Wikidata:Requests for comment/A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects: Difference between revisions

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue. If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

Untitled

During the edits I have been doing on Wikidata, I realized that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. I'll use one of my edits as an example to show my point:

I was attempting to add to Q2049076, the English version on this entry being en:2011 Pan American Games. I was trying to add the following entries to this Wikidata entry: bcl:2011 Pan Amerikanong Karawat and et:2011 Pan-Ameerika mängud. However, these two entries being added run across a conflict with Wikidata entry Q230186, the English version on this entry being en:Pan American Games. Upon investigating the Bikol Central (bcn) and eesti (et) articles I was trying to add to the same Wikidata entry as en:2011 Pan American Games, I found that these two pages are redirects to their corresponding articles on the Wikidata entry with en:Pan American Games listed, preventing from being added to Wikidata.

The problem that I am running across involves this situation where Wikipedia "1" has two articles, "Apple" and "Orange", and Wikipedia "2" has an article, "Apple", but "Orange" as a redirect with its target being "Apple" or "Pear" (a redirect towards "Apple" as a section redirect being the most common). In a case like this, "Orange" for "Wikpedia 2" would not be able to be put on the same entry in Wikidata as the "Orange" in "Wikipedia 1" (or entered at all, for that matter) since it is a redirect to another target ("Apple" or "Pear"). This problem occurs most often in this situation when "Wikipedia 1" has a complete article for the topic "Orange", but "Wikipedia 2" has an article ("Apple" or "Pear") with "Orange" as a section redirect towards the article, preventing the "Orange" in "Wikipedia 2" from being added to Wikidata at all if its target ("Apple" or "Pear") is listed on a Wikidata entry. It seems like there needs to be some sort of way to allow certain exceptions for redirects to be listed in Wikidata, especially in cases like this. Steel1943 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

To redirect to a section inside an other article that is about something else will break the basic premise for Wikidata, the articles main topic will not be about the same. The number of cases where this rather minor situation occur is so small that it is an error in most cases. Last summer Denny did an analysis to check if this was a big problem, and it doesn't seems to be overwhelming. His results is available in Ratio of language links to full text in Wikipedias [1]. I've inspecting some of them and so far I have not found any serious problems, but I tend to agree that in some cases it would solve some of the problems if we could link to a specially marked redirect. The best example is the Bonnie and Clyde problem, many Wikipedias have an article of the pair but not so many have biographies about each of the persons. Jeblad (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not stating that there should be section redirects hardcoded into Wikidata. I'm referring to cases such as my example above, where if one were to look up "Orange" on "Wikipedia 2", it would redirect the user to "Apple#Orange", since the text in the redirect is "#REDIRECT[[Apple#Orange]]". In no way am I saying that there should be hardcoded section redirects in Wikidata. I'm saying that "Orange" in "Wikipedia 2" should be allowed to be listed on the same Wikidata list as the "Orange" in "Wikipedia 1", whether the "Orange" in "Wikipedia 2" is a redirect to "Apple" (#REDIRECT[[Apple]]) or "Apple#Orange" (#REDIRECT[[Apple#Orange]]). I'm stating that in this case, "Orange" from "Wikipedia 2" should be allowed to be added to Wikidata, not "Apple#Orange". In fact, for the sake of my point, please disregard the fact that I ever mentioned "sections" in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support Steel1943. As long that an article and a redirect towards this article have not exactly the same topic -and that happens very often- it would be a very good thing to allow the redirect to be used to be listed in Wikidata. If you don't like this feature, you would be free not to use it ; but I see no serious reason to prevent users who wish to interlink redirects to do that. To dig a bit more in the interesting example given by Jeblad, open w:de:Clyde Barrow, which is a redirect : it contains three interwiki links, linking it to three articles such as w:pt:Clyde Barrow which are themselves added to Q3320282. The use of Wikidata on the four wikis concerned by these redirects would destroy this piece of information. What is the positive side of this destruction ? I can't see any. Touriste (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the "positiv" side of this "feature" is to prevent people to link to redirects in the case were they meant the real article thus unnecessarily increasing the serverload every time that interwikilink is called. But this could be solved easyly by prompting the user " foo is a redirect to bar do you really wan to attach foo to this item". But there might be also some other pandora boxes opened by allowing redirects like loops and redicets changed to totaly

different subjects. @Jeblad i don't know if it is really that seldom. I am working right now on Wikidata:Wiki_import_task_force/dewiki and most of them are such cases. --Saehrimnir (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also support this (as I have before), and I've stated as such before. Saehrimnir's idea of "do you really want to do this?" seems like a good way to make sure it's not "abused" in some fashion. It would really help clean up lists of characters articles topics that commonly have redirects from topics which are covered on other wikis but not on the wikis with the lists. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the single page constraint will be removed as it is a prerequisite to make the implicit lookup of items to work. Jeblad (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And that's precisely how this helps. I can add en:Draenor (or en:Outland (Warcraft)) to Q850277. It helps navigation for other wikis, if not the wiki which has the redirect article. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. Allowing sitelinks to redirect pages (even if they are redirects to sections) would get around the problem we have at the moment where a Wikipedia page has sections on different entities which are notable enough to be added to this page but not notable enough to each have their own pages. As time passes some of these entities may get promoted . Some related entities may get demoted, with a section added on this page and their own page converted to a redirect. Meanwhile a similar process happens on other languages so these pages on different languages are never synchronised. This happens a lot with minor characters in works of fiction though I have come across it on a little scottish island with two castles which has two pages on de:wp but where en:wp makes them share a page.

Even if no language wp gives these entities separate pages it is still worth having separate pages on wikidata for each entity, all linked via redirects to the shared wp page because that lets us create statements on wikidata about each of the entities. If the only page on wikidata links to "minor characters in foo" then the wikidata page is about the wikipedia page, not about the characters, and there are not very many statements we can make about that page.

The same will happen if we have a table comparing software features (for instance - the same applies to all tables, family trees, data visualisations). Stage 3 of wikidata is about creating these tables from data on wikidata but this will only work if each entity has it's own set of statements on wikidata and that will only happen if the criteria for wikidata pages are loosened a bit. This is already happening a bit. The criteria now permit wikidata pages to be created for any geographical administrative region and for any species, even if they don't yet have wikipedia pages.

I am going to start a new section with a proposal for how the criteria should be changed to allow a limited number of redirects. Filceolaire (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How will the reverse direction work? If the sitelinks from several items resolve, by way of redirects, to one page, how will that page point back to all of them? —Naddy (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Another example (with no redirect to section): Q103169 =red algae / Rhodophyta has both scientific nouns in some languages and vernacular nouns in other languages. In each language, a redirect exist from one to the other. It would be better to have all the scientific nouns in one element (even if some are redirects), and all vernacular nouns (even if some are redirects) on another one. And there are thousand and thousand of cases like this one. TED 02:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC) 

Proposals

Proposal 1

Where an item has a wikidata page, because it has a dedicated page on one Wikipedia, but on other wikipedias the item is on a shared wikipedia page with other items, with redirects to each item from separate redirect pages, then the Wikidata page for that item can have a sitelink to the redirect page. As the wikidata page only relates to one item it can have statements related to that item.

A separate Wikidata page will contain links to the shared wikipedia page and any other shared pages on other Wikipedias. As this wikidata page relates to a wikipedia page rather than a single item therefore it can only have statements related to the wikipedia page or (perhaps) statements related to all the items on the shared page.

Note that the shared page may have infoboxes for each item with data imported from the individual wikidata pages for each item or it may (after phase 3) have some data visualisation - e.g. a family tree. Filceolaire (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Where there is a 'shared' wikipedia page which covers more than one item a separate wikidata page can be created for each item, linked to the shared page by redirects on the wikipedia. This is so that each item can have it's own wikidata page with statements related to that item, independent of statements related to other items on the shared page.

This can apply to :

1. TV season listing all the TV shows in a program in one season
2. List of minor characters in a novel, movie or other work of fiction.
3. Season for a sports team
4. Comparison table e.g. for features in software
5. family tree
6. other shared pages

Filceolaire (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Commentary on proposals 1 and 2

I have nothing deeply "against" any of them. I simply find them a bit intricate -I prefer 2 as being shorter.

Some questions : what are we to decide in view of this "resquest for comment ?". If some "decision" is taken here, somebody will have to change something in some page of code to simply make it technically possible to sitelink wikidata items to wikipedia redirects. Would not it be simpler to simply here comment a proposal asking for this technical move ? We can write then write a policy explaining how this new technical feature should be used, but our means to get sure that it is strictly followed are limited (only humans can decide whether the title of a redirect is equivalent to the title of the page where it leads or only to the name of a section of this page). So we can recommend but hardly force. My own proposal would be much easier : it would be to ask for the removal of the technical limitation forbidding sitelinking to redirects, not more than that. What do you think of this point of view ? Touriste (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be good to agree how redirects would be linked before we have the limitation on such linkages removed. We do have a big problem here that needs solving, and linking to redirects (possibly redirects that have yet to be created) does seem like it could be part of the solution. But it isn't without problems of its own.

For instance, currently Wikidata only allows one link from each item to a single article on any particular Wikipedia. Assuming that constraint remains in place, redirects can present a problem because there can be multiple redirects for a given topic on each Wikipedia - e.g. for spelling variations, disputed names, different perspectives on the subject, and so forth. How will we choose which redirect to link to?

The various Wikipedias each have their own policies regarding redirects. Are our proposals compatible with all these policies? I think I read somewhere that some Wikipedias prohibit redirects entirely - is that true? --Avenue (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can distinguish the difference between options 1 and 2. Could you make that more clear? --Izno (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I fully support any of them, which seems very similar to me. The point is allow sitelinks to redirects so we can interwikilink languages without separate article for the item, as those included in lists or similar stuff. --Rondador 13:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I raised the same issue here, and was pointed to this RfC. I can understand the technical limitation concerning anchored links, so I will settle for redirections. The proposal 2 seem to cover exactly the needs. Therefore, I support it strongly. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC).

I confirm that I am for the proposal 2, which would allow to create a wikidata page for any group of redirections concerning a precise subject, even if it does not have a proper article on any particular WP. I find that much simpler and more logical. According to the proposal 1 Legolin (Q7505605) is at present entitled to a wikidata page. When it will be merged with Ossiriand, should we delete the wikidata page? I think that if several wikipedia created redirections on the same subject, then it is interesting for wikidata. And if wikipedias want to merge their short articles, they would be able to do it without destroying the interwiki for all the others WP. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand the distinction between Props 1 and 2. 1 says "only if it has a Wikidata page (because we have other wikis which do have articles)" and 2 says "any redirect of sufficient 'quality'". Is that a correct understanding of the proposals? If it is, I would only support proposal 1 and not proposal 2. We should attempt to avoid managing other wikis' redirects if at all possible, and only if a wiki has an item on a particular element should we link the corresponding other wikis. --Izno (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I also support proposal 2. Problem I see with proposal one if is a particular group of topics is considered on, say, Norwegian Wikipedia, notable enough to have one article for each but not all items of this group do actually have an article, and in the same time they all the items have entries in lists on fr: and en:, we would have to wait for no: to really create the articles to make all the interwiki links between en: and fr:. -Ash Crow (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

bind to __STATICREDIRECT__

The "bug" report [2] proposes to make the distinction between "normal" redirects and those standing out by being marked as __STATICREDIRECT__ . Since the latter had been invented in order to prevent wikilinks from beeing substituted automatically because (I'm interpreting:) editors see a semantic difference the case appears to be conceptually quite similar. -- Gymel (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This distinction can be useful, if we consider that a __STATICREDIRECT__ is a valid target for a sitelink, as it's an item IRW. For example: es:Espana is a "normal" redirect that deals only with a misspelling. It should't be interwikable. de:Bilbo Beutlin is a redirect that should be static, interwikable with en:Bilbo Baggins. --Rondador 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does make a useful distinction, as it presumably marks redirects that refer to a topic distinguishable from that of the target article. But it could be applied to misspellings too, if they are misspellings of the distinct topic's name, or be a non-unique reference for other reasons (e.g. alternative correct spellings, or disputed names). This could still cause a problem for Wikidata. Which redirect should Wikidata choose to link to? That's easy to answer for misspellings, but not so easy for disputed names. --Avenue (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a good idea. Using things in software that were functionally meant to do other things entirely tends to turn around and bite you. --Izno (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

new Proposal zero

Reading the commentary above it strikes me that my proposals above are confusing two issues - the change to the software to allow links to redirects and the policies governing when we can links to redirects. to clarify this I give you proposal 0 which only deals with the software. Please express a clear preference on this so we can give clear guidance to the developers.

Proposal 0

Allow wikidata links to Wikipedia redirect pages.
Wikidata policy page to be developed to govern when these should be used. Filceolaire (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Filceolaire (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• This I can unquestionably support. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -Ash Crow (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support under the "restrictive start condition" formulated by Avenue below. Not having a clear policy first implies that links to redirect pages are unconditionally allowed (and will be created as developers implement the feature) and afterwards data has to be cleaned up retrospectively and developers have to implement the policy. -- Gymel (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the editing community will need to implement any policy, not the developers. There will be too many judgement calls for automated solutions to be very practical. --Avenue (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Support if at least a basic policy is developed before links to redirects are allowed. We could start by being quite restrictive about which redirects are allowed, then gradually relax the policy as needed. --Avenue (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Unquestionably. Touriste (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)