![]() | Unique Identifiers ( inactive) | |||
|
Are the errors at Wikipedia:VIAF/errors being attended to? How long should we anticipate waiting before a particular issue is resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
@ Andrew Gray:, @ Maximiliankleinoclc: Any news? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
VIAF is not a quotable source. It's like citing Wikipedia. The original sources are LCCN, GND etc. VIAF is only (a useful) collection of authority control files (often outdated and faulty). So FAQ no. 2: "Why use VIAF and not another identifier?" should be changed. Proposal: Only use VIAF as a second source together with an original authority file. -- Kolja21 ( talk) 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:VIAF/errors is not generally maintained by the
strikethrough of listings after correction at VIAF, but a few entire listings have been stricken. Should that be done?
Among the five April to July listings near the top of section 1.1, all except
Chris Van Dusen have been fixed at VIAF: Peterson, Lawrence, Brooks(oops) Roberts (2), Mayr-Harting.
-- P64 ( talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Vycl1994 added the following entry to VIAF/errors section 2 Wikipedia:VIAF/errors#Two or more VIAF identities for the same article
For what it's worth, I don't understand the role of section 2, in contrast to section 4 Parallel VIAF clusters for one identity. The section heading means to me that one should report [a] two or more VIAF bundles that include links to the same wikipedia article. And also [b] wikipedia articles that assign two or more VIAF identifiers, either within one template {{ Authority control}} (whose message displays only one VIAF link however many times its VIAF parameter is defined?) or in multiple templates (A.c. or {{ VIAF}} or others) or in handmade links. I have not discovered two such VIAF bundles or any such wikipedia articles, nor contributed to section 2. Other editors evidently understand its purpose differently.
-- P64 ( talk) 17:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
P64, same to me, what is the difference between
? Also it seems that User:Vycl1994 is adding that information here, but not in Wikidata. Here it is a one-user show, in Wikidata it would mean collaboration with other users. 77.11.92.241 ( talk) 19:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The authority control tag can be added to any bio, regardless of whether Worldcat or others have yet created identity authorities for that individual. When/if an authority is created, then it is auto linked and displays on the Wikipedia bio page. So could code be adjusted to automatically tag every bio with authority links? Kdevans ( talk) 21:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
To my surprise I see that User:Merrilee marked Wikipedia:VIAF/errors as " no longer the preferred way to contact VIAF staff" in this edit, and this one, asking people to email OCLC directly. Where and when was this decided? I have concerns that the page is asking editors - some of whom my have reasons to preserve their anonymity - to email an external organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: this page was established in 2012 and is no longer the preferred way to contact VIAF staff to notify regarding errors. The best way to alert OCLC to errors is to send an email to bibchange@oclc.org Merrilee ( talk) 22:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Unique Identifiers ( inactive) | |||
|
Are the errors at Wikipedia:VIAF/errors being attended to? How long should we anticipate waiting before a particular issue is resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
@ Andrew Gray:, @ Maximiliankleinoclc: Any news? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
VIAF is not a quotable source. It's like citing Wikipedia. The original sources are LCCN, GND etc. VIAF is only (a useful) collection of authority control files (often outdated and faulty). So FAQ no. 2: "Why use VIAF and not another identifier?" should be changed. Proposal: Only use VIAF as a second source together with an original authority file. -- Kolja21 ( talk) 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:VIAF/errors is not generally maintained by the
strikethrough of listings after correction at VIAF, but a few entire listings have been stricken. Should that be done?
Among the five April to July listings near the top of section 1.1, all except
Chris Van Dusen have been fixed at VIAF: Peterson, Lawrence, Brooks(oops) Roberts (2), Mayr-Harting.
-- P64 ( talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Vycl1994 added the following entry to VIAF/errors section 2 Wikipedia:VIAF/errors#Two or more VIAF identities for the same article
For what it's worth, I don't understand the role of section 2, in contrast to section 4 Parallel VIAF clusters for one identity. The section heading means to me that one should report [a] two or more VIAF bundles that include links to the same wikipedia article. And also [b] wikipedia articles that assign two or more VIAF identifiers, either within one template {{ Authority control}} (whose message displays only one VIAF link however many times its VIAF parameter is defined?) or in multiple templates (A.c. or {{ VIAF}} or others) or in handmade links. I have not discovered two such VIAF bundles or any such wikipedia articles, nor contributed to section 2. Other editors evidently understand its purpose differently.
-- P64 ( talk) 17:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
P64, same to me, what is the difference between
? Also it seems that User:Vycl1994 is adding that information here, but not in Wikidata. Here it is a one-user show, in Wikidata it would mean collaboration with other users. 77.11.92.241 ( talk) 19:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The authority control tag can be added to any bio, regardless of whether Worldcat or others have yet created identity authorities for that individual. When/if an authority is created, then it is auto linked and displays on the Wikipedia bio page. So could code be adjusted to automatically tag every bio with authority links? Kdevans ( talk) 21:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
To my surprise I see that User:Merrilee marked Wikipedia:VIAF/errors as " no longer the preferred way to contact VIAF staff" in this edit, and this one, asking people to email OCLC directly. Where and when was this decided? I have concerns that the page is asking editors - some of whom my have reasons to preserve their anonymity - to email an external organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: this page was established in 2012 and is no longer the preferred way to contact VIAF staff to notify regarding errors. The best way to alert OCLC to errors is to send an email to bibchange@oclc.org Merrilee ( talk) 22:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)