Talk:WDQ (identifier)

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 15 February 2021. The result of the discussion was Retarget WDQ to Wikidata, retarget PIC to New York Public Library#Website and digital holdings , delete FNZA.

Hi, given that the term "wikidata" is a bit ambiguous when we would use this redirect only to link to QIDs, and also because I just created a wrapper template {{QID}} for this (and the other possible names were already taken), I suggest to rename this redirect into "QID (identifier)" (name in all-uppercase as for most other such redirects, move without leaving a redirect). User:Uzume, would you mind that? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul: I do not mind the name change to something more specific, however, there are some things to note. First, there are already some things using the current title name and those would have to be relinked (the list is still small so it shouldn't be too much trouble). Also I did not come up the the current naming. I took it from the Wikidata Q identifier (Q43649390) label. I do not like "QID" as it is still too ambiguous (many other sites will likely generate similar identifier names if not already) so I recommend you move to "Wikidata item ID (identifier)" or "Wikidata QID (identifier)" instead (it is already one of the aliases on the Wikidata item). I could make the changes myself (including move without redirect) you but seem motivated so unless you need help or something, I will leave them with you and check back later. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer. While "Wikidata QID (identifier)" would be a very descriptive name in general, there are several arguments against it:

• The naming convention for these identifier redirects we came up with in the course of discussions related to the introduction of these redirects was to use the official abbreviation plus "(identifier)", if possible. This would suggest "QID (identifier)". Also, this will likely have better chances to be accepted as an internally supported parameter by citation templates in the future than |wikidata-qid= (too long) or |wikidata= (too ambiguous, as there are also property IDs).
• For people to use it, it should be as short as possible, otherwise they would use direct links rather than using the template or redirect.
• Ideally, the name of the identifier redirect and the name of the corresponding catalog lookup link template should be the same. This is not a hard requirement, but we could maintain this scheme for most CLLs so far.
• So far, there is no conflict with any other ID named QID. So, we can still be bold and just occupy this name for our purposes (after all, it is for our sister project). If, in the future, there would be multiple QIDs to be supported, we could still rename the redirect and run a bot to fix up existing uses.

That's why, after taking the alternatives into account, I still suggest to rename to "QID (identifier)", not "Wikidata QID (identifier)".

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul: Okay, then how about "Wikidata item (identifier)", "WD item (identifier)" or "WDQID (identifier)"? This would make |wdqid= a possibility and be inline with the likes of |s2cid= which already exists on CS1. Perhaps you are interested in Help talk:Citation Style 1#Wikidata identifiers. I really think "QID" is too short (and is already used by others, e.g., What is a QID identifier?) and the "ID" part is sort of redundant with "identifier" (see QID). It should also be noted that the QID is more of a Wikibase thing than a Wikidata thing and although there are no substantial Wikibase databases besides Wikidata yet, someday there might be (Commons already has a separate one but they are using special "M" prefixed MediaInfo entities and referencing Wikidata item and property entities; see c:SDC and for an example one can already link to the likes of c:Special:EntityPage/M85400305 which is not so different from d:Special:EntityPage/Q9081967). —Uzume (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikidata item ID (identifier)" (which I personally like) or "Wikidata QID (identifier)" are way too long. Also, they don't follow the established naming scheme for identifier redirects at all. According to the discussions at CS1 they should use the official abbreviated name of the identifier plus "(identifier)" - we originally had redirects named "International Standard Book Number (identifier)" etc. but abandoned them in favour of "ISBN (identifier)" etc. as an outcome of these discussions. While it is always possible to deviate from this naming convention if we cannot use the short ones, I think, we should try very hard not to, which leaves us with "QID (identifier)" or, perhaps, "WDQID (identifier)" (I like that one as well, but still favour "QID (identifier)" for the reasons already given). But let's see if there will be any useful outcome of the parallel discussion at CS1.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "ID" part is considerably redundant with "identifier" so perhaps "WDQ (identifier)". That is already a known abbreviation as well, e.g., {{

wdp}}). And that is also shorter (the same length as "QID (identifier)" in fact) and it is unambiguous with regard to a potential QID being used elsewhere (e.g., other Wikibase databases that may well proliferate, etc.). —Uzume (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A small follow-up just for records: I wasn't aware of it, but just I saw that the {{

Authority Control}} template is using the |QID= parameter name as well for links to Wikidata QIDs. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

For another small follow-up, see Template_talk:Cite_Q/Archive_3#S2CID. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Template_talk:Cite_Q#"Wikidata"_link_points_to_a_redirect

Wikidata uses "QID" as the official name according to their glossary: d:Wikidata:Glossary#QID:

"QID (or Q number) is the unique identifier of a data item on Wikidata, comprising the letter "Q" followed by one or more digits. It is used to help people and machines understand the difference between items with the same or similar names e.g there are several places in the world called London and many people called James Smith. This number appears next to the name at the top of each Wikidata item."

I still think we should rename this redirect into "QID (identifier)".

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much again simplifying this to just QID (identifier) for the facts I have stated above:

1. "QID" is more of a Wikibase thing than a Wikidata thing. The fact that Wikidata is currently the only significant Wikibase database is the only reason they are currently synonymous. Every Wikibase database will have its own "item" and a "property" entity types identified by their "Q" and "P" prefixes unless they import another one like c:SDC does with Wikidata. Wikidata also has other entity types, like "lexme" "L" (e.g., d:Special:EntityPage/L3) based upon mw:Extension:WikibaseLexeme while SDC has mediainfo "M" (e.g., c:Special:EntityPage/M85400305) based upon mw:Extension:WikibaseMediaInfo. You can see how SDC imports Wikidata items and properties via references like: c:Special:EntityPage/Q9081967 and c:Special:EntityPage/P180, however, the following do not work: c:Special:EntityPage/L3, d:Special:EntityPage/M85400305.
2. There is also the minor fact that "ID" is redundant with "(identifier)", however, I realize this is already being done elsewhere like with
   S2CID (identifier)
   , etc.

WDQ (identifier) (or even possibly WDQID (identifier) despite the redundant "ID" part) are better. Just because we are sometimes naïve elsewhere ({{Cite Q}}, d:Wikidata:Glossary#QID, etc.) does not mean we should be so here as well. —Uzume (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]