Me again. After some coffee and digesting the edit that Eric made to
address the Samoan Clipper issue, I can see several (better?)
alternatives to my first proposal. This also takes into account some
comments of James, Mohamed, and Purodha.
I can see three patterns to solve such issues:
== (1) Main concept + sub-concept ==
Situation: There is a "main" concept, but it is closely connected to
another concept (such as a particularly notable event). Most Wikipedias
have both described in one article.
Example: The plane "Samoan Clipper" and the crash of that plane.
Solution: Keep all Wikipedias connected to the "main" concept (the
plane) and create a new items for the subconcept (the crash) that is not
linked to any Wikipedia. It can be somewhat arbitrary what we pick as
the main concept in cases like this. This is what Emw did on
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7409943.
== (2) Two first-class concepts ==
Situtation: There are several distinct concepts, even if some Wikipedias
only have one article that includes a section on the other.
Example: "The Beatles" and "Paul McCartney".
Solution: Keep distinct items with distinct language links. Try to
decide for each Wikipedia with only one article whether it is more about
the one or about the other concept.
== (3) Several first-class concepts + multi-topic page(s) ==
Situation: Several Wikipedias have distinct articles for two distinct
concepts, but in some Wikipedias there is only one article that combines
the two.
Example: Wangerooge (island?, municipality?, both?)
Solution 1: Select a "main concept" for each article involved and link
it only to this -> pattern (2).
Solution 2: Create a third item in the way that I suggested earlier (a
page for the combined item that is linked to but distinct from the
individual items).
== What's the best pattern now? ==
Of the above patterns, (1) has the most interlanguage connections. (2)
has a medium amount of connections, and (3) has the least amount of
connections. There is a kind of natural transition from (1) (split only
inside Wikidata) to (2) (split visible in Wikipedias) to (3) (split and
combinations visible in Wikipedias). It's the natural transition from
coarse-grained/unified to fine-grained/diverse presentation in Wikipedia(s).
Considering all this, I would use my earlier suggestion ((3) with
solution 2) only in exceptional cases. Indeed, Edward asked his original
question since he saw a problem when trying to add *more* language links
in a situation that applied pattern (2) so far. My suggestion would not
fix this issue at all but rather reduce the linking further. I think (3)
really only makes sense in cases where any assignment of a "main
concept" would seem unacceptable for some article.
The main thing we have to take care about when splitting into several
items is to ensure that we don't import statements from Wikipedia into
the wrong item. Despite the obvious concern that an item should not be a
plane and a crash at the same time, it would also be really bad to have
two items about the same crash (one specific on the crash only and one
combined with crash and plane) -- even counting the plane crashes on
Wikidata would lead to misleading results then.
== What to do with Wangerooge? ==
It seems to me that (2) is already optimal in this situation from a
Wikidata viewpoint. To get additional language links displayed in
English, you could manually add them to the article (yes, I agree that
this has other issues). Also, I don't know if you can have language
links to multiple pages on the same other Wikipedia using manual links
(which seems what Edward was trying to do by connecting the same enwiki
article to multiple items).
Cheers,
Markus
On 09.09.2014 13:50, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Am 09.09.2014 13:36, schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
My proposal became more clear to me over lunch:
For articles that are really about multiple different things that cannot be
reconciled in a single natural concept:
* State "intance of:Wikipedia article with multiple topics" (we already have
several other classes of Wikipedia articles).
* Use some property, say "has topic", to link to items about the individual
topics.
* Optionally: use a property like "subject of" (P805) to link back from the
individual items to the multi-topic pages.
The main proposal here is to treat these things like Wikipedia disambiguation
pages: we have items, but the items are mainly about the page, not about any
real-world concept we care about.
Thanks Markus, I like that a lot :)
-- daniel
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
