Module talk:Wikidata/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Module:Wikidata. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Icon to indicate no Wikipedia article
When a value is fetched from Wikidata that has a corresponding entry on Wikidata, but no article (yet) on Wikipedia, this module supplies a link to the Wikidata entry and a marker that indicates "Article is not yet available in this wiki" when hovered over. Even though Wikidata is a sister project and links there can use the wiki-markup for an internal link, e.g. [[d:Q151973]], the argument has been made that when following a link, readers don't expect to be redirected to different project without warning.
At a discussion at Template talk:Infobox video game #Ugly "page missing" buttons, there was a suggestion to use the external links icon instead of the present [*] marker. I've made a version in Module:Wikidata/sandbox2 using the icon. This is the comparison for the occupation (P106) of Richard Burton (Q151973):
- Module : film actor, diarist, stage actor, actor, film director, film producer, producer[*], director
- Sandbox: film actor, diarist, stage actor, actor, film director, film producer, producer
, director
In the sense that a link to Wikidata is unexpected here, and it may therefore be considered an "external" link, is the external links icon a suitable indicator? In my opinion, it's aesthetically more pleasing, but other opinions would be very welcome. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- While external link might not be the BEST icon, it looks a lot more natural to me than the [*]. -- ferret (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The icon does look better than the asterisk, but I'm not sure it's the right icon to use since links to Wikidata aren't external... Maybe a small Wikidata symbol? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I was inclined to, as well. Alternatively, "WD" in plaintext, or perhaps "D"... either way, needs a span with a title attribute to indicate our intentions with the link. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- You would prefer a
<span>...</span>with a title attribute rather than the<abbr>...</abbr>with a title attribute that I'm using now? --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)- It's not an abbreviation? I'd have to go look at the html 5 spec on the point. Span seemed better off the cuff. --Izno (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neither https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Elements/abbr nor https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-abbr-element are very specific. My logic was that a marker like "WD" would be an abbreviation semantically and literally and we could clearly use
<abbr>...</abbr>; whereas if "WD" were replaced by an icon, it couldn't change the semantics - the icon would still be the element being 'expanded' (even if no longer literally). I'm always loathe to use<span>...</span>unless its inner-html really has no semantic value. Must be just how my antediluvian mind works. --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)- I'm generally agreed, but in my mind the title attribute on the tag should be a call to action e.g. "edit on Wikidata", which is not "WD"'s expansion, and thus abbr becomes the wrong tag to use, according to 2 of the three areas of use (the third not being relevant here since we aren't interested in the consistent abbreviation styling). Izno (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think we may be at cross-purposes. The point of these markers is not to get people to edit Wikidata. It is to warn readers who may otherwise click on the link thinking they were going to a Wikipedia article on e.g. satiric novel and finding themselves on another site (i.e. Wikidata) at satirical novel (Q6045975). I've actually had that complaint levelled when we were using just an asterisk as a marker. There was a small consensus early on that it was good to have the link to the Wikidata item whenever there was no corresponding Wikipedia article, but I'm beginning to wonder whether it's worth the effort. I was thinking of changing the tool-tip to "Article is available on Wikidata, but not on Wikipedia", which would be more accurate. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I stated my expectation, because I was pretty sure we were too. :D I'm fine with your proposed title text, but that's certainly not abbr content. --Izno (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think we may be at cross-purposes. The point of these markers is not to get people to edit Wikidata. It is to warn readers who may otherwise click on the link thinking they were going to a Wikipedia article on e.g. satiric novel and finding themselves on another site (i.e. Wikidata) at satirical novel (Q6045975). I've actually had that complaint levelled when we were using just an asterisk as a marker. There was a small consensus early on that it was good to have the link to the Wikidata item whenever there was no corresponding Wikipedia article, but I'm beginning to wonder whether it's worth the effort. I was thinking of changing the tool-tip to "Article is available on Wikidata, but not on Wikipedia", which would be more accurate. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm generally agreed, but in my mind the title attribute on the tag should be a call to action e.g. "edit on Wikidata", which is not "WD"'s expansion, and thus abbr becomes the wrong tag to use, according to 2 of the three areas of use (the third not being relevant here since we aren't interested in the consistent abbreviation styling). Izno (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neither https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Elements/abbr nor https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-abbr-element are very specific. My logic was that a marker like "WD" would be an abbreviation semantically and literally and we could clearly use
- It's not an abbreviation? I'd have to go look at the html 5 spec on the point. Span seemed better off the cuff. --Izno (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- You would prefer a
- That's what I was inclined to, as well. Alternatively, "WD" in plaintext, or perhaps "D"... either way, needs a span with a title attribute to indicate our intentions with the link. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- The icon does look better than the asterisk, but I'm not sure it's the right icon to use since links to Wikidata aren't external... Maybe a small Wikidata symbol? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Little edit tags
A little off-topic
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Status
Where do we sit on this? This is a relatively impactful change to Module:Wikidata and hits every infobox that has implemented it. I am currently in support of the external link icon, versus the current [*]. The technical discussions on the exact tag mechanism is above the basic decision on whether to switch or not. Let's do it. Where else should this be advertised? -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's a tough question. I don't think we could notify every Wikiproject that uses an infobox. However, there are currently 189 infoboxes in the Category:Templates using data from Wikidata, so it may be possible to pick out a number of active WikiProjects that already use the module. In any case, we should put a notice at WP:VPT and maybe at WP:CENT, if it was thought that far-reaching. Optionally we could create an WP:RFC here, if there were a well-defined choice that we could poll on. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think this [*] is ridiculous. Why stop there? Why not mark everything is not there? For instance, mark "everything" which isn't blue. 213.205.251.75 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- The mad [*] are strange and useless. If you can't remove them, the least to do is to have the marks as optional. Alice 张梦平 10:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course we could remove them. But then what would you do about all of the folks who would be complaining that they followed a link and it took them to Wikidata? The indicators are not useless, because they perform the function of alerting readers to the fact that a link is available to the subject on Wikidata, but not on Wikipedia. It's easy to whine about what you don't like, but I don't see any constructive suggestions on how we might best do that job. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- How about using - would that work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've made a version in Module:Wikidata/sandbox3 using the Wikidata-logo, with span instead of abbreviation and an expanded tool-tip. This is the comparison for the occupation (P106) of Richard Burton (Q151973):
- Module : film actor, diarist, stage actor, actor, film director, film producer, producer[*], director
- Sandbox2: film actor, diarist, stage actor, actor, film director, film producer, producer , director
- Sandbox3: film actor, diarist, stage actor, actor, film director, film producer, producer
, director
- What do folks think? --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. I dig sandbox3. I might suggest the alt text read "Information available on.." rather than "Article available on..." -- ferret (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've made a version in Module:Wikidata/sandbox3 using the Wikidata-logo, with span instead of abbreviation and an expanded tool-tip. This is the comparison for the occupation (P106) of Richard Burton (Q151973):
- How about using - would that work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course we could remove them. But then what would you do about all of the folks who would be complaining that they followed a link and it took them to Wikidata? The indicators are not useless, because they perform the function of alerting readers to the fact that a link is available to the subject on Wikidata, but not on Wikipedia. It's easy to whine about what you don't like, but I don't see any constructive suggestions on how we might best do that job. --RexxS (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The mad [*] are strange and useless. If you can't remove them, the least to do is to have the marks as optional. Alice 张梦平 10:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think this [*] is ridiculous. Why stop there? Why not mark everything is not there? For instance, mark "everything" which isn't blue. 213.205.251.75 (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
