For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their articles more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I get more and more complaints from users that they do not understand any more how to add a newly written article to an item. They seem to have tried, but fail in actual getting it managed. That is a worse development!
Romaine
Romaine, Lydia and Wikidatans,
In what ways can we engage the weekly summary and the newsletter, and other approaches, for example, to help educate users about best ways to "add a newly written article to an item," or a language, easily, since wikidata/wikibase beneficial changes to Wikipedia may well lead to less authorial/editorial ease?
Wikipedia's initial wondrous growth into 287 + languages is due significantly to ease of crowd-source editing this collaborative wiki encyclopedia, as I see it, and this is well worth trying to continue to facilitate for many, many reasons. Flourishing users and editors are one of the most important communities to nurture, as I see it. How best to help users understand wikidata?
Scott
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their articles more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I get more and more complaints from users that they do not understand any more how to add a newly written article to an item. They seem to have tried, but fail in actual getting it managed. That is a worse development!
Romaine
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
The impression I get from experienced users is that they are much annoyed and use now some work around to get things done, but they do not understand it. Less experienced users do not understand it either and also aren't able to add site links any more. Instead they ask experienced users to add it for them as they do not manage themselves to do it.
Explaining to less experienced users was never easy, but now I can't let them understand at all. The current version of the software of Wikidata is not built for less experienced and less technical users. The current situation is not logic and not understandable. In general I am in favour of educating users how it works, but this isn't explainable as I have seen how inexperienced users already before had great difficulty working with Wikidata, even while they had a coach next to them. It is overestimated how easy the Wikidata software is, and underestimated how much less experienced and less technical users have difficulties with the software. For Wikidata we need software that noobs can handle and can work with, so that everyone can participate in this wiki.
Romaine
2014-10-12 4:18 GMT+02:00 Scott MacLeod worlduniversityandschool@gmail.com :
Romaine, Lydia and Wikidatans,
In what ways can we engage the weekly summary and the newsletter, and other approaches, for example, to help educate users about best ways to "add a newly written article to an item," or a language, easily, since wikidata/wikibase beneficial changes to Wikipedia may well lead to less authorial/editorial ease?
Wikipedia's initial wondrous growth into 287 + languages is due significantly to ease of crowd-source editing this collaborative wiki encyclopedia, as I see it, and this is well worth trying to continue to facilitate for many, many reasons. Flourishing users and editors are one of the most important communities to nurture, as I see it. How best to help users understand wikidata?
Scott
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their articles more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I get more and more complaints from users that they do not understand any more how to add a newly written article to an item. They seem to have tried, but fail in actual getting it managed. That is a worse development!
Romaine
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
--
- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- 415 480 4577
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- World University and School - like Wikipedia with MIT OpenCourseWare
(not endorsed by MIT OCW) - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization, both effective April 2010.
World University and School is sending you this because of your interest in free, online, higher education. If you don't want to receive these, please reply with 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. Thank you.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their articles more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I get more and more complaints from users that they do not understand any more how to add a newly written article to an item. They seem to have tried, but fail in actual getting it managed. That is a worse development!
Romaine,
How more can I help you? I already told you that I recognize the problem and that a fix is high priority. The only thing I did not tell you yet is how we are going to fix it exactly. That is because that will depend on discussions I can hopefully have tomorrow.
Cheers Lydia
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an other mail. I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One is about the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have difficulties in adding site links.
I am happy hearing you say it is a high priority.
Romaine
2014-10-12 8:39 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their
articles
more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I
get
more and more complaints from users that they do not understand any more
how
to add a newly written article to an item. They seem to have tried, but
fail
in actual getting it managed. That is a worse development!
Romaine,
How more can I help you? I already told you that I recognize the problem and that a fix is high priority. The only thing I did not tell you yet is how we are going to fix it exactly. That is because that will depend on discussions I can hopefully have tomorrow.
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an other mail. I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One is about the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have difficulties in adding site links.
Linking a newly created article would be done using the "add links" feature at the bottom of the sidebar. That should not have changed at all in the last couple of months, as far as I know.
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is problematic?
Il 13/ott/2014 14:07 "Daniel Kinzler" daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de ha scritto:
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is
problematic?
+1
I'm sorry, but I edited today Wikidata after a while, and I didn't noticed anything *that* problematic to prevented me to edit.
L.
On Oct 13, 2014 2:07 PM, "Daniel Kinzler" daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an
other mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One
is about
the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have difficulties in adding site links.
Linking a newly created article would be done using the "add links"
feature at
the bottom of the sidebar. That should not have changed at all in the last couple of months, as far as I know.
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is
problematic?
I tried to link "afrikanische Pflaume " to "safou " the fruit and got an error which was not helpful. I tried to report it here, and nobody used time to look into it. So my personal user experience degraded from usable to not usable.
But I have no idea which change caused the this.
Rupert
Hoi, This issue was mentioned before. There are two distinct concepts as I recall. One article can only be linked from one project to only one concept.
So in essence you link an item to a Q**** and not to "safou". There have been no changes at all about this from the start of Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 October 2014 16:59, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2014 2:07 PM, "Daniel Kinzler" daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an
other mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One
is about
the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have difficulties in adding site links.
Linking a newly created article would be done using the "add links"
feature at
the bottom of the sidebar. That should not have changed at all in the
last
couple of months, as far as I know.
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is
problematic?
I tried to link "afrikanische Pflaume " to "safou " the fruit and got an error which was not helpful. I tried to report it here, and nobody used time to look into it. So my personal user experience degraded from usable to not usable.
But I have no idea which change caused the this.
Rupert
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Could you do me a favor please and try to link it out of Wikipedia and then tell how I should have done it? On Oct 13, 2014 6:29 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This issue was mentioned before. There are two distinct concepts as I recall. One article can only be linked from one project to only one concept.
So in essence you link an item to a Q**** and not to "safou". There have been no changes at all about this from the start of Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 October 2014 16:59, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2014 2:07 PM, "Daniel Kinzler" daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an
other mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One
is about
the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have difficulties in adding site links.
Linking a newly created article would be done using the "add links"
feature at
the bottom of the sidebar. That should not have changed at all in the
last
couple of months, as far as I know.
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is
problematic?
I tried to link "afrikanische Pflaume " to "safou " the fruit and got an error which was not helpful. I tried to report it here, and nobody used time to look into it. So my personal user experience degraded from usable to not usable.
But I have no idea which change caused the this.
Rupert
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 multiple issues with linking the German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" to the French Wikipedia's "safou":
1) A tree can only interwikilink to a tree or combined article on the tree + fruit and a fruit can only interwikilink to a fruit or a combined article on the tree + fruit (this is the "single vs. multiple concepts" problem Gerard refers to) 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:59 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2014 2:07 PM, "Daniel Kinzler" daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an
other mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One
is about
the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have difficulties in adding site links.
Linking a newly created article would be done using the "add links"
feature at
the bottom of the sidebar. That should not have changed at all in the
last
couple of months, as far as I know.
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is
problematic?
I tried to link "afrikanische Pflaume " to "safou " the fruit and got an error which was not helpful. I tried to report it here, and nobody used time to look into it. So my personal user experience degraded from usable to not usable.
But I have no idea which change caused the this.
Rupert
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to * go to client wiki, * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect * add a sitelink * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_all_occupations_b...
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice: * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
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 seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
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
I agree. While redirects may be useful in the context of normal wiki pages and help pages, they are counterproductive otherwise and must not be used. Can we not permit / disallow redirects per-namespace via Wiki configuration? Purodha
"Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. When a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to * go to client wiki, * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect * add a sitelink * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_all_occupations_b...]
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice: * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola <smolensk@eunet.rs[smolensk@eunet.rs]> wrote: Citiranje Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com[jane023@gmail.com]>:2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus" You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[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%5Bhttps://lists.wiki...]
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
* Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* not the item. * It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
* "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
* "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell&redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* not
the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
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
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* not
the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to > "Prunus" > > You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
With a view to supporting mobile, why bundle concepts needlessly into large articles? Why not split them out and use the typical Wikipedia blue link methodology to link them together? Some of the English Wikipedia articles are very unwieldy on mobile and you need to scroll through lots of stuff to get the information you are looking for. In the case you are describing however, I find the article rather short and I can't even see any reference to the occupation of hatmaker at all unless you are referring to a list of notable hatters and milliners (which also seems rather short).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I
am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the
sitelink to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as
its object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and > the > >> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to >> "Prunus" >> >> >> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect > the > old > way, > are you not? > > >
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
There is one big field, where redirects make sense: lists (of characters) or members of bands
*Rob Bourdon (Q19205) have article in 38 languages. There is also part of article de:Linkin_Park, which is about him and [[de:Rob Bourdon]] is redirect. *Character X from tv series Y is not notable enough to have separate article, but it should have own item on wikidata. And there is article about him in some small wiki. When you search , you found that there is one article, but fifteen redirects to section (List of Y characters#X) *Fred Weasley (Q13359612) have one sitelink (to redirect), but informations are in en, cs, fr, es, it, pt, pl, da and others too. But when I want to find relevant articles, I must try each language separate. With alowed redirects, I find it.
JAnD
2014-10-16 11:06 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
With a view to supporting mobile, why bundle concepts needlessly into large articles? Why not split them out and use the typical Wikipedia blue link methodology to link them together? Some of the English Wikipedia articles are very unwieldy on mobile and you need to scroll through lots of stuff to get the information you are looking for. In the case you are describing however, I find the article rather short and I can't even see any reference to the occupation of hatmaker at all unless you are referring to a list of notable hatters and milliners (which also seems rather short).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the
sitelink to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as
its object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs > wrote: > > Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: > >> >> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and >> the >>> >>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect >>> to >>> "Prunus" >>> >>> >> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect >> the >> old >> way, >> are you not? >> >>
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
I don't understand why you can't make an item for each character or each person in a band. As long as you have a valid reference (IMDb? Book? out of my league here) you can make an item for anything
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Jan Dudík jan.dudik@gmail.com wrote:
There is one big field, where redirects make sense: lists (of characters) or members of bands
*Rob Bourdon (Q19205) have article in 38 languages. There is also part of article de:Linkin_Park, which is about him and [[de:Rob Bourdon]] is redirect. *Character X from tv series Y is not notable enough to have separate article, but it should have own item on wikidata. And there is article about him in some small wiki. When you search , you found that there is one article, but fifteen redirects to section (List of Y characters#X) *Fred Weasley (Q13359612) have one sitelink (to redirect), but informations are in en, cs, fr, es, it, pt, pl, da and others too. But when I want to find relevant articles, I must try each language separate. With alowed redirects, I find it.
JAnD
2014-10-16 11:06 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
With a view to supporting mobile, why bundle concepts needlessly into
large
articles? Why not split them out and use the typical Wikipedia blue link methodology to link them together? Some of the English Wikipedia articles are very unwieldy on mobile and you need to scroll through lots of stuff
to
get the information you are looking for. In the case you are describing however, I find the article rather short and I can't even see any
reference
to the occupation of hatmaker at all unless you are referring to a list
of
notable hatters and milliners (which also seems rather short).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that
is a
decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in
that
language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article
in its
own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk
wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what
I
am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not
exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined
for
"Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell&
redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is
a
good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly
Wikipedia
centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an
disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects: > > > As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to > * go to client wiki, > * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect > * add a sitelink > * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. > > Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming
technical
> barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. > > > Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a > perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg > most > recently at > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ > all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F > > which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 > > > But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to > redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly > roundabout process above). > > > Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and > for > all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are > useful, > and should be created. > > > But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to
confirm
> the > practice: > * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the > sitelink > to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. > * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item
as
> its > object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. > > > After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis > en > masse, and site-linking them. > > This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where
wiki
> A > has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all > in > sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen > different > primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the > profession > 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). > > > Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to
keeping a
> clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to > the > most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. > > -- James. > > > > On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: > > nope >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola <
smolensk@eunet.rs>
>> wrote: >> >> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >> >>> >>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect,
and
>>> the >>>> >>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect >>>> to >>>> "Prunus" >>>> >>>> >>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect >>> the >>> old >>> way, >>> are you not? >>> >>>
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
You can make an *item* on Wikidata, no problem.
But if you try to make a corresponding *article* on en-wiki, people will fold it into a list.
So it would be good for the *item* on Wikidata to point to the *redirect* that is permitted on en-wiki.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 12:54, Jane Darnell wrote:
I don't understand why you can't make an item for each character or each person in a band. As long as you have a valid reference (IMDb? Book? out of my league here) you can make an item for anything
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Jan Dudík jan.dudik@gmail.com wrote:
There is one big field, where redirects make sense: lists (of characters) or members of bands
*Rob Bourdon (Q19205) have article in 38 languages. There is also part of article de:Linkin_Park, which is about him and [[de:Rob Bourdon]] is redirect. *Character X from tv series Y is not notable enough to have separate article, but it should have own item on wikidata. And there is article about him in some small wiki. When you search , you found that there is one article, but fifteen redirects to section (List of Y characters#X) *Fred Weasley (Q13359612) have one sitelink (to redirect), but informations are in en, cs, fr, es, it, pt, pl, da and others too. But when I want to find relevant articles, I must try each language separate. With alowed redirects, I find it.
JAnD
2014-10-16 11:06 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
With a view to supporting mobile, why bundle concepts needlessly into
large
articles? Why not split them out and use the typical Wikipedia blue link methodology to link them together? Some of the English Wikipedia articles are very unwieldy on mobile and you need to scroll through lots of stuff
to
get the information you are looking for. In the case you are describing however, I find the article rather short and I can't even see any
reference
to the occupation of hatmaker at all unless you are referring to a list
of
notable hatters and milliners (which also seems rather short).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that
is a
decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in
that
language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article
in its
own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk
wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what
I
am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not
exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined
for
"Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell&
redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi, > I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is
a
> good > thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly
Wikipedia
> centric and they introduce new things that do not exist. > > > - a redirect page to three pages is also called an
disambiguation
> page.. > We do support them. They are not redirects. > - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it > only > takes a label to add the needed link to the subject > > Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote: > > Creating sitelinks to redirects: >> >> >> As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to >> * go to client wiki, >> * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect >> * add a sitelink >> * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. >> >> Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming
technical
>> barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. >> >> >> Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a >> perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg >> most >> recently at >> >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ >> all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F >> >> which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 >> >> >> But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to >> redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly >> roundabout process above). >> >> >> Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and >> for >> all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are >> useful, >> and should be created. >> >> >> But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to
confirm
>> the >> practice: >> * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the >> sitelink >> to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. >> * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item
as
>> its >> object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. >> >> >> After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis >> en >> masse, and site-linking them. >> >> This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where
wiki
>> A >> has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all >> in >> sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen >> different >> primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the >> profession >> 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). >> >> >> Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to
keeping a
>> clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to >> the >> most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. >> >> -- James. >> >> >> >> On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: >> >> nope >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola <
smolensk@eunet.rs>
>>> wrote: >>> >>> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >>> >>>> >>>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect,
and
>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect >>>>> to >>>>> "Prunus" >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect >>>> the >>>> old >>>> way, >>>> are you not? >>>> >>>>
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
I do not mind having huge numbers of redirects at all, but you must be aware that there are wikipedias the powers of which will stubbornly and customarily delete such redirects when you create them. So that cannot be a solutiion for all.
Purodha
"James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk writes:
You can make an *item* on Wikidata, no problem.
But if you try to make a corresponding *article* on en-wiki, people will fold it into a list.
So it would be good for the *item* on Wikidata to point to the *redirect* that is permitted on en-wiki.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 12:54, Jane Darnell wrote:
I don't understand why you can't make an item for each character or each person in a band. As long as you have a valid reference (IMDb? Book? out of my league here) you can make an item for anything
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Jan Dudík jan.dudik@gmail.com wrote:
There is one big field, where redirects make sense: lists (of characters) or members of bands
*Rob Bourdon (Q19205) have article in 38 languages. There is also part of article de:Linkin_Park, which is about him and [[de:Rob Bourdon]] is redirect. *Character X from tv series Y is not notable enough to have separate article, but it should have own item on wikidata. And there is article about him in some small wiki. When you search , you found that there is one article, but fifteen redirects to section (List of Y characters#X) *Fred Weasley (Q13359612) have one sitelink (to redirect), but informations are in en, cs, fr, es, it, pt, pl, da and others too. But when I want to find relevant articles, I must try each language separate. With alowed redirects, I find it.
JAnD
2014-10-16 11:06 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
With a view to supporting mobile, why bundle concepts needlessly into
large
articles? Why not split them out and use the typical Wikipedia blue link methodology to link them together? Some of the English Wikipedia articles are very unwieldy on mobile and you need to scroll through lots of stuff
to
get the information you are looking for. In the case you are describing however, I find the article rather short and I can't even see any
reference
to the occupation of hatmaker at all unless you are referring to a list
of
notable hatters and milliners (which also seems rather short).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that
is a
decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in
that
language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article
in its
own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk
wrote:
> I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what
I
> am > saying. > > To be clearer: > > * Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* > not > the item. > * It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a > featured article in some language, or any other badge. > > I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not
exist"
> > > Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently. > > * "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article > on > it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375 > > * "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article > on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649 > > The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an > occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship. > > It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to > the > "Hatmaker" item. > > > At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker". > > What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no > with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page. > > > At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined
for
> "Hatmaking" > > What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, > linking > to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the > "Hatmaking" > item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages. > > > > To give another example: > > On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell > which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. > (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for > tests) > > On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead > there > is a redirect,
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell&
> redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell > family: >
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
> > Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this > redirect. > > That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on > :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it. > > > As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about. > > I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now. > > > All best, > > James. > > > > > On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> Hoi, >> I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is
a
>> good >> thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly
Wikipedia
>> centric and they introduce new things that do not exist. >> >> >> - a redirect page to three pages is also called an
disambiguation
>> page.. >> We do support them. They are not redirects. >> - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it >> only >> takes a label to add the needed link to the subject >> >> Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote: >> >> Creating sitelinks to redirects: >>> >>> >>> As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to >>> * go to client wiki, >>> * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect >>> * add a sitelink >>> * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. >>> >>> Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming
technical
>>> barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. >>> >>> >>> Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a >>> perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg >>> most >>> recently at >>> >>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ >>> all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F >>> >>> which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 >>> >>> >>> But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to >>> redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly >>> roundabout process above). >>> >>> >>> Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and >>> for >>> all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are >>> useful, >>> and should be created. >>> >>> >>> But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to
confirm
>>> the >>> practice: >>> * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the >>> sitelink >>> to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. >>> * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item
as
>>> its >>> object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. >>> >>> >>> After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis >>> en >>> masse, and site-linking them. >>> >>> This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where
wiki
>>> A >>> has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all >>> in >>> sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen >>> different >>> primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the >>> profession >>> 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). >>> >>> >>> Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to
keeping a
>>> clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to >>> the >>> most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. >>> >>> -- James. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: >>> >>> nope >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola <
smolensk@eunet.rs>
>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect,
and
>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect >>>>>> to >>>>>> "Prunus" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect >>>>> the >>>>> old >>>>> way, >>>>> are you not? >>>>> >>>>>
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
Purodha, Redirects are cheap - so cheap in fact, that they take up more space when you delete them, so even if they are misspelled or whatever, they are mostly left to rot unless they break something (for example when someone wants to use a redlink like [[redlink]] and someone else makes a redirect for "redlink"). I don't think there is any Wikimedia project that actively deletes redirects.
In general, redirects are supposed to be used as alternate names for the same thing, and in Wikidata, this is done by typing in alternate labels. Of course people also use redirects as a way of "bundling concepts" - just take a look at all the redirects to the article for "insurance" for all the types of insurance that don't yet have their own article.
Before Wikidata there were lots of interwiki links to redirects, and this caused multiple issues with unresolvable interwikilinks. Wikidata was invented to be able to use persistent identifiers for Wikipedia articles. Now everyone is surprised that now the interwikilinks work differently from before. The fact that redirects are not supported is by design and not a bug. Going forward, instead of making redirects, Wikidatans should just keep creating items in Wikidata and let the Wikipedias take care of themselves by letting them create articles and redirects in the normal wiki way. It should not be a goal for Wikidata to sitelink to every redirect in every Wikipedia, just as it is not a goal to sitelink to every image on Wikimedia Commons.
The subject at hand in this email thread is that instead of creating an article, the user ThurnerRupert made a redirect in the German Wikipedia called "afrikanische Pflaume" that links to "Prunus" and expected to be able to interwikilink this redirect via the Wikidata item for "African Plum" to the French Wikipedia's article for "safou". I would say that Wikidata should not support this workflow and it is incorrect editing behavior. This has nothing to do with the numbers of redirects or whether or not they need to be deleted by anybody.
Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM, P. Blissenbach publi@web.de wrote:
I do not mind having huge numbers of redirects at all, but you must be aware that there are wikipedias the powers of which will stubbornly and customarily delete such redirects when you create them. So that cannot be a solutiion for all.
Purodha
Hi Jane,
I don't think there is any Wikimedia project that actively deletes redirects.
You don't have to believe me. Just check the delete logs. There are tens of thousands of deleted redirects. Because they were cluttering "Allpages" lists. Because they were common spelling mistakes and "we do not support mistaken spellings". Because
people also use redirects as a way of "bundling concepts"
in a wrong way (Looking for a scientific term and landing on the vita of the scientist whom it is attributed to, for instance, is annoying) ... and so on.
So this redicet idea is not suited for all Wikipedias.
Purodha
"Jane Darnell" jane023@gmail.com writes:
Purodha, Redirects are cheap - so cheap in fact, that they take up more space when you delete them, so even if they are misspelled or whatever, they are mostly left to rot unless they break something (for example when someone wants to use a redlink like [[redlink]] and someone else makes a redirect for "redlink"). I don't think there is any Wikimedia project that actively deletes redirects. In general, redirects are supposed to be used as alternate names for the same thing, and in Wikidata, this is done by typing in alternate labels. Of course people also use redirects as a way of "bundling concepts" - just take a look at all the redirects to the article for "insurance" for all the types of insurance that don't yet have their own article. Before Wikidata there were lots of interwiki links to redirects, and this caused multiple issues with unresolvable interwikilinks. Wikidata was invented to be able to use persistent identifiers for Wikipedia articles. Now everyone is surprised that now the interwikilinks work differently from before. The fact that redirects are not supported is by design and not a bug. Going forward, instead of making redirects, Wikidatans should just keep creating items in Wikidata and let the Wikipedias take care of themselves by letting them create articles and redirects in the normal wiki way. It should not be a goal for Wikidata to sitelink to every redirect in every Wikipedia, just as it is not a goal to sitelink to every image on Wikimedia Commons. The subject at hand in this email thread is that instead of creating an article, the user ThurnerRupert made a redirect in the German Wikipedia called "afrikanische Pflaume" that links to "Prunus" and expected to be able to interwikilink this redirect via the Wikidata item for "African Plum" to the French Wikipedia's article for "safou". I would say that Wikidata should not support this workflow and it is incorrect editing behavior. This has nothing to do with the numbers of redirects or whether or not they need to be deleted by anybody. Jane On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM, P. Blissenbach publi@web.de wrote:I do not mind having huge numbers of redirects at all, but you must be aware that there are wikipedias the powers of which will stubbornly and customarily delete such redirects when you create them. So that cannot be a solutiion for all.
Purodha_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l%5Bhttps://lists.wiki...]
Having sitelinks to redirects in my wikipedia makes it easier for other wikipedias to link to my wikipedia.
If I dont care about that then I may delete those redirects from my wikipedia and the sitelink to my wikipedia will go too.
The wikipedias have the final say on what they do and do not include.
Joe On 16 Oct 2014 20:51, "P. Blissenbach" publi@web.de wrote:
Hi Jane,
I don't think there is any Wikimedia project that actively deletes
redirects.
You don't have to believe me. Just check the delete logs. There are tens of thousands of deleted redirects. Because they were cluttering "Allpages" lists. Because they were common spelling mistakes and "we do not support mistaken spellings". Because
people also use redirects as a way of "bundling concepts"
in a wrong way (Looking for a scientific term and landing on the vita of the scientist whom it is attributed to, for instance, is annoying) ... and so on.
So this redicet idea is not suited for all Wikipedias.
Purodha
"Jane Darnell" jane023@gmail.com writes:
Purodha, Redirects are cheap - so cheap in fact, that they take up more space when you delete them, so even if they are misspelled or whatever, they are mostly left to rot unless they break something (for example when someone wants to use a redlink like [[redlink]] and someone else makes a redirect for "redlink"). I don't think there is any Wikimedia project that actively deletes redirects.
In general, redirects are supposed to be used as alternate names for the same thing, and in Wikidata, this is done by typing in alternate labels. Of course people also use redirects as a way of "bundling concepts" - just take a look at all the redirects to the article for "insurance" for all the types of insurance that don't yet have their own article.
Before Wikidata there were lots of interwiki links to redirects, and this caused multiple issues with unresolvable interwikilinks. Wikidata was invented to be able to use persistent identifiers for Wikipedia articles. Now everyone is surprised that now the interwikilinks work differently from before. The fact that redirects are not supported is by design and not a bug. Going forward, instead of making redirects, Wikidatans should just keep creating items in Wikidata and let the Wikipedias take care of themselves by letting them create articles and redirects in the normal wiki way. It should not be a goal for Wikidata to sitelink to every redirect in every Wikipedia, just as it is not a goal to sitelink to every image on Wikimedia Commons.
The subject at hand in this email thread is that instead of creating an article, the user ThurnerRupert made a redirect in the German Wikipedia called "afrikanische Pflaume" that links to "Prunus" and expected to be able to interwikilink this redirect via the Wikidata item for "African Plum" to the French Wikipedia's article for "safou". I would say that Wikidata should not support this workflow and it is incorrect editing behavior. This has nothing to do with the numbers of redirects or whether or not they need to be deleted by anybody.
Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM, P. Blissenbach publi@web.de wrote:I do not mind having huge numbers of redirects at all, but you must be aware that there are wikipedias the powers of which will stubbornly and customarily delete such redirects when you create them. So that cannot be a solutiion for all.
Purodha_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l%5Bhttps://lists.wiki...]
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
My comments inline:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Having sitelinks to redirects in my wikipedia makes it easier for other wikipedias to link to my wikipedia.
No, it only makes it easy for other wikipedias to link to redirects in your wikipedia, which begs the question why you feel this is useful.
If I dont care about that then I may delete those redirects from my wikipedia and the sitelink to my wikipedia will go too.
No, whether or not you care about them is irrelevant and they are not an issue, but ALL sitelinks on Wikidata to redirects on Wikipedias should be deleted, including and especially those sitelinks to redirects in Wikidata items that do not contain any other statements whatsoever, such as this one: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12817561 Hopefully someone will create a bot to do this.
The wikipedias have the final say on what they do and do not include.
Yes
Il 16/10/2014 18:50, Jane Darnell ha scritto:
Purodha, Redirects are cheap - so cheap in fact, that they take up more space when you delete them
Every deletion of any page (as almost every action in MediaWiki) increases the size of the database. That doesn't mean the wiki is more cluttered.
, so even if they are misspelled or whatever, they are mostly left to rot unless they break something (for example when someone wants to use a redlink like [[redlink]] and someone else makes a redirect for "redlink"). I don't think there is any Wikimedia project that actively deletes redirects.
In general, redirects are supposed to be used as alternate names for the same thing, and in Wikidata, this is done by typing in alternate labels. Of course people also use redirects as a way of "bundling concepts" - just take a look at all the redirects to the article for "insurance" for all the types of insurance that don't yet have their own article.
Before Wikidata there were lots of interwiki links to redirects, and this caused multiple issues with unresolvable interwikilinks. Wikidata was invented to be able to use persistent identifiers for Wikipedia articles. Now everyone is surprised that now the interwikilinks work differently from before. The fact that redirects are not supported is by design and not a bug. Going forward, instead of making redirects, Wikidatans should just keep creating items in Wikidata and let the Wikipedias take care of themselves by letting them create articles and redirects in the normal wiki way. It should not be a goal for Wikidata to sitelink to every redirect in every Wikipedia, just as it is not a goal to sitelink to every image on Wikimedia Commons.
The subject at hand in this email thread is that instead of creating an article, the user ThurnerRupert made a redirect in the German Wikipedia called "afrikanische Pflaume" that links to "Prunus" and expected to be able to interwikilink this redirect via the Wikidata item for "African Plum" to the French Wikipedia's article for "safou". I would say that Wikidata should not support this workflow and it is incorrect editing behavior. This has nothing to do with the numbers of redirects or whether or not they need to be deleted by anybody.
Jane
Hoi, What has that to do with Wikidata ? Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2014 13:58, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
You can make an *item* on Wikidata, no problem.
But if you try to make a corresponding *article* on en-wiki, people will fold it into a list.
So it would be good for the *item* on Wikidata to point to the *redirect* that is permitted on en-wiki.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 12:54, Jane Darnell wrote:
I don't understand why you can't make an item for each character or each person in a band. As long as you have a valid reference (IMDb? Book? out of my league here) you can make an item for anything
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Jan Dudík jan.dudik@gmail.com wrote:
There is one big field, where redirects make sense: lists (of
characters) or members of bands
*Rob Bourdon (Q19205) have article in 38 languages. There is also part of article de:Linkin_Park, which is about him and [[de:Rob Bourdon]] is redirect. *Character X from tv series Y is not notable enough to have separate article, but it should have own item on wikidata. And there is article about him in some small wiki. When you search , you found that there is one article, but fifteen redirects to section (List of Y characters#X) *Fred Weasley (Q13359612) have one sitelink (to redirect), but informations are in en, cs, fr, es, it, pt, pl, da and others too. But when I want to find relevant articles, I must try each language separate. With alowed redirects, I find it.
JAnD
2014-10-16 11:06 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
With a view to supporting mobile, why bundle concepts needlessly into
large
articles? Why not split them out and use the typical Wikipedia blue link methodology to link them together? Some of the English Wikipedia articles are very unwieldy on mobile and you need to scroll through lots of stuff
to
get the information you are looking for. In the case you are describing however, I find the article rather short and I can't even see any
reference
to the occupation of hatmaker at all unless you are referring to a list
of
notable hatters and milliners (which also seems rather short).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that
is a
decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in
that
language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article
in its
own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk
wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what > I
am
> saying. > > To be clearer: > > * Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the > *sitelink* > not > the item. > * It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a > featured article in some language, or any other badge. > > I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not > exist"
> > Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently. > > * "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an > article > on > it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375 > > * "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article > on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/ > Q18199649 > > The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an > occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship. > > It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label > to > the > "Hatmaker" item. > > > At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker". > > What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no > with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page. > > > At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined > for
"Hatmaking"
> > What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, > linking > to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the > "Hatmaking" > item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages. > > > > To give another example: > > On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell > which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. > (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for > tests) > > On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead > there > is a redirect, > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell&
redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell
> family: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#
Daniel_Havell
> Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this > redirect. > > That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on > :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it. > > > As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking > about. > > I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now. > > > All best, > > James. > > > > > On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Hoi, >> I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is >> > a
good
>> thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly >> > Wikipedia
centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
>> >> >> - a redirect page to three pages is also called an >> > disambiguation
page..
>> We do support them. They are not redirects. >> - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, >> it >> only >> takes a label to add the needed link to the subject >> >> Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote: >> >> Creating sitelinks to redirects: >> >>> >>> >>> As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to >>> * go to client wiki, >>> * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect >>> * add a sitelink >>> * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. >>> >>> Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming >>> >> technical
barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
>>> >>> >>> Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a >>> perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg >>> most >>> recently at >>> >>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ >>> all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F >>> >>> which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 >>> >>> >>> But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks >>> to >>> redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly >>> roundabout process above). >>> >>> >>> Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and >>> for >>> all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are >>> useful, >>> and should be created. >>> >>> >>> But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to >>> >> confirm
the
>>> practice: >>> * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the >>> sitelink >>> to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. >>> * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item >>> >> as
its
>>> object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. >>> >>> >>> After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client >>> wikis >>> en >>> masse, and site-linking them. >>> >>> This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where >>> >> wiki
A
>>> has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content >>> all >>> in >>> sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen >>> different >>> primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the >>> profession >>> 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). >>> >>> >>> Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to >>> >> keeping a
clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to
>>> the >>> most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. >>> >>> -- James. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: >>> >>> nope >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola < >>>> >>> smolensk@eunet.rs>
wrote:
>>>> >>>> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, >>>>> >>>> and
the
>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a >>>>>> redirect >>>>>> to >>>>>> "Prunus" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a >>>>> redirect >>>>> the >>>>> old >>>>> way, >>>>> are you not? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
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
Yes, biographies are a major example of where this is useful. There are many cases where, for example,
* Wikipedia has an article covering both a company and the founder(s) of that company * A Wikipedia article deals with a parent + child, or siblings, who worked in the same field * A Wikipedia article covers two unrelated people with the same name who are often confused (it shouldn't happen often, but it does)
The problem arises when, for example:
* English has an article on Brother A and Brother B * German has an article on Brother A only * French has an article on "the brothers" + redirects * Spanish has an article on "the brothers" *and* both A and B individually.
What should happen here is that Wikidata has three entries: A, B, and "brothers", with A and B marked as parts of the "brothers" concept. I think we can all agree this is correct :-)
But the way the interwikis work gets strange. From the English article, you can only get to Spanish. From the English or German articles, you can never get to the French one, even though it probably contains what you need. If we could use redirects, you would be able to get to French from any of the other languages.
It's not perfect - but it's at least better than nothing...
Andrew,
On 16 October 2014 11:45, Jan Dudík jan.dudik@gmail.com wrote:
There is one big field, where redirects make sense: lists (of characters) or members of bands
*Rob Bourdon (Q19205) have article in 38 languages. There is also part of article de:Linkin_Park, which is about him and [[de:Rob Bourdon]] is redirect. *Character X from tv series Y is not notable enough to have separate article, but it should have own item on wikidata. And there is article about him in some small wiki. When you search , you found that there is one article, but fifteen redirects to section (List of Y characters#X) *Fred Weasley (Q13359612) have one sitelink (to redirect), but informations are in en, cs, fr, es, it, pt, pl, da and others too. But when I want to find relevant articles, I must try each language separate. With alowed redirects, I find it.
JAnD
2014-10-16 11:06 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
With a view to supporting mobile, why bundle concepts needlessly into large articles? Why not split them out and use the typical Wikipedia blue link methodology to link them together? Some of the English Wikipedia articles are very unwieldy on mobile and you need to scroll through lots of stuff to get the information you are looking for. In the case you are describing however, I find the article rather short and I can't even see any reference to the occupation of hatmaker at all unless you are referring to a list of notable hatters and milliners (which also seems rather short).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects: > > > As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to > * go to client wiki, > * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect > * add a sitelink > * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. > > Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical > barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. > > > Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a > perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg > most > recently at > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ > all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F > > which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 > > > But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to > redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly > roundabout process above). > > > Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and > for > all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are > useful, > and should be created. > > > But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm > the > practice: > * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the > sitelink > to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. > * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as > its > object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. > > > After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis > en > masse, and site-linking them. > > This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki > A > has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all > in > sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen > different > primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the > profession > 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). > > > Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a > clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to > the > most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. > > -- James. > > > > On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: > > nope >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs >> wrote: >> >> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >> >>> >>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and >>> the >>>> >>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect >>>> to >>>> "Prunus" >>>> >>>> >>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect >>> the >>> old >>> way, >>> are you not? >>> >>>
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
I'll agree that in general though it's good policy to allow linking on wikidata to redirect links. That way, if in the future someone thinks hatmaker merits a separate article from hatmaking (although I doubt it), the link to the wikidata item is already there. Without this functionality we risk duplication of wikidata items when redirects become articles in their own right, and a new wikidata item is made for it without knowing there's already a wikidata link for it (because there was no link to the redirect page).
I think Jane makes a great point though;
Why don't we use transclusion for these kinds of issues? I.e. *have* a separate article about each band member, but then transclude that information into the band's article. This is more of a Wikipedia deletionist culture issue rather than a Wikidata issue though; I suspect you'll have trouble if you actually try to do this on en wiki, in cases where those people wouldn't be considered notable on their own.
Andrew's points illustrate where this might be useful: take the case of the Attenborough brothers. There was some debate in the talk page over whether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Attenborough was worth an entire article because he's mostly only famous because he has two rather famous brothers.
Right now we could make a page "attenborough brothers", put onlyinclude tags around the intro to all three articles, and boom, article! This would somewhat ameliorate the problem Andrew was talking about with incomplete linkage across languages.
I do see a fundamental culture conflict coming up between wikidata and wikipedia- wikidata incentives the creation of small articles with individual, discrete concepts, whereas wikipedia values articles of a certain length with synthesis. I think transclusion would be a great way to bridge the gap and add value to both.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Yes, biographies are a major example of where this is useful. There are many cases where, for example,
- Wikipedia has an article covering both a company and the founder(s)
of that company
- A Wikipedia article deals with a parent + child, or siblings, who
worked in the same field
- A Wikipedia article covers two unrelated people with the same name
who are often confused (it shouldn't happen often, but it does)
The problem arises when, for example:
- English has an article on Brother A and Brother B
- German has an article on Brother A only
- French has an article on "the brothers" + redirects
- Spanish has an article on "the brothers" *and* both A and B individually.
What should happen here is that Wikidata has three entries: A, B, and "brothers", with A and B marked as parts of the "brothers" concept. I think we can all agree this is correct :-)
But the way the interwikis work gets strange. From the English article, you can only get to Spanish. From the English or German articles, you can never get to the French one, even though it probably contains what you need. If we could use redirects, you would be able to get to French from any of the other languages.
It's not perfect - but it's at least better than nothing...
Andrew,
On 16 October 2014 11:45, Jan Dudík jan.dudik@gmail.com wrote:
There is one big field, where redirects make sense: lists (of characters) or members of bands
*Rob Bourdon (Q19205) have article in 38 languages. There is also part of article de:Linkin_Park, which is about him and [[de:Rob Bourdon]] is redirect. *Character X from tv series Y is not notable enough to have separate article, but it should have own item on wikidata. And there is article about him in some small wiki. When you search , you found that there is one article, but fifteen redirects to section (List of Y characters#X) *Fred Weasley (Q13359612) have one sitelink (to redirect), but informations are in en, cs, fr, es, it, pt, pl, da and others too. But when I want to find relevant articles, I must try each language separate. With alowed redirects, I find it.
JAnD
2014-10-16 11:06 GMT+02:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
With a view to supporting mobile, why bundle concepts needlessly into large articles? Why not split them out and use the typical Wikipedia blue link methodology to link them together? Some of the English Wikipedia articles are very unwieldy on mobile and you need to scroll through lots of stuff to get the information you are looking for. In the case you are describing however, I find the article rather short and I can't even see any reference to the occupation of hatmaker at all unless you are referring to a list of notable hatters and milliners (which also seems rather short).
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:40 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi, > I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a > good > thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia > centric and they introduce new things that do not exist. > > > - a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation > page.. > We do support them. They are not redirects. > - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it > only > takes a label to add the needed link to the subject > > Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote: > > Creating sitelinks to redirects: >> >> >> As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to >> * go to client wiki, >> * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect >> * add a sitelink >> * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. >> >> Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical >> barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. >> >> >> Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a >> perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg >> most >> recently at >> >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ >> all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F >> >> which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 >> >> >> But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to >> redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly >> roundabout process above). >> >> >> Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and >> for >> all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are >> useful, >> and should be created. >> >> >> But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm >> the >> practice: >> * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the >> sitelink >> to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. >> * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as >> its >> object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. >> >> >> After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis >> en >> masse, and site-linking them. >> >> This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki >> A >> has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all >> in >> sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen >> different >> primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the >> profession >> 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). >> >> >> Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a >> clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to >> the >> most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. >> >> -- James. >> >> >> >> On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: >> >> nope >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs >>> wrote: >>> >>> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >>> >>>> >>>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and >>>> the >>>>> >>>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect >>>>> to >>>>> "Prunus" >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect >>>> the >>>> old >>>> way, >>>> are you not? >>>> >>>>
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
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Marielle Volz, 16/10/2014 14:25:
Right now we could make a page "attenborough brothers", put onlyinclude tags around the intro to all three articles, and boom, article! This would somewhat ameliorate the problem Andrew was talking about with incomplete linkage across languages.
This argument works if the text meant for transclusion only is kept outside namespace 0, for instance in Template namespace (or Annex namespace, which some wikis already have, or similar). Otherwise the wiki would fill up with articles which are not real articles and users expecting articles would end up on blank pages. Fragmentation however is not necessarily a good thing.
Nemo
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Marielle Volz, 16/10/2014 14:25:
Right now we could make a page "attenborough brothers", put onlyinclude tags around the intro to all three articles, and boom, article! This would somewhat ameliorate the problem Andrew was talking about with incomplete linkage across languages.
This argument works if the text meant for transclusion only is kept outside namespace 0, for instance in Template namespace (or Annex namespace, which some wikis already have, or similar). Otherwise the wiki would fill up with articles which are not real articles and users expecting articles would end up on blank pages. Fragmentation however is not necessarily a good thing.
Are there any plans to bring a semantic structure to Wikipedia? It would solve many problems if each section could be considered an entity on its own. That would allow articles to evolve out of their static textual box by becoming a collection of structured pieces of information that can be dynamically re-ordered in different ways.
Micru
While I agree with the idea of linking between languages including links to related topics, I am a bit hesitant to use Wikidata for it now and in the suggested fashion. Rather let us try to find a more generalized approach which not only serves Wikipedias but all parties interested in finding related topics. Then a search in WP can, in addition to its current hits, show a list of "related topics" which are determined semantically rather then by spelling.
Also I doubt that WP communties will tolerate the abundance of redirects that are likely going to be necessary if you really make all the ones that are possibly useful.
Purodha
"James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk writes:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* not
the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
> > 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the >> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to >> "Prunus" >> >> > You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the > old > way, > are you not? > >
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Redirects are cheap.
On en-wiki the creation of new redirects is positively encouraged.
There is also a category on en-wiki, "Redirects with possibilities" for redirects that have the potential to be built into stand-alone articles.
I would have thought the (possibly automated) creation of large numbers of redirects similarly on other language wikis would be something that might be rather welcome.
Remember also that it's not changing the item structure on Wikidata, just what it can point to on the client wikis.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 13:44, P. Blissenbach wrote:
While I agree with the idea of linking between languages including links to related topics, I am a bit hesitant to use Wikidata for it now and in the suggested fashion. Rather let us try to find a more generalized approach which not only serves Wikipedias but all parties interested in finding related topics. Then a search in WP can, in addition to its current hits, show a list of "related topics" which are determined semantically rather then by spelling.
Also I doubt that WP communties will tolerate the abundance of redirects that are likely going to be necessary if you really make all the ones that are possibly useful.
Purodha
"James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk writes:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* not
the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs > wrote: > > Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: > >> >> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the >>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to >>> "Prunus" >>> >>> >> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the >> old >> way, >> are you not? >> >>
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
Redirects are indeed cheap on Wikipedia, and I have created tons of them on the English Wikipedia. I am a big fan of redirects, but only on Wikipedia. Redirects are not useful for Wikidatans or for Wikipedians who become Wikidatans. Period.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Redirects are cheap.
On en-wiki the creation of new redirects is positively encouraged.
There is also a category on en-wiki, "Redirects with possibilities" for redirects that have the potential to be built into stand-alone articles.
I would have thought the (possibly automated) creation of large numbers of redirects similarly on other language wikis would be something that might be rather welcome.
Remember also that it's not changing the item structure on Wikidata, just what it can point to on the client wikis.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 13:44, P. Blissenbach wrote:
While I agree with the idea of linking between languages including links to related topics, I am a bit hesitant to use Wikidata for it now and in the suggested fashion. Rather let us try to find a more generalized approach which not only serves Wikipedias but all parties interested in finding related topics. Then a search in WP can, in addition to its current hits, show a list of "related topics" which are determined semantically rather then by spelling.
Also I doubt that WP communties will tolerate the abundance of redirects that are likely going to be necessary if you really make all the ones that are possibly useful.
Purodha
"James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk writes:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what
I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an
disambiguation page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
> > As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to > * go to client wiki, > * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect > * add a sitelink > * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. > > Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical > barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. > > > Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a > perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg > most > recently at > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ > all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F > > which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 > > > But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to > redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly > roundabout process above). > > > Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and > for > all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are > useful, > and should be created. > > > But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to > confirm the > practice: > * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the > sitelink > to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. > * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item > as its > object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. > > > After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis > en > masse, and site-linking them. > > This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where > wiki A > has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all > in > sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen > different > primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the > profession > 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). > > > Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping > a > clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to > the > most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. > > -- James. > > > > On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: > > nope > >> >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola < >> smolensk@eunet.rs> >> wrote: >> >> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >> >> >>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, >>> and the >>> >>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect >>>> to >>>> "Prunus" >>>> >>>> >>>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a >>> redirect the >>> old >>> way, >>> are you not? >>> >>> >>>
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
Jane
I disagree.
Sitelinks to wikipedia redirects are useful because they help one wikipedia get useful links to other wikipedias even where the structure of the wikipedias is different, without having to force the various wikipedias to follow the same structure.
Your comment that wikipedias should change their policies and have one concept per article may be correct but it is a comment on wikipedia policy and should be addressed to the wikipedias. This list is for wikidata.
Note that we also have wikidata redirects. These should be created whenever we merge two wikidata items so that external links to the 'merged' item will automagically link to the combined item so that wikidata urls are stable and persistent.
Joe
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Redirects are indeed cheap on Wikipedia, and I have created tons of them on the English Wikipedia. I am a big fan of redirects, but only on Wikipedia. Redirects are not useful for Wikidatans or for Wikipedians who become Wikidatans. Period.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Redirects are cheap.
On en-wiki the creation of new redirects is positively encouraged.
There is also a category on en-wiki, "Redirects with possibilities" for redirects that have the potential to be built into stand-alone articles.
I would have thought the (possibly automated) creation of large numbers of redirects similarly on other language wikis would be something that might be rather welcome.
Remember also that it's not changing the item structure on Wikidata, just what it can point to on the client wikis.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 13:44, P. Blissenbach wrote:
While I agree with the idea of linking between languages including links to related topics, I am a bit hesitant to use Wikidata for it now and in the suggested fashion. Rather let us try to find a more generalized approach which not only serves Wikipedias but all parties interested in finding related topics. Then a search in WP can, in addition to its current hits, show a list of "related topics" which are determined semantically rather then by spelling.
Also I doubt that WP communties will tolerate the abundance of redirects that are likely going to be necessary if you really make all the ones that are possibly useful.
Purodha
"James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk writes:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what
I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the
*sitelink* not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an
article on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family# Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, > I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is > a > good > thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly > Wikipedia > centric and they introduce new things that do not exist. > > > - a redirect page to three pages is also called an > disambiguation > page.. > We do support them. They are not redirects. > - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, > it only > takes a label to add the needed link to the subject > > Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote: > > Creating sitelinks to redirects: > >> >> As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to >> * go to client wiki, >> * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect >> * add a sitelink >> * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. >> >> Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming >> technical >> barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. >> >> >> Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a >> perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg >> most >> recently at >> >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ >> all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F >> >> which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 >> >> >> But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to >> redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly >> roundabout process above). >> >> >> Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and >> for >> all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are >> useful, >> and should be created. >> >> >> But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to >> confirm the >> practice: >> * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the >> sitelink >> to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. >> * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item >> as its >> object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. >> >> >> After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client >> wikis en >> masse, and site-linking them. >> >> This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where >> wiki A >> has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content >> all in >> sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen >> different >> primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the >> profession >> 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). >> >> >> Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to >> keeping a >> clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to >> the >> most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. >> >> -- James. >> >> >> >> On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: >> >> nope >> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola < >>> smolensk@eunet.rs> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >>> >>> >>>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, >>>> and the >>>> >>>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a >>>>> redirect to >>>>> "Prunus" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a >>>> redirect the >>>> old >>>> way, >>>> are you not? >>>> >>>> >>>>
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
Joe, That's actually not what I said. What I said was that we should explode all bundled concepts on Wikipedia into items on Wikidata. I did not say that we should do anything at all on Wikipedia. I am perfectly capable of keeping to the point on a Wikidata mailing list, and I believe that the "explosion of data" as I envision it on Wikidata would be helped by using Wiktionary. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Jane
I disagree.
Sitelinks to wikipedia redirects are useful because they help one wikipedia get useful links to other wikipedias even where the structure of the wikipedias is different, without having to force the various wikipedias to follow the same structure.
Your comment that wikipedias should change their policies and have one concept per article may be correct but it is a comment on wikipedia policy and should be addressed to the wikipedias. This list is for wikidata.
Note that we also have wikidata redirects. These should be created whenever we merge two wikidata items so that external links to the 'merged' item will automagically link to the combined item so that wikidata urls are stable and persistent.
Joe
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Redirects are indeed cheap on Wikipedia, and I have created tons of them on the English Wikipedia. I am a big fan of redirects, but only on Wikipedia. Redirects are not useful for Wikidatans or for Wikipedians who become Wikidatans. Period.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Redirects are cheap.
On en-wiki the creation of new redirects is positively encouraged.
There is also a category on en-wiki, "Redirects with possibilities" for redirects that have the potential to be built into stand-alone articles.
I would have thought the (possibly automated) creation of large numbers of redirects similarly on other language wikis would be something that might be rather welcome.
Remember also that it's not changing the item structure on Wikidata, just what it can point to on the client wikis.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 13:44, P. Blissenbach wrote:
While I agree with the idea of linking between languages including links to related topics, I am a bit hesitant to use Wikidata for it now and in the suggested fashion. Rather let us try to find a more generalized approach which not only serves Wikipedias but all parties interested in finding related topics. Then a search in WP can, in addition to its current hits, show a list of "related topics" which are determined semantically rather then by spelling.
Also I doubt that WP communties will tolerate the abundance of redirects that are likely going to be necessary if you really make all the ones that are possibly useful.
Purodha
"James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk writes:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
James, I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The fact that the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are wasting with your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood > what I am > saying. > > To be clearer: > > * Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the > *sitelink* not > the item. > * It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a > featured article in some language, or any other badge. > > I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not > exist" > > > Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently. > > * "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an > article on > it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375 > > * "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article > on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/ > Q18199649 > > The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an > occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship. > > It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label > to the > "Hatmaker" item. > > > At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker". > > What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no > with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page. > > > At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined > for > "Hatmaking" > > What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, > linking > to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the > "Hatmaking" > item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages. > > > > To give another example: > > On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell > which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. > (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for > tests) > > On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead > there > is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ > index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& > redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell > family: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family# > Daniel_Havell > > Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this > redirect. > > That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on > :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it. > > > As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking > about. > > I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now. > > > All best, > > James. > > > > > On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Hoi, >> I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused >> is a >> good >> thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly >> Wikipedia >> centric and they introduce new things that do not exist. >> >> >> - a redirect page to three pages is also called an >> disambiguation >> page.. >> We do support them. They are not redirects. >> - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, >> it only >> takes a label to add the needed link to the subject >> >> Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote: >> >> Creating sitelinks to redirects: >> >>> >>> As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to >>> * go to client wiki, >>> * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect >>> * add a sitelink >>> * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. >>> >>> Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming >>> technical >>> barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. >>> >>> >>> Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a >>> perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg >>> most >>> recently at >>> >>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ >>> all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F >>> >>> which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 >>> >>> >>> But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks >>> to >>> redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly >>> roundabout process above). >>> >>> >>> Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once >>> and for >>> all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are >>> useful, >>> and should be created. >>> >>> >>> But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to >>> confirm the >>> practice: >>> * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the >>> sitelink >>> to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. >>> * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item >>> as its >>> object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. >>> >>> >>> After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client >>> wikis en >>> masse, and site-linking them. >>> >>> This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where >>> wiki A >>> has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content >>> all in >>> sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen >>> different >>> primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the >>> profession >>> 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). >>> >>> >>> Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to >>> keeping a >>> clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers >>> to the >>> most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. >>> >>> -- James. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: >>> >>> nope >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola < >>>> smolensk@eunet.rs> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, >>>>> and the >>>>> >>>>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a >>>>>> redirect to >>>>>> "Prunus" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a >>>>> redirect the >>>>> old >>>>> way, >>>>> are you not? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
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
Sorry I misinterpreted you.
I agree that we need a separate wikidata item for each concept (anything which can be described using wikidata statements) even if the concept is only in a shared or bundled wikipedia article.
Joe On 16 Oct 2014 15:35, "Jane Darnell" jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Joe, That's actually not what I said. What I said was that we should explode all bundled concepts on Wikipedia into items on Wikidata. I did not say that we should do anything at all on Wikipedia. I am perfectly capable of keeping to the point on a Wikidata mailing list, and I believe that the "explosion of data" as I envision it on Wikidata would be helped by using Wiktionary. Jane
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Jane
I disagree.
Sitelinks to wikipedia redirects are useful because they help one wikipedia get useful links to other wikipedias even where the structure of the wikipedias is different, without having to force the various wikipedias to follow the same structure.
Your comment that wikipedias should change their policies and have one concept per article may be correct but it is a comment on wikipedia policy and should be addressed to the wikipedias. This list is for wikidata.
Note that we also have wikidata redirects. These should be created whenever we merge two wikidata items so that external links to the 'merged' item will automagically link to the combined item so that wikidata urls are stable and persistent.
Joe
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Redirects are indeed cheap on Wikipedia, and I have created tons of them on the English Wikipedia. I am a big fan of redirects, but only on Wikipedia. Redirects are not useful for Wikidatans or for Wikipedians who become Wikidatans. Period.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:57 PM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Redirects are cheap.
On en-wiki the creation of new redirects is positively encouraged.
There is also a category on en-wiki, "Redirects with possibilities" for redirects that have the potential to be built into stand-alone articles.
I would have thought the (possibly automated) creation of large numbers of redirects similarly on other language wikis would be something that might be rather welcome.
Remember also that it's not changing the item structure on Wikidata, just what it can point to on the client wikis.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 13:44, P. Blissenbach wrote:
While I agree with the idea of linking between languages including links to related topics, I am a bit hesitant to use Wikidata for it now and in the suggested fashion. Rather let us try to find a more generalized approach which not only serves Wikipedias but all parties interested in finding related topics. Then a search in WP can, in addition to its current hits, show a list of "related topics" which are determined semantically rather then by spelling.
Also I doubt that WP communties will tolerate the abundance of redirects that are likely going to be necessary if you really make all the ones that are possibly useful.
Purodha
"James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk writes:
We have the relevant information on :en in "hatmaking".
Why create a stub? Why require the duplication?
Surely it is for client wikis to decide how they want to treat topics, either in a big omnibus article, or in a lot of little articles -- that is a decision for them.
But we should be helping readers moving from one language to another to find the nearest equivalent in that language -- no matter whether in that language it is a small part of a large article, or a separate article in its own right.
-- James.
On 16/10/2014 09:29, Jane Darnell wrote:
> James, > I totally agree with Gerard and I totally disagree with you. The > fact that > the English Wikipedia does not have an article on "hatmaker" is not > something that Wikidata should support, and the energy you are > wasting with > your talk about redirects could better be spent on making a stub for > "hatmaker" on the English wikipedia. > Jane > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:34 AM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk > wrote: > > I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood >> what I am >> saying. >> >> To be clearer: >> >> * Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the >> *sitelink* not >> the item. >> * It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to >> a >> featured article in some language, or any other badge. >> >> I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not >> exist" >> >> >> Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently. >> >> * "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an >> article on >> it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375 >> >> * "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an >> article >> on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/ >> Q18199649 >> >> The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an >> occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship. >> >> It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label >> to the >> "Hatmaker" item. >> >> >> At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker". >> >> What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no >> with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page. >> >> >> At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: >> defined for >> "Hatmaking" >> >> What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, >> linking >> to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the >> "Hatmaking" >> item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages. >> >> >> >> To give another example: >> >> On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell >> which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the >> engraver. >> (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test >> for tests) >> >> On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. >> Instead there >> is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ >> index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& >> redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell >> family: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family# >> Daniel_Havell >> >> Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this >> redirect. >> >> That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target >> on >> :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it. >> >> >> As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking >> about. >> >> I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now. >> >> >> All best, >> >> James. >> >> >> >> >> On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> >> Hoi, >>> I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused >>> is a >>> good >>> thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly >>> Wikipedia >>> centric and they introduce new things that do not exist. >>> >>> >>> - a redirect page to three pages is also called an >>> disambiguation >>> page.. >>> We do support them. They are not redirects. >>> - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, >>> it only >>> takes a label to add the needed link to the subject >>> >>> Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote: >>> >>> Creating sitelinks to redirects: >>> >>>> >>>> As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to >>>> * go to client wiki, >>>> * edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect >>>> * add a sitelink >>>> * edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect. >>>> >>>> Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming >>>> technical >>>> barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect. >>>> >>>> >>>> Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be >>>> a >>>> perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, >>>> eg most >>>> recently at >>>> >>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ >>>> all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F >>>> >>>> which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859 >>>> >>>> >>>> But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks >>>> to >>>> redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly >>>> roundabout process above). >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once >>>> and for >>>> all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are >>>> useful, >>>> and should be created. >>>> >>>> >>>> But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to >>>> confirm the >>>> practice: >>>> * A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the >>>> sitelink >>>> to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article. >>>> * On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another >>>> item as its >>>> object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier. >>>> >>>> >>>> After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client >>>> wikis en >>>> masse, and site-linking them. >>>> >>>> This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where >>>> wiki A >>>> has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content >>>> all in >>>> sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen >>>> different >>>> primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the >>>> profession >>>> 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking'). >>>> >>>> >>>> Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to >>>> keeping a >>>> clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers >>>> to the >>>> most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages. >>>> >>>> -- James. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote: >>>> >>>> nope >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola < >>>>> smolensk@eunet.rs> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a >>>>>> redirect, and the >>>>>> >>>>>>> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a >>>>>>> redirect to >>>>>>> "Prunus" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a >>>>>> redirect the >>>>>> old >>>>>> way, >>>>>> are you not? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
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
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, If there is something like a hatmaker, it can have an item even when there is no article in the English Wikipedia about it.
When Mr Daniel Havell has no article, it still can have an item. It is up to any Wikipedia to have an article about him or not.
It does not mean that redirects are a good thing. Or that we should allow for redirects in Wikidata in the first place. Any project decides what it has articles for and what not. With urgency all the redirects that exist should be deleted. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2014 09:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* not
the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
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
Gerard
Do you want to delete sitelinks to wikipedia redirects or wikidata items which redirect to other items?
Joe On 17 Oct 2014 06:27, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If there is something like a hatmaker, it can have an item even when there is no article in the English Wikipedia about it.
When Mr Daniel Havell has no article, it still can have an item. It is up to any Wikipedia to have an article about him or not.
It does not mean that redirects are a good thing. Or that we should allow for redirects in Wikidata in the first place. Any project decides what it has articles for and what not. With urgency all the redirects that exist should be deleted. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2014 09:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Daniel_Havell&redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as
its object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to > "Prunus" > > You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
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
Hoi, I want to have any and all sitelinks to any and all projects that are not an article deleted. Wikidata points to articles. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 October 2014 14:00, Joe Filceolaire filceolaire@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard
Do you want to delete sitelinks to wikipedia redirects or wikidata items which redirect to other items?
Joe On 17 Oct 2014 06:27, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If there is something like a hatmaker, it can have an item even when there is no article in the English Wikipedia about it.
When Mr Daniel Havell has no article, it still can have an item. It is up to any Wikipedia to have an article about him or not.
It does not mean that redirects are a good thing. Or that we should allow for redirects in Wikidata in the first place. Any project decides what it has articles for and what not. With urgency all the redirects that exist should be deleted. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2014 09:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Daniel_Havell&redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the
sitelink to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as
its object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
> > 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and >> the >> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to >> "Prunus" >> >> > You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect > the old > way, > are you not? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Thought I'd throw in my opinion on the matter. After reading this thread I think that I agree with the folks who believe that Wikidata items should be able to specify a Wikipedia article that is a redirect as a sitelink to Wikipedia.
Its by no means an ideal solution, but I can't see any problems that it causes and I do see problems that it fixes. If there are problems /for Wikidata/ that allowing Wikidata items to link to Wikipedia redirects causes, I would be happy to hear them. I imagine someone likely tried to point some out, but I just didn't quite grasp them.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
As Wikidata grows this problem will become more significant. Using redirects doesn't seem a sustainable approach, but it will be hard to find better ones considering the number of people involved and the investment in the current platform.
The biggest challenge will be to convince Wikipedians to break free of the "article box". There is no reason to limit oneself to articles when there can be smaller building blocks that can be recombined in different articles with as much detail level as needed.
Maybe after Commons there should be also a "Wikidata for Wikipedia content", where each article section or sentence is represented by an item that can be displayed in several articles or translated into different languages.
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Derric Atzrott < datzrott@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
Thought I'd throw in my opinion on the matter. After reading this thread I think that I agree with the folks who believe that Wikidata items should be able to specify a Wikipedia article that is a redirect as a sitelink to Wikipedia.
Its by no means an ideal solution, but I can't see any problems that it causes and I do see problems that it fixes. If there are problems /for Wikidata/ that allowing Wikidata items to link to Wikipedia redirects causes, I would be happy to hear them. I imagine someone likely tried to point some out, but I just didn't quite grasp them.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
david, i think you hit the major point here. at the end of the day it is a document management problem, and the idea to recombine contents is followed by some extensions, like books extension. would it make sense to use wikidata for such tasks as well? i am not convinced that it makes sense to go onto a sentence level, but paragraphs do imo make sense. alone because e.g. the german wikipedia often stores an item in a paragraph, what is stored in an article in the english wikipedia. redirects are managed in de:wp, and there is no notion of storing wrong redirects to cover typo's.
of course there are some wikidata purists, like jane and gerard, who seem to be a little imprisoned in the original semantic mediawiki notation that every entry needs to be an article. one may even consider this opinion as correct in a greenfield approach where the contents is created from scratch. but - unfortunately this is not the case. wikidata came after wikipedia, and i consider it a fundamental failure of wikidata to not address the issue.
rupert
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:03 AM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
As Wikidata grows this problem will become more significant. Using redirects doesn't seem a sustainable approach, but it will be hard to find better ones considering the number of people involved and the investment in the current platform.
The biggest challenge will be to convince Wikipedians to break free of the "article box". There is no reason to limit oneself to articles when there can be smaller building blocks that can be recombined in different articles with as much detail level as needed.
Maybe after Commons there should be also a "Wikidata for Wikipedia content", where each article section or sentence is represented by an item that can be displayed in several articles or translated into different languages.
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Thought I'd throw in my opinion on the matter. After reading this thread I think that I agree with the folks who believe that Wikidata items should be able to specify a Wikipedia article that is a redirect as a sitelink to Wikipedia.
Its by no means an ideal solution, but I can't see any problems that it causes and I do see problems that it fixes. If there are problems /for Wikidata/ that allowing Wikidata items to link to Wikipedia redirects causes, I would be happy to hear them. I imagine someone likely tried to point some out, but I just didn't quite grasp them.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:54 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
would it make sense to use wikidata for such tasks as well?
Wikidata already represents more granular information than an article, the real problem is that the only way that we have to bind a piece of information in Wikipedia to its Wikidata representation is through the article name. This is of course derived from the technological limitations of mediawiki which treats each article as a blob of text.
On Wikisource we use Labeled Section Transclusion to define regions of a mediawiki page that can be transcluded into other pages: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion
It is normally used with the following format:
## stable_section_identifier ## some text here ####
In a way, it is like creating a local variable, since you assign an identifier to a section that later on can be referred to regardless of the changes in the text or in the title. I wonder if this is something that could be adapted for Wikipedia in a way that users could mark article sections with unique identifiers and then link those stable section identifiers in Wikidata.
Cheers, Micru
Hoi, I am very comfortable with items not having articles. I am very comfortable with items that have one or more articles.
When you suggest that Wikidata items link to redirects, there are many assumptions that break down. You cannot longer assume what the templates, the categories are about. They are NOT necessarily about the article, they may be about all kinds of everything.
The notion that Wikidata is subservient to Wikipedia can be considered but WHAT Wikipedia and why should Wikidata be subservient to the English Wikipedia ?
Some people "representing" the English Wikipedia make demands however, Wikidata can provide services the English Wikipedia is not able to provide. Things like providing search results based on information from Wikidata. Why is this not even considered? Thanks, GerardM
On 19 October 2014 18:54, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
david, i think you hit the major point here. at the end of the day it is a document management problem, and the idea to recombine contents is followed by some extensions, like books extension. would it make sense to use wikidata for such tasks as well? i am not convinced that it makes sense to go onto a sentence level, but paragraphs do imo make sense. alone because e.g. the german wikipedia often stores an item in a paragraph, what is stored in an article in the english wikipedia. redirects are managed in de:wp, and there is no notion of storing wrong redirects to cover typo's.
of course there are some wikidata purists, like jane and gerard, who seem to be a little imprisoned in the original semantic mediawiki notation that every entry needs to be an article. one may even consider this opinion as correct in a greenfield approach where the contents is created from scratch. but - unfortunately this is not the case. wikidata came after wikipedia, and i consider it a fundamental failure of wikidata to not address the issue.
rupert
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:03 AM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
As Wikidata grows this problem will become more significant. Using
redirects
doesn't seem a sustainable approach, but it will be hard to find better
ones
considering the number of people involved and the investment in the
current
platform.
The biggest challenge will be to convince Wikipedians to break free of
the
"article box". There is no reason to limit oneself to articles when there can be smaller building blocks that can be recombined in different
articles
with as much detail level as needed.
Maybe after Commons there should be also a "Wikidata for Wikipedia
content",
where each article section or sentence is represented by an item that
can be
displayed in several articles or translated into different languages.
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Thought I'd throw in my opinion on the matter. After reading this
thread
I think that I agree with the folks who believe that Wikidata items
should
be able to specify a Wikipedia article that is a redirect as a sitelink
to
Wikipedia.
Its by no means an ideal solution, but I can't see any problems that it causes and I do see problems that it fixes. If there are problems /for Wikidata/ that allowing Wikidata items to link to Wikipedia redirects causes, I would be happy to hear them. I imagine someone likely tried to point some out, but I just didn't quite grasp them.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
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
But Gerard templates and the categories used on the *redirect* will be specific to the redirect, so can draw quite happily from the item corresponding to the redirect.
And templates and categories used on the *article* will be specific to the article, so can draw quite happily from the item corresponding to the article.
I don't see where the problem is ?
-- James.
On 19/10/2014 21:44, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I am very comfortable with items not having articles. I am very comfortable with items that have one or more articles.
When you suggest that Wikidata items link to redirects, there are many assumptions that break down. You cannot longer assume what the templates, the categories are about. They are NOT necessarily about the article, they may be about all kinds of everything.
The notion that Wikidata is subservient to Wikipedia can be considered but WHAT Wikipedia and why should Wikidata be subservient to the English Wikipedia ?
Some people "representing" the English Wikipedia make demands however, Wikidata can provide services the English Wikipedia is not able to provide. Things like providing search results based on information from Wikidata. Why is this not even considered? Thanks, GerardM
On 19 October 2014 18:54, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
david, i think you hit the major point here. at the end of the day it is a document management problem, and the idea to recombine contents is followed by some extensions, like books extension. would it make sense to use wikidata for such tasks as well? i am not convinced that it makes sense to go onto a sentence level, but paragraphs do imo make sense. alone because e.g. the german wikipedia often stores an item in a paragraph, what is stored in an article in the english wikipedia. redirects are managed in de:wp, and there is no notion of storing wrong redirects to cover typo's.
of course there are some wikidata purists, like jane and gerard, who seem to be a little imprisoned in the original semantic mediawiki notation that every entry needs to be an article. one may even consider this opinion as correct in a greenfield approach where the contents is created from scratch. but - unfortunately this is not the case. wikidata came after wikipedia, and i consider it a fundamental failure of wikidata to not address the issue.
rupert
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:03 AM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
As Wikidata grows this problem will become more significant. Using
redirects
doesn't seem a sustainable approach, but it will be hard to find better
ones
considering the number of people involved and the investment in the
current
platform.
The biggest challenge will be to convince Wikipedians to break free of
the
"article box". There is no reason to limit oneself to articles when there can be smaller building blocks that can be recombined in different
articles
with as much detail level as needed.
Maybe after Commons there should be also a "Wikidata for Wikipedia
content",
where each article section or sentence is represented by an item that
can be
displayed in several articles or translated into different languages.
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Thought I'd throw in my opinion on the matter. After reading this
thread
I think that I agree with the folks who believe that Wikidata items
should
be able to specify a Wikipedia article that is a redirect as a sitelink
to
Wikipedia.
Its by no means an ideal solution, but I can't see any problems that it causes and I do see problems that it fixes. If there are problems /for Wikidata/ that allowing Wikidata items to link to Wikipedia redirects causes, I would be happy to hear them. I imagine someone likely tried to point some out, but I just didn't quite grasp them.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
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
No James, redirects do not have templates or categories. Back to the case of the African plum, I have created an English label for the Wikidata item, so that when I seach the English Wikipedia and choose the option "everything", this Wikidata item will show up: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=all&...
If I had created a redirect in the English Wikipedia for "African plum" to "Plum", than of course that is what would come up. In this case the search is giving me more precise information.
The problem with redirects when they aren't used as synonyms is that they direct readers to something else that they might or might not recognize as being something else. Within one project this may not be a problem, but going from Korean into English or the other way around you could become easily misled by the redirect rabbit-hole.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:55 PM, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
But Gerard templates and the categories used on the *redirect* will be specific to the redirect, so can draw quite happily from the item corresponding to the redirect.
And templates and categories used on the *article* will be specific to the article, so can draw quite happily from the item corresponding to the article.
I don't see where the problem is ?
-- James.
On 19/10/2014 21:44, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I am very comfortable with items not having articles. I am very comfortable with items that have one or more articles.
When you suggest that Wikidata items link to redirects, there are many assumptions that break down. You cannot longer assume what the templates, the categories are about. They are NOT necessarily about the article, they may be about all kinds of everything.
The notion that Wikidata is subservient to Wikipedia can be considered but WHAT Wikipedia and why should Wikidata be subservient to the English Wikipedia ?
Some people "representing" the English Wikipedia make demands however, Wikidata can provide services the English Wikipedia is not able to provide. Things like providing search results based on information from Wikidata. Why is this not even considered? Thanks, GerardM
On 19 October 2014 18:54, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
david, i think you hit the major point here. at the end of the day it
is a document management problem, and the idea to recombine contents is followed by some extensions, like books extension. would it make sense to use wikidata for such tasks as well? i am not convinced that it makes sense to go onto a sentence level, but paragraphs do imo make sense. alone because e.g. the german wikipedia often stores an item in a paragraph, what is stored in an article in the english wikipedia. redirects are managed in de:wp, and there is no notion of storing wrong redirects to cover typo's.
of course there are some wikidata purists, like jane and gerard, who seem to be a little imprisoned in the original semantic mediawiki notation that every entry needs to be an article. one may even consider this opinion as correct in a greenfield approach where the contents is created from scratch. but - unfortunately this is not the case. wikidata came after wikipedia, and i consider it a fundamental failure of wikidata to not address the issue.
rupert
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:03 AM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
As Wikidata grows this problem will become more significant. Using
redirects
doesn't seem a sustainable approach, but it will be hard to find better
ones
considering the number of people involved and the investment in the
current
platform.
The biggest challenge will be to convince Wikipedians to break free of
the
"article box". There is no reason to limit oneself to articles when there can be smaller building blocks that can be recombined in different
articles
with as much detail level as needed.
Maybe after Commons there should be also a "Wikidata for Wikipedia
content",
where each article section or sentence is represented by an item that
can be
displayed in several articles or translated into different languages.
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Thought I'd throw in my opinion on the matter. After reading this
thread
I think that I agree with the folks who believe that Wikidata items
should
be able to specify a Wikipedia article that is a redirect as a sitelink
to
Wikipedia.
Its by no means an ideal solution, but I can't see any problems that it causes and I do see problems that it fixes. If there are problems /for Wikidata/ that allowing Wikidata items to link to Wikipedia redirects causes, I would be happy to hear them. I imagine someone likely tried to point some out, but I just didn't quite grasp them.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
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
On 19 October 2014 22:11, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
No James, redirects do not have templates or categories
Yes, they do.
See, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:R_from_relative
as used on, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson_Douglas&redirect=no
There are a whole bunch of such templates in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Redirect_templates
Hoi, If this Jackson Douglas is the best that you can do, you destroyed the argument that it has merit. Have a look at what Jackson Douglas brings you in Reasonato[1]r !! When you read the article, Mr Douglas is mentioned as the spouse of Alex Borstein. That is all. Mr Douglas has articles in several Wikipedias the information about his is much better in Wikidata [2] anyway.
The question is therefore why Redirects why not use information from Wikidata and present it in a Reasonator way??
Technically it is possible to have in stead of red links or redirects links to Wikidata and have all the related information in that way available about the subject as well. That is more informative then an obvious fudge like redirects linking. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Jackson+Douglas [2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=330904
On 20 October 2014 23:40, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 19 October 2014 22:11, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
No James, redirects do not have templates or categories
Yes, they do.
See, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:R_from_relative
as used on, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackson_Douglas&redirect=no
There are a whole bunch of such templates in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Redirect_templates
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
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.
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 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17985279 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
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 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17985279 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
Gerard, you seem confused.
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
In particular, there would be no change at all to what Reasonator would be showing, apart from a few extra badged sitelinks.
(2) You seem to be worried that Wikidata would pick up and import the categories of the article that the redirect redirects to.
But there's no obvious reason why this should happen. It would not be those articles that Wikidata would sitelink to, but the redirects. So it would be the categories (if any) of the redirect that would be relevant.
Similarly, it would not be the item sitelinked to the redirect that any template on the article that was the target of the redirect would compare itself with -- the target article would have its own item, just as it does today; so just as it is today, that is the item that any templates on that article would compare themselves to; or that any data migration would load data into -- just exactly the same as it is today.
"Death of Alice Gross" is not the article about Alice Gross.
But this is not the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.
Instead "Alice Gross" (a redirect) is the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.
So none of the problems you foresee should occur.
(3) Reasonator is great. But ultimately, Reasonator and Wikidata can only give a summary of the facts.
In cases like Daniel Havell, and the question of his exact relationship to other members of the Havell family, Wikidata/Reasonator can note that sources disagree. Wikidata/Reasonator can identify a preferred value. But it is harder for them to present the context as to *why* that value is preferred, in the way that can be done in continuous free text.
It is good to make Wikidata/Reasonator as comprehensive as possible; but there is added value in having the ecosystem of text Wikipedia connected to them.
(4) One additional point is that by tracking the redirects, specifically by adding a property noting what items an item may redirect to in different languages, we actually improve Wikidata.
* We add to the "related items" that Wikidata can display.
* We make it possible to ask whether the item can be connected to these new additional 'related items' within one, two, three, or ''n'' hops, using the item's existing properties. If it cannot, then there is probably an existing property that is missing. So we can identify ways to build and improve the database.
In summary: your apparent view that linking to redirects will lead to data being migrated onto the wrong items on Wikidata seems to me to be mis-founded.
Instead, allowing sitelinking to redirects that accurately match the topic, rather than enforcing that sitelinks can only be to primary articles (which may not quite so closely match the topic), is, if anything, likely to create a *more* accurate structure, which will make make *less* likely any risk of item data pollution through ingestion from a not-quite-properly-matched article.
(ie: if linking to redirects is supported, it will make it *less* likely that users will be tempted to sitelink :en:hatmaking directly to :d:hatmaker, and so *less* likely for data to be ingested to a wikidata article from a not-quite-comparable wiki article).
I look forward to your comments.
All best,
James.
On 22/10/2014 06:43, Gerard Meijssen 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 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17985279 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
Hoi, I do not consider myself confused. I am speaking plain language.
The article: "Death of Alice Gross" has information about a living person while it is NOT a living person. As it is, current practices like with the "Death of Alice Gross" are problematic already enough.
When you want redirects, you make the situation worse because you will want to include many more people who go by a same name. Many of them are already known to Wikidata. We do not need redirects in Wikipedia to link to them . What we need is integrated search where results from Wikidata and Wikipedia are mixed in order to provide the best result. When there is no article about someone or something, we can provide a reasonator kinda screen with information in English. It will refer to all kind of related information and by having this information in Wikidata, this information is available to any and all other languages as well.
The point is very much that any Wikipedia does not include all the information we know about. We know in Wikidata about many more items than Wikipedia has articles for. We can express this information in a much more informative way than by having redirects. The examples of redirects given were really not informative. It is not possible to associate categories and templates in a way that makes them useful in any other way. It positively destroys the usability of information from Wikipedia in this way.
For what ?
We can and should do better. It starts by considering all options. Text is no longer the only game in town. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 October 2014 10:03, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Gerard, you seem confused.
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
In particular, there would be no change at all to what Reasonator would be showing, apart from a few extra badged sitelinks.
(2) You seem to be worried that Wikidata would pick up and import the categories of the article that the redirect redirects to.
But there's no obvious reason why this should happen. It would not be those articles that Wikidata would sitelink to, but the redirects. So it would be the categories (if any) of the redirect that would be relevant.
Similarly, it would not be the item sitelinked to the redirect that any template on the article that was the target of the redirect would compare itself with -- the target article would have its own item, just as it does today; so just as it is today, that is the item that any templates on that article would compare themselves to; or that any data migration would load data into -- just exactly the same as it is today.
"Death of Alice Gross" is not the article about Alice Gross.
But this is not the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.
Instead "Alice Gross" (a redirect) is the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.
So none of the problems you foresee should occur.
(3) Reasonator is great. But ultimately, Reasonator and Wikidata can only give a summary of the facts.
In cases like Daniel Havell, and the question of his exact relationship to other members of the Havell family, Wikidata/Reasonator can note that sources disagree. Wikidata/Reasonator can identify a preferred value. But it is harder for them to present the context as to *why* that value is preferred, in the way that can be done in continuous free text.
It is good to make Wikidata/Reasonator as comprehensive as possible; but there is added value in having the ecosystem of text Wikipedia connected to them.
(4) One additional point is that by tracking the redirects, specifically by adding a property noting what items an item may redirect to in different languages, we actually improve Wikidata.
We add to the "related items" that Wikidata can display.
We make it possible to ask whether the item can be connected to these
new additional 'related items' within one, two, three, or ''n'' hops, using the item's existing properties. If it cannot, then there is probably an existing property that is missing. So we can identify ways to build and improve the database.
In summary: your apparent view that linking to redirects will lead to data being migrated onto the wrong items on Wikidata seems to me to be mis-founded.
Instead, allowing sitelinking to redirects that accurately match the topic, rather than enforcing that sitelinks can only be to primary articles (which may not quite so closely match the topic), is, if anything, likely to create a *more* accurate structure, which will make make *less* likely any risk of item data pollution through ingestion from a not-quite-properly-matched article.
(ie: if linking to redirects is supported, it will make it *less* likely that users will be tempted to sitelink :en:hatmaking directly to :d:hatmaker, and so *less* likely for data to be ingested to a wikidata article from a not-quite-comparable wiki article).
I look forward to your comments.
All best,
James.
On 22/10/2014 06:43, Gerard Meijssen 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 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17985279 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
Gerard, I still don't see a problem.
If somebody wants to search on Reasonator, they can search on Reasonator, and they will get exactly the same Reasonator pages as before -- the only difference is that those Reasonator pages will include more links to relevant Wikipedia pages, with some of them badged as redirects.
As for "Death of Alice Gross", I don't see the problem there either.
Your complaint appears to be that at the moment people directly sitelink Q(Alice Gross) to "Death of Alice Gross", causing all sorts of mismatches and confusions.
Allowing sitelinks to redirects would actually *solve* this issue, because then people could site-link Q(Alice Gross) to "Alice Gross" (a redirect).
Q(Alice Gross) would then no longer be sitelinked to an article about an event; but instead would be sitelinked to a redirect.
Wouldn't that be a better state of affairs ?
-- James.
On 22/10/2014 12:19, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I do not consider myself confused. I am speaking plain language.
The article: "Death of Alice Gross" has information about a living person while it is NOT a living person. As it is, current practices like with the "Death of Alice Gross" are problematic already enough.
When you want redirects, you make the situation worse because you will want to include many more people who go by a same name. Many of them are already known to Wikidata. We do not need redirects in Wikipedia to link to them . What we need is integrated search where results from Wikidata and Wikipedia are mixed in order to provide the best result. When there is no article about someone or something, we can provide a reasonator kinda screen with information in English. It will refer to all kind of related information and by having this information in Wikidata, this information is available to any and all other languages as well.
The point is very much that any Wikipedia does not include all the information we know about. We know in Wikidata about many more items than Wikipedia has articles for. We can express this information in a much more informative way than by having redirects. The examples of redirects given were really not informative. It is not possible to associate categories and templates in a way that makes them useful in any other way. It positively destroys the usability of information from Wikipedia in this way.
For what ?
We can and should do better. It starts by considering all options. Text is no longer the only game in town. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 October 2014 10:03, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Gerard, you seem confused.
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
In particular, there would be no change at all to what Reasonator would be showing, apart from a few extra badged sitelinks.
(2) You seem to be worried that Wikidata would pick up and import the categories of the article that the redirect redirects to.
But there's no obvious reason why this should happen. It would not be those articles that Wikidata would sitelink to, but the redirects. So it would be the categories (if any) of the redirect that would be relevant.
Similarly, it would not be the item sitelinked to the redirect that any template on the article that was the target of the redirect would compare itself with -- the target article would have its own item, just as it does today; so just as it is today, that is the item that any templates on that article would compare themselves to; or that any data migration would load data into -- just exactly the same as it is today.
"Death of Alice Gross" is not the article about Alice Gross.
But this is not the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.
Instead "Alice Gross" (a redirect) is the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.
So none of the problems you foresee should occur.
(3) Reasonator is great. But ultimately, Reasonator and Wikidata can only give a summary of the facts.
In cases like Daniel Havell, and the question of his exact relationship to other members of the Havell family, Wikidata/Reasonator can note that sources disagree. Wikidata/Reasonator can identify a preferred value. But it is harder for them to present the context as to *why* that value is preferred, in the way that can be done in continuous free text.
It is good to make Wikidata/Reasonator as comprehensive as possible; but there is added value in having the ecosystem of text Wikipedia connected to them.
(4) One additional point is that by tracking the redirects, specifically by adding a property noting what items an item may redirect to in different languages, we actually improve Wikidata.
We add to the "related items" that Wikidata can display.
We make it possible to ask whether the item can be connected to these
new additional 'related items' within one, two, three, or ''n'' hops, using the item's existing properties. If it cannot, then there is probably an existing property that is missing. So we can identify ways to build and improve the database.
In summary: your apparent view that linking to redirects will lead to data being migrated onto the wrong items on Wikidata seems to me to be mis-founded.
Instead, allowing sitelinking to redirects that accurately match the topic, rather than enforcing that sitelinks can only be to primary articles (which may not quite so closely match the topic), is, if anything, likely to create a *more* accurate structure, which will make make *less* likely any risk of item data pollution through ingestion from a not-quite-properly-matched article.
(ie: if linking to redirects is supported, it will make it *less* likely that users will be tempted to sitelink :en:hatmaking directly to :d:hatmaker, and so *less* likely for data to be ingested to a wikidata article from a not-quite-comparable wiki article).
I look forward to your comments.
All best,
James.
On 22/10/2014 06:43, Gerard Meijssen 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 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17985279 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
Hoi, FORGET ABOUT REASONATOR, FORGET ABOUT WIKIPEDIA, FORGET ABOUT WIKIDATA
It is about sharing information. That is what this is all about. The information is NOT in Wikipedia, only the data is in Wikidata, there are plenty examples of that. Redirects are something you come up with because it completely focuses on Wikipedia while actually it is VERY much in the way when you want to inform people.
You do not see the problem. You do not even understand why your "solution" is imperfect, not even halfway sane. When you forget about Wikipedia for a moment, you will agree that Wikidata has tons of data Wikipedia does not. Consequently, it would make sense to provide our readers with information when Wikipedia does not have it. Wikidata is NOT informative, it takes something like Reasonator to make the data informative.
I do not want anything less for Wikipedia.
When we approach our customers with the sum of all the information we have available to us, you will find that Wikidata knows about something like 50% more subjects. It impacts everything from search results, categories, red links and disambiguation pages.From such a perspective linking "redirects" to Wikidata is an awful idea for all the reasons I presented.
Redirects will harm Wikidata, there is no doubt in my mind. There will be not be much of a benefit. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 October 2014 15:58, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Gerard, I still don't see a problem.
If somebody wants to search on Reasonator, they can search on Reasonator, and they will get exactly the same Reasonator pages as before -- the only difference is that those Reasonator pages will include more links to relevant Wikipedia pages, with some of them badged as redirects.
As for "Death of Alice Gross", I don't see the problem there either.
Your complaint appears to be that at the moment people directly sitelink Q(Alice Gross) to "Death of Alice Gross", causing all sorts of mismatches and confusions.
Allowing sitelinks to redirects would actually *solve* this issue, because then people could site-link Q(Alice Gross) to "Alice Gross" (a redirect).
Q(Alice Gross) would then no longer be sitelinked to an article about an event; but instead would be sitelinked to a redirect.
Wouldn't that be a better state of affairs ?
-- James.
On 22/10/2014 12:19, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I do not consider myself confused. I am speaking plain language.
The article: "Death of Alice Gross" has information about a living person while it is NOT a living person. As it is, current practices like with the "Death of Alice Gross" are problematic already enough.
When you want redirects, you make the situation worse because you will want to include many more people who go by a same name. Many of them are already known to Wikidata. We do not need redirects in Wikipedia to link to them . What we need is integrated search where results from Wikidata and Wikipedia are mixed in order to provide the best result. When there is no article about someone or something, we can provide a reasonator kinda screen with information in English. It will refer to all kind of related information and by having this information in Wikidata, this information is available to any and all other languages as well.
The point is very much that any Wikipedia does not include all the information we know about. We know in Wikidata about many more items than Wikipedia has articles for. We can express this information in a much more informative way than by having redirects. The examples of redirects given were really not informative. It is not possible to associate categories and templates in a way that makes them useful in any other way. It positively destroys the usability of information from Wikipedia in this way.
For what ?
We can and should do better. It starts by considering all options. Text is no longer the only game in town. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 October 2014 10:03, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Gerard, you seem confused.
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
In particular, there would be no change at all to what Reasonator would be showing, apart from a few extra badged sitelinks.
(2) You seem to be worried that Wikidata would pick up and import the categories of the article that the redirect redirects to.
But there's no obvious reason why this should happen. It would not be those articles that Wikidata would sitelink to, but the redirects. So it would be the categories (if any) of the redirect that would be relevant.
Similarly, it would not be the item sitelinked to the redirect that any template on the article that was the target of the redirect would compare itself with -- the target article would have its own item, just as it does today; so just as it is today, that is the item that any templates on that article would compare themselves to; or that any data migration would load data into -- just exactly the same as it is today.
"Death of Alice Gross" is not the article about Alice Gross.
But this is not the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.
Instead "Alice Gross" (a redirect) is the article that would be sitelinked to Alice Gross.
So none of the problems you foresee should occur.
(3) Reasonator is great. But ultimately, Reasonator and Wikidata can only give a summary of the facts.
In cases like Daniel Havell, and the question of his exact relationship to other members of the Havell family, Wikidata/Reasonator can note that sources disagree. Wikidata/Reasonator can identify a preferred value. But it is harder for them to present the context as to *why* that value is preferred, in the way that can be done in continuous free text.
It is good to make Wikidata/Reasonator as comprehensive as possible; but there is added value in having the ecosystem of text Wikipedia connected to them.
(4) One additional point is that by tracking the redirects, specifically by adding a property noting what items an item may redirect to in different languages, we actually improve Wikidata.
We add to the "related items" that Wikidata can display.
We make it possible to ask whether the item can be connected to these
new additional 'related items' within one, two, three, or ''n'' hops, using the item's existing properties. If it cannot, then there is probably an existing property that is missing. So we can identify ways to build and improve the database.
In summary: your apparent view that linking to redirects will lead to data being migrated onto the wrong items on Wikidata seems to me to be mis-founded.
Instead, allowing sitelinking to redirects that accurately match the topic, rather than enforcing that sitelinks can only be to primary articles (which may not quite so closely match the topic), is, if anything, likely to create a *more* accurate structure, which will make make *less* likely any risk of item data pollution through ingestion from a not-quite-properly-matched article.
(ie: if linking to redirects is supported, it will make it *less* likely that users will be tempted to sitelink :en:hatmaking directly to :d:hatmaker, and so *less* likely for data to be ingested to a wikidata article from a not-quite-comparable wiki article).
I look forward to your comments.
All best,
James.
On 22/10/2014 06:43, Gerard Meijssen 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 http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17985279 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
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Citiranje James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
Interestingly how no one mentions (or have I missed it?) what to me seems to be the biggest problem, and that is the possibility that multiple Wikidata items link to a single Wikipedia article.
If sitelinks to redirects are ever implemented, it would be imperative that it is checked that no two redirects lead to the same place.
Citiranje James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
Interestingly how no one mentions (or have I missed it?) what to me seems to be the biggest problem, and that is the possibility that multiple Wikidata items link to a single Wikipedia article.
If sitelinks to redirects are ever implemented, it would be imperative that it is checked that no two redirects lead to the same place.
On 22/10/2014 14:23, Smolenski Nikola wrote:
Citiranje James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
Interestingly how no one mentions (or have I missed it?) what to me seems to be the biggest problem, and that is the possibility that multiple Wikidata items link to a single Wikipedia article.
If sitelinks to redirects are ever implemented, it would be imperative that it is checked that no two redirects lead to the same place.
It's no problem if multiple redirects link to the same place.
For example, on en-wiki, we have Luke Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Robert Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Daniel Havell (redirect) -> Havell family etc
It's no problem if we have different items Q(Luke Havell) -> Luke Havell (redirect) Q(Robert Havell) -> Robert Havell (redirect) Q(Daniel Havell) -> Daniel Havell (redirect)
different items, for different people, sitelinked to different places on en-wiki, that happen to be redirects.
But one advantage of having this structure is that if somebody then changes Robert Havell into a full article, then Q(Robert Havell) is already pointing to the right place.
-- James.
Citiranje James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
On 22/10/2014 14:23, Smolenski Nikola wrote:
Citiranje James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
Interestingly how no one mentions (or have I missed it?) what to me seems
to be
the biggest problem, and that is the possibility that multiple Wikidata
items
link to a single Wikipedia article.
If sitelinks to redirects are ever implemented, it would be imperative that
it
is checked that no two redirects lead to the same place.
It's no problem if multiple redirects link to the same place.
For example, on en-wiki, we have Luke Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Robert Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Daniel Havell (redirect) -> Havell family etc
It's no problem if we have different items Q(Luke Havell) -> Luke Havell (redirect) Q(Robert Havell) -> Robert Havell (redirect) Q(Daniel Havell) -> Daniel Havell (redirect)
different items, for different people, sitelinked to different places on en-wiki, that happen to be redirects.
All right, that may not be a big problem. However, it would be a big problem if we have:
Q(Coat of Arms of Novi Sad) -> Coat of Arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of novi sad -> Novi Sad
All right, that may not be a big problem. However, it would be a big problem if we have:
Q(Coat of Arms of Novi Sad) -> Coat of Arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of novi sad -> Novi Sad
This is an argument against redirects that I am able to understand. I'm not sure what the best solution for this is. Perhaps we could lowercase the name of the page and compare that to other items (similar to what we currently do to ensure that no page is site-linked to more than one item). There would be exceptions, but we could warn them at least that they look like they are linking to something that may already be linked to.
There are other redirects that are similar that may cause problems. Items with more than a single name that are conceptually the same thing might fall into this.
I do think though that having something like what you describe happen is more of a user error though. Can you think of any possible Q(something) that would work for their of those Q(somethings). I.e. can you find a set of items where this problem might actually manifest. Coat of Arms of Novi Sad is a single concept and I can't imagine that we are likely to find too many cases where folks link it accurately to another Wikidata item.
Perhaps a report could be put together regularly of possible conflicts?
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Citiranje Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
I do think though that having something like what you describe happen is more of a user error though. Can you think of any possible Q(something) that
Right now, since only linking to articles is allowed, and only one article can be linked from anywhere on Wikidata, such errors are difficult to make, and easy to find and rectify. If linking to redirects is allowed, such errors will become easier to make, and more difficult to find and rectify.
There is no need to have item for each redirect. But it would be usefuil if SOME redirects could be linked in wikidta items
JAnD
2014-10-22 19:04 GMT+02:00 Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs:
Citiranje James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
On 22/10/2014 14:23, Smolenski Nikola wrote:
Citiranje James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
(1) There would be no change to the item structure on Wikidata in any way -- no change to the values of any of the item properties -- only some extra sitelinks.
So I don't see *why* you think there would be any risk to Wikidata's "own integrity".
Interestingly how no one mentions (or have I missed it?) what to me seems
to be
the biggest problem, and that is the possibility that multiple Wikidata
items
link to a single Wikipedia article.
If sitelinks to redirects are ever implemented, it would be imperative that
it
is checked that no two redirects lead to the same place.
It's no problem if multiple redirects link to the same place.
For example, on en-wiki, we have Luke Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Robert Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Daniel Havell (redirect) -> Havell family etc
It's no problem if we have different items Q(Luke Havell) -> Luke Havell (redirect) Q(Robert Havell) -> Robert Havell (redirect) Q(Daniel Havell) -> Daniel Havell (redirect)
different items, for different people, sitelinked to different places on en-wiki, that happen to be redirects.
All right, that may not be a big problem. However, it would be a big problem if we have:
Q(Coat of Arms of Novi Sad) -> Coat of Arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of novi sad -> Novi Sad
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
2014-10-22 15:48 GMT+02:00 James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
It's no problem if multiple redirects link to the same place.
For example, on en-wiki, we have Luke Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Robert Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Daniel Havell (redirect) -> Havell family etc
It's no problem if we have different items Q(Luke Havell) -> Luke Havell (redirect) Q(Robert Havell) -> Robert Havell (redirect) Q(Daniel Havell) -> Daniel Havell (redirect)
different items, for different people, sitelinked to different places on en-wiki, that happen to be redirects.
While I can concur that we may need to have different items to link to single members of a family, because of $good_reason, I do not see any good reason to have redirects in those items, because of the example that Nikola made:
2014-10-22 19:04 GMT+02:00 Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs:
Q(Coat of Arms of Novi Sad) -> Coat of Arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of novi sad -> Novi Sad
We *can* have different items with no links if this fulfils practical needs, it's in [[WD:N]] since the beginning of the project (more or less).
L.
On 23/10/2014 13:37, Luca Martinelli wrote:
2014-10-22 15:48 GMT+02:00 James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
It's no problem if multiple redirects link to the same place.
For example, on en-wiki, we have Luke Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Robert Havell (redirect) -> Havell family Daniel Havell (redirect) -> Havell family etc
It's no problem if we have different items Q(Luke Havell) -> Luke Havell (redirect) Q(Robert Havell) -> Robert Havell (redirect) Q(Daniel Havell) -> Daniel Havell (redirect)
different items, for different people, sitelinked to different places on en-wiki, that happen to be redirects.
While I can concur that we may need to have different items to link to single members of a family, because of $good_reason, I do not see any good reason to have redirects in those items, because of the example that Nikola made:
2014-10-22 19:04 GMT+02:00 Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs:
Q(Coat of Arms of Novi Sad) -> Coat of Arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of Novi Sad -> Novi Sad Q(something) -> Coat of arms of novi sad -> Novi Sad
We *can* have different items with no links if this fulfils practical needs, it's in [[WD:N]] since the beginning of the project (more or less).
Nobody is questioning that we can have items for the likes of Luke, Robert and Daniel Havell -- that has been clear from the start.
The question is whether we can sitelink those items to redirect pages on some of the various wikis.
I think Nikola's example is overdone. Yes it is *possible* that somebody might create a duplicate item, but people create duplicate items at the moment. It's a question of having tools to identify them.
For Nikola's specific example, I think it is *unlikely* that anybody would create a duplicate item for the coat of arms of Novi Sad, because presumably people would look up the item for Novi Sad, and see that it already had a value for P237 coat of arms.
The advantage of allowing sitelinks to redirects is that then people can see links in Wikidata, or Reasonator, or the sidebar to whatever text content Wikipedia has on them (which is why we have sitelinks), even if that text content is not in an article of its own, but is contained within another article. So -- for example -- people can then find (and, if they wish, edit) text about different views on the exact family relationship between Daniel Havell to the rest of the Havell family, rather than just being presented with a list.
-- James.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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 we have a need in pointing (at Wikibase/Wikidata) to redirects on a regular basis, it might be time to rethink the relevant project design. I ideally would like the default [[foo]] namespace to be configurable per-wiki, personally, seeing that on some wikis "foo" is not a valid title for main namespace, while "Category:foo" or "Portal:foo" is (and uglily, [[foo]] is forced to redirect to that).
-- Svetlana
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:47 AM, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
If we have a need in pointing (at Wikibase/Wikidata) to redirects on a regular basis, it might be time to rethink the relevant project design.
I think that rethinking the project design is the right approach here. To link to redirects is as bad as leaving relevant article sections unconnected. The challenge is to find another way to associate an article section with an item without using redirects.
I have opened a bug report to gather ideas: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72347
Cheers, Micru
Hoi, Just for arguments sake I have included the information about Mr Havell to Wikidata. The result is certainly informative when seen from the Reasonator. [1]
Any and all people known in the "Creator" template on Commons can and should have a Wikidata entry. When you are serious about the Havell family, you should make sure that all of them have full information in Wikidata as well BEFORE you complain about redirects to the Haswell family.[2] from English Wikipedia.
As I said before, your point of view is English Wikipedia oriented and this is NOT English Wikipedia and it is NOT to promote the glory of English Wikipedia. It is to share in the sum of all knowledge and THAT has more dimensions than English only. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q18325155&lang=en [2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=havell
On 16 October 2014 09:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* not
the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
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 the other hand, Gerard, the full sum of knowledge about Daniel Havell has more dimensions that are presented by Reasonator only.
That's why it's useful for the Creator template to be able to contain a link to a written-out biography, and for it to be able to continue to do so even once its fields are drawn from Wikidata.
It's therefore not helpful for Wikidata to throw a pink error message and complain that "Havell family" already has an item, when somebody tries to link your new Q-number to the Daniel Havell redirect on :en:
It is valuable to throw a warning, and confirm with the user that this is really what they want to do; but if it *is* what the user really wants to do, they should be able to over-ride that warning, and link to the redirect anyway, perhaps also requiring the user to add a field to describe the nature of the redirect.
So I've added a sitelink to :en:, using the temporarily un-redirect trick, and also a P1472 to link back to the Commons creator template.
But it should be easier to do this without having to do the temporary un-redirect; and it would be good to record that the :en: sitelink is pointing to a redirect, and which item the target of that redirect corresponds to.
All best,
James.
On 18/10/2014 07:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Just for arguments sake I have included the information about Mr Havell to Wikidata. The result is certainly informative when seen from the Reasonator. [1]
Any and all people known in the "Creator" template on Commons can and should have a Wikidata entry. When you are serious about the Havell family, you should make sure that all of them have full information in Wikidata as well BEFORE you complain about redirects to the Haswell family.[2] from English Wikipedia.
As I said before, your point of view is English Wikipedia oriented and this is NOT English Wikipedia and it is NOT to promote the glory of English Wikipedia. It is to share in the sum of all knowledge and THAT has more dimensions than English only. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q18325155&lang=en [2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=havell
On 16 October 2014 09:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink* not
the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the sitelink
to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as its
object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to > "Prunus" > > You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
Hoi, I think I requested P1472, I forgot all about it. It takes so long before properties are created and I certainly forget about this one. Anyway, thanks for adding that to the Wikidata item. I added Mr Havell with his Q number to the Creatore template. I blogged about Mr Havell as well. [1]
Wikidata is intended to include only articles. Redirects are a fudge to include references to parts of articles in Wikidata. That part is not acceptable at all. It can be argued however and, you do, that redirects are not references to parts of an article in Wikidata. Given that we have non informative items for categories, lists and disambiguation pages you have a point. The difference between them is that they are all marked for what they are.. Not informative, hardly relevant and as such they can be filtered out.
Given that we have badges, I could agree that we include redirects when they are all marked for what they are. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/10/bringing-wikidata-to-commons-one-...
On 18 October 2014 09:00, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
On the other hand, Gerard, the full sum of knowledge about Daniel Havell has more dimensions that are presented by Reasonator only.
That's why it's useful for the Creator template to be able to contain a link to a written-out biography, and for it to be able to continue to do so even once its fields are drawn from Wikidata.
It's therefore not helpful for Wikidata to throw a pink error message and complain that "Havell family" already has an item, when somebody tries to link your new Q-number to the Daniel Havell redirect on :en:
It is valuable to throw a warning, and confirm with the user that this is really what they want to do; but if it *is* what the user really wants to do, they should be able to over-ride that warning, and link to the redirect anyway, perhaps also requiring the user to add a field to describe the nature of the redirect.
So I've added a sitelink to :en:, using the temporarily un-redirect trick, and also a P1472 to link back to the Commons creator template.
But it should be easier to do this without having to do the temporary un-redirect; and it would be good to record that the :en: sitelink is pointing to a redirect, and which item the target of that redirect corresponds to.
All best,
James.
On 18/10/2014 07:01, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Just for arguments sake I have included the information about Mr Havell to Wikidata. The result is certainly informative when seen from the Reasonator. [1]
Any and all people known in the "Creator" template on Commons can and should have a Wikidata entry. When you are serious about the Havell family, you should make sure that all of them have full information in Wikidata as well BEFORE you complain about redirects to the Haswell family.[2] from English Wikipedia.
As I said before, your point of view is English Wikipedia oriented and this is NOT English Wikipedia and it is NOT to promote the glory of English Wikipedia. It is to share in the sum of all knowledge and THAT has more dimensions than English only. Thanks, GerardM
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q18325155&lang=en [2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=havell
On 16 October 2014 09:34, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
I am sorry, Gerard, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what I
am saying.
To be clearer:
- Noting that a link goes to a redirect is a feature of the *sitelink*
not the item.
- It is no more "Wikipedia centric" than noting that a link goes to a
featured article in some language, or any other badge.
I'm not proposing items be introduced for "new things that do not exist"
Let's take an example, from Project Chat recently.
- "Hatmaking" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article on
it in English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatmaking https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q663375
- "Hatmaker" is a real-world concept that exists. We have an article
on it on lots of Wikipedias. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18199649
The two concepts are not the same. One is a skill, the other is an occupation. They have a P425 / P na relationship.
It therefore would not make any sense to add "Hatmaking" as a label to the "Hatmaker" item.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to :en: defined for "Hatmaker".
What would make sense would be to sitelink to the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatmaker&redirect=no with a badge, noting that this was a sitelink to a redirect page.
At the moment, there is no sitelink to wikis other than :en: defined for "Hatmaking"
What would make sense would be to create redirects on these wikis, linking to their articles on "Hatmaker", and then add sitelinks to the "Hatmaking" item, pointing to these redirects in each of the languages.
To give another example:
On Commons, we have a creator page for the engraver Daniel Havell, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creator:Daniel_Havell which ought to be made to draw from a Wikidata item for the engraver. (cf https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Creator/wrapper/test for tests)
On en-wiki, there is no separate article for Daniel Havell. Instead there is a redirect, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Havell& redirect=no, which points to a section of an article on the Havell family: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Havell_family#Daniel_Havell
Wikidata should have an item on Daniel Havell, which points to this redirect.
That way, when the Creator template on Commons wants a link target on :enwiki, the Wikidata item can supply it.
As I said, Gerard, I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I hope it is clearer and makes more sense to you now.
All best,
James.
On 16/10/2014 06:15, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I seriously fail to see how an example how Wikidata can be abused is a good thing. Redirects are imho seriously stupid. They are utterly Wikipedia centric and they introduce new things that do not exist.
- a redirect page to three pages is also called an disambiguation
page.. We do support them. They are not redirects. - when a redirect page refers to an article by another name, it only takes a label to add the needed link to the subject
Seriously WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 October 2014 23:22, James Heald j.heald@ucl.ac.uk wrote:
Creating sitelinks to redirects:
As I understand it, the classic workaround for this is to
- go to client wiki,
- edit the page temporarily so that it is not a redirect
- add a sitelink
- edit the page again to turn it back into a redirect.
Thus, at least as I understand it, there is no overwhelming technical barrier to creating a sitelink to a redirect.
Looking back through the archives of Project Chat, it seems to be a perennial thing that we ought to permit sitelinks to redirects, eg most recently at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Should_ all_occupations_be_separate_items_from_their_skills.3F
which led to Kaldari filing Bugzilla: 71859
But I'm not quite sure exactly what he wants solved, if sitelinks to redirects are /already/ possible. (Albeit requiring the slightly roundabout process above).
Perhaps what is needed is just a concerted RfC, to confirm once and for all that it is indeed the community view that such sitelinks are useful, and should be created.
But there are a couple of things it would be nice to have, to confirm the practice:
- A badge (eg the letter R on a red disc) to indicate that the
sitelink to language xx is linking to a redirect, not a primary article.
- On an item, a new property "redirected to", taking another item as
its object, and the identity of the wiki as a qualifier.
After that, we should go out creating this redirects on client wikis en masse, and site-linking them.
This would solve a huge number of issues we currently have, where wiki A has lots of little articles, whereas wiki B has the same content all in sections of one article; or where wiki A and wiki B have chosen different primary items for their treatment of a field. (For example: the profession 'hatmaker' or the activity 'hatmaking').
Allowing and encouraging sitelinks to redirect is the key to keeping a clean item structure on Wikidata, while still connecting readers to the most relevant pages in their preferred alternative languages.
-- James.
On 14/10/2014 21:00, Jane Darnell wrote:
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
> 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and > the > >> German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to >> "Prunus" >> >> >> You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect > the > old > way, > are you not? > > >
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On 18 October 2014 08:15, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I think I requested P1472, I forgot all about it. It takes so long before
The proposal was mine:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1472
Wikidata is intended to include only articles.
That is simply not true, neither literally, nor in the sense in which I believe you mean it (i.e. in regard to links to sister projects). In the latter case, we include many statements, such as:
This item is the subject of this Wikipedia page This item is the subject of this Wikipedia category This item is the subject of this Wikimedia Commons category This item is the subject of this Wikimedia Commons creator template
It therefore seem logical (and is certainly useful, as explained previously) to also say:
This item is the subject of this Wikipedia redirect
You have already been challenged to give evidence that the latter causes harm. Can you do so?
Hoi, With articles it is obvious. The subject matter that will be provided IS what is advertised. This is NOT the case with re-directs. They point to somewhere arbitrary and there is no way to ensure that the redirect remains consistent and fits the subject of the Wikidata item well. This is relatively Obvious with articles.
Personally I doubt there is value in redirects. I find them very Wikipedia centric. Given the examples given, there was no Wikidata in the first place. Harvesting redirects is an exceedingly bad idea that will pollute Wikidata with many items we should not have. Thanks, GerardM
On 18 October 2014 13:12, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 18 October 2014 08:15, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I think I requested P1472, I forgot all about it. It takes so long before
The proposal was mine:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1472
Wikidata is intended to include only articles.
That is simply not true, neither literally, nor in the sense in which I believe you mean it (i.e. in regard to links to sister projects). In the latter case, we include many statements, such as:
This item is the subject of this Wikipedia page This item is the subject of this Wikipedia category This item is the subject of this Wikimedia Commons category This item is the subject of this Wikimedia Commons creator template
It therefore seem logical (and is certainly useful, as explained previously) to also say:
This item is the subject of this Wikipedia redirect
You have already been challenged to give evidence that the latter causes harm. Can you do so?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
With articles it is obvious. The subject matter that will be provided IS what is advertised. This is NOT the case with re-directs. They point to somewhere arbitrary and there is no way to ensure that the redirect remains consistent and fits the subject of the Wikidata item well.
I've seen Wikipedia articles change topics many times as well. This is particularly the case with the very kind of Wikipedia articles that would have site-links to redirects in Wikidata.
I will admit though that this is a real problem. We can not guarentee that a redirect will continue to point to where we expect it to. Redirects do get broken from time to time as well. I'm sure that a creative solution could be thought up for this problem. The first step would be marking redirects when they are used, which I don't think anyone who wants redirects has any problem with.
Personally I doubt there is value in redirects.
Several others have pointed out the value in redirects. They allow for you to interwiki link articles together that otherwise would be impossible to link together. They help create this web of internationalised knowledge. It helps link concepts and explainations together across language boundries.
I find them very Wikipedia centric.
Isn't the whole concept of site-links in general Wikipedia centric?
Given the examples given, there was no Wikidata in the first place. Harvesting redirects is an exceedingly bad idea that will pollute Wikidata with many items we should not have.
How does allowing site-links to redirects "pollute wikidata with many items we should not have"? This does not create new Wikidata items, it merely allows us to efficiently site-link items that we already have. For compound concepts (does anyone have a better term for these?) we would already have an item for the compound concept and its individual constituent concepts anyways.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Just realized that I was not actually caught up but replying to a message from a few days ago. Sorry if the discussion has moved on. >.<
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 18 October 2014 08:15, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I think I requested P1472, I forgot all about it. It takes so long before
The proposal was mine:
Actually there where two proposals, the one by Gerard was submitted in January https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Sister_projects#Com...
Cheers, Micru
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
nope
I am, for example https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0 has an interwiki to a redirect. What happens when you try it?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
- There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way, are you not?
French safou should be fruit, because the tree is safoutier. German afrikanische Pflaume is fruit as well. This is a 1:1 match. Prunus contains tens of fruits which do exist as dedicated articles in enwp. If no link can be made to redirects and not to paragraphs this looks like a serious conceptual restriction?
Rupert On Oct 14, 2014 5:40 PM, "Jane Darnell" jane023@gmail.com wrote:
There are multiple issues with linking the German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" to the French Wikipedia's "safou":
- A tree can only interwikilink to a tree or combined article on the tree
- fruit and a fruit can only interwikilink to a fruit or a combined
article on the tree + fruit (this is the "single vs. multiple concepts" problem Gerard refers to) 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:59 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 13, 2014 2:07 PM, "Daniel Kinzler" daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an
other mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One
is about
the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have difficulties in adding site links.
Linking a newly created article would be done using the "add links"
feature at
the bottom of the sidebar. That should not have changed at all in the
last
couple of months, as far as I know.
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is
problematic?
I tried to link "afrikanische Pflaume " to "safou " the fruit and got an error which was not helpful. I tried to report it here, and nobody used time to look into it. So my personal user experience degraded from usable to not usable.
But I have no idea which change caused the this.
Rupert
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, No. Prunus is a genus and as such many species can and do refer to Prunus. Wikidata is NOT Wikipedia driven so the notion of redirects and paragraphs does not fit. A paragraph is not reliably identifiable anyway. Thanks, Gerard
On 15 October 2014 07:39, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
French safou should be fruit, because the tree is safoutier. German afrikanische Pflaume is fruit as well. This is a 1:1 match. Prunus contains tens of fruits which do exist as dedicated articles in enwp. If no link can be made to redirects and not to paragraphs this looks like a serious conceptual restriction?
Rupert On Oct 14, 2014 5:40 PM, "Jane Darnell" jane023@gmail.com wrote:
There are multiple issues with linking the German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" to the French Wikipedia's "safou":
- A tree can only interwikilink to a tree or combined article on the
tree + fruit and a fruit can only interwikilink to a fruit or a combined article on the tree + fruit (this is the "single vs. multiple concepts" problem Gerard refers to) 2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the German Wikipedia's "afrikanische Pflaume" is currently a redirect to "Prunus"
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:59 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner@gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 13, 2014 2:07 PM, "Daniel Kinzler" daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an
other mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version.
One is about
the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have difficulties in adding site links.
Linking a newly created article would be done using the "add links"
feature at
the bottom of the sidebar. That should not have changed at all in the
last
couple of months, as far as I know.
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is
problematic?
I tried to link "afrikanische Pflaume " to "safou " the fruit and got an error which was not helpful. I tried to report it here, and nobody used time to look into it. So my personal user experience degraded from usable to not usable.
But I have no idea which change caused the this.
Rupert
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
On 15 October 2014 13:22, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Wikidata is NOT Wikipedia driven so the notion of redirects
Perhaps not, but I have just created Q18289539, about thw BBC's new 'Genome' online database:
I have also created:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Genome
as a redirect to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Times#Digitisation
"Radio Times" already has a separate Wikdiata entry.
There is a logical equivalence between Q18289539 and /BBC_Genome, but not between Q18289539 and /Radio_Times, nor /Radio_Times#Digitisation
I should like to add a sitelink to /BBC_Genome, to Q18289539, not least because one day, somebody might turn that redirect into an article; or add categories to it.
Hoi, The argument that one day an article might be written is not really relevant in a Wikidata context. Having relevant items in Wikidata is valid as long as it complies with the notability requirements of Wikidata.
One of the requirements is an article. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 October 2014 10:09, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 15 October 2014 13:22, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Wikidata is NOT Wikipedia driven so the notion of redirects
Perhaps not, but I have just created Q18289539, about thw BBC's new 'Genome' online database:
I have also created:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Genome
as a redirect to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Times#Digitisation
"Radio Times" already has a separate Wikdiata entry.
There is a logical equivalence between Q18289539 and /BBC_Genome, but not between Q18289539 and /Radio_Times, nor /Radio_Times#Digitisation
I should like to add a sitelink to /BBC_Genome, to Q18289539, not least because one day, somebody might turn that redirect into an article; or add categories to it.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
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
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
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
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
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
Hoi, Yes I do. I did explain why. As far as I am concerned abot should remove all redirects. Tjanks, GerardM Op 20 okt. 2014 13:22 schreef "James Heald" j.heald@ucl.ac.uk:
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
Yes I do. I did explain why. As far as I am concerned abot should remove all redirects.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread is understanding anyone else. I'm frustrated at this point.
We still don't seem to understand where the harm in having them comes from, and you still don't seem to understand where the benefit in having them comes from. I wonder if this entire argument is one huge misunderstanding.
Thank you, Derric Atzrott
Hoi, The complaint that Wikidata serves an in-crowd is something that I feel is correct. It follows from being overly interested in the academic side of things. All the work by the professional developers is for esoteric things and much if not most of the work does not translate into things that benefit the people who are actually involved in Wikidata. To add insult to injury when the argument is made that users will benefit from particular improvements those improvements are denied typically because of secondary use considerations. This is why we do not have automated descriptions for instance. Recently the format of the dump changed but only secondary use of Wikidata benefits. A lot of work was done on query but in 10 months we have not seen any result. When the "featured article" functionality was introduced it was not by WMDE developers, the same is true for the label lister, the order of available labels ...
So far official Wikidata development is mainly backroom work. Maybe important, but because of the lack of interest in the user experience and productivity there is no idea and probably no interest and expertise in how to make the regular editors and the noobs happy and productive. It is not as if there is no example how it could be. The tools by Magnus serve EXACTLY the same data to a user. They are intended for use by people and they do generate a lot of contributions. These tools are only hampered by the lack of stability of the labs environment however they do provide a user centred experience.
I salute the fact that Wikidata wants to become more user friendly but it starts with understanding what people need and how people work. The agenda for these things could make it easy and obvious for people to move with the flow of change. There may be moments when there is a break with standard practices for technical considerations.That will not happen often when the focus is on the use of Wikidata.
I have stopped arguing about Wikidata development and user experience because every time other considerations have the priority. For me many of the features of the Reasonator are must have for Wikidata. The most urgent one is that we ALWAYS see a label in whatever language. I do recognise English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish etc names. Why have numbers when there is no label in Dutch? This one feature alone prevents people from using Wikidata in the the 270+ other languages Wikidata supports. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 October 2014 04:01, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their articles more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I get more and more complaints from users that they do not understand any more how to add a newly written article to an item. They seem to have tried, but fail in actual getting it managed. That is a worse development!
Romaine
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hi!
I would like to do advocacy for taking advantage of Wikidata to wikimedians, researchers, the public sector and GLAMs (and others), but I lack the tools and methods to do so.
Wikimedians: Very few wikimedians in our country participate in the Wikidata community. There is not a local community to plan training with. There is reluctance in the Wikipedia community to learn and use Wikidata, because it is not mature enough to replace old practices. How can we learn together? What benefit should be emphasized?
Researchers and public sector: What should the promise be? Should the emphasis be on referring to Wikidata or producing data to it? Are there any workflows that could be promoted? How can we support if we cannot master it ourselves? Who could train us?
GLAMs: I know this is in the making and baking and it's premature to ask for guidelines.
All in all: Help us learn and train others! We are at your disposal for that.
Cheers, Susanna
2014-10-12 11:01 GMT+03:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The complaint that Wikidata serves an in-crowd is something that I feel is correct. It follows from being overly interested in the academic side of things. All the work by the professional developers is for esoteric things and much if not most of the work does not translate into things that benefit the people who are actually involved in Wikidata. To add insult to injury when the argument is made that users will benefit from particular improvements those improvements are denied typically because of secondary use considerations. This is why we do not have automated descriptions for instance. Recently the format of the dump changed but only secondary use of Wikidata benefits. A lot of work was done on query but in 10 months we have not seen any result. When the "featured article" functionality was introduced it was not by WMDE developers, the same is true for the label lister, the order of available labels ...
So far official Wikidata development is mainly backroom work. Maybe important, but because of the lack of interest in the user experience and productivity there is no idea and probably no interest and expertise in how to make the regular editors and the noobs happy and productive. It is not as if there is no example how it could be. The tools by Magnus serve EXACTLY the same data to a user. They are intended for use by people and they do generate a lot of contributions. These tools are only hampered by the lack of stability of the labs environment however they do provide a user centred experience.
I salute the fact that Wikidata wants to become more user friendly but it starts with understanding what people need and how people work. The agenda for these things could make it easy and obvious for people to move with the flow of change. There may be moments when there is a break with standard practices for technical considerations.That will not happen often when the focus is on the use of Wikidata.
I have stopped arguing about Wikidata development and user experience because every time other considerations have the priority. For me many of the features of the Reasonator are must have for Wikidata. The most urgent one is that we ALWAYS see a label in whatever language. I do recognise English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish etc names. Why have numbers when there is no label in Dutch? This one feature alone prevents people from using Wikidata in the the 270+ other languages Wikidata supports. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 October 2014 04:01, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their articles more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I get more and more complaints from users that they do not understand any more how to add a newly written article to an item. They seem to have tried, but fail in actual getting it managed. That is a worse development!
Romaine
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, Susanna you are completely right. Wikidata is there to serve a purpose. It means that we should work on realising tools that use Wikidata and do a better job at it. I blogged today about awards and how Wikidata can make a difference [1]. It takes not much to realise it but I have all but given up on talking. This is because there is no platform that considers this and works towards putting Wikidata to use. Not for the sake of Wikidata but for all our sakes. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/10/wikidata-maintenance-of-awards.ht...
On 12 October 2014 10:48, Susanna Ånäs susanna.anas@wikimedia.fi wrote:
Hi!
I would like to do advocacy for taking advantage of Wikidata to wikimedians, researchers, the public sector and GLAMs (and others), but I lack the tools and methods to do so.
Wikimedians: Very few wikimedians in our country participate in the Wikidata community. There is not a local community to plan training with. There is reluctance in the Wikipedia community to learn and use Wikidata, because it is not mature enough to replace old practices. How can we learn together? What benefit should be emphasized?
Researchers and public sector: What should the promise be? Should the emphasis be on referring to Wikidata or producing data to it? Are there any workflows that could be promoted? How can we support if we cannot master it ourselves? Who could train us?
GLAMs: I know this is in the making and baking and it's premature to ask for guidelines.
All in all: Help us learn and train others! We are at your disposal for that.
Cheers, Susanna
2014-10-12 11:01 GMT+03:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The complaint that Wikidata serves an in-crowd is something that I feel is correct. It follows from being overly interested in the academic side of things. All the work by the professional developers is for esoteric things and much if not most of the work does not translate into things that benefit the people who are actually involved in Wikidata. To add insult to injury when the argument is made that users will benefit from particular improvements those improvements are denied typically because of secondary use considerations. This is why we do not have automated descriptions for instance. Recently the format of the dump changed but only secondary use of Wikidata benefits. A lot of work was done on query but in 10 months we have not seen any result. When the "featured article" functionality was introduced it was not by WMDE developers, the same is true for the label lister, the order of available labels ...
So far official Wikidata development is mainly backroom work. Maybe important, but because of the lack of interest in the user experience and productivity there is no idea and probably no interest and expertise in how to make the regular editors and the noobs happy and productive. It is not as if there is no example how it could be. The tools by Magnus serve EXACTLY the same data to a user. They are intended for use by people and they do generate a lot of contributions. These tools are only hampered by the lack of stability of the labs environment however they do provide a user centred experience.
I salute the fact that Wikidata wants to become more user friendly but it starts with understanding what people need and how people work. The agenda for these things could make it easy and obvious for people to move with the flow of change. There may be moments when there is a break with standard practices for technical considerations.That will not happen often when the focus is on the use of Wikidata.
I have stopped arguing about Wikidata development and user experience because every time other considerations have the priority. For me many of the features of the Reasonator are must have for Wikidata. The most urgent one is that we ALWAYS see a label in whatever language. I do recognise English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Polish etc names. Why have numbers when there is no label in Dutch? This one feature alone prevents people from using Wikidata in the the 270+ other languages Wikidata supports. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 October 2014 04:01, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their articles more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I get more and more complaints from users that they do not understand any more how to add a newly written article to an item. They seem to have tried, but fail in actual getting it managed. That is a worse development!
Romaine
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
-- *Susanna Ånäs *Käyttäjä:Susannaanas Wikimedia Suomi http://wikimedia.fi/ – Wikimaps http://wikimaps.wikimedia.fi/ – GLAM http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM @ https://twitter.com/WMFinlandWMFinland https://twitter.com/WMFinland / Facebook https://www.facebook.com/WikimediaSuomi / Liity jäseneksi! http://fi.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liity_j%C3%A4seneksi
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l