Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Community Wishlist Survey 2015/Wikidata

< Community Wishlist Survey 2015
Translate this page
Other languages:

Allow Redirects to be linked to Wikidata items

edit
 
Screen shot showing various pop-ups on mouse-over where the target (article for 'private collection') is shown as well as Wikidata options. The "add/WD" is enabled by javascript associated with Listeria lists by Magnus Manske.

It should be possible to link a Wikipedia redirect to a Wikidata item so that Wikipedia users who click on it are greeted with a pop-up which offers two links and states something like this: <redirect title> does not exist on Wikipedia; proceed to <target article of the redirect> or see Wikidata <label of redirect's Q number>. Having such a facility enables us 1) to determine how many incoming redirects to an article are actually discrete items rather than alternate spellings or somesuch, and 2) make it more visible for editors to perceive a "need" for new articles to be created. For large, aggregated concepts such as en:Insurance it would be helpful to know how many incoming links should probably have their own separate articles. Note that this does not require anything from Wikidata, and it refers to the redirect functionality on Wikipedia and sister projects. If someone wants to create the article itself, they click the edit button just like they do today to convert redirects to articles. It would be nice though if the wikidata item is preserved somehow during article creation so that the new article can be added to that Wikidata item. The advantage of this approach is that it is up to the Wikipedian editor to use the facility in a redirect or not. Presumably not all redirects are worthy of Wikidata items and can better be sent directly to the target. Note this is not a solution to the "Bonnie and Clyde" problem also known as Phabricator task T54564. --Jane023 (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
Added an illustration showing some current mouse-over options for blue links. In this proposal I would like to see such navigational options appear for green links, aka redirects. --Jane023 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  1.   Support --Leyo (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Kvardek du (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Linked to "Alias"?--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No, it's precisely the titles in the Alias part of the Wikidata label that would *not* be eligible for this, as those are just alternate ways of naming the target. --Jane023 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Even for internal links to existing pages, linking via Wikidata IDs could prove more stable for pages that may be split, merged or renamed. Pengo (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Interesting. That's probably true. --Jane023 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --CennoxX (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --H4stings (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Tgr (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Rahmanuddin (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic search for similar items in Wikidata

edit

In small Wikipedias, where our task force is reduced, we have lots of pages (mainly subtemplates and categories) that are not linked to items in Wikidata. Some of this items (for example, automatic taxonomy subtemplates) can be found in different languages but it's a very hard work to link by hand all of them. As most of them follow the same structure, and many of them have even the same name, maybe a bot could suggest links. -Theklan (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements

Votes

edit
  1.   Support--Martinligabue (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support - Whaledad (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support - Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support StevenJ81 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Oriciu (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support — NickK (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support – Ham II (sgwrs / talk) 21:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --Urbanecm (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Yeza (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make it easy to build infoboxes that display information from wikidata

edit
Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T112987

Currently, there is no well-established system across different wikipedias that would help editors to build infoboxes (there is no established Template:Infobox across different wikipedias).

Building an infobox that displays information from wikidata is even more difficult: Building a nice infobox that displays information from wikidata requires modules written in Lua (without that, it is impossible to make wikilinks work properly). It would be nice to have one standard Lua module for this purpose, maintained and stored in one central place (e. g. on meta), without the need for each and every wikipedia to copy this module over and continue to maintain the copy.

Both editors and readers would benefit from a solution. Furthermore, a solution would promote Wikidata, because it would be much easier to use information present on Wikidata on all wikipedias.

Proposed solution: Implement both A and B:

A. Devise a Template:Infobox that is easy to use and that is maintained in a central place.

B. (Perhaps a bit easier than A.) Write a Lua module that formats content from Wikidata properly (e. g. in a Wikipedia article about a city, create a formatted list of the sister cities (cf. d:Property:P190), where each list element is a link to the article about the sister city or, if this wikipedia does not yet have an article about a particular sister city, a link to the Wikidata item about this sister city). Provide this Lua module in a central place where every wikipedia can directly use it. --UV (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  •   Endorsed For now Wikidata has almost no integration with Infoboxes. Scripts are lacking and buggy. Almost no data is used on Wikipedias, which questions importance of Wikidata existence as it's data is of almost no use. Lots of properties on Wikidata are missing because almost no one is using it to fill real Infoboxes on Wikipedias --Ilya (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed Should allow individual language to insert translations. Yosri (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the globally stored infobox/module, that all Wikipedias can use without copy-paste part - the idea has been proposed several times (can't say by who or when or where). Some cool Wikidata data retrieving infoboxes, that I'm aware of - this one is fully taken from Wikidata (search for insource:/\{\{[Ii]nfobox - osoba\}\}/ in cswiki), also frwiki has some Lua modules for better Wikidata support - this one, for example. --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed UV has a very good idea. I work on cycling (more info here), I produce a very big number of photos, and develop five modules (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). French users now work on Wikidata for a part, but the very big problem is I don't know how translate these modules in the other languages because all is different. It is a major problem in Wikipedia. We work together on Commons and on Wikidata, there is no problem, but we are not able to work together on Wikipedia because everybody has their own templates. I think if we solve that problem, we will permet to develop all smaller Wikipedias. Ans even for big Wikipedias it is interesting, because we have people to enter datas, so it is useless to let user do the same work in different country. And if people don't lost time to enter datas, they will can spend time to write, this is very positive for the project and for our readers. More than infoboxes, we will share list of participating teams and cyclists, classifications, team rosters... it will be very interesting when there will have a change, we will save again a big amount of time. I sometimes discuss with foreign users (like Papuass for .lv, Edgars2007), everybody find the idea as interesting, but very few people is able to play with templates and modules. To conclude, this proposal is very important because it will renew our way to work/contribute. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course I noticed that discussion at Papuass' talk page :) Latvian has some few problems that one user can't handle, but that isn't discussion for here. And I'm not a Lua coder :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed. Helder 11:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose. Is blocked by phab:T1238 (Central Code Repository for code used on wikis -- Templates, Lua modules, Gadgets), and hence is not feasible. MER-C (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed--Gbeckmann (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Like but   Oppose at this time. Some random thoughts gathered from my own experience...
    • Wikidata does not contain all Property information and that should probably be addressed as a high priority 1st.
    • Though a nice idea; however, one size does not fit all (IMHO).
    • The labels in Wikidata for properties might not be useful to produce labels in an infobox if one wants to use a Module to build a complete infobox from scratch.
      • I have seen at least one Wikidata entry with no title or label.
    • The actual data retrieved may not be satisfactory and acceptable for everyone.
    • Accessing Wikidata multiple times to fill in entries of an infobox (multiple template calls for each property) may take a load hit and result in a Lua runtime error.
      • To get to some information one may have to drill down into the Wikidata structure to get the desired data. (to get a currency symbol as an example)
      • One may have also to access multiple Wikidata entities (Objects) to get other desired data as well. (Wikidata entry IDs for sister cities as an example)
    • May need to know the id (Qnnn) if an article is not associated with a Wikidata entry but does in fact have a Wikidata entry.
    • Language translation(s) may be an issue in Wikidata. (Not sure if all languages are incorporated or represented.)
      • In Wikidata use ?setlang=xx in URL to see if other languages exist -- access via a module using mw.language.getContentLanguage(arg1).code
    • Some properties have multiple instances.
      • In some cases, all instances would be relevant (ie. sister cities, bordering countries etc.)
      • Description(s) on the other hand may present a problem. (which one is useful - is it acceptable)
    • There may be code/design changes for wikibase and Wikidata which might result in further issues (are these solid enough?).
    • Use of Unicode characters and internationalisation need to be included in any Module.
    • Sorting of multiple instances and formatting of data output - presents another decision to be made.
    • Accessing a certain or particular data element may be useful (ie. flag, coat of arms, decimal latitude, longitude).
    • Timing of the execution of a template and a module may also present a problem (if other widget/code occur before the actual retrieved data is available). Matroc (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related tasks: phab:T114251 ("Magic Infobox Implementation"), phab:T112987 (Wikimedia Developer Summit 2016 proposal discussing the various options) Cscott (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  1.   Support So far as I know this is the most developed proof of concept - Poof it works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Minihaa (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support proposal written by myself --UV (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Alleycat80 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --Gbeckmann (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support--Shizhao (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support And a crucial point is to be able to edit Wikidata content from the home wiki ----Candalua (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support -Theklan (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Arnd (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support--Xabier Cañas (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Wittylama (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support - Whaledad (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support Very important. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support --Continua Evoluzione (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Snipre (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support - Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Papuass (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support--46.225.68.244 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support --Artem.komisarenko (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support --Nouill (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support --Usien6 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support We can gain a lot by maintaining data centrally and being able to link to it from all wikis. Not only in infoboxes, but also in regular text and templates. Especially (integer) numbers, like the number of wins a certain athlete or sports team has. In many smaller wikis these are not updated frequently at all. Also, the same numbers may appear in several different articles within the same wiki. Gap9551 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support Helder 23:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support --Oriciu (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support Powermelon (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support Kvardek du (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support Bgwhite (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support This would be a huge win. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support --β16 - (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Support. Especially make it clear to a user that a value is coming from Wikidata and they can add or edit it there — NickK (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support – This is very badly needed on cy.wp. Ham II (sgwrs / talk) 18:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Comment This is already possible, e.g. see en:Template:Infobox telescope and en:South Pole Telescope via en:Module:Wikidata. Standardisation and making it easier to use (and particularly, making it easier to edit the information used by the template on Wikidata) would be good though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support YBG (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.   Support Rzuwig► 11:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Support - B is needed more than A but both would be useful Waggers (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41.   Support Theredmonkey (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43.   Support Halibutt (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44.   Support J36miles (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   Support --Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46.   Support --Ochilov (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47.   Oppose, let local communities decide not to use infoboxes for specific fields/articles, how to design them, what to include in them etc. → «« Man77 »» [de] 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1.   Comment this seems irrelevant: giving communities a feature allowing easy insertion and population of infoboxes from Wikidata does not make those communities do so. You are opposing what is not proposed. Ijon (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48.   Comment Man77, I think we can provide the possibility of using centralized data, but nobody would be forced to refer to that data or use a certain layout. No freedom would be lost. Gap9551 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49.   Support --ESM (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50.   Support -- super useful, and currently a bit arcane for most Wikipedians.
  51.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52.   Support --Rahmanuddin (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modify Media Viewer to include Wikidata information

edit
 
From Wikipedia article en:St. Matthew and the Angel I click on the image of the painting and in Media Viewer I see a button called "More Details" which takes me to Commons. There should also be a button in this case for the associated Wikidata item, as both article and image refer to painting item Q9396869. The item has other information than the Commons file or Wikipedia article.

When the Media Viewer is enabled, if a Wikipedia user clicks on a file image, the information shown is summarized from Commons. Though not all Commons images have Wikidata items and this will probably never happen, many images of artworks such as paintings and sculptures have very detailed items on Wikidata that can be offered to the user in his/her native language. For images that are linked with Wikidata items, the user should be offered the "Metadata" button with the WIkidata logo in addition to the "More details" button with Commons logo. If this is enabled, it should also become easier to add a wikidata item number to all images in a Commons category (e.g. artworks have detail images etc) so that whichever file is viewed on Wikipedia, the media viewer will be able to pick up the correct wikidata item for that image even though it is not the "lead image" on Wikidata for that item. --Jane023 (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
Added an illustration for clarity. I ran into this issue while working on d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings. --Jane023 (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  1.   Support Goldzahn (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support--Kippelboy (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Alleycat80 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --Gbeckmann (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support--Shizhao (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support--KRLS (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Halibutt (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Yeza (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Ijon (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support aegis maelstrom δ 11:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Since we have these items and info, we should present it.[reply]

Visibility for quality issues

edit

At Wikidata several reports have been produced that are about quality issues at Wikipedia. They can be anything from likely incorrect data vis a vis Wikidata, missing data or reports on the demise of people. Such lists do not get attention and consequently at Wikidata people indicate that they are not willing to consider the quality of any Wikipedia. Wikipedia is considered a black box and it is not interested in its own quality.

With proper visibility for such reports we may get cooperation going. It will enhance quality in any and all of our projects. There are three things needed:

  • a platform on every Wikidata linked wiki for such issues
  • a mechanism to regularly update the list
  • a workflow for each issue

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by GerardM (talk) 20 November 2015

Earlier discussion and endorsements

Votes

edit
  1.   Support- GerardM (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support It would be useful if a notification and link of some kind is created on the talk page of any Wikipedia article where there are quality issues detected on Wikidata, so the editors of the Wikipedia article can be informed as directly as reasonably possible. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Infobox from Wikidata

edit

Most of the data are still embedded on the article's infobox, while all the information should be stored and retrived from Wikidata. The approach should be (in any order):

  • write a complete LUA module able to collect any kind of information (not only the easiest ones with one single value)
  • those information should be formatted according to the specific wiki-project standards
  • all the information currently stored in each project should be moved from each specific wiki-project (deleted) and stored in Wikidata
  • the information on wikidata should follow a standard in order to simplify the data collection & formatting

this would avoid data discrepancy between sister projects and between language versions of the same project.

A nice to have would be a pop-up window that allow to change/update any infobox data in Wikidata, without leaving the current wiki project. --Andyrom75 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
I think this is a candidate for merging with this idea.   Like the idea about pop-up window. Something (basic structure) can be taken from this one. JS coders could create the base structure, that can be adapted for each infobox later by non-JS coders (like just filling the form) --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed. Helder 11:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edgars2007, Helder FYI in Wikivoyage we already use pop-up windows for other purpose. Although they would need further development (especially for language versions customization), they are already enough user friendly. For example see it:voy:Firenze and click on any gray and small "modifica" link. --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed. In Basque language Wikipedia we have been making some work on this topic. Here you have an example of our last work: eu:Autauga konderria (Alabama). It could be easier, but we need some LUA experts and we lack them. -Theklan (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Information in an Infobox is usually a codified version of the article text. If we transclude the infobox from Wikidata the people who watchlist the article won't know when the infobox changes, and we will have more situations where the infobox contradicts the article text. This is a problem! It could be reduced by amending watchlists so that if you watchlist a page you are informed of changes to its infobox in wikidata. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed--Gbeckmann (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  1.   Support -Theklan (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support - Whaledad (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support if there is a way to ensure that the data is adequately cited. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support -- FriedhelmW (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - --LINO CORRADI (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --Lkcl it (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support it would be a great save of time, allowing users to focus on the body of articles. Nice proposal Andyrom! --Nastoshka (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Gap9551 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Helder 23:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Oppose This is a huge project even for a single domain. For example, animal taxoboxes juggle a huge number of data fields (e.g. taxonomy, conservation statuses, fossil periods, maps, selection of synonyms, partial view of lower and higher taxons, citation and notes fields), which are displayed in different ways, and different wiki projects favour different, conflicting authorities for their taxonomy trees (not to mention conflicting or outdated models just on English Wikipedia). Ironing out inconsistencies as well as getting conflicting-but-valid models to live harmoniously in Wikidata and then creating Lua templates to replace the taxobox is all a huge task, and that's just for one domain. Other infoboxes will be simpler, but there will still be many challenges in fitting the infobox data into a clean and appropriate Wikidata format and merging it with the redundant, conflicting, sourceless (or source-unknown) data found across Wikipedias. Automation can only take you so far. So while I support the goal of getting more data into Wikidata, this is more realistically a distant goal than a single project. —Pengo (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Comment As I said before: "This is already largely possible: see an example implementation of it at en:South Pole Telescope, through en:Template:Infobox telescope and en:Module:Wikidata. It's still in alpha/beta, though. The main difficulty is finding out which wikidata items need to be added to entries to populate the infobox." Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Theredmonkey (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support the prepbio tool on Toollabs populated the bio infobox, but it would be nice to have this not just once, but on each page load. --Jane023 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Halibutt (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --Ochilov (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata support for Wiktionary

edit
Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T986

Enable wikidata support for interwiki (phase 1) as soon as possible at least for other than main namespace. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  Endorsed. Helder 11:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed. HakanIST (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JAn Dudík: I may be wrong, but don't think, that this is in the team's scope. This probably should get posted here. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed Aryamanarora (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is on the Wikidata team's list for 2016. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed I still endorse this. It is required high time. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  1.   Oppose. Not a Community Tech project. Wikidata has its own developers, and they said in the discussion above that they will implement this next year. MER-C (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support. --MGChecker (talk)
  3.   Support, we really need this as soon as possible. --Impériale (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose as MER-C: Wikibase development is best handled by WMDE. --Ricordisamoa 06:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support. I do not know if this is the place to push this idea, but this will be a giant step forward for wiktionary when this feature will be implemented. So many data redundancies and inconsistencies would be avoided in this project. --Gloumouth1 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - Whaledad (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support The sooner the better. JackPotte (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Oppose as MER-C; out of scope, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support as soon as possible. --Lyokoï88 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Pamputt (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support There is no reason for waiting. Interwiki should be easily to integrate. --Yoursmile (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Theredmonkey (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support --Urbanecm (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support--Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --HakanIST (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Rahmanuddin (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support wikidata change the whole wiktionary for good--Esceptic0 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2015/Wikidata&oldid=22044815"