Encuesta sobre los deseos de la comunidad 2015/Wikidata

This page is a translated version of the page Community Wishlist Survey 2015/Wikidata and the translation is 100% complete.

Permitir enlazar redirecciones a elementos de Wikidata

 
Pantallazo mostrando varios pop-ups al pasar el mouse donde el objetivo (artículo para 'colección privada') se muestra así como las opciones de Wikidata. El "agregar/WD" está habilitado por javascript asociado con las listas Listeria de Magnus Manske.

Debería ser posible enlazar una redirección de Wikipedia a un elemento de Wikidata para que los usuarios de Wikipedia que hagan click en él vean un pop-up que ofrezca dos enlaces y les diga algo así: <título de la redirección> no existe en Wikipedia; proceda a <artículo destino de la redirección> o vea Wikidata <etiqueta del número Q de la redirección>. Teniendo tal facilidad nos permite 1) determinar cuántos redirecciones entrantes a un artículo en realidad son elementos discretos antes que pronunciaciones alternativas, y 2) hacerlo más visible a los editores para percibir la "necesidad" de crear nuevos artículos. Para conceptos grandes y agregados como Seguros sería útil saber cuántos enlaces entrantes deberían tener sus propios artículos. Nótese que esto no requiere nada de Wikidata, y se refiere a la funcionalidad de redirección de Wikipedia y sus projectos hermanos. Si alguien quisiera crear el artículo, pueden hacer click en el botón tal como lo hacen hoy para convertir redirecciones en artículos. Sería muy bueno si el elemento wikidata se preserva de alguna forma durante la creación del artículo para que el nuevo artículo pueda ser agregado a ese elemento Wikidata. La ventaja de este enfoque es que cualquier editor de Wikipedia puede utilizarlo en una redirección o no. Presumiblemente no todas las redirecciones merecen elementos de Wikidata y pueden ser mejor dirigidos al objetivo. Nótese que esta no es una solución al problema "Bonnie y Clyde" también conocido como Phabricator task T54564. --Jane023 (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
Added an illustration showing some current mouse-over options for blue links. In this proposal I would like to see such navigational options appear for green links, aka redirects. --Jane023 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votos

  1.   Support --Leyo (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Kvardek du (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Linked to "Alias"?--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. No, it's precisely the titles in the Alias part of the Wikidata label that would *not* be eligible for this, as those are just alternate ways of naming the target. --Jane023 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Even for internal links to existing pages, linking via Wikidata IDs could prove more stable for pages that may be split, merged or renamed. Pengo (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Interesting. That's probably true. --Jane023 (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --CennoxX (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --H4stings (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Tgr (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Rahmanuddin (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buscar automáticamente elementos similares en Wikidata

En Wikipedias pequeñas, donde nuestros equipos de trabajo son reducidos, tenemos muchas páginas (principalmente subplantillas y categorías) que no están enlazadas a items en Wikidata. Algunos de estos items (por ejemplo subplantillas de taxonomía automática) pueden encontrarse en diferentes idiomas pero es un trabajo muy duro enlazarlas manualmente. Como la mayoría sigue la misma estructura, y muchos tienen incluso el mismo nombre, quizás un bot pudiera sugerir enlaces. -Theklan (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements

Votes

  1.   Support--Martinligabue (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support - Whaledad (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support - Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support StevenJ81 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Oriciu (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   SupportNickK (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   SupportHam II (sgwrs / talk) 21:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support --Urbanecm (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Yeza (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facilitar la creación de fichas que muestren información de Wikidata

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T112987

Actualmente, no hay un sistema bien establecido a través de diferentes wikipedias que ayude a editores a construir fichas de información (no hay una Plantilla:Infobox establecida en las diferentes wikipedias).

Construir una ficha de información que despliegue la información de wikidata es aún más díficil: Construir una linda ficha de información que despliegue información desde wikidata requiere módulos escritos en Lua (sin lo cual, es imposible que los wikienlaces funcionen correctamente). Sería muy bueno tener un módulo estándar de Lua para este propósito, mantenido y almacenado en un lugar central (por ej. en meta), sin la necesidad de que cada wikipedia copie este módulo una y otra vez y que mantenga dicha copia.

Tanto editores y lectores se beneficiarían de una solución. Aún más, una solución potenciaría Wikidata, porque sería mucho más fácil usar la información presente en Wikidata en todas las wikipedias.

Solución propuesta: Implementar tanto A como B:

A. Diseñar una Plantilla:Infobox que sea fácil de usar y que sea mantenida en un lugar central.

B. (Quizás un poco más fácil que A.) Escribir un módulo en Lua que formatee el contenido de Wikidata apropiadamente (por ej. en Wikipedia un artículo sobre una ciudad, crea una lista formateada de ciudades hermanas (cf. d:Property:P190), donde cada elemento de la lista es un enlace al artículo sobre la ciudad hermana, o si esta wikipedia todavía no tiene un artículo sobre una ciudad hermana particular, un enlace al item de Wikidata sobre esta ciudad hermana). Poner este módulo en Lua en un lugar central donde todas las wikipedias puedan usarla directamente. --UV (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  •   Endorsed For now Wikidata has almost no integration with Infoboxes. Scripts are lacking and buggy. Almost no data is used on Wikipedias, which questions importance of Wikidata existence as it's data is of almost no use. Lots of properties on Wikidata are missing because almost no one is using it to fill real Infoboxes on Wikipedias --Ilya (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed Should allow individual language to insert translations. Yosri (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the globally stored infobox/module, that all Wikipedias can use without copy-paste part - the idea has been proposed several times (can't say by who or when or where). Some cool Wikidata data retrieving infoboxes, that I'm aware of - this one is fully taken from Wikidata (search for insource:/\{\{[Ii]nfobox - osoba\}\}/ in cswiki), also frwiki has some Lua modules for better Wikidata support - this one, for example. --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed UV has a very good idea. I work on cycling (more info here), I produce a very big number of photos, and develop five modules (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). French users now work on Wikidata for a part, but the very big problem is I don't know how translate these modules in the other languages because all is different. It is a major problem in Wikipedia. We work together on Commons and on Wikidata, there is no problem, but we are not able to work together on Wikipedia because everybody has their own templates. I think if we solve that problem, we will permet to develop all smaller Wikipedias. Ans even for big Wikipedias it is interesting, because we have people to enter datas, so it is useless to let user do the same work in different country. And if people don't lost time to enter datas, they will can spend time to write, this is very positive for the project and for our readers. More than infoboxes, we will share list of participating teams and cyclists, classifications, team rosters... it will be very interesting when there will have a change, we will save again a big amount of time. I sometimes discuss with foreign users (like Papuass for .lv, Edgars2007), everybody find the idea as interesting, but very few people is able to play with templates and modules. To conclude, this proposal is very important because it will renew our way to work/contribute. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course I noticed that discussion at Papuass' talk page :) Latvian has some few problems that one user can't handle, but that isn't discussion for here. And I'm not a Lua coder :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed. Helder 11:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose. Is blocked by phab:T1238 (Central Code Repository for code used on wikis -- Templates, Lua modules, Gadgets), and hence is not feasible. MER-C (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Endorsed--Gbeckmann (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Like but   Oppose at this time. Some random thoughts gathered from my own experience...
    • Wikidata does not contain all Property information and that should probably be addressed as a high priority 1st.
    • Though a nice idea; however, one size does not fit all (IMHO).
    • The labels in Wikidata for properties might not be useful to produce labels in an infobox if one wants to use a Module to build a complete infobox from scratch.
      • I have seen at least one Wikidata entry with no title or label.
    • The actual data retrieved may not be satisfactory and acceptable for everyone.
    • Accessing Wikidata multiple times to fill in entries of an infobox (multiple template calls for each property) may take a load hit and result in a Lua runtime error.
      • To get to some information one may have to drill down into the Wikidata structure to get the desired data. (to get a currency symbol as an example)
      • One may have also to access multiple Wikidata entities (Objects) to get other desired data as well. (Wikidata entry IDs for sister cities as an example)
    • May need to know the id (Qnnn) if an article is not associated with a Wikidata entry but does in fact have a Wikidata entry.
    • Language translation(s) may be an issue in Wikidata. (Not sure if all languages are incorporated or represented.)
      • In Wikidata use ?setlang=xx in URL to see if other languages exist -- access via a module using mw.language.getContentLanguage(arg1).code
    • Some properties have multiple instances.
      • In some cases, all instances would be relevant (ie. sister cities, bordering countries etc.)
      • Description(s) on the other hand may present a problem. (which one is useful - is it acceptable)
    • There may be code/design changes for wikibase and Wikidata which might result in further issues (are these solid enough?).
    • Use of Unicode characters and internationalisation need to be included in any Module.
    • Sorting of multiple instances and formatting of data output - presents another decision to be made.
    • Accessing a certain or particular data element may be useful (ie. flag, coat of arms, decimal latitude, longitude).
    • Timing of the execution of a template and a module may also present a problem (if other widget/code occur before the actual retrieved data is available). Matroc (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related tasks: phab:T114251 ("Magic Infobox Implementation"), phab:T112987 (Wikimedia Developer Summit 2016 proposal discussing the various options) Cscott (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votos

  1.   Support So far as I know this is the most developed proof of concept - Poof it works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Minihaa (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support proposal written by myself --UV (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Alleycat80 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --Gbeckmann (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support--Shizhao (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support And a crucial point is to be able to edit Wikidata content from the home wiki ----Candalua (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support -Theklan (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Arnd (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support--Xabier Cañas (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Wittylama (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support - Whaledad (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support Very important. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support --Continua Evoluzione (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support Snipre (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support - Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support Papuass (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support--46.225.68.244 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support --Artem.komisarenko (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support --Nouill (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support --Usien6 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25.   Support We can gain a lot by maintaining data centrally and being able to link to it from all wikis. Not only in infoboxes, but also in regular text and templates. Especially (integer) numbers, like the number of wins a certain athlete or sports team has. In many smaller wikis these are not updated frequently at all. Also, the same numbers may appear in several different articles within the same wiki. Gap9551 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26.   Support Helder 23:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27.   Support --Oriciu (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28.   Support Powermelon (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29.   Support Kvardek du (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30.   Support Bgwhite (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31.   Support This would be a huge win. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32.   Support --β16 - (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34.   Support. Especially make it clear to a user that a value is coming from Wikidata and they can add or edit it there — NickK (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35.   Support – This is very badly needed on cy.wp. Ham II (sgwrs / talk) 18:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Comment This is already possible, e.g. see en:Template:Infobox telescope and en:South Pole Telescope via en:Module:Wikidata. Standardisation and making it easier to use (and particularly, making it easier to edit the information used by the template on Wikidata) would be good though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  37.   Support YBG (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  38.   Support Rzuwig 11:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  39.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  40.   Support - B is needed more than A but both would be useful Waggers (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  41.   Support Theredmonkey (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  42.   Support SantiLak (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  43.   Support Halibutt (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  44.   Support J36miles (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  45.   Support --Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  46.   Support --Ochilov (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  47.   Oppose, let local communities decide not to use infoboxes for specific fields/articles, how to design them, what to include in them etc. → «« Man77 »» [de] 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1.   Comment this seems irrelevant: giving communities a feature allowing easy insertion and population of infoboxes from Wikidata does not make those communities do so. You are opposing what is not proposed. Ijon (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  48.   Comment Man77, I think we can provide the possibility of using centralized data, but nobody would be forced to refer to that data or use a certain layout. No freedom would be lost. Gap9551 (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  49.   Support --ESM (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  50.   Support -- super useful, and currently a bit arcane for most Wikipedians.
  51.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  52.   Support --Rahmanuddin (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modificar el visor multimedia para incluir información de Wikidata

 
Desde el artículo de Wikipedia en:St. Matthew and the Angel hago click en la imagen de la pintura y en el Visor de Medios veo un botón llamado "más detalles" que me lleva a Commons. Ahí debería también haber un botón en este caso para el elemento asociado de Wikidata, ya que tanto el artículo como la imagen se refieren al elemento pintura Q9396869. El elemento tiene otra información más allá que el archivo en Commons o el artículo Wikipedia.

Cuando el Visor de Medios está habilitado, si un usuario de Wikipedia hace click en un archivo de imagen, la información mostrada es resumida desde Commons. Aunque no todas las imágenes de Commons tienen elementos de Wikidata y probablemente esto nunca ocurra, muchas imágenes de arte como pinturas y esculturas tienen elementos muy detallados de Wikidata que pueden ser ofrecidos al usuario en idioma nativo. Para imágenes que están enlazadas a elementos de Wikidata, el usuario debería ver un botón "Metadata" con el logo de Wikidata además del botón "Más detalles" con el logo Commons. Si esto está habilitado, también debería ser más fácil agregar un número de elemento a todas las imágenes de Commons en una categoría (por ej las obras de arte tienen imágenes detalladas, etc) para que cualquier archivo que sea visto en Wikipedia, el Visor de Medios sea capaz de mirar el elemento correcto de Wikidata para esa imagen aunque no sea la "imagen principal" en Wikidata para ese elemento. --Jane023 (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
Added an illustration for clarity. I ran into this issue while working on d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings. --Jane023 (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votos

  1.   Support Goldzahn (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support--Kippelboy (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Alleycat80 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support --Gbeckmann (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support--Shizhao (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support--KRLS (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Halibutt (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support --Yeza (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support Ijon (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support aegis maelstrom δ 11:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Since we have these items and info, we should present it.[reply]

Visibilidad para los problemas de calidad

En Wikidata varios reportes se han hecho sobre temas de calidad de Wikipedia. Estos pueden ser desde datos probablemente incorrectos en Wikidata, datos faltantes o reportes sobre la muerte de personas. Este tipo de listas no consiguen atención y por lo tanto la gente en Wikidata indica que no están dispuestos a considerar la calidad de ninguna Wikipedia. Wikipedia se considera una caja negra y que no está interesada en su propia calidad.

Con la visibilidad apropiada de esos reportes podemos tener más cooperación. Va a mejorar la calidad en todos y cada uno de nuestros proyectos. Necesitamos tres cosas:

  • una plataforma en cada wiki enlazada Wikidata para estos temas
  • un mecanismo para actualizar regularmente la lista
  • un flujo de trabajo para cada tema

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by GerardM (talk) 20 November 2015

Earlier discussion and endorsements

Votos

  1.   Support- GerardM (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support It would be useful if a notification and link of some kind is created on the talk page of any Wikipedia article where there are quality issues detected on Wikidata, so the editors of the Wikipedia article can be informed as directly as reasonably possible. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fichas completas desde Wikidata

La mayor parte de los datos están incrustados en las fichas de información de los artículos, siendo que toda la información debería ser guardada y leída desde Wikidata. El enfoque debería ser (en cualquier orden):

  • escribir un módulo completo en LUA que sea capaz de recoger cualquier tipo de información (no solo las fáciles con un solo valor)
  • esa información debería ser formateada de acuerdo a los estándares específicos del wikiproyecto
  • toda la información actualmente almacenada en cada proyecto debería ser movida desde cada proyecto (borrada) y almacenada en Wikidata
  • la información en wikidata debería seguir un estándar de orden para simplificar la recolección de datos y su formateo

Esto permitiría evitar la discrepancia de datos entre proyectos hermanos y entre versiones de idiomas del mismo proyecto.

Una cosa interesante para tener es un pop-up que permita cambiar/actualizar cualquier dato de una ficha de información en Wikidata, sin dejar el proyecto actual. --Andyrom75 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
I think this is a candidate for merging with this idea.  Like the idea about pop-up window. Something (basic structure) can be taken from this one. JS coders could create the base structure, that can be adapted for each infobox later by non-JS coders (like just filling the form) --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed. Helder 11:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edgars2007, Helder FYI in Wikivoyage we already use pop-up windows for other purpose. Although they would need further development (especially for language versions customization), they are already enough user friendly. For example see it:voy:Firenze and click on any gray and small "modifica" link. --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed. In Basque language Wikipedia we have been making some work on this topic. Here you have an example of our last work: eu:Autauga konderria (Alabama). It could be easier, but we need some LUA experts and we lack them. -Theklan (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Information in an Infobox is usually a codified version of the article text. If we transclude the infobox from Wikidata the people who watchlist the article won't know when the infobox changes, and we will have more situations where the infobox contradicts the article text. This is a problem! It could be reduced by amending watchlists so that if you watchlist a page you are informed of changes to its infobox in wikidata. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed--Gbeckmann (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votos

  1.   Support -Theklan (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support - Whaledad (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support if there is a way to ensure that the data is adequately cited. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support -- FriedhelmW (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - --LINO CORRADI (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --Lkcl it (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support it would be a great save of time, allowing users to focus on the body of articles. Nice proposal Andyrom! --Nastoshka (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Gap9551 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Helder 23:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Oppose This is a huge project even for a single domain. For example, animal taxoboxes juggle a huge number of data fields (e.g. taxonomy, conservation statuses, fossil periods, maps, selection of synonyms, partial view of lower and higher taxons, citation and notes fields), which are displayed in different ways, and different wiki projects favour different, conflicting authorities for their taxonomy trees (not to mention conflicting or outdated models just on English Wikipedia). Ironing out inconsistencies as well as getting conflicting-but-valid models to live harmoniously in Wikidata and then creating Lua templates to replace the taxobox is all a huge task, and that's just for one domain. Other infoboxes will be simpler, but there will still be many challenges in fitting the infobox data into a clean and appropriate Wikidata format and merging it with the redundant, conflicting, sourceless (or source-unknown) data found across Wikipedias. Automation can only take you so far. So while I support the goal of getting more data into Wikidata, this is more realistically a distant goal than a single project. —Pengo (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Comment As I said before: "This is already largely possible: see an example implementation of it at en:South Pole Telescope, through en:Template:Infobox telescope and en:Module:Wikidata. It's still in alpha/beta, though. The main difficulty is finding out which wikidata items need to be added to entries to populate the infobox." Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Theredmonkey (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support the prepbio tool on Toollabs populated the bio infobox, but it would be nice to have this not just once, but on each page load. --Jane023 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Halibutt (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --Ochilov (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Davidpar (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integrar Wikidata con el Wikcionario

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T986

Integrar Wikidata con el Wikcionario para usar interwikis (fase 1) tan pronto como sea posible en los espacios de nombres diferentes al principal. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion and endorsements
  Endorsed. Helder 11:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed. HakanIST (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JAn Dudík: I may be wrong, but don't think, that this is in the team's scope. This probably should get posted here. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed Aryamanarora (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is on the Wikidata team's list for 2016. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Endorsed I still endorse this. It is required high time. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votos

  1.   Oppose. Not a Community Tech project. Wikidata has its own developers, and they said in the discussion above that they will implement this next year. MER-C (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support. --MGChecker (talk)
  3.   Support, we really need this as soon as possible. --Impériale (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose as MER-C: Wikibase development is best handled by WMDE. --Ricordisamoa 06:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support. I do not know if this is the place to push this idea, but this will be a giant step forward for wiktionary when this feature will be implemented. So many data redundancies and inconsistencies would be avoided in this project. --Gloumouth1 (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support - Whaledad (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support The sooner the better. JackPotte (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Oppose as MER-C; out of scope, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support as soon as possible. --Lyokoï88 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Pamputt (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support There is no reason for waiting. Interwiki should be easily to integrate. --Yoursmile (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support  Trizek from FR 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support--Manlleus (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support --Almondega (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support Theredmonkey (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support --Urbanecm (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support--Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support --HakanIST (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support --Rahmanuddin (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support wikidata change the whole wiktionary for good--Esceptic0 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]