Can you explain how such a {{Reasonator}} template would actually work. You say that it would be a stand-in until the article was actually written, but how would it know when the article is actually written? Is there a way to access the target article's state via Lua? is normally frowned upon (on en.wiki at least), even if the link is to a sister project. There are two main reasons for this: 1. It discourages the creation of new articles via redlinks 2. It can be confusing for readers to be sent to other sites while surfing Wikipedia content. (This is one of reasons why the WMF Multimedia team has been developing the Media Viewer.) My suggestion would be to leave the redlinks intact, but to provide a pop-up when hovering over the redlinks (similar to Navigation pop-ups ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups)). This pop-up could provide a small set of core data (via an ajax request) and also a link to the full Reasonator page. I would probably implement this as a gadget first and do a few design iterations based on user-feedback before proposing it as something for readers. Ryan Kaldari On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Magnus Manske &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com > On a technical note, Reasonator is pure JavaScript, so should be easily > portable, even to a Wikipedia:Reasonator.js page (or several pages, with > support JS). > > git here: > https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/reasonator > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Ryan Lane &lt;rlane32(a)gmail.com> > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Gerard Meijssen > > &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > > At this moment Wikipedia "red links" provide no information whatsoever. > > > This is not cool. > > > > > > In Wikidata we often have labels for the missing (=red link) articles. > We > > > can and do provide information from Wikidata in a reasonable way that > is > > > informative in the "Reasonator". We also provide additional search > > > information on many Wikipedias. > > > > > > In the Reasonator we have now implemented "red lines" [1]. They > indicate > > > when a label does not exist in the primary language that is in use. > > > > > > What we are considering is creating a template {{Reasonator}} that will > > > present information based on what is available in Wikidata. Such a > > template > > > would be a stand in until an article is actually written. What we would > > > provide is information that is presented in the same way as we provide > it > > > as this moment in time [2] > > > > > > This may open up a box of worms; Reasonator is NOT using any caching. > > There > > > may be lots of other reasons why you might think this proposal is evil. > > All > > > the evil that is technical has some merit but, you have to consider > that > > > the other side of the equation is that we are not "sharing in the sum > of > > > all knowledge" even when we have much of the missing requested > > information > > > available to us. > > > > > > One saving (technical) grace, Reasonator loads round about as quickly > as > > > WIkidata does. > > > > > > As this is advance warning, I hope that you can help with the issues > that > > > will come about. I hope that you will consider the impact this will > have > > on > > > our traffic and measure to what extend it grows our data. > > > > > > The Reasonator pages will not show up prettily on mobile phones .. so > > does > > > Wikidata by the way. It does not consider Wikipedia zero. There may be > > more > > > issues that may require attention. But again, it beats not serving the > > > information that we have to those that are requesting it. > > > > > > > I have a strong feeling you're going to bring labs to its knees. > > > > Sending editors to labs is one thing, but you're proposing sending > readers > > to labs, to a service that isn't cached. > > > > If reasonator is something we want to support for something like this, > > maybe we should consider turning it into a production service? > > > > - Ryan > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > undefined > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >

On 22 January 2014 08:35, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: [I'm not on the devs list, so trimmed from the CC] I would like people to be able to "subst" that template (or have a big button that does the same thing), and have some code draft a stub article based on the statements in Wikidata, say: "X was a German painter born in [[Munich]] on 27 May 1801. He died in [[Berlin]] on 3 March 1899" with formatted references, a reflist template, and a pre-populated infobox. It would be delivered in preview state, allowing further editing before publication. A suitably prominent warning would alert editors that they still bear responsibility for ensuring that the subject is notable, and the article fit for publication, according to local standards. A hidden category and/or an edit tag would allow tracking. Because of the complexity of this task, we could pilot it for one type of subject (say, buildings, or people, or even a subset of one of those) in one or two languages. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

What about having the Reasonator sit in the Draft namespace, with a link from the search results or the text preloaded for non-existing pages in the main namespace? Daniel -- http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-d… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications http://okfn.org http://wikimedia.org On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Magnus Manske &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

On Jan 23, 2014 6:42 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: too is Pointing redlinks to draft seems like a marvelous idea, and pre-populating them with wikidata even better. Having an in between "yellow" link for draft content including wikidata content, and red link for nothing seems to me like an even better idea, but dependent on how drafts will turn out in practice. We could do amazing things with this. http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-d… would to do infobox andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk big type , <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hoi, We can provide information now(ish). We are discussing draft because it is a likely avenue. It is however very much NOT intended for the English Wikipedia. If anything it would be much better if we work this out on other Wikipedias first. The most benefit from Reasonator will be for the bottom 240 Wikipedias (in page views or articles). They are most unlikely to provide the information we take for granted. They do have first and foremost a quantity problem; a quality problem does not exist when there is nothing to assess. If anything Wikidata is growing fast. It supports more subjects than any Wikipedia. It supports more subjects in any language than its Wikipedia. All the time statements are added that make the Wikidata content more valuable. Steven, Reasonator allows us to share information we have and do not serve in any other way with our public. Reasonator is very much developed in an iterative way. It is not developed by committee but it relies very much on the feedback we get. We have reported on Reasonator and associated tools for quite some time now. The bottom line is not that every thing is perfect. Reasonator is not. It is however getting better all the time. We are also ready to progress towards the functionality we are discussing. Steven would you be interested in supporting us in such an adventure ... remember, WMF aims to share in the sum of all knowledge ... It is one way to grow both our public and our community, it will teach us much about how to bring Wikidata content to a public and grow its community that is already a top 10 WMF community in contributors. Thanks, Gerard On 23 January 2014 20:45, Steven Walling &lt;steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 23 January 2014 15:42, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: I suggest that this discussion should be on the various projects that might be affected, particularly as different projects have very different ideas about whether the use of Wikidata for anything more than language links is acceptable. Many projects do not permit bulk bot creation of content, and this proposal is a close parallel. Further, content that isn't editable on the project on which it is hosted is probably not a very effective way to persuade people to turn it into an actual page. Trialing the process on some small projects that actively volunteer to participate would be a first step. Risker/Anne

Hoi, You are conflating two tools .. they are still quite distinct.. - What you refer to is a query tool and IT provides you with the numbers you quote. - Reasonator provides you with a search functionality and a display functionality So Reasonator gives you something like this [1] Thanks, GerardM [1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?lang=nl&q=3356848 [1] On 24 January 2014 09:24, Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Magnus, you are magical as always, thanks! What an odd list though - who has been working so diligently on Russian paintresses? Whoever you are, great work! meanwhile, sending more virtual kudos to Magnus while I dig into these results, Jane 2014/1/24, Magnus Manske &lt;magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com&gt;om>:

Sorry, missed the memo on WiDaR - looks *very* impressive - thanks Gerard! 2014/1/24, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: