Template talk:Authority control/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Authority control. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Template:Authority control divonly

Should Template:Authority control divonly be merged into Template:Authority control with a parameter like "state=inline"? It's good to have other options for display. For instance, an inline version could be added to a bullet list or a table. An example is Henri Duponchel#External links, where there are actually a number of different authority files that need to be linked. Commons:Template:Authority control provides a strangely named parameter called "bare". This is for when the Authority control template is added to the Creator templates. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've argued previously that, where an article has an infobox, the AC should be part of that. Would your proposal facilitate that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely worth merging, I think, otherwise we'll get a lag between the code - at the moment, they're actually producing subtly different information, and as and when we get the VIAF-to-Worldcat transition going, they'll diverge even more. The new system (using sub-templates) should run smoothly with the inline form, as all the formatting is clustered in the main template. (Alternatively, of course, you could just call, eg, {{Authority control/VIAF}} directly) I'm not sure quite how to "switch off" the formatting with a parameter, but if someone can figure it out in the sandbox, please do! Andrew Gray (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Given that we've just crossed the 50,000 transclusions mark, a substantial number of which are on BLPs, I've fully protected this template per Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've also protected the various sub-templates. All the talkpages redirect to here (thanks Andy!) so it should be fairly easy to catch editrequests. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd think so; but some users do seem to find it necessary to add an edit request to a redirected talk page. I see maybe one per month like that. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox person parameter?

Should Authority control be a parameter in Template:Infobox person or in appropriate members of Category:People infobox templates ? RDBrown (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it could potentially work that way, but I'm not sure how to efficiently integrate it (and definitely not convinced it should be solely used in infoboxes). Case by case, I guess. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Eventually, it should be a parameter (or parameters) of all biographical infoboxes (and thus available as part of their emitted metadata), and used as such where an article has an infobox. Only where the article has no infobox should the current template be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Suppressing WorldCat link

I just added this template to Jermain Defoe, with functioning links to his LCCN and VIAF records. But there's also an automatically generated link, I guess connected to his LCCN record, that appears for WorldCat and doesn't work. Could someone help me fix that link or code the template to allow for its suppression? --BDD (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Very weird - I didn't know it was possible to have a valid LCCN that wasn't reflected in WorldCat Identities! Thanks for picking it up; I'll fire this one off to OCLC tomorrow.

The WorldCat link is indeed generated automatically from the LCCN; it will be generated from the VIAF in the future, but that's not quite ready at the WorldCat end yet. It should be possible to code a switch to turn it off, but I'm not sure I'll have time to look at it before the weekend - I'd suggest either leaving it in place or just commenting out the LCCN for now. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliability?

I have just come across this template for the first time, on the article for footballer/manager Steve Bruce. Now he may be more erudite than the average retired pro, but I do not believe for a moment that he has authored learned tomes on protestant paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, nor on conservative protestant political trends in the ten years from 1978. If "authority control" is not authoritative and reliable, should we be using it?

I have removed the template, but it is still displaying. Stranger still, if I use the article history to call up versions of the page from before the template was added.

What's happening? Kevin McE (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating! He is right, VIAFbot added the template, then Kevin McE removed it, but it still displays! The current version of the article seems to be as it was before VIAFbot changed it, but the authority control template is there. What is happening? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... Worldcat gets his identity wrong by saying he is a scholar on protestants in Ireland, but the Library of congress knows he works in football. I thought those databases were synced. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

a) The reason it appears twice is due to there also being a {{normdaten}} template - see above. We're still working on this problem; I'll fix it by hand just now.

b) Worldcat probably has those two books miscatalogued under "this" Bruce and not another one. Normally this sort of thing is due to faulty merges in VIAF, but there's only one VIAF record - they can't have combined two! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's further research. I am fairly sure that:

i) LoC nb2004310789 is definitely "our" Steve Bruce, b. 1960, author of Striker, Heading for Victory, etc.

ii) VIAF 75832359 is matched to this LoC identity and no other, so is also correct.

iii) however, a Worldcat contributor has mistakenly catalogued two books by another Steve Bruce (b. 1954, VIAF 76345130) using the records for "our" one.

So the authority identifiers are correct and "clean", but a third party's screwed up in what they've tagged with them. I'm not completely sure what we can do with this right now, but I'll drop a line to OCLC and see if we can get the Worldcat catalogue records switched to the new identifier, which seems the easiest solution. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If VIAFbot (talk · contribs) has chosen the wrong Steve Bruce, the place to notify the problem is Wikipedia:VIAF/errors. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

so done, but problem is with worldcat, VIAF and LOC, external to wiki: one attributes books that are not his, the other two only list half his works. Removed from his article. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) See above - it's really only Worldcat. VIAF/LoC is usually a "selected" sample list, not intended as comprehensive. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I work for OCLC at the moment, and I'll report this problem internally. Maximilianklein (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that Struway2 has been able to find so many mismatches in fairly restricted fields so quickly and easily, and considering that alongside the FAQ claim that "The primary purpose of authority control records is to help distinguish between people with the same (or similar) names", it is hard to conclude that the template is meeting its primary purpose. It may be a great idea in principle, but while its application is so unreliable, should we really be applying it to the encyclopaedia? Kevin McE (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The error level does seem to be a bit higher than I hoped, and we'll need to look into this. Sport seems to be a particular issue (and was noted by one of the de.wp user above, in fact); perhaps it would be practical to refocus the bot on "more confident" areas, eg doing identifiers for writers now, and others later after more refining? I'll try and figure out what the best way is to go from here... Andrew Gray (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think focussing on writers sounds good. Looking at baseball players suggests it's unacceptable (mostly errors) for the smaller pages on baseball players. Perhaps also the template could have a parameter indicating whether or not it's been manually checked? (Ideally perhaps everything might have been added with an auto=yes, so that manual checking could result in the removal of the flag. But it's too late for that one now!) Dsp13 (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles with authority control information

The Category:Wikipedia:Authority control (key words only) (test / evaluation 20:08, 30 August 2011) can be deleted. Its content is identical with the Category:Wikipedia articles with deprecated authority control identifiers (SWD). --Kolja21 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW: As far as I see the deprecated parameter GKD-V1 is not used any more and can be removed from the template as well. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Link?

Shouldn't the text "Authority control" link to Wikipedia:Authority control instead of Authority control? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I was also mulling over that link and neither is ideal. I have just finished creating a Help:Authority control page for use by our readership and I want to have it linked from the template. I feel the page somehow needs a little more work but I would not want it much longer. Attention spans and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm keen in general to avoid self-references, but a help/about page might be handy as a link. Do any infobox fields (etc) link to Wikipedia or Help space pages, rather than articlespace ones? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, no; WP:SELFREF applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I find that linking the template to Authority control partially defeats the purpose of the visibility of the template. Either link to Wikipedia:Authority control or have the template read the parameter and point to the appropriate authority file. Having a reader "wash about" in Authority control is a disservice. --Bejnar (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps Authority control needs to be better-written? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clearly inappropriate to link to the article about authority controls, as it doesn't serve the reader very well (it'd be the same as Template:Coord linking to the concept of cadastral information); we should link to Help:Authority control which can explain clearly to the reader why we've given them this link, as opposed to what it is. James F. (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with James. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

After a bit of thought (well, a long period to clean my mind a bit) I'm tempted to go with the short-and-sweet Help:Authority control. In terms of precedent, {{Cat main}} - ~80k uses - links to Help:Categories. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds just fine to me. --Bejnar (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons has "Entries for [subject] in library catalogs and other authority files" (example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

TSURL and BPN

Hi, not sure if this is the right place, but I have been using BPN numbers for my work on Dutch & Flemish people and I recently requested this to be added in to the Authority control template on Commons, where I use it for creator templates. What is with the TSURL and why does that only link to German Wiki pages? Also, can the BPN be added here too? If the answer to the latter question is yes, can I submit a bot request somehow to change all the BPN templates (when the Authority control template is also in use) over? Thx, Jane (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Biografisch Portaal

We might want to add this Dutch biographical database to the template. Currently there's a separate template {{BPN}} that provides links to their catalogue, but a bot can easily merge the instances. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked the same question (see above). Do you know whether this template could be synced with then one on Commons? Jane (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. Seems that I missed your post but that makes two requests now. I'm not much of a template coder but if there are no special CSS classes on Commons that we don't have, we might eventually just copy the whole thing from Commons:Template:Authority control. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now added BPN to the authority control template. Please feel free to make a bot request for replacing {{BPN}}. De728631 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! I just tried it and it works great! Unfortunately I don't know how to make a bot request, but thanks for this - I will adjust the BPN whenever I come to them. Jane (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You can ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests. With 360 replacements to make I don't see any problems to get this task approved. De728631 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just did that. Thanks again. Jane (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes

When would be a good time to start considering the use of AC in infoboxes? With Wikidata ramping up to collect data from infoboxes, and add it into infoboxes on other-language Wikipedias, AV might be a good pilot field, being unambiguous and unlikely to be encumbered by prose comments, caveats or references. we could also include AC in infoboxes emitted (microformat) metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea. We would just need to convert the AC template so fits into the |module= parameter of {{Infobox person}}. For a start we could go with a simple switch that determines the layout of AC to be either horizontal (default) or vertical and without colours. Other infoboxes would have to be adjusted though to host the AC template. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Putting AC into infoboxes would be extremely useful for pages that contain a lot of navboxes at the bottom. See e.g. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the endgame here needs to be a suite of templates with roughly equivalent functionality so that editors or particular articles and pick their choice of place for this information. Other places to put the AC info include: the talk page; the list of published works (because we can help populate this); External links; etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, with the current navbox style the AC template is automatically placed at the very bottom of an article place which is often inside External links, so to say. One could however put this directly below the section heading to separate it from any other navboxes with article links. There are plenty of possibilities with the current template. I've also made a sandbox version that can be nested into 'infobox person' or tables. See Template:Authority control/testcases. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions about a bot

I'm ready to run a bot to replace {{BPN}} with {{Authority Control}}. However, Jane mentioned in the bot request that there were a few questions yet to be resolved before I should run the bot.

I therefore have two questions:

Other than {{BPN}}, are there any other templates which should use {{Authority control}}?
Is this template going to be renamed, or should I go ahead and use {{Authority control}} as the target?

— Wolfgang42 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

a) Possibly. {{worldcat}}, {{worldcat id}} and {{worldcat subject}} are all similar to {{BPN}} in that they are "external link" templates which duplicate the functionality of {{authority control}}, but I'm not sure we can confidently say they should be replaced just yet.

b) Probably not in the near future; VIAFbot is still running and will be adding {{authority control}} until it's finished. If we do rename it, it should wait until after that process is complete, else things will get quite tangled up. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case I'll just go ahead and replace {{BPN}} then. Thanks! — Wolfgang42 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! If we do go ahead with switching the worldcat ones, I may come back and ask you about it ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that. Renaming templates seems to be a common request, so I've developed a program to do it easily. Just drop me a line! — Wolfgang42 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks! Jane (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

ORCID and ISNI

ORCID

It's not much used in the real world yet (officially launched today!) but I've updated the sandbox to include ORCID. A test, using John Wilbanks (the first author I've found so far with a page):

More practically, ORCID uses the same form as ISNI (it's defined as an ISNI in the 0000-0001-5xxx-xxxx to 0000-0003-5xxx-xxxx range), and so once ISNI goes live we'll be able to support both. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about this for a bit, my suggestion would be that we set it up to handle ORCID as standard for now, and once ISNI is in place set up a switch - if the number matches an ORCID range call it ISNI/ORCID, and if it doesn't simply call it ISNI. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Since ORCID is a user-generated site, I imagine that a number of these are going to appear in User: pages, is that going to break anything? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so - there's a few people already using it for themselves. Lots of these are userspace drafts, but there's about a dozen "real" user records at the moment, and it seems to go okay. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ISNI

Andrew Gray wrote above:

Find a functioning way to include ISNI - this may have to wait a couple of months, though we could always use

What about including it, for the time being, as displayed, but unlinked, text? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We could, but I'm not sure of the benefit for it. Without the link, it's just a string! On the other hand, hopefully their site will be up and running soon... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It would enable people (or bots) to start entering the data, and to see that what others have entered is present and correct (or to make it so). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If we do it right, we can have an integrated ORCID / ISNI, since one is a subset of the other. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's my plan (I'm still working out how to do it) - if we have an ORCID display it as "ORCID/ISNI xxxx"; if we have a non-ORCID ISNI display it as "ISNI xxxx". I wonder if the template system can do this on the fly, by looking at the number?

For the moment, are we happy to put just ORCID live? We can ISNI it up a bit later ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. JFDI applies ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Missed the reply! ORCID is now live. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

...and here's the first use: John Wilbanks. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I beat you to that, on my user page ;-) Thanks for making it happen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The sandbox version now uses ISNI, but the interface at their end is still pretty flaky - it requires a clickthrough screen. I've talked to them about the possibility of getting this lifted, so we shall see... Andrew Gray (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Open Library

We already have Template:OL author. Are there any plans to include Open Library in the Authority Control template? Dsp13 (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer adding professional services first, like BIBSYS or the ones at Commons:Template:Authority control. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Why? Dsp13 (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I like to use OL, their scans are great, but they have no reliable data. They merge different authors with the same name, there are ten thousands of duplicates and the index is outdated. New books are not researchable through the search field any more. So OL is still ok as a library link, but for authority control it does not reach the required standard. --Kolja21 (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please change

the "PND" in the output to "GND". Thanks. PND has been part of the GND for some months now. --FA2010 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Done De728631 (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

More researcher identifiers

Following on from ISNI, I thought I'd look into similar identifiers. There seem to be a couple of standard ones:

ResearcherID - example
Scopus ID - example

Both should be reasonably easy to incorporate. Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm going to add them and will also include BIBSYS, ULAN and BNF. De728631 (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth including BIBSYS/BNF directly when these are both already in VIAF? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've included them anyway since readers may not be aware of that fact. And not all VIAF records contain IDs from BNF and BIBSYS, so having only VIAF may result in futile searches while a speficic link to the other two will tell the reader that there's more to find. I have, however, not yet included Scopus to the template documentation although I have implement the weblink functionalitiy. Using Scopus requires a login so I'm not sure if the general researcher benefits from this. For the template display we could however mark the link with a lock symbol or something to point that out. De728631 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha - I had accessed Scopus from work and hadn't realised it was normally paywalled, well spotted :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The given search link for BIBSYS is ask.bibsys.no/ask/action/smpsearch. I can find books through this link but where is the authority control data? --Kolja21 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's the downside of the current BIBSYS interface. They do not yet display the real authority files to the general public. This is a description in Norwegian of their authority control data base which is currently only avaible for librarians with a password. I thought however that the book search would be a valuable addition, but if you think it should go I can remove it. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As far as I understand they say: "The name BIBSYS is only temporary and will be replaced by a different name when we will open the service to all." Sounds good! So we just have to wait ... --Kolja21 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The name BIBSYS as such will apparently remain but their authority subset "BIBSYS Bare" is going to be renamed. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the name ;) What I'm looking for is the possibility to research their data without going through VIAF. I love using VIAF but I hate waiting months before the data is imported. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Template is perhaps intimidating to readers / link not very useful

I have concerns about this template. First, I think the very phrase "Authority control" sounds intimidating to readers. I would venture to guess that less than 1 in a 1000 know what it is actually referring to. It's not even obvious upon first reading of the "Authority control" article. Besides that issue, I just question the value of the template in the first place. The links just don't seem very useful and amount to cruft. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see the deletion discussion in 2010 for Template:Normdaten, which was the previous name. There are some very convincing arguments for having this template. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We tried to advertise the RFC for inclusion as widely as possible, and there was fairly broad consensus to include them. I'm definitely sympathetic to the (daunting) terminology issue, though - see also Wikipedia talk:Authority control#The "WTF?!?" factor. Any idea for a good rewording? Andrew Gray (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal and Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal/RFC; the latter passed with "clear consensus". Perhaps we need a FAQ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything that explicitly addressed the name of the template. While "authority control", "authority work", and "authority record" are well-known terms of art among bibliographers and archivists, they quite certainly will confuse many uninitiated readers and even editors of Wikipedia. Some will think "authority" refers to "authors" as opposed to I tend to think that {{authoritative name}} or {{authoritative subject heading}} as appropriate would be less confusing (recognizing that for now the proposal doesn't address subject headings). This is perhaps the plainest-language explanation I have yet found. The IFLA Guidelines' definition is fairly succinct and technically sufficient:

Authority entry. An authorised heading displayed to the user. May also refer to the complete authority record displayed to the user. See also Authority record.
Authority file. A set of authority records.
Authority record. A record in an authority file for which the organising element is the authorised heading for an entity (person, corporate body, or work/expression) as established by the cataloguing agency responsible. In addition to the authorised heading, the record contains, as applicable: information notes; a record of all variant and related headings from which references have been made (tracings); notes recording sources consulted, etc; an identification of the cataloguing agency responsible for the entry; and (when implemented) the International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN).
— IFLA Guidelines, p.11

This would then suggest {{authorised name}} and {{authorised heading}}, but I tend to think these have similar problems. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The term authority record appears several times in that quote. Perhaps Authority records would be a better name for the template? --Mirokado (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That rather depends on whether we want distinct templates for the distinct entities referred to, but if the choice is for a single template, then yes, {{authority record}} could work out.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Authority record" makes me think of official police files and such. This might be misleading again, especially when used in connection with biographies of living persons. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How about generalising it entirely and going for something like "standard identifiers"? We could (as discussed above) link to a general help page discussing authority control in the broader sense. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

"Standard identifiers" sounds good but I would stick with linking to the article on authority control. Articles should not link to WP namespace and this is an article template. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@De728631 I find the template deletion discussion quite disturbing. I fail to see that a "keep" consensus was actually established, so the closure by Fastily seemed very premature. I also find the arguments to keep the template to be lacking in clarity. Considering how many articles use this template, I wish things would have been the other way around and the discussion would have been on introducing the template rather than deleting. @Andrew Gray That discussion is also frustrating. In particular Pigsonthewing's first reply, which strikes me as sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "la la la la la". Well, if SMcCandlish's point was not not common sense obvious to him, he should consider my comment to be yet another anecdotal story suggesting if there were a study, it'd show SMcCandlish's point to be valid. @all Perhaps something like "AC number" or "AC record" would sweep the intimidating sound of this template under the rug. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Asking someone to substantiate an apparently spurious claim - still not done, incidentally - is not "sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting 'la la la la la'". You appear to have overlooked, if not ignored Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal/RFC, which, I repeat, passed with "clear consensus". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The current title Authority control does not make it clear that these are external links to library records. I would suggest a title such as Library authority records or Library authority files or some such. Beginning with the word "Library" is much more informative and less intimidating for the reader, and removing the word "control" would help to reduce it even more. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Other possibilities might be Library identity files or simply Library identities or even Library headings (which is what the Library of Congress uses in its drown-down here).. (I'm not sure whether the term identities would apply to authority control files for subjects, titles, etc, or not. I'm mainly familiar with the ones for names. Added note: The LOC web page dealing with standardized headings and vocabularies is http://id.loc.gov/ which suggests to me that the term identity might apply to all of these standardized terms.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

'Library' is much better than 'authority.' It does overlook the issue that these are used by museems and archives as well, what wikipedia refers to as the GLAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

How many types of non-library pages can currently be linked using this template? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

VIAF is OCLC-operated, but includes data from the Getty ULAN. Otherwise, the only non-library sources are BPN (just added) and - arguably the various ORCID/ResearcherID etc identifiers, again just added. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Getty Institute includes the Getty Research Library, so that could be considered both a library and a museum. And the Dutch project really looks like a kind of digital library, even if it is not literally called one. Could just the label that is displayed be changed? Perhaps the name of the template would not need to be changed. Or could that just be handled with a redirect, so that an alternative template name could be used without having to change the ones that have already been added? Are the editors most involved with this open to making some kind of change to deal with some of these objections? (Personally, I remain neutral on the naming aspect, but I am strongly in favor of keeping the template because I think it is important.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly change the name of the template without changing the way it displays (or vice versa), and redirects are cheap, though it would be very helpful if we could keep it at {{authority control}} at least until the current batch of bot-edits has finished in a week or two - just to avoid having to recode the bot!

I'm certainly open to change - using "authority control" always seemed the least bad option rather than the best one to me - though for some reason I'm a little skittish about using the phrase "library ---". Perhaps my reluctance is because any future expansion is likely to include more non-library identifiers? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

We have no evidence whatsoever that the use of the term "authority control" causes any concern to or misunderstanding by our readers. We have complaints from a very small number of editors who simply appear to think it might. We're an encyclopedia. if the term in use in the relevant (library, etc.) community is "authority control", our job is to explain that to people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've read Wikipedia:Use plain English? Plain English is always our goal, both in article bodies (i.e. paragraph text), tables (i.e. this template) and page decorations (i.e. the left-hand menu). I agree that changing the name mid-way through a large exercise such as this is likely to lead to problems. What I suggest is that once the current work has been completed we do another round of consensus-making in relation to this. This results of the work will also (I believe) reaffirm that what we're doing is right and give those outside the GLAM sector better idea of how it all works. Also, I suspect that in six months or so the first results of the First World War centenary will start showing up in the authority control systems, thus recruiting all the military history people to our cause. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Which part of it do you think precludes the use of the term "authority control", or prefers terms like "Library identity files" over it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I know we can't use "authority control." I'm saying I'm too close to the GLAM sector to tell. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As a cataloguer, I've always been a little bit uncomfortable with it; it is a bit impenetrable even by the standards of industry jargon! It's unfortunate there isn't a clear alternative, though, in general use.

A broad "how do we deal with this now" discussion some time in the new year is worthwhile. We've been talking about other major display changes (eg infoboxes) and we can try wrapping it all together then. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

[reply to both] I'm not saying it's well-named; but it has the name it has. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett Playing your game, it is you have no evidence whatsoever that the term doesn't cause concern among readers. In fact the existence of some readers complaining is proof that it does cause some concern. So even assuming both sides of the coin are equal a prori, your side is now the side with less evidence for it. As for "a very small number" of editors complaining about it, that such an obscure topic has generated any discussion at all means there may be a problem. Very few people would even bother to mention this even if they felt the way I'm suggesting some do. These discussions unusually end up involving just a handful of people, a dozen on a good day; so when a few of them believe there's a problem, it's far too dismissive to just call them a "very small number". Jason Quinn (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I indeed have no evidence whatsoever that the term doesn't cause concern among readers. Please may I see your evidence that the term "Jason Quinn" doesn't cause concern among readers? No-one can prove a negative. We have no readers complaining; as I said, we have comments from a very small number of editors who simply appear to think the term might cause concern. Something used on tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages is not obscure. It is not dismissive to call a very small number a "very small number" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Do not forget that editors are readers. Readers and editors are not separate groups. And, by definition, you will not get feedback from readers who do not edit. 2) Quit writing about numbers in terms of being big or small. The number of editors who say there is no problem with the name of the template is also a "very small number". What matters is the ratio of editors who have voiced their opinion. That number is not insignificant. 3) I called the topic obscure, not the template. There's a difference. 4) No one can prove a negative? It's depressing you would regurgitate that here. I do not wish to get side-tracked on that. I will just add that it could be proven to a reasonable degree that my name does not cause a significant level of concern among readers. Your request is dumb. Notice the phrases "reasonable degree" and "significant level", when you understand the importance of those you will partly understand why it is dumb. You could also change "doesn't cause concern" to "does cause unconcern" to change it into an equivalent "positive" statement. Please keep two-bit popular philosophy phrases on the Yahoo message boards where they belong, or at least know when it's appropriate to apply them. 5) At least two editors have directly said the name sounds intimidating. Multiple other editors have expressed that they have concerns about the name. Your opinion that this doesn't count as evidence that there is a problem with the name is simple untenable. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways for our readers to give feedback which do not involve editing. The ration of editors who have raised concern is three or four in a few million. Your comment about my supposed opinion is a straw man. You have no evidence and no points of merit regarding Authority Control. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative terminology

Hopefully arresting this discussion from getting worse with a section break!

We don't have widespread responses on this from a statistically significant proportion of our readers - we pretty much never do - but there are reasonable arguments for looking at changing the name. Some general points from the discussion above:

"Authority control" is a term of art that is fairly opaque to a large proportion of readers, with can lead to it being misunderstood or skipped over (and the identifiers themselves don't help make it clear!)
If we start expanding {{authority control}} to cover things not traditionally included in library identifier systems - for example, if we want to consider using the template to house industry-standard identifiers like the ones currently used in chemical infoboxes - the term may be too narrow.
...but "authority control" is the term of art, and there's no widely used alternative.

The problem with any other term is that it needs to be fairly short; Commons uses a ten-word explanation, but that'd be quite detailed for a discreet footer template like this. There's a related discussion right at the top of the page as to what the description should link to, which seems to factor in here.

So, alternative terms, preferably short and sweet. Is there anything better and clearer than "authority control" out there? I'm partial to something very generic with "identifiers" in it... Andrew Gray (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(a) 'authority control' isn't just limited to libraries, the rest of the GLAM sector uses the term as well. (b) I continue to think that most of us here in this discussion are far too close to this, I believe it's a matter to be raised in a broader forum. Once we're done with VIAF and want to match against another identifier, we can raise the matter as part of the consultation around that. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not planning on rushing ahead with any changes, I just wanted to take the opportunity to grab some ideas to help structure future discussion :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Throwing some random options out there

Any more? There are of course two separate discussions: what the labels should be and what we should link too. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "Catalog reference"? We are talking about links to online sources here that can lead to high quality references, the stuff of which Wikipedia articles are supposedly made. Since the rather large numbers used indicate that there are at least a few thousand in use at any one of the listed organizations, then the word "Catalog" seems to be appropriate, while the word "reference" refers to the fact that these numbers can lead to references listed under the "reflist" heading. Jane (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. But we should try to avoid the term reference since that is already in use for sourcing our articles and we may have a "References" section on the same page. How about "Catalog identifiers: VIAF 38160978? This, together with a wikilink to the article on authority control should be a non-intimidating alternative. De728631 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I like your optimistic plural! In my short experience of looking people up, there have been several biographies only listed in one of the 3 catalogs available to me. As far as the word "reference" goes, my point is that this template linked to at least one catalog identifier should be enough reference in and of itself in the references section of any Wikipedia stub to keep it from deletion, since theoretically all catalogs by definition are to be trusted as trustworthy sources (no matter how error-ridden they may be). Your idea of using "catalog identifiers" is also fine, but you still need to define what it is useful for, and in my mind, the purpose is to enable Wikipedia editors a way to check for more references as they become available (or in different languages). Jane (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to be the first site that a casual reader finds when initiating a search. It is essential that we cater for this user. "Authority control" simply does not help the causual user. Please look at template:Worldcat id for an exanple of a more user-friendly text. I reccomend that we replace "Authority control" with "For other sources please see". If we make this substistution, I further recommend that we aggressively replace Worldcat ID and Guthenberg Author links with "Authority control". -Arch dude (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

On German Wikipedia there was the same discussion with the result: A template called "catalog reference" is treated like a regular library link. If there are no books connected with the link, it will be deleted. Calling authority control data "authority control" makes clear, what the purpose of this template is. If "authority" sounds unpleasant we could use the German term "Normdaten" ;) --Kolja21 (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not worried by the unpleasantness, but by the lack of clarity, and that point of view Normdaten is as bad as authority control. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Joint biography

Joint biographies seem to call for multiple, "stacked" templates {{Authority control}}, which are likely to provide multiple sets of appropriate external links. That may undermine outside uses of the template (some sort of conflict) or it may be innocuous (all but the first or last is ignored).

For example, Janet and Allan Ahlberg is the biography of an illustrator wife and writer husband of children's books. At the moment it carries three templates {{Authority control}}, essentially because the husband (widower) and daughter have now collaborated on children's books.

Note 1. At the moment, that same joint biography carries no {{Infobox writer}}, although one was requested almost three years ago. Yesterday I used this article as one example at WP Infoboxes, with notice that I would also visit this page and raise the same general point, multiple uses of templates perhaps intended to be unique.

Note 2. Multiple instances of this template do appear on some pages outside article space (Template documentation, perhaps also Help, Talk, User). If there is a special problem or solution in article space, tell me about it.

--P64 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yuk. I don't like multiple instances of the template on article pages - even ignoring one of them doesn't seem totally innocuous, since Allan A isn't Jan and Allan A, etc. There's mention of this issue on the VIAF error page. Dsp13 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a middle way. Redirect pages can have templates and categories. I'm thinking Category:Redirects from personal names to collectives, which had the standard authority control template in it.

interjection: Do you mean Category:Redirects from members? I suppose there would be many more than 685 if {{R from member}} were used consistently. --P64 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe a variant of the authority control template. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and this preserves the 1:1. mapping. We'd probably need to consult on this before doing it en mass, since the rules around what redirects you're allowed are a little obscure (and I've got it wrong before). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

+1. This also allows for categories specific to the individual to be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Appearance in other namespaces

Is this template innocuous when it appears in other WP:NAMESPACEs? Or does it foul some applications when it appears in User space, for example? or in a Talk space? --P64 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

User-space applications are fine - there's nothing in the template to trigger alarms. However, there's no easy way for a script to differentiate between "I am this person" (User:Ellin Beltz) and "this is a userspace draft" (User:Jarekt/sandbox), so external reusers may well wind up ignoring all user-space usages.

The one thing I'd actively recommend against is using it in templates. There's been a few cases where people have put it in a navbox so it's transcluded on all works by an author, which can get quite messy especially if that navbox goes on pages about related people (eg collaborators). Andrew Gray (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Handling multiple records

What do you do if an author has multiple VIAF records? The template seems to only support having 1. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Example? LeadSongDog come howl! 23:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I can show you what I have done for a score of English-language writers and illustrators. Emily Gravett#External links.

It will be easy for an editor who can search the source code to find all of mine. --P64 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Two authors conflated. I have handled the opposite problem with a visible warning. Rosemary Harris (writer)#External links. link repaired 2012-12-23

From LC's data integrity office i know that they have distinct IDs for at least two R.H. conflated at WorldCat. Here is that other

I have not tried to contact WorldCat or anyone else. --P64 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I still don't know if Kaldari is asking about multiple name records for a single author, multiple name records for multiple authors (by the same name), multiple name records for a single author (by variant names), or something else.

The LoC Authorities file shows six Authorized Headings for "Harris, Rosemary", "Harris, Rosemary, 1923-", "Harris, Rosemary, 1930-", "Harris, Rosemary A.", "Harris, Rosemary J. (Rosemary Janice)", and "Harris, Rosemary (Rosemary L.)" so I've added {{distinguish2}} to Rosemary Harris (the actress). LeadSongDog come howl! 19:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -P64 2013-01-04

Point 3 in the FAQ says "You can report apparent errors in VIAF (or its constituent catalogues) at Wikipedia:VIAF/errors. These are then available to the relevant managing body, and for linkage repair on-Wiki". Admittedly, the FAQ wasn't well linked; I've just fixed that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just now I reported WorldCat's error re Rosemary Harris (writer)#External links in section Other errors.

Although the FAQ says "VIAF (or its constituent catalogues)", the preface to the target compilation Wikipedia: VIAF/errors does not support that that's the place for errors in constituent catalogues. I suppose it's effective to report a Library of Congress data integrity problem directly. I received a prompt reply about Rosemary Harris last month, albeit one whose bottom line was "not our problem".

--P64 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I will be sending a copy of these reports to the authority group at the BL (we're a NACO contributor, so can fix errors in LoC authority records) but I can't promise this will lead to anything being fixed! Still, we can try. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Rosemary Harris. Continuing what I and LeadSongDog have reported above, I have extended my December report at Wikipedia: VIAF/errors#Other errors. Briefly, LCCN does conflate two Rosemary Harris at "that other" record linked in this section. WorldCat evidently conflates at least three including actress Rosemary Ann, probably four. --P64 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Location of template

Today I have learned that location of the template {{Authority control}} may have been agreed recently in User talk space (User talk: VIAFbot#Authority control and stub templates).

Today (Template talk: Worldcat id#Superseded by Template:Authority control?) I have also explained why {{Authority control}} does not make {{Worldcat }} or {{Worldcat id}} redundant in External links of author biographies. --if it's true that location following all the {{navbox}} templates is indeed conventional.

I don't know that that conventional location has been settled. In my opinion location immediately prior to {PERSONDATA} works only if we group the cross references such as {{navbox}} elsewhere --as currently under discussion regarding the location of section "See also" at the bottom of the page. --P64 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

VIAF first

Quote section 4 Microformat: "... VIAF, where present, is given first."

If this is important then it should be stated earlier. "Microformats" is something many readers will skip (as I have done). Our primary "Example" sets parameter values alphabetically.

{{Authority control|GND=119408643|LCCN=n/79/113947|VIAF=59263727}}

--P64 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Our example may be alphabetical only by historical accident. Alexander Graham Bell actually uses "PND" rather than "GND", otherwise as quoted above. Whatever the origin of the example format, it's one that I have followed more than a hundred times. --P64 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"First" refers to the order in the output; the order in which values are entered is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Scopus

I note that we have {{Authority control/Scopus}}, but that identifier seems to be undocumented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Since we have to pay money to use Scopus, I think we should rather delete this identifier. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ORCID's Works Metadata Working Group

I've just been invited to sit on ORCID's 'Works Metadata Working Group'. Just thought I should mention it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)