Talk:Proposed features/remove link to Wikidata from infoboxes
Rationale against removal
I encourage people to list here arguments against removal of this external links, I think that it may be better than my attempt to create an unbiased summary Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- summary : real problem (too many wrong match between an osm tag and a wikidata item), wrong solution (hide, desynchronize, turn structured info into free text) instead of "use only correct match and do not encourage the addition of a wrong match".
long version : infoboxes give a summary of infos about a tag. for ex "require, combinaison, see also tags". i see no improvement to move structured wikidata/wikipedia match into a "see also" free-text section. Saying that they will not be lost since copied in the dataitems is even worse, since it means that a "incorrect osm-WP match" for the wiki is a correct osm-WP match looking at the dataitems, which only worsens the desynchronization between the 2 bases which should only be a representation of the same information. if a match is wrong (="not the same thing in osm and wikidata), then it must be deleted both on the wiki and on the dataitem (and in this case only, it could be a "see also this topic on wikipedia". if it's valid for dataitem, it's also valid for the wiki. In my opinion the problem is "Search Wikidata" which gives the impression that some information is missing and therefore "request" contributors to add a match at all costs, a wrong if necessary. I would gladly support any proposal who would like to not display "Search Wikidata" (in the same way that you don't have an "add proposal link" link for all the pages without one.) but I am opposed to any proposal to desynchronize even more wiki<>dataitems and also opposed to any proposal to transform structured information into "free text" information (and if accepted, your proposal also does not include editing each page to transform the current structured info into free text in the "see also" section, so for wiki users, it causes a loss of information). the current presentation could also be simply displayed in the "see also" section of the infobox, for example
read more on wikidata (the number itself is not very interesting). splitting the proposal in 2 (hide "Search Wikidata" <> desynchronization and destructuring of the wiki for wikidata) is also an option.
- loses the power of wikidata instead of a better use.
example with species=Acer platanoides
if a wikidata is associated to this tag, it would allow each editor to display the term in the user's language, without that, each project create a translation project where the human would be denigrated by adding a Xth copy of the same information (I'm talking about adding a translation of a key in a preset, and not at all importing Wikidata in osm)
- Re "Acer platanoides" - note that I am not proposing to remove species:wikidata=*, this would not be affected Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Re "if a match is wrong (="not the same thing in osm and wikidata)" - anyone interested in this, please comment at Property talk:P12 (for example Key:dog "Describes if dogs are allowed", is matched to Q144 "dog - domestic animal", not entry about whatever entrance with dog is allowed. Is this match correct or incorrect? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I strongly support this idea. I find these links to be a big pain to confirm as correct or false.
Often people create a new page to document a tag by copying an old page, so inevitably there are copy-paste errors where certain things are not updated. If the key or value is wrong or the description or photo is from the other page, this is obvious. But there is no way to see if the wikidata link is wrong, unless you open the page in wikidata. This is a hassle and it means the wikidata links are often incorrect.
Even when a user has tried to get the correct link, often they just find the closest-sounding title in wikidata, but this usually does not directly match the tag with the same name in OpenStreetMap. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Does or how does this affect linking the other way around from Wikidata to OSM? How will links to OSM be established in Wikidata in the future? Are possibilities of use by combining databases and OSM lost for the future? --Chris2map (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- See Proposed_features/remove_link_to_Wikidata_from_infoboxes#No_information_loss - everything will be still in data items, nothing will be lost. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Does or how does this affect linking the other way around from Wikidata to OSM" - how this linking is created? It should be not affected or trivial to fix if someone is parsing wiki pages Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, this means that Wikidata links can only be entered on data items, and I can or should continue to enter Wikidata links on data items? --Chris2map (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
From data items too
I support removing that link. It's good because on 3456 pages we can only see "Search Wikidata". And clicking this link won't find anything. For example: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:admin_level%3D2 -> Search Wikidata will search for "admin_level=2" which obviously doesn't exist becasue it's just an OSM tag. 3456 is just for English pages. If we sum up all languages, 1016 DE, 503 ES, 534 FR ... there will be more than ten thousand.
If we remove it from infoboxes, it should be also removed from data items because it's a mirror of the infobox. When they were created, they were a copy of infoboxes. maro21 18:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Data items (in theory at least) are supposed to be used for more things that just copy of infobox. I am not aware about any actual use in this way (it is mostly cached and outdated copy of infoboxes in format annoying to edit and use), but in theory more may be there. I am explicitly not proposing removal from infoboxes as (1) While I am heavily interested in OSM Wiki I am not interested in data items at all (2) for strategic reason - at least some people would be against such complete removal Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Some of the examples on SPARQL examples use properties that aren't mirrored in the infobox for lack of space, such as incompatible with. There are also some outstanding, shovel-ready requests to use data items more extensively, such as to customize the image associated with each preset based on the country being edited.  But I agree that the link in the infobox needs more context if it's going to remain. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, right, that comes from the data item, even though there's no dedicated infobox parameter for it. (I'm so glad we aren't actively maintaining brand entries this way, by the way.) But anyways, my point is that the data items have use cases beyond what people have traditionally used the wiki pages for, for the simple reason that they're straightforwardly machine-readable. I recognize that this is orthogonal to whether or how we keep the Wikidata link in the infobox. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
+1, Wikidata is not OSM
I have spoken out against this a long time ago. I don't have the time or patience to dig through history to find out who added it and based on which discussion. I took exception particularly to the message displayed if no link to Wikidata has been established yet, essentially this is trying to get OSM users to spend time on a different project. "Hey while you're here why don't you improve Wikidata by adding information there". This is not as bad as "Hey why don't you do some mapping in Google too" since Wikidata is an open project at least, but it is a different project with different rules and customs; personally I don't want to spend my time contributing to Wikidata, and I don't want visitors to the OSM wiki to get the impression that we as OSM actively recommend Wikidata editing. --Woodpeck (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- I created Proposed_features/remove_link_to_Wikidata_from_infoboxes#History to document that it was added without any real discussion Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Some pages here, such as Key:brand:wikidata, do proactively promote Wikidata editing, by way of explaining how to create a Wikidata item that's well-formed so that it doesn't get deleted. Several mappers have asked for additional guidance after seeing their first Wikidata contributions marked for deletion, so it would be helpful and not at all misleading to keep that content where mappers would look for it. That said, linking to Wikidata from every infobox on the wiki is a bit of a different beast, just because it's so widespread and prominent compared to links to sites that are more obviously in the OSM ecosystem. If the link remains, I think it should go under the existing "Tools for this tag" section, and ideally Help:Infobox#Tools for this tag would explain what each of the tools is for. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's completely appropriate to have that information at Key:brand:wikidata or Key:wikidata which are tags which specifically are meant to be used to link OpenStreetMap objects to Wikidata objects. Anyone at those pages will be interested in Wikidata in some way, and since all tags are optional it is fine to have help for users who want to do something with Wikidata. What is inappropriate is having a link or mention of wikidata (or wikipedia) on every Tag or Key page here, including unrelated ones. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
After the vote
Assume the vote passes. How are you going to remove it from infoboxes, do you have a bot or know someone who can run a bot and remove them? maro21 22:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Infoboxes will be modified to stop processing wikidata parameter and to stop showing data item entry. Wikidata parameter at this stage will remain in page code. I will also try to make a bot edit removing this parameter, but that is not done in one go as
- trying to approve multiple things at once reduces chance that it will pass
- supporting this change and opposing bot edit, leaving removal for human edits during other editing is a valid position (though I am not sharing it)
- there is no accepted method for running bots in Wiki, and I want to avoid either
- Approval bot run by full scale proposal (poor precedent)
- Running bot without approval
- So before bot run I would establish some consensus for that
- What requires establishing some bot policy first
- To avoid mixing template edit, bot policy setup and bot approval this proposal concerns solely editing templates and not removal of parameters from wiki articles
- Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- In case of opposite votes due to leaving dead parameters I would retry failed proposal differently, after establishing bot policy. Similarly in case of proposal failing for some reason that can be fixed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- "Wikidata parameter at this stage will remain in page code" - the title of the voting is "to remove link from infoboxes", not from the template. Such change in the template could be done after the discussion on a talk page, the 2-weeks vote is not necessary for that...
- If there is no bot policy and if the vote passes you don't need anything else to remove Wikidata from infoboxes.
- I saw some bots running on this Wiki, e.g. User:TigerfellBot . maro21 17:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)