Category talk:Articles without Wikipedia links

Scope

Seems like a lot of these articles don't need or can never have Wikipedia links. Will they remain categorized forever? Powers ^(talk) 01:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a good point, and the category will be more useful if we have a way to weed out all those region/district articles that are unique creations of ours. Two possibilities are that we could:

• come up with new templates like {{uniqueregion}} and {{uniquedistrict}} to mark them so they aren't considered for the {{no Wikipedia link}} template; or
• add a switch to {{outlineregion}}, {{usabledistrict}}, etc. so that {{outlineregion|unique}} or {{usabledistrict|unique}} marks the page as being unique to WV

I suppose I would prefer the second, but either option would take care of the vast majority of cases. Texugo (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We need a separate code just because there's no equivalent WP article? I don't understand this at all. It seems to me, if there should be a WP link, that link should be inserted, and otherwise, its absence shouldn't be noted at all. What's the point of this category? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of the category is to find the articles that do need a WP link. See the discussion which led to this at Template talk:No Wikipedia link. The question above is more one of "how do we get rid of false positives"? To which the only answer I know of is to track the cases where we just made up our own division schemes. Texugo (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The second option lacks cohesiveness; there's no reason why our article-status tags would record the existence of a Wikipedia link except for our need to put it somewhere. It would be far better to modify Template:No Wikipedia link to include a switch that basically says "no link, but that's okay in this case". Powers ^(talk) 18:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't looking at as "recording the existence of a wikipedia link" but rather noting the type of region it is (as unique). But anyway, a switch in Template:No Wikipedia link would work as well, and possibly better for including articles for which our idiosyncrasy is not the reason that no WP link is needed/possible. Texugo (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Could be added as a nocat=true parameter (as a number of wikipedia templates have). All those diving articles could do with removing from this category. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"Nocat" doesn't exactly make sense, since there are no categories involves, but yes, something like that... Texugo (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I missed the template talk discussion. I don't really understand why a template is necessary to find which articles lack a WP link. Couldn't a bot be designed to find these articles and keep a listing of them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bots have a tendency to stop working (see Wikivoyage:Discover). Texugo, no categories involved? Isn't this category involved? Powers ^(talk) 01:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, but a category is not what's lacking, so I don't see how "nocat" would make any sense. Texugo (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

oh. It's meant in the sense of "don't categorize"? I see. Still, seem not quite intuitive. Texugo (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well we could call it anything; I think WOSlinker suggested "nocat" since that's frequently used on en.WP. Powers ^(talk) 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, nocat was just a suggestion since it's already commonly used on wikipedia to stop templates adding categories to articles. The parameter could be called anything you want. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata

Is there more advice somewhere that expands on: "consider whether the article you are working on is connected to the correct Wikidata item, and whether the interwikis at Wikidata need to be edited accordingly"? ta. Nurg (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Finding and adding Commons categories to articles

Swept in from the pub

Hi, everyone. For the last few hours, I've been looking at articles I edited back in 2009 and seeing whether they have sidebar links to Commons. Many of them - surprisingly, including Philadelphia - did not. So if any of you would like a particular task to perform, that's a helpful one, and then if you feel like adding (more) photos from the selection you've found, you can do that, too.

One topic for additional discussion: For articles without corresponding Wikipedia links, we've been inserting a template showing that there is no Wikipedia link. Should we also be doing that for articles with no corresponding Commons link?

And a second topic for discussion: For articles on topics that have Wiktionary definitions, should we be linking the relevant Wiktionary page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your two topics for discussion, Ikan: I think it's an excellent idea to add the template about Commons links, but doing the same for Wiktionary strikes me as overkill. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've now got AWB set up and running through all the articles without commons links and automatically adding the commons link listed on wikidata, if there is one. If we do in fact want to tag the ones without, that'll be easy to do as well, just give me the word. As for Wiktionary definitions, I don't think we currently have it mapped so that those could be put in the sidebar automatically, but at any rate, I'm not very convinced of the utility of such a link anyway. Any definition that is related to travel should already be more than adequately covered here, and providing links for exploring the unrelated aspects shouldn't be any more important than ensuring we link to WP disambiguation pages, which is to say, it's out of scope. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's great that you've got AWB set up to take care of Commons links automatically, although will it find non-identical matches, such as, say, Commons:Category Cityname, Countyname, Statename as well as identical matches? In terms of Wiktionary, I was thinking about looking for a definition for a term like Art Deco, or for that matter, Architecture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ikan, it will put exactly what has been entered into Wikidata as being the corresponding page on Commons, whatever that may be. If nobody has filled that data in yet, it skips over it and does nothing. Basically I just modified the routine I previously used to fill in the WP links/tags. Texugo (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I just patrolled recent changes - great work on the Commons links! Little did I know that I should have just asked you to do this in the first place. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I ran them through "Lu...". I'll try to get the rest of them tomorrow. Texugo (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, Texugo! Pashley (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Silly question, but shouldn't we be picking up the Commons link automatically from Wikidata rather than having to run a script? Powers ^(talk) 19:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a silly question at all. I suggested long ago that we have a single, simple "sister links" template for all articles to automatically use the WP and commons links directly from Wikidata without our having to maintain them manually. I don't remember where that was exactly, but somehow I was under the impression that it was your opposition to the idea that ended up halting the discussion. I'd love to be wrong though. I've used such a template over on pt: for over a year now, and it's very nice not to have to mess with those things manually. Texugo (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

• Prototype template to automatically use the WP and Commons links as informed by Wikidata: {{sisterlinks}}
• Can be put in all main namespace articles and in our article templates instead of maintaining the various links manually
• Wikidata-reported links can be overridden manually by using wp= and commons= attributes.
• Adds to Category:Articles without Wikipedia links for articles where WD reports no corresponding WP article. (Can be adjusted to do the same for missing Commons links, should we create a corresponding maintenance category for it)
• Used experimentally at Hamamatsu.

Alternatively, since the language interwikis were made to appear there automatically, it seems like we should be able to request that WP and Commons links do likewise, in which case we wouldn't need any code in our articles at all. The drawbacks would be that it would be a little more complicated to override, and we wouldn't have a vehicle through which to manage the maintenance categories. Texugo (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for information, in fr.voy, the links are managed by wikidata in the pagebanner template because it's the only template witch was already present on all the pages.--Adehertogh (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth taking a look at mw:Extension:Wikibase Client#Other_projects_sidebar? It looks to be a one-line change to one of the server config files, listing which Wikidata links are wanted for the sidebar. No need to touch the actual articles. K7L (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I guess that's what I was referring to in my alternate suggestion above. Note, however, that this method does not allow for overriding what is listed in WD. Texugo (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering the links on WD were largely populated by our own data to start with, that may not be an issue. With the modification K7L mentions, though, would the Commons and Wikipedia links appear under "Languages" or under "Related sites"? Powers ^(talk) 02:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the mediawiki.org page, the id of the sidebar is "wikibase-otherprojects". It doesn't appear under "languages". K7L (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm having trouble imagining any situation where we would want to have an article connected to a given data item but intentionally show a different WP or commons link. Unless somebody can present some case examples, I might be fine doing without a manual override. Texugo (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There are some scope issues with the connection between Wikivoyage and Wikidata. From what I've seen, Commons and Wikidata both have a strong tendency to follow Wikipedia's lead when it comes to defining topics and divvying up locations, whereas we break from this tendency much more often to benefit the traveler. As an example, our article entitled Wasatch Range covers both the mountain range and the urban strip next to it more commonly referred to as the Wasatch Front. Wikipedia has a separate page for each, so of course Commons and Wikidata do as well. I'm not sure which set of sister links is best in this specific case, but it demonstrates the type of situation where we should want to at least have the technical capability to override Wikidata.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 02:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Texugo, the Chiusure article is an example of intentionally showing a different WP and Commons link - in this case, to articles about the Abbey of Monte Oliveto Maggiore, which is usually the only reason that people visit Chiusure, but since we have the policy of not giving abbeys their own article, and furthermore, some of the accommodations within town limits are at a convent and an agriturismo place, it is quite right for us to have an article under the name of the village and not the abbey. However, since last I checked, neither WP nor Commons have topics on Chiusure but both have topics on Monte Oliveto, I strongly believe that's a close enough topic match to post the links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata also has the dmoz property. Should this also be included in the template? -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of dmoz - presumably there would be a different DMOZ page for each language (so dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/ becomes dmoz.org/World/Français/Régional/Europe/Royaume-Uni/ and others in other languages). Can we assume P998 DMOZ always points to the English-language DMOZ category? If so, a template would work while adding DMOZ to a server configuration file as a "sibling" would not. K7L (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

One other oddity with commons; there are two plausible ways targets to link there: the main space (rarely used, unless someone manually makes a gallery page for one topic) and the category space. Wikidata seems to prefer linking to mainspace for some reason; a template could make either link. K7L (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I kind of blanked on this one. Ikan and Thatotherperson, those are convincing enough examples of why we would want to retain override control, so that looks like another advantage to the template approach proposed above. Are there any other concerns that should be addressed? Is there any convincing reason not to automate this with a template? Texugo (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally good with standardizing this template, with the possibility of a manual override. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

K7L, I'm not completely sure I know what you mean by mainspace and category space. I think what you mean is that there is usually a category for a particular subject on Commons, but occasionally (probably less than 10% of the time), there is instead a non-category page, instead. Is that what you mean? When I've posted Commons links, I've always chosen the non-category page when there was one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two ways to store a link to Commons in Wikidata. The #sitelinks-commons section of the standard Wikidata page links to a commons page, not a commons category. d:Property:P373 links to a commons category. If there usually isn't a non-category page, we do need to be able to fall back to the P373 property, which is a category link, using a template. K7L (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you're absolutely right, K7L. That hadn't occurred to me. I think when I originally created this for pt: there was at that time only one property being used for this. It should be quite easy to set up the template to fall back on the category like that. Don't know if I'll get to it immediately, but I can take care of it. Texugo (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)