((Taxonbar)) (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)

VIVC Identifier for grape varieties

Moved from Template talk:Authority control § VIVC Identifier for grape varieties

Hello, this all seems arcane in the extreme, but is this the place to ask about adding the VIVC identifier to the authority control template for grape varieties? For example, the Roussin de Morgex article (Q167228) has the template in there ready to go, but currently displays nothing. I've left a similar question on the VIVC identifier (P3904) talk page. It seems the identifier has an issue about "multiple values" and I'm not sure if that's related or relevant. Any help/advice appreciated! — Jon (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanischoice: this is a better place to ask about grape variety IDs (((Taxonbar)) is probably not appropriate either, but at least you're in the ballpark of people best suited to help).
I see ((Infobox grape variety)) already includes the VIVC ID. That can be made to automatically pull the ID from WD, if it exists there.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding:: How? Jon (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: who will probably be kind enough to do this for you, if there is consensus to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(({name))}
Grape (Vitis)
VIVC number22741

@Jon, Tom.Reding, and Andy: I've implemented it in the sandbox Template:Infobox grape variety/sandbox while you look for consensus. For Roussin de Morgex (Q167228) it returns this:

I've temporarily switched the Roussin de Morgex article to use the sandbox version as a demonstration. Perhaps you can try it by previewing in a few articles and seeing how it works. It will only fetch from Wikidata if there is no locally supplied parameter. Is there another template where you want the functionality or is it just the infobox? --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NZPCN ID (P7496)

The IDs for NZPCN (New Zealand Plant Conservation Network) are extremely informative for NZ plants. I would love to see these IDs added to the taxonbar, as it would make things much easier for article writers and for readers who have finally worked out how useful the taxonbar is. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: I do hope this is in the throes of being considered? MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As there is a wikidata item for New Zealand Plant Conservation Network (Q2222100) and property (NZPCN ID (P7496)), I see no reason why not. I can do this tomorrow. Can you give an example page with a wikidata entry to test it on?   Jts1882 | talk  21:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carmichaelia stevensonii (And thanks very much, @Jts1882:) MargaretRDonald (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done   Jts1882 | talk  17:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Thanks, @Jts1882:. (One more request: Is there any chance of shortening the full name of New Zealand Plant Conservation Network in the taxonbar, to its shorter version which has a correct redirect, NZPCN?) Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I should have done that. While looking at these entries, have you a suggestion for a Wikipedia link for NZOR, which stands out as the only one on the Carmichaelia stevensonii taxonbar without one?   Jts1882 | talk  07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly is an instance of WP:REDYES as an article should probably be written. Isn't New Zealand Organisms Register a part of Landcare Research? Then maybe ((R from subtopic)) and ((R with possibilities)). --Nessie (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Order of entries

I think that one of the following should apply:

As an example, I've just moved Lomaria discolor from Blechnum discolor (because WP:PLANTS agreed that we would use the PPG I classification system for ferns). The taxonbar still shows Blechnum discolor first, which to me looks wrong and undermines the move.

Now I could fix this at Wikidata by:

A minimal change would be to add a parameter like |preserve_order=yes which kept the entries in parameter order. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't switching |from1= and |from2= do what you want?   Jts1882 | talk  10:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882: yes! I didn't know that.
But it's counter-intuitive that to get the order Q17264103, Q118891, Q17258659 in the article you have to use ((Taxonbar|from1=Q118891|from2=Q17264103|from3=Q17258659))!
I don't believe that this is right. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically it seems to be the code designed to move the page title to the top that scrambles the order (from line 575). Disable that and you get the order set by the |from= parameters. The interaction between using the page title, Wikidata and |from= parameters is too convoluted for me to follow.   Jts1882 | talk  11:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Wikidata and English Wikipedia are still out of synch from the page move. The Wikidata item points to Blechnum discolor on Wikidata and that is causing it to be moved to the top.   Jts1882 | talk  11:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blechnum discolor (Q118891) has pointed to Lomaria discolor since 08:30 UTC, according to its page history.
But I agree that the code is too convoluted to follow! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the Wikidata items so Lomaria discolor on Wikidata points to the English Wikipedia article. I've also switch the taxonbar parameters to indicate the order shown and now it works as expected.   Jts1882 | talk  13:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882: no, that's not right. I know this is possible, but what happens then is that the article loses all the links to the other language wikis. I've undone this change. Please read my second set of bullet points above.
The fundamental problem, as discussed multiple times before, is the bad decision by Wikidata only to allow 1:1 links between wiki articles and Wikidata items, which often forces us to link to the 'wrong' Wikidata item.
Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realise the one to one correspondence between Wikidata and each language Wikipedia is a problem, but I think we should be consistent with Wikidata and link the article to the correct Wikidata item. It is confusing if the Wikidata Item link goes to a different item when Wikidata has one at the correct name. If we want the other language links then we can get them from the wikidata of the other items linked in the taxonbar.
An alternative would be to extend the taxonbar to add a column or row for other Wikipedia articles. The taxobar already gets all the identifiers from Wikidata for the three (in this case) Wikidata items. It could get all the language Wikipedia links from the three items and display them somehow (e.g. in bottom row or right column, perhaps with a collapse option).   Jts1882 | talk  16:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally sympathetic with your aim, but I doubt there would be a consensus to treat taxon articles differently from others. The interwiki links are supposed to be in the sidebar for all articles.
The 1:1 problem is far from being just a taxon issue. Berry and Berry (botany) is an example that comes to mind, but I know from previous discussions that there are other examples in areas where I don't edit, like history and culture. There's simply no a priori reason for articles to be 1:1 across languages and culture.
The reality is that unless the people at Wikidata agree to change (and there's absolutely no sign of that), we're stuck with linking to the most used term across wikis. My point is that the order in the taxonbar should not be influenced by this choice. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories