Template talk:Wikisource author-inline

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikisource, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WikisourceWikipedia:WikiProject WikisourceTemplate:WikiProject WikisourceWikisource articles
NA	This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Proposal: amend template to utilise Wikidata for linking[edit]

(as per proposal template talk:Wikisource author

I would like to propose that this template is converted to utilise the Wikidata to link through to Wikisource, as per infoboxes. The current template usage has errors either due to the title, or for pages having been moved at English Wikisource. If we utilise the wikidata then we have correct links at all times.

I would think that we would allow overwriting of template with forced parameter, at least while we get a bot to update the uses. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code in Template:Wikisource author-inline/sandbox — billinghurst sDrewth 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert this: the template was adding literally thousands of articles to Category:Pages with script errors. Even though the error is not visible in the template’s output it’s a major maintenance problem for it to be generating so many errors and should not be necessary. The error was also on this page, in case that’s any help tracking it down.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: Thanks, it was the checking id bit that I broke. I have reverted to call the data, and will recheck the id missing component. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: Fix rolled out. module:wikibase not wikidata. Errors seem to be disappearing now, I refreshed and checked a few pages and they were without error. Thanks for your quick action. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will take some time for the Category to update it self but these seem to be going down now. I would also ask if there has been any discussion of this? The policy at the moment, e.g. after this RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, is that Wikidata is suitable for use in infoboxes, when the data is not available on Wikipedia, but not in other places or for other purposes, subject to discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: I am not overwriting or replacing data in infoboxes, I am updating the interwikis to English Wikisource to a correct source. (Though that may be slightly incorrect as I am removing any use of parameter $2, so I am amending a label). The issue is that some of these applied templates are link-broken or they point to a disambiguation page at enWS, ... (page moved and template not updated, or a range of other reasons). There is no bot checking them or correcting them and they have been slowly degrading over time. So it is more related to phase 1, though it is not covered by any of the phases as no one has applied their brain to manual broken interwikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it’s not covered. If the links are broken here then the proper thing to do is fix them here, not remove them to Wikidata. If they are on Wikidata it’s harder to fix them; someone visiting an article now and noticing a problem will have no clue how to fix a broken link, without being or becoming familiar with the details of how the template works – and even then it is harder.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link should now not be broken, that is the point of the template change … moving from a static link to a dynamic programmatic link is the preference. And IF it is broken it will appear in the the tracking category for its missing ID, so we are able to actively monitor pages and fix rather than rely on passing traffic. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how that requires or depends on the data being removed from here to Wikidata, as you have been doing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of using the interwiki data is that when the respective wikipedia or the wikisource pages are moved, then wikidata interwiki updates automatically; alteratively, when the wikidata pages are merged then links are similarly updated … meaning that there is no need for any further work with link changes. There is no need for someone to have to watch crosswiki or be aware of other relationships and they can work in the area of their interest.

The purpose of the tracking is to find the false uses and correct them or remove them; it has also allowed to find candidates for merging. It should also prevent the misaligning of articles of people of the same name. It will also allow for easier identification of articles with missing templates, and easy addition of these (without errors). Ultimately it could allow for error checking at the time of the contributor adding the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

icon size[edit]

I have reduced the icon size from 16px to 12px because at 16px it tends to deform the spacing in bullet lists. 12px does not. -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]