There are major problems using redirects as sitelinks. The top one is that they do not always point to the concept they should, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that this redirect will keep pointing to the same place (normally to a section of another article), since the section title can change.
Wikipedia supports section labelling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion
It would be nice if someone from wd-dev could take a look and see if this could be the basis to link items with a stable section identifier in a WP article. Or if that is not possible or far from ideal, then see what other approaches are available.
Thanks, Micru
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:21 PM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Well actually, we *do* support redirects. One just has to be a bit crafty in how one creates them.
Do you have a problem with that?
If so, what is your problem?
-- James.
On 20/10/2014 11:45, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, We do not support redirects. We do not support paragraphs.Wikidata is not designed to support either. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 October 2014 10:39, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard how do you, within wikidata, properly handle the case where an
article is there on enwp, and a paragraph and a redirect to it is there on dewp?
Rupert On Oct 18, 2014 1:21 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
As you correctly quote, "one of the requirements is an article". So what is your point ? Thanks, GerardM
On 18 October 2014 12:52, John Lewis johnflewis93@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 18 October 2014, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
One of the requirements is an article.
One of three requirements. Only one has to be true for an item to be notable. Please could you stop taking this out of context making it look like Wikidata requires articles for items.
John Lewis
-- John Lewis
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
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
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
There are major problems using redirects as sitelinks. The top one is that they do not always point to the concept they should, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that this redirect will keep pointing to the same place (normally to a section of another article), since the section title can change.
Wikipedia supports section labelling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion
I would support this as a solution. It seems to solve the issue that using redirects in site links wishes to solve.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
I think we have to look at what people actually use: overwhelmingly, that is redirects, not labelled section transclusion.
Redirects are lightweight, in terms of editor time, and they do the job.
Transclusion is of course valuable in particular cases; but trying to maintain multiple different contexts for the same material would be quite a headache - tricky to create and maintain, and utterly inflexible if somebody wants to re-shape the article.
The bottom line here is that we should face reality: people are not going to create labelled section transclusions, still less have to put up with maintaining them, just to make wikidata have some more sitelinks. Realisticly, we would end up with a handful of such transclusions, at most. Whereas people create redirects every day.
Yes, a redirect is just a redirect. It's not perfect. But it's usually good enough.
Take Daniel Havell for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell
the section it points to is recognisably part of a larger article. In fact it has been written to be part of that larger article, and depends on it for context. The section is not standalone content. This is the deal with redirects, one which I do believe readers understand and accept.
Yes, if somebody changed the section name, the redirect would no longer point to the section (unless they had left an anchor). But the redirect would still point to the right article; and given that at best redirects are just redirects, and depend on the rest of the article for context anyway, the less precise link is not *such* a big loss.
The key thing about allowing sitelinks to redirects is that they are the mechanism that is actually used.
The sitelink should point to where on the wiki there is content that matches the actual meaning of the item. If that happens to be a redirect, so be it.
The best can be the enemy of the good. I simply do not believe that labelled section transclusions will happen to any great degree; and I think editors would find even those that did to be an endless pain to maintain. They are not a promise for which it is worth sacrificing the benefits of all the redirects we should and could be sitelinking to.
-- James.
On 20/10/2014 20:44, Derric Atzrott wrote:
There are major problems using redirects as sitelinks. The top one is that they do not always point to the concept they should, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that this redirect will keep pointing to the same place (normally to a section of another article), since the section title can change.
Wikipedia supports section labelling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion
I would support this as a solution. It seems to solve the issue that using redirects in site links wishes to solve.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Another thing that I am seeing now is that parsoid plans to add IDs to all elements: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/MediaWiki_DOM_spec/Element_IDs
I don't know enough about it to see if those element IDs could be used as section identifiers, but it might be well worth to ask about it.
Cheers, Micru
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:24 PM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I think we have to look at what people actually use: overwhelmingly, that is redirects, not labelled section transclusion.
Redirects are lightweight, in terms of editor time, and they do the job.
Transclusion is of course valuable in particular cases; but trying to maintain multiple different contexts for the same material would be quite a headache - tricky to create and maintain, and utterly inflexible if somebody wants to re-shape the article.
The bottom line here is that we should face reality: people are not going to create labelled section transclusions, still less have to put up with maintaining them, just to make wikidata have some more sitelinks. Realisticly, we would end up with a handful of such transclusions, at most. Whereas people create redirects every day.
Yes, a redirect is just a redirect. It's not perfect. But it's usually good enough.
Take Daniel Havell for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell
the section it points to is recognisably part of a larger article. In fact it has been written to be part of that larger article, and depends on it for context. The section is not standalone content. This is the deal with redirects, one which I do believe readers understand and accept.
Yes, if somebody changed the section name, the redirect would no longer point to the section (unless they had left an anchor). But the redirect would still point to the right article; and given that at best redirects are just redirects, and depend on the rest of the article for context anyway, the less precise link is not *such* a big loss.
The key thing about allowing sitelinks to redirects is that they are the mechanism that is actually used.
The sitelink should point to where on the wiki there is content that matches the actual meaning of the item. If that happens to be a redirect, so be it.
The best can be the enemy of the good. I simply do not believe that labelled section transclusions will happen to any great degree; and I think editors would find even those that did to be an endless pain to maintain. They are not a promise for which it is worth sacrificing the benefits of all the redirects we should and could be sitelinking to.
-- James.
On 20/10/2014 20:44, Derric Atzrott wrote:
There are major problems using redirects as sitelinks. The top one is
that they do not always point to the concept they should, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that this redirect will keep pointing to the same place (normally to a section of another article), since the section title can change.
Wikipedia supports section labelling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion
I would support this as a solution. It seems to solve the issue that using redirects in site links wishes to solve.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
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
Hoi, I am totally happy for Wikipedia to have redirects. I do not mind as long as it stops there,. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 October 2014 22:24, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I think we have to look at what people actually use: overwhelmingly, that is redirects, not labelled section transclusion.
Redirects are lightweight, in terms of editor time, and they do the job.
Transclusion is of course valuable in particular cases; but trying to maintain multiple different contexts for the same material would be quite a headache - tricky to create and maintain, and utterly inflexible if somebody wants to re-shape the article.
The bottom line here is that we should face reality: people are not going to create labelled section transclusions, still less have to put up with maintaining them, just to make wikidata have some more sitelinks. Realisticly, we would end up with a handful of such transclusions, at most. Whereas people create redirects every day.
Yes, a redirect is just a redirect. It's not perfect. But it's usually good enough.
Take Daniel Havell for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell
the section it points to is recognisably part of a larger article. In fact it has been written to be part of that larger article, and depends on it for context. The section is not standalone content. This is the deal with redirects, one which I do believe readers understand and accept.
Yes, if somebody changed the section name, the redirect would no longer point to the section (unless they had left an anchor). But the redirect would still point to the right article; and given that at best redirects are just redirects, and depend on the rest of the article for context anyway, the less precise link is not *such* a big loss.
The key thing about allowing sitelinks to redirects is that they are the mechanism that is actually used.
The sitelink should point to where on the wiki there is content that matches the actual meaning of the item. If that happens to be a redirect, so be it.
The best can be the enemy of the good. I simply do not believe that labelled section transclusions will happen to any great degree; and I think editors would find even those that did to be an endless pain to maintain. They are not a promise for which it is worth sacrificing the benefits of all the redirects we should and could be sitelinking to.
-- James.
On 20/10/2014 20:44, Derric Atzrott wrote:
There are major problems using redirects as sitelinks. The top one is
that they do not always point to the concept they should, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that this redirect will keep pointing to the same place (normally to a section of another article), since the section title can change.
Wikipedia supports section labelling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion
I would support this as a solution. It seems to solve the issue that using redirects in site links wishes to solve.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
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
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:36 PM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
There are major problems using redirects as sitelinks. The top one is that they do not always point to the concept they should, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that this redirect will keep pointing to the same place (normally to a section of another article), since the section title can change.
Wikipedia supports section labelling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion
It would be nice if someone from wd-dev could take a look and see if this could be the basis to link items with a stable section identifier in a WP article. Or if that is not possible or far from ideal, then see what other approaches are available.
Right now I am not sure how we'd be doing that in a usable and non-intrusive way but please do keep brainstorming.
Cheers from California for a change Lydia
Am 23.10.2014 16:42, schrieb Lydia Pintscher:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:36 PM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
There are major problems using redirects as sitelinks. The top one is that they do not always point to the concept they should, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that this redirect will keep pointing to the same place (normally to a section of another article), since the section title can change.
Wikipedia supports section labelling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion
It would be nice if someone from wd-dev could take a look and see if this could be the basis to link items with a stable section identifier in a WP article. Or if that is not possible or far from ideal, then see what other approaches are available.
Right now I am not sure how we'd be doing that in a usable and non-intrusive way but please do keep brainstorming.
Making pages that just transclude part of another page strikes me as odd (generally, you compose a big page from small snippets, not the other way around).
As a solution to the "ambiguous sitelink" issue, I'd rather see us allowing sitelinks to redirects directly than forcing people to use a hack like this. Note that currently, we can't just do this without breaking some assumptions/expectations. We'll need to hink hard about how to get this right. But section transcusion doesn't strike me as a good way to go about this.
-- daniel