While on this concept of modelling Wikidata items for multi-concept Wikipedia pages, I would like to remind you of another case, in which cross-project spam is deleted in only a subset of language Wikipedias, leaving a few links or just the Wikidata item. I would like there to be some trace of the previously existing Wikipedia links, that each link to the deletion discussion in the associated Wikipedia. Is this possible?
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Markus Krötzsch < mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: > 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 > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
