Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons creator

Commons Creator

Commons Creator template

   Not done

Description	item with the Commons creator template for this person. This proposal is combined with the following for "person item of this Commons Creator template"
Data type	Item
Domain	human (Q5) mainly
Example	Ilmari Aalto (Q4021419) → item for c:Creator:Ilmari Aalto
Robot and gadget jobs	existing Commons Creator page (P1472) can be used to build this

person item of this Commons Creator template

   Not done

Description	item with the Commons creator template for this person. This proposal is combined with the previous one for "Commons Creator template"
Data type	Item
Domain	items for Commons creator namespace
Allowed values	items with human (Q5) mainly, possibly other items for creators: collective pseudonyms etc
Example	item for c:Creator:Ilmari Aalto → Ilmari Aalto (Q4021419)

•  Comment Should make it easier for User:Jarekt to import/link these pages. Commons now has arbitrary access so this could eventually replace Commons Creator page (P1472).
  --- Jura 08:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose both. Commons Creator page (P1472) already exists; an inverse property is not needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment The purpose of this property would be for commons creator tables to be able to look up wikidata's item number, so if every creator template had corresponding wikidata item (connected through sitelinks) than it could access its properties (and properties of article item) without the need for the commons creator template to store the item number, which in the future could be hard to maintain. We are trying to avoid creating bots to enforce that creator page pointed by Commons Creator page (P1472) points back to the same item, and that this relationship does not change as the pages are being renamed, etc. Few days ago I realized that Creator and institution) templates might not be able to access items permissions even if there is a wikidata item, because as a template it is being transcluded on other pages and you can not follow the sitelinks if you are not on the page that is sitelinked. For example if I go to Wikipedia and pick a short article with en:Tamplate:Authority control, like the one for Q7341374, and transclude that page at some other page {{:Robert Aggas}} I get all except for Authority control template which is pulled from wikidata. So it seems to me that creating items on Wikidata for Commons Creator and Institution templates might not solve a problem we are trying to fix. --Jarekt (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's bad. I tried to reproduce that on test, but it seems it doesn't support sitelinks to testwikipedia or testwikidata. I will give it a try with Commons.
    --- Jura 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jarekt: Given that a new item type is coming that might not be that important. The existing creator templates should probably be kept so I think you still may want to go ahead with this.
    --- Jura 11:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jarekt, Jura1: en:Module:Authority control simply fetches IDs from the item linked to the page you are viewing. I am not very familiar with Lua, but it should be possible to adapt it to work for Commons. The module would need some extra code which checks for properties which link to the main item (category's main topic (P301), the property being proposed here, etc) to determine which item to fetch IDs from instead of assuming it is always the item linked to the current page. lad:Módulo:Interwiki might be useful since it already does something along those lines (it uses permanent duplicated item (P2959) to fetch interwiki links from a different item). - Nikki (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, the other day, I think I came across code that checks the origin of the ID in LUA (level of transclusion?). So it might be possible to work around this problem. --- Jura 11:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support the latter of those two properties, we don't need both. Commons Creator page (P1472) is insufficient for this purpose as it uses a string datatype, so it can't be referenced. It should be replaced by proper items that can utilize sitelinks, similar to . (@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Of course, as with so many other modelling problems, multiple sitelinks per site and item are the correct solution, for example linking Leonardo da Vinci (Q762) to the gallery, the category, and the creator template on Commons. But since there are no plans for this, this is the correct kludge to work around this, in my opinion.) --Srittau (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
•  SupportThis is very much needed in order to associate these areas of Commons to the appropriate items here on Wikidata. Reguyla (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I've marked the second of the two properties proposed as ready, but I think the first still needs more discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment If phabricator:T99899 is implemented and creator pages can reverse look up wikidata's item number whose Commons Creator page (P1472) points to them, than those properties are not necessary. If it is not implemented than we would need them. --Jarekt (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Wikidata isn't designed to use statements instead of sitelinks. For example, using proper sitelinks would make commons:Special:UnconnectedPages usable. I would prefer to call the second property something like "Commons Creator page's main topic" for consistency with other similar properties though (also because not all Creator pages are people). - Nikki (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Jarekt, Jura1, Pigsonthewing, Nikki, Srittau: @Reguyla, Thryduulf: I see a fundamental problem with this property proposal, and it is the fact that Wikidata does not contain items for Commons Creator templates. The creation of such items would be impractical as they would only contain this suggested property linking to the Creator's item. Please, address first this objection about the notability of items for Common Creator templates. For now I have removed the "ready" tag from the proposal.--Micru (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Micru: I don't quite understand your objection. Why would that be a problem for these items (compared to other similar ones)?
    --- Jura 10:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: Per WD:N, items for Commons Creator templates are not allowed as "If a link is a template, the item must contain at least two such sitelinks".--Micru (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
      • So it's merely a question of interpretation of WD:N? I first thought you saw an issue with the number of statements on such items.
        --- Jura 10:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Overall I see a problem with the notability of Common Creator templates items, so if you want them to be included please discuss it on the talk page of WD:N.--Micru (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
      • In the comment above you merely mentioned the number of statements. So I take it that this isn't important anymore. Correct?
        --- Jura 11:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
        • @Jura1: If you want to start a discussion at WD:N, I will post my concerns there.--Micru (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think the argument about WD:N is relevant, but I'd be happy to discuss your comment about the number of statements. If you don't think that part is important, obviously, we don't need to address it.
        --- Jura 12:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
        • I do think that it is relevant to discuss about WD:N, because these properties are requested for a set of items that do not conform with WD:N.--Micru (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
      • The same line also includes "Items for non-subpages can be created with 1 sitelink". Commons Creator pages are not subpages, so the current wording of criteria 1 already allows creating items for them. - Nikki (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
        • You forgot to mention the second part of the line: but shouldn't be created in great numbers.--Micru (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It does fulfill a structural need, though, and is therefore in scope. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It doesn't add any usable information, in fact it is redundant with Commons Creator page (P1472).--Micru (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose this is an awful hack. Software should be improved so we can model what needs to be modelled, we shouldn't hack around it. On Commons 22,935 creator templates already link to Wikidata, only 2,395 lack the link. We'll never reach the 100% because quite a few of these people are not notable. After this property proposal was started Commons:Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing P1472 and Commons:Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item mismatching P1472. Shouldn't be too hard to generate a database report to find the missing links from Commons to Wikidata if that isn't being done already The other argument is that authority control isn't working? If you take a look at Creator:Rembrandt or some other famous painter, you'll notice that all authority control links are from Wikidata. @Jarekt: can you comment? I think this one can just be closed as no longer needed. Multichill (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  How is using sitelinks to add sitelinks and statements to say how items are related a hack? That's exactly what we already do for categories, templates, etc. - Nikki (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I think there is a lot of confusion about wikidata-commons links. Let me back up and explain how I understand it. Many types of Commons pages might want to access wikidata properties, but Wikidata only allows a single sitelink from an item to a single commons page, so sitelinks are on no use. There are 4 possible ways that I can think of that commons pages can do that. Each one with pros and cons:

#	Approach	Pros	Cons
1	Store all the q-codes at the pages that need them. This is how we do it right now. For example c:Creator:Gouverneur Morris IV has a link to Q5588501 so it can access it's properties like authority control, etc.	Simple	The need for constant maintenance where all pages on Commons have to have correct and up to date q-code and the items with those q-codes have to have P1472 or some other property as a reverse link. It would be simpler if we could establish connection between wikidata and Commons with Wikidata as a single place to keep the links not several places that have to be in synch. Many people maintaining Wikidata pages do not know how their actions affect pages on other projects and that merging or deleting items would require changes on Commons as well. I was already correcting bunch of pages where creator templates had a q code which was already deleted. Seems like items were merged and one item was deleted without redirect. If we connect a lot of pages to wikidata we might have to be chasing a lot of issues like that.
2	For each Creator, Institution, Book template or Object template on Commons, that need access to Wikidata we create an item the way we have them for categories. Like Category items such Creator, Institution, etc. items would not have any properties but redirect to an "article" item. Category items do that through category's main topic (P301)/topic's main category (P910) properties and this proposal is to create analogous pair of properties for linking "article" item with "creator" item. Those properties should not be confused with Commons Creator page (P1472) which links from an "article" item to commons page.	Similar to existing "Category" items which are somewhat understood, so this approach is how thinks are done on Wikidata As user: Nikki pointed out that approach plays nicely with commons:Special:UnconnectedPages.	Several issues: over-complicated approach which requires a whole bunch of "creator", "Institution", "Book", "Object" etc. items whose only purpose is to redirect to the "article" item where the properties are kept. Those pages would have no other sitelinks, and no properties other than link to the "article" item. Also as user:Micru pointed out soch pages are not allowed by current WD:N policy. Extra parallel item structure requires constant maintenance to keep inter connecting properties, like P301/P910 or the pair proposed here, in synch. Pages on Commons that need access to Wikidata properties are usually templates, like Creator templates or Institution templates, and templates can only access wikidata when they are not transcluded. Once you transclude the template, it will access items and properties associated with the page it was transcluded at. For example if a creator page is linked through a sitelink with an proposed "creator" item, and than such creator template is transcluded in a Book template (as they often do) which is linked through a sitelink to a "book" item, than the VIAF number in the creator template will come not from the "Creator" item, but from "Book" item
3	Changes to software proposed in phabricator:T99899 would allow reverse look up of wikidata's item number whose Commons Creator page (P1472) points to them.	Very simple and elegant. no need to create any more "items"	Not the Wikidata way as I was told. it will mess with commons:Special:UnconnectedPages Wikidata properties might not be accessible when template is transcluded
4	Allow multiple sitelinks to commons from a single item.	simplest approach	?

--Jarekt (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Can we edit the summary or should we just comment here? BTW, I think you can delete point 3 for option (2) (see discussion above). Obviously, what is considered "simple", "complicated" or "hackish" really depends on the point of view or twist we want to give this discussion. Currently the software supported solution is (2) and what we want to use really depends on the solution for Commons over the next year. If the definitions for Commons creator templates can be added directly as statements to Commons, there is no point in doing this here. AFAIK, only files should eventually get statements directly. If Creator templates are being phased out, most arguments are probably not that important as the conversion to (2) would be a 1-time matter.
  --- Jura 08:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Jura, I am sorry but I do not understand point 3 for option (2) as related to what is what is considered "simple". Maybe we can use row numbers (listed in the first column) and approach/pros/cons to specify cells. --Jarekt (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jarekt: It's two separate comments. Point 3 for option 2 was discussed above. Linking Wikidata items is simple .. if one is used to Wikidata ;)
--- Jura 12:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding 4: So far the Wikidata developers have repeatedly rejected requests for that. We are trying to find a compromise with them, but I think we should assume that it is not going to be an option any time soon. Regarding 2: The number of items that would be required is actually rather small compared to the size of Wikidata: There are around 28,000 Creator pages and 5500 Institution pages. We have over 700,000 template items with only one sitelink and I estimate that there are another 700,000 category items with only one sitelink. - Nikki (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• I actually had the highest hopes for options 3 or 4, as they would require the least number of places a piece of information is stored at, so the least amount of messy property constraints that have to be maintained. I kind of agree with user:Multichill that software should be improved so we can model what needs to be modeled, [and] we shouldn't hack around it and option 2 seems like a hack. But the main problem with option #2 is that it does not work for infoboxes on template pages, like Creator templates, which are transcluded to other pages and then no longer connected through sitelinks to correct item (see en:User:Jarekt/Sandbox for an example). user:Multichill, unfortunately I do not understand your point about Commons:Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing P1472 and other similar categories I created and am regularly maintaining, I think you are arguing for option #1, which actually works well at the moment, but I would prefer option #3 or #4, to make it more transparent and reduce maintenance needs.

Finally about Nikki's and Multichill's discussion about en:Module:Authority control. English Wiki Authority control module is relying on sitelinks, which break when the template page is transcluded. That solution will not work for commons and I wrote Commons:Module:Authority control to rely on each template having hardwired q-code or option #1 in my table. That is already working fine and 99% of the authority control pages on Commons rely on wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Stalled, consensus not reached.--Micru (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)