Template talk:Authority control: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 300: Line 300:
::::::: That's your opinion. Feel free to gather others, e.g., through an RfC. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 14:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::: That's your opinion. Feel free to gather others, e.g., through an RfC. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 14:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::: I agree with Fram here. There's no need for another RfC, and in fact starting one would be unacceptable forum shopping. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::: I agree with Fram here. There's no need for another RfC, and in fact starting one would be unacceptable forum shopping. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
:::: Because (a) Fram, Jonesey95, and I all are happy with the sandboxed version and (b) the RfC shows clear consensus that the sandbox is preferable to the status quo (this does not mean it is perfect, or that no improvements are possible), notwithstanding your vocal objections. The burden is on you. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


== Reference works in the new auth control template ==
== Reference works in the new auth control template ==

Revision as of 14:55, 4 May 2021

Template:ACArt
name

Please can we move this template so that it makes more sense when read by humans in the wikitext? Perhaps something like Template:Authority control (arts) would be better. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for most humans it will make just as much sense as ACArt. I know that authority control is the right term for people who actually are into authority control, but for most people it gives a completely wrong impression of what are basically "reliable identifiers".
Fram (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Support {{
dgaf)  01:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. per User:Tom.Reding. --Robert.Allen (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 
dgaf)  12:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Add support for P6829 (Dictionary of Irish Biography ID)

The Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB) removed its paywall in December 2020. There are 7614 wikidata entries. jnestorius(talk) 22:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 
dgaf)  19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Microsoft Academic IDs

I propose that we add Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) to the template; the site has rich data about people and their papers, and includes data which is not easily found in other online resources; not least where they have been cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@
dgaf)  15:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Tom.Reding: https://academic.microsoft.com/v2/detail/$1 seems to work in all cases; note also that it's marked as"preferred" on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 
dgaf)  19:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Lighthouse identifiers

I have proposed removing some identifiers from Template:Infobox lighthouse and putting them in authority control instead. That would mean adding support, initially, for:

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which cover more than one thing

How does this template get used for articles which cover more than one concept/person/object? Is it possible to apply it more than once with different QID parameters, and if so, how could the scope of each be clearly indicated? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: to your first question, I would like to see some examples as well (the Bonnie and Clyde page unfortunately has a null AC template).
{{
WP:Tree of Life/taxonomy space suffers from large-scale translational issues between WP & WD that I don't think exist for AC (taxon names change, get updated, split, merge, have un/official variants, etc.), so {{Taxonbar
}} can be used for ideas on how to improve AC, but not as any sort of idyllic goal.
I'd suggest a parameter which is able to add a secondary QID to the template like, say, |also=. {{Taxonbar}} is, and has to be, more aggressive in its WP-WD linkage by soft-requiring its |from= parameter on all pages. I don't think this is/will be necessary for AC, so I'd prefer a parameter name that won't hint at/suggest that.
As far as visualization goes, the [[Help:Authority control|Authority control]] link can be moved from the left column to the header, similar to {{
dgaf)  12:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your answer. It is exactly analogous to Bonnie and Clyde, where an article covers an overview of more than one topic. In the case of lighthouses, it is quite common that a lighthouse is replaced by a new lighthouse in the same location or nearby. The Wikipedia article would generally cover multiple lighthouses in the same location. There are also lots of pairs of lights (used to provide leading lights) and an article would usually cover both of them.
I like your suggestions, and the ability to add |also=. May I suggest a naming scheme like |qid1= (used to override the current page's qid) and |qid2=, |qid3=, etc. to provide supplementary ones?
I made a mock up of what it could look like below, broadly in line with your own ideas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good.
"used to override the current page's qid" - that is out of the question. The solution instead is to move the WP site link to the appropriate QID in WD, NOT simply masking over the problem in AC. The current QID should always be shown in AC, and we can discuss whether or not to:
  1. force the current QID to the top of AC (I'd say force), or
  2. allow the user to change the order of all QIDs (I'd say don't), or
  3. allow the user to only change the order of QIDs below the current (no problems),
but overwriting the current QID is a non-starter.
This is why I suggest |also=, or something equally evocative/non-neutral. |qid= is too neutral and begets the reasoning/tenancies towards #2.   ~ 
dgaf)  14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The only reason I was suggesting the qid could be overridden was in examples like Kinnaird Head lighthouses (Q105519325) which is an overview item for two different lighthouses, and has no useful data. But I guess if there is no data, then that row would not be displayed anyway, so no problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like Matthiaspaul's suggestion of using a |part= parameter which is dependent on has part(s) (P527) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar was done in {{Taxonbar}} to automatically pull basionym (P566) & original combination (P1403) into the template. I think this is a very good starting point. |part= may be used locally for those unfamiliar with WD, with a followup tracking cat to move that QID to WD.
For some preliminary statistics & usage examples, I chose Library of Congress authority ID (P244), which has ~592,000 WP articles:
~19,000 use part of (P361),
~11,000 use has part(s) (P527), and
~1,800 use both.
I spot-checked a few they seem reasonable to include at the end of the article. I'll start with the automatic addition first, see how that goes, then incorporate the parameter with any community feedback.   ~ 
dgaf)  11:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Holding off on this until after
dgaf)  21:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Please see Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#This template and the Bonnie & Clyde problem (not least my post there timestamped "22:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)", and the example article linked to from that). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am in agreement with all points made in that thread. So it seems there is a real need for this functionality — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing multiple ACs is just a sloppier version of my #2 concern above.   ~ 
dgaf)  11:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Word wrap for comma-separated values

I've noticed an issue on the page A–Z Series where there are multiple entities under the MBRG category, separated by commas. There are so many that they go outside the page limits, instead of wrapping within the box. I've had no experience with this template myself, so I don't know whether this is an issue with the data (i.e. there "shouldn't" be this many entities within one category) or whether there's a way to allow word wrapping within the template, since it's something that is possibly occurring elsewhere under legitimate circumstances. Thought I'd bring it to the attention of folks associated with the template though :-) Fattonyni (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@
dgaf)  10:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
 
dgaf)  11:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@Tom.Reding: brilliant, thanks! Fattonyni (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the look of the template

I've started

Fram (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Generalizing Category:VIAF not on Wikidata & Category:VIAF different on Wikidata

Currently, these 2 categories are emitted by the template, and not by a/the module as all other {{

AC
}} tracking categories are.

After the new cat is created, I plan on discontinuing Category:VIAF not on Wikidata & Category:VIAF different on Wikidata for the new, general categories. I'll wait some time before CfD'ing them, but I thought I'd let any interested people know, in case they want to clear out the category in the meantime.

The alternative, having 2 cats for each parameter, would require 168 new categories, which is prohibitive to display, and I think not necessary due to the 1843 pages (2411 – 568=1843) that would be dispersed among them. To carry forward some of that functionality, though, I plan on making the 2 general categories sorted by the first/last-alphabetically-discovered absent/different parameter. For example,

dgaf)  12:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

It turned out that
dgaf)  15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
†0.02% for pages-different   ~ 
dgaf)  07:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Researcher ID leads to Publons?

No idea since when this happens, but the ResearcherID links simply lead to Publons. Having both is then not necessary. I guess ResearcherID is the one that should go?

Fram (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

See ResearcherID, they are merging. Probably an if statement is needed, so that ResearcherID is still shown if Publons is not present. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
Fram (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Same problem for
Fram (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion example of the new look after the RfC

The RfC on the changed look of this template, to make it more reader-friendly, has been closed as "succesful"[1]: "There's a strong support for an overhaul of the authority control template that uses human-readable names of the resources, in the interest of being recognizable to more editors. There is general support that Fram's proposal is preferable to the current version, but not any consensus on the exact form that an improved version might take. " (there is more, but that's a separate discussion).

For convenience, I have created a "full" version of the template with all currently possible IDs included. Note that not a single article will end up with the template like this; a fair number of the IDs are very specific ones that only end up on a small number of articles, so most articles will have a much more manageable, smaller template than this.

Feel free to improve this example: but if you want to propose something which follows the RfC result but is clearly different from my proposal, please make your own version. Some notes: I have not created a separate "music" section, as the many MusicBrainz links never appear together on one article: usually you get one, at most two of them. In the future, separate sections for e.g. music or sport may of course become necessary. I have tried to find a balance between labels which are short yet clear enough to give a layperson some idea of what to expect, but this wasn't possible in all cases.

Like I said, all comments and improvements welcome, this is not a final version but a starting point.

Fram (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redesign: multiple IDs

How do we show multiple IDs?   ~ 
dgaf)  17:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Is this even necessary? I know that there are some cases where you indeed have multiple IDs for the same thing, but a) this undermines the unique identifier ID of authority control, b) adds little or nothing for our readers and c) makes things a lot more complex. Simply using the first (preferred) ID from Wikidata seems sufficient.
Fram (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
dgaf)  11:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't doubt that it exists, now. I wondered if it was necessary. Random example,
Fram (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
See proposal @
dgaf)  11:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. While I still think this is unnecessary (just showing one link is in most cases better), it seems like a good way to present it if people want this.
Fram (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I also agree that this is unncessary, and it seems to have been added on February 14 (Special:Diff/1006784035) with no discussion I can find other than Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#Multiple IDs from Wikidata now allowed/appended, which recieved no comments by anyone else. This is a contested (by Fram) bold edit that was evidently not uncontroversial. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look harder;
dgaf)  23:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I've decided to implement multiple IDs anyway in the sandbox, using a slight variation on your proposal, on the grounds that I shouldn't let this dispute hijack the implementation of the original RfC. This should now be ready to sync once the authority control files TfD is closed (and it's overdue for closure by about an hour and a half at the time I write this comment) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redesign: multiple QIDs

How do we show multiple QIDs from
dgaf)  17:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
We don't. The authority control should match the article, not "be a part of" or "has parts". We wouldn't include these two if there is a direct match (I mean, you wouldn't add a "Beatles" id to the article of Paul McCartney, who is also part of Wings and probably a few other things; and you wouldn't add the IDs of John, Paul, George and Ringo to the authority control of The Beatles). In any case, this is separate from the redesign: the proposed solutions of having basically an option to have either an override of the QI, or a default one and an additional one with an extra QID, work equally well in the old and the new design.
Fram (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Bonnie and Clyde problem. ~28,000 pages use some combination of
dgaf)  11:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
And? Like I said, any solution for this should work equally well in the old and the new design surely, as this is independent of the labels and groupings proposed? Whether it is even wanted is a separate discussion, but has no relation to the redesign.
Fram (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Wouldn't it make more sense to use the template two or more times with a parameter to indicate what subtopic it is authority control for? - Jmabel | Talk 14:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
dgaf)  12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not seeing what makes this a can of worms, other than Tom.Reding declaring unilaterally in that section that Jmabel's solution (which was also proposed independently by MSGJ in that section and by at least two other editors in the talk archives) is out of the question and a non-starter. It appears consensus may be in favor of doing just that, despite his objections * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny how you looked so hard in the archives to find something here, yet failed to find anything above @ #Redesign: multiple IDs. Willful ignorance and/or intellectual bias at its most obvious.
Imagine the consequences of a |QID= parameter, and how much more chaotic it would be than |part= (I've described them above in the same section, which you've "read"). If you cannot, I suggest focusing your efforts elsewhere.   ~ 
dgaf)  23:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Redesign: parameter names

Yet another problem that wasn't even described in the RfC has unintended consequences:
  1. The parameter name is removed from the rendered page, making it much less intuitive/obvious how to either add an ID or suppress the existing.
  2. All links to Wikipedia pages about the institutions are removed (and links to all {{R from identifier}} type pages).
How do we address that?   ~ 
dgaf)  11:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
This was discussed in the RfC. The template documentation should be improved to indicate how this needs to be done (for the first issue), and for the second, yes, that's a small disadvantage which is (per the consensus at the RfC) outweighed by the benefits of the new design. You are free to create a mockup that respects the outcome of the RfC and adresses your concerns of course.
Fram (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
This was only discussed in my thread, not voted on by the vast majority of participants. The RfC did not weigh the advantages & disadvantages, and cannot be used as such.   ~ 
dgaf)  11:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you underestimate the voters in the RfC here. Certainly the second issue you raise was clearly decided by the RfC: the first issue is needs better explanation at the documentation page. Re-litigating the RfC here won't really change the outcome.
Fram (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: "underestimate": I indeed estimate (as we are forced to) that most voters didn't read through the comments to pick out the nuances that they may or may not have been aware of. The cons & consequences of your redesign weren't described at all. As such, there is no consensus when it comes to broad implementation, because it wasn't actually discussed. Your RFC wasn't pointless, though, as it's a first step towards a second, more thorough, RFC, and/or further discussion here on how to address all these problems above. "There is no problem" is not a solution, though.   ~ 
dgaf)  11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Feel free to raise this with the closer of the RfC or at
Fram (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Per the close, "but not any consensus on the exact form that an improved version might take", and "the exact form that an improved version might take" is exactly what we're trying to (I think) discuss here. "No solution" will indeed change nothing.   ~ 
dgaf)  12:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The exact form, no, that's what we're discussing. But your objections so far seem more like "let's get back to the old format". It would probably help if you presented some example of what you have in mind (doesn't need to be a full one, just a mockup with a few links which incorporates the RfC close and your objections/improvements).
Fram (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
To be honest here, looking at the wikilinks/pageview stats of the various (identifier) redirects I don't think the second issue is a problem anyway, it seems that these links were basically never getting used. Looking at a few examples
  • RERO (identifier)
    , 17,968 incoming links, Median 210 page views a month. In the average authority control template the link gets clicked once every 7.13 years.
  • NKC (identifier)
    , 166,311 incoming links, Median 1,012 page views a month. n the average authority control template the link gets clicked once every 13.69 years.
  • NLG (identifier)
    , 19,282 incoming links, Median 192.5 page views a month. In the average authority control template the link gets clicked once every 8.35 years.
  • WorldCat Identities (identifier)
    , 844,173 incoming links, Median 3528 page views a month. In the average authority control template the link gets clicked once every 19.93 years.
I really don't think it's worth having all these links to the institutions when the average link gets used once a decade, and with Fram's proposed redesign a lot of the reason for having these links in the first place vanish, as readers will no longer be left wondering "what is NLG, who operates it?", it's immediately obvious that it relates to the national library of Greece. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now sure what IP's math is for "once every X years" nonsense, but here is the Pageviews Analysis for all 4 examples aggregated monthly over the last year. Shows significant usage.   ~ 
dgaf)  12:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The IP means "one view per article using the identifier per X years". * Pppery * it has begun... 18:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to implement this?

So, we have had some small improvements to the proposed version, and some comments, but discussion seems to have died down. Anyone here willing to implement this?

Fram (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

There's been no progress on the above implementation issues, despite your lying/mischaracterization of the situation.   ~ 
dgaf)  14:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
So? Like I said, 2 isn't an issue at all, 3 is an issue that has been decided by the RfC, and 1 is as far as I can tell not an issue either, but a feature of the new design. I don't expect you to implement this, considering that we are all volunteers and you oppose this (even though you are welcome to implement it anyway of course), but the above issues are no reason to stop this at all.
Fram (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no problems implementing a solution, when we have one.   ~ 
dgaf)  14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, personal attacks, that will help.
Fram (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, this does seem like an attempt to force your own viewpoint by refusing to implement anything else. It didn't work, though, because someone else was willing to do the implementation. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt at implementing this at Module:Authority control/sandbox. There's something screwed up with identifier validation and WorldCat that I can't quite figure out right now, but it mostly works. As for the technical details discussed above, I completely dropped support for multiple instances of the same identifier. Other issues I ran into during implementation are that Fram didn't include autores.uy in the complete table above, so I stuck it in Other with the label "autores.uy" (which can be changed easily), and I wasn't sure what to do if an article had no identifiers in the "General" section, which makes there be no obvious place to put the link and Wikidata pencil. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Autores.uy was an oversight. Would it be possible and helpful if instead of starting with "Authority control: general", we would move "Authority control" to a "header" position" and used "General" as the label for the first section? Comparable to (random example)
Fram (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Implemented. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, great! There seems to be an issue in the testcases in the section "Suppression via null params", where the new version generates some errors where the old version doesn't. Otherwise, it seems to work as expected. Takes up some more vertical space (at the bottom of articles), but is much more reader-friendly. It can always be made auto-collapsed if necessary, but that's outside the scope of the RfC change and would need another discussion.
Fram (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, that is the There's something screwed up with identifier validation and WorldCat that I can't quite figure out right now, which I've now fixed. Actually, my original implementation autocollapsed like all other navboxes, and then BrandonXLF changed it to always expand for reasons I don't understand, and I reverted him (before seeing your comment) on the grounds that I saw no reason to deviate from the standard navbox behavior. I don't personally have a strong opinion on whether it is expanded or collapsed, and don't mind if someone re-reverts me. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because the current authority control is always "expanded" as in the links are always visible, but the new title row does make it larger than the current template. – BrandonXLF (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, maybe it would be better to move "Authority control" to the left of the template? I created an example at User:BrandonXLF/K. The issue with having it at the top is it makes the template significantly taller, it different very different from the current authority control template, and it can cause confusion since it looks too similar to an actual navbox, which this isn't really since it exclusive links to other sites. – BrandonXLF (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
That looks good as well. Pppery, would this be feasible (and do you like it)? I just wonder if it wouldn't look a bit strange on the (many) instances where we wll only have one "subheader"? Certainly worth a try!
Fram (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
In terms of feasability, doing that is trivial. It personally looks a little odd to me, but that's probably just because I coded the vertical-header option so am used to it and shouldn't be decisive. As for cases with only one subheader, one idea would be to go back to the originally-proposed format and say Authority control: National libraries as one header if only national libraries are present, for example, thus producing something like for a template with only a BIBSYS identifier (and using Brandon's format as currently implemented for cases with more than one header). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Specifically for Norway, I guess simply "Norway" is sufficient, the (BIBSYS) part can go, it isn't included for other national libraries.
Fram (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Implemented the above format (with the tweak that if the only section is "General" or "Other" it omits the section label as either pointless or redundant). Note that "Norway (BIBSYS)" was what you labelled it as in your table at the top of the section, which is why I included it with that title (I've now changed it to just Norway). * Pppery * it has begun... 13:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, upon further inspection, it does seem a little odd-looking. I found Template:Taxonbar, and I think the format it uses when it has multiple groups could work well for this, see User:BrandonXLF/K/testcases. – BrandonXLF (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That formatting works for me. But, now that you brought up {{taxonbar}}, it may also be due for a redesign to make more reader-friendly in the same way {{authority control}} is. Implementing that would also require finding a solution to #Redesign: multiple QIDs above. Anyway, we should probably stop arguing over what color to paint the bikeshed now. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now gone ahead and implemented that proposal in Module:Authority control/sandbox * Pppery * it has begun... 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, which section should autores.uy go in, and what should it be titled as? I was implicitly asking that earlier, and the question appears to have gotten lost in the formatting sidetrack above, so I'm restating it explicitly. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under the "biographical dictionaries", title "Uruguay"? It's something halfway between "national library" and "biographical dictionary", could go either way.
Fram (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Implemented. I believe the only things left to resolve before this is ready to be synced are #Duplicate Poland national library identifiers and possibly the TfD I started of {{Authority control files}}, which is automatically generated based on the data stored in Module:Authority control in a way that would need rewriting if there is consensus to keep the navbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the solution you suggested below for the Polish ones is the correct way to proceed, so that can be implemented as well. So then we only need to wait for the closure of the AC files TfD.
Fram (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that and #Documentation table, which should be straightforward but probably should get at least some discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Poland national library identiifers

There are currently 33,000 articles that have both NLP and PLWABN identifiers. Under the rewrite (both in Fram's original proposal and in my implementation), both of these display as "Poland" in the national libraries section, which would result in two links with identical labels. That seems undesirable to me. What should be done about this? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from reading d:Property:P7293 and d:Property:P1695 that NLP IDs are deprecated by the national library in favor of PLWABN IDs, so maybe don't show NLP at all if PLWABN is present? That would be pretty easy to implement. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done the above per Fram's post in the previous section. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 24 § Template:Authority control files

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 24 § Template:Authority control files. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Documentation table

There is a giant table at Template:Authority control/doc#Wikidata and tracking categories that is currently generated automatically from this module, thus it's necessary to decide how it will look post-redesign before implementation in order to avoid extra edits to high-risk templates. The current sandbox code I wrote produces: Script error: The function "docConfTable" does not exist. Does that look good to everyone else? * Pppery * it has begun... 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the addition of the Section column.   ~ 
dgaf)  13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Could the parameter column be linked like the old label column? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not too hard to do technically, but the same logic that lead to removing the link from the main navbox seems to suggest the link may not be necessary in the table either. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that there is a parallel. The navbox needs to be kept tidy and small, so there is definitely a strong argument for removing all of the labels (and so their links). The table has a lot more space and serves as a central reference for the complete set of IDs that could be shown by the template. Links in the first column are a major source of reference. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. I've now updated my code to add links (which is now reflected in the table) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Truly a work of art and beauty. Awesome — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, perfetly done!
Fram (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
A minor correction needs making - FNZA and DIB have typos in their "Section" column. DIB should be "Biographical dictionaries" rather than "Biographical databses", and FNZA is missing an "e" in research. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for catching these; they would have caused a script error on all uses of the relevant identifier if the code had gone live (and the testcases didn't list them because they were recently added and the testcases page hasn't been updated). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference works

Hi All, I have only noticed the discussion and I would like to propose some changes (or rather ask your opinions). I have been working with RexxS on a template to make use of Wikidata's external IDs pointing to reference works (encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, etc, sources that are not only data and are reliable). This offers the readers sites to continue reading on (especially useful for article stubs) and could be useful during article creation too. It can handle multiple languages (it prioritises local language sources) and multiple IDs too, Also, it already has a large set of sources included. See some tests here.

My proposal would be to remove similar categories from the authority template and use them separately for the following reasons:

  • These sources do not strictly serve as authority control.
  • They are important for readers to easily find and follow up and would get lost in the authority control template.
  • What to include in reference works and how to display them might need more flexibility than this template provides.
  • Some wikipedias already implement reference works in separate templates.

What do you think? Adam Harangozó (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is orthogonal to the in-progress redesign (if anything, [they] would get lost in the authority control template is made less true by the redesign}}) and should be discussed separately. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new version takes up too much space

Looking at Template:Authority control/testcases, the new version seems to *triple* the amount of space that the template takes up in some cases, and always takes up more space than the previous one. That's a serious issue that could lead to people wanting to auto-collapse the template (which would be *bad* since that would make it even less useful). The current version looks better to me, and it shows more info by displaying the IDs too. Maybe keep that, and just write out the acronyms if you want? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was argument was already presented and rejected at the RfC. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spot it in the RfC? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that something like:

is an improvement over the current:

is farcical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it was decided by a committee! Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see in the testcases page (near the bottom of the page) that a template with only one item still renders in a single line. For items like the example above, where there are only two or three items in separate categories, we could make the template less cumbersome by putting "Authority control" on the left side, then "National libraries" etc. as subheadings to the right, then the IDs to the right of that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise, it's only one line if all items are in the same category (and the labels themselves don't take up more than one line of space). The idea of putting "Authority control" on the left was discussed higher up in #Anyone willing to implement this? and, at the time, seemed odd-looking to me, but I don't feel strongly (and would be willing to do the implementation of any design that reaches consensus). I'm getting somewhat annoyed at the extent to which this discussion is going round in circles.* Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented the above suggestion, and
Fram, Tom.Reding, Jmabel, BrandonXLF, GhostInTheMachine, Adam Harangozó, Mike Peel, Pigsonthewing, Johnuniq, and Jonesey95: Any final comments before the redesign goes live? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I like the shorter vertical height. One likely bug: It appears that the sandbox adds an extra closing </span> tag after each item. Here's one:
{{Authority control/sandbox|QID=42}} contains:
*<span class="uid">[https://d-nb.info/gnd/119033364 Integrated Authority File][[Category:Miscellaneous pages with GND identifiers]]</span></span>
I haven't looked at the code to see where it is added, but if I am correct, it should be fixed before going live. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out.  Fixed * Pppery * it has begun... 02:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. No objections to making this update. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too, go for it!
Fram (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Just spotted a typo in the sandbox, probably introduced by me: "MusicBranz artist" should be "MusicBrainz artist" (extra "i" in "brainz").
Fram (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
A few other ones: "Sweeden" should be "Sweden", "Urugway" should be "Uruguay", and all other Musicbranz should be changed to Musicbrainz.
Fram (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, typos fixed. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments? Yes; the discussion is "going round in circles" because changing:

to:

is stupid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example is not from an actual Wikipedia article, and your second one isn't even about one subject but about completely disparate ones (or even non-existent ones). Real examples would be somewhat more convincing perhaps. Even then, it would be stopping the improvement of 95% because it looks somewhat worse for 5%. — Preceding
Fram (talk • contribs) 09:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
There are still examples on the test cases page where it is tripling the amount of space, e.g., search for '4925052'. So the change was a step in the right direction, but didn't solve this problem. Remember that cases with few identifiers are in the long tail, so are actually the most common, you're 'improving' the 5% with many identifiers. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of the "long tail" won't need that much more space as they often only have one or two (general) identifiers anyway (articles like
Fram (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Both examples are taken from the testcases page, and both are also highly plausible - indeed likely - scenarios. But no doubt the proponents of this asinine change have checked the common usage patterns before invoking it; perhaps, being one of them, you can share that research with us? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, we forgot, best negate the RfC and undo all these changes because, unlike the proponents of the status quo, we have not checked the common usage patterns. None of the examples of how the new version of the template will look like seems terrible (or "asinine") to me: they take up a bit more space in some cases, because they are more self-explanatory, much less intentionally obscure than the old versions. It's a trade-off, and one which you and some others don't like, and others do. That's why we had an RfC, where these pros and cons were taken into deliberation. It is impossible to combine the results of the RfC with a requirement to keep the template as compact as it used to be (assuming that is something to aim for), and readability and logical grouping has been chosen over saving one or two lines of space. Allowing people to at a glance see what this is about, and to get to your preferred AC much quicker than in the old format, seem like sufficient benefits to make your concerns less important. You don't need to agree, but perhaps you need to accept it.
Fram (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting how 'The above is a very simple mockup of how it could look. This is an example, and not necessarily the end result.' turned into 'It is impossible to combine the results of the RfC with a requirement to keep the template as compact as it used to be'. Also, note that the example given in the RfC was actually as compact as the current version. Mike Peel (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where was height discussed? The only example given in the RfC was a best-case scenario where the height was essentially unchanged.   ~ 
dgaf)  12:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

If you have any constructive suggestions on how to make the template take up less space while still respecting the RfC outcome, feel free to provide them and I'd be happy to implement. All of the above comments appear to be non-constructive re-litigation of the RfC. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC conclusion was "There's a strong support for an overhaul of the authority control template that uses human-readable names of the resources, in the interest of being recognizable to more editors." You can do that while taking up less vertical space easily if you wanted to. But no, we must have drama!!! Mike Peel (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any constructive suggestions on how to make the template take up less space while still respecting the RfC outcome, feel free to provide them and I'd be happy to implement. I'm not at all wedded to the current format, but I do care that the implementation of the clear consensus at the RfC not be further obstructed. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the status quo, so why would I propose something different? But perhaps since you've already reduced the amount of space for cases where there are less than ~4 IDs, you could try just increasing that number a bit, and/or combining lines when they contain few IDs? Mike Peel (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to make a mock-up of how you visualize this, of which lines can be combined, ...? Many of the labels only make sense when coupled with the groupings (e.g. the national libraries). Concrete improvements to the ready-to-go version are always welcome; general comments of unhappiness, while also welcome, are hardly actionable.
Fram (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No, thank you. As I said, I'm happy with the currently live version, if you want to change things then that's down to you. However, I think you would need another RfC to decide whether to make the current version live or not, since you didn't address the increased space consumption in your previous one, and to check that people are generally happy with how the changes have been implemented. Mike Peel (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new implementation is close enough to what was proposed in the RfC.
Fram (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
That's your opinion. Feel free to gather others, e.g., through an RfC. Mike Peel (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fram here. There's no need for another RfC, and in fact starting one would be unacceptable forum shopping. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because (a) Fram, Jonesey95, and I all are happy with the sandboxed version and (b) the RfC shows clear consensus that the sandbox is preferable to the status quo (this does not mean it is perfect, or that no improvements are possible), notwithstanding your vocal objections. The burden is on you. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference works in the new auth control template

Hi All, I have only noticed the discussion about the redesigned authority template and I would like to propose some changes (or rather ask your opinions). I have been working with RexxS on a template to make use of Wikidata's external IDs pointing to reference works (encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, etc, sources that are not only data and are reliable). This offers the readers sites to continue reading on (especially useful for article stubs) and could be useful during article creation too. It can handle multiple languages (it prioritises local language sources) and multiple IDs too, Also, it already has a large set of sources included. See some tests here.

My proposal would be to remove similar categories from the authority template and use them separately for the following reasons:

  • These sources do not strictly serve as authority control.
  • They are important for readers to easily find and follow up and would get lost in the authority control template at the bottom of the article.
  • What to include in reference works and how to display them might need more flexibility than this template provides.
  • Some wikipedias already implement reference works in separate templates.

What do you think? Adam Harangozó (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VPP discussion

Just to note that @ProcrastinatingReader: has started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Authority_control. Mike Peel (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out all the wikilinks doesn't seem like improving user-friendliness

To repeat something I said at the RfC (where I liked the idea of making it a bit more user friendly but wasn't sure how it could be done well):

It doesn't make sense to get rid of all the wikilinks if the purpose is to make it more user-friendly. The consensus was to make it more user-friendly, not for this particular version. That's good because while organizing the links in this way is user-friendly, removing the wikilinks is not. We're removing links from acronyms to English language Wikipedia articles explaining what those resources are and replacing them with [newly organized] acronyms linked directly to the resource, which is sometimes in another language. If someone wants to know what they're clicking beforehand, I suppose they can just google it or open up a new Wikipedia tab to search? This does not strike me as making it more user-friendly. The ideal is certainly to have a wikilink to information about the resource before you jump into it, plus the link itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Authority_control&oldid=1021405526"