Wikidata:Requests for comment/Items for Wikimedia projects besides Wikipedia

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Implementation and form of implementation to far away for that discussion to be helpful. --Saehrimnir (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It seems to me that some Wikimedia projects (for instance Wiktionary) ought to also have items with interwiki links to make Wikidata more comprehensive. I'll also note that if this does work out, then more properties will probably have to be created for the new Wikimedia project items. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Instead of creating separate items, existing items could be linked to sister projects once the client has been deployed on each project.

Wiktionary pages

[edit]
Exactly as Lmaltier notes here -- each WT project has copious amounts of text in the source (i.e. host) language. So the DE WT discusses things in DE, the KO WT in KO, the NV WT in NV, etc. This is a very important point: language is a real usability issue. Any change in modus operandi that could effectively exclude a sizable chunk of the user base for any given project is a change that should be very well thought-out prior to implementation, with considerations built in precisely to avoid any such exclusion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose as this task can be done by software on its own without a Wikidata item (at least for the entry name space), we just have to write it. If we choose to store dictionary information here, creating items for Wiktionary pages is also a very bad idea, as Wiktionary can have several different words on the same page. The words themselves should be items, not their shared spellings. —★PοωερZtalk 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be ideal, but it is also not possible in the near future. Right now we can only focus on using Wikidata to replace interlanguage links, which is already a lot. Darkdadaah (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Can be useful for our project, no more hundred minors bots changes in history log. Vive la Rosière (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Lmaltier. -sche (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Different Wiktionaries have different policies and approaches, but centralizing things forces uniformity. For example, what en:WT calls a regional dialect of Serbo-Croatian, the hr:WT calls a separate language. One WT might want to only include terms recognized by their country's language academy, while another might want to include anything in actual use. There are also differences regarding standard vs. alternative forms. We have enough trouble at en:WT reconciling the different opinions of UK/US/AU/NZ/etc contributors- I really don't want to see what inter-WT edit wars might look like. About the only thing that could be made to work would be interwikis, which are straightforward enough to be handled by bots. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the question. We are discuting here only about the possibility to manage interwiki link via Wikidata. For exemple, aba exists Serbo-Croatian but even there is no article in Serbo-Croatian in other Wiktionaries, it will be link to the Wiktionaries which contain an article aba. It does not matter which language is present in the article. Pamputt (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote pages

[edit]

Wikisource pages

[edit]

Wikivoyage pages

[edit]

Wikinews pages

[edit]
Searches rely on querying the database. Phase 3 of wikidata is all about queries.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In very limited cases, such as a Wikinews article on an event that also has its own Wikipedia article (Boston bombings type of thing), this might make sense, but ultimately I don't think that it makes sense. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity pages

[edit]

Wikibooks pages

[edit]

Wikispecies pages

[edit]

Incubator pages

[edit]
  •  Support Managing interwikilinks there is currently a mess. I think, managing them on Wikidata would be helpful. Regards, Vogone talk 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To note that Incubator contains test versions of Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and Wikivoyage. This questions needs to be regarded for each of these projects on its own. However it would clearly be useful to have the ability to add pagelinks to Incubator test Wikipedias (and maybe other projects later..). The Wikidata software would probably need to be changed in such a way that it recognizes that Incubator is in reality more than just one project/language, so that you can add interwikis for the same page in incubator:Wp/grc, incubator:Wp/liv, etc. It's probably good not to show the Incubator pages on "normal" Wikipedias by default (or is it?), but the Incubator test-WP articles would have a benefit from getting their interwikis from Wikidata, like all WPs do now. --MF-W 04:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support In the manner of keeping that option open.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support in accordance with MF-W's comments. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I even support the inclusion of interwikis from Wikipedias in the Incubator on all Wikipedias, as it said on the Incubator "Wikipedias in the Incubator can be used like any other Wikipedia" let's make that true. Amqui (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  •  Support In my opinion it makes sense to link to existing items than to create separate ones. Most probably an interface would be needed in order to classify linked pages to items per project (check this presentation, section related to Wikidata).--Micru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create items for...

[edit]

Wiktionary pages

[edit]
  1. Every distinctive word needs an item.
  2. No need for interwikilinks since lemmata are always the same in every language.
  3. I propose a separate namespace for Wiktionary items. If that turns out to be impractical, at least a different prefix than Q. —★PοωερZtalk 00:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea, but another RFC is probably in order to decide what letters. What's the Q-prefix stand for anyway? ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The last thing Wikidata needs is hundreds of thousands of new items that won't mesh naturally with the existing ones. Pichpich (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Keeping this option open until it becomes certain whether the omegawiki proposal goes trough. I will revaluate my opionion when that is done.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Can be useful for some specific things, but need to be discuss before it's too premature for now. But like above keep the option open. Vive la Rosière (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose There's disagreement between projects about what precisely is a language vs. a dialect, what's a term vs. sum of parts, what's standard vs. misspelling. Different projects will make different decisions on many things that have multiple interpretations, gray areas, etc. How do you reconcile those decisions? Please note that I'm not just talking about presentation, but how the data is structured, even whether certain things really exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote pages

[edit]

Wikisource pages

[edit]
  •  Support for both author and text pages. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per my comments on the RFC. --Rschen7754 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support text pages.  Comment author pages might be better handled similar to the property "Commons category". --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose and  Support To early to add Wikisource to Wikidata, but it's time to add the Client to Wikisource to reach the phase II-information from Wikisource. It does not make much sense to have items here for every chapter in a book. The interwiki on WS works differently than on WP, it does not fit the system with items here. An example is "Vårt land", the anthem of Finland. The original text is in Swedish, made by "Johan Ludvig Runeberg". Such information can be added to an item. But the corresponding pages in fi.wikisource and en.wikisource do not have "Runeberg" as an author. And fi.wikisource has four pages, and I would like to have interwiki to them all from svwikisource. Therefor you need sitelink-specific claims, and you need to have more than one sitelink to fiwikisource in one item. This is not possible yet, and I doubt that it will ever be. Another solution would be to have one item for each text with never more than one sitelink. But what need is there for Wikidata then? It would be like having one single item for every single article on all wikipedias. Adding Author-ns sounds good, but how will it look like on Wikipedia and Wikisource. Will there on the page of enwp:Charles Darwin be a link to all Wikisources that has texts of Darwin? And on Wikisouce, will there be a link to all wp-pages about Darwin? I doubt that it will make any sense. And if we choose to have only one link from WP in a WS-page, which page will be choosen? There is an article about the book Amtmannens döttrar on nowp. Even if somebody creates a stub on svwp in the subject, I think I would prefer to have a link to nowp, since it's a better article. -- Lavallen (block) 08:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Existing items can be linked (authors), nonexistent items should be created.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Will be needed to fulfill the needs of wikisource.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage pages

[edit]
No need for new items but for language links to Wikivoyage pages in different languages.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews pages

[edit]

Wikiversity pages

[edit]

Wikibooks pages

[edit]

Wikispecies pages

[edit]

* Strong oppose - The primary purpose of items is to hold links, and WSpecies doesn't need that. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubator pages

[edit]

Sister projects templates

[edit]

French

[edit]

Wikipedia

[edit]

Wiktionary

[edit]

Wikibooks

[edit]

Wikiversity

[edit]

Wikinews

[edit]

Wikisource

[edit]

Wikiquote

[edit]

English

[edit]

Multilingual projects

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • But if we can't link them to anything, creating an item is pointless; we also don't know if they will be implemented at all, so this is putting the cart before the horse. --Rschen7754 02:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it is in the community's hand to decide what we do, but at the same time its a known thing that Wikidata will replace interwiki linking on all WMF projects. Legoktm (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but it would be suboptimal to set this up before we know what the implementation will look like, and then risk having to redo things when the actual implementation comes around because stuff doesn't match up. --Rschen7754 03:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's still too early this RfC. --β16 - (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this RfC is rather pointless. I would close it too.--Micru (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too early: we have no feedback from wikipedias and you want already add new features to wikidata ? For me the plan is clear: interwiki, infobox and list. Once we will reach that point and we receive a positive feedback from wikipedia communities we can think to extend the scope to other projects. I don't want to stop discussion and tests for integration of other projects but we don't have the ressources to add new lists of features when what is planned is not yet implemented. Snipre (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good to talk about it now, but should only be implemented after Phase 3 is done and resources are available. There is already enough going on at the moment without adding more projects. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably there are the incremental changes for wikis like the Wikisources that builds on the WP matters relating to works and the authors, primarily as wikilinks interlanguage and interwiki. Some of the links are clear one WS to one WD, whereas some works will be multiple WS to one WD. There there are the transformational changes where there are the properties that are looking to be grabbed by the WS, and searches undertaken, especially when dates are included, and WD has the ability to have all the book metadata, and inhale that from external sources. Clearly all needs a plan, and eating the elephants one mouthful at a time.
  • This discussion has been open for just shy of a month. We will need a closer soon. --Jakob Scream about the things I've broken 17:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just generally note that I  Support integration, however I have this to add: all the stuff from all the other projects needs to map to existing concepts/items as much as possible, but not more than that. In the end, we should have an integration of content, not every project in its own namespace on Wikidata. This also implies creating as many items as necessary, even if it's for every single word in every single language. Items are free. We're not going to run out of hard drive space, and any user-interface issues resulting from a lot of items should be solved by good user interface design, not by restricting the data. Silver hr (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Items_for_Wikimedia_projects_besides_Wikipedia&oldid=604387014"