Wikidata:Requests for comment/One vs. several sitelink-item correspondence

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "One vs. several sitelink-item correspondence" 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!

Although the original RfC has been closed, the problem has not been solved yet and the discussion continues in new sections of this page.

This RfC explores possible solutions to the Bonnie and Clyde problem.

Sitelinks with fragmentsEdit

Use a propertyEdit

Copied from Project chat

The problem to solve is that when you are reading de:Schüler, you won't know how to find anything similar in other languages, because there are only 21 sitelinks in Q48942. There are 66 sitelinks in Q48282, which is very similar. However, you will not know, that in de:Schüler you have to follow a Student blue link to find those 66 sitelinks. This could be solved with a property, let's call it "Similar to":

Q48282 Q48942
Similar to (P123456789) Q48942 Similar to (P123456789) Q48282
enwiki en:Student enwiki
dewiki de:Student dewiki de:Schüler

Then, Wikipedia could get the missing sitelinks from (possibly multiple) similar items and (optionally) format them differently to suggest that it is not an exact corresponence.

The idea could be extended to note the order of preference of the similar items or which of the similar items is prefered for a specific target language. Petr Matas (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Project chat

I filed a property proposal. Petr Matas 18:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Convert sitelinks into normal propertiesEdit

The problem in my opinion stems from the fact that the Wikidata software assumes there is a 1:1 relationship between concepts/items and Wikipedia articles about the concepts/items. Therefore we treat sitelinks special, the software knows about them and presents them in a special section of the page. I think the solution could be to convert the sitelinks to normal statements we make about an item by using a property like described by source (P1343) pointing to an item of (a sub-)type of Wikimedia article page (Q15138389) on the item describing the concept. This way multiple items could point via described by source (P1343) to the same article.

Resolving interwikis would then amount to finding the items/concepts relating to a page and from the items/concepts search the articles in other language Wikipedias describing those concepts. If there is only one article found, one has the current situation, if multiple articles are found, the Wikipedia software can group them by concept.

Does this sound reasonable? --S.K. (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose. Per WD:Main page, "Wikidata acts as central storage for the structured data of its Wikimedia sister projects including Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, and others." That's where the special handling of interwikis comes from. For example, an interwiki is automatically updated when an article is moved to a new title. If I undestand correctly, it is proposed to have a separate item for every article on every Wikimedia project. Currently we have about 13M Wikidata items and 62M sister project articles. I think that it is useless to create for each article an item merely linking to it. Using an authority control property similar to VIAF ID (P214) without creating separate items would be better, but you don't need to drop the special status of interwikis to modify the 1:1 relationship requirement anyway. I think that the special status question is only loosely related to this RfC. Petr Matas 14:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The above is a goal (which I support), but it doesn't say how the goal is reached, or does it? Regarding the proposal, there are two way one could achieve this, a reduced one by making items only for articles having multiple meanings or - like you describe and my preferred solution - making an item for every article. This to me would have other benefits, one could make statements about Wikipedia article like featured article, maintenance tags, etc. as well. --S.K. (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@S.K.: What precisely do you mean by "the above"? Don't hesitate to modify your comment and delete this one. Petr Matas 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Related discussionsEdit