Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/Archive 2

Wikidata entries for articles with no interwiki translations?
I note that currently there don't appear to be Wikidata links for articles that as yet have no interwiki translations.

It somewhere in the schedule to create Wikidata entries for these articles? For one thing, it would make adding translation links much easier, if there were already a Wikidata page in place that could be reached through the "edit Wikidata" link. For another, we are going to need these pages if and when infobox material starts being drawn from Wikidata; also if Wikidata becomes the expected locus for authority control data like VIAF; and if templates like Creator: on Commons start expecting to look to Wikidata for input. Jheald (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. At least one bot is plugging away at the specific case of "no other interwiki links", and I'd guess that some of the other bots working on populating WikiData will be doing this going forward.  --j⚛e deckertalk 17:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, my bot is doing property work and creates items if they don't exist yet regardless of their link status. There are bots doing this for quite a few other languages as well. Legoktm (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We've also been creating them manually from the beginning (see Q18326 as an example of an early item, lower number). Soon articles with no language links that have an associated item on Wikidata will also have "edit links" in the sidebar, rather than "none".  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  02:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Excellent to know that this is all in the pipeline.  Jheald (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata Phase II coming
Please participate in this thread: Village pump (policy)/Archive 104--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem I've seen with Phase 2 is that it is not possible because of the notability wording. In that properties need to be (links to) other objects.  Creating these target objects is not possible per Wikidata:Wikidata:Notability (currently requiring there to be a corresponding Wikipedia article).  —Sladen (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is only the case for the relational data. The non-relational data ("population: 37,875") won't require being a link to another object. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So limited Phase II, for only for literals. And for relational data?  —Sladen (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For relational data, WD are currently discussing how best to handle it. The current consensus on Wikidata:Wikidata:Notability appears to be leaning towards allowing certain classes of objects to exist in Wikidata regardless of language links; the definitions are still a bit vague, but it doesn't look like there will be a "wikipedia only" rule. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anybody wants to write smth comprehensible on the Phase II? I do not feel myself qualified as it involves lua scripting, and we will have Phase II coming the day after tomorrow. All questions would land here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Confusing wording
If you find two items, then remove all the links from one (generally the one with the lower Q number, but it's okay to use the other one if it has far more linked articles), and request deletion of the other. —Wikidata

Remove all links from one and request deletion of the other one, thus the one with all the links? Huh? As this is unclear, it's impossible to deduce if the one with the lower Q number is the one to remove the links from or the one to retain. Enoirdi • talk 11:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably, though, it's the WD page with the higher Q number that ought to be emptied and deleted, not the one with the lower number? Jheald (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Meta-wiki
This help are moved to Meta-Wiki and ready for translation to more languages. See Wikidata/Help. Maybe lock this page with redirecting all readers and editors to Meta? --Kaganer (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not realistic. English Wikipedia users typically do not want to go to another project to get help (as well as I believe the majority of users on large projects); they prefer in-house help. However, some of us signed up on Meta as Wikidata ambassadors as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My task was simply to propose (because I did not see any notice). Personally, I seem illogical to keep the same text in two places, and I think that such information would be relevant to the Meta or Wikidata themselves. --Kaganer (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like a useful venture to get this page translated across all large wikis, but I think it's important that we Wikidata/Meta users bring the help to Wikipedias, not force them to come to us. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  04:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry about not posting here earlier. I had asked MZMcBride to import it to meta and PiRSquared to set up translate on it. The quality of this page is so good that it should be put on meta and made easier for other languages to translate. I think WP:WDATA should become a more enwiki centric help page, explaining local policies and local resources, while the page on meta should be a more general "how to use Wikidata" page. Legoktm (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is already on Meta, as Kaganer tells us in the first message of this section. I thought we are discussing syncroization.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Many-into-one interwiki links?
The new interwiki interlanguage system seems to be always one-to-one. What would happen e.g. if language X's wikipedia had one article about all sorts of scuba gear, and language Y's wikipedia had an article about swimfins, and an article about diving masks, and an article about aqualungs, and so on? In the old system, all these articles in wikipedia Y could each have an interwiki link X:Scuba gear. But converting to the new system would result in X's scuba gear page having Wikidata interwiki links from several Wikidata pages, or Y's scuba gear pages all having Wikidata interwiki links to the same Wikidata interwiki link page.

If that results in page X:Scuba gear displaying several interwiki links all to pages in Y's wikipedia, there should be some way to tell the language X user distinguish which of these links to go to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikidata can only display a link to a certain Wikipedia page in one item, not in many items. In your example, each sort of scuba gear will have its own item, and Scuba gear in general will be a separate item.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In rare cases where it's really preferable to have inexact links, you can always disable wikidata with the parser function. For the most part, though, our philosophy at Wikidata has been that you should either link articles to exact or almost-exact matches, or not link them at all. —  PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  10:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Do you know if there is a consensus discussion about this over at Wikidata somewhere? --Lajm (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I 'second' Lajm's question: It would be really interesting to read such a discussion (or e. g. policy document). In my experience, the articles in different wikipedias sometimes cover similar subjects, but with subtle differences, which may make it reasonable to iwlink to some but not all of the iw sisters of an article in another wikipedia. (Happily enough, this seems not to be the most common situation.) JoergenB (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think there was any centralized discussion. From the beginning, one Wikidata item could only contain one link for each language, and no link could have been shared by two items. This was non-negociable. Everything else is in principle negociable, you can start a new topic on Wikidata Project chat.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A question regarding new articles and the international world
When a new article is created in one Wikipedia and the same\equivalent article on another Wikipedia, will the languages eventually be added automatically or will it always require a manual trawl which is bad when many people are not proficient in multiple languages? The front page is not that clear. Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 19:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles eventually will be added by bot, but in this case they will not be related by an interwiki link. Therefore it is important to search for the links for newly created articles manually and add them to Wikidata immediately after the creation of an article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is Wikipedia taking this backward step? Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years 19:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not backward. Before Wikidata, if two articles were created in two Wikipedias, and nobody were searching for interlanguage links, the links did not appear in the articles by themselves. In this sence, nothing changed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How do I add an interwiki language link to a page that has none yet?
Hello,

I appreciate the development, but how in the devil's name am I supposed to add a new link to the same article in another language if the article doesn't have any language links yet? (e.g. Selene (given name))

I have just wasted 10 minutes of my life trying to figure that out. The instructions at Help:Interlanguage_links are not helpful.

Thanks. 49.135.104.68 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikidata may help. Do you know whether there are articles on other languages about the same topic?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just tried to follow those instructions and failed ("Edit not allowed: Site link itwiki:Selene (nome) already used by item Q3954739.")
 * On the whole, I must say this experience has been an incredible series of usability disasters. Wikipedia deserves better.
 * I don't have time now, but very quickly:
 * No link on the article page if there is no interwiki language link yet. No way for an average user to work it out.
 * instructions at Help:Interlanguage_links are not helpful
 * The instructions you pointed me to are making unnecessary and irrelevant limiting assumptions, such as the fact that I have created the page (I haven't, so what?) and that I have just created it (it's been there for a long while, so what?)
 * "If the pen does not show up" - how unprofessional and inaccurate. It leads one to believe that whether the pen shows up or not is totally based on luck/intermittent system bug, while in my understanding it depends on whether or not the destination article also has no language link yet. This branch should come earlier in the instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.135.104.68 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the Wikidata search doesn't find any results, it doesn't say "0 results found", which is quite confusing.
 * In the form to be filled in, there are no examples to guide the user for each of the two textboxes.
 * Confusing auto-correction if I enter "en" (it becomes "enwiki")
 * It's broken (see error message above)
 * Not impressed. 49.135.104.68 (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the situation: the Wikidata page on the English entry was already created, and this is more complex that the question I referred to. I will now add a new question referring to this situation. Thanks for your other remarks, we will think how they should be best incorporated into instructions. Feel free to return here if you need more help.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, many thanks. Hats off for being helpful despite my attitude. 49.135.104.68 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata not picked up by WP sites in other languages
Hello, based on the above issue about Selene (given name), I can now see the link to the Italian article in the English article. However, I cannot see the English link in the Italian page.

Am I right in saying that this is expected, and we are simply waiting for the Italian WP (and presumably many other WPs) to pick up the MediaWiki version that will look for these links in Wikidata?

Apologies if this is already explained somewhere else, just want to ensure that this is not a bug.

Thanks and good luck with this project, I appreciate that it's the right thing to do. 49.135.104.68 (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it gets visible immediately. For instance, I can see it. In 99% cases the inability to see the links is a caching problem of the browser. It can be bypassed by adding in the browser address line "?action=purge&" in the end of the existing URL (in this case, the URL of the Italian page) and then reloading the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It worked - thanks! (CTRL+F5 on Firefox didn't work). That said, do you think this can be improved? Users are used to the fact that their edits are visible immediately... 49.135.104.68 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can not answer this question, but I will now refer to it on the Wikidata Project Chat, may be someone can answer. (I expect the answer is no, but again, I am not an expert).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata is bullshit. I can't see interwikis now in German language 178.3.21.63 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You may want to clear the cache as described in this thread. Usually it helps.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding links for WP:Wikidata itself seems broken - known issue?
Hello. I clicked the "Edit links" of this very project page and I was presented an empty Wikidata page - is that a known bug? 118.236.203.49 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a known bug that should be fixed with the next update of the codebase here. The issue is the Wikipedia namespace that is not being dealt with correctly. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 118.236.203.49 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Javascript
Something needs to be added about how you can't edit interlanguage links without allowing Wikidata to use Javascript. Took me a few minutes to realize this, leading to much frustration on my part! Red Slash 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I mentioned it to the developers at d:Wikidata:Contact the development team. The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

One more problem with WD
So, I noticed that in English we have "laws", but then we have the general field of "law", right? In English, Spanish and French, these are two separate concepts--but only in Spanish and French do they actually have two separate articles for them ("ley" v "derecho"; "loi" v "droit"). So, awkwardly, someone who is on the Spanish site looking at "ley" has no link leading them to an en article on "laws". So I took statute and tried to make it fit with those other articles (to be perfectly clear--I tried to change "statute" so that its interwiki pages would include es:ley, fr:loi, etc. This would have taken roughly 45 seconds pre-WD--type in fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/loi, "view source", find wikidata links, copy, paste into statute, deleting the links there.). First, I tried just adding es:ley to statute's page, but it didn't work (because of conflicts, of course--no problem there, that's logical enough). So I removed Statute from its old page on WD and went over to find the WD page for "loi", "ley", etc. IMPOSSIBLE. I searched, and WD helpfully suggested "Item by title" search, and I searched--and found nothing. And searched again. Nothing. It told me I could create the item on the Spanish wiki, though!! :) :) :) ... :( I then went to the Spanish wiki, trying to find the "edit interlinks" button, but apparently you have to be logged in to the Spanish WP in order to even find out what page the interlinks are hidden at in WD. In frustration, I randomly picked a WD article, intentionally failed at adding "ley", but found the Q12329-whatever and finally, finally added Statute to it. I fiddled around some with "Item by title" and realized why it didn't work--are you sitting down??

If you type in an uncapitalized article title it refuses to find the article for you, and tells you that no results are found. This is somewhat problematic given that WM software cannot ever have uncapitalized beginnings to articles. Why does it not capitalize? I am somewhat embarrassed for WD. Red Slash 04:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary allows uncapitalized titles. It may be the only project that  does, and I'm not sure Wiktionary's even linked with Wikidata, but it looks like they've made choices that would prevent capitalization problems if it ever does get linked.   — Soap — 04:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki allows lowercase titles. Wikipedia just chose not to have them. This is a feature of Wikidata, not a problem. Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think what he's referring to is that d:Special:ItemByTitle/enwiki/barack Obama doesn't work, when it probably should. I actually noticed this myself today, and was somewhat surprised. Has it awlays been this way? I've never noticed in the past. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't make sense why d:Special:ItemByTitle doesn't automatically capitalize the first letter since Wikipedia requires the first letter to be capitalized. Just a matter of (in)convenience, I guess. The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 05:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will bring it up with the developers. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you guys! Face-smile.svg Red Slash 20:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed, I think. FallingGravity (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Phase II and workflow
Hi. I've started a page at Wikidata/Workflow about the workflow issues I see with phase II (infoboxes). --MZMcBride (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. We will have them switched on Monday.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "have them switched on Monday." Can you clarify? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The plan for enabling phase II on the English Wikipedia was April 8.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where was this agreed upon by the en.wikipedia community? Red Slash 04:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is being switched on for all Wikipedias on April 10, so it's not like we have that much extra time. --Rschen7754 04:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And the fact that it is being switched on does not yet mean the infoboxes use the data automatically. No, they do not.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the feature will become available, but it is up to the community to decide when and how to start using it. Personally, I would like to see a stable version of Wikidata/Notes/Inclusion syntax and more efficient counter-vandalism tools (or at least a fix to 45892) before Phase II is taken into general use. --Silvonen (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(indent reset) Okay, thank you! That sounds much more logical; clearly Wikidata can copy any wikipedia's data, and we'll see what consensus develops here for actually drawing from that data. Red Slash 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Culiacan airport - error
The article states:

In favorable weather, flights from the Baja California peninsula and north arrive to runway 02, and flights from the rest of the country to runway 20.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The runway direction used depends on current wind conditions, not on where the flight is coming from. What kind of integrity are we seeing in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.138.154 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't anything to do with Wikidata; if you read the article, you'll see what Wikidata is. If you have a suggestion for improvement of a particular article, the place for the suggestion is on the talk page of that article, in this case prsumably Talk:Federal de Bachigualato International Airport, but as you said, the sentence does start with "In favorable weather, ...", so it is not clear that any amendment is required. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and watchlist
If somebody change the english wikilink (on WikiData) for, lets say the article tree, and instead link it to apple. Will the change appear both on the watchlist for tree and for apple, or just for apple? This change will probably be reverted quickly, but if its a more technical article - nobody will see it... And phase 2 - will the change to an entry on wikidata be seen in the article history? 90.184.223.136 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No to the watchlist question. I would guess also no to the article history question. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes to the watchlist question if you use the "Show Wikidata" option. FallingGravity (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Phase 2 started
I have started an RFC with respect to Phase 2 at Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2. Everyone is of course encouraged to participate in the discussion. Risker (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

migrating external glossary for interlanguage links

 * I'm thinking about using this multilingual glossary to create interlanguage links; any thoughts on what kind of bot could help me? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Cat Scan
Is there a way i can find the articles of a category in english wikipedia that have an article in italian wikipedia? Xaris333 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! Xaris333 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Already used" error
I'm trying to add a link from the English article Delfines del Carmen to the Spanish aricle of the same name (Delfines del Carmen). I keep getting this error:

Site link enwiki:Delfines del Carmen already used by item Q5253685

Prescottbush (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, at the time you tried to add the link both English and Spanish articles had their own Wikidata items. It is technically not possible to add a link to the item if it is used by a different item, so they needed to be merged to the lower number, which I have done. To merge, one needs to remove links, labels, properties and all other information from the item to be deleted, add them to the other item (to be kept), and then request the deletion of the empty item.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How is this still not fixed??
I brought up this error/bug/flaw in WD several sections up, but how is this still around? This doesn't work because "cheese" isn't capitalized!! Frustrating and especially crazy because not even this page capitalizes "cheese"! Fix this please! Red Slash 15:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌ because this in not something we can do anything about. There is a page for such requests at Wikidata. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 05:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

General info
Hi. It would be nice if more general info would be added to the lead of this page. That is, other than language links and info for infoboxes, what other kind of information will this database likely (or have the potential to be) used for? Also, it seems like the page right now has an identity crises. It wants to be an FAQ for language links while also trying to summarize the project of Wikidata as a whole. The FAQ part probably needs to be split apart, especially as the tag is now available and so language links aren't the only thing people will be dealing with on wp as far as Wikidata goes. Killiondude (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Meta and Commons?
Is it possible to use Wikidata to link to WP:NPOV (and related policies) to Project scope/Neutral point of view and Neutral point of view? Can we connect WP:Flow to Flow Portal? Or is this really only supposed to be used for the encyclopedias? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * At this time, it is only possible to link different language versions of Wikipedia together. However, linking to most of the other Wikimedia projects (Wikivoyage, Wikispecies, etc.) is planned and being discussed here. I'm not sure about Commons, Meta, and the MediaWiki wiki, though. The Anonymouse (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How long before IW links are added in Wikidata?
Testing how long it takes for an article to have the IW links automatically added in WD. I created an article some weeks ago and I know it has at least one other non-English Wiki article. How long before the IW links show - in other words, is a bot doing this task if I don't do it myself? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly sure what you mean. Did you add interwiki links to the new article manually, without editing the item on Wikidata?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bots do the migration of interwikis. Once they're on Wikidata the links will show up automatically on Wikipedia where they normally do.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * YMB - No, I don't add the IW links manually. I know there's another article on another Wiki, but wanted to know how long it takes for the Bot to do its job.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The bots won't be able to figure that out - they only work when there's manual interwiki links. --Rschen7754 09:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How long the bot takes to do which job? Move a text link from wikipedia to wikidata? I don't think I fully understand what you are asking!  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 09:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If I get it correct, Lugnuts created say an article AAAAA on the English Wikipedia, knowing that there is an article BBBBB on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but they did not add the Portugiese interwiki link to AAAAA, not the English link to BBBBB, nor did they edit the Wikidata items for AAAAA or BBBBB. The question is how soon will the bot merge the Wikidata items, so that in AAAAA the Portuguese link is visible. If this is the question, the answer is never - bots are not smart enough to do this job. You would need to do it yourself manually, and now, as soon as both Wikidata items exist, the manual job can only be done on Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the question. And thanks for the answer. So a bit of a flaw with the project then, if the IW links aren't pulled through to their respective language articles.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not really. May be an artificial intelligence could perform the jobs, but as soon as we do not have one, we need to be nice to bots and help them - either by editing Wikidata ourselves, or, at the very least, by inserting the interwiki links to the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure your average editor wouldn't know anything about adding IW links. And I'm going to refuse to add them too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid we can not do anything about it. If you refuse to add them, do not be surprised that they do not show up - unless of course you can write a bot able to compare articles on different languages and compare which of those are related.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, As above there are no bots to guess what articles should link together. Currently people will have to do that :)  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 09:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick walk-through: make page, click on the "Add links" in the sidebar, fill out the simple two-answer form including language and designated page name. If you refuse to do even that, then I'm surprised that you would have the willingness to locate the edit button and spout out wiki-code in the first place. Cheers. FallingGravity (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Effectively it is the same as users having to add interwiki links, just now users have to add the link on the side bar. Bots have never guessed what pages should be linked together in the past, simply copied links from one wiki to another.  ·Add§hore·  Talk To Me! 10:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Probable duplicates - found through Wikidata ISNI control
Hello, while correcting ISNI constraint violations on wikidata, I found a few duplicate articles coming from en. I list them there so you can merge them in priority, or correct them to make it obvious they are not duplicates.


 * Hans_Hopfen & Hans_von_Hopfen ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alokeranjan_Dasgupta & Alokranjan_Dasgupta
 * James_Anderson_(botanist) & James_Anderson_of_Hermiston - I know they are not the same, but the VIAF added to them is the same - could someone please correct the VIAF ? they are too difficult to distinguish for someone who does not know them well……
 * Wolfgang Meuslin & Wolfgang Musculus

I will add more, if/when I find them… please be very careful with VIAF, use LCCN when it is better documented - the VIAF is then easy to find from the LCCN #. Thanks --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Help:Interlanguage links
None of this seems to be explained on the interlanguage links help page. The Transhumanist 10:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How to create an inline link to a Wikidata entry from the matching Wikipedia article?
Currently there is Template:Wikidata available, which creates a sister project link to a Wikidata entry akin to that created by Template:Commons to commons. That is fine if you want a boxed-up graphical link, but that isn't always appropriate (for example where you have an article where the infobox is longer than the text).

For links to commons, this is typically handled by using Template:Commons-inline in the article's 'External links' section, which creates a textual inline link. I can find nothing that can do the same for a link to Wikidata. I've tried looking at the source of Template:Wikidata and Template:Commons-inline to try and see if I could create one, but I'm afraid I lose the will to live after I've seen 6 open-curly-brackets in a row.

So my question is, does something already exist?. If not, can it be created. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The ItemByTitle special page is for that. http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ItemByTitle/en/Author will lead you to the item in Wikidata that is connected with the article Author on the English Wikipedia. Hope that helps. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. I guess that I could indeed hard-code a link to that page into the 'External links' section of the Wikipedia article, just as I could hard-code a link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Author to find images of author. But we normally don't do that for commons linking, instead we use, which actually expands to use that url as well as supplying a standard text and mini-icon. I've always assumed thar we do this because it makes it easier to maintain a lot of similar links, for example if the commons base url changes, as well as handling secure browsing correctly. What I was looking for was the equivalent for Wikidata. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Request deletion
Audit informatique was alone in Q2870777. The right link should be with Information technology audit. So I delete the Audit informatique in Q2870777, in order to add it later with Information technology audit. How can I request the deletion of Q2870777 ? LectriceDuSoir (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * d:WD:RFD. --Rschen7754 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Template talk:Authority control
There's a discussion on Template talk:Authority control about the handling of joint biographies, which seems like it needs some input from some people who understand Wikidata. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at it, thanks. -- Ricordi  samoa  00:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

How about "Good article" and "Featured article" ?
Will these information be added to Wikidata? —  Ark25  (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please see 40810. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Move instructions
A few minutes ago there were no interlanguage links for our biography John Christopher. All were at our redirect Sam Youd, presumably left behind by a recent move. I visited de:John Christopher using the 'Deutsch' link in the list at our redirect. Now I find both EN.wiki pages without interlanguage links.

We should say a little more at Moving a page. Perhaps link section 1.1.2 of this page. Make clear where the editor may see interlanguage links when. (After the move, the editor is likely to see no 'Languages' links; with an 'Add links' link rather than an 'Edit links' link. Right?) --P64 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The clients should be able to pick up any moves as they occur and change the related Wikidata entry, though that may have been a change that occurred after the move nearly a month ago. I'll fix the immediate problem though. --Izno (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Things we need to address before going to a RFC to get broader consensus
I think that there are some real issues that need to be sorted out. I also think that the discussion above suggests that a broader consensus is needed and that means an RFC. Notice that personal attacks are not on this list; please stop them. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The exact algorithm that's going to be used (including all corner cases).
 * 2) The interaction between the fact that wikidata tags are in 'en' and Wikipedia articles are mainly in regional variants ('en-NZ' 'en-CA' for example).
 * 3) Handling Garbage picking, which is Rubbish picking in most countries.
 * 4) Whether the links in examples of http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Label are part of the example or just there for illustrative purposes.
 * 5) The best way to do interwiki links to wikidata.
 * 6) How the process works for newly created articles.
 * 7) How users should report problems.
 * 8) How to explain all the above to non-technical new article creators for whom english is a second language.
 * Numbered the items for ease of reference. I'm not sure what you mean by questions 3, 4, or 5. Can you explain what you're asking? --Izno (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to re-think some of my comments above, not because they're necessarily wrong, but becuase some of the issues may be intertwined, in particular WP:ENGVAR, use of lang-en-NZ and friends, use of Category:Redirects from Māori-language terms and friends, etc, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Auto-population of wikidata into infoboxes
I've just come across the first uses of the #property call in the infobox on the Howard Hoffman (athlete) article. This usage seems completely backwards to me as a way to integrate wikidata. Surely we should be writing infoboxes that automatically draw the relevant proporty from the related item when nothing is present in the infobox (e.g. infobox field for birthplace is empty or absent so the infobox template code is written to automatically call property 19 from a data item, if found).

Am I missing something? Replacing a manually-written readable piece of information with a manually-written arcane link to that information seems like a hotch-potch solution to the problem. SFB 18:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's another issue. His birth place reads "Michigan". Suppose I want to change that to read "Michigan, USA". I can only do that by removing the Wikidata inclusion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a problem in that case: you would just write infobox to automatically call properties for both place of birth and country of birth (e.g. Michigan, United States). There would have to be agreement on the standard style though. SFB 21:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That assumes that there will be a "standard style". Suppose it is generally felt unnecessary to display the country, expect to disambiguate cites with names like "Paris"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I experimented with using #property for 'Head of State' on in April, and found the first problem. Two weeks later, someone changed the Wikidata data for Head of State of Taiwan from "Ma Ying-jeou" to "President of the Republic of China" - not particularly helpful! That caused our infobox to be nonsensical but nobody looking at it on Wikipedia would be able to see why, so my experiment was reverted. The lesson is that you have to watch for corresponding changes on Wikidata as well as the Wikipedia article.

Next I looked at the problem of linking the data value. It is easy enough to surround a #property call with , but that only works with single returned values. If you look at Franz Kafka, you see in the infobox that he was born a citizen of Austria-Hungary, but died after it was split up in 1918, so spent the last six years of his life as a citizen of Czechoslovakia. His Wikidata entry has two values for 'country of citizenship' and returns them both as a single string to the #property call - but of course you now can't link them.

The answer is not to use #property in an infobox, but to modify the infobox itself to call a Lua module which can handle the data retrieval from Wikidata. There's a very simple example at Template:Infobox person/Wikidata where the value for 'data_55' (Spouse) is a call to a Lua module:. The corresponding Lua code is at Module:Sandbox/Tom Morris which demonstrates fetching the appropriate values and wrapping them in  before concatenating them and returning a complete comma-separated, wiki-linked string. The whole thing worked in May, but now needs updating owing to changes since then.

The logic for the #invoke call within the template was that it dealt with three cases for using the infobox in a given article: I'd recommend that similar logic be agreed early before we start converting infoboxes to use Lua, as we should be able to offer editors the ability to override the Wikidata value by a local value for particular cases, as well as offer them the choice of suppressing display of that parameter altogether. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The article infobox has a local value in place ('|spouse=XYZ') -> use the local value "XYZ" for spouse in the article infobox;
 * 2) The article infobox has a blank value in place ('|spouse=') -> get the data from Wikidata for spouse in that article infobox  suppress the display of spouse for that article infobox ;
 * 3) The article infobox does not have the '|spouse' parameter -> suppress the display of spouse for that article infobox  get the data from Wikidata for spouse in that article infobox.
 * what about when the property links to a disambiguated placename? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you an example in mind? I assume you would either change the data in Wikidata to an unambiguous placename or use a local value in the article to override the Wikidata value. --RexxS (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd prefer to work out whether only one of the several candidates was mentioned in the running text (excluding hatnotes, obviously) and use that one. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * RexxS: Naming rules on Wikidata designate that a placename does not need disambiguation due to the presence of descriptions. The unfortunate fact is that the property calls from a client of Wikibase get the name of the Wikidata title and not the title of the client's pagename. That said, I believe there is a bug on Bugzilla to change or fix this for usability purposes. (Alternatively, it may be possible to trivially get the full placename as used here using Lua; I'm not sure myself.) --Izno (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's say we want to retrieve from Wikidata the place of birth of William Ellery to place it in his infobox - he was born in Newport, Rhode Island. His Wikidata entry is Q567964 and his property:P19 (place of birth) is "Newport", which would incorrectly link to Newport (i.e Newport in Wales). We therefore either correct his Wikidata entry for 'place of birth' to be "Newport, Rhode Island" or we manually force his infobox to display Newport, Rhode Island. Now if you're telling me that there are some naming rules that stop us from setting William Ellery's 'place of birth' (P19) to be "Newport, Rhode Island", then I'm going to tell you that those rules make the entry worthless when you actually want to use the data in Wikipedia. What is the point of such rules if they stop us making use of the data? --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See for yourself. (I will note that it is "proposed", but everyone I know of operates as if it is indeed a guideline.) There are good reasons, as exposed below for example, why leaving disambiguation in the labels does not make sense. That said, the data does not become worthless simply due to a deliberate lack of disambiguation. As I said, I believe there is a way to extract the title of the en.wiki article, or there will be. It is indeed a rather significant oversight on the part of the development team's part, so there is likely to be a fix, if there is not a way to do it currently. --Izno (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that same infobox the "Succeeded by" field is actually much more interesting, because whereas Newport, Rhode Island may be an acceptable label to show the public, Robert Hazard (Rhode Island) is most definitely not. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing particularly difficult about taking the string "Robert Hazard (Rhode Island)" into a Lua module and parsing it for disabiguators, then returning " Robert Hazard " because you have all of the information as input. It is however not logically possible to go from the string "Robert Hazard" to " Robert Hazard " because when you remove the disambiguation, you irreversibly lose information. The same obviously applies to starting from "Newport" as opposed to "Newport, Rhode Island". It seems bizarre to me that Wikidata would create a database of properties belonging to an item that are then not usable anywhere because they are ambiguous. If I can't make a call asking for P19 ('place of birth') for Q567964 ('William Ellery') and get back "Newport, Rhode Island", then I'm not going to be able to write a practical mechanism for populating infoboxes from Wikidata. It's one thing to have an entry label following certain rules, it's another to impose those rules on every piece of data in the database regardless of their effect on usability. You might as well shelve the second phase of Wikidata integration into Wikipedia until Wikidata has solved its self-inflicted problems. --RexxS (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem not to be listening, or either willfully ignoring what has been said. Either we already can manipulate the parameters to get the actual page name or it is something that will be fixed. (I simply haven't researched which of those two options it is.) The information is not lost. That aside, you shouldn't need a link in the navbox infobox anyway (and that's the only place where en.WP has said "you can use this data"), as just about every article should duplicate that information in the article proper&mdash;and with that duplication of information, linking to those pages which appear in the navbox. --Izno (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not get personal. I already have put considerable effort into this task and I do have some appreciation of the problem, having programmed computers since the 1960s. You can't manipulate the parameters to turn "Newport" into "Newport, Rhode Island" because you don't know whether it should be "Newport, Wales" or any other Newport for that matter. The information about which Newport is intended is lost. If both #property and the api call mw.wikibase.getEntity return just "Newport" then something needs to be fixed. At present, it isn't. Until it is, we can't write code to make use of the contents of Wikidata. We're not talking about navboxes, but infoboxes and we do need a link to a person's place of birth in their infobox. Nobody is going to accept an auto-populated infobox - which is what I'm looking to create - if it is less functional than the current infobox. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Let's not get personal. I already have put considerable effort into this task and I do have some appreciation of the problem, having programmed computers since the 1960s." One minute you say don't get personal, the next... you get personal. :) I just took some time to research it; I believe what you want is  (see mediawikiwiki:Extension:WikibaseClient/Lua). So long as you can get the ID of the related item (presumably from  ), the site-link's name of that item should be trivial. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was complaining about you personalising the debate by commenting on me, not my comments: "You seem not to be listening, or either willfully ignoring what has been said". Cut it out. I've not made any disparaging comments about your approach to the discussion. Thank you for your research; however, if you look in Module:Sandbox/Tom Morris that I indicated in my original post, you'll see that it's exactly how we've been calling the property since May. I've now spent some time tidying up that module and adding some documentation at Module:Sandbox/RexxS. It only fetches spouse as an example of the technique, but I'll extend it to handle birthplace and we can see how it deals with the William Ellery case. The point about #property remains, regardless of whether we can program around the undisambiguated entry in Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: If you paste  into William Ellery and preview it, you get Newport, Rhode Island - which is what we wanted and probably answers Stuart's query. Unfortunately if you try the same with Richard Burton, you get Wales. *Sigh* - "He giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other." We still have some way to go, but I'm grateful for the debate. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "You seem not to be listening, or either willfully ignoring what has been said" was never to make a judgement of your character, only to get you to recognize the comments I was making (which you had not done, whatsoever). Perhaps "your responses seem to indicate..." would have been better... Good to see that that's the way it's being done. I suppose they could modify #property to spit out the same thing, or at least optionally to spit such out (#property:P107|format=sitelink or something). Are you indicating that there's a bug in the difference of behavior between Ellery and Burton, and whether that's due to the code on the client side or otherwise? --Izno (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that #property will go the way of the dodo, as it's now worthless even for testing. I'm quite happy that the Lua module performs how we want, and I'm happy to modify anything if folks want a different logic. As for Ellery vs Burton, I was really despairing of our vulnerability to what's been plonked into Wikidata: if I look at Q151973, I find place of birth = Wales. We're going to need several iterations of fact-checking before we can consider rolling out wikidata-aware infoboxes, I'm afraid. --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you were making a comment on the fact that the current claim needs to be more specific? Yes, that's probably true. However, on the other hand, it seems to me that to get it fixed requires the more eyes approach. Bots are certainly imperfect, and the data in most of the entries on Wikidata has been botted in, so things like that will be somewhat troublesome indeed. --Izno (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I got the logic for the template implementation the wrong way round, and I'm really not sure what would be best. Any thoughts on what scheme we ought to use to suppress a parameter or fetch it from Wikidata? At present that's done by making use of scripting in the template and it would be good to hear what editors would prefer. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think auto-population of infoboxes is an absurd idea. Most of our infoboxes have more than 20 parameters, many of which are not key facts for *the particular subject* (but may be a key fact for another article that would use the same infobox). In many cases, autocompletion will make the infobox longer visually than the article itself.  We actually have to start thinking about the entire concept of infoboxes, because on mobile devices the infobox takes up all of the top of the article, and one doesn't actually get to the article until after plowing through all kinds of often unimportant information; the longer it is, the harder it is for people to actually find the article. Risker (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's pretty much par for the course when you don't bother to read what's been written, but just jump in with both feet in your mouth. I've spent time and effort to show you how we can have optional auto-population from the start. The decision whether to (i) not display a given parameter; (ii) fetch the value from Wikidata; (iii) display a value given in the infobox; must remain at the individual article level and the coding/scripting is already written to do just that. That is absolutely no change from how the decision to display a parameter or not is made now. There is no reason why optional auto-population should alter the length of a single infobox, but perhaps you have something else relevant to contribute? --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * RexxS, you may choose not to believe it, but I did read this section from one end to the other, twice, and I am responding to exactly what I thought you were saying. So, perhaps you're nowhere near as clear as you think you are. Maybe you're using some sort of coded phrases that only those who are immersed in wikidata editing can understand; it's a common issue in all of these little subcategories of wiki-editing. Risker (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your graceful admonishment, Risker. I do believe you and please accept my sincere apology for misrepresenting you. Would it help you understand what I'm suggesting if I expand on how I see an wikidata-aware infobox being used in an article?
 * If the editor doesn't want the infobox to display a particular parameter, then they set the parameter to be blank;
 * If the editor wants the infobox to display the value from Wikidata, then they leave the parameter out of the infobox;
 * If the editor wants the infobox to display a value that they supply, then they set the parameter to that value;
 * The first and third are the same as now; but I'm unsure about whether my suggested actions for "leave the parameter out" and "set the parameter to be blank" ought to be reversed. At present they do the same thing, but I was hoping we could use one of them to instruct the template to fetch a value from Wikidata. Of course alternatives are possible (e.g. setting the parameter to "FETCH_WIKIDATA" will also work). What I'm looking for is a way of providing the option of fetching a value from Wikidata while disturbing the present way of editing as little as possible. If we are to make progress with phase two of Wikidata, we need to be able to upgrade infobox templates to give them the capability of importing from Wikidata, but I'm keenly aware that we mustn't cause disruption to existing articles and editor habits. I would be grateful for any thoughts on how best to accomplish that, so that I can move forward with supplying working examples for editors to test as the next step. --RexxS (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we might want to vary the "what shows up" logic per field in a template, and indeed, between templates because some templates like (infobox video game) will have a good number of parameters that can be supported by Wikidata yet aren't overflowing with parameters (some of which can be subjective) like with infobox person. Of course, that's some increased maintenance cost, but as it's probably just the difference between if 1 then 1 in one program and if 1 then 2 in the other, then it shouldn't be too painful. --Izno (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight, Izno. We'll get the chance to script the logic on each field of each template, but I'd worry about editors getting confused if we had too much variation. The least impact implementation would be to require an editor to set a 'special' value to force the retrieval of a Wikidata value (I've used "FETCH_WIKIDATA" in the examples I've tried out), and leave the behaviour of both a blank and absent parameter as suppressing the display of that parameter as it does currently. I've now created two new bits of code that will return non-linked values (like 'male' if we have an infobox with a  parameter) and dates (although I need to implement a user-selectable dmy/mdy switch before it will be useful). Nevertheless, I think we're now almost at the stage where we could write a complete wikidata-aware infobox. I just worry about the inevitable load of inaccuracies in Wikidata that will be exposed. Only today I corrected Q151973 where it showed Sally Burton as both wife and child of Richard Burton. I was able to replace the child entry with Kate Burton, but couldn't add Jessica Burton and Liza Todd Burton as none of them had entries and it seems that having an article is a pre-requisite. There is an article for Maria Burton, but that's not the same person as Burton's adopted daughter. It looks like Richard will have to make do with just one child for the moment. --RexxS (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of ease of editing (and remembering!) I would have thought allowing users to enter a  magic word as an individual template parameter value would be A Good Thing™.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Module:Sandbox/RexxS Module:Wikidata and see if it meets your needs. I used "FETCH_WIKIDATA" as the magic word. --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now updated Template:Infobox person/Wikidata and provided some test cases that may be copied/pasted into biographies and previewed (please don't save!) to see how we can make the template behave. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that we don't want a ton of variation. OTOH, I know that I could completely delete most of the parameters in articles with Infobox video game and what would pop out of a Wikidata Infobox automatically would be pretty freaking okay. Going from the first to the second (and eventually the third; sourcing is iffy which is why release dates locally probably aren't going to disappear any time soon) of the below examples would be really nice to me, due to an auto infobox. As for inaccuracies, "many eyes" is one way to get that fixed. I would also expect that editors interested in Wikidata navboxes will be careful to remove legacy parameters, and I suspect we might even be able to do it semi-automatically (I am skeptical that a bot could do it). But besides that, the data will improve naturally there. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Could someone please add FETCH_WIKIDATA to Help:Magic_words along with suitable help text? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Video game series
Well I can't get far yet because Wikidata only has small number of entries for Assassin's Creed Q420292. But I've made a temporary copy of Infobox video game series at Infobox video game series/Wikidata and edited it to call a few parameters from Wikidata. If you copy the text below, paste it into any section of Assassin's Creed and preview it (please don't save!), you can see that we're capable of making nice things, but need Wikidata to catch up now.

Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Doug! (I've added a link to your post, for convenience; trust that's OK). And if the release date is in Wikidata, we can include it in a metadata-emitting way, with nothing for editors to worry about. Seems like we're either going to need some test entries in Wikidata, or a way to have a /sandbox page which calls data from a real Wikidata entry. Perhaps a "use wikidata entry foo" parameter in the infobox template? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it's OK, Andy. I've created a parser for dates at Module:Parsedate that adds hidden metadata to any valid date, but leaves invalid ones unchanged. Hopefully others will make use of it and improve it. The test cases with debugging info are at User:RexxS/DateDataTest. Sadly at present a Wikidata call can only return data for the page where it is situated, so pasting and previewing is the only sensible option - but at least we get genuine live data to look at. --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't expect you to go and set something up in a live infobox! I was simply illustrating for the purpose of "hey, I'd like to get us to this point", heh. --Izno (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * These proofs-of-concept are fantastic. Getting into the weeds with details and specifying everything up front without real feedback doesn't strike me as a good idea; the sooner this can be released into the wild, the better. I see that Stuartyeates below raises concerns about process: something will have to be drawn up before a general RfC, but jumping in is an excellent way of finding pain points. Perhaps find a friendly wikiproject and, with their blessing, port one of their infoboxes and its invocations? KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)