Jump to content

Template talk:Authority control/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Template:Authority control (arts) - deceptive naming

Please rename the header which currently is the same as for Template:Authority control - but the template does not behave the same, most importantly it may show fewer information than Template:Authority control on pages about humans and can make users think the information is missing in Wikidata. 78.54.89.82 (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There is only a handful of users aware which ids are included in the main template anyway, and which are on Wikidata but not included. I see no reason why our editorial choices about what to include and what not should be included in a template header on thousands of pages. Fram (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please replace the deceptive naming of your choice with one that is not deceptive. 78.54.89.82 (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
They probably should be described on the template's documentation though (Template:Authority control (arts)/doc) and currently I don't think they are — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Authority control (arts) - documentation and categories

Template:Authority_control/doc#Wikidata_and_tracking_categories - will those that have a parameter supressed still be added to the tracking category? If not, can columnes for the quantity of supression and the quantity of total ids if not supressed be added to the documentation table? In case that is not possible can an extra table be made for Template:Authority control (arts) that shows the supression? 78.54.89.82 (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand the question fully. Please can you elaborate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Should DBI been included as Biographical dictionary for Italy?

Dear all, should we include Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani as a Biographical dictionary for Italy? On wikidata we have over 30 360 biographies covered. --Luckyz (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Luckyz, I support this addition. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC).
@Luckyz: feel free to code this up in Module:Authority control/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I tried but I don't know how to test the sandbox and, given my restricted programming skills, I could bet something is always wrong on the first try. --Luckyz (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The pattern [a-z]+(\-[a-z]+)*(_res\-[0-9a-f]{8}(\-[0-9a-f]{4}){3}\-[0-9a-f]{12})? will not work because Lua does not recognise the usual style of regular expressions. In particular there is no quantifier (e.g. {8}) allowed and the escape character is % not \. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yuk, this might work: [a-z]+(%-[a-z]+)*(_res%-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]%-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]%-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]%-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]%-[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f])? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Testing. {{authority control/sandbox|DBI=guarino-guarini}} produces
{{authority control/sandbox|DBI=guarino-guarini}} produces
Maybe we should use an abbreviation (BNIP?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Shortened to "Italian People" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
very good! --Luckyz (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I have a feature request. Lots of small wikipedia copy their code from enwiki. If possible move all the localization part to a separate module, something like Module:Wd/i18n. This way it would be easier for other small wikipedia to update/maintain/localize their module. Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I'll take a look at this when I get time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Consistency of multiple identifiers

I don't like how different identifiers display multiple values differently. For example in the template below, VIAF has a prefix followed by the numbers 1 and 2. But Bibsys puts the first link in "Norway" and the second link in "2".

I would prefer a consistent display for all identifiers, but not sure which I prefer at the moment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Suppression of identifiers

As we are moving away from having locally defined parameters on this template, I am planning to change the way individual identifiers can be suppressed.

Instead of defining them blank, i.e. |GND= and |DBI=, we will do something like |suppress=GND,DBI

Does this sound reasonable? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If the end result is the same, why not? We just need to make sure that the ACArt version is updated in sync with this one, as it depends completely on the "|DBI= " syntax. Fram (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
It would certainly make the coding easier to maintain on that template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This is now coded on sandbox and available for testing. It will take the identifier's acronym (e.g. GND) or the identifier's property number (e.g. P227). So |suppress=GND, DBI is equivalent to |suppress=P227, P1986 or |suppress=227, 1986. Also deployed on Template:Authority control (arts)/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The Arts sandbox states at the top "Lua error in Module:Authority_control/sandbox at line 273: variable 'extrap' is not declared."? Fram (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Think I was just tweaking something at that time. All my tests have passed so it should be ready to deploy (along with changes described in #Article covers multiple items) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I just made one minor tweak in the sandbox[1], obviously feel free to revert if I misunderstood things. Otherwise, this seems good to go, thank you. Fram (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

CANTIC

It seems that the transition from CANTIC and CANTICN has largely been completed as there are very few CANTIC IDs in use now. I think we can switch off CANTIC in the near future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This has now been removed from the template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

WorldCat (via VIAF)

As noted many times in the archives (e.g. Template talk:Authority control/Archive 12#Broken identifiers), the WorldCat (via VIAF) links do not work in most cases. I think it is time to simply remove them from this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Items assigned to "parameters different on Wikidata" category when they are almost the same

Retrieved from archive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been working on pages in the category Category:Pages using authority control with parameters different on Wikidata and noticed that a number of them point to the same final location but are recorded slightly differently. For example at Lisa Goldberg (since fixed but you can look at the history) the authority control had BNF=cb12392245t but Wikidata had BNF=12392245t which was causing 2 items to appear in the Authority Control on enwiki. My thoughts about options for dealing with this are

  • Someone regularly running AWB to change the value at BNF in enwiki to remove the prefix.
  • A bot to make the same change automagically.
  • A change to the way that items are added to categories to take into account changes like this.

I like the bot approach the best myself...

I realise that this might seem like a small thing but when editing items in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters all matching Wikidata‎ I can just remove the items but when working with Category:Pages using authority control with parameters different on Wikidata I have to manually scan each item to check if it is a problem.

Apologies if this has been discussed before. Gusfriend (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I was just editing Martha Siegel which had ISNI=0000000063681764 and it wasn't matching ISNI=0000 0000 6368 1764 in wikidata which is the same thing as with BNF above. Gusfriend (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
How is the module supposed to know that cb12392245t ≈ 12392245t? Are the first two characters always ignored if they are letters? The second example of 0000000063681764 ≈ 0000 0000 6368 1764 seems easier to detect, but we would have to consider whether spaces should be ignored in every identifier or just that one — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Having worked through some more examples I think that, provided the implementation does not make it onerous, would be to work on it at the identifier level. Apart from anything else some are easy to compare like the ISNI and some would be difficult like the LCCN where a record can look like "n/82/207755" in enwiki and "n82207756" in Wikidata. In terms of the BNF is there some way that we can use either the URL match pattern in Wikidata to help or the format constraint which this case says "8 or 9 digits followed by a check-digit or letter, do not include the initial 'cb' (English)"?
Having said that, I would totally understand if it is too complicated / too much effort for the reward to do. Thanks. Gusfriend (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the pre-normalization and post-normalization article versions, the links are the same, i.e. they’re normalized by the module, not by BNF through URL redirects. Therefore it’s definitely possible for the module to remove the tracking category, although it may be complicated (I don’t know the module in that much detail). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, it would be better to put all of these identifiers on Wikidata and not store them locally. Wikidata has much better mechanisms for maintaining these (e.g. automated reports on format issues, duplicate entries, etc.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree about putting the identifies in Wikidata rather than storing them locally and that is actually how I found out about this as I have been going through the template control related categories and making sure that everything is in Wikidata and nothing is in enwiki. Gusfriend (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Reboot

I propose that we move forward with this idea. A few ideas:

  • A transition phase will be needed to let editors get used to a possibly new way of working.
  • Phase 1: no visual change in the template. Editors who add local parameters will receive a friendly note saying that the template will be changed in the near future and some information on how to add identifiers to Wikidata.
  • Phase 2: template will show a warning when local parameters are used. This note will include the Wikidata property used to hold the relevant ID. It could also link to a helpful tutorial on adding values to Wikidata.
  • Phase 3: local parameters will be ignored by the template.
  • I would suggest that each phase above be at least 1-2 months in duration.
  • It will be necessary to clear out Category:Pages using authority control with parameters before phase 2 starts. Prior to this, a solution to the "Bonnie & Clyde problem" will be needed for this template.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Luamssuk@Gusfriend@Scyrme feedback appreciated! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
More later but have you thought about:
  1. Having some sort of extra message that only shows during preview stage?
  2. Should something be added to the documentation for templates like ‘’Google scholar ID’’ suggesting adding it to Wikidata as well?
  3. I like 3 months per phase. Purely because of how the template is core to so many things and on so many pages.
  4. Is there some way of finding out the biggest users of the extra parameters and alerting them ahead of time?
  5. I wonder how much use of parameters is due to the Wikidata entry not existing at the time. Perhaps something telling people how to do that as well?
Gusfriend (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  1. Excellent idea. Something like how Module:Check for unknown parameters works.
  2. Do you mean Template:Google Scholar ID? Yes that would be helpful. But no one reads doc pages, do they?!
  3. Okay, can support that.
  4. I think you will soon find these users when clearing out the tracking categories. For example, I just left a note for Rhaegar I to ask their thoughts
  5. Yes, this needs to be considered. Also we still need a way to test out the template (without deploying to live articles which are linked to wikidata items). I so wish we could link Wikidata items to draft articles, but this is not yet possible.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the category, it's largely populated by redirects. It seems that these are pseudonyms/pen-names/stage-names and that the local parameters are being used to pick-out the the ids belonging to those pseudonyms where the WikiData has multiple ids distinguished only by the "subject named as" qualifier. Can the template make this distinction some other way? If not, suppressing local parameters might not be the best course of action. – Scyrme (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I suspect most of the redirects are there because it was not possible to attach redirects to Wikidata items. This has all changed, so most of these redirects should probably now be attached to an item. The other issue is Bonnie and Clyde which has been discussed many times. This article does not currently use authority control, but if it did, there should be two boxes, one pointing to Bonnie Parker (Q2319886) and one pointing to Clyde Barrow (Q3320282). I believe the soution is to allow custom qids to be specified in these cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I think you can only link a redirect to a WikiData item if there isn't already another link already present. I don't think it's possible to attach both the main article and the redirect to the same item. If it is possible, it's not straightforward and I don't know how to do it; if you try adding a second en wiki link to a list that already has one it simply doesn't let you: the field to type in a title does not appear (or at least it doesn't for me, and I don't recall ever seeing a WikiData item with multiple titles for the same language Wikipedia).
An example of what I was talking about earlier is Jane Johnson (writer) who has the pen name Jude Fisher(redirect). The authority control template at the former lists every id without indicating which is named as which (which could be confusing to someone clicking a link and being sent to a page with an entirely different name), while the the latter has an authority control template which specifies those ids which belong to the pseudonym locally. Allowing the qid to be specified might help with bonnie-and-clydes but not with pseudonyms, since pen names point to the same qid (which is then norm, as you noted below).
Is it possible for the authority control template to automatically read the "subject named as" and "pseudonym" qualifiers for each id? If so, could a tooltip label be added to indicate this when the mouse cursors hovers over the links? If it is feasible, it might not matter if the template gives all the ids regardless of which page it's located at, since it would be possible to view qualifiers and identify the relevant ones without having to click on each one to check. We could then replace all the local parameters on redirect pages with the appropriate WikiData qid while still distinguishing which ids belong to which name. (Or maybe there's an better solution I haven't thought of?) – Scyrme (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Some great thoughts here.
  • You cannot link multiple Wikipedia articles to one Wikidata item, that is correct. But since recently you can now link redirects to their own Wikidata item. This is useful for some cases, e.g. Philip C. Stead which I attached to Philip Christian Stead (Q104586932). The trick is to add the "intentional sitelink to redirect" badge at the same time.
  • My initial thought was to create a new item for Jude Fisher, but after reading more discussions (link below) I realised that they really do want all the identifiers for one person to be in a single item. Yes, we could adapt the template so it puts the subject named as (P1810) value in brackets, or as a tool-tip as you suggested. I think this is best approach for pseudonames.
  • For Bonnie & Clydes, we need to allow additional qids to be specified. There is no way around that, as far as I can see.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't you just have a pair of authority control templates, and give them each a different specified qid? Or do you want a solution that requires only 1 template per article?
If we insist on only 1 template per article, perhaps Bonnie & Clydes could be dealt with similarly to Jude Fishers. The template could be made to allow multiple qids to be specified, but could distinguish the id links in much the same way. So, instead of it being all numbers, each id would be labelled according to which qid it came from (but, preferably, only if multiple qids are specified).
This could get complicated. It would have to be done in such a way as to not cause issues if we have a Bonnie whose qid is linked to multiple ids distinguished by "subject named as". – Scyrme (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
For Bonnie & Clyde, we can use two separate templates (but probably linked together somehow rather than two separate boxes?) because Bonnie Parker (Q2319886) and Clyde Barrow (Q3320282) are two separate people with different Wikidata items.
For pseudonyms, we will need to use one template because all the identifiers are contained in one item. How to display the "subject named as" is up for discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Update

At time of writing Category:Pages using authority control with parameters contains 6 articles with multiple AC templates (Bonnie & Clyde type). All others have been cleared. I am continuing to work on a major rewrite of the module code, which will allow me to implement other changes (discussed above) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a major rewrite of the module's code on Module:Authority control/sandbox to make it more efficient and adaptable. It passes all my tests. No change in functionality is intended (yet). Will deploy shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 2 § Category:Articles with WORLDCATID identifiers

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 2 § Category:Articles with WORLDCATID identifiers. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Lighthouse identifiers

Template:Lighthouse identifiers has now been merged with this template (now possible since additional qids are supported). Therefore I need to add the following identifiers from that template to authority control:

I will sandbox code and give some examples — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Some examples at Template:Authority control/testcases#Lighthouses — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

On the sandbox I have code which will add a link to the template to facilitate easily adding locally defined values to Wikidata via a tool called QuickStatements. It will only show when there are local parameters defined which are different to or omitted from Wikidata.

(Removed)

In the example shown, clicking the arrow icon will open QuickStatements with the missing values prefilled. Please DO NOT actually press "Run" because these values are just made-up examples. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually I have changed it to use the sandbox, so now you can safely run it too, if you would like to test it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This has been deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary of Irish Biography URLs broken

Formatter URL for DIB wikidata:Property:P6829 has changed...

from https://dib.cambridge.org/viewReadPage.do?articleId=$1
to https://doi.org/10.3318/dib.$1.v1

... so Module:Authority control/config needs to be updated to match. jnestorius(talk) 16:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Change made on sandbox, tested below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

KANTO

Hi, I wanted to let you know that in the list included in this page is missing the line relative to National Library of Finland - KANTO, that is even reported among the examples in the Authority_control page. Could please anyone assist in creating it? Thanks a lot in advance.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Ferdinando Scala (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be Wikidata P8980, but I don't trust myself to edit the config page properly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to confirm, this is a request for a new identifier to be added to the template? If so, we would usually give some time for other editors to comment before applying to editprotected template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, yes I would like the new identifier to be added to the Template:Authority control, so to have it available as an option. I understand this is a very delicate operation, so I would be grateful for other editors to comment about the request and validate it for implementation.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I have disabled the request for now. If you could make your proposed changes to Module:Authority control/config/sandbox and then we can test to see how it works? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Martin, I tried to edit the sandbox as per your request, but it is my very first attempt to this kind of module, so I'm terrified to do a mess and I need your strict supervision. You can find my edit as it follows - see wikicode for correct visualization:

}, { 'KANTO', property = P8980, section = 4, example = '12345678901', pattern = '^'..string.rep('[%-0-9A-Za-z]', 11)..'$', link = 'https://www.kansalliskirjasto.fi/en$1', label = 'KANTO (Finland)', regex = '[\-0-9A-Za-z]{11}'

I edited the fields property, link and label - please check. I didn't touch the fields section, example, regex and pattern, since I don't know how to edit them - I copy/pasted another item, so the values in these fields are the ones of that item. Could you please give a glance and edit/test if it works? Thanks a lot--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The section=4 puts it under "Art research institutes", see example below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I changed that value as section 2, in order to correctly place it among the national libraries. Could you please check if it is good now? I have no idea about the other values that I didn't edit. I also edited the label, in order to maintain uniformity with the others.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I edited the other values for you :) I do not oppose the addition. Let's leave for a day or two for others to comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, very kind of you! Ok, I'll wait for others to comment Ferdinando Scala (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any opinion on whether this identifier should be added to the "arts" whitelist? I'm not really sure of the criteria for that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, it shouldn't be added to the general arts whitelist (the entry from Kanto for, say, Rubens[2] or Hergé[3] (they even have his real name wrong) isn't useful for enwiki readers): but if wanted, a new language code "Fi" can be added which has all the standard entries plus Kanto, and which can be used specifically for subjects with a real connection to Finland. Fram (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The same logic would imply that it should be suppressed from all non-Finland-related articles, not just arts-related articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
If it were up to me, sure... But some people adamantly insist that any identifier added to AC needs to be shown everywhere it exists, no matter if it useful there or not. Fram (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
So in fact the "arts" whitelist is not really relevant to the arts per se, it is simply a more selective list of identifiers based on usefulness? This is a revelation! I always assumed they were picked due to their relevance to the arts. Personally I have no problem using a more restrictive list generally, as long as we include a prominent link to Wikidata, piped to something like "More identifiers" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a list of general identifiers most likely to be useful to enwiki readers (everything in English), plus all specific art identifiers no matter the language, plus where needed one or two language-specific ones for subjects with a tie to that language (usually the national library of the country of an artist). So a combination of "relevance to the arts" and "usefulness". Fram (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi guys just a comment only to understand. In my understanding, KANTO should apply to show all the book properties and their related authors included in the National Library of Finland, as it does for other National Libraries of other countries, like the Library of Congress, for example. I'm therefore unsure about the meaning of the art-related discussion I read here. Could you please explain? I'm here to learn. Thanks a lot in advance.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I would support a more selective list of identifiers by default (while still allowing something like |show=all for when editors think that the full list is useful). I think the case against this would be weaker now that we have Wikidata, and the full list of all identifiers is only a click away ... For the record, I am not comfortable about excluding sources just because they are non-English - the decision on whether to include should primarily be made on comprehensiveness and reliability of the information available — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I included a few non-English ones like the GND as these usually present additional info, but most of the ones excluded add nothing to the already present ones, and do so in a language unfamiliar to most readers (and not connected to the subject either). For example, Aurelio Fierro lists the Polish national library[4], which seems to add no value for enwiki readers (but remains available on Wikidata, no issue there). The Institute for Balkan Studies (Greece) has similar superfluous links to e.g. the Czech or Norwegian national library, adding nothing of value to enwiki. In contrast the GND entry for the same institution at least has more info (dates, publications), so I'm more inclined to keep that one even though it's not in English either. Fram (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@BTW, thank you Martin to add this up and all the support you kindly gave to me. However, I wanted to let you to know that in the table shown at Module:Authority control, the identifier appears as a warning sign, rather than as Finland, as it should be. Could you please fix this? Thanks a lot in advance Ferdinando Scala (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes that was one of the values that you copied from a different entry. I have fixed this on the sandbox and it will be deployed the next time a significant change is made — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot Ferdinando Scala (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Article covers multiple items

For the Bonnie & Clyde situations, we can consider an approach similar to that which I devised for lighthouses, where additional QIDs are listed separately but in the same box. Example below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC) {{Lighthouse identifiers | qid=Q213804 | qid2=Q18431329 | qid3=Q3739194}} I think my preferred style for additional identifiers is as follows:

In this case, all the identifiers for the additional items will be displayed on one line (no further division into sections) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The coding for this is now complete on the sandbox, just needs some further testing. An example with Lindisfarne is below:

And with Bonnie and Clyde:

I think this will please some people :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is now deployed and you can see the results on articles such as George and Elizabeth Peckham — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me. – Scyrme (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Rather than using separate parameters like |qid2 = Q2319886 | qid3 = Q3320282 I am thinking it might be easier to have one parameter and separate with commas, for example |additional = Q2319886,Q3320282 Any opinions on that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added this task to the to-do list — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done Just to note that this was done, and documentation updated — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Improve how we handle faulty identifiers

I don't think we should display the ugly red warning (example below) to readers of an article - it is only editors that need to see these. I propose the following changes:

  • Prominent warning shown in preview when editing the article.
  • Warning shown to logged-in editors, which should include a link directly to the identifier that needs fixing.
  • A single category to track faulty identifiers, sorted by identifier name.
  • No warning is shown to readers. In this case, the link could just be hidden, or we could delink the identifier, or we could just show the link as normal (which will probably not work). Which is best?

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The first two suggestions seem like a good idea. Could you clarify what you mean by "a single category to track faulty identifiers, sorted by identifier name"?
Category:Articles with faulty authority control information already exists. Are you suggesting dissolving all its subcategories? Don't see what good that would do. I personally found the subcategories very helpful when I was clearing the category.
Regarding what readers see, I think showing the link as normal would probably be much simpler than changing what the template displays based on whether the identifer works and whether the person looking at an article is logged in.
I don't think hiding everything broken from readers is the best approach in general. "Editor" and "reader" aren't mutually exclusive categories; editors are often also readers, and readers sometimes edit infrequently so don't bother registering an account. I've also noticed that some editors only bother logging in when they have to communicate on Talk or use a gadget/script. Given this, it may be better to just leave the broken link on display; someone might try and fix it, even if they aren't registered or logged in.
That said, if you (or others) strongly disagree, my second preference would be for hiding rather than delinking. I don't see the benefit of delinking. Indicating an identifier without providing a link just seems like it would be unhelpful clutter. At best it, it basically says "an identifier exists, but we won't tell you what the identifer is or what the problem with it is". Seems worse than useless. In-fact, if I saw a "1" with no link listed with the identifiers I'd assume the template was broken and not the identifier. Delinking would probably confuse more people than it would help. – Scyrme (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was suggesting "dissolving all its subcategories" and I'll explain why. I notice there are some errors with identifiers (the total number is showing 3, for example). Then I have to go looking at all the categories to see which ones have a "1" in them. Perhaps I'm doing this all wrong, but wouldn't it be easier to just look in one category Category:Articles with faulty authority control information and then you could immediately see the articles which have a problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay I see you do not want to adjust the display based on whether a user is logged in or not. In that case, why don't we just hide the link for all users? The error would still be visible in preview, and would still trigger the error category. Or perhaps a less ugly icon like next to the faulty identifier? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with quickly scanning over the page to find the relevant category. I suppose subcategories are less important since the errors were cleared, leaving most categories usually empty, however, I still find grouping by identifer helpful. You suggested "sorted by identifier name", but I'm not sure how that would be implemented. I've only ever seen categories organised alphanumerically. Is it possible to changing the alphanumerical headings to specific predetermined headings? Or would the groups still be labelled alphanumerically, with the categorisation simply ignoring the article title in favour of the identifier name? What about identifiers that start with the same letter? Wouldn't those be grouped together?
Many maintenance categories have a subcategory "all articles ...." in addition to specific subcategories (eg. Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit has subcategories by month but also has Category:All articles needing copy edit). In this case an article with a faulty identifier would go into its specific cateogry and into "Category:All articles with faulty authority control information".
Perhaps it would help if you created an "all articles ..." category organised the way you're suggesting, as a subcategory of Category:Articles with faulty authority control information, while leaving the subcategories intact for now (either transitionally or permanently, depending on further discussion).
I don't mind adjusting the display of the error message based on whether a user is logged in or not and I'm not opposed to hiding the link for offline users, I would simply prefer to leave the link visible unless others object. I'm only opposed to delinking while leaving it displayed. – Scyrme (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes I meant using WP:SORTKEYs to keep all the same identifiers together. So faulty AAG identifiers would be listed first, then ACM-DL, etc. We can just set this up and try it, to see what you think. By the way, I've mocked up my exclamation mark icon below. Notice that it links straight to the faulty identifier on wikidata. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I have deployed the warning triangle icon, let me know what you think. I am also using Category:Articles with faulty authority control information to catch all the faulty ids. This will run in parallel with all the separate subcategories for the time being, so we can assess the effectiveness. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Using sortkeys results in alphabetically labelled groups that mix identifiers, and which don't label which identifier is the problem or provide any additionally information. I definitely prefer the subcateogries, particularly as I don't have every acronym memorised so I find the links to the Wikipedia article and Wikidata item in the hatnote of each subcategory helpful.
I would recommend creating Category:All articles with faulty authority control information to pool all the articles together as you've suggested. It can be sorted under a blank space so it shows up ahead of all the subcategories by itself. Editors could then choose which approach they prefer.
Creating a separate subcategory would also allow you to add a description regarding how the articles are sorted, since people looking at Category:Articles with faulty authority control information might find the current arrangement confusing. (The articles at the bottom aren't sorted alphabetically, and it's not immediately obvious that they are sorted by identifier. Additionally, having them pooled in the main category makes it look like they've just not been sorted into a subcategory yet.)
The warning triangle looks good to me, except that it doesn't seem to be linked at all. However, these warnings are usually text-only. Would using an image with a tooltip cause any problems for anyone? Perhaps for mobile users? I'm probably overthinking it; it's most likely fine.
By the way, I don't know if you noticed, but I also replied to you regarding the "Reboot" earlier. – Scyrme (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I have created Category:All articles with faulty authority control information and have put the code to use it in the sandbox. The warning triangle should be linked whenever there is a wikidata item attached to the article. So the example below does not have a link, but any in the article space should be working. I've been thinking about your suggestion in the other suggestion and will reply shortly! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Break

Scyrme (and others): how is it going with the new all-inclusive error tracking category? Have you found it useful? I still don't think we need 104 separate categories to do the job of one category ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see Template:Authority control/sandbox#List of identifiers for how the table will look without the 104 separate error categories — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven't been using Category:All articles with faulty authority control information because there was only one in there (last I looked) which seemed to be due to the module having the wrong regex/lua pattern and you seem to have changed how that's handled; it's presently empty so I assume you (or someone else) fixed it before I got around to mentioning it.
Regardless, I don't think anything has changed regarding the issues I mentioned earlier and I'm not sure how the table in the template/sandbox documentation is meant to help, particularly as the version in the sandbox doesn't appear to count the number of faults per identifier (unless you've coded it to only display that column when an error is present?).
If the table could (or does?) provide a count of faulty ids without relying on the corresponding category then it would provide all the info that the categories presently do, and I would agree that they wouldn't be needed anymore. In that case, the table would also preferably be included at the top of Category:All articles with faulty authority control information in the description (under a collapsible heading to conserve space); this would prevent having to go back and forth between two different pages to get relevant info. – Scyrme (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the code for checking Treccani's Biographical Dictionary of Italian People ID (P1986) was getting too complicated to maintain, so I have removed all checking on this identifier for now. Errors are still tracked at Wikidata: Wikidata:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P1986#Format.
Regarding the error categories, my thinking is as follows: space is really tight on the documentation table, and without this column of zeroes we will have more space for all the other infor. It would be great if you could try using the catch-all category, because I think you will find it quite easy to use, especially with the linking of faulty identifiers to Wikidata, which is quite handy. Alternatively, could we move all the counts from the documentation table, and perhaps put these on a separate page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
My reply got a bit long, so I've put it under a collapsible heading; skip to the tl;dr if you're only interested in my practical suggestions and not my rationale.
Extended content
I had already fixed the Wikidata side of things, at least for that that one article and its Wikidata item, by updating the regex; the error only appeared on the Wikipedia side of things, which error tracking on Wikidata doesn't help with.
There's nothing to try when the category is empty and my issues only really become apparent when there are multiple entries with different faulty identifiers. To clarify, my process has generally been to work in batches on all articles sharing the same faulty identifier; having them all be grouped together explicitly under the name of that identifier with information about that identifier (as is the case with the individual categories) is especially helpful. When there's only one or two errors this process becomes irrelevant because there's nothing to group together.
Links to the faulty identifiers on each article don't help with identifying which articles share the same faulty identifier. The table with both information and error counts wouldn't fully be able to replace the categories in this process, but it would help enough in sifting through things that I wouldn't find the absence of individual categories too much of a hassle.
Separating the counts from the information defeats the point of having both in the same place, which is what the categories provide. All these table entries take up at least two lines; a simple way to save space might be to have the error count in brackets in small text under the article count.
Hypothetically, if this table is part of a template that serves both the category and the template documentation as I suggested, it could have a parameter which can toggle whether errors are displayed or hidden, since I can see how that would be superfluous to the documentation especially when many or all are 0. I think it's feasible based on a somewhat similar thing I've seen at {{History of China}} which uses a parameter to determine whether AD/BC or CE/BCE dates are displayed. I think replacing one of those options with blank text would have the intended effect of hiding vs displaying text; you know more about this than I do. – Scyrme (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Mockup, to illustrate:
Code Identifer Wikidata property Section Appears as Articles
AAG Auckland Art Gallery P3372: Auckland Art Gallery
artist ID		 Art galleries and
museums		 (Auckland) 1,828
(30)
  • tl;dr - A table with both info and fault counts in the same place would be more helpful. Space could be saved by having faults display under the article count (see mockup above). The table could be made part of a template with a parameter to toggle whether error counts display, to hide superfluous info from the documentation if need be. – Scyrme (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    The error count is brackets is definitely an improvement - thanks for the suggestion! More generally though - do these counts need to be on the documentation page at all? (They are not useful for editors trying to learn how to use the template.) If thery are useful for editors fixing errors, we could have a separate table somewhere (where space is not constrained). This separate table could omit the remarks and perhaps some other columns, to be more compact. Perhaps this is what you are suggesting in your final paragraph, but I couldn't really follow that part.
    I'm going to stop correcting errors with identifiers for a week, to give you a chance to do some and maybe try using the catch-all category :) I think the main reason for grouping is to know which identifier you are looking for. But now the link takes you straight there, I can't see much benefit in that anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    I was suggesting that if the table were incorporated into a template, that template could be placed both in the documentation and also somewhere else (particularly, the error category itself), and a parameter could be used to determine whether the error count is displayed or hidden. That is, the template may hide them by default but setting (eg.) |faults= to "yes" would cause them to be displayed. Is that more clear?
    The main benefit for me was that I could work through articles with the same faulty identifier as a batch. I start with the identifier and work through all the articles that have a fault with that identifer. The links do not help with that because it requires knowing the identifier before even opening any articles. The categories made it easy becuase it collected all relevant articles automatically. The table (with the error counts) would at least let me know how many errors for a particular identifier there are under a particular letter in the "All articles..." category. Wouldn't be as convenient as the categories, but it would be good enough (assuming the error counts don't start accumulating into the hundreds, but that's not likely). – Scyrme (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Yes we can use a parameter. We can also use a completely different format of table for the other location. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    Please check your new dashboard at Category:All articles with faulty authority control information. I've hidden any rows where there aren't any errors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    That's a good idea; the new table looks great! I can definitely work with that. I'm surprised you added a column for tracking categories since you wanted to get rid of them. – Scyrme (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I am unable to obtain the number of faults for each separate identifier without keeping all those tracking categories. So it looks like we are stuck with them! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Display label for unconnected pages

When used in userspace or draftspace, this template can be used with the |qid= parameter to draw its data from a particular Wikidata item. In these cases I think it would be better if the template displayed the label of this item, which would then clearly show what the data relates to. In the event of an error in the qid, this could then be rectified quickly.

Articles in mainspace are soon connected to Wikidata items, so this label would not be needed.

I'll make a mock-up to show what I mean. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

For example, on Draft:Elena Mantovan, {{Authority control|qid=Q102112854}} would show something like:

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This is now coded on the sandbox. (Just to reiterate that this is only for unconnected pages and for 99.99% of uses will never be seen.) The example from is shown — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 Done - now deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple IDs for one person

Regarding Scyrme's comment above, I read Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/12#Modelling a writer's pen name which deals with this subject. It seems that the preferred approach is to merge items about a single person. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made a mockup of some options for dealing with these. The examples below are based on Jane Johnson (Q95092) who has pen name Jude Fisher. Please let me know your thoughts. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the tooltip doesn't combined well with links; in order to get the tooltip to show you have to hover slightly below the link, which makes it easy to miss. Bracketing the text after the link adds unnecessary length. I'd say that "linked" is the best approach, of the options here.
Another idea might be to have the links be numbered but followed by unlinked text, such as a dagger mark, with a tooltip. This might preserve most of the compactness of using the tooltip while resolving the hover issue. – Scyrme (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The tooltip works well on my browser (Chrome), with a large activation area — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm also using Chrome and I'm using a mouse, but the tooltip does not show if I hover directly over the linked square/arrow symbol which is most of the linked area. – Scyrme (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay I see what you mean now. (I didn't understand your comment about having to hover below the link.) So you think the tooltip activation area is not wide enough? Okay. I believe there is some kind of accessibility issue with tooltips as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Please mock up the dagger mark idea if you think it's worth pursuing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: I agree that the linked version looks good below. But what about if some of the identifiers use "subject named as" qualifier and some do not? In this case you will get some linked to name, and others just linked to a number - is that okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

My experience is that, almost every time when I see a name with multiple ids, it is because the id system in question has not merged duplicate entries for a single person under minor variants of their name. Example: María Emilia Caballero currently has three VIAF ids: VIAF 65685635 under the names Caballero, M.E / Caballero, María Emilia / Caballero, M. E. (María Emilia) (linked to four other national ids), VIAF 26907948 under the names Caballero, Maria Emilia / Caballero, Ma. Emilia (María Emilia) (linked to three other national ids, two of which are duplicates of the ones in the first VIAF), and VIAF 78158185569520060799 under the name Caballero, M. E. (María Emilia) (linked to one more national id). Fortunately in her case we somehow avoided having several more duplicates under the surnames Caballero Acosta or Acosta. Listing all of these names as if they are different pseudonyms, in such cases, would clog up the authority control box with junk. Only the current short numerical form is acceptable for this sort of case. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Probably the best way to deal with this is to mark the relevant identifiers as "preferred" in Wikidata. I've done that for María Emilia Caballero and now only the first two VIAF identifiers are showing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Why on earth do you think that is the correct thing to do? They are all valid VIAF identifiers. What makes one of them preferred over another? Why should they not all be shown? If someone wants to see a VIAF identifier at all, why would you presume to know which one they want to see? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Based on my understanding of your own comments above: "Only the current short numerical form is acceptable for this sort of case" and " Listing all of these names ... would clog up the authority control box". If you have changed your mind then feel free to change the preferred ranking on Wikidata — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The correct thing to do is to list VIAF (1) (2) (3). They are all valid VIAFs and should all be listed. The incorrect thing to do is either of the two things you propose, arbitrarily picking and choosing to list only some of these VIAFs or clogging up the authority control template with junk like VIAF (1: Caballero, M.E / Caballero, María Emilia / Caballero, M. E. (María Emilia) (2: Caballero, Maria Emilia / Caballero, Ma. Emilia (María Emilia)) (3: Caballero, M. E. (María Emilia)). It was fine as is. Why make it worse? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't understand you the first time. I don't know if you are aware or not, but your comments come across quite aggressively so I would suggest you tone down your language in future posts. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Current

Brackets

Linked

Tooltip

Daggermark (tooltip on dagger)

I have the tooltip version mocked up on the sandbox now. For Jane Johnson is looks like this: Constructive comments welcome! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme, any opinion on this? I know you preferred the linked version but there was some opposition to that idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Apologies for the delay. I've been distracted. I've mocked up two versions my earlier suggestion to separate the link and tooltip below, following the examples you provided above. I prefer the first, with a linked daggermark. I think this avoids the problem of cluttering up the template with long or very similar qualifiers, which (if I've understood correctly) is the issue with the "brackets" and simple "linked" approaches. The daggermark approach is only less compact by the width of a character or two, which shouldn't cause a clutter problem.
Regarding any accesibility issues, if for some reason someone is unable to make the tooltip appear, that's no worse than the current version of the template which doesn't provide any distinguishing information. The tooltip seems better than nothing, even if it's not perfect. (I'm open to alternative suggestions.)
If there are multiples ids but no "subject named as" or "pseudonym" qualifier is provided, then maybe the tooltip should simply display the identifier itself as a way of distinguishing them? – Scyrme (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for mocking those up. To be honest, I'm not sure about the dagger mark for the following reasons. Normally when I see a mark like this I would expect to see a footnote or something at the bottom of the page which explains something further. (This is also how Dagger (mark) explains it.) Therefore I think this mark may confuse people. And I have concerns about inconsistency if we are linking a dagger mark in some links and not others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As no other comments have been received, I'm wondering whether we should implement the tooltip version and see what people think about it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

When I view the tooltip-on-dagger version (the first one in this section), in vector2022, I see a dagger symbol in black, with dashed underlining. Hovering over it shows me a black question-mark-in-disk symbol. Clicking on the dagger or the question mark does nothing. This seems pointless and confusing. In the "For Jane Johnson is looks like this" version I see no daggers. My default interpretation of a dagger is that it often means a death, something unrelated to the intended meaning here. So maybe I am missing something but I don't understand what implementing this is supposed to accomplish. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The Jane Johnson mockup isn't supposed to have daggers; it is (or was) a mockup of the simple tooltip version. Originally the daggermark versions were posted separately (so Jane Johnson immediately followed "Tooltip") but I think Martin moved them up to list all the mockups together.
The point of the daggermark to suggest how the link and tooltip could be separated, to make it clearer as to what to hover over to get a tooltip note, because the tooltip's hitbox doesn't cover the whole link and can clash with the link's own on-hover hitbox. Using a daggermark was just for illustrative purposes; I did not intend to suggest that specifically that symbol be used. The symbol wasn't the point; the point was to have unlinked text carry the tooltip so that a reader could hover over that to get information about the link that they otherwise wouldn't get.
It was only a suggestion of something to try. I'm open to other solutions. – Scyrme (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
If no-one wants to suggest anything better, I suppose "Tooltip" is the best solution left. It doesn't clutter the template but still provides some indication of which name each link pertains to. They don't work as quite as nicely as I would like, but having them is better than nothing. They don't block clicks on the links, so anyone who doesn't notice or doesn't understand the tooltips should be able to carry on as usual without issues. – Scyrme (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll put it back on the sandbox and see if anyone else wants to comment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay I have added the tooltip version. Let's see if we get any feedback. One possible improvement would be to only show the tooltip if there are multiple identifiers for some property. Currently it will show the tooltip whenever subject named as (P1810) or pseudonym (P742) is defined — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like sensible improvement to me; if there aren't multiple identifiers, there's no need to distinguish between them with tooltips. – Scyrme (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I will code this up. Might take a while - it's quite a major rework because identifiers are currently processed sequentially but for this to work I will need to look ahead to see if there is a second identifier before rendering the first identifier ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Whitelist

I am planning to implement a whitelist system which will allow wrapper templates to opt-in to various identifiers. This would be of use to the arts wrapper, which currently suppresses all of the unnecessary identifiers. I could also use it for {{Lighthouse identifiers}} and there are probably other use cases, e.g. identifiers by country? What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: to help me with this, could you please provide a list of identifiers which should be included on the arts template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Viaf and Worldcat, AAG, ADB, AGSA, AWR, Bildindex, CWGC, DAOO, DIB, DSI, FNZA, GND, Google Scholar, Joconde, KULTURNAV, LCCN, NARA, NGV, NLA, PIC, RKDartists, RKDID, SIKART, SNAC-ID, TePapa, Trove, ULAN. That should about cover it. Fram (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay thanks. And what are the country specific ones? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • CH for Switzerland (adds HDS, LIR and RERO)
  • CZ for Czechia (adds NKC)
  • CL for Chile (adds BNC)
  • ES for Spain (adds BNE and CANTIC)
  • GR for Greece (adds NLG)
  • HR for Croatia (adds NLK)
  • IL for Israel (adds NLI)
  • IT for Italy (adds ICCU and VcBA)
  • JA for Japan (adds NDL)
  • KR for South Korea (adds NLK)
  • LV for Latvia (adds LNB)
  • NL for the Netherlands (adds BPN and NTA)
  • PL for Poland (adds NLP and PLWABN)
  • RO for Romania (adds NLR)
  • RU for Russia (adds RSL)
  • SV for Sweden (adds SELIBR)
  • TR for Turkey (adds TDVIA)
  • TW for Taiwan (adds NCL)
  • UY for Uruguay (adds autores.uy)

That should cover it. Fram (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this will be a job for January — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
This is now coded in the sandbox, and will work with |show=arts on the parent template. I have added a few which were missing from the list above, just to make it match existing behaviour: Bibliothèque nationale de France ID (P268), Treccani's Biographical Dictionary of Italian People ID (P1986), Deutsche Biographie (GND) ID (P7902), Biografisch Portaal van Nederland ID (P651). If these are not wanted, then it would probably be simplest to have a separate discussion about that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I still need to add the country identifiers. And I will make the parameters work from the article, so instead of {{Authority control (arts) | country = CZ}} you could also type {{Authority control | show = arts, CZ}} As an aside, once this is implemented, the |suppress= parameter will work properly, so you will be able to selectively suppress individual identifiers, e.g. {{Authority control | show = arts, CZ | suppress = GND}} would show all the arts and CZ identifiers except GND. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done This has now been implemented — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I have just added some info to the doc page, and there is a list of available whitelists which can be seen at Template:Authority control/sandbox#List of whitelists — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup tracking categories

I would like to remove any tracking categories that are no longer needed or being used. Please let me know if any of the following are still required?

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:AC using state parameter: other, a subcategory of the first, may be helpful in fixing errors. I noticed there was one in there which had been using "autocollapsed" instead of "autocollapse". It could help with other similar mistakes and typos. eg. "colapsed" instead of "collapsed", "collasped" instead of "collapsed", "expand" instead of "expanded", "ecpanded" instead of "expanded" (if mistyping a nearby key on a QWERTY keyboard).
Some of these could be pre-empted with by allowing both "-ed" and no "-ed" for each of the settings, but some typos may be difficult to predict so keeping the "other" category may be helpful even if this is done. – Scyrme (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use one category to track all incorrect uses of the template or parameters. I'll think about it and come back with suggestions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I have created Category:Pages with authority control identifiers needing attention and added sortkeys for 5 issues, 3 of which we were already tracking and 2 new ones. I will try and think of all common errors that should be tracked and add them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ: why are you removing Category:AC with n elements (0)? Category:AC with 0 elements (0) is useful for those wishing to populate subjects, and/or for more easily finding inappropriate uses of {{Authority control}}. The higher-number "n"s are useful for those wishing to see how AC looks on "real world" examples, and to know how big the "tail" is on the element-number distribution...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Well I posted about a month ago to ask if anyone is using these and no one responded about those categories. I don't think we should keep tracking categories unless they are actively being used. I can see they would be invaluable when the template was redesigned, but it's just clutter now. No other template tracks number of parameters used, as far as I know. Anyway, if you feel strongly it can be added back. Nice to see you again by the way! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The same goes for Category:ACArt with n suppressed elements (0) and subcategories.
Category:Articles with multiple identifiers (0) was for more easily finding true/false duplicates - i.e. 2 or more VIAF IDs, whether intentional or accidental. I haven't looked at the recent (and the not-so-recent) changes. Are those tracked somewhere else now? If not, I would suggest restoring that functionality as well.
Category:AC using state parameter (0) has probably served its purpose - to determine whether or not AC should be auto-collapsed by default (for posterity, the autocollapse/collapsed/expanded subcategory |state= counts are currently 33/1352/551).
Thanks for adding the categories back (in due time), and the welcome. I'm still preoccupied IRL though, and only noticed this from the speedy deletion notices.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
If you (or anyone else) are actively working on articles in these tracking categories then they should be restored. But if it is merely for curiosity then I don't think they should remain indefinitely. There is nothing we can do about articles that were in Category:Articles with multiple identifiers. It's for the other databases to sort out the duplicate entries. So I don't see the value of that category. I will keep the subcategories of Category:ACArt with n suppressed elements until the whitelist function is ready, then these will probably empty naturally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Feeding National Library Board Singapore ID into Wikipedia

Moved from User talk:Johnuniq
 – Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, a happy new year to you! I am writing from the National Library Board Singapore. This is in reference to my question in an earlier post in Template talk:Authority control/Archive 6#Feeding Wikidata identifier into Wikipedia.

We have created the the identifier National Library Board Singapore ID (P3988) in Wikidata and would like to expose it in English Wikipedia under authority control. E.g. The National Library Board (Q6974124) ID l26-DGZwOIE only exists in Wikidata, but not found in the authority control of the English Wikipedia article National Library Board.

I've tried adding the National Library Board Singapore ID l26-DGZwOIE to the Wikipedia article National Library Board based on the solution you provided. However, the identifier does not display in the Wikipedia article. Am I missing something here? Nlbkos (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added it to the sandbox, example below. A couple of comments:
  1. There seems to be no valid URL for this to link to.
  2. On wikidata:Property talk:P3988, User:Robertsky says "This property is currently down and being replaced. I had reached out to the library and they replied that new services are being planned to launch in December 2022."
Can you comment on these points? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I wasn't really following up on this... But looking at the edit history of the example's history, it seems that there the new version may be released soon. :D However, it also shows that the identifier of the new service is likely to be different from the existing ones in the wikidata entry, therefore further work will be needed to remap/re-key all wikidata items with the old identifier to the new one. – robertsky (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Robert. Perhaps Nlbkos can update us. It's probably better to wait until this is stable before thinking about adding it to the authority control template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Nlbkos please reply when you are able — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ The National Library Board Singapore ID (NLB ID) is not valid at this moment as we are in the process of developing a new linked data service. It will be replaced by a new identifier and required a new property to be created in Wikidata as advised by the Wikidata community. We will update you and the Wikipedia community once the new NLB ID is up in Wikidata.
We've a couple of questions regarding the display of NLB ID under the authority control in Wikipedia articles:
1) After the new NLB IDs have been added to the corresponding Wikidata items, how will the NLB ID be listed in the list of identifiers in the Template:Authority control page?
2) What is the process of populating NLB IDs into the authority control under the corresponding Wikipedia articles (E.g. the article on National Library Board) ? Do we have to do it manually, or can we automate the process?
Appreciate your advice on the above questions. Thank you! Nlbkos (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So these are the steps you will need to follow:

  1. Propose the new property at wikidata:Wikidata:Property proposal and wait for it to be created.
  2. Populate it on as many items as possible. If there is an automatic method to convert from the old identifier then this could be done by bot. You can ask at wikidata:Wikidata:Bot requests.
  3. Come back here and request for the new property to be added to the template.
  4. Then any article containing the {{authority control}} template will automatically display the identifier.

Hope this helps — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I have done this on a whim: https://w.wiki/6LXq, a query displaying all current wikidata items with the current property defined. There are 4872 of them.
For the bot request, what might be possible is: download the results; add another column, 'nlbNewLabel'; add the identifier of each item (if available) to the new column; request wikidata to help process the new identifiers accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

ISIL to authority control

Hi, please add ISIL (P791) for libraries and museums to en-wiki authority control. Thanks. Grimes2 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we can look into that. Could you (briefly) describe what it's for and what value it would bring to articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
ISIL is used to identify the originator or holder of library and archive collection material. It allows to participate in international library or book trade exchange.
Example: ISIL DE-30 links to https://sigel.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/suche/?isil=DE-30
Further information:
Note: The project is currently in progress, so not every library or museum link works. Grimes2 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Sandboxed ISIL, example below. I don't know what section is most appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it possible to display "ISIL DE-30" (the ID) in Authority control. Grimes2 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
It is possible, but as you will notice from the other links, this is not currently preferred style on this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Grimes2 are you okay to proceed in this manner? Do you have an opinion on which section the identifier should be displayed? Anyone else: do you have any problem with adding this identifier to the template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Martin, the example works fine and the manner is ok. "Other" section is adequate (no other section fits). Grimes2 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay great, I will wait a few days in case anyone else has an opinion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
For me, the link gives at first "Cannot resolve hostname 'ld.zdb-services.de' in explicit-proxy request.". When refreshing, it guides me to this, which is not the original link but a search page (with relevant results). Fram (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the "Cannot resolve hostname" message, but yes I end up at igel.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de site rather than w3id.org site. Is this normal Grimes2? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes this is normal. ISIL is not managed by a central database, but individual country databases. So w3id redirects to the specific database in Germany. Grimes2 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The given link https://sigel.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/suche/?isil=DE-30 is ok, because permalink is /suche?isil=DE-30 Grimes2 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I think the redirect is necessary, because that site only resolves the German libraries. Other nationalities will presumably be diverted elsewhere. Let me experiment a bit — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I was correct. The example below of a Swiss library redirects to a different site. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
That Swiss one works for me as well. No idea what the issue with the other one was or is, but as long as we end up at the right place... Fram (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
By the way, this one seems like a useful addition to "Authority control (arts)" as well. Fram (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

US example, links to LoC and that is the National Library in US and also manager of ISIL, so redundant to "United States" link. Grimes2 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Your opinion? Grimes2 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Working

Not working

plus Added to template (and to arts whitelist) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"W3IDs are currently supported for AT-\*, AU-\*, DE-\*, FI-\*, FR-\*, IT-\*, JP-\*, NZ-\*, BE-\*, CA-\*, KR.\*, US-\* and ZDB-\* ISILs." and CH. For example GB-UkOxU-OC Oriel College, Oxford gives "404 Not Found". Grimes2 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
So we have a few options:
  1. Try to find a link that works for all types
  2. Hide those links which don't work
  3. Remove the link for all of them,
  4. Try to code custom links depending on the prefix — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
UK has a PDF, but no database yet. We could hide these ISILs. Grimes2 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The project is still in progress, so there will be additional databases for countries soon. W3ID will add these databases. Another options: We accept "404 Not found" or we can make a "positive" list. Grimes2 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
No I don't think we should accept broken links. I should be able to code something up to only link ids of the form AT-\*, AU-\*, DE-\*, FI-\*, FR-\*, IT-\*, JP-\*, NZ-\*, BE-\*, CA-\*, KR.\*, US-\* and ZDB-\* but it may take some time. Do we know roughly what proportion of the links are not working, because if it's a lot I will revert until the coding and testing has been done? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Not many. Here is the distribution of ISILs: User:Grimes2/Maps (takes some time, its a large database) Germany, Swiss, Italy, France, Austria, New Zealand, Belgium are working. US: large parts, JP: shows strange xml. Grimes2 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I've coded the sandbox so only those with prefix you specified will display. Should we remove "JP" from that list, because Okinawa does not seem to work well? We could perhaps show the raw identifier if there is no link available, what do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree (both questions). Grimes2 (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Canada CA-QMBN works too. Grimes2 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have deployed the custom logic for ISIL. any problems please let me know. By the way, it is rather unfortunate the ISIL redirects to Islamic State — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've tested. Found not a single error. Good work (as always). Grimes2 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Layout issue on one page

At Barrie Public Library, the Authority Control spans 5 lines for just 3 entries? It's not a common issue, e.g. Saint John Free Public Library doesn't have this problem, it looks to be an issue with Template:Barrie, but it's not immediately clear what it could be (and whether it would affect more pages with the authority control template). Fram (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that Grimes2 fixed this by putting authority control on a new line. Not quite sure why that was necessary though ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
This seems to have sorted it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. Fram (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

National Library and Archives of Canada

Hi, I'm proceeding with my revision of Wikidata properties - National Libraries to verify their inclusion in the Authority control template. I discovered, further to Finland's, that also the National Library and Archives of Canada is missing. Wikidata property is: Library and Archives Canada (Q913250). Could please anyone help me to fix this as we did for Finland National Library? Thanks a lot in advance--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC) @user:Martin

We will need a Wikidata property. Canadiana Authorities ID (former scheme) (P1670) suggests that it is not a current scheme. Do you mean Canadiana Name Authority ID (P8179) perhaps? Please edit Module:Authority control/config/sandbox if you dare... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean this one. I just dared, but please watch over me, I don't trust myself...--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
That is not a property. Properties begin with the letter P, not Q. Please look at the two I mentioned? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The Library and Archives item is the organisation responsible for Canadiana Name Authority ID (P8179) so there is no need for the the library but P8179 should show in the Authority Control template. See Douglas Adams as the example of someone who has the record and is not having the value displayed. Gusfriend (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The current link just seems to take you to VIAF, so does this identifier give any added value? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to use labels instead of prefixes

Currently some identifiers use prefixes instead of labels, which leads to an inconsistent style in the template. Please see the difference in the VIAF, ISNI, RERO, SUDOC and Trove below. Other minor changes: MusicBrainz has also changed slightly; Social Networks and Archival Context is shortened to SNAC — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Current

Proposed

  • Seems reasonable to make things consistent. Better to not mix-up internal and external links.
The only issue I can forsee is some readers might not know what the acronyms represent, but the template already neglects to provide this information consistently anyway. Rather than cluttering the template with more internal links for each acronym, I think the best solution would be to update Help:Authority control, linked in the template title. Particularly, I would suggest including the "List of identifiers" table in the template documentation on the Help page, since the template itself does not link directly to the documentation and it's the one bit of the documentation that could also be helpful to readers. The Help page currently lists a few acronyms used by the template, but not all of them. – Scyrme (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Intuitive would be, to use tooltips for abbreviations: SUDOC. Grimes2 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion! As an aside, I think SUDOC is now called IdRef (Identifiants et Référentiels) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't that clash with tooltips used when there are multiple IDs for one person? – Scyrme (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Grimes' tooltip actually includes the "subject named as" from Oriel College as well. But I think there is a danger of overusing tooltips and the whole template could be full of dotted lines! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Only for acronyms with capital letters. In the "Quincy Jones" case this are 6. Grimes2 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Why not rename SUDOC to IdRef in AC? Grimes2 (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
That's done now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposal: links external links only, tooltip "acronym: 'subject named as'". The current style is confusing. (I'm supporter of the design philosophy Form follows function) Grimes2 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I can mock this up in the sandbox, to see what people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Added to /to do so I don't forget — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
If you're both confident that this can be done without clashing with "subject names as" tooltips, without creating a confusing situation (regarding what someone should expect when they see a dotted line), and without creating a sea of dotted lines when all types* of tooltips are present, then I don't object.
* "All types" being: 1. an acronym with no "subject named as"; 2. has "subject named as" to distinguish two identifiers, but the identifiers don't include an acronym; 3. an acronym, also has "subject named as" to distinguish two identifiers. The "Jane Johnson" example used earlier (and copied below) illustrates all of these, so might be a good test case. – Scyrme (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Improvements to documentation

I think splitting up the big table of identifiers into the various sections might improve the readability. Please look at Template:Authority control/sandbox#List of identifiers to see what I mean and let me know your comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Better. An alternative would be an additional sortable column with the section numbers. This is better for alphabetical searches. Grimes2 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
There is a column for the section on the live version, see Template:Authority control#List of identifiers. The column is sortable but I've just realised that it doesn't work properly because the remarks get separated from the other row. I could look at fixing that. But with the new proposed version, that column is not needed anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the big sortable table is better for searching purposes. But there is the small "remark" problem. Grimes2 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Easy solution: Move the section column to the left? Grimes2 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I think I've resolved the sorting issue. It's back in one big table, but I think I still prefer the separate tables — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, I can't work efficiently with separate tables. Grimes2 (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Used and tested big table. Green tickY Optimal. Request: Additional table of sections (1 | General)Grimes2 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The current sandbox table lists only numbers for "section". That doesn't seem helpful at all. How is someone supposed to know what label in the template the numbers pertain to? The section column is also largely empty space because the heading makes it wider than is necessary from the numbers alone; if the idea was to save horizontal space, I'm not sure it achieves that. – Scyrme (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Well it takes up less space than repeating the name of the section in each entry. Grimes suggested adding the list of sections separately. This can be done with {{#invoke:Authority control|sectiontable}} somewhere in the documentation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure having to go between two different tables or memorise the section order is an improvement. – Scyrme (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
It's fine, I'll put it back to named sections. Have you looked at #Sections above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments on including items

As I started thinking about which of the Wikidata items above to include in via the Authority Control template I realised that it would be good of there was some criteria for deciding what is worthy of inclusion and came up with the following as a starting point in the hope that it helps and it might be used to begin a help page.

  1. International (i.e. UNESCO) > Regional (i.e. EU) > National > State > Regional > Local
  2. Curated list of own objects > Curated list of all objects > Hybrid content (i.e. IMDB) > User generated content
  3. Government organisation > University > NGO > Varying levels of private sites
  4. Level of notability of the database, (i.e. Library of Congress at the top).

For example an artist such as Jeffrey Smart will have works and an artist profile at National, State, Regional and Local galleries which means that there could be a couple of dozen artist profiles in Wikidata which would clutter the template. Not including every item could be balanced out by the fact that there are links to Wikidata.

I hope that that helps someone. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a set of objective criteria would be very useful, so thanks for starting this thread. With the exception of number 4 on your list, this is a good start. I suspect however that the main factors for most people will be (1) reliability of data and (2) usefulness/comprehensiveness of the data, and these seem more subjective and up for debate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Authority_control/Archive_14&oldid=1153312574"