Jump to content

Template talk:Authority control/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

For example if we look at this template output:

The other entries have an internal wiki link too but worldcat only has an external link. For consistency and general usefulness an internal link for wc too would be nice. (Perhaps make the word Worldcat the int link and the word identities the ext link? to avoid repeating the word worldcat). Thanks for reading. 193.167.228.180 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we add an argument to disable generation of WorldCat Identities links?

There are some works that have VIAF IDs but do not have a WorldCat Identities page. Some examples are video games in the BNF (National Library of France) namespace like No Man's Sky or Acts of Congress in the LCCN (Library of Congress) such as Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Being able to set worldcatid=no to suppress generating that link would be helpful for those articles so that users don't see 404 errors on what are usually good links. William Graham talk 21:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. You may now suppress WorldCat Identities via a blank |WORLDCATID=, similar to all other parameters.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The issue goes beyond that. Compare An American in Paris which doesn't have a VIAF ID (or it's not given) but still tries to add a WorldCat Identities link. Just how many broken links of this type does the template generate? Is it useful to generate those links automatically when chances are that they may well be broken and need to be manually suppressed? Huon (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Huon, that is because WorldCat is a conditional composite ID based either on VIAF or LCCN; so this is another example of the same problem, with the solution being suppression via |WORLDCATID=. I'm not familiar enough with these IDs (I'm just incrementally updating the code) to know if there's a way to automatically detect/confirm WORLDCATID existence. I'll try to write up and run a scan in the near-ish future to see how many 404s I find.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there some way of figuring out automatically whether the topic is a person or not? It's my understanding that for people the WorldCat ID should exist whereas for anything else it shouldn't, so if the template made that distinction and only showed the WorldCat ID for people that might help. Huon (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Huon, that would simplify things immensely. Yes, I can check for instance of (P31) human (Q5) before applying WORLDCATID logic.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't guarantee that every person for which the template might generate a link has a WorldCat Identity, and conversely there seem to be some bizarre entries for non-persons: [1][2] (the latter is actually linked from the Berlin article). So unfortunately that idea doesn't work after all. Huon (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
More bizarre links. Crown Resorts has link to Crown where the VIAF entry seems to comingle a Swedish hard rock band, a garden book author, and the resort holding company (and possibly others). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Version that includes sister projects

Do we have a version of this template that includes sister project links? The Español WP has a nice version—see bottom of this page, for example. czar 12:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Czar, there is not. Getting the pencil icon link to WikiData required a VPPR. A link to Commons, per example, has/should have nothing to do with Authority Control. The reason WikiData is linked-to is to facilitate update/corrections.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking more that it's nice to have a single template that adds, when applicable: sister links, authority control, portals. Ideally this could all be automated from pulling from Wikidata. Point taken on leaving extra items out of the AC listing, but alternatively could devise a horizontal sister project links template that pairs well with AC, such that another template could bundle both into a single transclusion. A thought. czar 10:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The same links already exist in the left-hand menu both on es: & here as "In other projects - Wikimedia Commons" and "Wikidata item". Would it be unhelpful in that readers will get used to the links in the authority control box and, when faced with an article which lacks the box, forget that they're available in the left-hand menu? Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that has been an argument against the common use of {{commons}}, {{Commons category-inline}}, {{sister project links}}, etc. It's just an argument for giving a horizontal version that integrates better with the exiting navbox structure. czar 12:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if this is related but finnish-language -wiki has some additions and some localization changes so the module versions are not identical (although they are supposed to be closely similar). Is there a way to add one modification in particular to "generic" version that uses Kansallisbiografia ID (P2180) property from wikidata? I suppose that one in particular would be useful in other language versions as well in articles of some topics. Ipr1 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
There's some thousands of cases for that property in use and they refer to Suomen kansallisbiografia. Ipr1 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Information Center for Israeli Art artist ID

Would be nice to add Information Center for Israeli Art artist ID (P1736). For example Ya'acov Dorchin would get a link to [3]. Multichill (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done; 402 pages updating. FYI you can use {{wdpl}} to easily produce the property name + number + link like so: Information Center for Israeli Art artist ID (P1736).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles with faulty <ID> identifiers

The category name convention is as follows (ICIA used as the most recent example):

  1. Category:Miscellaneous pages with ICIA identifiers‎
  2. Category:User pages with ICIA identifiers‎
  3. Category:Wikipedia articles with ICIA identifiers‎
  4. Category:Wikipedia articles with faulty authority control identifiers (ICIA)‎ (current)
  5. Category:Wikipedia articles with faulty ICIA identifiers (future)

#4 is clearly an outlier, so I plan on converting all #4s to #5 to bring them in-line.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

linking to redirects

The module for this template (conditionally) emits a link to the "BIBSYS" topic. However, that's a redirect; it goes to "Bibsys". Maybe the name is stylized as "BIBSYS", but shouldn't the template link to "Bibsys" to avoid the reidrect? -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Updated in the sandbox.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom! :) -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How to add an authority control

I'd like to request Terminologia anatomica (and some other fields) are added to the authority control template for anatomy articles. It's a widely used form of AC anatomically and currently included in all our anatomy article infoboxes. Would this be the right venue to propose this? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Tom (LT), Terminologia Anatomica 98 ID (P1323) is available at Wikidata to add to the AC template. What others? If no objections, I'll add it/them after a week or so.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Others are TH Terminologia Histologica (P1694) and TE (Terminologia Embryologica (P1693)). We have a couple of others in the infobox but will renominate those in the future - these three are the most clearly suitable for an AC-type template. Many thanks for your help --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks :)--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Using this template for songs and albums

Would it be appropriate to make it possible to this template for works of popular music? I do anticipate it being somewhat problematic, since some identifiers for albums may/should be on separate edition items, and identifiers for songs (compositions) may/should be on separate recording/track and single/release items, so the template would have to indicate which identifiers belong to which entity. A lot of Wikidata's music identifiers are also for companies/services like Spotify rather than databases like Discogs. Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: I've tried adding MusicBrainz work ID (P435) (used on 22k Wikidata items) but the tracking category template doesn't seem to be working. Have I broken something? Jc86035 (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed the categories. Jc86035 (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: I think it would be better to use the parameter names with spaces, since this would allow the exceptions to be removed from both modules while leaving the template functionally the same (and the category module now accepts identifier names with spaces). (I think I did manage to make it work that way, anyway.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: |MBA= supersedes these, so any solution would have to include it as well in the change. The 3 or 4 character param name versions are superior to much longer param names due to ease of typing, and conform to all other param names, see Module:Authority control/doc#Parameters, Wikidata properties, and tracking categories.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'm still trying to figure out why Module:Pages with authority control identifiers doesn't work on Category:Wikipedia articles with faulty MusicBrainz release group identifiers & Category:Wikipedia articles with faulty MusicBrainz work identifiers in particular, but works on the other MBRG & MBW tracking cats.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 Fixed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Wouldn't the table of parameter aliases allow users to treat "MBA", "MusicBrainz" and "MusicBrainz artist" identically, regardless of which one is the "real" parameter name? Jc86035 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: yes, feel free to use any of them, but the main/preferred/official params should be the more consistent, shorter ones.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Belated RfC closure

Just to let you all know that I've closed the discussion about linking to Wikidata from June-July. The practical conclusion is that the pencil icon is accepted so no further action is required. (WP:ANRFC) Deryck C. 15:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Discogs.com is not reliable for Authority Control

Discogs is a commercial sales website and its discographies are user-generated with no editorial oversight. It is prohibited from use as a reliable source by Wikipedia policy WP:NOTRSMUSIC. It deserves no place in this template. KokoPhantom (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@KokoPhantom: MusicBrainz has been in the module since September 2013 (added by Legoktm), with the only objections I can find in the intervening years being in this discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, where a majority of users expressed a preference to keep the links; and in this short discussion. Surely if I can add (and have added) my own data to MusicBrainz then it is no more "reliable" than Discogs; WP:RS doesn't apply here because the links are not being used to source anything in the article, and there is nothing in the external links guideline that would prevent links to Discogs. Jc86035 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Assuming the OP's description of the site is accurate, then yes, the link would fall under several categories listed under "Links normally to be avoided". Your point about MusicBrainz also being user-generated is correct, but the appropriate result IMO would be to remove both rather than retain both. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: While Discogs could be considered to fall under some of those categories, it is fairly harmless and contains a large amount of useful discography data which is usually quite reliable and corroborates data in MusicBrainz and other databases. (I don't think I have a conflict of interest as I have never edited it or been paid by it, although I have added its identifiers to Wikidata items.) {{Discogs artist}} is used on more than 6,400 articles, and {{Discogs master}} (for albums and singles) is used on more than 6,800. Most of its pages for compositions (unlike those of MusicBrainz) have actually been generated algorithmically based on its other data (see [4]), although this may be beneficial in many areas as this results in broader coverage for older and less popular tracks. Jc86035 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Its use in {{Authority control}} is not as a "source", reliable or otherwise and NOTRSMUSIC is thus irrlevant. Its commercial nature is utterly irrelevant to its use as an authority control. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Discogs' overriding purpose is to sell products, a concern at odds with the Wikipedia mission: that is indisputably relevant to any discussion of its usage on this site. Discogs is also not an accurate bibliographic reference, a fact that has been proven time and again. In this template, it's presented as a reliable source in Wikipedia's voice: the very term "Authority Control" would lead most readers to assume so. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@KokoPhantom: Given the precedent established by adding MusicBrainz I don't think WP:RS applies here in any way, although it's definitely worth considering whether it would be appropriate to show commercial identifiers, and "authority control" might not correctly describe a database which isn't non-commercial. Jc86035 (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing and Nikkimaria: Would it be appropriate to have an RfC (or a smaller discussion) on whether to allow commercial or user-generated sites in this template, given that previously there has largely been support for MusicBrainz remaining in the template despite it being user-generated (unlike most of the other identifiers – I only recently added Discogs to Module:Authority control)? I would personally support showing them, although it would probably be necessary to put them in a different section of the template since they're not strictly "authority control" (see also this archived discussion). Jc86035 (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't be worthwhile, because we already know the answer, from past discussions Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: If you'd like to start an RfC that's fine, but in the interim, please remove the sites you added to the module without consensus. This is a widely used template and proposed changes should be discussed first; I'm surprised to see you edited through protection without that step. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: To be clear, would those be the identifiers for IMDb, Discogs and AllMusic, but not the new MusicBrainz identifiers? Jc86035 (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
There are so many canards in this post I hardy know where to start. "...at odds with the Wikipedia mission" is pure invention, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Please have an RfC (at VPP preferably). The claim that "there has largely been support for MusicBrainz remaining in the template" is not really accurate, the recent discussion about it at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 21#MusicBrainz ended with 4 "drop it" (myself, Francis Schonken, JzG, Dirk Beetstra) and 6 "keep" (Legoktm, Pigsonthewing, Freso, AfroThundr3007730, JLJ001, Finnusertop). That's basically a "no consensus" with way too little input for something which is shown on 100,000 pages. Either a specific RfC for specific identifiers, or a general RfC about this template (many aspects need discussing, e.g. my proposal to show the names of the sources instead of the too short abbreviations plus IDs, or proposals to make this opt-in per article per identifier (removing ones which don't add anything for the readers on that article), or a requirement that an RfC should be had before any ID can be added to the template, or ...) For what it's worth, I oppose the inclusion of discogs in the template. Fram (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere or should go anywhere given the initial posting and argument has nothing to do with fact. No one is suggesting Discogs is a reliable source or should be used as a reliable source; there is no reason to even argue this point given Discogs is being used as authority control. Second I would disagree with Fram. Six well reasoned arguments over four, points to a very possible consensus. Third, there is no reason to change anything in use until there is reason to do so as in a clear community consensus. We don't have that at this point.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC))
6-4 is not a consensus. And the addition of discogs and the like is the change to consensus, not the removal of it. Adding a link to 10s of thousands of articles should not be done without a clear consensus, not just the agreement of a few people on a template talk page. Despite your claim of "the initial posting and argument has nothing to do with fact", it remains a fact that discogs is considered not good enough to be used as a reliable source, so it certainly is debatable whether using it on thousands of articles as an authority control is acceptable. Fram (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, 6 reasoned arguments for keep to 4 for delete is possibly a consensus (if not probable). Of course, the hopefully, neutral closer would determine the consensus and not someone involved in the discussion. The base line fact is that Discogs cannot be judged as a RS when it is not being used as a RS. The criteria for one do not match the other. We don't get to apply criteria from one aspect of Wikipedia to another. Its that simple. Further, this "{{Discogs artist}} is used on more than 6,400 articles, and {{Discogs master}} (for albums and singles) is used on more than 6,800." begs me to ask why not Discogs. If there is to be a discussion the pertinent points must be clarified. In my opinion those points are confused right now. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Pardon me for "confusing these points" but I believe the vast majority of readers and editors are doing the same. Authority Control is described as links "to bibliographical records on worldwide Library catalogs." This would reasonably lead any person to expect to find a reliable source. I support an RfC on this matter. KokoPhantom (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
No pardon asking necessary; we all ask questions which others may want clarified. There is no fault here just discussion. Few readers are aware of our reliable source guideline/guidelines. In fact many academics as new editors find our source guidelines confusing especially in the sciences and MEDRS where our sourcing requirements-encyclopedia requirements-are different and more stringent in some ways than say, research papers. We aren't using Discogs to support content and that's a major difference between a RS and authority control.Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm creating an RfC, which I will probably post as a draft here instead of sending it directly to WP:VPP, since this discussion is currently active. Jc86035 (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm still partial to null parameter suppression as the tool of choice to deal with unwanted identifiers. Parameter suppression would allow you to mark an identifier as unwanted so it would not appear on an article, even though it exists in Wikidata. The opposite form (parameter expression?) would allow you to show a parameter that is usually suppressed by default, if you wanted it to appear in that article anyway.
While I personally like being able to access identifiers like these (which link to crowd-sourced databases and allow for easier/better discovery of related content), from the article directly, I do realize that not every available identifier is appropriate for every subject. This is why I suggested the ability to control which IDs (both Wikidata and locally supplied) would appear on a per-article and per-identifier basis.
I also agree that "authority control" isn't a precise fit for some of these IDs, since they're less an authority and more of a generic (though usually unique) identifier, which is their main utility. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 04:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

HTML class

Any chance this template can have its own HTML id so it can be targeted for example by those wanting to hide, emphasize or do anything else programmatically with it? Currently it just has a navbox class and and one of the headers has what seems to be an autogenerated nonsensical id from its Aria role. Opencooper (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding a authority-control class seems reasonable. Generally a bad idea to use IDs unless you can guarantee another of these won't show up on the same page. --Izno (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, a class would be great too. Opencooper (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Support adding a class. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Can you add a class, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Opencooper, and Izno: can you give me the exact text to inject, or a relevant example, and I'll find the best spot for it?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I think there would need to be an enabling change in Module:Navbox first, because there is no module parameter which can accept a class on the surrounding <div>. There is |bodyclass= but that's on the table which is the immediate child element to the div. We could still make that change in the mean time (that's just changing bodyclass = 'hlist', to bodyclass = 'hlist authority-control',). You could then hide the parent with Javascript (CSS does not have parent selectors). --Izno (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Why not change {{#invoke:Authority control|authorityControl}} to <div class="authority-control">{{#invoke:Authority control|authorityControl}}</div>? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
While that would be the simplest solution, the downside to it is that it would create an extra div just to add a class. Cleaner markup would be generated if we reuse the root div that has the navbox class (if that's possible), so I'm more in favor of Izno's solution. By the way, I think it would be better to add the capability to the module first rather than use |bodyclass=, so that some enduser doesn't end up relying on it in the interim. Opencooper (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a general solution at Module:Navbox is better than a specific one here, as other navboxes can/will be able to make use of it. However, I'm not familiar enough with it to feel comfortable adding this functionality, so someone else will have to.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for the feedback everyone. I've made a suggestion, noting this discussion, at Template talk:Navbox#Adding_ability_to_have_a_class_for_the_navbox_as_a_whole. Opencooper (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

WorldCat position changed

The WorldCat field, which previously occupied the first position of the Authority control, now appears to be at the end (sorted alphabetically?). I would argue that the WorldCat field is the most practical field (and in my experience the most widely used) and thus should be first no matter what. It's not perfect, just like any of the other databases, but since it both presents works about a subject as well as by a subject, and provides links to library holdings and repositories, it's a valuable tool for researchers. Are there counterarguments? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reedy alphabetically sorted the list in May 2018 to avoid any implicit/explicit hierarchy that a non-systematic sort would otherwise endow. Because WorldCat has its own separate section of code, it was not included in this sort, and I think that might have just been an oversight?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Animalparty, for me it isn't the most practical, for me much more practical are VIAF (cooperation of several national libraries) and ISNI (based on an international standard). Additionally WorldCat has no own identifiers, like VIAF is hosted by OCLC and most links to WorldCat use the VIAF ID. 77.191.41.115 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WorldCat Identities on places

Axochiapan links to https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2013-005480 - 404: Document not found. 77.191.41.115 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles with WorldCat-LCCN identifiers

All humans in Category:Wikipedia articles with WorldCat-LCCN identifiers that I checked are in http://viaf.org/ and thus have a VIAF ID. What can be done to improve VIAF coverage in Wikidata? 77.183.254.147 (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I ran this query several hours apart, then compared them to see the newest VIAF ID (P214) additions. The most prominent user I saw doing this was Sporti. Pinging them in case they want to fill in any gaps at Wikidata and/or provide more info on issues like this.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Sporti, could you add more VIAF IDs in Wikidata for items that have an LCCN? Probably most succesful on items about humans. LCCN is a contributor to VIAF as is Wikidata, so any person contained in both sources should eventually have a record in VIAF. 77.191.124.61 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a tool [5] for importing links from VIAF, but you still have to go one by one person. --Sporti (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon, User:Duncan.Hull - saw you on Wikidata human Abir Al-Tabaa [6]. Do you have any tool to add VIAF/ISNI in case LCCN is present? I found both in VIAF.org and added them [7]. Also a SPARQL query would be helpful if no other way is found, and it could directly link to VIAF.org via LCCN to avoid having to go via name search from. Example link via LCCN for no2006019061: http://viaf.org/processed/LC%7Cno2006019061 . I don't know how to construct links in result sets, so here is my try of a SPARQL query missing http-link to viaf.org . 1796 results. I added a VIAF for the first item in the list [8] - 39 sitelinks, including 37 Wikipedias which now can use the VIAF ID via Wikidata. 77.191.124.61 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I don;t have a tool, but this SPARQL might help. Not sure all LCCN IDs yield a VIAF page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, great! Good I remembered your SPARQL skills :-). The first link didn't resolve in viaf.org, but the next two did and I added the VIAF IDs to WD. Much easier that way. THANK YOU! 77.191.124.61 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
UPDATE: replaced "isni" with "VIAF" in the SPARQL provided by Tagishsimon. Was an error coming from my version. 77.191.124.61 (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WorldCat Identities inconsistencies

  1. Except for "WorldCat Identities" all pairs of internal link and external link are sorted by label for internal link. Abnormality: WorldCat Identities is listed first.
  2. Except for "WorldCat Identities" the label for the external link shows an identifier. Abnormality: WorldCat Identities shows no identifier.
  3. Except for "WorldCat Identities" the link for the external link includes as variable part the primary source for the identifier. Abnormality: WorldCat Identities is not a primary source for an identifier and the one it uses is VIAF ID.

89.14.139.8 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about this recently as well. There are 2 somewhat-related WorldCat discussions above, and most in the archives. I don't know why WorldCat is such an outlier, though. Barring any good excuse, I think standardizing is a good option. I can make the external link match the standard, and have it display alphabetically. Will wait a week or so for comments.
Re #3: WorldCat is a conditional composite ID based either on VIAF or LCCN.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Tom.Reding, thanks a lot. The easiest to fix, without substantial code change seems to be #1. Just sort it under "W".
Re "conditional composite" - if LCCN and VIAF exist, what is used? In Module:Authority control it says that VIAF = 523,030 and LCCN = 340,892. LCCN is also a contributor to VIAF. So probably VIAF should be favored. And a tracking category for WorldCat-LCCN would be nice, so one can see how often WorldCat can only be linked by LCCN. 89.14.11.128 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
VIAF is currently favored over LCCN.
I also think those 2 additional tracking cats would be useful.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Tom.Reding, thanks a lot! I am only interested in cases where LCCN is used because VIAF is absent. Since LCCN is a contributor to VIAF it might be, that VIAF is only missing in Wikidata. If the VIAF coverage can be increased then maybe LCCN can be phased out for being used for WorldCat linking. Then having WorldCat in parentheses after VIAF could make the presentation simpler.89.14.111.193 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Tom.Reding - instead of repeating the ID without stating what ID it is, could the link lable just say "via LCCN", or "via VIAF ID". E.g. Prabhas#External_links
  • current: "VIAF: 349145857874723020665 WorldCat Identities: 349145857874723020665"
  • proposed: "VIAF: 349145857874723020665 WorldCat Identities: via VIAF ID"
77.191.124.61 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the best compromise would be to show both, like either:
  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Tom.Reding, prefer the second over the first, but VIAF outside the internal link label. The actual link is https://www.worldcat.org/identities/containsVIAFID/349145857874723020665, so maybe:
But why repeat the ID? Users interested in the ID will check LCCN or VIAF. WorldCat is not there for presenting a VIAF/LCCN ID - it is not a primary source for these - but for linking to more content. 78.54.91.236 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
For consistency, of course.
I think it's important to have VIAF behind some parenthesis, not out in front of the ID link (at the end of the label is OK, or after the ID link), and "ID" is redundant for these and most labels. How about this:
?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Tom.Reding, WorldCat is not consistent, it's not there in the same way the others are, not via a a single specific property in WD. But your most recent proposal is better than the current situation, and more consistent, since in the WorldCat link the indication of VIAF/LCCN is required. I am fine if you change it. 89.12.179.248 (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, thanks a lot! As suspected LCCN is rarely used for WorldCat-linking (<0.25%):

And as suspected in most cases where it is used, it is missing the VIAF in Wikidata, I added several VIAF: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.191.41.115. And the other cases are sometimes incorrect links, e.g. Axochiapan (404), Asunción (cult. dept.). I suggest to drop LCCN for WorldCat and make WorldCat a sublink next to VIAF. 77.191.41.115 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a formatter URL (P1630) value for all authority properties (for example, VIAF ID (P214) has a formatter URL (P1630) value of https://viaf.org/viaf/$1). I'm thinking of creating a local function to fetch this value, instead of having the URL hard-coded into the module. The current hard-coded-URL lines of code in the property functions (p.viafLink, etc.) would be modified with a call to the new local function, so hard-coded URLs will still be utilizable exactly how they currently are, if desired/as needed. Fetching the formatter URL (P1630) value will 1) keep URLs current without the need for template-editor/admin intervention, 2) simplify the process of adding new parameters, and 3) be transparent to the current usage (i.e. no change to the functions', nor the main template's, current output). This is similar to the way {{Taxonbar}} has operated for some time. FYI ping to Reedy, who made all of these once-local property functions public.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that requires the expensive arbitrary lookup. --Izno (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: yes it would (mw.wikibase.getEntity). However, the default limit is 500 expensive calls per page, and currently the highest authority count is only 24, on Albrecht Dürer. If implemented, the # of expensive calls on that page would only be 49/500.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: I think it would be better to have a bot automatically update the module or a subpage of it, since otherwise Wikidata would be unnecessarily called expensively on a lot of pages for a few dozen strings that don't change very often. Also, for some identifiers (e.g. IMDb) the wmflabs URL fixer is employed to get links to go to the right places, and we might not want to link to wmflabs in articles. Jc86035 (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Stuttgart Database of Scientific Illustrators 1450–1950

I propose that we include Stuttgart Database of Scientific Illustrators 1450–1950 IDs (P2349); for many scientific illustrators, they are the only IDs available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to support this proposal. I believe including Stuttgart Database of Scientific Illustrators 1450–1950 IDs would be beneficial as it would assist with establishing that the notability threshold has been met for some women illustrators.Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Now added; example at Robert F. Sternitzky. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about placement relative to navigation templates

Should this template be placed on the next line after any navigation templates, or should a blank line separate this template from any navigation templates, or does it not matter? I tend to place this template on the next line after any navigation templates, but I wondered what other editors have thought about this. Biogeographist (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: I do the same. I would only use a blank line if not following a nav template.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Logically, it should go before navigation templates (it is, after all, about the subject of the article; whereas navboxes are about leaving the article to view other subjects). However, common practice is to put the navboxes first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft RfC

@Littleolive oil, KokoPhantom, Nikkimaria, Fram, and Pigsonthewing: Please don't vote on this yet. Is there anything that should be changed about this? I've tried to make the voting have a balance between specific and simple, although maybe questions 5–10 could be left for a later RfC. Jc86035 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think given the breadth of the questions you're asking, the Background section is a too specific to the particular issue that sparked this. Also agree that this should either be run at VPP, or at the very least widely advertised. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I think asking people to answer 10 questions in one RFC is likely to get you a bunch of really unhappy commenters and/or !voter fatigue. --Izno (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: I've tried to lump all of #5–#10 into question 5, although I don't know how that's going to go and it might need some rephrasing. Jc86035 (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate you drafting this. I have other questions about AC, but they will have to wait for another RfC (too many questions at once will just lead to non consensus on all of them, which isn't helpful). Getting a consensus about whether commercial / usergenerated sites may be included as is, included separately, or not included at all is the main concern now (and can perhaps be one question?). If the conclusion is that they are not allowed, then the question about getting prior consensus is relatively moot as well (I would prefer then a new RfC to decide which true ACs to include (all, only English languages ones, only English + languages relevant to the subject, ...), but that will have to wait for a later date). Of course, it may be that the RfC ends with a "some of these are acceptable, some aren't", and then a procedure to decide which ones is necessary.
To recap; I have no objection against running the RfC as is, but would personally prefer for now a one-question RfC: "May commercial / usergenerated sites be included in the AC template as is, included separately (Russian example), or not included in the template at all?" Fram (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035, I don't think the wording of Q1 is helpful: "Should the authority control template link to any websites that are not strictly authority controls?" - this depends on the commenter's interpretation of "what is 'strictly authority control'" and opens a different can of worms from what you want from the RfC. Deryck C. 11:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan: Perhaps it would be appropriate to reword the RfC where it says "authority control", changing that to "authoritative database" (i.e. a database controlled by a central entity and not operated for commercial purposes), since "authority control" might not really match the definition I've used. It might also be better to omit question 1 altogether and to change the current question 2 to "Should the [authority control] template link to databases or websites that anyone can edit or add to?", with the note from the current question 1 changed to refer to the other questions. Should I make those changes? Jc86035 (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035, I think you can split "anyone can edit or add to" and "operated for commercial purposes" into two questions. There might even be a point in splitting "anyone can edit or add to" to "with / without central editorial oversight". Deryck C. 11:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan: I've tried to reorganize it a bit. Is it better now? Jc86035 (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035, Looks sensible to me. I don't feel strongly about these issues, so it's best that I sit out the actual RfC, in case you need an independent judge again to close the discussion in two months time Deryck C. 13:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree about the inclusion of a Background section written by an interested party. Even this new slimmed-down version betrays its author's biases. (Is the Russian WP example obvious enough?) I don't accept the precondition of adding a Background section at all: the RfC question is plain enough. I also don't accept muddying the waters with this question of obtaining consensus on template changes. I started this discussion strictly on the topic of Discogs. I'm willing to see it broadened to the larger question about what belongs in AC but that's it. The question of consensus needs to be raised separately or else this RfC will go in too many directions and and fail to settle the matter at hand. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@KokoPhantom: The reason I used the ruwiki example is that it has been referenced multiple times on this talk page by different editors. It's also a sort of "this is what the template will end up looking like". The purpose and scope of the template is not necessarily clear to everyone – many topic areas use the template very sparsely, and it's usually hidden at the very bottom of a page, so it's reasonable to assume some regular editors will not be familiar with it. I've removed the consensus question, since an edit request is required for most editors to add identifiers anyway (giving time for an objection on the talk page).
Would it be better if I put the entire "Background" section into the survey as a comment, or would you still consider that disruptive? I've tried to frame it neutrally by not deliberately injecting my own opinion into the text, although it's inherently impossible for me not to be biased. I'll move it if someone else objects to it.
More than 80% of your edits in the past year are solely to remove Discogs references from articles. While clearly better sources than Discogs should be used, I can't help but feel like you have an axe to grind. Jc86035 (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This should go to VPP, and it the actual question should include mention of user-generated, commercial databases, because that's what this whole discussion has been about. All this other "Background" should go in the vote section with your signature. As you say, it's "inherently impossible" for you not to include your biases, so no further objection is required. KokoPhantom (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The RfC is now open, with a few minor changes (the big template blocks are gone and the questions are now listed at the top). Jc86035 (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Broadly, what is the role of {{Authority control}} – should it be expanded to include more external identifiers, or should it only link to authoritative databases? [Jc86035's signature]

Background

{{Authority control}} is Wikipedia's authority control template, and is used on about 900,000 pages. Most identifiers are automatically transcluded from Wikidata. Wikidata has about 3,439 external identifier properties, and {{Authority control}} uses 54 (1.6%) of them.

In previous years, there has been some discussion on Template talk:Authority control regarding adding other types of external links. However, none of those discussions have resulted in changes to the template.

Currently, all identifiers except those for MusicBrainz are for non-commercial authoritative bibliographic databases. I (Jc86035) added identifiers for MusicBrainz, Discogs, AllMusic and IMDb last week, on the grounds that there was already a MusicBrainz identifier (which was added in 2013 by Legoktm). I was able to do this because I am a template editor and did not get reverted by another template editor. The four aforementioned databases are either user-generated or commercially operated, and are less clearly "authority control" than the other linked databases. KokoPhantom contested my addition of the Discogs identifiers on the talk page. (I have since removed the new identifiers except for the MusicBrainz ones, pending consensus.)

The Russian Wikipedia's version of the template ("Template:External links") has a rather larger variety of external links, including identifiers for Twitter, GitHub, Anime News Network, IGN, Find a Grave and Encyclopædia Britannica Online. (However, they are all shown separately to the "authority control" section.) As an example, the ruwiki and enwiki templates for Judi Dench are shown below:

(Group name translations: Thematic sites; Dictionaries and encyclopedias; Regulatory control. Not shown: Social networks; Photo, video and audio.)

Survey

Questions 1, 3 and 4 are intended to be yes/no questions.

  1. Should the authority control template link to websites that are not primarily databases?
  2. If non-databases should be linked to, should any particular groups of external identifiers be excluded from the template based on the type of content (e.g. news, open wikis, TV broadcasters' listings, social media, ...)?
  3. Should the template link to databases or websites where anyone can edit or add content, such as MusicBrainz, IMDb and Discogs (and including sites like Twitter, where the relevant identifiers are user account IDs or post IDs)?
  4. Should the template link to websites which are not operated by governments or non-profit organizations, such as YouTube, AllMusic, Quora and the New York Times?

If the result is in favour for questions 1, 3 or 4, then the template would be changed to show non-authoritative links in different sections (as in the Russian Wikipedia's template), and new identifiers would be added for those categories. The template's name may stay the same to avoid confusion. Depending on the results for questions 2 and 3, the MusicBrainz links may be removed.

[one section for each, with support/oppose votes to be included in the same section]

[discussion section]

This RFC appears to have been archived without being closed. See the VPP archive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Close of RfC

See the close at

DannyS712 performed a Wikipedia:Non-admin closure which seems great. This happened on 5 February 2019 and included alerts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

I am x-posting here also because this is the concerned channel. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks for cross-posting. It slipped my mind to post it here. Long story short: consensus against expanding the authority control template. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Preemptive addition of template

Moved from User talk:Bellerophon5685

Please use edit summaries. It really helps monitoring watchlists and article histories. Thanks. Renata (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm also wondering whether it wouldn't be easier to have a bot do this. And I also wonder about the use of this. I've seen you add it to dozens of articles on academic journals, cluttering up my watchlist, but that template doesn't actually seem to do anything on those articles. --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Seconded Thirded. If I see an edit headed only "External links" I have to go and check in case some ****** **** has spammed a link to their brand-new sales website. If it says "added Authority Control" I roll over and go back to sleep. Please use some consideration for the volunteer time of other editors, and please follow this basic and helpful guideline.
I have no idea which tool you may be using, but it should be easy to add a standardised edit comment. If nothing else, once you have added "added Authority Control" once, you only have to type "a" in the summary box and the comment will pop up. Just a suggestion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And I removed that template here where it did have an effect, but inserted a link to a music (!!) index that just had copied this very article. Wikidata imports that crap without any apparent oversight and puts it on our pages with this template. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, can you please respond to the above? Why are you adding this template to articles like this if it has no visible effect? What are we missing? If you are adding these empty templates preemptively (per this) and no one else has already asked, please desist until there is consensus that this is how the template should be handled. I see no reason to spam book articles with authority control with the hopes that someone will add DNB or something to populate it later. (I see little reason to add it to a book article even when DNB is specified...) Please form consensus before continuing to systematically add this template. czar 04:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Due to your not answering the editors above, I will now rollback every edit you make with Authority control until you stop to talk. Markvs88 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Czar

I already explained this on the noticeboard, where I thought the issue was settled - I added the Authority control to articles to see if they have wkidata already - this happened, for instance, on the page for the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Some pages do not have wikidata already, so I add it to the bottem of the page so that it will be ready if and when wikidata is created. Note that I also add it while also doing routine editing on a page, for instance the The Literary Voyager.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Centralizing discussion here. @Bellerophon5685, you can use the "Preview" button to see whether the {{authority control}} template has a visible effect, or you could even just view the attached article's associated Wikidata page per the link in the left toolbar when visiting an article. Even the documentation says to preview the article first. But since your edits have been challenged, you'll need to establish a consensus before proceeding.
To everyone else, is there a need to preemptively add this template to articles that do not (and might never) have associated authority control items? czar 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
No. Further and contrary to Bellerophon5685's assertion, I've encountered many additions of this template by Bellerophon5685 without any further edits, although they needed them (example). I also have added the template occasionally to biographical articles, but I always added at least 1 authority control identifier, usually VIAF, and then left it to the bots to transfer that to Wikidata. Bellerophon5685 should be told to stop these edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the large volume of rapid additions of this template I doubt that Bellerophon5685 checks whether any links that get displayed are actually correct. In my experience, Wikidata is rather dirty, importing lots of stuff without any quality control. I gave one example of a weird addition on their talkpage ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_History_Teacher&diff=prev&oldid=878868451 where the template was added to an education journal and linked to a music website that had simply copied our own article). I would like to remind Bellerophon5685 that editors are responsible for any edit they make. Also, given the fact that this has been challenged multiple times, I warn Bellerophon5685 that I will regard continuing to add these templates without community consensus as disruptive editing and will block them accordingly. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Its been four days now since this thread was opened and have has not come here to talk nor has replied in other spaces while continuing this behavior. The time is past due for a block. Markvs88 (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you looked closely at those edits, you will notice that there was more than just adding AC, there were categorizations, inter-language linking, and many of them actually HAD wikidata, or, if they didn't, the AC was removed. Exactly what do you want me to do?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mosfilm and Lenfilm were perfectly legitimate edits, as the authority control linked to wikidata. Rheinische Volkspflege had noting to do with Authority control at all. I never added it, so why was that reverted?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So even on articles that legitimately have wikidata, I can't add authority control? And I can't edit categories?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

My edits on Deutschland erwacht - Ein Dokument von der Wiedergeburt Deutschlands were also rolled back, even though I never added Authority control that page, just provided an interlanguage link to the German wiki for one of the people in the film.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, of the edits reverted the following had nothing to do with the AC template at all

The following legitimately had wikidata

This list might get bigger--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • And here it didn't (and that might become a list if I would want to spend the time to check more than just a few recent edits). Stop complaining and start working towards a consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • In that case I felt that adding the AC was fine, as long as other content was added, note that Lennauchfilm is now under the category educational films. What is it that you want be to do to get consensus? I have stated my reasons for adding the template multiple times over multiple talk pages. No one was saying anthing else on here, what am I supposed to do?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Multiple people have asked you to stop adding this template if it doesn't have any discernable effect. You should start trying to convince the community why adding this template in those cases is a good idea. (And although it is irrelevant for this discussion, I find it weird to categorize a company under films). --Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Randykitty: The template's documentation states:

If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page. Thus, using this template on a page with no authority information is harmless.

An empty instance of this template stays dormant in an article, until values are added to Wikidata, when it will then display them, so this template should be added to all biographies, whether or not there are authority control identifiers in Wikidata already.

The second paragraph was added on 3 January 2015 by Pigsonthewing; the first paragraph was added on 15 December 2016 by Rfc1394. Presumably, this means that this has been accepted consensus for more than four years, and it is appropriate to add the template even if it does not produce any content.

In the specific case of MusicBrainz, over the years MineoBot has incorrectly added a small but significant number of incorrect links at Wikidata due to the inverse links existing in MusicBrainz, which is also editable by the general public (there has regardless been consensus that MusicBrainz should be linked to with this template). The easiest way to fix the incorrect links is to remove them from the Wikidata items, and logged-in MusicBrainz users can submit edits to remove the inverse links so that the bot doesn't add them again. Jc86035 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • So why not then have a bot add this template to all articles that we have? On the other hand, given that Wikidata has apparently been adding crap to our articles, it is perhaps time to review this... --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Randykitty: Neither Wikipedia nor Wikidata is immune to incorrect data, and {{Authority control}} is used on about a million pages.
    • I don't know why there isn't a bot which does it, but presumably the appropriate course of action is to review the displayed data (if any) before publishing the edit. Jc86035 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Actually, there has been a bot to add AC to pages (Tom.Bot 6), but only if it displayed at least 1 ID. General consensus (for the bot task anyway) was that it should change the display of the page. Adding a dormant AC isn't useful enough for a bot task, just as cosmetic edits are not allowed, but that doesn't mean we should disallow people doing either manually (assuming the targets are potentially-valid AC subjects, user-responsiveness aside).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 

I really don't see how it hurts anything - it is just a 21 character tag that is invisible to the reader. Also, the only way I know of to see if an item does have wikidata is by adding it, so one needs to either use preview, or delete in the next edit. It would be fast just to added it to as many articles as possible, those that have wikidata will have it displayed, those without will have the tag for if and when wikidata is added. And if wikidata isn't added - it is still just an invisible 21 character tag. It won't damage the article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that you add that template with some automated process that doesn't allow you to preview the result before publishing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It is just easier to keep on tagging instead of tagging, previewing, and leaving if there is no wikidata.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the interest of consensus, would it make sense to discuss which types of articles should always be eligible for {{authority control}}? E.g., do we need to revisit that all biographies should receive the template (since all biographies would eventually receive authority data)? Once that's settled, would all books or book publishers warrant the template? Secondarily, in cases where there is no blanket rule to always add the template and the template's addition purely acts as a cosmetic change with no visible effect, do we recommend against it, just as we recommend against edits that solely change white space? czar 05:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Seconded and call for framework discussion I agree with Czar. Let's cut through the drama and recriminations and set up that as a discussion and table this. The outcome of said discussion will give everyone the framework to work in. Can we all agree on this if, and Bellerophon5685, will you please not do any more AC tagging for the few days that such a discussion will take? Markvs88 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
One last thing I would like to add - having the AC on pages without wikiedata lets editors know that the page has already been looked at and doesn't need a new AC; otherwise editors might keep on trying to add an AC, only to have to delete it immediately.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
One person's therapy is others' irritation. Therapy is not mentioned at WP:NOT, but maybe WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BADIDEA would cover it.
One last thing: how is an editor to know whether an article already has {{Authority control}} if it doesn't have Wikidata items to show? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

While I'm surprised to see an entry for an academic journal in Musicbrainz, I want to clear up an apparent misapprehension in this discussion: The purpose of {{Authority control}} is not necessarily to link to useful content on other sites (though often it does), but to show the identifiers that they use. Where the page on the external site is empty, or merely replicates what we have on Wikipedia, the identifier is nonetheless still of value. The page at Authority control (to which the template also links) gives further context; as does Wikipedia:Authority control. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Markvs88

Why are you removing my AC templates on Conn. counties? Each one had wikidata, so it wasn't like they were blank.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The conversation regarding your edits has not had any consensus. You never did answer Michael Bednarek's question re: how do we know, AND you agreed not to do any more tagging until a discussion was held. For some reason, you chose to go back to AC tagging... and failed to make state a POV for creating a framework after I intervened on your behalf. Therefore I must take your statement of "It is just easier to keep on tagging instead of tagging, previewing, and leaving if there is no wikidata" at face value and therefore consider all of the AC tags you post to be vandalism. Markvs88 (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes - I have refrained from add ac templates from pages with no wikidata. I either preview them or, if add them template by mistake, immediately remove the template in the next edit. I thought that was what requested of me.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

So are we ever going to find Wikipedia:Consensus here, or are all ac templates on pages without wikidata banned?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass edits that as their only action add this template to articles where it doesn't have any visible effect because there's no data are purely cosmetic and should be avoided. I think that's an unassailable position. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The template is added to both pages with and without wikidata, though. And if there isn't current wikidata, the templates will be already in place to show on the pages. See pretty obvious to me.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Either I didn't express clearly my position or I don't understand your remark. – Don't edit articles where your only action is to add this template and there is no data. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright, given your post from 17:30, 19 February 2019 above, I withdraw my objection but ask that you include something like "page contains X known wikidata" or something along those lines so that it is clearly a legitimate edit and won't cause churn. X doesn't have to be expansive, just a few words summary of some sort. Pages without Wikidata will not be tagged. I think that this is what Michael Bednarek & I (and most of the others) are really looking for as a result. Can we all agree on this? Markvs88 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

OK to delete subpages of this template?

As far as I can tell, in 2013 this template was converted to Lua, and its subtemplates were made obsolete. Is there consensus at this page that it is acceptable to delete the subpages? If so, I will nominate the following list for deletion. There are still a couple of transclusions out there, but they can be dealt with by substing or conversion to more appropriate code.

I am not attached to any particular outcome. The reason I am posting this is that I am working with a few other editors to find, research, and possibly delete unused templates. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I did a little work on the module and I believe those templates are not needed. Also see "Can you also remove these subtemplates that are not longueur useful, please? Tpt (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2013" which is the last comment in the section linked above (by Tpt who initially wrote Module:Authority control). At the time of that comment, the subtemplates were as at permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated the whole list for discussion. Feel free to contribute to the discussion, especially if I have made any errors along the way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This page links to "WorldCat Identities", which is a redirect to "WorldCat". Is there a reason it shouldn't directly link to "WorldCat"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. But further, why should that link be labelled "WorldCat Identities" and not simply "WorldCat"? Time for a {{Request edit}}?-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
It's an easy enough change to make, so I'd do it myself. But it seems lie the link to the redirect was deliberately added about three months ago in this change. The comment says that it was due to conversation on the talk page, but I don't see anything about the target of the link there ... just that they needed to be added in some cases. "WorldCat Identities" has always been a redirect, so this must've been deliberate. But why? Can we reconsider? Would a piped rename be acceptable? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Mr. Stradivarius added 'identities' to the display text per this edit request. I moved the external link from 'identities' to the ID, since it was the only display not doing so, and since there is a difference between WorldCat & WorldCat Identities, so the redirect is preferred.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you help me understand what the difference is between "WorldCat" and "WorldCat Identities"? The latter is just redirect to the former, not a redirect to a section or a particular description. I don't think this kind of information is particularly easy for users / readers of Wikipedia to understand. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mikeblas: as Realworldobject said in the original edit request, This change is a problem because www.worldcat.org/identities/ is not the same as "WorldCat". Calling it that creates confusion about OCLC's brand. Also, WorldCat Identities now links to the first section of WorldCat in which it's mentioned.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I understand that they're different. My question is: waht is the difference? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
https://www.oclc.org/research/themes/data-science/identities.html   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semantic Scholar

Semantic Scholar is a free, non-profit search engine for peer-reviewed research, with over 42 million papers indexed and analysed. I have found it very useful. I propose that we add Semantic Scholar author ID (P4012) to this template. Semantic Scholar paper ID (P4011) may also be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: what parameter name would you suggest - |S2= or |SS=?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: "S2AuthorId" is used in Semantic Scholar's own (API) documentation, at [9]. Note that there are also IDs for papers, and for topics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Thank you, but please change categories from "...with SS identifiers" to "...with Semantic Scholar author identifiers". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Thank you again, but articles are still appearing in Category:Wikipedia articles with SS identifiers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, fixed. I'll see about simplifing the ID addition process by eliminating this unnecessary necessity for duplication...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Authority control issue

While editing the article Henry Moskowitz (activist), a "Warning: Page using Template:Authority control with "VIAF", please move this to Wikidata if possible (this message is shown only in preview)." displayed on the screen. Also, there are two Template:Authority control assigned to this article and both have this warning message. I don't know how to fix this issue.

(Note: This issue was first report on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) in section "Authority control issue"). Mitchumch (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The question concerns what to do when there are two VIAF records for the same person: 21135876 + 190653772. I imagine the answer is to somehow contact VIAF (see "send us a comment" at bottom) and ask them to resolve the issue since (I think) a VIAF number is supposed to be a unique identifier. Regarding what we should do here, the current kludge (listing two authority control boxes each showing a different number) might be ok, or I would keep the smaller VIAF number (probably the first) and remove the other. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Izno has fixed the problem as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Their post at WP:VPT confirms my opinion that a proper fix would involved contacting VIAF to have them resolve the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Authority_control/Archive_8&oldid=1153312144"