Template talk:Authority control/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Errors

There are heaps of errors in articles: Lua error in Module:Authority_control at line 1192: attempt to concatenate field '?' (a function value). Example Irena Swanson. Recent edits to the module need to be reviewed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be all articles in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters. Fram (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted the change for now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, it was all pages using parameters and a Wikidata item (either implicitly by being in mainspace or explicitly with a |QID= parameter). This wasn't caught by the testcases since there weren't any tests that tested that specific combination. I've now added some tests (which were showing the same Lua error then but now aren't after the fix), and fixed the underlying bug in the sandbox (a straightforward one-character typo), so this should be ready to go live again (but I'd prefer a different template editor or admin, such as MSGJ, actually re-apply the change so I get a second set of eyes) * Pppery * it has begun... 13:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't spot any problems in the test cases (but it is not exactly easy to cross-check the links because the format is so different!) If no one else can see any issues I will deploy shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Why?

I've just come across this template {{Authority control (arts)}} when @Fram: added it, replacing the previous {{Authority control}}, to Saara Hopea. The effect seems to be that the reader no longer sees the ISNI or SELIBR data, while the other three fields are unchanged. While I'm not sure who, under what circumstances, would use the ISNI and SELIBR, it seems odd and arbitrary to include them for most people but not for visual artists - especially as there are plenty of people who are visual artists but also write or do other activities for which non-visual-artist identifiers might be relevant. (And a visual artist could well write a book a couple of years after her article had been given this visual-arts-specific template had been added...)

Could someone point me to an explanation of why this separate template is needed, and how it benefits the reader? Is it part of a move towards a whole series of different specialised Authority control templates? I'm genuinely puzzled. Thanks. PamD 17:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Amended above when I realised that although the templates have separate pages, the talk page is combined - I hadn't noticed I was being redirected. PamD 17:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Link to relevant TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Thanks. A long read, shedding quite a lot of light. I'm not convinced by the argument for the existence of this variant template - it looks to me as if the solution to the problem of "too many ids are displayed in {{Authority control}}" would be to have it collapsed by default, so that only a single line intrudes visually in the article. But the discussion, this time round at least, has been and gone.
Could I ask that something be added to the template documentation page at {{Authority control (arts)}} to explain this history and give a link to that discussion? If the talk page for the template existed, it would have a notice announcing that previous TfD, but the talk page redirects here instead. Should that be the case? I'm sure I won't be the only editor not involved in previous discussion about this who will be puzzled on seeing something on their watchlist being amended to change the template, and wanting to find out more about it.
And it seems surprising that the Art UK identifier doesn't seem to be included, for UK artists - is it considered too lowbrow a database to be of interest, or something like that, or because the unique identifier is based on the actual name? It might not be necessary for JMW Turner but would be useful for a John Smith. It's in Wikidata.
The template name is also misleading: "arts" usually includes music, literature, dance etc, but the template description specifies the much narrower "visual arts". PamD 22:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why the template wasn't just merged here, with |1=arts or |arts=yes implemented as an option. That would have been much more sustainable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
A few points: the only IDs that can be included in Template:Authority Control (Arts) are IDs which are already included in the main AC template, as the Arts version is a wrapper, wholly dependent on the main template. If Art UK, British Museum, ... IDs are added to the main template, they will automatically also appear on the Arts template. Collapsing wasn't an option at the time the Arts version was created: if and when that happens, it might be useful to re-evaluate the need for separate subtemplates. But even then, it still would mean that on uncollapsing, one would get plenty of IDs which are of very little added value for specific articles (while they may be useful for other ones), and removing clutter while keeping the best bits is usually supported. Finally, it wasn't merged here because this would make the main template even more complicated (certainly if more such subtemplates would be created, e.g. one per country or language or so, or one for sports, one for music, ...), and would make maintaining and finetunnig the subtemplate impossible for anyone but the few people with the TE right here. Fram (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

DNB or GND or German National Library

I missed the discussions to change the display of authority control. Looking now, I couldn't find the information for the German National Library which formerly appeared with label DNB. I saw France etc. but no Germany. Nikkimaria told me it's hidden under "Integrated Authority File". How is anybody supposed to know that? Do you expect users to look at the template documentation? Would it be hard to - perhaps also - provide the link under "Germany" where it would be self-explanatory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing the label and/or moving it to a different section, and doing both of those would be fairly straightforward. Listing it twice seems confusing to me, and would also be a little bit harder to implement. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
A simple solution could be: "Integrated Authority File (Germany)" or "Integrated Authority File (DNB)". Grimes2 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Added (Germany) to the sandbox. I decided that was better since one of the goals of the redesign was to avoid cryptic acronyms. If someone else prefers a different solution, that's fine with me as well. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
And deployed (noting for context that Gerda thanked me for my previous comment, which I took to mean that she agreed with the (Germany) addition. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Several potential classical music properties

From the transclusions of {{Authority control Q}} ({{Authority control (custom)}} would be more accurate & appropriate, but anyway), there are several property IDs that don't exist in WD yet. I've gathered all the unique IDs below:

Of these, RISM ID (P5504) & FAST ID (P2163) already exist in WD, but are not in the module, and should probably be added here if no objections.

The rest I'm leaving here for anyone that might want to start the associated d:Wikidata:Property proposals.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 RISM & FAST done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I've added these to the redesign code (which is now back in the sandbox), giving RISM the label "RISM (France)" wikilinked to Répertoire International des Sources Musicales, and FAST "Faceted Application of Subject Terminology" with no wikilink, and placing both in "Other". @Fram: Do you have any better suggestions for labels and sections for these? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
FAST belongs in "other" indeed (if we need to have it at all, seems to bring little added value). RISM should perhaps go to a section "Music", although we could wait to create this until we have one or two additional music entries (We have Musicbrainz, but although this are a lot of links, most music articles have only one MB ID). Fram (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: There is an ISWC Wikidata property, ISWC (P1827), but it isn't an identifier because the ISWC database isn't in a format that allows for linking to IDs directly. Perhaps a third-party site like ASCAP or BMI could be used to form links, but those sites might not have all ISWCs in their databases. Jc86035 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jc86035: thanks! Not sure how I missed that... What is wrong with these directly-linked IDs? Using the 2 examples @ ISWC (P1827), I'm able to link to both T-905.029.737-5 & T-900.214.198-2 using the third-party formatter URL (P3303). We use 3rd party formatters for other properties, and the main drawback I've seen is they might need updating every few years, and not their completeness, at least not for those URLs chosen as the main third-party formatter URL (P3303). I.e. if completeness is a problem, then it should be demoted/removed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: My understanding is that BMI and ASCAP have the same set of ISWCs, since they share data with each other's sites, but they might not have the full set of ISWCs because other organizations can also assign them. So if a work has 0% BMI control and 0% ASCAP control it won't be available on their sites. In practice the vast majority of contemporary works with enwiki articles will have an ISWC in BMI/ASCAP, though. I don't know if it would be appropriate to link to them here, even if it would be better than nothing. Jc86035 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jc86035: good to know for BMI/ASCAP. The current third-party formatter URL (P3303) for ISWC (P1827) is musicbrainz.org, though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Depending on the context MusicBrainz could be worse since all ISWCs it has are added manually, so its dataset is almost certainly much smaller than the BMI/ASCAP dataset. I don't really know how P3303 is used in practice so I'm not sure how relevant the current values of it are to this template. Jc86035 (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

External links to library resources: RfC

A Request for Comment on external links to library resources, which relates to this template, has started: Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: External links to library resources. Opinions, knowledge, and suggestions are sought. Please join in. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Invalid containsVIAFID link

At Warberg IC, the "Authority control" section has "WorldCat (via VIAF)" link https://www.worldcat.org/identities/containsVIAFID/316392146, which is not valid. It results in "404: Document not found". While the Warberg IC wikidata:Q3486392 VIAF ID entry 316392146 links to valid https://viaf.org/viaf/316392146/. Shouldn't the links be the same? (both to viaf.org) --Prikryl (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No |nocat parameter or similair

Hi, I was just looking at this templates documentation and there doesn't appear to be a nocat or equivalent parameter (specifically I was looking at Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: External links to library resources, which currently is added in 89 different categories by my quick count)? If there is could someone point me to it, if not could a technical editor comment on the feasibility of adding one? -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 10:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic

Microsoft Academic is (unfortunately!) shutting down at the end of this year. Do we have a suitable replacement we can add to this template? Perhaps Scopus? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a known issue related to Authority Control template, and the Navboxes Top / Bottom format?

Evening all. Per an issue raised on Lionel Messi, and when checking this also occurs on Cristiano Ronaldo, it seems that when these players have Navboxes that nest inside others the Authority Control wont render and just gives the Template link. The only solution appears to be to place Authority Control above the Navbox dialogue? Koncorde (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Ronaldo page is in Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded, which means that not all templates in the page will be rendered properly. The size of the page needs to be reduced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
That isn't the issue. I can move Authority Control to before the existing Navboxes, and I can add 3 such templates, and all continue rendering correctly. On the 4th it begins to create issues. But if I put Authority Control AFTER the Navboxes it wont work at all. Koncorde (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it is the issue. The limit report in the article's source currently says "Post‐expand include size: 2097107/2097152 bytes". It's 45 bytes under the limit, which means that a tiny change will put it over. It could be that the reordering of the templates changes the rendered page just enough that it gets under the limit. The solution is still the same. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I will try trimming some content down as testing removing a section entirely did enable the template at the end. Cheers Koncorde (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the Special:ExpandTemplates for {{Authority control}} on Lionel Messi, there are some minor improvements that can be made, that together may shave ~500 B off the post-expand size.
  1. The {{EditAtWikidata}} module seems to be adding a large & possibly repetitive preamble (search for "edit" in the expand). The whole 1st line is ~1200 B long, but I don't know how much of it is un/necessary; like, do we really need the URLs in

    1.1 <div id="Authority_control_frameless_&#124;text-top_&#124;10px_&#124;alt=Edit_this_at_Wikidata_&#124;link=https&#58;//www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q615#identifiers&#124;Edit_this_at_Wikidata",
    and
    1.2 aria-labelledby="Authority_control_frameless_&#124;text-top_&#124;10px_&#124;alt=Edit_this_at_Wikidata_&#124;link=https&#58;//www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q615#identifiers&#124;Edit_this_at_Wikidata"?

  2. All "Wikipedia articles with ..." categories have always bothered me since the wording seems redundant. Surely they can all be shortened to "Articles with ..."? (10 B x 23 cats = 230 B)
  3. There is a useless comment produced by Template:Authority control that can probably be omitted from the expand by moving around the <includeonly></includeonly> tags. (~45 B)
I haven't looked at any other template, but there is probably at least a little bit of fat that can be trimmed elsewhere.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Regex of ADB and MA identifiers need a fix

Two valid cases detected as faulty identifiers:

  • The number at the end of ADB identifiers can now exceed 30000, e.g. Lawrence Bragg.
  • It is possible for MA identifier to have 4 digits only, e.g. Sangji University.

I have fixed Wikidata but could not change the module here. ネイ (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Looks good now. ネイ (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Displaying the IDs & making it easy to copy and paste

Sometimes I copy IDs from Wikipedia in lieu of searching on various sites, so being able to see the number and just copy it is useful. I toggle between Wikipedia and Wikidata as sources for finding multiple IDs. The additional supporting information in Wikipedia articles often helps with confirming that it is in fact a match. BooleanColors (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)BooleanColors

When you follow the link, you can easily copy the ID from the target website (or alternatively, you can find the ID at Wikidata, which often has two or three times as much IDs as Wikipedia anyway, while Wikipedia only has IDs from Wikidata and no additional ones). Displaying the IDs here as well has been removed after an RfC where most participants found it unnecessary or distracting and preferred the new format or something like it. To find out if the person at Wikipedia and the person at the ID target website are a match, you need to follow the link to that site anyway. Fram (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing the template?

Am bumping into these large authority control templates on many pages, and the concept of navbox stacking of collapsed templates falls on the wayside. Can these things be default collapsed all at once? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus to auto-collapse them (thankfully), nor to keep using the smaller version (sadly), so: nope. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe after dealing with them the auto-collapse will become the popular option. Too many pages hide three or four templates in navbox cages, and then these things are now sticking out the bottom taking even more attention from well-made templates. I don't understand your 'thankfully', eyesores are eyesores and never Mark Twain shall meet (check out the bottom of Mark Twain's page, for example). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I really hope not, auto-collapsing it would make it even worse than it is now. But given the track record here, that probably means it will happen soon. :-( Mike Peel (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Readers who actually use Authority control links (any research on people using them?) would very likely have the smarts to click 'view' to expand them. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe existing users who wonder where it's gone on specific articles. But not all articles have it, so it would make it harder to see which articles have it and which don't. And it significantly reduces the chances of it being found by other readers who don't currently use it. Mike Peel (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster here. Please revert this horribly obtrusive and non-consensus-based expansion or face the likelihood that people will start removing these templates en masse from articles. Authority control should not be such a prominent part of articles. Having it expandable is ok (and was agreed to in the recent RFC). Having it default to the expanded state is not. Most readers have no use for this information. It just makes more distractions from the part they are actually here for, the text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Came here because I also think this looks ridiculous. Authority control means nothing to ~99.9% of people reading an article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is free to go to the Village Pump and start a new RfC to get it collapsed, removed altogether, reverted to the old version, or stripped of most of its entries. But the current version is the result of two RfCs (one for the general principle of changing the cryptic abbreviation + meaningless ID to a more easily understandable text link, and one for the specific layout), so it isn't "non-consensus-based" and can't be reverted based on some complaints. The last RfC gave the choicce between collapsed or uncollapsed, but opinions there were divided. I tried to demonstrate the new look on some 10,000 pages (or 1% of the uses of it) during the RfC, but this was quickly reverted. Perhaps a new RfC on whether it should be autocollapsed or not will get more input or a more clear result now the new version is actually life: but I'll let someone else start it. Just make sure, whoever wtites an RfC, that you get the history right, and don't start with claims of "non-consensus-based" and so on. Fram (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The revert mentioned below (#Errors) has for now restored the old, less obtrusive appearance, so I can't see what it would look like at Mark Twain. As for the "new look" where opinions there were divided: the closer wrote explicitly that there is no consensus on default collapsing behaviour, so it's no surprise that people turn up here to voice concerns about this template. For the record, I agree it should be collapsed by default, at minimum it should allow a parameter |state=collapsed, like any other navbox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I've added support for |state=collapsed in the sandbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Now turn it on by default. It is horribly obtrusive otherwise. @Michael Bednarek:, re: "Anyone is free to go to the Village Pump and start a new RfC": there was no prior consensus from the RFC for making it expanded, so doing so is a non-consensus move that should be reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Support for the suggestion that it be collapsed by default. PamD 22:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Support autocollapse by default. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the participants of the recent RfC for comments, specifically on the collapsing issue: @Francis Schonken, Pigsonthewing, ProcrastinatingReader, Mike Peel, Blueboar, Tom.Reding, JohnFromPinckney, Rhododendrites, Levivich, Guettarda, CaptainEek, Sea Ane, Aza24, Ajpolino, Pbsouthwood, and The wub: sorry to ping you over such a trivial issue, but it not be fair to ping some and not all. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the ping. What happened to the "default" behavior: autocollapse when there are other templates, uncollapse when it's the only template? That still seems to me to be the best approach. Barring that, if I have to choose between autocollapse or autouncollapse, then it's autocollapse, per arguments above. Levivich 21:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As I've said all along, the recent change was harmful (as indeed would be collapsing). It should be reverted. As for the RfC, it was not (as I pointed out when it was modified) neutral, as is required Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Old version uncollapsed is better than the new version un/collapsed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Basically every navbox is collapsed by default, why isn't this?? Especially when it is not the only navbox on a page, it makes no sense for it to be the only one that is expanded. And we shouldn't have to go through and set the collapse perimeter manually on every page that has one. The default should be collapsed, it could be uncollapsed on specific pages if folks think that is useful. But if the default is between "in your face obtrusive big ugly template that most of our readers and editors don't know what it is" and "out of the way template that can be opened by those who know what it is", I think the latter is by far more sensible. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tom.Reding, the old version uncollapsed is the far better alternative. The new version looks both obtrusive and messy. However, collapsing it would be even worse. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 for autocollapse behaviour. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Autocollapse per Levich's sensible reasoning. Aza24 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Autocollapse by default, per Levivich and CaptainEek, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Voicing my support for autocollapsing (in all cases, not just if present with other navboxes), if the current version is what we're stuck with. In its present form, {{Authority control}} elevates trivial information to the same—or more prominent—level as actual encyclopedic content in navigation templates. It's akin to spray-painting the warranty information or mechanic's address across the hood of a brand new car: useful to some if needed, but needlessly prominent, distracting, and just plain tacky. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I've already given my thoughts on this page, but to summarise: the new version is not an improvement over the previous version, particularly for the amount of space it uses, but collapsing it by default would make it even worse as it hides it out of the way of people that would find it useful. Mike Peel (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Collapsing it would make it no less visible than the previous form, and would only require one more click for those people to uncollapse. If you think that the readers who want this are incapable of making that one click, I think you need better faith in the technical ability of readers who are technically savvy enough to want to use this at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @David Eppstein: It would make it much less visible than the previous form. No longer would you be able to glance at it and see what content it contains. Nor would you easily know if it exists on the page (many pages still don't have it), particularly as it would blend in with navigation templates. Plus, I keep clicking on the headers of collapsed templates expecting them to expand, and only then remember it's the tiny 'show' link on the right, so it's often not just one click. Mike Peel (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Collapse it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Pppery, which sandbox did you add it to? (I don't see here that you've recently edited any sandbox). If you'll point me to it, or just tell me exactly what is needed (and for the autocollapse default also), I'll add it to the page – I'm satisfied that there's sufficient consensus here for both, in the short term at least. Or of course you could do it. Caveat: this is written in a language I don't speak, but that's just nothing compared to the extent to which the page it invokes is beyond me. If there are any Luans reading this, please feel free to step in! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: I've updated the module to follow standard navbox collapsing rules by default (autocollapse unless it's the only footer template), which seems to be what most people wanted.

For what it's worth, the sandbox edit I was referencing was Special:Diff/1028116858, which didn't show up on the GUC tool since it only shows the latest 20 edits to each wiki, and I've made several hundred edits since then. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, great, thank you! Seems to be working as expected, many thanks! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pppery: Why have you made this change without consensus? Mike Peel (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Because I saw a consensus to do it, and it was clear from my reading of Justlettersandnumbers' comments that they would have done it themselves if they were more familiar with Lua coding. The sole reason I got involved in this in the first place was to remedy the situation in which changes were proposed and got consensus but no one had the technical skill to implement them. In this section, there are twelve people (Randy Kryn, David Eppstein, PamD, Michael Bednarek, Muboshgu, Levivich, CaptainEek, Aza24, Peter Southwood, Animalparty, ProcrastinatingReader, and myself) explicitly supporting collapsing, and two (Mike Peel, Bjerrebæk) opposing it. It's rather impressive to claim that's not a consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Mike Peel, please see above where I wrote "I'm satisfied that there's sufficient consensus here for both, in the short term at least", and invited Pppery to make the change. I'd have tried to do that myself if the thing hadn't been written in Lua. So any blame for the (mis)reading of the discussion should be directed at me, while any thanks should of course be sent in Ppperys' direction. And by the way, I'm still satisfied that there was consensus for both changes, despite your opposition. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pppery: Consensus isn't just counting (which apparently you can't do anyway, you missed Tom and Andy at least), and the RfC closed with no consensus for collapsing the template. The template display has been getting worse and worse, as I predicted right from the start of this, sigh. Mike Peel (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Mike Peel, isn't this whole business difficult enough for everyone without adding personal remarks to the mix (you might like to strike that one, perhaps?)? As above, it was I and not Pppery who assessed the consensus in this discussion, and then asked Pppery to make the changes because they were (and are) beyond my embarrassingly limited technical abilities. I didn't take into account the opinions of either Tom.Reding or Andy Mabbett because both expressed a wish to return to the previous version of the template but no preference for collapsing this version or not; I did take account of your opinion and that of Bjerrebæk. If I've made a mistake here please take it up with me and no-one else. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I've given up. Have fun continuing to trash this template. I'm not watching it any more. Mike Peel (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I wrote the recent change was harmful (as indeed would be collapsing). I'm not clear what part of that is not clear to you, much less why you would see it as anything other than strong opposition to collapsing the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I still think this should autocollapse by default rather than only in the presence of navboxes, as it is not itself a navbox. As it is, I am now looking forward to going through hundreds of recently created articles manually adding |state=collapsed to each one. What fun. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, the new autocollapse seems to work inconsistently, not hiding the material when there is only one line (example: [1]) and not collapsing the template at all nor providing any "hide" button to collapse it in some cases (example: [2]). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Re templates on one line, is there some benefit to collapsing these? The "Authority control: show" line would take up just as much space as the template does currently, so I don't see the point. Using a horizontal rather than a vertical format (and thus no logical place to put a show button) when there are a small number of identifiers was originally Jonesey95's idea in Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#The new version takes up too much space, but it shouldn't have triggered in your specific example and only was due to another bug I've fixed in the sandbox. Jonesey95, is that suggestion still relevant now that the template autocollapses by default, or should it be removed? (Regardless, I've changed the sandbox so that an explicit |state=collapsed overrides that change and forces the template to the vertical navbox format) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I agree that it would be preferable if the default state were 'collapse' – I've already manually added one collapse parameter (here) and will doubtless spend time adding more. But in this climate I don't see any way to achieve that other than proposing it here and hoping for some support. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Isn't "proposing it here and hoping for some support" exactly what this exact discussion thread already is? And there appears to be plenty of support. I don't see why each successive discussion keeps getting reinterpreted in the most expansive way possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
When I voted for collapse, I meant collapse it (by default). In all circumstances. No qualifiers. I dunno why it's taken 4-5 discussions just to constantly reaffirm the principles expressed in the first RfC but here we are. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Responding to Pppery's question above: If the template has a |state= option, it should honor it in all multi-line cases, so my suggestion to remove the header (which also apparently disables collapsibility) for vertically short versions is probably no longer valid. I don't see the benefit of collapsing a single-line version, however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, I've removed that code from the sandbox. The current sandbox logic is, if all identifiers are in one section, to show just that one section on one line (unless the labels are long enough to make it take up more than one line), ignoring |state=, and otherwise to display a header with a show/hide button, currently defaulting to autocollapse (collapse unless it is the only collapsible thing on the page). Re whether it should collapse in all cases (default to |state=collapse), I have no strong opinion. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
See Template:Authority control/testcases#Compare for comparisons of the live template (top of each pair) with the sandbox (bottom of each pair). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
To test this properly we also need to check what they do in their uncollapsed version (if there are no other collapsible things on the page. Is there any way to simulate that on the testcases page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Remove all but one instance of the template and preview the edit? (Nothing very interesting will happen, though, you'll end up in literally the exact same state as if you had clicked the "show" button) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Queries

I would have left this discussion run a little longer. It was implemented less than 24 hours after I pinged the RfC participants and it would not have hurt to wait a few days before making the change.

A couple of queries:

  • On Abacus, the template is collapsed but why, because there are no other navboxes on that article?
  • On Alkane, the template is not collapsed yet it takes up three rows.

There does seem to be some inconsistent behaviour — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Re Abacus, I have no idea, but it has nothing to do with this template, since if I edit the whole page, and replace {{authority control}} with a different navbox, and preview the change, the replacement navbox also shows collapsed. Re Alkane, see my reply to David Eppstein above, the collapsibility code I wrote only kicks in if the template shows a navbox header, which currently happens when there are four or more identifiers (not counting WorldCat due to a bug I've already fixed in the sandbox). I agree this is weird and nonstandard, and should have realized that when I deployed the change. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The AC template on Abacus is autocollapsed because it is one of two elements on the page with the "collapsible" property. The other is {{Infobox Chinese}}. That's how autocollapse works; the same problem happens when {{multiple issues}} is present in an article with just one navbox. As Pppery says, if you swap a random autocollapsible navbox, like {{MTV Movie Award for Best Fight}}, for the AC template, you will see that navbox autocollapsed as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It is false that collapsability currently kicks in when there are four or more identifiers. Lori Lamel is still showing an uncollapsed and uncollapsable four-line Big
Authority
Control
Box. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Christ, the box is longer than the longest section on the article. This template is really the case study for why a template should never be deployed to 2 million articles ever again without clear, broad community consensus at VPR in advance. Textbook WP:FAIT. ProcSock (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've always thought adding this template to bios was mandatory because the template doc says this template should be added to all biographies. I realize now I've probably been taking that too literally. Levivich 00:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: I add it to bios I create because otherwise the article will turn up on my watchlist when someone else adds it. PamD 04:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've now deployed the code from the sandbox, so Lori Lamel's authority control template collapses like it should. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Broken identifiers

During the process of implementing the RfC, Fram discovered that the following identifiers were broken on many or all uses:

  1. Terminologia Embryologica
  2. Terminologia Histologica
  3. BALaT (Belgium)
  4. WorldCat (via VIAF)

Is there any objection to removing these from the module? * Pppery * it has begun... 14:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

For Terminologia Embryologica and Terminologia Histologica, the content is still available and the URL could have been fixed (Template:TerminologiaEmbryologica and Template:TerminologiaHistologica provide working links to the same resource), however I still propose removing them since every article I checked includes the same information in the infobox so I don't see the benefit of repeating them in the authority contol template at the bottom. I've removed those two and BALat from the sandbox, and also implemented Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#Researcher ID leads to Publons? and fixed an edge case in the implementation of #Duplicate Poland national library identiifers, which wasn't working properly when the |NLP= ID was passed as a parameter rather than via Wikidata. I plan to copy this code to the live module in a week (since there is a standard one-week delay for adding identifiers, there should be one for removing them as well).
WorldCat (via VIAF) was previously removed for the same reason in Special:Diff/949779734, and then re-added in Special:Diff/959383148, so I am choosing not to re-remove it in this proposal to avoid it getting caught up in unnecessary drama. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Strong objection to removing WorldCat. WorldCat is one of the most practical links in what is otherwise mostly a wastebin of data of use to a handful of librarians in the world, and robots. Worldcat can actually help people find sources by and about the subject, and locate copies of the work in libraries. Using George Washington as an example, why should we remove WorldCat with all of its value but keep links to BIBSYS or FAST or Vatican? Yes sometimes the WorldCat link for a particular subject doesn't work. Oh well, that's what happens when data is automatically sucked from Wikidata. It's bad enough this wastebin of data is taking up 3-5 times the page space as before, why make it less practical for users? --Animalparty! (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I was not proposing removing WorldCat, only the other 3 broken identifiers. Also, George Washington uses a "WorldCat" link, which is a separate thing from the "WorldCat (via VIAF)" link I initially considered removing then decided against, so wouldn't have been impacted anyway. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
WorldCat (via VIAF) has been having some problems for ~the past 2 months, at least from what editors have reported on my talkpage (1, 2). WorldCat itself is online, but via-VIAF is not, and it's not obvious to me why. There's nothing on worldcat.org explaining it, and I've tried a few incrementally-different URL variants to see if it was/n't a small/guessable URL update at fault, to no avail. It would be nice to know if this is a permanent or temporary issue. At first it appeared transient, but after weeks of 404s (I check a random article every few days), it seems to be becoming more permanent. Given its long tenure though, I think it's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt, and a little extra time before removal, say, by July.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pppery: Something has happened to Module:Pages with authority control identifiers to put a whole bunch (technical term meaning "almost 90") of cats (such as Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers) inside themselves, they are listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 Fixed Oops, I should have realized that would happen when I wrote that code. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

ISNI (and others) shows as a linked 1, instead of the full number. Not sure what's going on.--Auric talk 14:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a bug, a deliberate way of including a wikilink to ISNI while including the URL somwewhere and consistently showing the redesign. This specific layout was discussed at Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11#Taking out all the wikilinks doesn't seem like improving user-friendliness * Pppery * it has begun... 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Removed TE, TH, and BALAT, since no one objected to removing any of them. I didn't end up doing the Publons thing, since it only affects one page so I decided it wasn't worth adding. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): notifying the TE & TH proposer, as should be the norm. I couldn't find who proposed BALaT (I searched the archives for "P3293", "BALaT", & "Belgian Art").   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have thought to do that, but it didn't occur to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Add support for P4613 Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine ID

Online national encyclopedia of modern Ukraine. The ID is linked to 4,394 articles in en.Wikipedia.

 —Michael Z. 15:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Disabling {{TPER}} since there's nothing for a Template Editor to do right now; there's a standard one-week delay for adding identifiers (per the header), so someone will get to this in a week. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Re-enabling TPER since there were no objections in a week. ネイ (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I will leave it to Michael Z then, since I do not have template editor rights. ネイ (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will report back if I encounter any issues. —Michael Z. 13:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:UBX/Authority control

{{AC}}This user uses the authority control template and the data it provides.

I created a userbox for self-identifying as an AC user. This could be helpful in future discussions as a way of pinging interested parties who may not check their watchlist regularly.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Relying on WD but rendering only one statement ?

I was looking at Agha (title).

The template is used w/o parametrer, so as to rely on Wikidata. But WD has identifiers from five databases, and the template as rendered on Agha (title) only shows one. Why is that? trespassers william (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Danny lost: that is b/c Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417), Encyclopédie berbère article ID (P9198), Freebase ID (P646), & Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana ID (former scheme) (P1296) don't exist in the AC template, either b/c they haven't been proposed here yet, or they were & then rejected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: Thanks. trespassers william (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The new design forces all navboxes to autocollapse

The horrible new design of the authority control template makes it behave like a navbox (instead of a separate template group, as before), and it now forces navboxes to autocollapse, even in articles with only one proper navbox where the uncollapsed state would be preferable. Before the changes an article with one navbox plus the authority control template would look like this Norwegian article no:Gudmund Restad (with a navbox of Norwegian finance ministers and authority control below), in other words endlessly more reader- and editor-friendly. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bjerrebæk: you may thank the committee.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bjerrebæk: (and anyone else interested in the size of the new AC): I've created the following tracking cats to provide everyone with more information:
Incidentally, this also helps catch unrecognized parameter values.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Base Léonore links broken

Changes made to the Base Léonore website (which holds details of members of the French Legion d'Honnneur) mean that links generated by this template no longer work.

People are identified via a reference number (a "cote" in the terminology of the site) in the form LH/1924/18. This is converted into a link like this: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/leonore_fr?ACTION=CHERCHER&FIELD_1=COTE&VALUE_1=LH%2F1924%2F18 . This link now goes nowhere.

The page it now needs to go to doesn't include the cote at all, it's this one: https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/269341 . There's no way to find that numeric id from the cote, other than going to the site, entering it into the search box, and seeing what you find. If you do that, you need to be aware that they've added an extra slash to it, so it's now LH//1924/18. Cotes in the old style come back with no hits.

I'm not sure what the best way forward is. Léonore are actually using wikidata on their site, so they might be amenable to putting something in place to facilitate linking. I've no idea how to make that approach - it probably should be done by French wikipedia.

In the short term, Léonore cotes should probably be excluded from authority control. There's also a template dedicated to linking there that will need to be fixed - I've started a discussion at Template talk:Base Léonore

What do you think? Chuntuk (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Updated. Do you know what the Bis & Ter suffixes mean?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
bis can mean various things associated with the number two. From twice to encore (playing/singing again) to a suffix of a house number in an address or a second revision of a document. ter is used much the same for the number three. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @Tom.Reding:, I've found this discussion (in French) on this issue at wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Topic:Wbisfmslwlmzba5u . Looks like the linking issue might be fixed one day, but the change in cote format is here to stay. I've made changes to Template:Base Léonore which use the id parameter to construct a working URL, but there are about 70 articles that need updating with revised cotes. Chuntuk (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
There are 500+ articles in Category:Articles with faulty Léonore identifiers (0). The one I checked, Sarah Monod, had a valid identifier but no link, and a red error message. Are the category and error message related to this discussion? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: yes. The format as a regular expression (P1793) for Léonore ID (P640) was updated, but the values on many of the pages have not yet been updated (current faulty count = 4,237).
@Nono314: (d:User:Nono314): I see you added some of the original Léonore ID values years ago. Would you be willing to update those that need it? Most, if not all, of the updates required are simply adding a second "/" after "LH/" like so: LH/110/91 → LH//110/91.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, back in the days, I sent the data to Magnus for uploading in Min'n'Match and did quite a part of the matching... I had also seen the discussion on Wikidata's French project chat (linked above) when it started. It has been initiated by @Xavier Cailleau WMFr:, who is a member of Wikimedia France and is liaising with French National Archives (managing body of the Leonore database). The current community consensus is to wait for an official statement from their side, instead of blindly "fixing" 21K+ values (and 13K+ references) on our side, without even knowing whether this will help in the future. Therefore, I'm not willing to do anything for now. Bot operators like User:Tpt are ready to act once the situation is clearer. --Nono314 (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
More discussion of the situation (in French) here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_mod%C3%A8le:Base_L%C3%A9onore#Probl%C3%A8me_avec_le_lien_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9r%C3%A9_vers_la_base_L%C3%A9onore they seem hopeful that a working link will be established at some point. Chuntuk (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Wikipedia" from "Wikipedia articles with EMU identifiers"-type categories?

Every AC ID has 2 categories that could be less-redundantly renamed to:

This would also save a small # of bytes from the expanded page (see above @ #Is there a known issue related to Authority Control template, and the Navboxes Top / Bottom format?).

Performing this would be relatively simple. After moving all of the relevant categories (leaving redirects), the entire Category:Pages with authority control information ID-tree is automated via {{Pages with authority control identifiers}} and p.docConfTable in Module:Authority control.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Working   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done - old cats emptied.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A prediction

Hey WikiWizards, just a prediction here: the more intrusive and obnoxious you make this (now vey intrusive and obnoxious) template, the more resistance you will generate towards its future implementation and retention. You may in fact be tinkering until you break it. Note that in many cases, trivial links to (relatively) irrelevant Wikipedia articles like Virtual International Authority File or Trove (identifier) are more prominent than the actual authority identifier (e.g. VIAF (1)). I'm an experienced Wikipedian, and my fat thumb or fat mouse pointer still too often clicks on the former rather than the latter, resulting in virtual hog swill. To everyone who deems the current structure of this template ideal I ask: Do you value pedantry over utility? --Animalparty! (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the box at the bottom of William Shakespeare has the two links for VIAF shown in the comment above? Is there any reason for two links for any of the items? The Authority control page should list all names like VIAF with whatever links are wanted. Then double links would not be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Please see extended discussion in archive 11! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Disable override parameter?

The template currently allows all fields to be overridden with a local parameter. Is there any way this can be disabled in certain cases? For example, all the identifiers for lighthouses have now been migrated to Wikidata, and I would prefer not to allow Wikipedia to get out of sync with Wikidata. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Gagetown, New Brunswick currently has two identifiers, one of which gives a 404 error.[3]. Why would we disable the override parameter? People should never be forced to edit Wikidata to get rid of unwanted entries. Fram (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why that link doesn't work because I don't personally work with VIAF links. I am only proposing that the override be disabled for certain links that we know have been fully migrated, for example the NGA number I have proposed above. In this cases, if an error is discovered, the best way to fix that is on Wikidata because it would benefit other language Wikipedias too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I have seen too many problems and too little quality control at Wikidata to support this: everything needs to be overwritable at enwiki. Fram (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
My experience with trying to edit Wikidata to remove erroneous information is that then the bot operators will swoop in and tell you that the erroneous information must be restored because it is in somebody else's database and their bot will just copy it back from that database to Wikidata anyway. So I agree with Fram above re poor quality control and the need for override here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: perhaps you could comment on the WorldCat via VIAF issue, as you previously noted at Template talk:Authority control/Archive 12#Broken identifiers that this may be a temporary problem? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@MSGJ: the situation seems to have marginally improved - I very quickly found working links in Wikipedia articles with WorldCat-LCCN identifiers & Wikipedia articles with WorldCat-VIAF identifiers (for example, American Base Hospital No. 20 & One World Trade Center, respectively), but many links are still 404'ing. Since the situation is improving, I don't think removal is warranted.
As for disabling override functionality, that is why we have Category:Pages using authority control with parameters all matching Wikidata (0) & Category:Pages using authority control with parameters different on Wikidata (0) for manual followup. Currently, both WD & WP values are shown. For example, see Abraham Langlet: d:Q2706401 contains VIAF:262055026, and Abraham Langlet contains |VIAF=42619234; both are displayed in the AC box. In this case, 42619234 should be transferred to d:Q2706401 & removed from Abraham Langlet.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Lighthouse identifiers

I have proposed removing some identifiers from Template:Infobox lighthouse and putting them in authority control instead. That would mean adding support, initially, for:

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There was no comment on these back in March. Are they uncontroversial? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I will propose each one separately below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to put these identifiers in a separate group, i.e. see below? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC) {{authority control/sandbox|USCG=7-14530}}

NGA

Reliable, valuable and freely available source for lighthouses, published by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Code is on sandbox. Example below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC) {{Authority control/sandbox|NGA=114-5592}}

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Admiralty number

Authoritative and widely used identifier for lighthouses worldwide, published by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. Unfortunately the catalogue is not available online so no relevant link can be provided. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC) {{Authority control/sandbox|admiralty=D1204.1}}

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Tom.Reding, I have partially reverted your change to this identifier. The link you included, to https://listoflights.org/ is not a reliable source and not published by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. I think it is misleading to include this link next to "Admiralty". As I mentioned above there is no relevant link for this identifier. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

USCG

Authoritative and reliable source for lighthouses, published by the United States Coast Guard. The catalogue is available online and we can link to it as a PDF file, but I'm not sure how helpful that would be, because it would not go directly to the relevant entry. (This is volume 2, - 397 pages.) Code is on the /sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC) {{Authority control/sandbox|uscg=2-370}}

This has been plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ARLHS

Extensive directory of lighthouses published by the Amateur Radio Lighthouse Society. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC) {{Authority control/sandbox|ARLHS=FRA003}}

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

CCG

Official list of lighthouses in Canada, published by the Canadian Coast Guard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC) {{Authority control/sandbox|CCG=A1761}}

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

NLK (National Library of Korea ID)

The URL set in the NLK is currently broken and does not work anymore. Please replace the https://nl.go.kr/authorities/resource/ with https://librarian.nl.go.kr/LI/contents/L20101000000.do?id=. (ko:Special:diff/30738894) Thank you. --ted (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Random example: David Acheson (mathematician). Link will change from Korea to Korea That looks correct to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

TLSID [Theaterlexikon der Schweiz ID (P1362)] change

On 26 July 2021 the Wikidata Property P1362 changed the 'format as regular expression' from 60 to 70 characters

This should be reflected in function p.tlsLink

However, the regex that is generated in its current form causes a lot of backtracking within the regex engine.

A suggested variant would be 

function p.tlsLink( id, label )
	id = id:gsub(' +', '_')
	--P1362's format regex: \p{Lu}[\p{L}\d_',\.\-\(\)\*/–]{3,69} (e.g. Abcd)
	local class = "[%a%d_',%.%-%(%)%*/–]"
	local idlen = #id
	if idlen < 4 or idlen > 70 then
		return false
	end
	local regex = '^%u'..string.rep(class, idlen - 1)..'$'
	if not mw.ustring.match( id, regex ) then
		return false
	end
	return '[http://tls.theaterwissenschaft.ch/wiki/'..id..' '..(label or 'Theaterlexikon (Switzerland)')..']'..p.getCatForId( 'TLS' ) --no https as of 9/2019
end

An example of a long tlsid can be found in UNIMA Desb42 (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have updated Module:Authority control/sandbox2 and Template:Authority control/sandbox2 with your suggestion, if you would like to test it? (I noticed that Tom.Reding is busy working in the main sandbox and don't want to disturb him!) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I have tested on UNIMA where it is now working and on Lausanne_Conservatory which does not work - which is correct (as the tlsid is >70 chars) Desb42 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I have added your code to the module — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles which cover more than one thing

See also: Template talk:Authority control/Archive 11 § Articles which cover more than one thing

In an attempt to restart this conversation, I have created some examples at User:MSGJ/Lighthouse identifiers/examples to show how this could possibly work with lighthouse articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added to the sandbox a couple of extra parameters, extragroup and extralist which allows me to generate an extra row in the template like this:

{{Authority control/sandbox|qid=Q1521492 |extragroup={{#invoke:wd|label|edit|Q23013091}} |extralist=<nowiki>{{Lighthouse identifiers/list|qid=Q23013091}} }}

But it's not very clean code to put in an article, so I'm still looking for a better solution — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Further progress on this can be seen at Template:Lighthouse identifiers/testcases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I have finished testing this on every combination of situations that I can think of, and I'm satisfied with the output. I admit the method is slightly hacky, but it should be a reliable interim solution until this module can accept multiple QIDs. Please let me know if you see any problem with those testcases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I have implemented this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Article with numerous identifiers for the same database

Hello. For the article Catholicate of the West, there are four different identifiers on WorldCat (they can be seen at d:Q109621016). I have checked, and those identifiers are referring to the same entity, no doubt. However, only the first one is in Worldcat the link of this template. Does anyone know how I could fix this situation? Veverve (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This should be possible, at least for some identifiers (see Template:Authority control/testcases#Multiple IDs (proposed)). I haven't dug into the code for this, but perhaps Tom.Reding could comment on this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
If I'm reading correctly, the only parameters able to support multiple links are those which are using the prefix parameter. Is that correct Pppery? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
That's certainly not the case. For example, One World Trade Center (the very first article in Category:Articles with multiple identifiers) has two LCCN identifiers, and LCCN doesn't have a prefix. It instead looks like WorldCat is implemented in a very different way then all other identifiers and the special case code for WorldCat lacks support for multiple IDs. My rewrite of the code did not change this, so I'll leave it to Tom.Reding to comment further. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for answering — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, WorldCat has always been an oddball. Will take a look at this soon.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So, now how do I put the multiple WorldCat identifiers in the article? Veverve (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

They are in the article now Veverve! Thanks to Tom.Reding for sorting this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Change template from a navigational footer to a sidebar floater

Currently, this template is at the bottom of articles & blends in with the navigation templates. This template is not a navigation template to related articles & can fool me (the fool I am) every now & again. I was wondering if anyone else thought the same. Can this template be redesigned to look & be placed similar to how Template:Portal is coded? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the difference in anticipated length, that doesn't seem to be practicable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Bison X, I think that if you coded an example in the sandbox, you would find that the template would be far too long vertically. The bold headers that are currently at the left side would also have to become horizontal, most likely, taking even more vertical space. And then there is nowrapping to consider, in the case of links like "Faceted Application of Subject Terminology". Pay a visit to Dwight D. Eisenhower (to pick an article at semi-random), make it narrow, and start thinking about the practicality of this recommendation. I'm not saying it's not possible, but there is a cascade of considerations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't realized it could be that populated. My concern is that it isn't an article navigation template & was suggesting it be differentiated from those. A smaller template may not be possible, but is there some way to differentiate it from navboxes? I apologize for not having a possible solution to a problem I perceive. I guess first it must be established if anyone else thinks this is a problem. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
NO NO NO NO NO. This template is too obtrusive already. Placing it as a sidebar at the top of articles would make that much worse. It belongs at the bottom near the external links, and the proper way to format boxes that go at the bottom near extlinks is horizontally, because that's what fits better into that space. The Portal templates can be problematic for exactly that reason, but not quite as much as a vertical authcon template would be, because there are usually fewer portal links. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Who said anything about placing it at the top of the article? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's where sidebars usually go. When placed at the bottom they create lots of awkward empty whitespace and/or interfere with reference columnization. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
My issue is that it is not an article navigation template & does not help the average reader. The common term I see used to describe it is "clutter." I was seeing if there was a better way to display the template. I wonder if putting it on the talk page has been discussed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Authority controll" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Authority controll and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 23#Template:Authority controll until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Auhtority control" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Auhtority control and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 23#Template:Auhtority control until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Getting error: "The VcBA id 494_70141 is not valid."

In the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phát Diệm article, this template is giving the above error. However, in Wikidata:Q73481, the correct ID does use the underscore in the number, not the slash. See https://opac.vatlib.it/auth/detail/494_70141 for the Vatican Library link. Could someone fix this template so that it works with both the slash & underscore? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like someone fixed it, thank you! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Other

Why do we have a group for "Other" and could these be put into "General" instead? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"General" is for IDs that cover everything, like VIAF. "Other" is for IDs which are specialized, but where there aren't sufficient to warrant a new line (I mean, we have plenty of links to national libraries, so having a line for those make sense: but we have only one "Base Léonore", "a French database that lists the records of the members of the National Order of the Legion of Honor." type of entry. Fram (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I suspect the distinction would be lost on most people. Is it really valuable to separate General and Other? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

RERO

I'm completely out of my element here, so forgive me if it sounds like I have no idea what I'm talking about (I don't). This template still refers to a database maintained by RERO in Switzerland. RERO is a library network in Western Switzerland, which used to have a high number of members, including all the universities based there. But it lost the vast majority of its members (including all the universities) in late 2020, as most institutions have moved to a new network called "Swisscovery". Article in French: [4]. I have no idea what this means in terms of authority control, but just wanted to put it out there. JBchrch talk 16:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: are you proposing to remove RERO ID (obsolete) (P3065) and instead add swisscovery edition ID (P9907)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ Thanks a lot for getting back to me on this. I think it would be completely out of my depth to propose anything since I don't know how any of this works (both on-Wiki and off-Wiki). What I can say is that anything connected to Swisscovery is going to have more stability, quality and legitimacy than RERO given the size and weight of the institutions taking part to the former. JBchrch talk 23:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps you could provide a few examples of articles that use these identifiers and we can compare the results and reliability of each? Without a concrete proposal I can't really help much ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but again I'm not familiar with this and I wouldn't even know how to search. As I said in my first message, this is just a notification for the folks familiar with authority control from someone who has no other information and competence in this area, in order for them to do with this information whatever they feel is appropriate. JBchrch talk 17:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic ID (P6366): No longer accessible after Dec. 31, 2021

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/academic/articles/microsoft-academic-to-expand-horizons-with-community-driven-approach/

replace identifier Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) with Google Scholar author ID (P1960) in Module:Authority control/Template:Authority control? — Luamssuk (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the Scopus author ID is also an appropriate ID for authority control. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Google Scholar is free access. Scopus is restricting access to content with a subscription paywall. — Luamssuk (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, Microsoft Academic ID should be purged from this bloat fest as now completely useless (redirects to Microsoft.com). Also, Semantic Scholar often has poor results with lots of conflation (but what more can you expect when AI is sifting through 100s of "J. Smiths" or "R. Patels" who worked on engineering or biomedical articles?) and should be considered for removal. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal... Add identifiers: Google Scholar author ID (P1960) (biggest academic database) and Scopus author ID (P1153) (used in WP:NACADEMIC "accurate way of finding citations to journal articles") / Remove identifiers: Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) (was retired from operational service) and Semantic Scholar author ID (P4012) — Luamssuk (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) and Semantic Scholar author ID (P4012) removed from Module:Authority control/sandbox2 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Scopus author ID (P1153) added to Module:Authority control/sandbox2. Test below. Please check — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Authority control/sandbox2|scopus=37083905900}} produces:

Checked -> OK (Note: Scopus author ID 37083905900 Greenberg, Marc L. redirects to Scopus author ID 55833286300 Greenberg, Marc L.). Not checked if template draws its values for property:P1153 from Wikidata. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Please advise on the most appropriate group for the proposed additions. The choices are General, National libraries, Art galleries and museums, Art research institutes, Biographical dictionaries, Scientific databases, Lighthouse identifiers, Other — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
"SCOPUS" Most appropriate group, in my opinion: Scientific databases / Reason: "Scopus is among the largest curated abstract and citation databases, with a wide global and regional coverage of scientific journals, conference proceedings, and books, while ensuring only the highest quality data are indexed through rigorous content selection and re-evaluation by an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board." https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019 / It is like Publons author ID (P3829) or ResearcherID (P1053) (both integrated with Web of Science; Since 2019 ResearcherID redirects to Publons author ID). — Luamssuk (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
"GOOGLE SCHOLAR" Most appropriate group, in my opinion: Scientific databases / Reason: "Over the past 15 years, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar have been the three most important multidisciplinary bibliographic data sources, providing metadata on scientific documents and on citation links between these documents." https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112 — Luamssuk (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar author ID (P1960) added to Module:Authority control/sandbox2. Test below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Authority control/sandbox2|google=QPdLuj8AAAAJ}} produces:

Checked -> OK (Київський національний торговельно-економічний університет -> Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics). Not checked if template draws its values for property:P1960 from Wikidata. — Luamssuk (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 All done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar ID: All google ids with "–" or "_" are not valid in template {{Authority control}}. — Luamssuk (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Authority control/sandbox2|google=tQVe-fAAAAAJ}} Trevor Hastie produces:

{{Authority control/sandbox2|google=ZpG_cJwAAAAJ}} Robert Tibshirani produces:

 Fixed I think — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Fix confirmed for Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Christopher Bishop — Luamssuk (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Module:Authority control

Please check if parameter name { 'google' in

1108: { 'google', 1960, p.googleLink, 'Scientific databases', 'QPdLuj8AAAAJ' },

must be the same like p.getCatForId( 'Google Scholar' ) in

320: return ''..(label or 'Google Scholar')..''..p.getCatForId( 'Google Scholar' )

For Scopus the same in 1155 'scopus' and in 756 p.getCatForId( 'Scopus author' ). — Luamssuk (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Table "Parameters, Wikidata properties, and tracking categories" at Module:Authority control lists "Tracking categories and page counts" for parameters. Google Scholar has the parameter 'google' in this table. This creates a link to "Category:Articles with google identifiers". Actually, {{Authority control}} use the parameter 'Google Scholar' at articles. This creates a link to "Category:Articles with Google Scholar identifiers". Both should be the same. For Scopus 'scopus' and 'Scopus author'. — Luamssuk (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I updated the category to use a capital G. My understanding is that "google" in line 1108 is the override parameter, i.e. you could specify |google=QPdLuj8AAAAJ instead of using Wikidata. The "Google Scholar" in line 320 provides the name of the categories. I could be wrong though — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, you were right. They do need to match, which I have now fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing cat

I appears this template has added Category:Articles with Scopus author identifiers, which doesn't exist, to over 100 articles. MB 16:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Luamssuk: do you have time to create all those categories? You just need to put {{Pages with authority control identifiers}} on each one. Also, pages like Google Scholar (identifier) should be created as redirects to some relevant article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Category:Articles with Scopus author identifiers, Google Scholar (identifier), and Scopus (identifier) created — Luamssuk (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
correct page Category:Articles with Scopus identifiers created — Luamssuk (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
page Category:Articles with Scopus author identifiers was the old/wrong identifier category and should be deleted by Admin. — Luamssuk (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
{{Pages with authority control identifiers}} on Category:Articles with Google Scholar identifiers, Category:User pages with Google Scholar identifiers, Category:Miscellaneous pages with Google Scholar identifiers, Category:Articles with faulty Google Scholar identifiers, Category:Pages with Google Scholar identifiers, Category:Articles with Scopus identifiers, Category:User pages with Scopus identifiers, Category:Miscellaneous pages with Scopus identifiers, Category:Articles with faulty Scopus identifiers, Category:Pages with Scopus identifiers — Luamssuk (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to article for all identifiers

I've made some changes to the module sandbox that add a link to the article about the identifier next to each entry in the authority control. The design I've settled on is to use a "(?)" to link to the article beside each link (I was initially just going to put a "?", but that makes the link smaller and harder to click), but perhaps someone can think of another design. I've also made it so when the links are read by a screen reader they are read as "About [identifier name here]" rather than "(?)".

These links have the benefit of allowing readers to easily access the proper name of the institution that manages the identifier as well as information about the identifier (especially with page previews). This was also a concern when the new design was being implemented, but was never added to the new design.

Should a change like this be implemented? – BrandonXLF (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me, makes the template a lot more cluttered still. Most of these are fairly obvious and don't need a link. Fram (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Lots of (?) links is rather messy. A kinder approach would be to have a single link in the box leading to a table of all of the identifiers with links to their articles. The box link could be via the existing Authority control title or via a new Help or Identifiers link at the left end of the box heading. Help:Authority control currently links to a few of the identifiers but is the logical place to have a complete identifier table — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Fram @GhostInTheMachine What do you think about the design now? I added a toggle button that hides the links by default, but shows them all when clicked. – BrandonXLF (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks better, but .... All of the toggled links are to fixed articles so I think it would be a lot better to have one page which is the master list of all of the potential identifiers with links to their articles — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@GhostInTheMachine I think having a master list would be a good idea, but I feel like having the links in the navbox is more helpful and convenient. My main reason for this change is to get rid of the identities that link to the article with the actual link in brackets like SUDOC and VIAF, so removing the links to the articles from the navbox would make it harder to get to the articles than the status quo. Also a list of all the identifiers would be long (especially for the "Other" section if it were broken up by section), so I don't think a list would be able to replace having the article links directly in the navbox. – BrandonXLF (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
It's an ugly mess and "toggle identifiers" isn't helpful as an explanation for this functionality; "explain identifiers"/"hide explanations" would make more sense. But an unhelpful ugly mess is a pretty good description of authority control boxes in general, so maybe it's just business as usual. I do wonder about something, though: the motivation for this change is stated as making it possible to change text like "VIAF (1)" with VIAF linked to the id type and (1) linked to the actual id, into "VIAF" linked to the id. Which sounds like a good thing to want to do. But, what are you going to do with text like "VIAF (1 2)" for articles that are linked to two different VIAF ids? See Wolin National Park for an example. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the text to "explain identifiers". For the example, the VIAF ids would should up like the WorldCat ids do, with the second on showing up as (2). It might not be ideal, but it's still an improvement over the current display. – BrandonXLF (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. I think I support the proposal but I agree the question marks look messy. Perhaps there is an icon that would look nicer. By the way, there are a few identifiers without any link (e.g. admiralty) which need updating in your version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ I switched the question marks for icons, if you think a different icon would look better, please let me know. The identifiers without links also don't have links in the live version and it looks like they don't have an online catalogue to link to. – BrandonXLF (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The link to "explain identifiers" is no longer working for me? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ My bad, I used an icon from OOUI which I thought would load for everyone, but it looks like it doesn't. I've replaced the icon with a image that looks better anyways IMO. – BrandonXLF (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that looks nice. For the identifiers without links, we effectively have a duplicate link now. Could we get away with removing the first and leaving the clickable icon? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the icons are hidden by default, I feel like it's better to technically have duplicate links rather then just showing plain text by default. Maybe It would be a better idea to link to the pages for the lists online: Admiralty, CCG, and USCG. For Admiralty, looks like you need to purchase a physical copy, but for the CCG and the USCG, the list is available online. – BrandonXLF (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, maybe you are right. I don't really want to link to something unless it is relevant. I've got some code in Template:Lighthouse identifiers/ccg which will actually link to the right page, perhaps it can be incorporated into this module. Anyway I don't want to sidetrack your proposal with these edge cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein, Fram, GhostInTheMachine, and MSGJ: What do you think about the proposal with the new changes (the links are hidden by default and the "(?)" has been replaced with a blue icon). – BrandonXLF (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
All of those links look to me like a small blue circled-i surrounded by a larger dotted-red rectangle. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing that's not the effect you intended. I have a user script that makes red rectangles around fair-use non-commons images but that's not relevant for the image you're using, unless somehow it's being triggered incorrectly. Also the circled i is a little too small to be legible and appears to have a lower baseline than the surrounding text. Some of those issues would go away if you used U+24D8 ⓘ CIRCLED LATIN SMALL LETTER I instead of an image, but doing that would seem to be counter to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Links. Anyway, I do like the general idea of hiding the links to the identifier articles unless requested, and the current mechanism for requesting that these links be made visible; I just think there's still some improvement possible to the appearance of the link once it is made visible. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hiding all of the links by default is "kinder" than having them displayed at first, but I still feel that the explanations should all be in one external "Master" page. We do need that page regardless — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein Yeah I'm not sure what's going on with the rectangle, I didn't add in a border and I don't see one either.
Here's what that unicode character looks likes in place of the svg. I personally think the icon is too thin when unbolded (but it does look more clear then the svg) but too thick when bolded, but I'd like to hear what you think. The issue with accessibility when using the unicode icon can be countered with aria attributes, so that's not an issue. If you have any other ideas for how to improve the appearance of the links, please let me know.– BrandonXLF (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Both versions of the unicode look a little better to me than the svg, and higher on the baseline, but I don't think it makes a significant difference either way; they both look very similar to the svg, with only small differences. I see the red boxes on them too so I assume it's something odd in my setup rather than a general problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Well I'm of opposite view. The SVG looks clearer than the two unicode versions on my screen. Apart from the fact that those two are underlined, one looks too faint and the other looks fuzzy. Not too bothered either way though, if you can remove the underline. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I think the SVG does look better overall on my screen as well since the unicode icon is really thin, making it hard to see the "i" in the middle of the icon. – BrandonXLF (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Google Scholar ids

are now appearing in transclusions of this template; see eg Alon Korngreen. This must be a wikidata change bc I see no recent edits to our template. But I don't know what change that would be. And, if this change is going to be permanent, I guess someone will have to run an AWB task to remove {{Google Scholar ID}} when {{Authority control}} is transcluded and the relevant id is on wikidata? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would object to removing {{Google Scholar id}}, especially in any automated way. It is a much more prominent way to highlight the citations to a scholar's work, and therefore to assert notability through WP:PROF#C1, whereas instead acpadji codisj the coid version ious 10219 of oaias 2983 the aoi 23908r same as0 02397 identifier csh in ioooi the aalks authority askasjd ask control 10923xx box aksjhd will instead be hidden in a lot of unintelligible garbage acronyms and numbers and nobody will ever notice it there. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
For your information: Google Scholar author ID (P1960) was added to Module:Authority control on 13 January 2022 — Luamssuk (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Addition requests: Jaxsta

Please can you add the following three IDs:

I tried to do the first one in the sandbox diff, but I don't have sufficient editing permission for the real template. --99of9 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you feel this site warrants being added? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The profile ID seems quite equivalent to MusicBrainz artist ID (P434), which is already on our list. To be honest I didn't think this box was particularly selective. I would have thought that any good (English language?) authority controls with properties on Wikidata should be included, as they almost automatically provide more information about the topics we cover. In this case the site has a very detailed database connecting all the people involved in musical production with the releases and recordings. They have a big data pipeline - more than Wikidata or Wikipedia will ever wish to store. --99of9 (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Quality does't seem very impressive. I checked for Clouseau, one of the most popular Flemish bands, and they miss a lot of the older albums, and give incorrect years for other ones (never mind the strange mix of their own albums, albums where they collaborate on one song, having a song on a "hits of the year" style album, ... all mixed together). Okay, that's a Belgian artist, perhaps English ones will fare better? Mike Oldfield, albums[5] ordered by date: oh, he didn't release an album before 1989? That's weird... The filters on the page don't work at all, by the way. Better for American artists? Uh, no. Or did you know that Bruce Springsteen supposedly wrote a song for a 1967 Rick Nelson album[6]? Turns out that the 1967 song has the same title as a track on Nebraska from 1982, and so they have to be the same song.
So, as it turns out to contain false information about even the most famous artists, this one is a definite no, and a reminder that Wikidata accepst everything never mind the quality, while we should try to be selective and only add sites which actually are trustworthy (which is a good reason to get rid of Musicbrainz as well, but that's a different discussion). Fram (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
According to the published financial results, Jaxsta is a start up with a highly negative cash flow.[7] Maybe they will make profits in the future. Maybe they are bankrupt soon. At the moment it is not such a good idea to add Jaxta identifiers to Module:Authority control if the website could be down soon, in my opinion. Let’s wait till 2023 and check the financial results then. — Luamssuk (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reviews User:Fram and User:Luamssuk. --99of9 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Authority_control/Archive_12&oldid=1151988161"