Rfassbind

Welcome to Wikidata, Rfassbind!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Verlinkung von Weiterleitungen auf Artikel

Hallo Rfassbind. Ich habe gesehen, dass Du Weiterleitungen der englischsprachigen Wikipedia mit Artikeln verknüpft hast. Das ist so nicht gewünscht. BKS wird mit BKS verknüpft, Artikel mit Artikel, aber nicht reine Weiterleitungen mit Artikeln. --Gereon K. (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Danke für das Feedback. Bitte poste noch die entsprechend Richtlinie zum nachlesen. Danke. Rfassbind (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So interpretiere ich den Satz "Given that the current Wikidata model doesn't support using redirects" von Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items#Redirects. --Gereon K. (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thx for your quick reply. I'll switch to English in order to allow others to participate in this discussion. In the meantime, you might want to gather more support for your claim that articles should only be interlinked with articles on Wikidata, and not mixed with anchored list items (as I did for several minor planet pages). I also ask you not to remove any en-linked minor-planet pages on Wikidata for now (as you did recently), while I won't add any links for as long as this discussion continues, OK?

Last but not least, I checked w:Category:Minor planet redirects, where all non-article minor-planet pages (i.e. redirects) are listed. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the listed 23,000+ items are linked in Wikidata. We would need to unlink all these pages if we were to follow your assessment of the guidelines. Rfassbind (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, redirects are considered "cheap" because they load much more quickly and are not a drain on the server. Can this also be said for Wikidata pages that are linked to redirects? Is there a limit of some kind that would severely restrict being linked to by redirects? I only ask because I consider redirects to be a very important part of Wikipedia for several reasons. They help readers with searches and with quickly getting to the page they want to read. In some cases, important subjects might not be found at all if there were not a redirect to represent it. You would not want a Wikidata page that is linked by a redirect to go straight to the redirect – it is better to go through the redirect directly to its target article. It would be interesting to know why it is thought that redirects should not link to Wikidata pages. Where is the logic in it?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Rfassbind, after seeing you adding redirects I naturally did not remove them any more. Yet I think that to have them here on the same level as articles is misleading to any reader using the interwiki links. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Gereon K., I admit that I'm not very well-versed in Wikidata, so I wonder what is the reason for redirect links to Wikidata to be misleading? Also, is there a way to actually make Wikidata redirect pages to other Wikidata pages here on Wikidata? I only ask because I see #REDIRECT [[]] in the Wikimarkup below the edit screen.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Paine, we're not talking about linking a Wikidata item to another Wikidata item. This is just about the interwiki links. In an asteroid item we have, let's say, a 20 links to Wikipedia articles. But one of them is not to a genuine article, but merely to a redirect. The question is if this is wanted. --Gereon K. (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see that redirecting pages on Wikidata is limited, so let's focus on what you say. So one of those links is not to a genuine article but merely a redirect. You said this misleads readers who use the interwiki links. I would like to understand how the link to a redirect misleads readers? On Wikipedia, if a redirect appears to be misleading to readers, we call it "reader astonishment", and we do our best to keep that to a minimum. We want to do the same here on Wikidata, so how exactly does a link from a Wikidata item to a redirect on Wikipedia mislead readers?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Misleading because:

• Wikidata items are increasingly used for edit-a-thons, for example Wiki Loves Women and WikiGap. Items with certain parameters are used to generate bot created lists to see which topics are missing on different projects. A redirect link is then regarded as an existing article and would not show up on this lists, hence the article would not be written in the contest.
• Linking to a section of a Wikipedia article is not allowed (see Help:Sitelinks#Linking to Wikimedia site pages). A redirect is even less information than a section of an article. A link to a section of an article suggests that you are lead to an article - as does a link to a redirect. --Gereon K. (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Gereon K., you did well by starting this discussion; I really appreciate it. However, I do not agree with your two basic claims:

• 1st claim: "It is not allowed to link a Wikidata item to a section of a Wikipedia article, even less so to a redirect" (Sitelinks: Linking to Wikimedia site pages)
• 2nd claim: "Only articles of minor planets should be associated with a Wikidata item" (Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items: Redirects)

... because that is not what these guidelines say. To the best of my knowledge, this has nothing to do with "misleading" but rather with a complete "misinterpretation" on your side:

• The meaning of the "The Beatles" example (1st claim above) is to explain that the scope of the associated Wikipedia page must match the scope of the Wikidata item ("The Beatles" with "The Beatles", and not with a subset, i.e. "Discography"). In the case of minor planets, however, we perfectly match the scope, that is, redirect 33961 Macinleyneve on the English Wiki perfectly matches the Wikidata item 33961 Macinleyneve (Q6739689) with no ambiguity.
• Whether or not the Wikipedia page is an article or a redirect is irrelevant. There is no such thing as "only" Wikipedia articles may be associated with each other (2nd claim above). In fact, the corresponding guideline you mentioned extensively explains a workaround for Wikidata's shortcomings as it follows redirects.
• Instead, here is what I think: the French wiki article (33961) Macinleyneve lists the corresponding English, Esperanto and Portuguese Wikipedia pages under "Languages" in the left sidebar. Wouldn't you want the French article to link to the English Wiki and see what information it has about this asteroid?
• Although the English Wikipedia has quite a bit of information available for this object, it does not deserve a standalone article (astronomical notability guidelines, especially DWMP). So an English article for this non-notable asteroid does not exist on purpose, which means that a bot search should quite rightfully not list it as "missing" for the purpose of a "edit-a-thons" event (i.e. the opposite of what you said).
• Due to its association with Wikidata, the Esperanto, French and Portuguese links are also shown on the English redirect of 33961 Macinleyneve. This might prove helpful when an editor wants to re-evaluate the object's notability and turn it into an article some day.

I hope that makes sense to you; at least in some parts... Best, Rfassbind (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Rfassbind, your interpretation makes sense - the help pages can be interpreted that way. So if that is what the consensus came up with I will refrain from removing redirects. --Gereon K. (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Gereon K., would you resent if I were to revert some of the 396 linkage removals you did over the last few years? I just realized that it would be much simpler this way than to go through the more complicated workaround procedure. Alternatively, I would let you do the revert yourself if you preferr. I estimate that the list contains about 100+ edits where the removal of the websitelink to the enwiki can be reverted. Best, Rfassbind (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll move forward with these proposed reverts. Hope that's OK with you, Rfassbind (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)