This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Should Template:Authority control divonly be merged into Template:Authority control with a parameter like "state=inline"? It's good to have other options for display. For instance, an inline version could be added to a bullet list or a table. An example is Henri Duponchel#External links, where there are actually a number of different authority files that need to be linked. Commons:Template:Authority control provides a strangely named parameter called "bare". This is for when the Authority control template is added to the Creator templates. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 21:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that we've just crossed the 50,000 transclusions mark, a substantial number of which are on BLPs, I've fully protected this template per Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Andrew Gray ( talk) 09:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Should Authority control be a parameter in Template:Infobox person or in appropriate members of Category:People infobox templates ? RDBrown ( talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I just added this template to Jermain Defoe, with functioning links to his LCCN and VIAF records. But there's also an automatically generated link, I guess connected to his LCCN record, that appears for WorldCat and doesn't work. Could someone help me fix that link or code the template to allow for its suppression? -- BDD ( talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have just come across this template for the first time, on the article for footballer/manager Steve Bruce. Now he may be more erudite than the average retired pro, but I do not believe for a moment that he has authored learned tomes on protestant paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, nor on conservative protestant political trends in the ten years from 1978. If "authority control" is not authoritative and reliable, should we be using it?
I have removed the template, but it is still displaying. Stranger still, if I use the article history to call up versions of the page from before the template was added.
What's happening? Kevin McE ( talk) 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that Struway2 has been able to find so many mismatches in fairly restricted fields so quickly and easily, and considering that alongside the FAQ claim that "The primary purpose of authority control records is to help distinguish between people with the same (or similar) names", it is hard to conclude that the template is meeting its primary purpose. It may be a great idea in principle, but while its application is so unreliable, should we really be applying it to the encyclopaedia? Kevin McE ( talk) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The Category:Wikipedia:Authority control (key words only) (test / evaluation 20:08, 30 August 2011) can be deleted. Its content is identical with the Category:Wikipedia articles with deprecated authority control identifiers (SWD). -- Kolja21 ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the text "Authority control" link to Wikipedia:Authority control instead of Authority control? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I find that linking the template to Authority control partially defeats the purpose of the visibility of the template. Either link to Wikipedia:Authority control or have the template read the parameter and point to the appropriate authority file. Having a reader "wash about" in Authority control is a disservice. -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
After a bit of thought (well, a long period to clean my mind a bit) I'm tempted to go with the short-and-sweet Help:Authority control. In terms of precedent, {{ Cat main}} - ~80k uses - links to Help:Categories. Andrew Gray ( talk) 22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Commons has "Entries for [subject] in library catalogs and other authority files" ( example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right place, but I have been using BPN numbers for my work on Dutch & Flemish people and I recently requested this to be added in to the Authority control template on Commons, where I use it for creator templates. What is with the TSURL and why does that only link to German Wiki pages? Also, can the BPN be added here too? If the answer to the latter question is yes, can I submit a bot request somehow to change all the BPN templates (when the Authority control template is also in use) over? Thx, Jane ( talk) 09:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
We might want to add this Dutch biographical database to the template. Currently there's a separate template {{ BPN}} that provides links to their catalogue, but a bot can easily merge the instances. De728631 ( talk) 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
When would be a good time to start considering the use of AC in infoboxes? With Wikidata ramping up to collect data from infoboxes, and add it into infoboxes on other-language Wikipedias, AV might be a good pilot field, being unambiguous and unlikely to be encumbered by prose comments, caveats or references. we could also include AC in infoboxes emitted (microformat) metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm ready to run a bot to replace {{ BPN}} with {{ Authority Control}}. However, Jane mentioned in the bot request that there were a few questions yet to be resolved before I should run the bot.
I therefore have two questions:
— Wolfgang42 ( talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not much used in the real world yet (officially launched today!) but I've updated the sandbox to include ORCID. A test, using John Wilbanks (the first author I've found so far with a page):
{{authority control/sandbox|ORCID=0000-0002-4510-0385}}
More practically, ORCID uses the same form as ISNI (it's defined as an ISNI in the 0000-0001-5xxx-xxxx to 0000-0003-5xxx-xxxx range), and so once ISNI goes live we'll be able to support both. Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Andrew Gray wrote above:
Find a functioning way to include ISNI - this may have to wait a couple of months, though we could always use
What about including it, for the time being, as displayed, but unlinked, text? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
We already have Template:OL author. Are there any plans to include Open Library in the Authority Control template? Dsp13 ( talk) 10:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
the "PND" in the output to "GND". Thanks. PND has been part of the GND for some months now. -- FA2010 ( talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Following on from ISNI, I thought I'd look into similar identifiers. There seem to be a couple of standard ones:
Both should be reasonably easy to incorporate. Thoughts? Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have concerns about this template. First, I think the very phrase "Authority control" sounds intimidating to readers. I would venture to guess that less than 1 in a 1000 know what it is actually referring to. It's not even obvious upon first reading of the "Authority control" article. Besides that issue, I just question the value of the template in the first place. The links just don't seem very useful and amount to cruft. Jason Quinn ( talk) 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Authority entry. An authorised heading displayed to the user. May also refer to the complete authority record displayed to the user. See also Authority record.
Authority file. A set of authority records.
Authority record. A record in an authority file for which the organising element is the authorised heading for an entity (person, corporate body, or work/expression) as established by the cataloguing agency responsible. In addition to the authorised heading, the record contains, as applicable: information notes; a record of all variant and related headings from which references have been made (tracings); notes recording sources consulted, etc; an identification of the cataloguing agency responsible for the entry; and (when implemented) the International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN).
How about generalising it entirely and going for something like "standard identifiers"? We could (as discussed above) link to a general help page discussing authority control in the broader sense. Andrew Gray ( talk) 12:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
@De728631 I find the template deletion discussion quite disturbing. I fail to see that a "keep" consensus was actually established, so the closure by Fastily seemed very premature. I also find the arguments to keep the template to be lacking in clarity. Considering how many articles use this template, I wish things would have been the other way around and the discussion would have been on introducing the template rather than deleting. @Andrew Gray That discussion is also frustrating. In particular Pigsonthewing's first reply, which strikes me as sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "la la la la la". Well, if SMcCandlish's point was not not common sense obvious to him, he should consider my comment to be yet another anecdotal story suggesting if there were a study, it'd show SMcCandlish's point to be valid. @all Perhaps something like "AC number" or "AC record" would sweep the intimidating sound of this template under the rug. Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
We have no evidence whatsoever that the use of the term "authority control" causes any concern to or misunderstanding by our readers. We have complaints from a very small number of editors who simply appear to think it might. We're an encyclopedia. if the term in use in the relevant (library, etc.) community is "authority control", our job is to explain that to people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully arresting this discussion from getting worse with a section break!
We don't have widespread responses on this from a statistically significant proportion of our readers - we pretty much never do - but there are reasonable arguments for looking at changing the name. Some general points from the discussion above:
The problem with any other term is that it needs to be fairly short; Commons uses a ten-word explanation, but that'd be quite detailed for a discreet footer template like this. There's a related discussion right at the top of the page as to what the description should link to, which seems to factor in here.
So, alternative terms, preferably short and sweet. Is there anything better and clearer than "authority control" out there? I'm partial to something very generic with "identifiers" in it... Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Throwing some random options out there
Any more? There are of course two separate discussions: what the labels should be and what we should link too. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is intended to be the first site that a casual reader finds when initiating a search. It is essential that we cater for this user. "Authority control" simply does not help the causual user. Please look at template:Worldcat id for an exanple of a more user-friendly text. I reccomend that we replace "Authority control" with "For other sources please see". If we make this substistution, I further recommend that we aggressively replace Worldcat ID and Guthenberg Author links with "Authority control". - Arch dude ( talk) 08:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Joint biographies seem to call for multiple, "stacked" templates {{ Authority control}}, which are likely to provide multiple sets of appropriate external links. That may undermine outside uses of the template (some sort of conflict) or it may be innocuous (all but the first or last is ignored).
For example, Janet and Allan Ahlberg is the biography of an illustrator wife and writer husband of children's books. At the moment it carries three templates {{ Authority control}}, essentially because the husband (widower) and daughter have now collaborated on children's books.
Note 1. At the moment, that same joint biography carries no {{ Infobox writer}}, although one was requested almost three years ago. Yesterday I used this article as one example at WP Infoboxes, with notice that I would also visit this page and raise the same general point, multiple uses of templates perhaps intended to be unique.
Note 2. Multiple instances of this template do appear on some pages outside article space (Template documentation, perhaps also Help, Talk, User). If there is a special problem or solution in article space, tell me about it.
-- P64 ( talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this template innocuous when it appears in other WP:NAMESPACEs? Or does it foul some applications when it appears in User space, for example? or in a Talk space? -- P64 ( talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you do if an author has multiple VIAF records? The template seems to only support having 1. Kaldari ( talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Rosemary Harris. Continuing what I and LeadSongDog have reported above, I have extended my December report at Wikipedia: VIAF/errors#Other errors. Briefly, LCCN does conflate two Rosemary Harris at "that other" record linked in this section. WorldCat evidently conflates at least three including actress Rosemary Ann, probably four. -- P64 ( talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Today I have learned that location of the template {{ Authority control}} may have been agreed recently in User talk space ( User talk: VIAFbot#Authority control and stub templates).
Today ( Template talk: Worldcat id#Superseded by Template:Authority control?) I have also explained why {{ Authority control}} does not make {{ Worldcat }} or {{ Worldcat id}} redundant in External links of author biographies. --if it's true that location following all the {{ navbox}} templates is indeed conventional.
I don't know that that conventional location has been settled. In my opinion location immediately prior to {PERSONDATA} works only if we group the cross references such as {{ navbox}} elsewhere --as currently under discussion regarding the location of section "See also" at the bottom of the page. -- P64 ( talk) 21:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Quote section 4 Microformat: "... VIAF, where present, is given first."
If this is important then it should be stated earlier. "Microformats" is something many readers will skip (as I have done). Our primary "Example" sets parameter values alphabetically.
{{Authority control|GND=119408643|LCCN=n/79/113947|VIAF=59263727}}
-- P64 ( talk) 19:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I note that we have {{ Authority control/Scopus}}, but that identifier seems to be undocumented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just been invited to sit on ORCID's ' Works Metadata Working Group'. Just thought I should mention it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we have this template emit a number of categories, such as:
etc; rather than, as currently, just Category:Wikipedia articles with authority control information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
On further examination, it seems the best way to do this would be in each identifiers' sub-template; for example, in {{ Authority control/VIAF}}, change:
[[Virtual International Authority File|VIAF]]: <span class="uid">[http://viaf.org/viaf/{{{1}}} {{{1}}}]</span>
to:
[[Virtual International Authority File|VIAF]]: <span class="uid">[http://viaf.org/viaf/{{{1}}} {{{1}}}] ##Foo##</span>
where ##FOO## is a pair of name-space dependent categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Subject to the issue identified by Andrew Gray, above, the code ("##Foo##") needed would seem to be [REDACTED] with modified categories for each type of identifier. Note the third catch-all, category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Problem solved; the code needed is:
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Wikipedia articles with with VIAF identifiers]]|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|[[Category:User pages with VIAF identifiers]]|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers]]}}|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers]]}}}}
Please check. This also differentiates between articles (ns:0) and their talk pages (ns:1). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the above; please update {{ Authority control/VIAF}} by changing:
[[Virtual International Authority File|VIAF]]: <span class="uid">[http://viaf.org/viaf/{{{1}}} {{{1}}}]</span>
to:
[[Virtual International Authority File|VIAF]]: <span class="uid">[http://viaf.org/viaf/{{{1}}} {{{1}}}]</span>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers]]|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|[[Category:User pages with VIAF identifiers]]|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers]]}}|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers]]}}}}
Once everyone's happy with that, we can update the other sub-templates. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers be a hidden category? Toccata quarta ( talk) 19:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So, is everyone happy that we apply the remaining categories, for other types of identifiers? I've placed a full list of subtemplates on the documentation page; but I don't think we need to add categories for those identifiers which have been deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that's an edge case. Assuming others do not object, then the changes needed are, I'm sure, to replace, in each of the following templates, the <noinclude>
as described:
[unused code redacted]
but again I invite fellow editors to check. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No objections, so let's make the above changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Wikipedia articles with {{{1}}} identifiers]]|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|[[Category:User pages with {{{1}}} identifiers]]|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with {{{1}}} identifiers]]}}|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with {{{1}}} identifiers]]}}}}<noinclude>
{{
Authority control/categories|LCCN}}
for example --
WOSlinker (
talk) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
As the sub-templates are now providing their own categories, as discussed above, should this template still be classifying articles into Category:Wikipedia articles with authority control information? — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sub-categories are all now in place, so the parent should no longer be applied directly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The parent category is Category:Pages with authority control information. It may take a day or two for all the sub-categories to populate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Should Template:Authority control divonly be merged into Template:Authority control with a parameter like "state=inline"? It's good to have other options for display. For instance, an inline version could be added to a bullet list or a table. An example is Henri Duponchel#External links, where there are actually a number of different authority files that need to be linked. Commons:Template:Authority control provides a strangely named parameter called "bare". This is for when the Authority control template is added to the Creator templates. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 21:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that we've just crossed the 50,000 transclusions mark, a substantial number of which are on BLPs, I've fully protected this template per Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Andrew Gray ( talk) 09:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Should Authority control be a parameter in Template:Infobox person or in appropriate members of Category:People infobox templates ? RDBrown ( talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I just added this template to Jermain Defoe, with functioning links to his LCCN and VIAF records. But there's also an automatically generated link, I guess connected to his LCCN record, that appears for WorldCat and doesn't work. Could someone help me fix that link or code the template to allow for its suppression? -- BDD ( talk) 21:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have just come across this template for the first time, on the article for footballer/manager Steve Bruce. Now he may be more erudite than the average retired pro, but I do not believe for a moment that he has authored learned tomes on protestant paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, nor on conservative protestant political trends in the ten years from 1978. If "authority control" is not authoritative and reliable, should we be using it?
I have removed the template, but it is still displaying. Stranger still, if I use the article history to call up versions of the page from before the template was added.
What's happening? Kevin McE ( talk) 19:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Given that Struway2 has been able to find so many mismatches in fairly restricted fields so quickly and easily, and considering that alongside the FAQ claim that "The primary purpose of authority control records is to help distinguish between people with the same (or similar) names", it is hard to conclude that the template is meeting its primary purpose. It may be a great idea in principle, but while its application is so unreliable, should we really be applying it to the encyclopaedia? Kevin McE ( talk) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The Category:Wikipedia:Authority control (key words only) (test / evaluation 20:08, 30 August 2011) can be deleted. Its content is identical with the Category:Wikipedia articles with deprecated authority control identifiers (SWD). -- Kolja21 ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the text "Authority control" link to Wikipedia:Authority control instead of Authority control? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 02:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I find that linking the template to Authority control partially defeats the purpose of the visibility of the template. Either link to Wikipedia:Authority control or have the template read the parameter and point to the appropriate authority file. Having a reader "wash about" in Authority control is a disservice. -- Bejnar ( talk) 07:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
After a bit of thought (well, a long period to clean my mind a bit) I'm tempted to go with the short-and-sweet Help:Authority control. In terms of precedent, {{ Cat main}} - ~80k uses - links to Help:Categories. Andrew Gray ( talk) 22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Commons has "Entries for [subject] in library catalogs and other authority files" ( example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the right place, but I have been using BPN numbers for my work on Dutch & Flemish people and I recently requested this to be added in to the Authority control template on Commons, where I use it for creator templates. What is with the TSURL and why does that only link to German Wiki pages? Also, can the BPN be added here too? If the answer to the latter question is yes, can I submit a bot request somehow to change all the BPN templates (when the Authority control template is also in use) over? Thx, Jane ( talk) 09:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
We might want to add this Dutch biographical database to the template. Currently there's a separate template {{ BPN}} that provides links to their catalogue, but a bot can easily merge the instances. De728631 ( talk) 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
When would be a good time to start considering the use of AC in infoboxes? With Wikidata ramping up to collect data from infoboxes, and add it into infoboxes on other-language Wikipedias, AV might be a good pilot field, being unambiguous and unlikely to be encumbered by prose comments, caveats or references. we could also include AC in infoboxes emitted (microformat) metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm ready to run a bot to replace {{ BPN}} with {{ Authority Control}}. However, Jane mentioned in the bot request that there were a few questions yet to be resolved before I should run the bot.
I therefore have two questions:
— Wolfgang42 ( talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not much used in the real world yet (officially launched today!) but I've updated the sandbox to include ORCID. A test, using John Wilbanks (the first author I've found so far with a page):
{{authority control/sandbox|ORCID=0000-0002-4510-0385}}
More practically, ORCID uses the same form as ISNI (it's defined as an ISNI in the 0000-0001-5xxx-xxxx to 0000-0003-5xxx-xxxx range), and so once ISNI goes live we'll be able to support both. Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Andrew Gray wrote above:
Find a functioning way to include ISNI - this may have to wait a couple of months, though we could always use
What about including it, for the time being, as displayed, but unlinked, text? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
We already have Template:OL author. Are there any plans to include Open Library in the Authority Control template? Dsp13 ( talk) 10:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
the "PND" in the output to "GND". Thanks. PND has been part of the GND for some months now. -- FA2010 ( talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Following on from ISNI, I thought I'd look into similar identifiers. There seem to be a couple of standard ones:
Both should be reasonably easy to incorporate. Thoughts? Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have concerns about this template. First, I think the very phrase "Authority control" sounds intimidating to readers. I would venture to guess that less than 1 in a 1000 know what it is actually referring to. It's not even obvious upon first reading of the "Authority control" article. Besides that issue, I just question the value of the template in the first place. The links just don't seem very useful and amount to cruft. Jason Quinn ( talk) 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Authority entry. An authorised heading displayed to the user. May also refer to the complete authority record displayed to the user. See also Authority record.
Authority file. A set of authority records.
Authority record. A record in an authority file for which the organising element is the authorised heading for an entity (person, corporate body, or work/expression) as established by the cataloguing agency responsible. In addition to the authorised heading, the record contains, as applicable: information notes; a record of all variant and related headings from which references have been made (tracings); notes recording sources consulted, etc; an identification of the cataloguing agency responsible for the entry; and (when implemented) the International Standard Authority Data Number (ISADN).
How about generalising it entirely and going for something like "standard identifiers"? We could (as discussed above) link to a general help page discussing authority control in the broader sense. Andrew Gray ( talk) 12:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
@De728631 I find the template deletion discussion quite disturbing. I fail to see that a "keep" consensus was actually established, so the closure by Fastily seemed very premature. I also find the arguments to keep the template to be lacking in clarity. Considering how many articles use this template, I wish things would have been the other way around and the discussion would have been on introducing the template rather than deleting. @Andrew Gray That discussion is also frustrating. In particular Pigsonthewing's first reply, which strikes me as sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "la la la la la". Well, if SMcCandlish's point was not not common sense obvious to him, he should consider my comment to be yet another anecdotal story suggesting if there were a study, it'd show SMcCandlish's point to be valid. @all Perhaps something like "AC number" or "AC record" would sweep the intimidating sound of this template under the rug. Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
We have no evidence whatsoever that the use of the term "authority control" causes any concern to or misunderstanding by our readers. We have complaints from a very small number of editors who simply appear to think it might. We're an encyclopedia. if the term in use in the relevant (library, etc.) community is "authority control", our job is to explain that to people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully arresting this discussion from getting worse with a section break!
We don't have widespread responses on this from a statistically significant proportion of our readers - we pretty much never do - but there are reasonable arguments for looking at changing the name. Some general points from the discussion above:
The problem with any other term is that it needs to be fairly short; Commons uses a ten-word explanation, but that'd be quite detailed for a discreet footer template like this. There's a related discussion right at the top of the page as to what the description should link to, which seems to factor in here.
So, alternative terms, preferably short and sweet. Is there anything better and clearer than "authority control" out there? I'm partial to something very generic with "identifiers" in it... Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Throwing some random options out there
Any more? There are of course two separate discussions: what the labels should be and what we should link too. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is intended to be the first site that a casual reader finds when initiating a search. It is essential that we cater for this user. "Authority control" simply does not help the causual user. Please look at template:Worldcat id for an exanple of a more user-friendly text. I reccomend that we replace "Authority control" with "For other sources please see". If we make this substistution, I further recommend that we aggressively replace Worldcat ID and Guthenberg Author links with "Authority control". - Arch dude ( talk) 08:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Joint biographies seem to call for multiple, "stacked" templates {{ Authority control}}, which are likely to provide multiple sets of appropriate external links. That may undermine outside uses of the template (some sort of conflict) or it may be innocuous (all but the first or last is ignored).
For example, Janet and Allan Ahlberg is the biography of an illustrator wife and writer husband of children's books. At the moment it carries three templates {{ Authority control}}, essentially because the husband (widower) and daughter have now collaborated on children's books.
Note 1. At the moment, that same joint biography carries no {{ Infobox writer}}, although one was requested almost three years ago. Yesterday I used this article as one example at WP Infoboxes, with notice that I would also visit this page and raise the same general point, multiple uses of templates perhaps intended to be unique.
Note 2. Multiple instances of this template do appear on some pages outside article space (Template documentation, perhaps also Help, Talk, User). If there is a special problem or solution in article space, tell me about it.
-- P64 ( talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this template innocuous when it appears in other WP:NAMESPACEs? Or does it foul some applications when it appears in User space, for example? or in a Talk space? -- P64 ( talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you do if an author has multiple VIAF records? The template seems to only support having 1. Kaldari ( talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Rosemary Harris. Continuing what I and LeadSongDog have reported above, I have extended my December report at Wikipedia: VIAF/errors#Other errors. Briefly, LCCN does conflate two Rosemary Harris at "that other" record linked in this section. WorldCat evidently conflates at least three including actress Rosemary Ann, probably four. -- P64 ( talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Today I have learned that location of the template {{ Authority control}} may have been agreed recently in User talk space ( User talk: VIAFbot#Authority control and stub templates).
Today ( Template talk: Worldcat id#Superseded by Template:Authority control?) I have also explained why {{ Authority control}} does not make {{ Worldcat }} or {{ Worldcat id}} redundant in External links of author biographies. --if it's true that location following all the {{ navbox}} templates is indeed conventional.
I don't know that that conventional location has been settled. In my opinion location immediately prior to {PERSONDATA} works only if we group the cross references such as {{ navbox}} elsewhere --as currently under discussion regarding the location of section "See also" at the bottom of the page. -- P64 ( talk) 21:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Quote section 4 Microformat: "... VIAF, where present, is given first."
If this is important then it should be stated earlier. "Microformats" is something many readers will skip (as I have done). Our primary "Example" sets parameter values alphabetically.
{{Authority control|GND=119408643|LCCN=n/79/113947|VIAF=59263727}}
-- P64 ( talk) 19:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I note that we have {{ Authority control/Scopus}}, but that identifier seems to be undocumented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just been invited to sit on ORCID's ' Works Metadata Working Group'. Just thought I should mention it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we have this template emit a number of categories, such as:
etc; rather than, as currently, just Category:Wikipedia articles with authority control information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
On further examination, it seems the best way to do this would be in each identifiers' sub-template; for example, in {{ Authority control/VIAF}}, change:
[[Virtual International Authority File|VIAF]]: <span class="uid">[http://viaf.org/viaf/{{{1}}} {{{1}}}]</span>
to:
[[Virtual International Authority File|VIAF]]: <span class="uid">[http://viaf.org/viaf/{{{1}}} {{{1}}}] ##Foo##</span>
where ##FOO## is a pair of name-space dependent categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Subject to the issue identified by Andrew Gray, above, the code ("##Foo##") needed would seem to be [REDACTED] with modified categories for each type of identifier. Note the third catch-all, category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Problem solved; the code needed is:
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Wikipedia articles with with VIAF identifiers]]|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|[[Category:User pages with VIAF identifiers]]|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers]]}}|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers]]}}}}
Please check. This also differentiates between articles (ns:0) and their talk pages (ns:1). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per the above; please update {{ Authority control/VIAF}} by changing:
[[Virtual International Authority File|VIAF]]: <span class="uid">[http://viaf.org/viaf/{{{1}}} {{{1}}}]</span>
to:
[[Virtual International Authority File|VIAF]]: <span class="uid">[http://viaf.org/viaf/{{{1}}} {{{1}}}]</span>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers]]|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|[[Category:User pages with VIAF identifiers]]|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers]]}}|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers]]}}}}
Once everyone's happy with that, we can update the other sub-templates. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers be a hidden category? Toccata quarta ( talk) 19:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So, is everyone happy that we apply the remaining categories, for other types of identifiers? I've placed a full list of subtemplates on the documentation page; but I don't think we need to add categories for those identifiers which have been deprecated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that's an edge case. Assuming others do not object, then the changes needed are, I'm sure, to replace, in each of the following templates, the <noinclude>
as described:
[unused code redacted]
but again I invite fellow editors to check. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No objections, so let's make the above changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|[[Category:Wikipedia articles with {{{1}}} identifiers]]|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:2}}| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|[[Category:User pages with {{{1}}} identifiers]]|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with {{{1}}} identifiers]]}}|[[Category:Miscellaneous pages with {{{1}}} identifiers]]}}}}<noinclude>
{{
Authority control/categories|LCCN}}
for example --
WOSlinker (
talk) 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
As the sub-templates are now providing their own categories, as discussed above, should this template still be classifying articles into Category:Wikipedia articles with authority control information? — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sub-categories are all now in place, so the parent should no longer be applied directly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The parent category is Category:Pages with authority control information. It may take a day or two for all the sub-categories to populate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)