Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikimedia reference link

Wikimedia import URL edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Done: Wikimedia import URL (P4656) (Talk and documentation)

Description	URL of source to indicate the page or revision of an import source from another Wikimedia project (except actual references, such as WikiSource source texts). Use instead of "reference URL" (P854)
Data type	URL
Example	Taiwan (Q865) FIPS 10-4 (countries and regions) (P901) TW Reference → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FIPS_country_codes&oldid=588315474 / imported from Wikimedia project (P143) English Wikipedia (Q328) (to replace the current practice)

Motivation

Of strong wish of Wikipedia projects is that when they import our data for infoboxes they want to make sure that they don't import circular references but can be sure that we link to external references. As a result the usage of reference URL (P854) to link internally is problematic. When it's used that way it gets harder to automatically filter out internal references. ChristianKl (✉) 12:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support per my comments at Wikidata:Property_proposal/wikimedia_revision_identifier.
--- Jura 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note following the new sample: Support the creation of the property, but Oppose the change from the use of "imported from" as qualifier.
  --- Jura 17:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this property would be used. Could you provide an example? Would this be equivalent to imported from Wikimedia project (P143)? --Yair rand (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are current enough usages of reference URL (P854) to Wikipedia domains that the query service times out when I tried to get it to list all of them. There's opposition on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Bot_requests#Move_reference_URL_(P854)_references_to_Wikipedia_to_imported_from_(P143) to simply remove all of them because some people want to store more specific information about the specific page from which the information comes for better provenance than just stating with imported from Wikimedia project (P143) the language version from which the information comes. ChristianKl (✉) 00:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support David (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support we definitely should do this. Can we add a constraint on "reference URL" to not allow wikimedia links? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already added a constraint for reference URL (P854) for Wikipedia links. It would be great if someone with more regex experience writes one that catches other Wikimedia domains as well. There are likely different ways to write the constraint and it would make sense to write it in a performance optimized way. ChristianKl (✉) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support creating this property but Strong oppose using instance of (P31) as qualifier. We should use ~~located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) or~~ stated in (P248) or Wikimedia database name (P1800) to state where the information came from. Deryck Chan (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, for some reason I typed 31 instead of 143. It should obviously be imported from Wikimedia project (P143) in the example. located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) is also not appropriate ;) ChristianKl (✉) 11:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote P131 lol. I agree P131 is wrong too. Maybe I meant 143 but I really don't remember what I was thinking. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe "Wikimedia source URL" would be the better label. "URL" for consistency with "reference URL", "source" as it's the actual source, not just a reference that states the same.
--- Jura 11:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I renamed it into "Wikimedia source URL". ChristianKl (✉) 13:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following Wikidata:Project_chat#Help:Sources_does_not_mention_Wikisource, to avoid misunderstandings, we should probably exclude explicitly Wikisource source texts in the description. Maybe "import" could go into the label as well.
--- Jura 20:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed to "Wikimedia import URL" and added into the description that it's not to be used with WikiSource. ChristianKl (✉) 00:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried to phrase is slightly differently. Wikisource also has author pages with dates of birth/death that are imported like dates from Wikipedia.
    --- Jura 08:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm happy with that new wording. ChristianKl (✉) 17:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not combination of imported from Wikimedia project (P143) and reference URL (P854)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Matěj Suchánek: Having that combination means that we can't set a constraint that reference URL (P854) is not supposed to be used with Wikipedia and we end up with the status quo reference URL (P854) is used with Wikipedia links because there's no easy way for a new user who hasn't read our discussions to know that they are not supposed to use it that way. ChristianKl (✉) 17:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl, Matěj Suchánek, Jura1, Deryck Chan, ArthurPSmith, Yair rand: done: Wikimedia import URL (P4656) − Pintoch (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pintoch:, thanks, but could you use the label from the proposal?
--- Jura 15:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pintoch: Thanks. Just for completion, unfortunately the tool uses the name of the page (Wikimedia reference link) as the label instead of the label that we agreed on in the property discussion (Wikimedia import URL). ChristianKl (✉) 15:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm learning the ropes! :) But I have the feeling that the creation process could be much more automated. If I get very bored, I might write a tool for that (take the proposal template, and do most of the required edits automatically), because it's a bit tedious and not very creative… − Pintoch (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that it would make sense to automate more of the process. ChristianKl (✉) 15:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

np. There is a bot that moves some of it from talk to statement.
--- Jura 15:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]