Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Using Wikidata for geographic locations

Please see WP:Teahouse/Questions#Adding location data. The idea presented there maybe of interest to Wikidata. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Louis Gallait (example)

Our biography Louis Gallait previously (old version) displayed 'The LCCN id nr893537 is not valid.' I fixed it by providing the correct parameter value LCCN=nr/89/003537 directly to template {{authority control}} --in the biography footer.

Evidently the bad ID was imported from Wikidata, where with "0 sources" it is the second-listed of two LCCN id. The first-listed is correct and it cites "1 source", German wikipedia. One source is better than none. Why did we display the bad unsourced ID?

Wikidata also displays two ISNI id (whose internal spaces differ, where internal zeroes differ in the two LCCN id), with 1 source and 0 sources. In that case our biography footer displays the former.

--P64 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hours later, I revised that note for clarity (underscore).

Does Wikidata continually or periodically reconcile with the wikipedia sources automatically? --so that our testimony in favor of LCCN id nr89003537, per my edit today, will be recorded there with 'English wikipedia' as source? and similarly when a wikipeditor deletes a bad parameter value without providing a good one?

After some reading at Wikidata, I suppose so. Perhaps that is why this page does not cover LCCN and other authority links.

--P64 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me see what I can answer here:

• "Why did we display the bad unsourced ID?" – Ranks, not implemented yet, will fix this kind of problem in the future. For now, all you can do is remove the bad data from Wikidata.
• "Is there automatic fixing of data?" – Not that I've seen after the initial import into Wikidata. However, the way to fix that is doing so on Wikidata and subsequently also removing the bad data from Wikipedia.
• "Deletes a bad parameter without providing a good one" – Nope, nothing of that sort occurs.

Do you have further questions? --Izno (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A couple days later at Template talk:Authority control#Mixing WP and Wikidata[reply 18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)] Kolja21 observed that a bot could delete bad Wikidata in two classes that are common in my experience.

(Always I edit the EN.wiki biography footer template {{Authority control}} and recently I check the DE.wiki {Normdaten} too. I have not yet edited Wikidata.)--P64 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

(It's really easy. You should do that sometime. :D) --Izno (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

commons

hy, i just added a page in wikidata to now include a commons link, but i dont see it amongst the languages list at left. where should i see any effect in wikipedia then? is some new link, will appear there, or one level higher (betw tbx & lngs)? and why not already? DO WANT!!. perhaps this is a kind-of mediawiki development thing, or what? and.... if so, then, until that, why not some page-inline hack, temporarily? like an automatic thing appearing at bottom of artcl, to replace the now used templates. ! --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 22:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Here, we do not yet show Commons links on the left. Implementing this would require a prior community discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks i see now. made one: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#wikidata: commons & other sister wikis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa3-other (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Like a ring species ?

Using wikidata to manage inter-language links is massive FAIL if you hit articles that work like to animals of a ring species. Is article 1 the same as article 2? Yes. Is article 2 the same as article 3? Yes. This does not imply that article 1 is the same as article 3. Sameness is not transitive. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It has to be for Wikidata to work. Each item has to describe the same subject.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved articles and renamed categories

Further to Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/Archive_1#Moved_articles, Help:How to move a page does not state either way whether it is necessary to manually update Wikidata after moving an article. Even if a bot will do it, it would be helpful to state this there.

What about renaming categories? I suspect that this process would be harder for bots to trace. Should admins check for wikidata and, if it exists, update it when processing WP:CFD renames?

Some category merges might likewise result in a need for wikidata changes. These are more likely to need manual intervention.

Are deletions of pages and categories automatically updated at Wikidata? – Fayenatic London 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category renames and merges is an interesting issue and currently not something accounted for either by MediaWiki script that catches most moves or the bots that catch the ones the script misses. Of course, for merges, that's true of all pages. If admins here want to have a look into capturing those changes on Wikidata, that's fine, but there's probably a smarter way to do it (bots, bots, more bots!).

Deletions are not currently automatically updated by a MediaWiki script, but there is a bot that has been taking care of items for which a page has been deleted. --Izno (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly: using the Move function on articles is automatically captured and updated at Wikidata; but since renamed categories are not done using "move", but recreated and then deleted, they are not automated at Wikidata.

I have fixed a few category renames at Wikidata, but from here I spotted that https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q8583473&action=history was fixed by a bot. Please check again and advise what is the scope of category changes that are currently caught by bots. For example, does it rely on the replacement category being linked in the edit summary that is recorded in the deletion log? – Fayenatic London 21:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe categories are never actually renamed, but a new one is created and the content is transferred. So bots cannot change this, unless a local wiki user a category redirect template. Even then, I wouldn't know if bots watch this. Cycn (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q8458599&action=history was done by EmausBot today, but it missed the subcategory https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q8320853&action=history . I'll ask the bot's owner to comment here. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

See here for the contemporary list of category changes. My contributions at Wikidata show two other subcats that were missed by the bot. – Fayenatic London 23:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My bot uses 4 different ways to detect the moved categories:

1. {{Category redirect}} checking.
2. Category talk page history checking. See here, for example.
3. Special template on the talk page. Not in English Wiki.
4. Category content history checking. The most complex. Bot tries to find the previous category in a revision difference, like this.

But even using all these methods there is no guarantee that the old category will be detected. --Emaus (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will encourage admins to update Wikidata for category moves.

Is there a reason/decision not to implement the "special template" that you mentioned? – Fayenatic London 16:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's a template fr:Modèle:Catégorie renommée in French and some other wikis. Here you can see an example of its using. I don't know about any discussion on it in English wiki but its implementation looks to be useful at least for my bot. --Emaus (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Renaming pages due to organic growth

I noticed that when "Page Name" becomes "Page Name (painter)" or "Page Name (sculptor)", the accompanying Wikidata item becomes a disambiguation item instead of a person item. Is this by design? It seems to me that the Wikidata item should follow the article page name, no? I thought the whole purpose of Wikidata was to pin these things down forever and ever. Maybe what I am seeing is just a leftover from the "great Wikidata item creation" of last year and there is a gap in time between what got created on Wikidata and what got moved on Wikipedia, but I would like to know how this works today: if I move a page to a more distinct label on Wikipedia, what happens to the Wikidata item? Jane (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Jane, could you please give a recent example? I thought renamed articles automatically get renamed on Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I was hoping you wouldn't ask that. I have looked at hundreds of pages and associated items en Commons cats the past week, and I noticed a trend, but my latest example is Q16253686. But here is another case which I can put to you: On Commons you have "Category:Hans Schwarz" today, and I predict that in the near future this will become "Category:Hans Schwarz (sculptor)" or (medallist) something like that, and anyway I am about to create a page on this Wikipedia with the name "Hans Schwarz (sculptor)". I just added the commons cat to Q1582440 and I am wondering what happens if someone comes along later and changes either the name of the Wikipage or the commonscat. Thx Jane (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata uses descriptions for distinction. There's no need to add descriptions to labels in form of brackets. Vogone (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If you look at Q1582440 I think there is no descriptor. What I am referring to is that when the Q number was created, it linked to an article about a person and now it links to a disambiguation page. Jane (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. But it seems like in case of "Artus Quellinus" everything went okay. See [1] where Wikidata automatically recognised the page move on enwiki. Vogone (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for the diff! I get it now. Jane (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Global Economic Map task force/Properties

Request for comment: d:Wikidata:Global Economic Map task force/Properties. Thanks, Jane (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

New template for articles about properties

I have created {{Wikidata property}} (example above), for articles about subjects for which we have a property. Please help to improve and apply it (can anyone generate a list of relevant articles?), and to migrate it to other-language Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Link to Wikidata qualifier

Is there a way to link to qualifiers in WP articles? For instance, I want to use the "point in time" qualifier for population numbers. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Useful script

I'm finding this script really useful. It inserts the equivalent Wikidata label, Q-number, description and alias(es), at the top of Wikipedia articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this because I use it too but had no idea where I got it from! Jane (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

---

There is also an script for Commons categories: c:User:TheDJ/wdcat.js → User: Perhelion  12:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Population data for languages

We have 5,500 language articles with info boxes, most of which use data from Ethnologue. Every couple years Ethnologue comes out with a new edition, as they did the other day, and someone then needs to go over all 5,500 articles to keep us up to date. I suspect that Ethnologue will be willing to share their data in a single dump. If they did, could we automate the update through Wikidata? And would we have manual review, for where Ethnologue makes arithmetical or other errors? — kwami (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I gues Wikidata bots would be available for boTh tasks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki conflicts

A very incomplete list of experienced Wikidata editors who are active on the English Wikipedia, and may be able to help you resolve any Wikidata issues. Most of these users, and many others, can also be found on #wikidata ^connect.

• -revi (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk • ##Revi ^connect) (A^WD)/S
• Addshore (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk • ##add ^connect) (A/B^WP)
• AmaryllisGardener (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD)
• BrokenSegue (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD/A^WP)
• Daniel Mietchen (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk)
• Delusion23 (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD)
• Fuzheado (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD/WP)
• Gnoeee (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD)
• HakanIST (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD)/S
• Jared Preston (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD)
• Jasper Deng (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD)
• Jdforrester (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WP)
• John Vandenberg (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WP)
• Jon Harald Søby (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk)
• Legoktm (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WP)
• Pigsonthewing (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk)
• Rschen7754 (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk) (A^WD/WP)
• Sven Manguard (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk)
• TCN7JM (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk • ##TCN7JM ^connect)
• ZI Jony (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk)
• Wd-Ryan (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk)
• ToluT15 (En-WP talk • Wikidata talk)

Key: A=administrator; B=bureaucrat; CU=CheckUser; OS=oversighter; S=Steward; WD=Wikidata; WP=English Wikipedia; WMF=all Wikimedia Foundation projects. Of course, adminship is NOBIGDEAL, so this is just for reference in case you run into a task requiring administrative tools in the course of resolving an interwiki conflict (e.g. deleting an item that's been merged with another).

Add (or remove) yourself

Please list interwiki link conflicts here

An interwiki conflict occurs when, for instance, the English Wikipedia links to a French article, which links to a German article, which, in turn, links to a different English article. They're a good part of the reason that Wikidata was created, but also one of the most complicated parts of the project, as they can often arise with articles with highly nuanced distinctions.

If you find an interwiki conflict, please list it here so that a Wikidata editor can investigate and clear up the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Portal:Technology ([2])

Could probably create a temporary noticeboard or something for it. This page could get really long otherwise. --Izno (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There is one on Wikidata. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure it's necessary to list it here, or even on Wikipedia at all. Part of the point of Wikidata is to centralize the data; it makes sense to me to centralize the discussion of that data as well. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If they're easy ones, I can knock them off right here, and if they're too difficult, I can forward them to the main board on Wikidata. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an "interwiki conflict", we just had two pages that linked to the same page on another wiki. Wikidata doesn't handle that case so the guy removing the links was correct to just leave those ones behind. 86.44.163.139 (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that's still a conflict. The Wikidata community will sort out which is the correct link. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

But there is no "Correct" link. It looks like to me that we have Portal:Science AND Portal:Technology, whereas they only have Portal:Science & Tech. If we want both English portals to link to that one portal, then one of the pages will have to keep a local interwikilink. In any case, the links that are working can still be removed just fine. It makes it easier to which links are causing problems and what (if anything) needs to be done. 86.44.163.139 (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is one to start with: Appomattox Court House National Historical Park is messed up with Appomattox Court House. I did not touch the second one, and in the first one, I added the note that the links should not be removed until the interwiki conflict has been solved.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been handled and both pages are now cleared for Wikidata. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

One I tried manually correcting til I discovered this page (hence any bad edits may be my fault). Many other languages are linking with Open-pit mining instead of Surface mining. The former is a specific subtype of the later, but many of the other languages' pages (at least those I could understand or at least see the pictures of), covered all types of surface mining, and not exclusively open-pit mining. For example, the Spanish article title literally translates as "open-sky mining", its article page then mentions the narrow open-pit mining as indeed having a Spanish word of its own (albeit not an article of its own). (This may have derived from a mistranslation at some point of the German "Tagebau", which contextually means either the broader or narrower). The mislinking has affected both this wiki and on the Commons categories, resulting in title names that in English are actually factually inaccurate, and in turn photos bearing those translations being added to the wrong article. (the main problem is using open-pit mining when is meant the different concept of strip mining, which is not helped by mistaken lay usage.) Morgan Riley (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Software release life cycle → wikidata:Q1211457 × wikidata:Q638608. Does it count as a conflict? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I want to link wikidata:Q6881526 with the rest of the language versions at wikidata:Q1952218, but it causes a conflict. And I dont know how to resolve it. Thanks...--Aa2-2004 (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I took care of it. Consider looking at wikidata:Help:Merge. --Izno (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• On so:Soomaaliya, the displayed iw for en:Somalia takes readers to Template:Cities_of_Somalia. I looked at wikidata:Q1045 (for Somalia), and I wasn't able to find anything amiss. I'm curious to know what happened and how to correct it. Thanks--Malepheasant (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  Someone put the langlinks on so:Template:Magaalooyinka Soomaaliya after the </noinclude>. I've moved the end tag, and the article should be fine now. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Created a wikidata entry for Solar storm as d:Q12843307, but couldn't add da:Solstorm and pt:Tempestade solar, which are both already taken by d:Q130011. Thanks. --Rinopo (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm experiencing some problems with the article Shang Rong. It has corresponding articles on the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias (zh:商容 and ja:商容) but there are two separate entries on Wikidata (one for English and the other for Chinese and Japanese) for it. I attempted merging them but was hindered by technical problems. Can someone help me? LDS _{contact me} 02:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

   Merged Thanks for reporting. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you. LDS _{contact me} 06:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Our biography Harry Harrison (writer) links as 'Deutsch' the German biography de:Harry Harrison links as 'English' our disambiguation Harry Harrison which does not provide any interwiki links. Why? What is to be done? --P64 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

   Fixed There was an incorrect interwiki link on the German Wikipedia. After I removed it, the correct link from Wikidata is now showing. The Anonymouse (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Moving data from infoboxes to wikidata

Hi, can anyone explain why wikipedias are not moving their data from infoboxes to Wikidata? Wikidata looks pretty stable now! At this moment, only very little number of templates use wikidata (Category:Templates using data from Wikidata). Perhaps I missed some discussion about severe bugs in Wikidata? Please, explain. --Andy pit (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia has no deadline.
2. Sourcing is an interesting question.

--Izno (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist info for Wikidata changes?

Trying to avoid distracting the above discussion, but why do Wikidata-changes in the watchlist show only a generic "(Wikidata item changed)"? The specific original edit information is already available (clicking "hist"), but it would be a lot better to display it immediately in the Wikipedia watchlist. Change (Wikidata item changed) to (Wikidata: <original edit info copied from Wikidata>). Would it make sense to open a Phab ticket for such a suggestion or was that issue already discussed in the past? GermanJoe (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed, and there was no opposition. I think opening a Phab ticket is a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey :) We have tickets for that. All watchlist improvements related to Wikidata are tracked at phabricator:T90435. phabricator:T47279 and phabricator:T90436 are about fixing the specific issue you are describing. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Tnx Lydia.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

incorrect help text

I tried to follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Wikidata#Incorrect_interwiki_links but it does not work that way. Please correct. And please also document what to do in case an interwikilink is to be removed, and cannot be moved someplace else. Some intimidating red text seems to forbid that - even though it can be perfectly right. Wammes Waggel (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you got JavaScript enabled? If you have a modern browser with JavaScript enabled, the instructions match reality. It would allow someone here to help you better if you could give the example of the article where you had a problem. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the text mentions the text "List of pages linked to this item". On [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7953#sitelinks-wikipedia] there is no such text. Not in IE, not in FF, not in Chrome.

Meanwhile, I found another way to remove the link: on "set a sitelink", fill in the item ID (if empty), the site ID (e.g. enwiki), then, with empty "site link", press "set the sitelink". Repeat until done (once or twice - I forget - this is where one gets the intimidating red text). So the "problem" is fixed :-)

I tried different browsers (used only FF before): in IE en Chrome I indeed see a "remove" icon (garbage bin) after pressing "edit" in the "Wikipedia" section, but not in Firefox - I get the "set a sitelink" page there when I click "edit". Javascript is enabled (NoScript shows all is allowed). Wammes Waggel (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that's odd. When I visit the entry for Zen on Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7953#sitelinks-wikipedia), I see a box with the label "Wikipedia (87 entries) [edit]" and there are indeed 87 site-links from af to zh. Clicking on the [edit] link allows me to edit them, remove them or add to them. I get the same interface (name of wiki, garbage bin, writeable text) whether I use Chrome 43, Firefox 38, Opera 30 or even IE 11.

Nevertheless, I do agree that there's no text saying "List of pages linked to this item", so I've updated the instructions to remove mention of that. Do the instructions match what you see now? --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I spent some more time on this and found that the Firefox issue is probably caused by an add-on - in "safe mode" everything works as described. I'll see if I can fix it. Wammes Waggel (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata problem

Hi, can someone take a look at the infobox in Japanese battleship Mikasa and tell me how to fix the broken parameter? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The vessel class property is defined but has no value; you could either remove it or fill it in here. If you opt to remove it, the value of the infobox's |Ship type= parameter will be shown. Alakzi (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's far better (in my humble opinion) to fix the empty value in Wikidata, so I've gone ahead and given it the value "Formidable-class battleship". I understand that it's actually a modified version of that class, but I suspect that the difference is best explained in the text of the article, not in the infobox. If anyone thinks that the 'modified' qualifier is important to the infobox, then simply adding something like |Ship class = Modified [[Formidable-class battleship|''Formidable''-class battleship]] to the 'Infobox ship characteristics' section will use that value instead of fetching the Wikidata value. --RexxS (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit in Wikidata links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are several templates using data from Wikidata, and likely to be more in the future, but finding out where the data comes from or how to edit such data can be confusing for editors (example). One solution is to have "edit in Wikidata" links – similar to how some templates such as navboxes have {{Navbar}} links (view, talk, and edit that template). A template can be created so "edit in Wikidata" links are easy to add to other templates, and have appropriate CSS classes, such as a draft version I started at User:Evad37/sandbox/Template:Edit wikidata (which may not be the final version/formatting, but gives an indication of what is possible).

This RFC is to determine consensus on whether such links should be allowed or prohibited in templates using data from Wikidata.

Further details dependent on "edit in wikidata" links being allowed (eg formatting, and whether such links should be required or merely allowed) can be decided on in a future RFC. - Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Support (allow "edit in Wikidata" links)

1. As proposer - Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Clear improvement to make editing of WikiData values in Wikipedia more transparent (see suggestion below) and convenient. GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Anything you think you can do in Wikidata... you can't. I don't even see an example of how you would use the template here because so far as I know the permanent 'bug' that Wikidata only serves data for the exact name of the page you're on has never and will never go away. I think that having things like the official website come down like manna from heaven from some super-server somewhere is contrary to how Wikipedia works, and the real solution is to minimize Wikidata integration rather than to focus on trying to use it. Still, the bottom line on this issue is that it's better for users to have some editing capability than not. Wnt (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
   • Wikidata:Arbitrary access is gradually being rolled out to all wikis. Not sure of the exact timeline, but it is certainly not a permanent bug. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
   • How does one watch changes in Wikidata? For example, I'd like to track all changes to certain articles, so I'd have to track changes in associated Wikidata as well. At the same time, I'm also against the broad use of Wikidata as that "data coming out of nowhere" concept pretty much defeats the flexibility that made Wikipedia into what it currently is. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
   • @Wnt: You can see in my sandbox on the Dutch Wikipedia (nl:Gebruiker:RexxS/Kladblok) an example of fetching Wikidata from an arbitrary article, using a simple modification of Module:Wikidata that I exported to the Dutch Wikipedia at nl:Module:Sandbox/RexxS/AA. So it's just a matter of time until en-wp enables the function. --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
     • @Dsimic: On your watchlist on English Wikipedia, there is an area near the top labelled "Watchlist options"; In that, there is a line reading something like "Hide minor edits | Hide bots | Hide unregistered users | Hide registered users | Hide my edits | Show Wikidata". If you click on the "Show Wikidata" link, you will thereafter see changes to the Wikidata item that corresponds with each article in your watchlist. HTH --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
       • Thanks for the tip! However, having "Q3735943" (for example) in a watchlist is highly confusing. IMHO, very few people are going to have enough patience (and time) to watch such cryptic entry names. Would it be possible to associate more descriptive names with those Wikidata entries? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
         • You're welcome. On my watchlist I see a "D" (to show it's a Wikidata change), followed by the en-wp article name as a clickable link to the en-wp article, followed by a clickable link to the corresponding (Q123456) entry in Wikidata. I'm not sure if you're seeing the same thing, but I don't get confused by (Q151973) because it's right next to Richard Burton. Do you see something different? --RexxS (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
           • I see exactly the same, but "Q151973" means very little to me; moreover, there may be multiple Wikidata entries for the same article, and that's why some kind of descriptions could be usable. IMHO, such descriptions might help in bringing more people to watch Wikidata changes and handle vandalisms, as well as perform regular reviews. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
             • I think you'll find that, by design, each Wikipedia article corresponds to just one Wikidata page. The Wikidata link in the tools menu wouldn't work otherwise, nor would any of the tools for fetching information from Wikidata into Wikipedia. The Q151973 link doesn't mean much to me either, but I know that if it's next to the Richard Burton link, then clicking on it will take me straight to the corresponding Wikidata page for Richard Burton. The only Q value I can remember is Q42 which is Douglas Adams. --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
               • If so, I apologize, there's really no need for additional explanations. However, the relationship between the IDs and articles should be clearly described in Wikipedia:Wikidata, especially in its lead section – the aim should be to make it as approachable and understandable to (new) editors as possible. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Yes. As Wikidata matures (and one could argue that it is already mature), it is good that we are beginning to integrate with the global Wikimedia data repository, and this is an important piece of that integration. I don't think this is "contrary to how Wikipedia works" at all; Wikipedia is all about sharing knowledge, and Wikidata allows data to be shared with a wider audience, most importantly, with our sister projects. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
5. Great idea. This could also be considered as an opt-in or opt-out thing, as some people (e.g. new users) may not be interested in this sort of thing. APerson (talk!) 17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
6. More transparent. --Kolja21 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
7. Rschen7754 05:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
8. It should be allowed and obligatory, and the problem will be worse when data from wikidata can be taken from any arbitrary wikidata page (not just the "same name wikidata page' Christian75 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
9. Obviously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
10. This would encourage editors to correct data in Wikidata. Although it is probably as foreign for the first time as editing Wikipedia is, editors can quickly be editing Wikidata with no further thought than correcting a typo in an article. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
11. Strong support -- T.seppelt (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

    this would bring Wikidata to the heart of Wikipedia. More users will have a look at the entities and improve them. It should be mandatory. T.seppelt (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

12. Duh. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
13. Great idea. Support. Users may need some introduction as to what Wikidata is. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
14. Yes Jane (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
15. I support this in principle, but would be interested to see a mock-up of how it could work. Would there be a separate link to edit each item in an infobox (if so that would probably be overkill). But what if some items came from wikidata and other items set locally? How would editors know where to edit the relevant item? In general I think we should consider readers first and editors second and the former vastly outnumbers the latter. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I can't see any point in having more than one link at present, as the info in each infobox relates to just one Wikidata entry. One way to help editors is to set up the modified infobox template similarly to the demo at {{Infobox person/Wikidata}}, e.g. data26 which can fetch 'occupation' (P106) from Wikidata. When such a template is used, editors can specify e.g. |occupation=actor in the article and that takes precedence over the value in Wikidata. If they omit the parameter or explicitly set it to |occupation=FETCH_WIKIDATA, then the value in Wikidata (if any) is used. Setting the parameter to blank |occupation= suppresses the display of occupation in the infobox. Using the explicit form should provide later editors with a strong hint that the data is being fetched from Wikidata. Does that go some way to answering your questions? --RexxS (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)  – P.S. You can see a mock-up of a possible implementation at Audrey Russell, or just change 'Infobox person' to 'Infobox person/Wikidata' in any bio and preview it (please don't save!) --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
16. This shouldn't just be allowed, it should be mandated. We can't call ourselves "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit" if we can't actually (easily) edit bits of it. WaggersTALK 13:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
17. Support Seems pretty obvious to me. --Afernand74 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
18. Support Mainly in the spirit of closer interwiki/inter-Wikimedia-project cooperation. Such interactions can be to the benefit of both projects. I recommend assisting the folks on Wikidata with the issue mentioned below in the first two Opposes, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
19. Support In the coming months, I will work to ensure that Wikidata begins to have hard verifiability requirements (rather than a soft one in the form of wikidata:WD:UCS) so @Risker:'s concerns are fully addressed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

    Of the last 8 things I've asked Wikidatians to correct, 6 times they told me it was sourced, and showed me the source. Each time it was a source that might have met the standards for some project or other, but would not have been acceptable on this project. Incidentally, these were for things like deaths, marital status and so on, all BLP issues. The three that were listed as "dead" were quite alive. So...promising to source all the info in Wikidata is a little overambitious, Jasper Deng. More importantly, Wikidata doesn't have an effective method for determining which sources will be preferred over other sources. Risker (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

    @Risker: That's something I want to address, before it becomes an even bigger problem. BLP issues are something we've had problems with so we are indeed feeling the urge to do it; my main motivation for trying to get a verifiability policy created there is so a BLP policy can also be created.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (prohibit "edit in Wikidata" links)

1. There’s already a Wikidata link on article pages, and on many other pages, in the sidebar. How would this be different from that? If it just adds a link inline then it’s pointlessly duplicating the sidebar link. As such It’s not really an 'edit' link anyway, just an interwiki link; You can't provide 'edit' links to wikidata as far as I can tell. 'edit' links do not belong in the article, except the obvious one at the top of the page, and providing one to another site will just confuse many who click on it. So oppose adding them to articles for all those reasons.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

   @JohnBlackburne: See my reply below - Evad37 [talk] 02:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Read d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Revert_analysis: eswiki already has such links and generates a lot of vandalism at WD. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (edit in Wikidata links)

• Suggest to add the arrow symbol for external links after the label. Users should know in advance, that clicking a specific link will switch to a different project or website (even if it is a closely related website). GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Another option would be to use the Wikidata logo as an icon after the link: - Evad37 [talk] 04:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Converting the interwiki link to an external link is certainly easy to do, if that's the way we want to go: [[d:link|text]] just becomes [{{fullurl:d:link}} text] (eg see in my reply to Fredddie below) - Evad37 [talk] 02:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No; we don't use that icon on other sister-project links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• MUST demonstrate that users are going to a different site. And no, the icon doesn't do it; half of experienced Wikipedians don't know what it is, and it's unreasonable to expect new or inexperienced editors to know. Risker (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Could this be a gadget that could be opted-in? That might alleviate Risker's concern. –Fredddie™ 01:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • While technically possible (and probably not that difficult), I don't think that's the best approach – most editors probably won't enable it, and so the problem of finding out where the data comes from isn't solved. Something else that might work is to create a Help: page and link to it after the WD link, similar to the setup in {{Tracked}}. Something along the lines of or or maybe even - Evad37 [talk] 02:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• I remain quite concerned about the quality of information going back and forth to Wikidata; I've seen a fair bit of clearly incorrect information being posted there and then, potentially, being spread through dozens of projects, and the data is generally quite poorly sourced. Frankly, most of it doesn't meet English Wikipedia's quality standards, as low as they currently are. I do not think that we should be importing data from Wikidata unless it is fully referenced to the same standard as our own project to start with - and I also see huge potential for trolling modification of information that will be harder to correct, harder to identify, and will have ripple effects in a lot of places. (We already see this on a regular basis with Commons images, and there have been a few cases where erroneous information included at Wikidata has been propagated to a lot of projects.) Wikidata is a different project with a completely different editing interface and process. I feel it would be almost "tricking" new/inexperienced editors to give them an editing link to a completely different project, or giving them the impression that Wikidata's standards for inclusion are comparable to Wikipedia's. Risker (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The reliability of Wikipedia depends on many people reviewing the data. To take that data and put it in a very obscure place reduces the amount of review going on. This proposal partly undoes that, but there is still room for misunderstanding when you take apart text and turn it into data tokens for very different articles written by people who don't speak one another's language. When I think of trying to do what Wikidata does from scratch, I'd picture putting tags to mark key bits of data in each language Wikipedia, so that when one is edited, all the others are affected. But of course, you would run into edit wars that way... and if people actually edit Wikidata enough for it to be reliable, they should have the same wars there. I can only imagine the inter-project wars that ought to break out over something like [3]... (currently it has a referenced item for Vietnam, and an unreferenced one for China, so that means...?) The idyllic notion of sharing data in every language is also undercut by the sheer inadequacy of most languages' Wikipedias. My feeling is that machines that want data dumps ought to be able to extract it themselves by now, rather than looking for all of us to write an encyclopedia to be read by a machine. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, there is clearly some data which does not need to be referenced. For example, the current discussion started from authority control, which is a self-reference. Official websites do not need to be referenced and are read from Wikidata. Commonscat is unfortunately not yet universally read from Wikidata but it should be and it can not be referenced. I guess nobody is currently advocating taking everything from Wikidata. We should carefully investigate case by case, but there are some things which are fairly obvious.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, I started this discussion based on Template talk:Official_website; I wasn't aware there was a similar discussion at Template talk:Authority control. I have now notified the talk pages of templates in Category:Templates using data from Wikidata as well as Module talk:Wikidata of this RfC, to avoid having duplicate discussions at different talk pages. - Evad37 [talk] 01:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: The link would include an anchor so that the page scrolls the relevent property (random example: d:Special:ItemByTitle/enwiki/U.S. Route 66#P582 takes you straight to the property "end time" (d:Property:P582)). And its not a straight edit link, but it does make the process simpler:

• (1) See something that should be edited → (2) click [edit in Wikidata] → (3) wikidata page loads with the property/value on-screen, and an [edit] link → (4) click [edit].

At the moment, the process is more like

(1) See something that should be edited → (2) edit the wikipedia page, find the template call, but no indication of where the data comes from → (3) go to template documentation and have a look around. Depending on how clear the documentation is, you might (4a) figure out that you need to go to Wikidata. Otherwise (4b), you need to ask at the template talk page, or one of the help venues, and wait for a response telling you to go to Wikidata. → (5) Find the "Wikidata item" (on the side bar, with no relation to data used on the page) → (6) Wikidata page loads, you look for the property/value, which may not be on-screen when it loads → (7) click the [edit] link.

Which is rather complicated, and there are several stages when someone may well just give up. - Evad37 [talk] 02:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am still unclear how this would work. You are proposing inserting an 'edit' link (in fact just a link; you can't use 'action=edit' with a Wikidata page) inline in an article? To a site that will utterly confuse readers, who will click on it much more than actual editors (as we have far more of them than editors, and we encourage them to follow links)? Such links should not be visible to readers. They are also not needed for editors (assuming there was some way to only make them visible when you click 'edit'). Editing templates is rather complicated. In fact it’s often arcanely complex. Templates use an odd syntax. They have odd, often meaningless names (can you guess what {{GBsta-u_A}} or {{BS}} does?). They often depend on other templates, as do both of those do. Wikidata should make this easier, by moving data out of templates to a single, logical place. This is already happening, and wikidata is already being widely used without problems for some sorts of data, by far more editors than the few who have been confused by it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The link would be within templates which use data from wikidata – so not within article prose (per the Wikidata Phase 2 RfC, it is not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text), but would be within an infobox, or within other box templates such as {{Authority control}}, or at the end of templates such {{Official website}} which appear near the end of an article. This RfC is just proposing to allow such links in templates – so unless there is some later consensus otherwise, then local consensus at template talk pages would decide whether having the link is appropriate for those templates.

With the link text, it may not be a direct "edit" link, but the alternative to "edit in Wikidata" is "link to Wikidata where you can then edit this data" – unless anyone can come up with something more concise that still gets the point across?

As for complexity – yes, it may be required in some cases, and is of benefit in providing advanced functionality. But I don't think we should aim for more complexity than is necessary. I guess it comes down to philosophy: should we be the encyclopedia where, as far as is practical, anyone can edit almost anything? Should any additional edit links, such as those generated by {{navbar}}, be visible to readers and editors – when most of them have no need for such links, and interested editors can edit the page and look through the wikitext to find the relevant template?

And there have been suggestions above of ways to make the "going to a different site" aspect a bit less confusing (using the external link arrow, linking to a help page) – but don't forget that readers or editors can already unsuspectingly "fall through" to Wikidata by clicking on the sidebar links for "Wikidata item" or "Edit links" under the languages section – which don't give an indication that they are "external links" going to a different site, or that you still have to find another edit link after clicking on "Edit links") . - Evad37 [talk] 06:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Editors have not gotten the message about not including Wikidata inline in prose as it is already happening, extensively in certain classes of articles. Editors cannot be expected to look at a two year old RfC for guidance, or even if doing so may assume it is out of date. I for one was not aware of it. But I don't think it makes that much difference where the link is: it is still encyclopaedic content, still links there are still much more likely to be clicked on by readers who have no interest in editing Wikidata, who will be totally confused by that site which is not meant for general browsing. As such it will make the browsing experience more complex and confusing for those readers. That is not worth doing just to provide another link to Wikidata for the few editors that can't find the link prominently displayed in the sidebar, where such links to non-encyclopaedic content go.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

We're going to have to find ways of attracting a lot more editors to maintain Wikidata if it's going to be a serious resource. I just noticed that a vandal changed Beethoven's year of birth (baptism actually) from 1770 to 1771 on 22 May and it wasn't reverted until 29 May. If we were integrating that information into Wikipedia through its infobox, a huge number of people would have spotted that almost instantly and - if they were willing to work out how to fix it - it would have been reverted immediately. Having a link directly to the Wikidata entry from the infobox would be a help in enabling that sort of maintenance, in my humble opinion. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

But how many people have made Wikidata changes visible on their watchlist? They'd have only noticed if they visited the article and happened to spot it. Alakzi (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In May 2015 somebody viewed Ludwig van Beethoven every 18 seconds on average. I was speculating that if the infobox fetched its information from Wikidata and there was a link to d:Q255 in the infobox, then somebody might have spotted the vandalism and corrected it sooner than the week it took. I agree that if editors enabled Wikidata changes in their watchlist, it would likely be fixed even sooner, but until that happens for a significant proportion of editors, I'd suggest that ideas like having Wikidata links could still provide a help in combating Wikidata vandalism. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• You might be interested in the d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Revert_analysis. eswiki already has such links and generates a lot of vandalism at WD. Jura1 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Some thoughts on the IP vandalism issue:
    • Unless IPs are prevented from editing – which is unlikely to happen per meta:Founding principles #2 – then yes, there is going to be IP vandalism (see also Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing).
    • d:Wikidata:Vandalism states that "vandalism is fairly easy to detect and revert", and there are measures to deal with vandalism including blocks and page protection.
    • If Wikidata editors think IP edits are a huge problem, then perhaps they should try to get m:Flagged Revisions (pending changes) applied to all items. Or perhaps make a new feature request that when a page is protected on any linked wiki, the corresponding Wikidata item is automatically given the same protection.
    • It might be possible to hide the links for IP users generally – this would require links to be hidden using CSS by default, with an on-by-default gadget for registered users to show the links
    • It might further be possible to hide the links for IP users on protected pages only – this would require the above, with the initial hiding dependent on the output of {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}
    • Practically, both of the above two ideas would only work if the edit in wikidata links were only inserted via a template containing the code; this may be hard to enforce. Plus they don't actually prevent IP editing, but just make it harder. - Evad37 [talk] 01:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• If articles are going to automatically draw content from wikidata via such links, there needs to be an easy and obvious way to corrent errors in that data and to edit in changes in that data, for errors do occur and changes do get made. I mean a way easy and obvious for an ordianry editor with limited Wikipedia experience and no wikidata experience. At present there does not seem to be such a method. For the moment then, I intend to stop using such templates as {{official website}} and use ordinary external links again, and to remove such templates when I encounter them in ordinary editing. I am thinking about an RFC to deprecate and mass-remove such templates altogether. DES ^(talk) 00:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You click the link and correct the error on Wikidata. That method is about as simple as any could be and I could train an eight-year-old to do that. You're perfectly entitled to stop using templates yourself, but as for removing them, can I suggest you run the RfC first and see how little support your position attracts? I should warn you that mass-removal of templates without good reason is likely to be treated as disruptive editing, but I expect you know that. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to use {{official website}} as anything like {{official website |1 = www.example.com}} makes no connection with Wikidata and works in exactly the same way as it always has. What's the problem with that? --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• I believe that it is inappropriate to be using Wikidata data on this project. It's unreferenced and unsourced, it's often inaccurate, and it is not okay to be sending editors to another project that is far more complicated than even wikitext to edit. I believe it is supremely confusing to people who want to fix an error to open the editing window and find that the "typo" they wanted to fix doesn't show up anywhere except...somewhere else? All in all, this is a bad idea. I'd rather delete the templates. Risker (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Risker: I am disappointed by the fact that, though I fully addressed your objections in this same thread above, you have chosen not to respond to me but to repeat the objections instead. Let us try again. What kind of sourcing do you expect, for example, for the {{commonscat}} template information?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Risker: Because Wikidata has gathered almost all of its information from Wikipedias - especially the English Wikipedia, given its size - the information on Wikidata is essentially no more unsourced or inaccurate than that on en-wp. Given that we only make use of Wikidata in infoboxes, which by definition summarise information already in the article, the referencing is already in place in the body of the article. It is perfectly okay for editors to learn how to make edits on Wikidata, which has a far more intuitive interface than wikitext presents. You have made over 20 edits yourself to Wikidata - surely you didn't find any of those too difficult? --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  RexxS, I have made precisely two edits on Wikidata, one to the project chat page, and one to revert an edit that posted non-sourced and erroneous BLP information. All of the rest of the edits "attributed" to me are as a result of deletions or page moves on English Wikipedia. I tried a few times to edit there but I found it non-intuitive and complex; on looking again as I was preparing this response, I continue to find no obvious way to edit a field on an existing record.

  Wikidata imported a huge amount of poorly referenced information in the first place, at least some of which was inaccurate to start with because nobody verified the information before importing. (Anyone who pays attention will know that a huge swath of infoboxes on this project contain unsourced information or information that does not match what is in the article.) There is no expectation or standard for adding references to any modifications of data or for verifying existing data. I've found errors on Wikidata that didn't exist on the related enwiki article - because it had mashed together data from different places, again without any method for verifying the quality of the data before importing it. Wikidata has a lot of potential but no data quality control worth talking about at this point. Incidentally "Wikipedia" isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  The next time you find an error on Wikidata, please ping me and I'd be more than happy to take you thorough the steps to correct the error. But essentially it's no more than clicking the link to the "Wikidata item" which takes you the corresponding Wikidata page, for example Edouard Beaupré (the last wikidata change attributed to you); then clicking [edit] next to the incorrect value and changing it - perhaps his 'cause of death' was pneumonia, rather than tuberculosis. It's easy to try it out because nothing gets saved until you click [save] and there's a [cancel] link right next to it. You click on [add reference] to add a reference. Oddly enough I've never found this vast swath of infoboxes containing information that does not match what is in the article; perhaps I don't pay enough attention? Naturally I don't expect infoboxes to be packed with references, just as I don't expect references in the lead of any developed article - the place for those is in the body. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source per se, of course, but the assumption is that data gathered from Wikipedia infoboxes is sourced elsewhere in the article (and I believe that to be overwhelmingly true). Despite all that, I do share your concerns with the quality control on Wikidata. It's grown in size and outstripped the capacity of its contributors to keep on top of that. But I believe that we solve that by increasing the number of editors capable of making those small fixes; I don't believe Wikidata is going to go away and we can't just choose to ignore it. It will improve its quality only when editors such as yourself can feel comfortable editing there, and increasing the amount of integration of Wikidata into Wikipedia ought to be seen as a good thing because it drives that process forward. It's early days yet, and we need to convince everyone that Wikidata has a value in itself as a source of information. If it actually is a worthwhile sister project (which I obviously believe it is), then we have to recognise that wikis work best when lots of editors are contributing. I've found the regulars over at Wikidata to be remarkably receptive to ideas and suggestions to improve the fledgling project. Let's communicate our concerns and see what we can do to make progress, rather than giving up on the issue of quality control altogether. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  RexxS, when I look at the Edouard Beaupré entry, I see *one* edit link, at the top, and nothing anywhere near any of the other values until I get to the sections for other projects. This is consistent on every entry I look at when I do a random search. (And I am baffled that Wikidata has entries for categories, that makes no sense to me.) I do not see a way to edit anything but the label, description and aliases using the browser and OS I am currently using (the OS is up to date; the browser is IE9, which is still very common). If the "old" browser was a problem I shouldn't even be seeing the first edit link, so I suspect there is another issue. Adding: Even if, under the optimal circumstances, every factoid in every userbox from enwiki was verifiably correct at the time of import, that doesn't mean (a) that other projects from which data was imported had the same standards and (b) that the information was kept up to date when corrections/modifications occurred on enwiki. Risker (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  Hi Risker. Another editor has reported the same issue. Wikidata has got a hard dependency on JavaScript; my guess is, for whatever reason, it fails to load for you. Could you check your browser console for JavaScript errors? Alakzi (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  Alakzi, I do have an error, but I don't want to publish it here (just because I know how to find it doesn't mean I understand what kind of information it's sending out to the world...). Send me an email/place to send this where it won't be directly linked to me and I'll be happy to forward it. Risker (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  Yikes! That's a critical problem that I was unaware of. No wonder you find it difficult to edit. It's a good job that we get to have these discussions, so that someone can make a start on fixing those problems. You don't have to, but if you had a chance to take a look at a Wikidata page in any modern browser, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc. you might be pleasantly surprised by what you see (and perhaps think me slightly less of an idiot). --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks RexxS, I've sent some further information directly to Lydia via email to see if this can be sorted; however, I'm not 100% sure what this relates to, as I recall this having happened on my other "usual" computer, where I have always used the most current version of Firefox. Mind you, that was a while back, so it may be a different issue. Risker (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  That's probably the best course, Risker. These sort of problems are usually related to the inability of Wikipedia/Wikidata/etc. to properly load additional page content that is supplied via JavaScript. One thing everyone can check is that they have JavaScript enabled, and I usually point people to this webpage which performs a quick yes/no check for you. If Lydia doesn't get the problem sorted for you (and I know she can be busy at times), then please ping me (or Alakzi) again and I'll see if can help further. I'm always happy to try to troubleshoot over Skype if you get stuck. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just as an update: I just got confirmation that I'll have a student work with me on her bachelor thesis starting probably at the end of August. The topic will be investigation of Wikidata editing on clients. That includes Wikipedia, other sister projects and 3rd parties. She'll come up with recommendations and best practices for the development team and the communities. The relevant task for it is phabricator:T103092 in case you want to subscribe. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for all the work you guys have done on Wikidata. I decided yesterday to start paying more attention, and helping out with some natural language generation. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

One more thing ... I want to be clear that I'm personally a fan of trying new ways of doing things, and speaking as a user, I never require new interfaces to be, as I said above, "bug-free" (a word that sometimes signals an anti-coder bias). Speaking as a member of this community, on the other hand, we tend to get a little huffy when new things don't work the way we expect them to or want them to. This RfC didn't generate much pushback, but I suspect that's because we're not very far along the path yet and people haven't developed strong feelings one way or the other. FWIW, I recommend to anyone who'd like to see more integration with Wikidata that you try "focus groups", that is, talk about what you'd like to see in infoboxes with small groups of Wikipedians, for instance on wikiproject talk pages, and see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from merges

I just noticed this category: Category:Redirects_from_merges which is populated with redirects using a template R. We could experiment with this template since the redirect will probably have a wikidata item associated with it. The template could say something like "Wikidata Qxxx corresponds to this title" or something like that. Any ideas? Jane (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)