From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Scope for valid Wikipedia links

Should the Wikipedia tag only be used to link to an article which is about the actual feature on the ground (ie from Buckingham Palace in OSM to the article in Wikipedia about the palace)? If so, then I would suggest that these more general wikipedia links should be discouraged:

Personally I think Wikipedia links should probably only be used to link to an article which is very specific about to the relevant physical feature and probably only where it would be appropriate to add a geo-code to the relevant Wikipedia article linking back to the OSM feature? Any thoughts? Possibly we could recommend a new 'operator:wikipedia' tag for the above if people insist on including them.

-- PeterIto 16:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia links are for the "article about the feature". Not for articles merely related to the feature - such as articles about the feature's operator, the feature's architect, the category of things the feature belongs to (I have seen links to Wikipedia articles about a tree species...) or anything like that.
I don't really have a suggestion for tagging those "if you are interested in this place, our mappers think you might also want to read these more-or-less related Wikipedia articles" links, though. Maybe it's best to just avoid them entirely due to their subjectivity, but wikipedia:operator, wikipedia:architect, wikipedia:species, ... could be a compromise. --Tordanik 13:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I totally agree. The only question I have now is, should it be 'wikipedia:operation' or 'operator:wikipedia' (should someone insist in including it). Personally I think it should be the later. I will now clarify in the article that links should only be to an 'article about the feature'. PeterIto 13:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't insist on either wikipedia:operator vs. operator:wikipedia, using wikipedia:operator as an example was simply based on existing tags such as source:name/addr/operator etc. without any particular reason for or against it. --Tordanik 13:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. I suspect that the namespace stacking is a bit random across OSM as yet, but lets stick with your proposed ordering. I am adjusted the article. PeterIto 16:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Another thought. Would it be reasonable to suggest that where there is a main wikipedia link to a directly relevant article that secondary links should be discouraged? For example, if there is already a link from St Paul's to wikipedia then should one discourage the inclusion of a secondadry link to the architect? I suggest that we should discourage it, especially as the architect is linked from the infobox in wikipedia article. PeterIto 13:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This depends on the circumstances. for St Paul's, the architect is mentioned (and is available programmatically, to computers) in the article. But for a statue of, say, James Watt, the article on Watt will not give the sculptor. Note also discussion in the following section. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:02, 18 June 2012 (BST)

Linking to related subjects

For objects like statues, memorials, and (blue) plaques it seems reasonable to link to the Wikipedia article about the person or event commemorated, where there is no article about the object specifically. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 13 June 2012 (BST)

I hear what you are saying, but can be make a distinction between a link to an article which is directly associated and one which is related. How about wikipedia:related=* or something. One would have to consider what to do if there were more than one related articles. PeterIto 13:56, 13 June 2012 (BST)
I also think that if this is done, it should not use the same tag that is used for articles about the object itself. So if you want to do this despite the problems, please use something like wikipedia:related. There is the more fundamental issue that "being related to" is subjective, though, and that there are potentially many "related" articles: Is a statue related to the person commemorated or to the artist who created it, for example? --Tordanik 14:15, 13 June 2012 (BST)
In that case, we may be better with wikipedia:subject=*, wikipedia:sculptor=*, wikipedia:architect=* (or possibly a more generic wikipedia:maker=*) and so on. I'll be glad to use such tags, once a community consensus as to what they should be is identified. However, note that I only suggested a single link for the subject; as does another mapper in the section above. Conversely, though, note also that using such Wikipedia links will help to disambiguate between two sculptors, architects etc., or indeed, subjects, with the same name. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:53, 18 June 2012 (BST)
Makes sense. A Wikipedia link for an architect is is a much better link than a text field for the architect's name. To be clear, are you suggesting that the wikipedia:subject=* would do same job as done currently by wikipedia=*? PeterIto 12:24, 18 June 2012 (BST)
No; I'm suggesting that for cases where the article is about the subject of an object (a plaque, memorial or statue), but not about the object itself. BTW, please don't leave white space between comments; wiki markup colons are rendered as HTML definition list items; and white space breaks that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:28, 18 June 2012 (BST)
I see no need to make a distinction. If there's a wikipedia article about the object, link to that article. Otherwise link to the article about the subject of the object. When a wikipedia article is created on the object itself later, we can replace the link. Keys like wikipedia:architect would tempt mappers to set a bunch of such kind of wikipedia:* tags on any object, making OSM function as an encyclopedia. I think that we should leave that to Wikipedia and keep our focus on geographical data. --Fkv 07:59, 27 September 2012 (BST)
The need arises because I don't want operator wikipedia links in my map at all - or at least not indistinguishable from articles about the feature itself which are much more interesting for me -, and this decision can only really be made by a map designer if these use a separate key. You are right, though, that it isn't really a good idea to duplicate all of Wikipedia's internal links in OSM. I would like these to be used mainly if there is no main wikipedia link. If there is one, and it has e.g. an infobox with links to these related articles, then the additional wikipedia:* tags in OSM seem somewhat redundant indeed. --Tordanik 09:32, 27 September 2012 (BST)
I added language specification to the proposal, because it's necessary to be machine readable. --Kolossos 11:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion (currently in German) about this topic in relation to Wikipedia articles of memorial (Stolpersteine) subjects: Talk:Stolpersteine#wikipedia. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

is it wikipedia=lang:"page name" or wikipedia:lang="page name"?

This page is very confusing. At the top it seems to suggest that wikipedia=lang:"page name" is the preferred usage, but towards the bottom it suggests wikipedia:lang="page name". It's not clear to be which is the best practice, see also my diary entry on the topic: --Fiveisalive 20:19, 11 September 2012 (BST)

Always use wikipedia=lang:"page name". That Wikipedia page will then contain links to articles in other languages and these can be parsed automatically. Therefore, that one tag is usually sufficient.
Only where one of these interlanguage links within Wikipedia is missing or not appropriate, and this cannot be corrected within Wikipedia, add wikipedia:lang="page name" for that language. That's what the text at the bottom is essentially about. --Tordanik 23:47, 11 September 2012 (BST)
That text is a botch. If wikipedia=lang:"page name" is the preferred syntax, multiple values should be joined with semicolons. If semicolons are considered bad, wikipedia:lang="page name" should be preferred in the first place. --Fkv 08:27, 26 September 2012 (BST)
Think about it this way: The wikipedia=lang:"page name" tagging is used to link to a set of articles (connected with each other on Wikipedia through interlanguage links), whereas wikipedia:lang="page name" links to a single article for that language only.
The distinction is necessary to make conflict handling unambiguous. Otherwise, you might end up with wikipedia:de=A and wikipedia:en=B, and wouldn't know which article's interlanguage links for French, Spanish and Chinese you should give preference to. --Tordanik 11:11, 26 September 2012 (BST)
I would take the first that I come across. --Fkv 19:19, 26 September 2012 (BST)
Which is completely unhelpful because the order is pretty much random with separate tags and only one of these articles will have the "right" interlanguage links. Essentially, a mapper would always have to tag all (potentially dozens) of article links if two languages have inconsistent sets of links. --Tordanik 00:15, 27 September 2012 (BST)
If there's an inconsistency in Wikipedia data, this should be corrected in Wikipedia. It's no good to do inconsistent tagging in OSM (see topic) as a workaround for inconsistencies in Wikipedia. That just doubles the headache. --Fkv 07:35, 27 September 2012 (BST)
As I've mentioned before, correcting Wikipedia is of course preferable - if it's something they also consider wrong. However, Wikipedia considers some situations "correct" that still require us to add exceptions, so these will not be fixed on their side. The most common case (which is even mentioned as an example on the article page) are list articles. These cannot be properly integrated into an interlanguage article set, but are nevertheless common practice in Wikipedia. --Tordanik 09:21, 27 September 2012 (BST)

How about Wikidata?

The interlanguage links in Wikipedia are almost globally managed by Wikidata now. Should we at some point migrate to using Wikidata entries instead of Wikipedia entries? --Palnatoke (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And then I saw that it is already mentioned here... --Palnatoke (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we came to the conclusion to use wikipedia=d:* (prefered) and wikipedia:d=*, for example wikipedia=d:Q173882 for St Paul’s Cathedral. That would fit perfectly into the established syntax. Can we simply change the article text? --Reclus (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Tags are supposed to be human readable and editable. Sure, go ahead and add wikidata=* with fancy values if you want to, but if there exists a wikipedia article, use that title as the value for wikipedia=*. Alv (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The knowledge about WD will raise. For sure, a name is nicer (and no problem if it is added as a start), but more fragile if the article is renamed for example. Unsupported charcodes on the clientside could be a problem, too. Think of changing a persian wikipedia article name on a low end mobile editor. Double content (WD and WP) to the same thing is not maintainable. --Zuse (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem is that d is not a language.--Shmias (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I am definitely for the use of the Wikidata code. I am aware that it will be less understandable by users; however, this will (1) rule out the problems of the articles being renamed, (2) automatically add new articles. I personnaly think that the pros outweight the cons by far. Chtfn (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The admin of WIWOSM said, that not so many articles are renamed. The link is quite stable. If we link to one language the interwikilinks will "automatically add new articles" as well.--Zuse (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding tags automatically

I'm working on a proposal to automate the addition of Wikipedia tags to some OSM features. Please see User:Pigsonthewing/Wikipedia and comment on the talk page there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)