Template talk:Authority control: Difference between revisions

When should this be not used? - redux

This question was raised earlier, but I didn't see any discussion about it. It's now been raised on my talkpage again by 1234qwer1234qwer4, with the comment that template documentation indicates that authority control should be used only on biographical articles.

Is this still the standard? My own sense (and the one from which I've been proceeding over the past year or two) is that at some point authority control became useful in many non-biographical fields - geographical, musical, business, etc. Is this correct, or should its use on non-biographical articles be curtailed? I think it's likely time to revisit the issue. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not say the template should not be used outside of biographies, instead, I noted that its use seems to be officially sanctioned only for biographies yet. In fact, I do think it can be useful on other articles, like ones about places or organisations, too, but consensus is required on such a large scale, and that was the point I raised. The questions is exactly, as you stated, where it should not be used. If identifiers from Wikidata are welcome to be displayed on all articles where such information exists, we could as well get rid of the template and integrate authority control into Wikipedia's GUI in some way, like interwikis are already. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

To add: It would definitely do no harm either if it is decided that the template should be used in all articles from some more topic areas, as that would make a more extensive bot run possible. Currently, the addition of the template to biographical articles is approved for Tom.Bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Tom.Bot 6. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the question you're trying to ask is "when should a dormant AC not be used?", because I don't see why/where AC shouldn't be used on a page on which it displays a valid ID.

The answer basically depends on the available databases' prevalence in/penetration into a particular subject area. For example, going with the geographical queue, if there's 1 AC database for mountains (in Wikidata and voted on inclusion in {{Authority control}}), and it covers only 10% of all mountains (setting aside what a universal definition of mountain actually is...but you get the idea), then putting AC on all mountains is disruptive. If that database (or those databases) covers 60%+ of all mountains, adding a dormant {{Authority control}} probably makes sense. For reference, ~40% of AC transclusions have 0 elements, for which there is consensus to add a dormant AC, either via approved bot or manually only. The grey-area in between 0% & 60% is where some research (the burden of proof) needs to be done to determine what the current database penetration is for other subject areas, and/or advocate for a lower penetration %. To my knowledge, no one seems both willing & able to do that (I'm certainly not). But, if a valid-enough argument is made for some category (i.e. 60%+ mountain penetration), and consensus is established, I'd definitely re-WP:BRFA it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Correction: as of 2 years ago, there was no consensus for automatically adding dormant templates. My recollection of that issue years ago is a bit dull. There may or may not have been intervening discussions regarding this issue that I'm not aware of due to breaks and/or lack of pings.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Right; the contributions of your bot from two years ago show that through the presence of "\d+ IDs from Wikidata" in all edit summaries, and that might be the reason for why the bot found so many articles yet to tag. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: So what you're describing is basically what I've been doing over the years before doing AWB runs, except that I haven't really codified much of my process. Basically what I'll do is test out AWB on a few pages and see what the prevalence is. So, for instance, with songs, which I've been doing with AWB lately, I tested out the template on five or six articles. The fact that it populated on all of them, or nearly all, told me that it's a valid thing to pursue. Same as I did earlier with high schools/colleges, and before that with localities. Trouble is, it's a lot more difficult to come up with the standard when one is doing it on one's own; if there's any way to develop a better list for future bot/AWB runs, I'm in. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Five or six" seems a bit too little to decide whether a big set with tens of thousands of articles should bear the template, especially given that songs can have very different popularity/coverage. When I've taken ten from your recent batch, only six had the template. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Could you point to where your bot was approved to add dormant ACs? Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Tom.Bot_6 specifies approval only where there is something displayed, not all biographical articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If the template should always be displayed when there are external identifiers, why use a template at all? To use my example from before, it's like using a template to transclude interwiki onto the page: The argument that editors connecting pages through Wikidata will not always check if all the linked pages have the interwiki template would make the placement of the template on all pages legitimate, but what the template would be supposed to do could much better be realised using a different mechanism, the one we are using now. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: See, that's very interesting. Because when I spot check the articles I've tagged, nearly all (let's say 85-90%) have shown the template. And I can assure you I'm not cherry-picking articles I think are going to be likely. I'm sure the actual rate is somewhat lower than that, certainly...but on the whole I'm seeing the template show more than I had expected it would. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: So, do you continue adding the template in spite of this discussion not having any formal consensus? If you think adding it to all pages of a specific topic is appropriate, expanding Tom.Bot's scope would be much more efficient than doing the changes by hand. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰: As I've had no complaint from anyone, yes - I see no harm in continuing to add the template for right now. It may not be the most ideal solution, but it does seem to work most of the time. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I put {{authority control}} at the foot of every article I start. It may just sit there doing nothing, but doing no harm. Often it picks up values from Wikidata, or I add values. I can't see why I would omit it. Almost anything that qualifies for a Wikipedia article could also be included in specialized indexes or catalogs, either now or in the future, and links to those external entries will often be useful. Authors, butterflies, cars, dogs ... yachts, zoos.

The question of whether a template is needed at all is valid. I would support extending the underlying software so that the list of identifiers is automatically displayed if any of them are found in Wikidata, whether or not the template is present. But the template is still a convenient and familiar way to add identifiers, which can then be migrated to Wikidata by a bot. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:ACArt name

Please can we move this template so that it makes more sense when read by humans in the wikitext? Perhaps something like Template:Authority control (arts) would be better. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, for most humans it will make just as much sense as ACArt. I know that authority control is the right term for people who actually are into authority control, but for most people it gives a completely wrong impression of what are basically "reliable identifiers". Template:Art IDs perhaps? Fram (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Support {{Authority control (arts)}}, or similar — wrapper/extension templates like {{Cite IUCN}}, {{Navseasoncats with decades below year}}, {{Infobox <anything>}}, {{Authority control files}}, etc., follow their parent's naming convention, namely {{Cite journal}}, {{Navseasoncats}}, {{Infobox}}, {{Authority control}}, etc., and I see no reason to stray from it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. per User:Tom.Reding. --Robert.Allen (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Add support for P6829 (Dictionary of Irish Biography ID)

The Dictionary of Irish Biography (DIB) removed its paywall in December 2020. There are 7614 wikidata entries. jnestorius^(talk) 22:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic IDs

I propose that we add Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) to the template; the site has rich data about people and their papers, and includes data which is not easily found in other online resources; not least where they have been cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: there are 2 formatter URL (P1630)s - which one, if any, can be used in all cases?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: https://academic.microsoft.com/v2/detail/$1 seems to work in all cases; note also that it's marked as"preferred" on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Lighthouse identifiers

I have proposed removing some identifiers from Template:Infobox lighthouse and putting them in authority control instead. That would mean adding support, initially, for:

• Admiralty number (P3562)
• NGA lighthouse ID (P3563)
• ARLHS lighthouse ID (P2980)
• USCG lighthouse ID (P3723)

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles which cover more than one thing

How does this template get used for articles which cover more than one concept/person/object? Is it possible to apply it more than once with different QID parameters, and if so, how could the scope of each be clearly indicated? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: to your first question, I would like to see some examples as well (the Bonnie and Clyde page unfortunately has a null AC template).

{{Taxonbar}} is an {{Authority control}}-style template which has been made to accept any number of QIDs. However, the WP:Tree of Life/taxonomy space suffers from large-scale translational issues between WP & WD that I don't think exist for AC (taxon names change, get updated, split, merge, have un/official variants, etc.), so {{Taxonbar}} can be used for ideas on how to improve AC, but not as any sort of idyllic goal.

I'd suggest a parameter which is able to add a secondary QID to the template like, say, |also=. {{Taxonbar}} is, and has to be, more aggressive in its WP-WD linkage by soft-requiring its |from= parameter on all pages. I don't think this is/will be necessary for AC, so I'd prefer a parameter name that won't hint at/suggest that.

As far as visualization goes, the [[Help:Authority control|Authority control]] link can be moved from the left column to the header, similar to {{Taxonbar}} with multiple QIDs (Template:Taxonbar#Multiple Wikidata entries). Multiple QID labels can be enumerated in the left column, also similar to {{Taxonbar}} with multiple QIDs, but with the pen icon & "Edit this at Wikidata" link immediately next to each QID label (just as the pen icon exists now next to "Authority control").   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. It is exactly analogous to Bonnie and Clyde, where an article covers an overview of more than one topic. In the case of lighthouses, it is quite common that a lighthouse is replaced by a new lighthouse in the same location or nearby. The Wikipedia article would generally cover multiple lighthouses in the same location. There are also lots of pairs of lights (used to provide leading lights) and an article would usually cover both of them.

I like your suggestions, and the ability to add |also=. May I suggest a naming scheme like |qid1= (used to override the current page's qid) and |qid2=, |qid3=, etc. to provide supplementary ones?

I made a mock up of what it could look like below, broadly in line with your own ideas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That looks good.

"used to override the current page's qid" - that is out of the question. The solution instead is to move the WP site link to the appropriate QID in WD, NOT simply masking over the problem in AC. The current QID should always be shown in AC, and we can discuss whether or not to:

1. force the current QID to the top of AC (I'd say force), or
2. allow the user to change the order of all QIDs (I'd say don't), or
3. allow the user to only change the order of QIDs below the current (no problems),

but overwriting the current QID is a non-starter.

This is why I suggest |also=, or something equally evocative/non-neutral. |qid= is too neutral and begets the reasoning/tenancies towards #2.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The only reason I was suggesting the qid could be overridden was in examples like Kinnaird Head lighthouses (Q105519325) which is an overview item for two different lighthouses, and has no useful data. But I guess if there is no data, then that row would not be displayed anyway, so no problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I quite like Matthiaspaul's suggestion of using a |part= parameter which is dependent on has part(s) (P527) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Something similar was done in {{Taxonbar}} to automatically pull has basionym (P566) & original combination (P1403) into the template. I think this is a very good starting point. |part= may be used locally for those unfamiliar with WD, with a followup tracking cat to move that QID to WD.

For some preliminary statistics & usage examples, I chose Library of Congress authority ID (P244), which has ~592,000 WP articles:

~19,000 use part of (P361),

~11,000 use has part(s) (P527), and

~1,800 use both.

I spot-checked a few they seem reasonable to include at the end of the article. I'll start with the automatic addition first, see how that goes, then incorporate the parameter with any community feedback.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Holding off on this until after #RfC about the look of the template. If passed, I don't think this is doable due to the additional left-column, making room for IDs even more scarce.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#This template and the Bonnie & Clyde problem (not least my post there timestamped "22:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)", and the example article linked to from that). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am in agreement with all points made in that thread. So it seems there is a real need for this functionality — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Allowing multiple ACs is just a sloppier version of my #2 concern above.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Word wrap for comma-separated values

I've noticed an issue on the page A–Z Series where there are multiple entities under the MBRG category, separated by commas. There are so many that they go outside the page limits, instead of wrapping within the box. I've had no experience with this template myself, so I don't know whether this is an issue with the data (i.e. there "shouldn't" be this many entities within one category) or whether there's a way to allow word wrapping within the template, since it's something that is possibly occurring elsewhere under legitimate circumstances. Thought I'd bring it to the attention of folks associated with the template though :-) Fattonyni (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fattonyni: good lord... I'll add a clause to wrap if more than 3 IDs total ID length >= 80. Ideally, but I'm not sure how, if I knew the width of the box and character width of the IDs, a more intelligent conditional wrap could be performed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: brilliant, thanks! Fattonyni (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the look of the template

I've started Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: make Template:Authority control more reader-friendly. Fram (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Generalizing Category:VIAF not on Wikidata & Category:VIAF different on Wikidata

Currently, these 2 categories are emitted by the template, and not by a/the module as all other {{AC}} tracking categories are.

• Category:VIAF not on Wikidata (0) contents (currently @ 568 pages) are duplicated in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters (0) (currently @ 2411 pages), which tracks all properties, not just |VIAF=.
• Category:VIAF different on Wikidata (0) (currently @ 132 pages) does not yet have an analog, Category:Pages using authority control with parameters different on Wikidata (0), which I plan to create & populate.

After the new cat is created, I plan on discontinuing Category:VIAF not on Wikidata & Category:VIAF different on Wikidata for the new, general categories. I'll wait some time before CfD'ing them, but I thought I'd let any interested people know, in case they want to clear out the category in the meantime.

The alternative, having 2 cats for each parameter, would require 168 new categories, which is prohibitive to display, and I think not necessary due to the 1843 pages (2411 – 568=1843) that would be dispersed among them. To carry forward some of that functionality, though, I plan on making the 2 general categories sorted by the first/last-alphabetically-discovered absent/different parameter. For example, Cyriak will appear in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters under V for |VIAF=, and not C. However, there will be some ambiguity, as there is another parameter starting with V, |VcBA=, but I don't see this as a big issue, as it still vastly narrows down the scope of potential suspects/parameters, for a very small percentage of problematic {{AC}} pages (~0.14% for pages-absent, and an estimated < ~0.1% for pages-different^†).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It turned out that Category:VIAF different on Wikidata (0) is & was entirely duplicated in Category:Wikipedia articles with multiple identifiers (0), meaning the WP-ID might be present as a secondary/tertiary/etc. ID in WD. After refreshing all 132 pages, 97 of them showed up in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters different on Wikidata (0), a 27% reduction.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

^†0.02% for pages-different   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  07:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Researcher ID leads to Publons?

No idea since when this happens, but the ResearcherID links simply lead to Publons. Having both is then not necessary. I guess ResearcherID is the one that should go? Fram (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

See ResearcherID, they are merging. Probably an if statement is needed, so that ResearcherID is still shown if Publons is not present. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Terminologia Embryologica (Category:Wikipedia articles with TE identifiers) links no longer seem to work, all lead to the homepage of TE (tested 3 at random). Fram (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Same problem for Terminologia Histologica (Category:Wikipedia articles with TH identifiers). Fram (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion example of the new look after the RfC

The RfC on the changed look of this template, to make it more reader-friendly, has been closed as "succesful"[1]: "There's a strong support for an overhaul of the authority control template that uses human-readable names of the resources, in the interest of being recognizable to more editors. There is general support that Fram's proposal is preferable to the current version, but not any consensus on the exact form that an improved version might take. " (there is more, but that's a separate discussion).

For convenience, I have created a "full" version of the template with all currently possible IDs included. Note that not a single article will end up with the template like this; a fair number of the IDs are very specific ones that only end up on a small number of articles, so most articles will have a much more manageable, smaller template than this.

Feel free to improve this example: but if you want to propose something which follows the RfC result but is clearly different from my proposal, please make your own version. Some notes: I have not created a separate "music" section, as the many MusicBrainz links never appear together on one article: usually you get one, at most two of them. In the future, separate sections for e.g. music or sport may of course become necessary. I have tried to find a balance between labels which are short yet clear enough to give a layperson some idea of what to expect, but this wasn't possible in all cases.

Like I said, all comments and improvements welcome, this is not a final version but a starting point. Fram (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Redesign: multiple IDs

How do we show multiple IDs?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this even necessary? I know that there are some cases where you indeed have multiple IDs for the same thing, but a) this undermines the unique identifier ID of authority control, b) adds little or nothing for our readers and c) makes things a lot more complex. Simply using the first (preferred) ID from Wikidata seems sufficient. Fram (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles with multiple identifiers (0), currently 43,732.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it exists, now. I wondered if it was necessary. Random example, Sarah Aaronsohn, has 5 IDs at the National Library of Israel. So this is not actually a real authority control for Aaronsohn, but a group of pages related to her. And frankly, all 5 are useless. So why should we spend effort in providing these 5? Lasse Åberg has two links to the Swedish national library, both are basically empty, but one is for Lars-Erik Åberg. Same person? Related? No idea, and neither won't anyone directed to that second page. Worth the extra effort? No. The Abbasid dynasty has three VIAF codes. This is an error at VIAF side, not here. Show one and be done with it. Fram (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

See proposal @ Template:Authority control/testcases#Multiple IDs (proposed).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. While I still think this is unnecessary (just showing one link is in most cases better), it seems like a good way to present it if people want this. Fram (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that this is unncessary, and it seems to have been added on February 14 (Special:Diff/1006784035) with no discussion I can find other than Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#Multiple IDs from Wikidata now allowed/appended, which recieved no comments by anyone else. This is a contested (by Fram) bold edit that was evidently not uncontroversial. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Redesign: multiple QIDs

How do we show multiple QIDs from has part(s) (P527) & part of (P361)? Previous solution above @ #Articles which cover more than one thing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't. The authority control should match the article, not "be a part of" or "has parts". We wouldn't include these two if there is a direct match (I mean, you wouldn't add a "Beatles" id to the article of Paul McCartney, who is also part of Wings and probably a few other things; and you wouldn't add the IDs of John, Paul, George and Ringo to the authority control of The Beatles). In any case, this is separate from the redesign: the proposed solutions of having basically an option to have either an override of the QI, or a default one and an additional one with an extra QID, work equally well in the old and the new design. Fram (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde problem. ~28,000 pages use some combination of has part(s) (P527) and/or part of (P361).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And? Like I said, any solution for this should work equally well in the old and the new design surely, as this is independent of the labels and groupings proposed? Whether it is even wanted is a separate discussion, but has no relation to the redesign. Fram (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to use the template two or more times with a parameter to indicate what subtopic it is authority control for? - Jmabel | Talk 14:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: this opens up a can-o-worms. See above @ #Articles which cover more than one thing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what makes this a can of worms, other than Tom.Reding declaring unilaterally in that section that Jmabel's solution (which was also proposed independently by MSGJ in that section and by at least two other editors in the talk archives) is out of the question and a non-starter. It appears consensus may be in favor of doing just that, despite his objections * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Redesign: parameter names

Yet another problem that wasn't even described in the RfC has unintended consequences:

1. The parameter name is removed from the rendered page, making it much less intuitive/obvious how to either add an ID or suppress the existing.
2. All links to Wikipedia pages about the institutions are removed (and links to all {{R from identifier}} type pages).

How do we address that?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed in the RfC. The template documentation should be improved to indicate how this needs to be done (for the first issue), and for the second, yes, that's a small disadvantage which is (per the consensus at the RfC) outweighed by the benefits of the new design. You are free to create a mockup that respects the outcome of the RfC and adresses your concerns of course. Fram (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This was only discussed in my thread, not voted on by the vast majority of participants. The RfC did not weigh the advantages & disadvantages, and cannot be used as such.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the voters in the RfC here. Certainly the second issue you raise was clearly decided by the RfC: the first issue is needs better explanation at the documentation page. Re-litigating the RfC here won't really change the outcome. Fram (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: "underestimate": I indeed estimate (as we are forced to) that most voters didn't read through the comments to pick out the nuances that they may or may not have been aware of. The cons & consequences of your redesign weren't described at all. As such, there is no consensus when it comes to broad implementation, because it wasn't actually discussed. Your RFC wasn't pointless, though, as it's a first step towards a second, more thorough, RFC, and/or further discussion here on how to address all these problems above. "There is no problem" is not a solution, though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to raise this with the closer of the RfC or at WP:AN. Until then, the RfC actually closed in favour of this, and the consequences were accepted. If you have an actual proposal that respects the RfC and actually improves the design, feel free to present it. Simply stonewalling though won't change anything. Fram (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Per the close, "but not any consensus on the exact form that an improved version might take", and "the exact form that an improved version might take" is exactly what we're trying to (I think) discuss here. "No solution" will indeed change nothing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The exact form, no, that's what we're discussing. But your objections so far seem more like "let's get back to the old format". It would probably help if you presented some example of what you have in mind (doesn't need to be a full one, just a mockup with a few links which incorporates the RfC close and your objections/improvements). Fram (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To be honest here, looking at the wikilinks/pageview stats of the various (identifier) redirects I don't think the second issue is a problem anyway, it seems that these links were basically never getting used. Looking at a few examples

• RERO (identifier), 17,968 incoming links, Median 210 page views a month. In the average authority control template the link gets clicked once every 7.13 years.
• NKC (identifier), 166,311 incoming links, Median 1,012 page views a month. n the average authority control template the link gets clicked once every 13.69 years.
• NLG (identifier), 19,282 incoming links, Median 192.5 page views a month. In the average authority control template the link gets clicked once every 8.35 years.
• WorldCat Identities (identifier), 844,173 incoming links, Median 3528 page views a month. In the average authority control template the link gets clicked once every 19.93 years.

I really don't think it's worth having all these links to the institutions when the average link gets used once a decade, and with Fram's proposed redesign a lot of the reason for having these links in the first place vanish, as readers will no longer be left wondering "what is NLG, who operates it?", it's immediately obvious that it relates to the national library of Greece. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Now sure what IP's math is for "once every X years" nonsense, but here is the Pageviews Analysis for all 4 examples aggregated monthly over the last year. Shows significant usage.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyone willing to implement this?

So, we have had some small improvements to the proposed version, and some comments, but discussion seems to have died down. Anyone here willing to implement this? Fram (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There's been no progress on the above implementation issues, despite your lying/mischaracterization of the situation.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So? Like I said, 2 isn't an issue at all, 3 is an issue that has been decided by the RfC, and 1 is as far as I can tell not an issue either, but a feature of the new design. I don't expect you to implement this, considering that we are all volunteers and you oppose this (even though you are welcome to implement it anyway of course), but the above issues are no reason to stop this at all. Fram (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no problems implementing a solution, when we have one.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, personal attacks, that will help. Fram (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this does seem like an attempt to force your own viewpoint by refusing to implement anything else. It didn't work, though, because someone else was willing to do the implementation. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at implementing this at Module:Authority control/sandbox. There's something screwed up with identifier validation and WorldCat that I can't quite figure out right now, but it mostly works. As for the technical details discussed above, I completely dropped support for multiple instances of the same identifier. Other issues I ran into during implementation are that Fram didn't include autores.uy in the complete table above, so I stuck it in Other with the label "autores.uy" (which can be changed easily), and I wasn't sure what to do if an article had no identifiers in the "General" section, which makes there be no obvious place to put the link and Wikidata pencil. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Autores.uy was an oversight. Would it be possible and helpful if instead of starting with "Authority control: general", we would move "Authority control" to a "header" position" and used "General" as the label for the first section? Comparable to (random example) Template:Peter Paul Rubens, where "Peter Paul Rubens" at the top would be replaced by "Authority Control" plus the pencil? Fram (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Implemented. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, great! There seems to be an issue in the testcases in the section "Suppression via null params", where the new version generates some errors where the old version doesn't. Otherwise, it seems to work as expected. Takes up some more vertical space (at the bottom of articles), but is much more reader-friendly. It can always be made auto-collapsed if necessary, but that's outside the scope of the RfC change and would need another discussion. Fram (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is the There's something screwed up with identifier validation and WorldCat that I can't quite figure out right now, which I've now fixed. Actually, my original implementation autocollapsed like all other navboxes, and then BrandonXLF changed it to always expand for reasons I don't understand, and I reverted him (before seeing your comment) on the grounds that I saw no reason to deviate from the standard navbox behavior. I don't personally have a strong opinion on whether it is expanded or collapsed, and don't mind if someone re-reverts me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed it because the current authority control is always "expanded" as in the links are always visible, but the new title row does make it larger than the current template. – BrandonXLF (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fram, maybe it would be better to move "Authority control" to the left of the template? I created an example at User:BrandonXLF/K. The issue with having it at the top is it makes the template significantly taller, it different very different from the current authority control template, and it can cause confusion since it looks too similar to an actual navbox, which this isn't really since it exclusive links to other sites. – BrandonXLF (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That looks good as well. Pppery, would this be feasible (and do you like it)? I just wonder if it wouldn't look a bit strange on the (many) instances where we wll only have one "subheader"? Certainly worth a try! Fram (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In terms of feasability, doing that is trivial. It personally looks a little odd to me, but that's probably just because I coded the vertical-header option so am used to it and shouldn't be decisive. As for cases with only one subheader, one idea would be to go back to the originally-proposed format and say Authority control: National libraries as one header if only national libraries are present, for example, thus producing something like for a template with only a BIBSYS identifier (and using Brandon's format as currently implemented for cases with more than one header). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Specifically for Norway, I guess simply "Norway" is sufficient, the (BIBSYS) part can go, it isn't included for other national libraries. Fram (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Implemented the above format (with the tweak that if the only section is "General" or "Other" it omits the section label as either pointless or redundant). Note that "Norway (BIBSYS)" was what you labelled it as in your table at the top of the section, which is why I included it with that title (I've now changed it to just Norway). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Pppery, upon further inspection, it does seem a little odd-looking. I found Template:Taxonbar, and I think the format it uses when it has multiple groups could work well for this, see User:BrandonXLF/K/testcases. – BrandonXLF (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That formatting works for me. But, now that you brought up {{taxonbar}}, it may also be due for a redesign to make more reader-friendly in the same way {{authority control}} is. Implementing that would also require finding a solution to #Redesign: multiple QIDs above. Anyway, we should probably stop arguing over what color to paint the bikeshed now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and implemented that proposal in Module:Authority control/sandbox * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

So, which section should autores.uy go in, and what should it be titled as? I was implicitly asking that earlier, and the question appears to have gotten lost in the formatting sidetrack above, so I'm restating it explicitly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Under the "biographical dictionaries", title "Uruguay"? It's something halfway between "national library" and "biographical dictionary", could go either way. Fram (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Implemented. I believe the only things left to resolve before this is ready to be synced are #Duplicate Poland national library identifiers and possibly the TfD I started of {{Authority control files}}, which is automatically generated based on the data stored in Module:Authority control in a way that would need rewriting if there is consensus to keep the navbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the solution you suggested below for the Polish ones is the correct way to proceed, so that can be implemented as well. So then we only need to wait for the closure of the AC files TfD. Fram (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that and #Documentation table, which should be straightforward but probably should get at least some discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate Poland national library identiifers

There are currently 33,000 articles that have both NLP and PLWABN identifiers. Under the rewrite (both in Fram's original proposal and in my implementation), both of these display as "Poland" in the national libraries section, which would result in two links with identical labels. That seems undesirable to me. What should be done about this? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears from reading d:Property:P7293 and d:Property:P1695 that NLP IDs are deprecated by the national library in favor of PLWABN IDs, so maybe don't show NLP at all if PLWABN is present? That would be pretty easy to implement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Done the above per Fram's post in the previous section. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 24 § Template:Authority control files

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 24 § Template:Authority control files. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

Documentation table

There is a giant table at Template:Authority control/doc#Wikidata and tracking categories that is currently generated automatically from this module, thus it's necessary to decide how it will look post-redesign before implementation in order to avoid extra edits to high-risk templates. The current sandbox code I wrote produces: Does that look good to everyone else? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I like the addition of the Section column.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Could the parameter column be linked like the old label column? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Not too hard to do technically, but the same logic that lead to removing the link from the main navbox seems to suggest the link may not be necessary in the table either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that there is a parallel. The navbox needs to be kept tidy and small, so there is definitely a strong argument for removing all of the labels (and so their links). The table has a lot more space and serves as a central reference for the complete set of IDs that could be shown by the template. Links in the first column are a major source of reference. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I've now updated my code to add links (which is now reflected in the table) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Truly a work of art and beauty. Awesome — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, perfetly done! Fram (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A minor correction needs making - FNZA and DIB have typos in their "Section" column. DIB should be "Biographical dictionaries" rather than "Biographical databses", and FNZA is missing an "e" in research. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching these; they would have caused a script error on all uses of the relevant identifier if the code had gone live (and the testcases didn't list them because they were recently added and the testcases page hasn't been updated). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The new version takes up too much space

Looking at Template:Authority control/testcases, the new version seems to *triple* the amount of space that the template takes up in some cases, and always takes up more space than the previous one. That's a serious issue that could lead to people wanting to auto-collapse the template (which would be *bad* since that would make it even less useful). The current version looks better to me, and it shows more info by displaying the IDs too. Maybe keep that, and just write out the acronyms if you want? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This was argument was already presented and rejected at the RfC. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)