Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Wikidata/Allow multiple entry from same site on wikidata

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Random proposal ►

 ◄ Back to Wikidata  The survey has concluded. Here are the results!


  • Problem: Currently each Wikidata item can only link to one entry from the same site, and thus multilingual mediawiki site (including betawikiversity, incubator, oldwikisource) as well as wiki projects that are currently have more than one article for different script due to inability to automatically convert script variant (include for example some entry in Tatar Wikipedia and some entry in Min Dong Wikipedia) are forced to link the same concept to different wikidata items if it is necessary to link them onto wikidata. In wikidata, these different items will then be linked together via properties, which will result from difficulty in management (because of existence of multiple concept for the same thing) and also make users harder to go between different sites (As entry in different wikidata items are not visible in interwiki link and are not displayed on the same wikidata item page)
  • Who would benefit:
    • All Incubator/Mediawiki/Oldwikisource users will be benefited by being able to directly connect each item within those site to the wikidata database.
    • It will also help with organization of data on wikidata as it will no longer need to maintain permanetly duplicated items that are marked as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P2959
    • Users using alternative script in different wiki can also access wikidata interlanguage link directly.
  • Proposed solution: Allow multiple article/entry from same wiki site onto same wikidata item, with additional labeling on how each variant different from other. (In incubator's case, that would be labeling the language name, in the case of wikipedia with multiple script, that would be labelling the script name.
  • More comments: 2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Categories/Wikidata#Support_for_Incubator_projects was last year's proposal on the same subject
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T54971 cater some aspect of it.
  • Proposer: C933103 (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Endorse. See also wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Allow the creation of links to redirects in Wikidata which has strong majority (but not overwhelming) support from the wikidata commuity. Support for multiple links should be along the same lines though an even more significant change to the data model. I think the biggest problem (in both cases) is how to handle inter-language links consistently. Perhaps multiple links for a given language or wikimedia site could be lumped into an interstitial page that lists the more specific options, rather than showing all the direct links on every page? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This doesn't seem to be a technical issue but more of a policy issue about the data-model and as such ill-equipped for the Community Wishlist. I think that the implementation of the linked RfC will also reduce the need for this. ChristianKl (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    • It is the data modelling that have become a technical issue. I can't see why the implementation of the lilnked RFC would be in any way reduce the demand of this. C933103 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This may also benefit Commons if a page and a category can be linked to the same Wikidata item. Yann (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. This might also solve the issue I mentioned in Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Wikidata/Stop using string datatype for linking to pages on other projects --Jarekt (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse per ChristianKl, we already discussed this at length and it doesn't just fit. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Sannita:I am not aware of any preexisting discussion about it, nor any comment against providing a method to allow items in entries such as those in d:Q5 and d:Q22828631 can be allowed within same wikidata item. C933103 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • there are two sides of this proposal. On one hand it will help commons and incubator. On the other on Wikipedias interwikis have to be carefully chosen as the articles do not always cover exactly the same meaning. Creating multiple links to simmilar articles and not the one would create a total interwiki mess. masti <talk> 13:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It is too big change in model. May be to allow this only for limited specific sites (like Oldwikisource)? --Infovarius (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 13:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support abandoning one-sitelink-per-project restriction. I would extend it to one-sitelink-per-project-per-namespace restriction. That would solve issues with Wikipedias using multiple scripts. It would also solved an issue with sitelinks to Commons, which are a big unsolved issue. --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sitelinks to commons are a mess, as some sitelinks can be to categories and some to galleries. Creating huge uncertainty and slowing down development of Wikidata use on Commons. Same with wikis that have he same article in multiple scripts. Permanent duplicated item (P2959) property used for linking multiple items related to the same concept but linking to different pages on the same site, is a crazy hack, that tries to make up this limitation. Also thare is an issue of using string datatype for linking to pages on Commons for which proposed solution was to just store all the links to pages on other projects as sitelinks instead of properties. --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per ChristianKI and Sannita. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose ChristianKl (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl, Superchilum, and Sannita: So in your 3 opinions, how do we handle phab:T54971? Permanent duplicated pages? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    I think that everything worth linking should get it's own subdomain. ChristianKl (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    I still don't know, but IMHO it should be primarily a community discussion, not a developer discussion. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    It is a developer discussion, as it is not clear is such thing is technically allowed at the moment. Once it is an option (technically) than it becomes community discussion to use it or not. --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Jarekt. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support The status quo around Commons is a total mess, Incubator projects should also have the same technical options as normal wikis. On multilingual wikis (like Commons or Meta) translated pages can’t be linked with Wikidata, too (altough it may be solved in Translate extension by providing the same interlanguage links as on the English original page). Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)