Absolutely, I don't want to push anything under the rug. I'll put a section
in there for issues and what the Wikidata community is planning to do about
them.
On 24 September 2017 at 01:00, James Heald wrote:
> Equally, the page may usefully serve to inform contributors to
Equally, the page may usefully serve to inform contributors to Wikidata
about legitimate concerns from other projects that have arisen out of
test integrations, that there is a need to do more to address.
-- James.
On 23/09/2017 22:18, john cummings wrote:
Hi all
I'm putting aside time
Hi all
I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on
Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know more
about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope
this will help people having the same discussions over and over and allay
It's not just other wikis where cryptic template invocations can be an
issue.
I sometimes think that on Wikidata itself, with templates {{P|...}} and
{{Q|...}}, we could use a bot to add the label of the property or item
in the default language of the page as an extra parameter to the
My point, Andy, was that some parameters can be required, such as CS1 requiring
the parameter Title. Further, the Ref parameter can be automated, as with
ref=harv.
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog
On 22 September 2017 at 01:45, LeadSongDog wrote:
> Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for
> missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
The subject under discussion was "a legible refname"; that's not a
parameter of the
Not "enforcing", but it's certainly possible to show an error message for
missing parameters. Many other cite templates do so.
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 21, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> On 21 September 2017 at 20:09, LeadSongDog
On 21 September 2017 at 20:09, LeadSongDog wrote:
> When working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred
> references, one needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring
> a legible refname or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this
The
It is unsurprising that editors find such references unreadable, they are. When
working on a wp article with, in some cases, several hundred references, one
needs mnemonic tools to keep from confusing them. Requiring a legible refname
or Harvard ref would go far to addressing this, though it
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Dario Taraborelli <
dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems
> in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to
> design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving
OK, I was unsure how much overlap in general information there would be
between different implementations on different projects but I guess its
quite a lot :)
2017-09-21 10:37 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher :
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:31 AM, john cummings
>
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:31 AM, john cummings
wrote:
> Lydia, so something called something like
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:FAQ/Wikipedia_infoboxes ?
How about "Wikidata in Wikimedia projects" or similar? Because we're
seeing similar questions in other
Lydia, so something called something like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/
Help:FAQ/Wikipedia_infoboxes ?
Thanks
John
On 21 September 2017 at 10:09, Jane Darnell wrote:
> Well I firmly believe most of the friction is just basic "not invented
> here" sentiments, which we have
Well I firmly believe most of the friction is just basic "not invented
here" sentiments, which we have seen since Commons was started. Maybe there
is some central page there that we can follow which is dealing with the
same basic issues? As I recall one of the biggest problems in the beginning
was
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:46 AM, john cummings wrote:
> Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do you
> think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info added to
> an existing one?
<3
Maybe as a subpage of
Lydia, I would be happy to help work on your suggestion, which page do you
think this info should be added to? Should it be a new page or info added
to an existing one?
Thanks
On 21 September 2017 at 01:22, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
> Jane – I think you hit it on
Jane – I think you hit it on the nail.
I don't know exactly how this should be designed (some user research seems
in order before coming up with any solution). The problem to me is how to
design subscription/synchronization mechanisms giving people freedom to
choose which data to reuse or not and
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Thomas Douillard
wrote:
> If my experience in correct, this would not stop anything. There are usually
> very basic arguments about data duplication and data reuse, ease of
> maintenance and so on, stuffs that should be on an
If my experience in correct, this would not stop anything. There are
usually very basic arguments about data duplication and data reuse, ease of
maintenance and so on, stuffs that should be on an introduction about
Wikidata and Wikipedia.
But this won’t be enough and some people will push stuff
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Douillard
wrote:
> I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of time
> in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the
> process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux
I don’t know what you disagree with but personally I investd a lot of time
in those discussions in frwiki, and I keep a lot of bitterness over the
process. This seems like a wierdly very very similar redux of those
discussions with the exact same arguments, and I’m done with all this. I’m
also
No, I actually disagree. There is a number of English Wikipedia users who
advocate banning Wikidata completely (I mean, not banning it as a project,
but banning any direct interaction with Wikidata). Some of them are
reasonable, some of them are not reasonable. Some of their arguments have
merit,
There is also a more general and very useful discussion of the same issues
at this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata/2017_State_of_affairs
(check recent edits, last 5 days or so).
Since it is not related to any decision-making (at least not yet) I would
expect it is
Thanks Dario.
May I please add that whereas the deletion discussion is of course open to
everyone, a sudden influx of users who are not regular editors of the
English Wikipedia will be looked at extremely negatively. Please be
considerate.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dario
24 matches
Mail list logo