Wikipedia talk:Persondata/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Persondata deprecated, what happens next?

Having read the closing admins comments re my objection to the decision, I am now of the opinion that the deprecate decision should stand. But before we stop adding Persondata to new articles, removing from AWB etc. I think we should come up with a plan of action. One thing I am particularly keen on is having criteria to be met before we start to physically dismantle the work previously put into Persondata. For example, there was a lot of work put into adding the short description Category_talk:Persondata_templates_without_short_description_parameter#Going_forward. I would want to see a criteria that this is copied to Wikidata before we start removing Persondata from articles. I have a few more to add if we can agree to try and formulate a plan to get things moving. Periglio (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

See ongoing discussion on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy, there appears to be a problem with the link you give above. Keith D (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Works for me... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It works now, after I fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Another discussion that I was not aware of! Periglio (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Periglio: I don't blame you, It was a link within a link in one of the above conversations. Regardless, if you go to my page, I've made a list of currently open discussions (that I know about)—Msmarmalade (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the things that need addressing, going forward, is the maintenance of the data once it is loaded on to wikidata. How will a change to the data/article on wikipedia get transferred on to wikidata? What about a conflict between the article text and Persondata? etc. Keith D (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, there are 4 main questions pertinent at this stage: —Msmarmalade (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Are we going to stop creating new Persondata?

• ...As 'deprecate' appears to imply. If so, first step, notify major platforms (e.g. Articles for creation and AWB) and the relevant wiki pages. I've already given AWB a heads up, but I'd like confirmation that they can definitely stop creating new Persondata. To be clear, this is not to delete existing data, only to stop adding new templates to articles. I want to make sure that we've got a consensus on this. —Msmarmalade (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Once Persondata starts moving to Wikidata, I can understand that we wouldn't want AWB readding Persondata. However, while we're still trying to figure out the process, I don't understand the benefit of stopping the addition of Persondata now. GoingBatty (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Until someone proves that every new biographical article gets a wikidata entry, I will be against stopping persondata being added. Periglio (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

2. Is Wikidata at a satisfactory level to receive the data?

• Some users in the RfC had issues, e.g. with wikidata's referencing, category crosschecking and accessibility from Wikipedia (and as Keith D mentioned above, discrepancies between article and wikidata). —Msmarmalade (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

3. Which data are we going to move from Persondata to Wikidata?

• This is being disccused here (as mentioned by Andy above). A summary:

  Problems with name sorting - Guidelines not always followed, and there are also names like "Otto von Bismarck" or "Martin Luther King Jr" which are often mislabeled. (link)

  Problems with date format - again, formatting, and also dates before a certain time are unreliable as Gregorian and Julian formats are indistinguishable (link).

  Problems with location disambiguation - formatting and when there is no link markup (here, here and possibly elsewhere)

  Short Description appears to be the only data field with no major complaints

  —Msmarmalade (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

4. What do we do with the left over data?

• I think we'd need a consensus to outright delete the data, but given Periglio's analysis and other conversations (link, link) about the dates perhaps the accuracy has been shown to be too low for any meaningful use. —Msmarmalade (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Short Description parameter

Just in case anyone missed it, the short description parameter is now 100% added to all Persondata templates. See Category_talk:Persondata_templates_without_short_description_parameter Periglio (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Markup to move this thing to the right of the page?

I've tried all the usual markup to move paragraphs and tables around on a page. But the Persondata template I'm trying to move remains doggedly stuck in the middle where it is in the way and clutters the page. What is the markup to move it to the right so that it will sit in the best place? Trilobitealive (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Trilobitealive: The Persondata template isn't supposed to be visible on the page. Could you please give an example of what you're trying to do? GoingBatty (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you do make it visible, it's also not in the middle, but hard left. It's not difficult to float it right though, by modifying the code given at WP:PDT#Viewing persondata - instead of

table.persondata {display:table !important;}

use

table.persondata {display:table !important; float: right; }

I can't find any indication that Trilobitealive has enabled the persondata though. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I just want to make the thing that is showing go to the right side of the page. It looks like a table but it won't respond to the usual markup to move a table to the right side next to the writing. The page is Kenneth MacAlpin. There should be some way to move it to the right side. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Trilobitealive: The only recent edit of yours to that page is this one (for which there is a better way), but that concerns the references, not persondata; so I'm still unsure what you are trying to do here. I need to be certain of one thing though: when you say "the Persondata template I'm trying to move", do you mean the box that starts off like this

or the box that starts off like this

Persondata
Name	Macalpin, Kenneth
Alternative names

Which of these two is it that you wish to move? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The first box is like the one on the page. The second is just a table. I hate to be a nuisance but this is one of the generic problems that I see from time to time in other places with other forms, templates et cetera. Trilobitealive (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Trilobitealive: The first box is not persondata (but the second box is); it's a succession box (more at Template:S-start). These are always centred. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Heavy sigh. Another subset of the same problem, how to make the page look like it should. I'd mistaken one for the other. This is why the code for these templates needs to be hidden from Sunday editors. Thanks. Trilobitealive (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking within Persondata

My understanding was that there was no need for linking when specifying data within Persondata; yet I see lots of editors doing it. Although there is no linking in the example at Template:Persondata/doc, still it might be a good idea to specifically address the issue in Template:Persondata/doc. Is the linking a problem for computerized analysis or have the bots been instructed to ignore it? --Bejnar (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There was discussion at Wikipedia talk:Persondata/Archive 7#Overlinking in Persondata. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Birth and death dates references.

I am working through my list where Wikidata does not match Persondata, and I just need to "vent my spleen". I did once bring this up at WP:BIOGRAPHY but not a lot happened. I am finding different birth and death dates sometimes within the article (main text and info box), often a different language Wikipedia has an alternative date. Some examples - Arno Bieberstein Hu Die Arno Bieberstein Ethem Nejat Carlos García-Bedoya

The big problem I am finding is that no one ever seems to provide a reference for the date of birth or death. I am unable to make a correction - all I can do is make a note on the talk page pointing out the discrepancy. Periglio (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly yes, many biography pages provide vital data without a formal reference. Do you expect the superscript for a reference in the infobox, if available? or beside the lead parentheses? Do you look at the code or the rendered page only?

For one perhaps contrary instance, hours ago I inserted lead parentheses with birthdate and birthplace but ref#1 at the end of the lead sentence (current revision as I write). Is that bad practice? --P64 (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally would prefer the reference in the main article, keeping the infobox clean. i am not aware of any consensus on that though. Periglio (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Periglio: When I find discrepant dates I make the effort to address the issue on the article's talk page, even if it is only to raise the issue. See, e.g. Talk:Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada#Birth Date, Talk:Osman Nuri Pasha#Birth and death dates, Talk:Tlacaelel#What is correct DOB & DOD?? and Talk:G. G. Ponnambalam#Birth & Death dates. --Bejnar (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made a note on the various talk pages, but it is rare event if someone replies. Even the well known celebrity Jennifer Rush failed to get any response on her birth discrepancy. Periglio (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Which of course is an indicator of its relative importance. --Bejnar (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Deprecation update

As the Persondata debate has been quiet for a while, I thought I would update people with my behind the scenes work. As I have mentioned before, I have my personal extract of all articles with Persondata, which I am converting to use Wikidata instead. I am in the process of finding the wikidata code for my records and about 20% of the way through.

I currently estimate I will end up with about 2,000 out of 1,190,744 Wikipedia articles with a Persondata article not linked to a Wikidata item. However, a lot of these appear to be new articles and they do seem to be created eventually. Certainly too few to worry about.

My next step is to check the birth and death dates. Do they exist on Wikidata? Is there a need to use dates from Persondata. A few weeks and I will have the answers.

My conclusions so far are

• No need for any action creating wikidata items from Persondata
• Name: No need to copy this to Wikidata - the EN label is rarely missing if there is an enwiki link. There is a suggestion of a defaultsort equivalent, but Persondata is too random to be useful especially as wikipedia DEFAULTSORT is just as easy to extract.
• Alternative names - I have ignored this field - it is just too random to be useful.
• Short description - This one should be copied to Wikidata. Lots of entries are missing a description and it makes it really painful when searching for a person.
• Birth & death dates - My first impression is that wikidata is pretty much complete with dates. I may change my mind when I have run some analysis but my current feeling is that there is no need for Persondata dates to be copied over.
• Places of birth & death - I have ignored these fields up until now. They will be in my analysis but I would not like to say how useful these will be for updating Wikidata.

In summary, assuming my work over the next couple of months does not throw up any major issues, the only remaining useful metadata on Persondata is the short description. If that is copied across to Wikidata, then I can withdraw my personal objections to Persondata deprecation and obsolescence - ie Wikidata is a better alternative. Periglio (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition to this, I propose that we create Wikidata tracking categories, so that it is easier for bots to export Birth and death dates and maybe short description. It could be enforced in a similar way to Template:Commonscat. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Periglio: Thanks for your work on this. Are all of the short descriptions copied over now? Should we begin deprecation or is there any other data that you want to work on further? Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Periglio reported that done three months ago (above) but the tracking cat Persondata templates without short description parameter now contains 1961 pages. It isn't something that stays done. --P64 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari was referring to updating Wikidata with the Persondata field. My personal view is that Persondata is no longer useful for Wikidata - I now have to convince Wikidata of that. The other question is whether Persondata is ready to be deprecated. It is still a maintained data source, are we sure no one is using it? Rather than having a whole new deprecate debate, I am thinking a simple RfC - does anyone use Persondata? Periglio (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Periglio: Personally, I think the template is ready for deprecation. It is effectively obsolete at this point do to the availability of similar data from Wikidata, and it seems we have exported what we can to that project. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a tracking category for English-language short description empty at Wikidata?

Why should it be our responsibility to export? Is there a technical reason why Wikidata cannot automatically monitor new pages, or Persondata short descriptions, and import from EN.wikipedia?

Wikidata does not yet automatically pay much attention, per my last month's report immediately below. --P64 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@P64: There's no category that I know of (and I wouldn't know how to make one) but it's a good idea.

WikiData only copies from us in the first place because we asked them to. PLbot recently (mostly) finished copying the Persondata short descriptions (and I don't know about new Persondata added since then). And since Persondata is on the verge of being officially considered deprecated if not ready for deletion, there's no real point in setting up a copying routine for Persondata.—Msmarmalade (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WD pages for people continue to be revised automatically by reference to our Persondata parameter SHORT DESCRIPTION. Here is one example from Wednesday [1]. I created our biography of Dorothy Rice Sims 2015-02-02 with completed Authority control and Persondata templates. Her pages at WD and FR.wiki were created -03-10. WD revised the page by reference to our {Persondata} -03-25. --P64 (talk)

I still think it's a good idea for us to deprecate this template. Asking editors to fill out 7 fields of data just so we can copy one of them elsewhere isn't a good solution. Kaldari (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Template tracking categories

The template tracking categories have been nominated for deletion here. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles?

Discussion can be found here (archived). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This RfC has since been closed (oldid). This was the conclusion reached:

Consensus is to deprecate and remove. There is a strong numerical majority in favour, and while good faith objections have been raised, there appear to be adequate responses and/or practicable workarounds for these. One theme that does come out is the disjoint between Wikidata and Wikipedia, perhaps a separate RfC might address the form of a feature request to manage this, which is probably the most widely expressed concern. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

—Msmarmalade (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have submitted a request to the AWB developers to disable the code that adds/updates Persondata, which should stop many bots from adding/updating Persondata. From reading the RfC, it's not clear to me what process should be followed to remove the template. (e.g. Should the data be moved somewhere else, or always just deleted?) GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the previous request (marked as "in progress") if that's relevant. Hmmm, I'm not particularly sure either (perhaps bad RfC design on my part :P), do you think we need separate consensus to delete? The one thing we know is that Wikidata has indicated that they will only take |SHORT DESCRIPTION=. Perhaps moving |ALTERNATIVE NAMES= to infobox's |alias= parameter would satisfy those who said in the RfC that they used it for searching. But that leaves articles without an infobox, or not enough information for an infobox. We could start by deleting Persondata where all the information is replicated in Wikidata/infobox? —Msmarmalade (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The closing summary, reproduced above, begins "Consensus is to deprecate and remove." (emphasis added). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, "removal" does not equal "immediate removal". I deliberately worded the RfC question "methodical removal" which means checking all data is accounted for before deleting. I think a fair few users supported this RfC only because of the assumption that the process would not involve carelessly deleting data. In order to respect that, I think we need to discuss this in more detail before making large scale edit/deletes. —Msmarmalade (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've just pointed out to you elsewhere, this is ridiculous. The closing summary began ""Consensus is to deprecate and remove", not "Consensus is to deprecate and talk about removing at some point in the future". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you probably want to get this over and done with, me too, but please don't rush on ahead without checking in with the community. The consensus was not "delete immediately" either. Which is why we're talking about it. —Msmarmalade (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is "rushing", we've been discussing this for - literally - months, and we now have a community consenseus "to remove", with none of the conditions, that you seek to impose, attached to it. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no hurt in waiting a little longer for people to actually see the RfC conclusion and contest it if they so desire.—Msmarmalade (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to create a policy of having a cooling-off period after well-pubicised RfCs, start another RfC for that; there is none at present. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've unwittingly steered us off topic again. Regardless, there is no clear consensus on HOW to remove Persondata —Msmarmalade (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate: there is clear and unambiguous consensus to remove it, with no caveat requiring a delay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, we're talking about how to remove Persondata, not whether or not to. —Msmarmalade (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not "clarity"; it's simply wrong. You have edit-warred to impose an instruction "please do not delete existing Persondata information until otherwise advised", which is contrary to the community consensus expressed at the RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have limited patience. Please don't accuse me of edit warring when I haven't exceeded the 3-revert rule, and gave an explanatory edit summary. I put that phrase there in order to try and avoid immediate careless deletions; perhaps I should further add to it that ongoing discussions are determining how we should delete the data. That is an oversight on my part and I'll go and fix it now. —Msmarmalade (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of "exceeding the 3-revert rule", I accused you - and did so correctly - of "edit warring"; and your edit summary does not excuse that. And no-one is suggesting "careless" deletions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies then; I thought the two were synonymous. It seemed to me that careless deletions is exactly what you were proposing above and elsewhere.—Msmarmalade (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you were wrong. Remarkably so, given participation in the various discussions where the care taken was described in detail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The outcome of the RfC was clear and we don't re-litigate the question once it's decided. "Consensus is to deprecate and remove." The Persondata templates can be removed from any article without problem; there is nothing being deleted here. Should anyone wish to see the Persondata, the article history will contain it. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the template is used by 1.7 million articles, we will need a bot to remove it, and it will have to be one with admin privileges. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 24. I am admin can clean hat is left semi-automatically after the first run. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thankyou for your changes to the wording, something like that is all I wanted to convey but couldn't work out how to fix it—Msmarmalade (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know how to add the official notices of deprecation on this, and other, relevant pages? —Msmarmalade (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)