Wikidata:Property proposal/Mediawiki Wiki
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mediawiki wiki URL
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | external MediaWiki wiki which relates to this topic. |
|---|---|
| Represents | MediaWiki wiki (Q15633582) |
| Data type | URL |
| Domain | item |
| Allowed values | subdomain.example.com/wiki/Main_Page |
| Example 1 | Miraheze (Q42671570) → https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Miraheze |
| Example 2 | micronation (Q188443) → https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Main_Page |
| Example 3 | Diary of a Wimpy Kid (Q1339580) → https://wimpykidwiki.com/wiki/Diary_of_a_Wimpy_Kid_Wiki |
| Example 4 | Eastern Orthodox Church (Q35032) → https://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page |
| Example 5 | Libertarian Party (Q558334) → http://lpedia.org/Main_Page |
| Planned use | Mostly just add it to IDs like that. |
| Expected completeness | Always incomplete |
| See also | Gamepedia wiki ID (P6867), Fandom wiki ID (P4073), and Wikidata property linking to external MediaWiki wiki (Q62619638) |
Motivation
[edit]A lot of organizations, websites, topics, etc. will have a MediaWiki (Q83) wiki (Q171) that isn't hosted on Fandom (Q17459) or Gamepedia (Q64521795). I was originally going to propose another property based off of Miraheze (Q42671570) as an alternative, but then I realized a more generic version of this property would likely be more useful.
For example, Pokémon (Q864) lists this site, but it doesn't list Bulba:/Bulbapedia (Q41884312). That seems weird, doesn't it? The later is much more popular, but the former gets a direct link.
It'll also be a good starting off point if we ever want to create a generic equivalent for Fandom article ID (P6262). Maybe if a wiki gets linked so much that we create a unique property for it, and so on and so forth! It'd go a long way for improving our coverage on other wikis in my opinion, but that's just the future possibilities right there. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject MediaWiki - please let me know what you think! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Support David (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)- Support --B20180 (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, seems a good idea. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC).
- Support makes sense RhinosF1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose with that name: this property proposal isn't the equivalent of Fandom article ID (P6262): Fandom (Q17459) is a service, and each wiki on that site can be considered a kind of account, while MediaWiki (Q83) is a software, so the scope is different. And, why should we limite to MediaWiki wikis? What about wikis that use UseModWiki (Q620494) or MoinMoin (Q1141771)? I propose renaming this property to "related wiki", or something like that. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 07:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Tinker Bell: Well my hope was to get a better sense for what relevant wikis are using MediaWiki, so.. at a later date could we possibly rename this and add a mandatory qualifier based on wiki software (Q6686945)? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- That could be done with a qualifier − similar to how we have source code repository URL (P1324) used together with protocol (P2700) (instead of having a “Git repo” property). Jean-Fred (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- MJL, in this case, I think this property proposal could be renamed to «related wiki», with a new qualifier «software used». --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Tinker Bell: I would 100% support that. Though, I do wonder if there was a way to some make a «external wiki article id» property that requires «related wiki» as a mandatory qualifier (example using website username or ID (P554)). The input data for «related wiki» could then just be an instance of [Q|External wiki ID] with the «software used» and formatter URL (P1630) properties. «related wiki» still being free for placement on items (Libertarian Party (Q558334), etc.) as proposed except with item as the data type.
Am I getting to for ahead of myself? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)- @MJL: I think it can be a good proposal. But I would use part of (P361) qualifier instead of «related wiki». And formatter URL (P1630) could be stored in each wiki's item. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 05:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Tinker Bell: I would 100% support that. Though, I do wonder if there was a way to some make a «external wiki article id» property that requires «related wiki» as a mandatory qualifier (example using website username or ID (P554)). The input data for «related wiki» could then just be an instance of [Q|External wiki ID] with the «software used» and formatter URL (P1630) properties. «related wiki» still being free for placement on items (Libertarian Party (Q558334), etc.) as proposed except with item as the data type.
- @Tinker Bell: Well my hope was to get a better sense for what relevant wikis are using MediaWiki, so.. at a later date could we possibly rename this and add a mandatory qualifier based on wiki software (Q6686945)? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why doesn't described at URL (P973) do the job? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: The hope is to get a better sense for what other wikis are out there as entire repositories for more information than can be described at that one specific URL. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support iff it is expanded to include non-Mediawiki wikis and uses a qualifier to specify software. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose in its current form. We need to link these sites, and they are different from described at URL (P973) which is normally used to link to a specific document rather than these sites which are more like encyclopedias of their topic. What seems really objectionable is modelling the link in terms of the software used. It's arguably the least useful information to most end users. More useful would be whether the site accepts edits from the public; or whether it's an "official" site of the subject, or a fan community, or created by a particular interest group. What's more, we're not even guaranteed the information is public: someone could configure a wiki in a way that makes it unclear what underlying software is used, or like Tinker Bell suggests they could choose a more obscure wiki platform, and that site could still be a useful wiki for users to read or contribute to. If I give you a link to a site about your favourite book and but only tell you the site uses PHP, Bootstrap and MariaDB, I've given you practically zero useful information as someone looking for information related to the book. That's the absurdity of this proposal. I think Tinker Bell is on the right track above and would support creation of a property which prioritised the function offered by the site rather than its software platform. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Not done there is no consensus to create a property in the form proposed here. Further discussion of Tinker Bell's idea may be had elsewhere, and a future property proposal may be opened, but given how long this has been open I'm closing it as no consensus. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
