OK Andy & Gerard, cut it out! I like both of you, but we will never fix things this way. As you correctly point out Gerard, Wikipedians should spend more time adding labels and aliases to existing items and creating new items on Wikidata rather than just making redirects on Wikipedia. As you correctly pointed out Andy, it IS physically possible to include categories and templates on redirects (but if you do this in the way Gerard suggests than it is a small step to create a stub that deserves a sitelink from Wikidata). More Wikidatans should probably spend more time fixing and splitting Wikipedia articles, but since the majority of Wikpedians don't understand Wikidata at all, I think this should NOT be done unless you are already a Wikipedian in good standing. Personallly I think it is ridiculous that Robert Havell, Jr. does not have his own Wikipedia article and is only included in a bundled-up version of a few members of his extended family.

Clearly, Derric's comments indicate that this email thread has not helped matters any. I am just as frustrated as Gerard and don't know how to explain why sitelinks to redirects are "A REALLY BAD THING" because to me it is so obvious.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
When a position is taken that is manifestly wrong, it is worse to desist. Andy I like you too but calling someone a dick because he does not agree with you and calls bullshit on the points taken, the examples supplied is not in the best tradition of our projects.

Wikidata is NOT there to serve the English Wikipedia  at the expense of its own integrity.  A wish has been formulated to support redirects by WIkipedians while Wikidata has been EXPLICITLY designed NOT to support redirects but more importantly parts of articles.

If a project does not have or want to have an article on a given subject, Wikidata can provide information when used in combination with the Reasonator. 

Articles are about a subject and CONSEQUENTLY they should have categories and info boxes that are in line with the subject of the article. The ARTICLE 2014 ISIL beheading incidents for instance is NOT about a human and it should NOT have a category "deaths in 2014" or any other information that is particular to one person. The same is true for "Death of Alice Gross"; it is NOT about Alice Gross. When an article is just text and nobody cares about such consistencies, fine. However, you want articles like this linked and someone else is to clean up such mess. This prevents automated processes, it is bad practice and it is part of the same practice/school of thought whereby we are to have redirects ...  Hell no!

Please reconsider your arguments and please do not be a dick yourself..
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 21 October 2014 21:21, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 21 October 2014 07:13, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:

> If this Jackson Douglas is the best that you can do, you destroyed the
> argument that it has merit.

Gerard,

I like you; but you're being a dick. Please desist.

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

_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l


_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l