This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Lbliss318: What aspect of the operations, technical issues or policies of the Wikimedia Commons media repository are you proposing to change? I don't see how your statement has anything to do with the topic of this page or with this whole site for that matter. —LX (talk, contribs)16:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's about a listicle which showed up on the web, but which has nothing to do with Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, or any Wikimedia site. Here they show Dover as the shortest town name in Delaware. Here they give their criteria, which is only incorporated towns, and not census designated places. (Ties were broken by largest population.) w:Bear, Delaware is a CDP and is not incorporated, so didn't count per their criteria. But none of this has anything to do with this proposals page, nor Wikimedia in any respect at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have general idea/proposal for a Bot. When there is a DOI in |Source= section of the {{Information}} template, then it could be possible to categorize the image by source.
which may be the best place for detailed comments and follow-ups, to keep discussion all in one place.
Essentially, now that the template {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} exists and is in wide use, that preferentially shows interwiki links from Commons categories to Wiki articles if possible, and Wiki categories if not, I suggest that:
Interwiki links held locally be de-materialised from here, wherever they correspond to what would be generated via a Wikidata sitelink, the interwikis held on Wikidata, and the {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} template.
Sitelinks to Wikidata items be created as necessary to enable this.
Sitelinks to go to a corresponding category-type item on Wikidata if such a category item exists; otherwise to an article-type item there.
But care to be taken, and sitelinks not to be added, if there is any detectable ambiguity as to which Wikidata item should be linked to.
I suggest that this would have the following benefits:
The interwiki links on Wikidata are more likely to be maintained, and so may be more comprehensive, as Wikidata is the central site where Wiki <-> Wiki interlinks are held.
Interwiki links via Wikidata will automatically reflect any merges or editing of the Wikidata items and which Wiki pages they are connected to.
Better identification between Commons categories and Wikidata is useful in preparation for Structured Data, for understanding categories here, and for facilitating templates that can draw on Wikidata.
In particular, sitelinks are helpful for getting Wikidata-driven templates on Commons to work automatically.
It will no longer be necessary to make separate edits here and at Wikidata to link to a new wiki article in a new language.
User:Fæ has criticised me for jumping straight to COM:BR to raise the proposal for discussion, and he's probably right. But as it is there, with more detail that people might like to comment on, it might be best to go on with the discussion there.
In companion to this, I have also proposed at Wikidata project chat to revise the Wikidata notability guideline and explicitly confirm that such sitelinks are appropriate, to bring policy there de jure into line with what has long been the case de facto. Jheald (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose There has been insufficient preparation for this proposal. Examples:
The assertion "links on Wikidata are more likely to be maintained" is unproven. With a significantly smaller active community on Wikidata, it is more likely that changes to the category structure on Commons will cause drift from any Wikidata syntactical meaningfulness, and Commons contributors are unlikely to want to be forced to edit Wikidata to correct mistakes there. The likely/unlikely assertions need backup with evidence in advance of this proposal.
"interwiki links via Wikidata will automatically reflect any merges or editing" is a Wikipedia way of thinking, there is no analysis here of how category changes, including amending hierarchies, sub-categorization, mass re-categorization or even category renaming will be maintained via Wikidata's P/Q arcane number systems, nor whether Commons contributors will now be expected to do that Wikidata analysis and changes before they can get on with doing smart quick categorization with cat-a-lot. This is an area that could do with a simple guide and backup analysis of the practical use, before running ahead with proposing mass changes that result in Commons categories being controlled or frozen via Wikidata due to the burden this introduces.
With on-going discussion at Wikidata, the foundation of this proposal is not yet fixed. Wikidata must have its house in order before proposing mass changes on Commons.
"sitelinks not to be added, if there is any detectable ambiguity" there is no agreed guide on how this will be measured, nor even where the locus of future disputes will be.
Please make a proposal when there is a credible foundation of evidence and best practice to support it. If the changes create an avoidable additional burden on Wikimedia Commons volunteers interested in maintaining categorization, then that is not in the interests of this project. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the Wikidata-specific community is small. But Wikidata is where editors from every community go to manage their interwiki links, via the "quill" icon in the interwiki part of the sidebar. If they want their new page to be sitelinked to any other wiki, they go to wikidata. They do not, I suggest, very often come here. It's what Wikidata was built for, and why interwiki links via Wikidata are likely to be more extensive and less stale than interwiki links here, which according to User:Jarekt he hasn't systematically updated for at least 5 years. No, I don't have any numbers to back that up; but I am sure if anyone is really interested they could look to see how many interwiki links have been added at Wikidata in the last year, and what proportion of those have been added to a category here. Personally I'd be surprised if it was even 5%.
In thinking about category changes here, yes all sorts of refinement happens but I submit that it is rare if a category has a role, that that role gets handed to a different category. Yes the category may get renamed or merged, but the software should be able to follow that, and update sitelinks accordingly. More often in hierarchy refinement, cat-a-lot is used to create and populate subcategories, without changing the meaning of the original category. Also worth considering is that if the information on Wikidata is not updated, that will typically break incoming links from Wikis, which tend to follow P373 statements on Wikidata rather than interwikis. The interwikis on Commons currently really only determine links from Commons categories to Wikis. To make sure links in both directions get updated, it would probably be no bad thing for them to be all managed in the one place.
"Detectable ambiguity". The different ways I could think of to detect ambiguity are set out in the more detailed proposals I posted at COM:BR (which you criticised as being unhelpfully technical for a policy discussion, which needed to first establish the generalities). If people have thoughts about any further ways to identify abiguities, please do bring them to that discussion at COM:BR.
Wikidata policy. Yes, it would be profoundly unhelpful if we were to add sitelinks and Wikidata was to delete them. But I don't think that's going to happen. I think there's broad acceptance in the community there of article-type items sitelinking to categories here, as over half a million such site-links currently bear witness to. It would be useful to confirm that explicitly in Wikidata policy. But it seems to me useful for the two discussions to run in parallel -- I don't see any benefit in holding up this one to wait on the other one. Jheald (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Responding to ping: Thanks for your responses, however you have left the questions open ("likely", "I am sure", "should be", "probably", "I don't think"), apparently expecting others to provide evidence to back up your proposal. The burden of proof is on the proposer. Nobody expects you to do this on your own, but the proposal should only be put to the community when the assertions of benefits or impact made in the proposal can be verified. Without being given those basics, people are voting yes/no on wishes and guesstimates, and we should be able to do better than the type of popularity vote that leads to Brexit and President Trump. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment Could I suggest, for crying out loud, that we just have a discussion. You know those things where people try to find some common agreement and work towards a goal? Instead, as seen above, when Commons votes you just get person A saying all sorts of polarised things in favour and person B saying all sorts of polarised things against, rinse and repeat, and we never advance, never progress towards agreement. Despite JHeald's request, we currently have comments/votes on two pages. I would strongly recommend using a community page like this one, rather than an obscure bot page that fewer people have in their watchlists. This isn't really about running a bot (yet) but whether the community thinks the migration of these links is a good thing. -- Colin (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Commons<->Wikidata sitelinks if we have both commons gallery and category and Wikidata article-item and category-item.
Support the idea of retiring old style interwiki links which everybody else stopped using since Wikidata come along. In the past I was the one that occasionally run interwiki update bot, but have not done so for last 5 years since Wikidata project started and everybody else migrated to Wikidata based interwikis. As a result many of the links are likely very stale. So I agree that we need to migrate, but details about how would vary with namespace:
File: All interwiki links should be removed
User: Old style should remain
All the rest except for Category and Gallery. Should rely on Wikidata sitelinks.
Category: This one should have majority of links. There are 2 possibilities:
Add {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} without hardwired q-code and rely on having Wikidata sitelink from either article-item or category-item
Add {{Interwiki from Wikidata|Wikidata=Q????}} with hardwired q-code and not use Wikidata sitelinks
Option #1 is much easier to maintain as any correction would have to be done only in one place and you would not have to keep q-codes on Commons in synch with Wikidata sitelinks. The challenge of option #1 is that if you have the usual setup with sitelink from article-item to Commons-category and than someone creates Commons-gallery than article-item sitelink might get changed to the gallery. At this point Commons-category will loose its interwiki links. So option #1 would only work if we agree that sitelinks to Commons categories should take precedence over sitelinks to galleries, and than convince Wikidata Community that that is a good idea. Let me, ping @Multichill and Zolo: , who might also be interested in this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Probably best to focus on categories. For me {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} in it's current form is just the start. Maybe spend some time on improving the template so it shows some nice description in your local language based on Wikidata? That would really add benefit from grabbing data from Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That's the {{On Wikidata}} template. I'm not sure that we really want to take up space in the header of every category though, when there's already a link to Wikidata in the sidebar (assuming the site link variant is used). I thought it had already been the consensus to replace the old-style interlanguage links for years, and I've been deleting them and replacing with site links whenever I see them. It would be preferable for a bot to do it. --ghouston (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
To me, good galleries would be our preferred introduction to a topic from outside -- they would have curated images, and some descriptions. I could see linking both a gallery and a category, I suppose. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You mean linking category and a gallery in same wikidata item? That is technically not possible. It is in Wikidata dev's radar for at least 3 years, and it's still not possible. — regards, Revi09:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hm. Prefer a gallery then if it exists, but if not use the category? Some galleries are pretty poor, to be sure, but the good ones should be featured, to me. Is it possible for both a gallery and category page use the same interwiki links from Wikidata? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
No, gallery and category cannot co-exist as a sitelink in one item, and fix was requested since the Commons integration to Wikidata was offered in 2013, and it's 2018. I don't think it will be offered in any foreseeable future. — regards, Revi13:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Strongly support, it is only a question of time. In the beginning Commons itself was questionable separate (image data store) project. In time all growth together. In effect the interwiki-links on Wikidata get much much more proven as a single page on Commons (alle projects can data changes on here watchlist and also Commons). Anyway I don't see that problems described by Fæ. So I see really no reason why Commons should go alone separated from WD. -- User: Perhelion13:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Support, this would greatly help with creating more structured data on Wikimedia Commons, but Wikidata should be able to host multiple Commonswiki categories and/or galleries per item if possible, but Wikimedia Commons should be supported by Wikidata by default. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Accessing Wikidata with a specified Q number for generating Wikipedia links and other info useful for navigation and disambiguation (one live example here) is IMHO good. But relying on Wikidata to obtain a Q number searching values of Commons category (P373) for the {{PAGENAME}} is ungood, because depends on some kind of search or a cache not controllable directly. It can be also subverted e.g. by a P373 value in a page protected on Wikidata. I do not endorse drive-by deployment of {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}. Note that I didn’t actually read proposals and can’t assess degrees of preparedness. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Question. What happens when existing commons interwiki conflicts with wikidata? Keep / delete / convert to wikilinks ... ? How many commons pages are affected? Retired electrician (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Interwiki links here are, to be honest, a mess. They're fragmented, and not particularly maintained. Most wikis now use Wikidata for this, and we can benefit hugely by migrating over to that system - as can the other wikis as they can more easily get links to Commons there. I'm happy to help with the work needed to migrate the remaining interwikis over (I've been removing them as I've seen them, but this would be much better done by a bot and then human editing can sort out the oddities). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose linking categories to category items when no gallery exists. For Commons to be useful, the interwiki links on categories should continue going straight to the corresponding articles when they exist, as they always did. Some users on Wikidata don't like this, which is why traditional interwiki links have survived in the first place. There is no urgency to migrate interwikis before Wikidata is ready to embrace the Commons way of linking. --Nemo13:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose There has been insufficient preparation for this proposal. Examples:
Comment Could I suggest, for crying out loud, that we just have a discussion. You know those things where people try to find some common agreement and work towards a goal? Instead, as seen above, when Commons votes you just get person A saying all sorts of polarised things in favour and person B saying all sorts of polarised things against, rinse and repeat, and we never advance, never progress towards agreement. Despite JHeald's request, we currently have comments/votes on two pages. I would strongly recommend using a community page like this one, rather than an obscure bot page that fewer people have in their watchlists. This isn't really about running a bot (yet) but whether the community thinks the migration of these links is a good thing. -- Colin (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Support the idea of retiring old style interwiki links which everybody else stopped using since Wikidata come along. In the past I was the one that occasionally run interwiki update bot, but have not done so for last 5 years since Wikidata project started and everybody else migrated to Wikidata based interwikis. As a result many of the links are likely very stale. So I agree that we need to migrate, but details about how would vary with namespace: