Gallery is dumb and it sucks, nobody should sitelink to gallery. Just use
category and never ever link to gallery.
You expect to find information about the photo on Commons gallery? Then you
will find most of the galleries are abandoned or out of date like the most
recent image being like photos in 2008 or 2009. Commons' core, fundamental
structure of maintaining image list is category, not gallery. Wikidata
ignores this Commons' fact by trying to enforce ridiculous rules like this.
ps. Can I get the link for
In terms of navigation from article-items to Commons categories, the
policy is very
straightforward: set and use the P373 property.
this comment's consensus? I have been away for a while and don't have idea
about this. I remember the controversy related this while I was active,
which means the policy isn't obviously straightforward for others.
--
revi
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:-revi
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:-revi
https://revi.me
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 8. 28. 오전 2:28에 "James Heald" <j.heald(a)ucl.ac.xn--uk>-n54x791j 작성:
In terms of navigation from article-items to Commons categories, the
policy is very
straightforward: set and use the P373 property.
> This property also makes the inverse very
straightforward, to go from a
Commons category to a Wikidata item: use the script
Reasonator
link to the Commons category whenever there is a Wikidata
article-like item pointing to it with a P373.
> What we have at the moment is the worst of all worlds -- namely
inconsistency which is getting worse.
> As a result people don't know what to
do, and they are not setting the
P373 property -- with the result that scripts and queries don't find the
connections that they should.
> What we need is clarity and systematic
consistency. Then it is an easy
step to adjust the user-presentation to do the right thing.
> -- James.
> On 27/08/2015 14:03, Romaine Wiki wrote:
>
>> No we have not a clear policy on only
linking sitelinks to categories if
>> the item itself is about a category. So not let's not break that.
>
>> You suggest to break down almost the
complete navigational structure
>> Commons has in relationship with Wikipedia, and makes it possible to find
>> articles that are about the same subject as the category. Without it
>> becomes almost impossible to identify a category on Commons to be related
>> to an article in Wikipedia.
>> Sorry, but your proposal is insane and making the navigational situation
a
>> thousand times worse. And does it make anything better? No, totally not.
>> Only the opposite: worse.
>
>> Wikidata is currently heavily used to
connect categories on Commons to
>> articles on Wikipedia. This so that interwikilinks are shown on the
>> category on Commons to the related Wikipedia article. This for
navigational
> purposes but also to uniquely identify categories
on Commons to articles
on
>> Wikipedia and items on Wikidata.
>
>> How nice Commons galleries are giving
an overview, they are crap in
>> speaking of navigational purposes. For every subject a category on
Commons
>> is created and used and the Commons categories form the backbone to media
>> categories.
>
>> It has been pointed out for a long time
that the linking situation on
>> Commons is problematic and this is a software issue, not a user side
issue.
>> This consists out of:
>> * There can only be added one sitelink to an item.
>> * If no sitelink added (but only added as property), a Commons category
>> can't show the interwikilinks.
>> * If a category and an article on Wikipedia/etc exist for a subject, only
>> one of them can be shown on the Commons category.
>
>> The annoying part is that some large
wikis, especially the English
>> Wikipedia, creates too many categories that are not created on other
>> Wikipedias. This causes that categories on Commons are only linked to a
>> category on Wikipedia, which is useless for most other wikis and on
Commons
>> we miss an interwikilink to the related article.
>
>> A gallery on Commons is a great way as
alternative to show images, but is
>> not suitable for navigational purposes, as that requires a much higher
>> coverage and being a backbone everything relies on. On Commons only
>> categories have that function. A counter proposal makes more sense: no
>> Commons galleries as sitelinks any more and having Commons galleries only
>> as property added.
>
>> But this only solves a part of the
problem: on Commons I would like to
see
>> somehow that both the related category as the related article are shown.
>> Example: on the Commons category for a specific country both the country
>> category on Wikipedia is linked as the article on Wikipedia is linked.
>
>> Something I have been wondering about
for a long time is why there are 2
>> places on an item where a Commonscat is added. I understand the
development
>> and technical behind it, but this should not be needed.
>
>> So the developers of Wikidata should
try to find a way to show both
groups
>> of interwikilinks on categories on Commons.
>
>> As long as this is not resolved in
software, this problem of 2 items both
>> strongly related to a Commons category keeps an issue.
>
>> Romaine
>
>
>
>
>
>> 2015-08-27 11:29 GMT+02:00 James Heald <j.heald(a)ucl.ac.uk>uk>:
>
>>> A few days ago I made the following
post to Project Chat, looking at how
>>> people are linking from Wikidata items to Commons categories and
galleries
>> compared to a year ago, that some people on
the list may have seen,
which
>>> has now been archived:
>>
>>
>>
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2015/08#Trends_…
>>
>>
>>> A couple of headlines:
>>
>>> *
Category <-> commonscat identifications :
>>
>>> ** There
was a net increase of 61,784 Commons categories that can now be
>>> identified with category-like items, to 323,825 Commons categories in
all
>>
>>> **
96.4% of category <-> commonscat identifications (312,266 items) now
>>> have sitelinks. This represents a rise in sitelinks (60,463 items)
>>> amounting to 97.8% of the increase in identifications
>>
>>> **
80.0% of category <-> commonscat identifications (259,164 items) now
>>> have P373 statements. This represents a rise in P373 statements (8,774
>>> items) amounting to 14.2% of the increase in identifications
>>
>>
>>> * Article <-> commonscat
identifications :
>>
>>> ** There
was a net increase of 176,382 Commons categories that can now
be
>>> identified with article-like items, to 884,439 Commons categories in all
>>
>>> ** 23.4%
of article <-> commonscat identifications (207,494 items) now
>>> have (deprecated) sitelinks. This represents a rise in sitelinks
(112,595
>>> items) amounting to 63.8% of the increase in identifications.
>>
>>> ** 91.3%
of article <-> commonscat identifications (807,776 items) now
>>> have P373 statements. This represents a rise in P373 statements (110,727
>>> items) amounting to 62.8% of the increase in identifications
>>
>>
>>> * In addition, a recent RfC showed
considerable confusion as to what
>>> actually was the current operational Wikidata policy on sitelinks to
>>> Commons:
>>
>>
>>
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Category_common…
>>
>>
>>> In view of the trends above; and
the need for predictability and
>>> consistency for queries and templates and scripts to depend on; and
>>> particularly in view of the apparent confusion as to what the
operational
>> policy currently actually is, can I suggest
that the time has come for a
>> bot to monitor all new sitelinks to Commons categories,
>> * adding a corresponding P373 statement if there is not one already,
and
>>> * removing the sitelink if it is from an article-like item to a
>>> commonscat.
>>
>>
>>> I believe we have clear policy on
only sitelinking commons categories to
>>> category-like items, and commons galleries to article-like items; but
there
>>> is currently confusion and unpredictability being caused because these
>>> relationships are not being enforced -- breaking scripts and queries.
>>
>>> It's
time to fix this.
>>
>>
>>> All best,
>>
>>>
James.
>>
>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
>
>>
_______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata