Wikidata:Requests for comment/Items for Wikimedia projects besides Wikipedia
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Items for Wikimedia projects besides Wikipedia" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Implementation and form of implementation to far away for that discussion to be helpful. --Saehrimnir (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
It seems to me that some Wikimedia projects (for instance Wiktionary) ought to also have items with interwiki links to make Wikidata more comprehensive. I'll also note that if this does work out, then more properties will probably have to be created for the new Wikimedia project items. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of creating separate items, existing items could be linked to sister projects once the client has been deployed on each project.
Wiktionary pages
[edit]- �Wait Because of its complexity, this should be one of the last projects to deploy wikidata.--Micru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of which complexity are you speaking? Do you have any example? Pamputt (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support With Wiktionary future in the limbo when it comes to databases, I do want to keep the options open. Omegawiki might become an database for wiktionary and the same thing goes with Wikidata. However, I do not want any overlap of projects, so the option of having both omegawiki and wikidata as an database for wiktionary is not an option.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Wait This is complicated, since interwikis would link to a different item. For example, the English w:en:den would link to the German w:de:den, which have unrelated meanings (hence different items). This needs to be thought out better before we start. - Ypnypn (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the case for current interlanguage links: den in en.wikt is the same page as den in de.wikt (even if their content is currently different, of course). Darkdadaah (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support As far as I know, there are just
twothree "complexities":- The apostrophes: wikt:fr:aujourd’hui is linked wikt:en:aujourd'hui through a redirection.
- The expressions with a capital letter and dot on the Czech version: wikt:cs:Kategorie:Česká přísloví.
- The order of the interwiki links: wikt:en:User_talk:Interwicket#interwiki_order_on_pl-wikt.
- This is no longer an issue, see: Interwiki sorting order. Darkdadaah (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another issue : long articles, see this monster. Darkdadaah (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another: unsupported titles, like Unsupported_titles/Less_than_sign on en.wikt, linking to Titres_non_pris_en_charge/Signe_inférieur_à on fr.wikt. Automatik (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's too difficult we could submit the problem to the local communities to make their consensus changed, but it's not won... JackPotte (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, same as JackPotte, only for interlanguage links. Other items are out of question for now. Darkdadaah (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Agreed with JackPotte and Dakdada, strong support for only interlanguage links. Pamputt (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Manage interlanguage links with Wikidata would be a real appeasement for pages' history. Automatik (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support only for interlanguage links. --Béotien lambda (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Same thing. Unsui (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Wiktionary interlinks the exact same spellings, or is there any entry for which this is not the case? Isn't it possible to show links to the existing entries on other language versions automatically? —★PοωερZtalk 16:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is always the case in the mainspace. In other spaces, it's like Wikipedia. Lmaltier (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is not always the case, see JackPotte's comment above. Darkdadaah (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, perfect for interlanguage links. Xic667 (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but only for interwiki links: I think that this is the only fully automatic task. Oppose for everything else: everything which may imply discussions should be excluded. Why? Because this would be a transfer from a project with discussions written in the local language to a project with discussions written in English, thus excluding many people. I know that people contributing here are not fully aware of this fact, but this is because they all know English. This issue was one of the major reasons of the complete failure of OmegaWiki. Lmaltier (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but only for interwiki links. Oppose for everything else.
- Exactly as Lmaltier notes here -- each WT project has copious amounts of text in the source (i.e. host) language. So the DE WT discusses things in DE, the KO WT in KO, the NV WT in NV, etc. This is a very important point: language is a real usability issue. Any change in modus operandi that could effectively exclude a sizable chunk of the user base for any given project is a change that should be very well thought-out prior to implementation, with considerations built in precisely to avoid any such exclusion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose as this task can be done by software on its own without a Wikidata item (at least for the entry name space), we just have to write it. If we choose to store dictionary information here, creating items for Wiktionary pages is also a very bad idea, as Wiktionary can have several different words on the same page. The words themselves should be items, not their shared spellings. —★PοωερZtalk 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be ideal, but it is also not possible in the near future. Right now we can only focus on using Wikidata to replace interlanguage links, which is already a lot. Darkdadaah (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can be useful for our project, no more hundred minors bots changes in history log. Vive la Rosière (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Lmaltier. -sche (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Different Wiktionaries have different policies and approaches, but centralizing things forces uniformity. For example, what en:WT calls a regional dialect of Serbo-Croatian, the hr:WT calls a separate language. One WT might want to only include terms recognized by their country's language academy, while another might want to include anything in actual use. There are also differences regarding standard vs. alternative forms. We have enough trouble at en:WT reconciling the different opinions of UK/US/AU/NZ/etc contributors- I really don't want to see what inter-WT edit wars might look like. About the only thing that could be made to work would be interwikis, which are straightforward enough to be handled by bots. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the question. We are discuting here only about the possibility to manage interwiki link via Wikidata. For exemple, aba exists Serbo-Croatian but even there is no article in Serbo-Croatian in other Wiktionaries, it will be link to the Wiktionaries which contain an article aba. It does not matter which language is present in the article. Pamputt (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote pages
[edit]- Support They can link to existing items about authors, concepts, etc.--Micru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support --Pere prlpz (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Links will be similar to Wikipedia pages. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wikiqote has pages of authors, which match pages on wikipedia. I also think that phase 3 is going to be very beneficial to wikiquote.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Makes sense in some, but not all, cases. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - as a major contributor to Wikiquote (bureaucrat/admin on English Wikiquote, with a decent number of contributions in Italian and French), I think this will be invaluable for Wikiquote projects. BD2412 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource pages
[edit]- Strong support The books task force is already looking for ways of making this transition.--Micru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per Micru. We can discuss about this. --Aubrey (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support absolutely in a biased way, though there is so much that the WSes can add and can use through access to wikidata, interlanguage and interwikis for writers, their individual works, subparts of works, images, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very important. --FA2010 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The process of creating a new text in Wikisource is repetitive. The same information is given in an upload to commons and on the index page. Not only that, but wikisource does use information about authors from wikipedia. Moving those informations to wikidata and pulling them to wikisource is an logical next step, imo.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Makes sense in most, but not all, cases. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage pages
[edit]- Support Wikivoyage can also link to existing items about cities, places, etc.
- Weak support Wikivoyage works like Wikipedia. Having centralized interwikis for Wikivoyage should have the same advantages for Wikivoyage that it has for Wikipedia. Of course it is not just adding a single Wikivoyage property (like Commons), because it is adding a whole set of interwikis, duplicating the whole structure we have for Wikipedia links.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Basically all pages have corresponding Wikipedia pages. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, see no reason not to.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Because nearly every Wikivoyage article has a corresponding Wikipedia article and they are linked, it can be simply merged into existing items. But the links should be located in the sitelinks section. --Pyfisch (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. AutomaticStrikeout 15:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Useful for links to existing items --Alan ffm (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support create new item for storing all interwiki links of different language wv articles and than connecting that item to corresponding wikipedia item. So wikidata will serve as store of interwiki links of wv as well as wikipedia article link. In future data from corresponding wikipedia item can be used for wv article eg.population --Nizil Shah (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Same article titles as on wikipedia. I am also sure that wikivoyage can make use of some of the data in phase 2 intended for wikipedia, and maybe also via versa.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above –sumone10154(talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Obvious synergy. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews pages
[edit]- Comment Wikinews relies on searches, so I don't think it would be easy.--Micru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Searches rely on querying the database. Phase 3 of wikidata is all about queries.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose In very limited cases, such as a Wikinews article on an event that also has its own Wikipedia article (Boston bombings type of thing), this might make sense, but ultimately I don't think that it makes sense. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity pages
[edit]- �Support --Micru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose Pagenames on wikiversity are not similar to those on wikipedia.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not always true (see this and this as a random example). --Jakob Scream about the things I've broken 20:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support As a French sysop I can validate the existing links migration. JackPotte (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibooks pages
[edit]- �Support --Micru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikibooks pages and books are unlikely to relate to a single concept, as Wikipedia articles do. Then, they probably can't be linked to items in a useful way. One exception might be "Subject" namespace pages.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Pagenames on wikibooks are not similar to those on wikipedia.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not always true (see this and this as a random example). --Jakob Scream about the things I've broken 20:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, only for topic pages (like categories and general pages; not for individual books. - Ypnypn (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As a French sysop I can validate the existing links migration. JackPotte (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikispecies pages
[edit]- Support — Links from existing items would be useful, and since Wikispecies is multilingual, we only have to link to one page. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMHO Wikidata could be a complete repository of biological items and could defeat Wikispecies in all scopes. — That being said, my Wikispecies.js actually uses taxon name (P225) as a link to Wikispecies. --Ricordisamoa 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Weak support...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support Even if data is just copied from wikispecies to wikidata, it will be really useful and would fit really well with the data which is allready on wikidata for wikipedia.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubator pages
[edit]- �Support Managing interwikilinks there is currently a mess. I think, managing them on Wikidata would be helpful. Regards, Vogone�talk 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To note that Incubator contains test versions of Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and Wikivoyage. This questions needs to be regarded for each of these projects on its own. However it would clearly be useful to have the ability to add pagelinks to Incubator test Wikipedias (and maybe other projects later..). The Wikidata software would probably need to be changed in such a way that it recognizes that Incubator is in reality more than just one project/language, so that you can add interwikis for the same page in incubator:Wp/grc, incubator:Wp/liv, etc. It's probably good not to show the Incubator pages on "normal" Wikipedias by default (or is it?), but the Incubator test-WP articles would have a benefit from getting their interwikis from Wikidata, like all WPs do now. --MF-W 04:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support In the manner of keeping that option open.--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support in accordance with MF-W's comments. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support I even support the inclusion of interwikis from Wikipedias in the Incubator on all Wikipedias, as it said on the Incubator "Wikipedias in the Incubator can be used like any other Wikipedia" let's make that true. Amqui (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]- �Support In my opinion it makes sense to link to existing items than to create separate ones. Most probably an interface would be needed in order to classify linked pages to items per project (check this presentation, section related to Wikidata).--Micru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary pages
[edit]- �Support - database of words could come in handy. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose - Wikidata is for concepts, not words, which aren't multilingual (That is to say, the current data model is horrible for Wiktionary) -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support - But needs to be well thought out. How should we handle multiple meanings; pages for conjugations, foreign word pages, etc..�? --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose per my comments on the RFC. --Rschen7754 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Comment See Wikidata:Wiktionary. JAn Dud�k (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. I think the minimum is to wait the end of meta:Requests for comment/Adopt OmegaWiki. Because the merge of Omega and wiktionary could create a multilingual dictionary. --Nouill (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait This project is going to be complex. Better to do it in the end.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Data structure has to be completely overhauled:
- Every distinctive word needs an item.
- No need for interwikilinks since lemmata are always the same in every language.
- I propose a separate namespace for Wiktionary items. If that turns out to be impractical, at least a different prefix than Q. —★PοωερZtalk 00:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting idea, but another RFC is probably in order to decide what letters. What's the Q-prefix stand for anyway? ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The last thing Wikidata needs is hundreds of thousands of new items that won't mesh naturally with the existing ones. Pichpich (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Keeping this option open until it becomes certain whether the omegawiki proposal goes trough. I will revaluate my opionion when that is done.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can be useful for some specific things, but need to be discuss before it's too premature for now. But like above keep the option open. Vive la Rosière (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There's disagreement between projects about what precisely is a language vs. a dialect, what's a term vs. sum of parts, what's standard vs. misspelling. Different projects will make different decisions on many things that have multiple interpretations, gray areas, etc. How do you reconcile those decisions? Please note that I'm not just talking about presentation, but how the data is structured, even whether certain things really exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote pages
[edit]- Weak support - database of quotes could maybe be useful. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support for topic pages. Individual quotes don't belong. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support
Shouldn't this be handled like the property that links to the Commons category? Property: "Quotes" and then link the page where the quotes are collected?I don't know if single quotes should be items, but definitely collection of quotes should go with the person. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] - �Oppose per my comments on the RFC. --Rschen7754 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support If you could reuse, autotranslate and automatically group quotes (wait for phase III?), this would make Wikiquote much more usable and consistent.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose Existing items can be linked. No need to create new items.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose I agree with Micru. Wikiquote pages relate to an author, a book or a subject, usually all they with an article in Wikipedia.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Comment If you create one Item per quote, you could auto-generate Wikiquote pages from querry results (in Phase III) -> no more need for mass duplication of quotes an no inconsistency. You could also reuse Quotes in different language editions.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Comment This would be a very different Wikiquote. Now it's an edited selection of quotes. With this system it would be an unselected repository of quotes. Probably both projects are useful, but they aren't the same project.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there would be much conceptual difference. Today selection of quotes are collections of quotes for a special topic or author. That would be the same with my approach. Instead of adding quotes to topics you just add topics to quotes. The output would be the same.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's different in the same way than human made lists in Wikipedia or human made galleries in Commons are very different than categories, which are automated and can serve a different purpose. Using both in the same way would be like replacing Wikipedia articles by unsorted collections of facts. Both might be useful, but they are very different things.--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there would be much conceptual difference. Today selection of quotes are collections of quotes for a special topic or author. That would be the same with my approach. Instead of adding quotes to topics you just add topics to quotes. The output would be the same.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Comment This would be a very different Wikiquote. Now it's an edited selection of quotes. With this system it would be an unselected repository of quotes. Probably both projects are useful, but they aren't the same project.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose From the perspective of Wikiquote, I can see how some might imagine this will be useful. For Wikidata however, it's a net negative to have tens of thousands of items for quotes. Pichpich (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support in the manner of keeping that option open and letting the communities of that project decide that for themselves.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource pages
[edit]- �Support for both author and text pages. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose per my comments on the RFC. --Rschen7754 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
�Support text pages. �Comment author pages might be better handled similar to the property "Commons category". --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- �Oppose and �Support To early to add Wikisource to Wikidata, but it's time to add the Client to Wikisource to reach the phase II-information from Wikisource. It does not make much sense to have items here for every chapter in a book. The interwiki on WS works differently than on WP, it does not fit the system with items here. An example is "V�rt land", the anthem of Finland. The original text is in Swedish, made by "Johan Ludvig Runeberg". Such information can be added to an item. But the corresponding pages in fi.wikisource and en.wikisource do not have "Runeberg" as an author. And fi.wikisource has four pages, and I would like to have interwiki to them all from svwikisource. Therefor you need sitelink-specific claims, and you need to have more than one sitelink to fiwikisource in one item. This is not possible yet, and I doubt that it will ever be. Another solution would be to have one item for each text with never more than one sitelink. But what need is there for Wikidata then? It would be like having one single item for every single article on all wikipedias. Adding Author-ns sounds good, but how will it look like on Wikipedia and Wikisource. Will there on the page of enwp:Charles Darwin be a link to all Wikisources that has texts of Darwin? And on Wikisouce, will there be a link to all wp-pages about Darwin? I doubt that it will make any sense. And if we choose to have only one link from WP in a WS-page, which page will be choosen? There is an article about the book Amtmannens d�ttrar on nowp. Even if somebody creates a stub on svwp in the subject, I think I would prefer to have a link to nowp, since it's a better article. -- Lavallen (block) 08:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support Existing items can be linked (authors), nonexistent items should be created.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support Will be needed to fulfill the needs of wikisource.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage pages
[edit]- �Support - why not? -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose per my comments on the RFC. --Rschen7754 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support
- Can't think of the advantage of having items of certain voyages. Handle it similar like Commons category?--Tobias1984 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- No, they are in different languages and pages on different Wikivoyage projects are interconnected by interwiki links, pretty much as Wikipedia articles were before. Since the topics are restricted to countries, localities, and parks, they all already have Wikidata items.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for new items but for language links to Wikivoyage pages in different languages.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose Pages should be linked to existing items as much as possible.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose I agree with Micru. Most of Wikivoyage pages are related to an existing geographical feature with a Wikipedia article.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a property for Wikivoyage pages instead. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose I agree with Micru. Most of Wikivoyage pages are related to an existing geographical feature with a Wikipedia article.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support We need wikidata for interwikis, destinations, maps etc. --Voll (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Comment Should use the same items Wikipedia is already using. Vogone�talk 04:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Comment Destinations will usually have an existing item and Wikipedia article, so there's no need to create a new item. More specialised travel topics, like voy:First aid kit for travellers, voy:New York City with children, or voy:Avoiding a transit of the United States, might be worth adding. --Avenue (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, regional pages may have no interlanguage links as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose but with exceptions, if there is no Wikipedia article it should have it's own item. --Pyfisch (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support in the manner of keeping that option open and letting the communities of that project decide that for themselves.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews pages
[edit]- �Weak oppose - news items do not seem to belong in a database IMO. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Comment It makes sense for category-type pages, so n:Category:United States might go with w:Category:United States. For news stories, I don't think they translate well, because an event might have (say) 2 articles in English and 3 in Russian - how do they connect? -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose per my comments on the RFC. --Rschen7754 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Comment - really notable news/events anyway has/have a Wikipedia article and therefore are already an item on Wikidata. Creating a second one would be redundant and confusing. If there is page on Wikinews it can be linked like the Commons category. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Oppose No need to create redundant items.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support in the manner of keeping that option open and letting the communities of that project decide that for themselves.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiversity pages
[edit]�Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- �Oppose No need to create redundant items.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support in the manner of keeping that option open and letting the communities of that project decide that for themselves.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibooks pages
[edit]Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose No need to create redundant items.--Micru (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in the manner of keeping that option open and letting the communities of that project decide that for themselves.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikispecies pages
[edit]- Strong oppose – per above. --Ricordisamoa 20:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Strong oppose - The primary purpose of items is to hold links, and WSpecies doesn't need that. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There might be data on wikispecies that does not exsist yet on wikipedia. And again, supporting in the manner of keeping this option open.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (Jakob: said who?) -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment stricken, but I don't favor creating items for just one link (now that someone proposed expanding existing items with links to other Wikimedia projects).--Jakob Scream about the things I've broken 01:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubator pages
[edit]- �Support for Wikipedia test projects there. Regards, Vogone�talk 19:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support in the manner of keeping that option open and letting the communities of that project decide that for themselves.--Snaevar (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sister projects templates
[edit]French
[edit]Wikipedia
[edit]Wiktionary
[edit]- wikt:fr:Mod�le:Autres projets
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:Commons
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:WP (and its redirections)
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:WB
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:WV
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:WN
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:WS
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:WQ
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:WSP
- wikt:fr:Mod�le:Wikivoyage
Wikibooks
[edit]Wikiversity
[edit]Wikinews
[edit]Wikisource
[edit]Wikiquote
[edit]English
[edit]Multilingual projects
[edit]- How would links to non-Wikipedia sites be organized on each item's page?--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand the point of this RfC. It's a fact that we will have links to other projects, we just aren't there technically yet. There's already been a ton of brainstorming like WD:Wiktionary. This seems rather pointless. Legoktm (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Jakob, would you object to this RfC being closed? --Yair rand (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead. Guess I should've looked around before starting this up. ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 01:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and this is in the developers' hands, not ours. --Rschen7754 01:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not in the developers' hands. It's our decision whether news stories or quotations deserve items. (Perhaps this should be filed under talk:Notability?) -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But if we can't link them to anything, creating an item is pointless; we also don't know if they will be implemented at all, so this is putting the cart before the horse. --Rschen7754 02:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say it is in the community's hand to decide what we do, but at the same time its a known thing that Wikidata will replace interwiki linking on all WMF projects. Legoktm (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it would be suboptimal to set this up before we know what the implementation will look like, and then risk having to redo things when the actual implementation comes around because stuff doesn't match up. --Rschen7754 03:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's still too early this RfC. --β16 - (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this RfC is rather pointless. I would close it too.--Micru (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are Wikibooks and Wikiversity not mentioned in this request? --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew there was something I was forgetting.�:( ...Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 12:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikispecies too.�;] - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And you forgot the Wikimedia Incubator. Vogone�talk 18:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in now....Jakob Megaphone, Telescope 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Too early: we have no feedback from wikipedias and you want already add new features to wikidata�? For me the plan is clear: interwiki, infobox and list. Once we will reach that point and we receive a positive feedback from wikipedia communities we can think to extend the scope to other projects. I don't want to stop discussion and tests for integration of other projects but we don't have the ressources to add new lists of features when what is planned is not yet implemented. Snipre (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- �Support Good to talk about it now, but should only be implemented after Phase 3 is done and resources are available. There is already enough going on at the moment without adding more projects. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably there are the incremental changes for wikis like the Wikisources that builds on the WP matters relating to works and the authors, primarily as wikilinks interlanguage and interwiki. Some of the links are clear one WS to one WD, whereas some works will be multiple WS to one WD. There there are the transformational changes where there are the properties that are looking to be grabbed by the WS, and searches undertaken, especially when dates are included, and WD has the ability to have all the book metadata, and inhale that from external sources. Clearly all needs a plan, and eating the elephants one mouthful at a time.
- This discussion has been open for just shy of a month. We will need a closer soon. --Jakob Scream about the things I've broken 17:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just generally note that I �Support integration, however I have this to add: all the stuff from all the other projects needs to map to existing concepts/items as much as possible, but not more than that. In the end, we should have an integration of content, not every project in its own namespace on Wikidata. This also implies creating as many items as necessary, even if it's for every single word in every single language. Items are free. We're not going to run out of hard drive space, and any user-interface issues resulting from a lot of items should be solved by good user interface design, not by restricting the data. Silver hr (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]