Wikipedia talk:Wikidata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Wikidata  
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikidata, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's integration with Wikidata.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 

RfC:Redundant parameters in wikidata tracked templates[edit]

Myself and @Davey2010: have come to a disagreement as to whether a wikidata tracked template (such as Template:IMDB name, Template:Official website, Template:Twitter ...) should include the id and title, if these parameters are stored in wikidata. It turns out a lot of our individual edits have involved adding these when missing, or removing them when not needed(or moving them into wikidata) respectively. What's the preferred/consensus usage? #ThereCanOnlyBeOne

REWORDING using User:RexxS's wording from below.
in edits like this, I changed {{Twitter|EmAtack}} to {{Twitter}} and {{IMDb name|3038143|Emily Atack}} to {{IMDb name}} because in those templates the values will be retrieved from Wikidata and we don't need to explicitly give the parameters in that article. Whereas in edits like this, Davey2010 is restoring or adding those parameters explicitly, either because no valid reason was given for the removal, or because "Full parameters are always preferred". So we would like clarity on whether (1) it's better to keep simple facts centrally on Wikidata and retrieve them as needed; or (2) it's better to keep all information on Wikipedia where it is under our direct control.Bogger (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(willing to have this section retitled if it seems biased. Also willing to have discussion moved to another page/changed to a dispute/vote if that seems more appropriate.) Bogger (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

First observation: over 1,000 pages have a contradiction between the en.wikipedia and wikidata versions. Bogger (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an open topic, there isn't consensus here. My view is that it costs a lot of extra time and energy to maintain multiple systems that do the same thing, and I think that's unnecessary. My preference is to just maintain things on Wikidata, so that the information is then maintained across all of the different projects. Others disagree. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've always preferred to add the data (usernames/urls etc) to templates and the majority of articles here already have data inside them, I've often seen editors add data and I myself have added data obviously not realise it all comes from WikiData,
If there's consensus that Boggers edits should stand then I shan't edit war but my impression has been data should always be included in the templates, Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010Talk 18:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Second observation: there are bots that migrate the parameters from wp to wd. Bogger (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please give an example of what you're talking about before inviting people to comment. I gather it concerns whether certain parameters should be omitted from certain templates that could use Wikidata without parameters. Why does anyone want to add a redundant parameter? Is it related to the WP:Short description scenario where redundant descriptions are being placed in articles to isolate them from hard-to-monitor changes that may occur at Wikidata? Johnuniq (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Johnuniq: For some unaccountable reason, I spent the time following the links to figure out what the issue was. As I understand it, in edits like this, Bogger changes {{Twitter|EmAtack}} to {{Twitter}} and {{IMDb name|3038143|Emily Atack}} to {{IMDb name}} because in those templates the values will be retrieved from Wikidata and we don't need to explicitly give the parameters in that article. Whereas in edits like this, Davey is restoring or adding those parameters explicitly, either because no valid reason was given for the removal, or because "Full parameters are always preferred".
    This is yet another example of the two opposing points of view: (1) it's better to keep simple facts centrally on Wikidata and retrieve them as needed; or (2) it's better to keep all information on Wikipedia where it is under our direct control. I don't expect to be able to change the minds of either side, so I try to keep out of it. --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, I worked it out, and you worked it out, and the next person can work it out. It would be kinder if the OP spelled out the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    Just to add - I've here and there seen editors add usernames etc to these templates but haven't actually seen anyone remove the data which is why I put "Full parameters are always preferred", Ofcourse I don't have any proof to say one or the other is indeed preferred I was just going by what I've seen over the last few years, Admittedly up until now I never even knew they were coming via Wikidata (I didn't know how the templates were working)- I just assumed editors forgot to fill them in and that's it,
Given descriptions were vandalised over there I'm rather iffy on transcluding other things from there but that's just me. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Noting that I have edited templates in one way or another in the past, but ... after editing Wikidata-pulling templates and then being told the other side of the story (pull from Wikidata solely or repeat the values on Wikipedia as well), my stance is neutral and I don't get involved. But yes, I do agree that we need consensus on doing one way or the other for consistency, so I'm glad this discussion has started. Heck, let's WP:RFC this thing. Steel1943 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    An RfC on this would go the way of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_159#RfC:_Removing_locally-defined_links_to_Commons_categories_if_they_match_the_Wikidata_sitelinks - i.e., no consensus. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Starting a RfC will just lead to a long discussion about wd and the main subject will stay aside. Better start a discussion in the talk's page of the relevant templates.
The critical thing concerning data is not where the data are stored but how can you protect your data from vandalism. If you let the data in the wikicode of the articles, how can you monitore the change on the data you take care ? How can you monitore edits in thousands articles ? You need a bot, you have to extract the information regularly,...
In the other hand having data in WD allows you to extract the whole set of data using the query system and to do data comparison in a excel sheet if you keep a reference list on your side. Snipre (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
starting an RfC here. Bogger (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Highest ranking[edit]

Golf Wikiproject wants to track players' highest rankings. Wikidata does not have a property for highest ranking but they have ranking (P1352). Rankings are generally associated with a particular point in time (see for example Shaun Micheel (Q1755828)). I would like to know if there is any easy way to obtain the highest ranking, in case there are multiple rankings specified. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The general workaround to get the highest is to sort the multiple values within the module, then use Module String2 split function to isolate the first or last value. I need to improve WikidataIB sorting algorithm, but I don't mind doing that if there is now a demand for it. --RexxS (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikidata Infobox[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Wikidata Infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Disregard, misunderstood what this template did. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)