Wikidata:Property proposal/Mediawiki Wiki

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mediawiki wiki URL[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Under discussion
Descriptionexternal MediaWiki wiki which relates to this topic.
RepresentsMediaWiki website (Q15633582)
Data typeURL
Domainitem
Allowed valuessubdomain.example.com/wiki/Main_Page
Example 1Miraheze (Q42671570)https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Miraheze
Example 2micronation (Q188443)https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Main_Page
Example 3Diary of a Wimpy Kid (Q1339580)https://wimpykidwiki.com/wiki/Diary_of_a_Wimpy_Kid_Wiki
Example 4Eastern Orthodox Church (Q35032)https://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page
Example 5Libertarian Party (Q558334)http://lpedia.org/Main_Page
Planned useMostly just add it to IDs like that.
Expected completenessAlways incomplete
See alsoGamepedia Wiki ID (P6867), Fandom wiki ID (P4073), and Wikidata property linking to external MediaWiki wiki (Q62619638)

Motivation[edit]

A lot of organizations, websites, topics, etc. will have a MediaWiki (Q83) wiki (Q171) that isn't hosted on Wikia (Q17459) or Gamepedia (Q64521795). I was originally going to propose another property based off of Miraheze (Q42671570) as an alternative, but then I realized a more generic version of this property would likely be more useful.
For example, Pokémon (Q864) lists this site, but it doesn't list Bulba:/Bulbapedia (Q41884312). That seems weird, doesn't it? The later is much more popular, but the former gets a direct link.
It'll also be a good starting off point if we ever want to create a generic equivalent for Fandom article ID (P6262). Maybe if a wiki gets linked so much that we create a unique property for it, and so on and so forth! It'd go a long way for improving our coverage on other wikis in my opinion, but that's just the future possibilities right there. Cheers! –MJLTalk 06:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

John Vandenberg (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC) --Ilya (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC) B20180 (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject MediaWiki - please let me know what you think! :D –MJLTalk 06:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --B20180 (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, seems a good idea. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support makes sense RhinosF1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose with that name: this property proposal isn't the equivalent of Fandom article ID (P6262): Wikia (Q17459) is a service, and each wiki on that site can be considered a kind of account, while MediaWiki (Q83) is a software, so the scope is different. And, why should we limite to MediaWiki wikis? What about wikis that use UseModWiki (Q620494) or MoinMoin (Q1141771)? I propose renaming this property to "related wiki", or something like that. --Tinker Bell 07:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Tinker Bell: Well my hope was to get a better sense for what relevant wikis are using MediaWiki, so.. at a later date could we possibly rename this and add a mandatory qualifier based on wiki software (Q6686945)? –MJLTalk 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    That could be done with a qualifier − similar to how we have source code repository (P1324) used together with protocol (P2700) (instead of having a “Git repo” property). Jean-Fred (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    MJL, in this case, I think this property proposal could be renamed to «related wiki», with a new qualifier «software used». --Tinker Bell 23:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Tinker Bell: I would 100% support that. Though, I do wonder if there was a way to some make a «external wiki article id» property that requires «related wiki» as a mandatory qualifier (example using website username (P554)). The input data for «related wiki» could then just be an instance of [Q|External wiki ID] with the «software used» and formatter URL (P1630) properties. «related wiki» still being free for placement on items (Libertarian Party (Q558334), etc.) as proposed except with item as the data type.
    Am I getting to for ahead of myself? –MJLTalk 00:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    @MJL: I think it can be a good proposal. But I would use part of (P361) qualifier instead of «related wiki». And formatter URL (P1630) could be stored in each wiki's item. --Tinker Bell 05:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't described at URL (P973) do the job? ChristianKl❫ 08:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl: The hope is to get a better sense for what other wikis are out there as entire repositories for more information than can be described at that one specific URL. –MJLTalk 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support iff it is expanded to include non-Mediawiki wikis and uses a qualifier to specify software. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in its current form. We need to link these sites, and they are different from described at URL (P973) which is normally used to link to a specific document rather than these sites which are more like encyclopedias of their topic. What seems really objectionable is modelling the link in terms of the software used. It's arguably the least useful information to most end users. More useful would be whether the site accepts edits from the public; or whether it's an "official" site of the subject, or a fan community, or created by a particular interest group. What's more, we're not even guaranteed the information is public: someone could configure a wiki in a way that makes it unclear what underlying software is used, or like Tinker Bell suggests they could choose a more obscure wiki platform, and that site could still be a useful wiki for users to read or contribute to. If I give you a link to a site about your favourite book and but only tell you the site uses PHP, Bootstrap and MariaDB, I've given you practically zero useful information as someone looking for information related to the book. That's the absurdity of this proposal. I think Tinker Bell is on the right track above and would support creation of a property which prioritised the function offered by the site rather than its software platform. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)