Template talk:Authority control

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Other[edit]

Why do we have a group for "Other" and could these be put into "General" instead? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"General" is for IDs that cover everything, like VIAF. "Other" is for IDs which are specialized, but where there aren't sufficient to warrant a new line (I mean, we have plenty of links to national libraries, so having a line for those make sense: but we have only one "Base Léonore", "a French database that lists the records of the members of the National Order of the Legion of Honor." type of entry. Fram (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I suspect the distinction would be lost on most people. Is it really valuable to separate General and Other? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - Online PWN Encyclopedia ID[edit]

Regards. Please add a module displaying a link to the Polish encyclopedia - Online PWN Encyclopedia ID (http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P7305). I would be grateful for this help. Abraham (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Abraham: code is on Module:Authority control/sandbox2. Test is below. Please test further and advise if this can be deployed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Authority control/sandbox2|PWN=3878797}} produces:

@MSGJ: Yes, thank you very much. Please, deployed. Abraham (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Please advise on the most appropriate group for this identifier? The choices are: 'General', 'National libraries','Art galleries and museums','Art research institutes','Biographical dictionaries','Scientific databases','Lighthouse identifiers','Other' — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

RERO[edit]

I'm completely out of my element here, so forgive me if it sounds like I have no idea what I'm talking about (I don't). This template still refers to a database maintained by RERO in Switzerland. RERO is a library network in Western Switzerland, which used to have a high number of members, including all the universities based there. But it lost the vast majority of its members (including all the universities) in late 2020, as most institutions have moved to a new network called "Swisscovery". Article in French: [1]. I have no idea what this means in terms of authority control, but just wanted to put it out there. JBchrch talk 16:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: are you proposing to remove RERO ID (P3065) and instead add swisscovery edition ID (P9907)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ Thanks a lot for getting back to me on this. I think it would be completely out of my depth to propose anything since I don't know how any of this works (both on-Wiki and off-Wiki). What I can say is that anything connected to Swisscovery is going to have more stability, quality and legitimacy than RERO given the size and weight of the institutions taking part to the former. JBchrch talk 23:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide a few examples of articles that use these identifiers and we can compare the results and reliability of each? Without a concrete proposal I can't really help much ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but again I'm not familiar with this and I wouldn't even know how to search. As I said in my first message, this is just a notification for the folks familiar with authority control from someone who has no other information and competence in this area, in order for them to do with this information whatever they feel is appropriate. JBchrch talk 17:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Change template from a navigational footer to a sidebar floater[edit]

Currently, this template is at the bottom of articles & blends in with the navigation templates. This template is not a navigation template to related articles & can fool me (the fool I am) every now & again. I was wondering if anyone else thought the same. Can this template be redesigned to look & be placed similar to how Template:Portal is coded? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the difference in anticipated length, that doesn't seem to be practicable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Bison X, I think that if you coded an example in the sandbox, you would find that the template would be far too long vertically. The bold headers that are currently at the left side would also have to become horizontal, most likely, taking even more vertical space. And then there is nowrapping to consider, in the case of links like "Faceted Application of Subject Terminology". Pay a visit to Dwight D. Eisenhower (to pick an article at semi-random), make it narrow, and start thinking about the practicality of this recommendation. I'm not saying it's not possible, but there is a cascade of considerations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't realized it could be that populated. My concern is that it isn't an article navigation template & was suggesting it be differentiated from those. A smaller template may not be possible, but is there some way to differentiate it from navboxes? I apologize for not having a possible solution to a problem I perceive. I guess first it must be established if anyone else thinks this is a problem. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
NO NO NO NO NO. This template is too obtrusive already. Placing it as a sidebar at the top of articles would make that much worse. It belongs at the bottom near the external links, and the proper way to format boxes that go at the bottom near extlinks is horizontally, because that's what fits better into that space. The Portal templates can be problematic for exactly that reason, but not quite as much as a vertical authcon template would be, because there are usually fewer portal links. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Who said anything about placing it at the top of the article? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's where sidebars usually go. When placed at the bottom they create lots of awkward empty whitespace and/or interfere with reference columnization. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
My issue is that it is not an article navigation template & does not help the average reader. The common term I see used to describe it is "clutter." I was seeing if there was a better way to display the template. I wonder if putting it on the talk page has been discussed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Authority controll" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Authority controll and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 23#Template:Authority controll until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Auhtority control" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Auhtority control and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 23#Template:Auhtority control until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

NLI -> J9U[edit]

Please note that many National Library of Israel ID (P949) have already been replaced by the new National Library of Israel J9U ID (P8189), but the template hasn't been changed to reflect that. נדב ס (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Should J9U be added as an supplementary or as a replacement? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic ID (P6366): No longer accessible after Dec. 31, 2021[edit]

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/academic/articles/microsoft-academic-to-expand-horizons-with-community-driven-approach/

replace identifier Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) with Google Scholar author ID (P1960) in Module:Authority control/Template:Authority control? — Luamssuk (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the Scopus author ID is also an appropriate ID for authority control. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Google Scholar is free access. Scopus is restricting access to content with a subscription paywall. — Luamssuk (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, Microsoft Academic ID should be purged from this bloat fest as now completely useless (redirects to Microsoft.com). Also, Semantic Scholar often has poor results with lots of conflation (but what more can you expect when AI is sifting through 100s of "J. Smiths" or "R. Patels" who worked on engineering or biomedical articles?) and should be considered for removal. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal... Add identifiers: Google Scholar author ID (P1960) (biggest academic database) and Scopus author ID (P1153) (used in WP:NACADEMIC "accurate way of finding citations to journal articles") / Remove identifiers: Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) (was retired from operational service) and Semantic Scholar author ID (P4012)Luamssuk (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) and Semantic Scholar author ID (P4012) removed from Module:Authority control/sandbox2 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Scopus author ID (P1153) added to Module:Authority control/sandbox2. Test below. Please check — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Authority control/sandbox2|scopus=37083905900}} produces:

Checked -> OK (Note: Scopus author ID 37083905900 Greenberg, Marc L. redirects to Scopus author ID 55833286300 Greenberg, Marc L.). Not checked if template draws its values for property:P1153 from Wikidata. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Please advise on the most appropriate group for the proposed additions. The choices are General, National libraries, Art galleries and museums, Art research institutes, Biographical dictionaries, Scientific databases, Lighthouse identifiers, Other — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
"SCOPUS" Most appropriate group, in my opinion: Scientific databases / Reason: "Scopus is among the largest curated abstract and citation databases, with a wide global and regional coverage of scientific journals, conference proceedings, and books, while ensuring only the highest quality data are indexed through rigorous content selection and re-evaluation by an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board." http://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019 / It is like Publons author ID (P3829) or ResearcherID (P1053) (both integrated with Web of Science; Since 2019 ResearcherID redirects to Publons author ID). — Luamssuk (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
"GOOGLE SCHOLAR" Most appropriate group, in my opinion: Scientific databases / Reason: "Over the past 15 years, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar have been the three most important multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources, providing metadata on scientific documents and on citation links between these documents." http://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112Luamssuk (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar author ID (P1960) added to Module:Authority control/sandbox2. Test below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Authority control/sandbox2|google=QPdLuj8AAAAJ}} produces:

Checked -> OK (Київський національний торговельно-економічний університет -> Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics). Not checked if template draws its values for property:P1960 from Wikidata. — Luamssuk (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 All done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar ID: All google ids with "–" or "_" are not valid in template {{Authority control}}. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Authority control/sandbox2|google=tQVe-fAAAAAJ}} Trevor Hastie produces:


{{Authority control/sandbox2|google=ZpG_cJwAAAAJ}} Robert Tibshirani produces:

Fixed I think — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Fix confirmed for Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Christopher BishopLuamssuk (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Module:Authority control

Please check if parameter name { 'google' in

1108: { 'google', 1960, p.googleLink, 'Scientific databases', 'QPdLuj8AAAAJ' },

must be the same like p.getCatForId( 'Google Scholar' ) in

320: return ''..(label or 'Google Scholar')..''..p.getCatForId( 'Google Scholar' )

For Scopus the same in 1155 'scopus' and in 756 p.getCatForId( 'Scopus author' ). — Luamssuk (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Table "Parameters, Wikidata properties, and tracking categories" at Module:Authority control lists "Tracking categories and page counts" for parameters. Google Scholar has the parameter 'google' in this table. This creates a link to "Category:Articles with google identifiers". Actually, {{Authority control}} use the parameter 'Google Scholar' at articles. This creates a link to "Category:Articles with Google Scholar identifiers". Both should be the same. For Scopus 'scopus' and 'Scopus author'. — Luamssuk (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I updated the category to use a capital G. My understanding is that "google" in line 1108 is the override parameter, i.e. you could specify |google=QPdLuj8AAAAJ instead of using Wikidata. The "Google Scholar" in line 320 provides the name of the categories. I could be wrong though — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, you were right. They do need to match, which I have now fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing cat[edit]

I appears this template has added Category:Articles with Scopus author identifiers, which doesn't exist, to over 100 articles. MB 16:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Luamssuk: do you have time to create all those categories? You just need to put {{Pages with authority control identifiers}} on each one. Also, pages like Google Scholar (identifier) should be created as redirects to some relevant article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Category:Articles with Scopus author identifiers, Google Scholar (identifier), and Scopus (identifier) created — Luamssuk (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
correct page Category:Articles with Scopus identifiers created — Luamssuk (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
page Category:Articles with Scopus author identifiers was the old/wrong identifier category and should be deleted by Admin. — Luamssuk (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
{{Pages with authority control identifiers}} on Category:Articles with Google Scholar identifiers, Category:User pages with Google Scholar identifiers, Category:Miscellaneous pages with Google Scholar identifiers, Category:Articles with faulty Google Scholar identifiers, Category:Pages with Google Scholar identifiers, Category:Articles with Scopus identifiers, Category:User pages with Scopus identifiers, Category:Miscellaneous pages with Scopus identifiers, Category:Articles with faulty Scopus identifiers, Category:Pages with Scopus identifiersLuamssuk (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to article for all identifiers[edit]

I've made some changes to the module sandbox that add a link to the article about the identifier next to each entry in the authority control.

Current Proposed

The design I've settled on is to use a "(?)" to link to the article beside each link (I was initially just going to put a "?", but that makes the link smaller and harder to click), but perhaps someone can think of another design. I've also made it so when the links are read by a screen reader they are read as "About [identifier name here]" rather than "(?)".

These links have the benefit of allowing readers to easily access the proper name of the institution that manages the identifier as well as information about the identifier (especially with page previews). This was also a concern when the new design was being implemented, but was never added to the new design.

Should a change like this be implemented? BrandonXLF (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me, makes the template a lot more cluttered still. Most of these are fairly obvious and don't need a link. Fram (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Lots of (?) links is rather messy. A kinder approach would be to have a single link in the box leading to a table of all of the identifiers with links to their articles. The box link could be via the existing Authority control title or via a new Help or Identifiers link at the left end of the box heading. Help:Authority control currently links to a few of the identifiers but is the logical place to have a complete identifier table — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Fram @GhostInTheMachine What do you think about the design now? I added a toggle button that hides the links by default, but shows them all when clicked. BrandonXLF (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks better, but .... All of the toggled links are to fixed articles so I think it would be a lot better to have one page which is the master list of all of the potential identifiers with links to their articles — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@GhostInTheMachine I think having a master list would be a good idea, but I feel like having the links in the navbox is more helpful and convenient. My main reason for this change is to get rid of the identities that link to the article with the actual link in brackets like SUDOC and VIAF, so removing the links to the articles from the navbox would make it harder to get to the articles than the status quo. Also a list of all the identifiers would be long (especially for the "Other" section if it were broken up by section), so I don't think a list would be able to replace having the article links directly in the navbox. BrandonXLF (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
It's an ugly mess and "toggle identifiers" isn't helpful as an explanation for this functionality; "explain identifiers"/"hide explanations" would make more sense. But an unhelpful ugly mess is a pretty good description of authority control boxes in general, so maybe it's just business as usual. I do wonder about something, though: the motivation for this change is stated as making it possible to change text like "VIAF (1)" with VIAF linked to the id type and (1) linked to the actual id, into "VIAF" linked to the id. Which sounds like a good thing to want to do. But, what are you going to do with text like "VIAF (1 2)" for articles that are linked to two different VIAF ids? See Wolin National Park for an example. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the text to "explain identifiers". For the example, the VIAF ids would should up like the WorldCat ids do, with the second on showing up as (2). It might not be ideal, but it's still an improvement over the current display. BrandonXLF (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. I think I support the proposal but I agree the question marks look messy. Perhaps there is an icon that would look nicer. By the way, there are a few identifiers without any link (e.g. admiralty) which need updating in your version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ I switched the question marks for icons, if you think a different icon would look better, please let me know. The identifiers without links also don't have links in the live version and it looks like they don't have an online catalogue to link to. BrandonXLF (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The link to "explain identifiers" is no longer working for me? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ My bad, I used an icon from OOUI which I thought would load for everyone, but it looks like it doesn't. I've replaced the icon with a image that looks better anyways IMO. BrandonXLF (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that looks nice. For the identifiers without links, we effectively have a duplicate link now. Could we get away with removing the first and leaving the clickable icon? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the icons are hidden by default, I feel like it's better to technically have duplicate links rather then just showing plain text by default. Maybe It would be a better idea to link to the pages for the lists online: Admiralty, CCG, and USCG. For Admiralty, looks like you need to purchase a physical copy, but for the CCG and the USCG, the list is available online. BrandonXLF (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, maybe you are right. I don't really want to link to something unless it is relevant. I've got some code in Template:Lighthouse identifiers/ccg which will actually link to the right page, perhaps it can be incorporated into this module. Anyway I don't want to sidetrack your proposal with these edge cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein, Fram, GhostInTheMachine, and MSGJ: What do you think about the proposal with the new changes (the links are hidden by default and the "(?)" has been replaced with a blue icon). BrandonXLF (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
All of those links look to me like a small blue circled-i surrounded by a larger dotted-red rectangle. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing that's not the effect you intended. I have a user script that makes red rectangles around fair-use non-commons images but that's not relevant for the image you're using, unless somehow it's being triggered incorrectly. Also the circled i is a little too small to be legible and appears to have a lower baseline than the surrounding text. Some of those issues would go away if you used U+24D8 CIRCLED LATIN SMALL LETTER I instead of an image, but doing that would seem to be counter to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Links. Anyway, I do like the general idea of hiding the links to the identifier articles unless requested, and the current mechanism for requesting that these links be made visible; I just think there's still some improvement possible to the appearance of the link once it is made visible. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hiding all of the links by default is "kinder" than having them displayed at first, but I still feel that the explanations should all be in one external "Master" page. We do need that page regardless — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein Yeah I'm not sure what's going on with the rectangle, I didn't add in a border and I don't see one either.
Here's what that unicode character looks likes in place of the svg. I personally think the icon is too thin when unbolded (but it does look more clear then the svg) but too thick when bolded, but I'd like to hear what you think. The issue with accessibility when using the unicode icon can be countered with aria attributes, so that's not an issue. If you have any other ideas for how to improve the appearance of the links, please let me know.BrandonXLF (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Both versions of the unicode look a little better to me than the svg, and higher on the baseline, but I don't think it makes a significant difference either way; they both look very similar to the svg, with only small differences. I see the red boxes on them too so I assume it's something odd in my setup rather than a general problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Well I'm of opposite view. The SVG looks clearer than the two unicode versions on my screen. Apart from the fact that those two are underlined, one looks too faint and the other looks fuzzy. Not too bothered either way though, if you can remove the underline. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I think the SVG does look better overall on my screen as well since the unicode icon is really thin, making it hard to see the "i" in the middle of the icon. BrandonXLF (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Getting error: "The VcBA id 494_70141 is not valid."[edit]

In the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phát Diệm article, this template is giving the above error. However, in Wikidata:Q73481, the correct ID does use the underscore in the number, not the slash. See http://opac.vatlib.it/auth/detail/494_70141 for the Vatican Library link. Could someone fix this template so that it works with both the slash & underscore? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like someone fixed it, thank you! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar ids[edit]

are now appearing in transclusions of this template; see eg Alon Korngreen. This must be a wikidata change bc I see no recent edits to our template. But I don't know what change that would be. And, if this change is going to be permanent, I guess someone will have to run an AWB task to remove {{Google Scholar ID}} when {{Authority control}} is transcluded and the relevant id is on wikidata? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would object to removing {{Google Scholar id}}, especially in any automated way. It is a much more prominent way to highlight the citations to a scholar's work, and therefore to assert notability through WP:PROF#C1, whereas instead acpadji codisj the coid version ious 10219 of oaias 2983 the aoi 23908r same as0 02397 identifier csh in ioooi the aalks authority askasjd ask control 10923xx box aksjhd will instead be hidden in a lot of unintelligible garbage acronyms and numbers and nobody will ever notice it there. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
For your information: Google Scholar author ID (P1960) was added to Module:Authority control on 13 January 2022 — Luamssuk (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

TDVİA link[edit]

The TDVİA link should be piped 'TDV Encyclopedia of Islam' (which is the official translation), as it is not the only, and, for the English-speaking world, by a wide margin not the most commonly used Encyclopedia of Islam, and is a distinct project from the latter. Constantine 08:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Identifier TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi ID (P7314) is the İslâm Ansiklopedisi. This is not the original, English-language academic standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies Encyclopaedia of Islam. So, it should be named İslâm Ansiklopedisi and not Encyclopaedia of Islam. — Luamssuk (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Cplakidas and Luamssuk: you both agree the label should be changed. Can you try to reach agreement on what it should be changed to? And Constantine, please comment on proposal to remove this identifier below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Luamssuk and MSGJ: absolutely fine with 'İslâm Ansiklopedisi' and 'TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi' as well, for the two different versions. My point was that it should be differentiated from the English-language Encyclopaedia of Islam. Constantine 09:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal requests[edit]

Input from others, especially from experienced editors familiar with the identifiers (P347, P640, P886, P902, P2558, P4613, P7305 or P7314), is always welcome. Please make recommendations (e. g. "Keep", "Delete") sustained by arguments. — Luamssuk (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I will wait a few more days in case anyone has any comments on these — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why the language of an authority (the only reason given in these requests) is relevant for whether we should or should not link that authority. For instance, I think we should link the major national libraries of Germany and France, regardless of whether they provide us English translations of their entries. So I think all of the requests below are invalid and need a completely different rationale if they are to be followed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Also, significant time should be allowed for removing long-standing authorities (I'd say 1 month under normal circumstances), and the original requester & participants of the originating discussion should be pinged.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
There are no national libraries among the removal requests. Please discuss the removal requests and do not mislead or distract from the removal requests. — Luamssuk (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The language is relevant because English-language links are strongly preferred - see WP:NONENGEL. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, if a major national database or encyclopedia provides English-language links then those links are the ones we should use for it. That is a very different principle than (as below) saying that we can't link to a major national database or encyclopedia unless it provides English links. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
The principle articulated in NONENGEL is closer to the latter than the former - it's not an absolute prohibition, but it's also not "as long as there isn't an English-language version". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a bad argument, because NONENGEL is a small part of a larger content guideline, WP:EL, and if you're going to argue that WP:EL controls what should be in an authority control box then there's a much bigger problem with authority control boxes than a few non-English links. Another part of WP:EL, that would also need to be considered in this case, is WP:ELMIN, which says that we should normally only have a single external link per article, and that the dozens of links provided in authority control boxes shouldn't be there. We should not pick and choose which tiny parts of EL we want to apply and which we think are irrelevant; that's a recipe for making any argument that you might want to make rather than principled guideline-following. So either WP:EL is relevant, and we should avoid authority control boxes altogether (an unlikely outcome), or WP:EL is irrelevant and that makes your argument equally irrelevant. I tend to think that authority control boxes are qualitatively different than links in external links section, and more similar to say the lists of interlanguage wiki links that we also provide. If they are indeed more like interlanguage wiki links than like links in external links sections, then the argument based on link language is pointless: we have no prohibition on linking interlanguage wikis that happen to be in other languages. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
These are objectively external links, not interwiki links. I don't disagree that there are considerable problems with regards to other portions of EL, but that doesn't mean EL does not apply. (ELMIN however refers to official links, so largely does not apply to these). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein and Tom.Reding: please could you comment below on any identifiers that you oppose removal, so consensus can be established. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - remove identifier P7314: TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi ID[edit]

Please remove identifier TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi ID (P7314) from Module:Authority control / Reason: İslâm Ansiklopedisi is 100 % Turkish-language. But this is the English-language Wikipedia. The original, academic standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies Encyclopaedia of Islam is published online in English-language. — Luamssuk (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If this identifier will not be removed from Module:Authority control, it must be renamed from "Encyclopaedia of Islam" to İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Because the Encyclopaedia of Islam is officially published under the name "Encyclopaedia of Islam" by Brill Publishers. Reference: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912-ei3-allLuamssuk (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • User:MSGJ has asked me to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with comments on each individual item rather than merely expressing my opposition once at the top, so here it is. I oppose this request. See top for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also disagree. It is still a WP:RS by respectable scholars, and indispensable for the field of Islamic and Turkish studies; it is also frequently cited by English-language scholars and studies. Constantine 09:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@User:Cplakidas Please name 5 relevant English-language academic standard reference works about the Islam, that cite Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (and not the old İslâm Ansiklopedisi, which was published from 1940 to 1987 by the Istanbul University). — Luamssuk (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wow, cool down, Mr Examiner. Do you have reason to assume I make a statement on bad faith, or do you think that an encyclopedia that scholars like Halil Inalcik or Cemal Kafadar wrote articles for is unreliable? It is by default a major resource in Ottoman and Turkish studies, at the very least. I suggest simply searching in Google Books for 'Diyanet İslâm Ansiklopedisi' or 'TDVIA', just for starters... Constantine 07:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
You claim that Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi is indispensable for the field of Islamic studies. I suggest you simply name us the DOI of 5 relevant English-language academic standard reference works about the Islam, that cite Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, just for starters. — Luamssuk (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - remove identifier P2558: autores.uy ID[edit]

Please remove identifier autores.uy ID (P2558) from Module:Authority control / Reason: Autores.uy is 100 % Spanish-language (no switch to English-language on website possible). But this is the English-language Wikipedia. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • User:MSGJ has asked me to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with comments on each individual item rather than merely expressing my opposition once at the top, so here it is. I oppose this request. See top for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - remove identifier P4613: Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine ID[edit]

Please remove identifier Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine ID (P4613) from Module:Authority control / Reason: Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine is 100 % Ukrainian-language (no switch to English-language on website possible). But this is the English-language Wikipedia. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The English-language identifier Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine ID (P9070) is already in Module:Authority control. So, there are two identifiers for Ukrainian encyclopedias in Module:Authority control. The English-language identifier should be preferred and the Ukrainian-language only identifier Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine ID (P4613) should be removed from Module:Authority control. — Luamssuk (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • User:MSGJ has asked me to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with comments on each individual item rather than merely expressing my opposition once at the top, so here it is. I oppose this request. See top for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - remove identifier P902: HDS ID[edit]

Please remove identifier HDS ID (P902) from Module:Authority control / Reason: Historical Dictionary of Switzerland is 100 % German-, French-, Italian-language (no switch to English-language on website possible). But this is the English-language Wikipedia. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland is funded by the Government of Switzerland. So, the neutrality (and quality) of this identifier should be good. I hereby withdraw the request to remove identifier P902. — Luamssuk (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • User:MSGJ has asked me to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with comments on each individual item rather than merely expressing my opposition once at the top, so here it is. I oppose this request. See top for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - remove identifier P347: Joconde work ID[edit]

Please remove identifier Joconde work ID (P347) from Module:Authority control / Reason: Joconde is 100 % French-language (no switch to English-language on website possible). But this is the English-language Wikipedia. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • User:MSGJ has asked me to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with comments on each individual item rather than merely expressing my opposition once at the top, so here it is. I oppose this request. See top for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - remove identifier P886: Lexicon istoric retic ID[edit]

Please remove identifier Lexicon istoric retic ID (P886) from Module:Authority control / Reason: Lexicon Istoric Retic is 100 % Romansh-, German-, Italian-language (no switch to English-language on website possible). But this is the English-language Wikipedia. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Lexicon Istoric Retic is funded by the Government of Switzerland. So, the neutrality (and quality) of this identifier should be good. I hereby withdraw the request to remove identifier P886. — Luamssuk (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • User:MSGJ has asked me to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with comments on each individual item rather than merely expressing my opposition once at the top, so here it is. I oppose this request. See top for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - remove identifier P640: Léonore ID[edit]

Please remove identifier Léonore ID (P640) from Module:Authority control / Reason: Base Léonore is 100 % French-language (no switch to English-language on website possible). But this is the English-language Wikipedia. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • User:MSGJ has asked me to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion with comments on each individual item rather than merely expressing my opposition once at the top, so here it is. I oppose this request. See top for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

GND, P227[edit]

Currently we link to the GND identifier (property GND ID (P227)) in the "General" tab, as "Integrated Authority File (Germany)". I think it would be clearer to link it in the "National libraries" tab, as "Germany". Is there a good reason why we don't do this? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I don't think the groupings have undergone much scrutiny since their initial population. If you see an odd one here or there, chances are it's an oversight.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

MR / MathSciNet, P4955[edit]

I think that property MR Author ID (P4955) (an author ID in the MathSciNet database of mathematics publications) should be added, in the "Scientific databases" tab of the authority control box, as "MathSciNet". (MathSciNet itself calls this number the "MR Author ID" but I think that is too cryptic for the authcon box). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The two major mathematical reviewing databases, Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet and zbMATH, are the only two comprehensive resources of this type published in English-language (according to the Wikipedia articles). zbMATH is distributed by Springer Nature. Since January 2021, zbMATH has been available as an open access database (funded by the Federal Government of Germany). MathSciNet has a paywall (subscription). To support open access, it would be better to add identifier zbMATH author ID (P1556) instead of identifier MR Author ID (P4955) to Module:Authority control. But a mathematician working with both databases should also comment, which of those two identifiers is better suited to identify a person. — Luamssuk (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Why not both?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Both identifiers represent the author records of the two leading mathematical reviewing databases published in English-language. So, both MR Author ID (P4955) and zbMATH author ID (P1556) could be added to Module:Authority control "Scientific databases". But maybe "zbMATH author ID" should be shortened to "zbMATH", to save some space in the "Scientific databases" tab. — Luamssuk (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request - replace identifier P7305: Online PWN Encyclopedia ID with P1417: Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID[edit]

Please replace identifier Online PWN Encyclopedia ID (P7305) with identifier Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417) in Module:Authority control. Reason: The encyclopedia Encyclopædia Britannica enjoys a much better reputation than the Polish-language only encyclopedia Internetowa encyklopedia PWN. The P1417 parameter/ID could be named "EBID", and the label could be named "Encyclopædia Britannica" (or just label "EB", to save some space). — Luamssuk (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Online PWN Encyclopedia ID (P7305) is now removed from Module:Authority control/sandbox2. I think the Encyclopædia Britannica should be proposed separately. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that adding EB and removing PWN should be two separate discussions. They do not appear interchangeable to me. So I oppose this proposal as written. Additionally, is PWN so low of reputation that it would fail WP:RS, or is it usable as a source? Has it been discussed at WP:RSN? That would influence my opinion on a properly-formulated proposal to include or exclude it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Addition requests: Jaxsta[edit]

Please can you add the following three IDs:

I tried to do the first one in the sandbox diff, but I don't have sufficient editing permission for the real template. --99of9 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you feel this site warrants being added? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The profile ID seems quite equivalent to MusicBrainz artist ID (P434), which is already on our list. To be honest I didn't think this box was particularly selective. I would have thought that any good (English language?) authority controls with properties on Wikidata should be included, as they almost automatically provide more information about the topics we cover. In this case the site has a very detailed database connecting all the people involved in musical production with the releases and recordings. They have a big data pipeline - more than Wikidata or Wikipedia will ever wish to store. --99of9 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Quality does't seem very impressive. I checked for Clouseau, one of the most popular Flemish bands, and they miss a lot of the older albums, and give incorrect years for other ones (never mind the strange mix of their own albums, albums where they collaborate on one song, having a song on a "hits of the year" style album, ... all mixed together). Okay, that's a Belgian artist, perhaps English ones will fare better? Mike Oldfield, albums[2] ordered by date: oh, he didn't release an album before 1989? That's weird... The filters on the page don't work at all, by the way. Better for American artists? Uh, no. Or did you know that Bruce Springsteen supposedly wrote a song for a 1967 Rick Nelson album[3]? Turns out that the 1967 song has the same title as a track on Nebraska from 1982, and so they have to be the same song.
So, as it turns out to contain false information about even the most famous artists, this one is a definite no, and a reminder that Wikidata accepst everything never mind the quality, while we should try to be selective and only add sites which actually are trustworthy (which is a good reason to get rid of Musicbrainz as well, but that's a different discussion). Fram (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
According to the published financial results, Jaxsta is a start up with a highly negative cash flow.[4] Maybe they will make profits in the future. Maybe they are bankrupt soon. At the moment it is not such a good idea to add Jaxta identifiers to Module:Authority control if the website could be down soon, in my opinion. Let’s wait till 2023 and check the financial results then. — Luamssuk (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reviews User:Fram and User:Luamssuk. --99of9 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)