject of" (P805) to link back from
the
individual items to the multi-topic pages.
The main proposal here is to treat these things like Wikipedia
disambiguation
pages: we have items, but the items are mainly about the page, not about
any
real-world concept we care about.
Thanks Markus, I like that a lot :)
-- daniel
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l