Template talk:Authority control

Remove "Wikipedia" from "Wikipedia articles with EMU identifiers"-type categories?

Every AC ID has 2 categories that could be less-redundantly renamed to:

• Category:Wikipedia articles with EMU identifiers → Category:Articles with EMU identifiers
• Category:Wikipedia articles with faulty EMU identifiers → Category:Articles with faulty EMU identifiers

This would also save a small # of bytes from the expanded page (see above @ #Is there a known issue related to Authority Control template, and the Navboxes Top / Bottom format?).

Performing this would be relatively simple. After moving all of the relevant categories (leaving redirects), the entire Category:Pages with authority control information ID-tree is automated via {{Pages with authority control identifiers}} and p.docConfTable in Module:Authority control.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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

 Done - old cats emptied.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Base Léonore links broken

Changes made to the Base Léonore website (which holds details of members of the French Legion d'Honnneur) mean that links generated by this template no longer work.

People are identified via a reference number (a "cote" in the terminology of the site) in the form LH/1924/18. This is converted into a link like this: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/leonore_fr?ACTION=CHERCHER&FIELD_1=COTE&VALUE_1=LH%2F1924%2F18 . This link now goes nowhere.

The page it now needs to go to doesn't include the cote at all, it's this one: https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/269341 . There's no way to find that numeric id from the cote, other than going to the site, entering it into the search box, and seeing what you find. If you do that, you need to be aware that they've added an extra slash to it, so it's now LH//1924/18. Cotes in the old style come back with no hits.

I'm not sure what the best way forward is. Léonore are actually using wikidata on their site, so they might be amenable to putting something in place to facilitate linking. I've no idea how to make that approach - it probably should be done by French wikipedia.

In the short term, Léonore cotes should probably be excluded from authority control. There's also a template dedicated to linking there that will need to be fixed - I've started a discussion at Template talk:Base Léonore

What do you think? Chuntuk (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Updated. Do you know what the Bis & Ter suffixes mean?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

bis can mean various things associated with the number two. From twice to encore (playing/singing again) to a suffix of a house number in an address or a second revision of a document. ter is used much the same for the number three. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Tom.Reding:, I've found this discussion (in French) on this issue at wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Topic:Wbisfmslwlmzba5u . Looks like the linking issue might be fixed one day, but the change in cote format is here to stay. I've made changes to Template:Base Léonore which use the id parameter to construct a working URL, but there are about 70 articles that need updating with revised cotes. Chuntuk (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There are 500+ articles in Category:Articles with faulty Léonore identifiers (4,228). The one I checked, Sarah Monod, had a valid identifier but no link, and a red error message. Are the category and error message related to this discussion? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: yes. The format as a regular expression (P1793) for Léonore ID (P640) was updated, but the values on many of the pages have not yet been updated (current faulty count = 4,237).

@Nono314: (d:User:Nono314): I see you added some of the original Léonore ID values years ago. Would you be willing to update those that need it? Most, if not all, of the updates required are simply adding a second "/" after "LH/" like so: LH/110/91 → LH//110/91.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, back in the days, I sent the data to Magnus for uploading in Min'n'Match and did quite a part of the matching... I had also seen the discussion on Wikidata's French project chat (linked above) when it started. It has been initiated by @Xavier Cailleau WMFr:, who is a member of Wikimedia France and is liaising with French National Archives (managing body of the Leonore database). The current community consensus is to wait for an official statement from their side, instead of blindly "fixing" 21K+ values (and 13K+ references) on our side, without even knowing whether this will help in the future. Therefore, I'm not willing to do anything for now. Bot operators like User:Tpt are ready to act once the situation is clearer. --Nono314 (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

More discussion of the situation (in French) here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_mod%C3%A8le:Base_L%C3%A9onore#Probl%C3%A8me_avec_le_lien_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9r%C3%A9_vers_la_base_L%C3%A9onore they seem hopeful that a working link will be established at some point. Chuntuk (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A prediction

Hey WikiWizards, just a prediction here: the more intrusive and obnoxious you make this (now vey intrusive and obnoxious) template, the more resistance you will generate towards its future implementation and retention. You may in fact be tinkering until you break it. Note that in many cases, trivial links to (relatively) irrelevant Wikipedia articles like Virtual International Authority File or Trove (identifier) are more prominent than the actual authority identifier (e.g. VIAF (1)). I'm an experienced Wikipedian, and my fat thumb or fat mouse pointer still too often clicks on the former rather than the latter, resulting in virtual hog swill. To everyone who deems the current structure of this template ideal I ask: Do you value pedantry over utility? --Animalparty! (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the box at the bottom of William Shakespeare has the two links for VIAF shown in the comment above? Is there any reason for two links for any of the items? The Authority control page should list all names like VIAF with whatever links are wanted. Then double links would not be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see extended discussion in archive 11! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:59, 25 October 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)
• Canadian Coastguard Lighthouse ID (P3920)

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

There was no comment on these back in March. Are they uncontroversial? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I will propose each one separately below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

NGA

• NGA lighthouse ID (P3563)

Reliable, valuable and freely available source for lighthouses, published by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Code is on sandbox. Example below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Admiralty number

• Admiralty number (P3562)

Authoritative and widely used identifier for lighthouses worldwide, published by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. Unfortunately the catalogue is not available online so no relevant link can be provided. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Disable override parameter?

The template currently allows all fields to be overridden with a local parameter. Is there any way this can be disabled in certain cases? For example, all the identifiers for lighthouses have now been migrated to Wikidata, and I would prefer not to allow Wikipedia to get out of sync with Wikidata. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Gagetown, New Brunswick currently has two identifiers, one of which gives a 404 error.[1]. Why would we disable the override parameter? People should never be forced to edit Wikidata to get rid of unwanted entries. Fram (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why that link doesn't work because I don't personally work with VIAF links. I am only proposing that the override be disabled for certain links that we know have been fully migrated, for example the NGA number I have proposed above. In this cases, if an error is discovered, the best way to fix that is on Wikidata because it would benefit other language Wikipedias too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have seen too many problems and too little quality control at Wikidata to support this: everything needs to be overwritable at enwiki. Fram (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

My experience with trying to edit Wikidata to remove erroneous information is that then the bot operators will swoop in and tell you that the erroneous information must be restored because it is in somebody else's database and their bot will just copy it back from that database to Wikidata anyway. So I agree with Fram above re poor quality control and the need for override here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: perhaps you could comment on the WorldCat via VIAF issue, as you previously noted at Template talk:Authority control/Archive 12#Broken identifiers that this may be a temporary problem? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)