Template talk:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt Österreich

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata check

[edit]

I have added a WikidataCheck to this template. This operates on every category on which the template is transcluded. It looks at the Wikidata item linked from the category, and compares with d:Property:P2951 on Wikidata.

Hope that helps! FYI @Herzi Pinki, AleXXw, and Braveheart:

Jean-Fred (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JF, also CCing @Simon04: . It'll most likely point out the discrepancies that still remain on Wikidata until someone solves them by hand ;-) Braveheart (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Had a stab at letters A-C and fixed a couple of them. The Check does not really work when there is more than one DOO template on a category, which is the case of many… Jean-Fred (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jean-Frédéric: , is there a way to fix this? There was never a rule that there has to be a 1:1 relationship between ids and commons-categories. Commons categories and WD entries should be aligned with real world entities (e.g. a bridge), while the BDA modelling is to split the bridge by municipality / cadastral community. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also added a search link to Wikidata on the template, which can help hunt down the Wikidata item. Only did that because in the case of this template it blends in with the existing links ; but feel free to revert if you disagree :) Jean-Fred (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thanks for creating the maintenance categories. We only need the workforce to fix it. Is there a defined timeline to get this in sync and who is the driving force, who is responsible for it, etc.? The mess was created by a bot.

best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Category:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt Österreich without linked Wikidata:

Thanks for the suggestion, it is a good improvement :) Jean-Fred (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Engelwirtbrunnen is wrong because of redirects in Denkmalliste are not resolved correctly by the swedish import bot. Redirects with anchors do not cause identity of lemmas.
    I see… Well, the solution is simple: if there is already a Wikidata item for this fountain, update it (with sitelink to the Commons cat, DOO id etc.) ; if not, let’s just create it :) Jean-Fred (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping that you would tell the bot to fix it. To use precious community resources to run after a misguided bot will not give the productivity boost we expect from bots, but slow down the whole process. A bit unwilling to fix this manually in so many cases. But I feel your template cannot handle the situation as it is. It is erronous anyhow. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I answered inline to specific cases, but to emphasize two points:

  • This whole only works through d:Help:Sitelinks, not with P373. The reason for this is that sitelinks are two-ways relationships: a Commons category "knows" it’s being linked via sitelink, it "does not know" it is linked via P373 (not directly anyways, I understand there are other ways to achieve that). Given the recent push with {{Wikidata infobox}}, sitelinks have become the de-facto standard.
  • Several {{Doo}} templates on one page: unfortunately I don’t think there is any way to solve this.
    • The Check currently does not process multiple IDs very well (although it kind of does, but that should be tested more). For French monuments, we designed {{Mérimée}} to be able to have more than one ID − so in theory we could compare all values. However…
    • …having more than one template makes it impossible. The Check is embedded into the template, and the template only knows about its parameter. There is no way the check can realise another ID is being used on the same page.

I do realise the problem you describe (and it’s not specific to Austria − at least in France it’s also often like that):

There was never a rule that there has to be a 1:1 relationship between ids and commons-categories. Commons categories and WD entries should be aligned with real world entities (e.g. a bridge), while the BDA modelling is to split the bridge by municipality / cadastral community.

— Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what the WD best practice is. I just noticed Pont de la Caille (Q1225147) & Pont de la Caille (Q22968662) − did we decide to go for the 1-1 mapping between Mérimée and Wikidata? @VIGNERON: , would you know about this / have recommendation on how to proceed?

Jean-Fred (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Frédéric: Everything here makes me sad. See my answers above. To make this usable and productive the following points should be addressed and fixed before manually fixing the rest:

  • the double presence of gallery and category is standard (cannot be nuked), so the check has to handle that correctly.
  • If the sitelink must be with the category and not the gallery, this should be enforced somewhere else. If you could enter a request at the appropriate place, this would help.
  • the system must allow to set the same id in more than one category / gallery without maintenance entry. Otherwise we end up in a maintenance nightmare with some benevolent users.

Modelling of 1:n and n:1 relationships: I proposed to allow multiple ids to the doo template in the beginning, but did not succeed. Now it's too late to start this. I now the limitations of the mediawiki template mechanism quite well. Alternatively we could put a wrapper around multiple occurences of the id template, but this will have an impact on the automatic and manual update.

My way to go is to replace all ids with the corresponding WD id and retrieve all the ids (different type in some cases: a real world object could be a monument, as well as a natural monument or a piece of public art or listed in the Tiroler Kunstkataster; besides multiple values.) from WD (this will solve the redundancy problem having the same multiple ids on many individual files). For the modelling of the above bridge example (silly, French administration has the same modelling flaws), I will go for modelling real world objects independent from any register. The bridge is a bridge. And put the real world objects modeled by the register (both ends of the bridge) to two pseudo-objects as part of (P361) of the complete bridge, those pseudo objects will only contain the net data from the register and the containment relationship.

But as I said, this topic makes me sad and sadness is not a driving force to be effective. Nevertheless thanks for your initiative to point out the many error cases. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Commons category (P373): Seems to be maintained by a bot: [2] --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with a situation where the commons category is already attached to a category object on WD, e.g. Stift Schlägl (Q183474),Category:Stift Schlägl (Q9129621). This seems to be quite a common pattern, see Category:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekt Österreich not in Wikidata. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't those items for categories relics from around 2013? Don't think they serve any particular purpose nowadays. Braveheart (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Braveheart, do you really think such a vague assumption will help? Don't you have a reliable source for that statement? And how and who to perform the cleanup? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then let me ask more bluntly: What is the purpose of those Wikidata category items? If they don't serve any purpose, we should get rid of them. :-p Braveheart (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Frédéric: things are stuck here. How to deal with Wikidata entries, that have a gallery in the sitelink and not the category your implementation of the check is expecting? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Denkmalgeschütztes_Objekt_Österreich&oldid=335089124"