Allow sitelinks to redirect pages to fix the 'Bonnie and Clyde problem'
Open, NormalPublic

Tokens
"Dislike" token, awarded by Liuxinyu970226."Dislike" token, awarded by Pasleim."Like" token, awarded by IKhitron."Dislike" token, awarded by Dereckson."Dislike" token, awarded by Esc3300."Like" token, awarded by Toto256."Like" token, awarded by ChristianKl."Like" token, awarded by MGChecker."Dislike" token, awarded by Addshore."Dislike" token, awarded by Multichill."The World Burns" token, awarded by SamB.
Assigned To
None
Authored By
Filceolaire, Aug 5 2013

Description

Many Wikipedia pages cover more than one object.
They can have Bonnie and Clyde on the same page.
They can have a Genus and its only species an the same page.
They can have a municipality and its same name town on the same page.
This is not a problem for Wikipedia and there is no reason for them to change.

If other language Wikipedias have a separate page for each instance/object then there is no easy way to create sitelinks between these pages and the multi-object pages.

If we could have sitelinks to redirects then the Wikipedia pages with single objects could link to the Wikipedia pages with multiple objects. (Sitelinks the other way would end up on the redirect pages so that wouldn't help but at least it is something).

Wikidata could probably manage without this functionality as the Wikidata page for the multi-object wikipedia pages can use the "consists of" property to link to a separate wikidata page for each object, whether or not these have sitelinks. Nevertheless, it would be nice to have the sitelinks as these help establish notability.

Workflow:
If you try and create a sitelink to a redirect page, a popup should ask you:
"This is a redirect page.
"Do you want to link to this redirect page? Yes?
"Do want to link to this other page the redirect points at? Yes?"

See Also:

Details

Reference
bz52564
There are a very large number of changes, so older changes are hidden. Show Older Changes

I don't think Izno's solution will be practical due to caching issues.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/A_need_for_a_resolution_regarding_article_moves_and_redirects seems to have had a consensus described as "Consensus is clear: Wikidata links to Wikipedia redirect pages are allowed. I will file a bug to ask for the necessary changes, and inform selected participants to develop a set of rules to govern the use of this. — ΛΧΣ21 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)"

Given that the consensus exists, is there a reason why this hasn't yet been implemented?

Blahma updated the task description. (Show Details)May 6 2016, 7:40 PM
Izno added a comment.May 6 2016, 8:26 PM

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/A_need_for_a_resolution_regarding_article_moves_and_redirects seems to have had a consensus described as "Consensus is clear: Wikidata links to Wikipedia redirect pages are allowed. I will file a bug to ask for the necessary changes, and inform selected participants to develop a set of rules to govern the use of this. — ΛΧΣ21 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)"

Given that the consensus exists, is there a reason why this hasn't yet been implemented?

Probably T54564#558258. That said, the RFC status should probably be reassessed given its age. While we get regular comments about this on Wikidata, the people who are least comfortable with the current status quo are almost never Wikidata regulars, who have mostly accepted the state of things, and end up connecting the articles in a different fashion.

By "status quo", do you mean the Wikipedia status quo (sitelinks link to redirects etc. where necessary), the Wikidata status quo (sitelinks to redirects are permitted) or the Wikibase status quo (sitelinks to redirects aren't technically supported)?

Izno added a comment.May 11 2016, 5:48 PM

Generally, all of the above. My stance at least has changed, if no others.

If Wikidata wants to draw new contributors then it would be valuable if you don't need to use complicated hacks to create sitelinks to redirects.

If Wikidata wants to draw new contributors then it would be valuable if you don't need to use complicated hacks to create sitelinks to redirects.

Generally new contributors to Wikipedia are unaware that other language versions exist. However, if they are aware of that, and if they care how other languages perceive their data, they are welcome to contribute their data on Wikidata. If Wikipedians want to make use of Wikidata in articles, they can use that data by copying the data or by using Lua templates available on Wikipedia that have enabled the use of Wikidata. If Wikipedians want to contribute to Wikidata, they need to provide more data than just a label. Item creations that only contain a label are generally deleted. Currently there are bots that add more data to Wikidata from Wikipedia articles that are only linked with a label+sitelink. Those bots make use of Wikippedia infoboxes and categories to do their work, but these are just two things that Wikipedia redirects lack. Redirects lack the rest of the Wikipedia article too. So in your vision, how could the wikidata item for a redirect get more data than label+sitelink? Are you envisioning things like categories and infoboxes for redirects on Wikipedia?

The correct solution for this problem is clear if we separate the concept of Wikipedia articles from Wikidata items.

Then from the English Wikipedia page for [[potato]], for example, we would expect to see in the "other languages" section:

Other languages:
Potato:

German
Igbo
...

Potato (plant)

French 
Yoruba
...

Potato (food)

Italian
Swahili
....

@Rich_Farmbrough: So basically you are suggesting that we allow an individual MediaWiki page to be associated with multiple Wikidata items. @Lydia_Pintscher: What is the feasibility of that?

Fomafix added a comment.EditedMay 24 2016, 7:00 AM

This is a special case of the Bonnie and Clyde problem.

This Bonnie and Clyde problem is:

  1. Q219937: Bonnie and Clyde
  2. Q2319886: Bonnie Parker
  3. Q3320282: Clyde Barrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Parker and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Barrow are redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde.

For the potatoes the redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_(plant) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato_(food) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato exists.

It would be useful to allow to create sitelinks to these redirects. This is the target of this task.

It would also be useful to show the redirects and their corresponding Wikidata item and the other languages of these items:

Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde:

languages

redirect Bonnie Parker

redirect Clyde Barrow

But this is a different task and mainly a UI challenge.

Schlum added a subscriber: Schlum.Jun 20 2016, 12:51 AM
Elitre added a subscriber: Elitre.Sep 8 2016, 5:43 PM
Quiddity updated the task description. (Show Details)Sep 8 2016, 5:48 PM
Acer added a subscriber: Acer.Sep 13 2016, 1:04 PM
Toto256 added a subscriber: Toto256.

Not allowing sitelinks to redirects make it difficult to distinguish between compression formats and software ; see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Informatics/Software#Distinction_between_software_and_file_format.2C_in_particular_in_compression

2015.ww added a subscriber: 2015.ww.Feb 5 2017, 1:40 AM
IKhitron added a subscriber: IKhitron.
Choomaq added a subscriber: Choomaq.Apr 7 2017, 2:31 PM

there are different types of redirects. Sometimes it is just another spelling. In this case obviously it should not be able to be added to wikidata. But there are also redirects from merges which must be connected to an instance on wikidata.

there are different types of redirects.

In T42755 there was suggested to use the magic word __STATICREDIRECT__ as indicator for allowing sitelinks to redirects.

! In T54564#3165384, @Fomafix wrote:

In T42755 there was suggested to use the magic word __STATICREDIRECT__ as indicator for allowing sitelinks to redirects.

Ok, it can be solution. But as far as I can see it is still not allowed.

2015.ww removed a subscriber: 2015.ww.Apr 10 2017, 1:53 AM

I wonder if this might be better done through a property that allows qualifiers, so that each redirect can be marked up with the rationale for why it is a redirect (including common typos, foreign language versions, etc.). Although quite how that could interact with MediaWiki/Wikibase, I'm not sure!

Can we please try to get an consensus regarding this topic. It may be a controversial topic, but it can't be we're just talking 4 years about it without any results to make a decision possible, Furthermore, this is an important problem of Wikibase in my opinion.

Agabi10 added a subscriber: Agabi10.EditedMay 27 2017, 4:33 PM

I don't think that allowing sitelinks to redirect pages would be good in this context. I think that a better solution for this problem would be displaying the sitelinks to the elements linked by the properties has part (P527) and part of (P361) of the Wikidata item. This would be more easily maintainable both in Wikidata and in Wikipedia, and would prevent having to create redirects for all the articles that people wants to link.

The problem with the redirects is that as a reader I can't know it I'm going to an article about the same content or only to an article that has more information about some entity to which the entity I'm reading of is part of. In the case of Bonnie and Clyde I may want to have more information about Bonnie specifically and when I click on the sitelink of enwiki for Bonnie Parker in Wikidata I expect it to be a link to an article about Bonnie, not about Bonnie and Clyde. Yes, the article has more information than what I would get in an article about Bonnie alone, but what happens doesn't match my expectations as a reader.

Additionally, having sitelinks to the entities with P527 and P361 and the sitelink would improve discoverability and fix the problem of the article of Bonnie and Clyde not being linked to articles in other languages about Bonnie and Clyde separately while matching the expectations of the readers.

I don't think that allowing sitelinks to redirect pages would be good in this context. I think that a better solution for this problem would be displaying the sitelinks to the elements linked by the properties has part (P527) and part of (P361) of the Wikidata item. This would be more easily maintainable both in Wikidata and in Wikipedia, and would prevent having to create redirects for all the articles that people wants to link.

The redirects exist already in nearly all cases, that's not the problem. Many of them are linked already by using the known workaround. I think the solution you propose is really complex and not really intuitive. Furthermore, I don't think it's a good idea to link the sitelinks too much to the properties.

@MGChecker I'm not talking about linking the properties, I'm talking about displaying them based on the property. It doesn't affect Wikidata, while it will have the desired behavior on the client wikis. Anyway you may not realize that even if what you are saying about the redirects is already done in many wikis it gets confusing from the Wikidata perspective. If in Wikidata someone goes to the Bonnie article of enwiki and they don't realize they were redirected to an article about Bonnie and Clyde they could think it is a bug or remove the sitelink. There is no indicator in Wikidata that the link will be to a redirect page, so the link doesn't follow the expectations of the user. Being able to use redirects as sitelinks in Wikidata using the "workaround" you described is clearly a bug, not a workaround, and that should be fixed, not allowing them is the expected behavior here. Using redirects you are linking articles about different topics together without the reader being able to know the difference between both.

Finally, having the article of Bonnie in nowiki linked to the Bonnie and Clide article of enwiki but not having the article of Bonnie and Clyde of enwiki linked to the Bonnie article of nowiki is even more inconsistent and confusing, and the fix used to solve the problem should be implemented in a way that this wouldn't be inconsistent. And to make the things clear, I wasn't talking about mixing all the sitelinks together, I was talking about having sections in the toolbar like "See more info about Bonnie" with the sitelinks to the Bonnie entity and "See more info about Clyde" with the sitelinks of the Clyde entity in the Bonnie and Clyde articles and sections like "See more info about Bonnie and Clyde" with the sitelinks of the Bonnie and Clyde entity in the articles linked to Bonnie and Clyde separately.

@Agabi10 I don't think that's an issue in practice. Wikipedia tells a user on top of the page that they are redirected. I have created dozen's of redirects and haven't seen one getting removed.

Redirects aren't only useful for the Bonnie and Clyde for interwiki links. Even if all languages decides to have "Bonnie and Clyde" articles instead of separate "Bonnie" and Clyde" articles it's still useful for a user who browses the Wikidata entry of "Bonnie" to go via the redirect to the "Bonnie and Clyde" article.

Take an article like https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Stra%C3%9Fen_und_Pl%C3%A4tze_in_Berlin-Halensee that lists individual streets in a small part of Berlin. The individual streets are notable according to Wikidata standards but not notable according to de.Wikipedia standards.

Finally, if you think that's a problem that there's no indicator in Wikidata that it's a redirect link, that problem is easily solved by adding an icon in front of the link that indicates that it's a redirect.

Multichill lowered the priority of this task from Normal to Lowest.
Multichill added a subscriber: Multichill.

You're wasting your time people. This is not going to happen. The software won't be changed because this goes against the core data model of Wikidata.

You're wasting your time people. This is not going to happen. The software won't be changed because this goes against the core data model of Wikidata.

Are you able to reason this opinion? I don't see any point wehre this would be against the data model of Wikidata, instead I think it is an expected behaivor for Interwiki links.

ArthurPSmith raised the priority of this task from Lowest to Normal.Jul 14 2017, 2:46 PM
ArthurPSmith added a subscriber: ArthurPSmith.

I don't understand why Multichill can unilaterally alter the priority on this request in the face of an active wikidata RFC where the voting has been 2:1 in support of this change. It would also be nice to get some actual feedback from developers - is this really "against the core data model of Wikdiata"? I don't see it - particularly as the workarounds in place now prove it can be easily supported.

You can change it to unbreak now and still nothing will happen. This task has a bright future of rotting at the bottom of the backlog.

I don't understand why Multichill can unilaterally alter the priority on this request in the face of an active wikidata RFC where the voting has been 2:1 in support of this change. It would also be nice to get some actual feedback from developers - is this really "against the core data model of Wikdiata"? I don't see it - particularly as the workarounds in place now prove it can be easily supported.

Seconded.

You can change it to unbreak now and still nothing will happen. This task has a bright future of rotting at the bottom of the backlog.

I really think conversating like this isn't helpful, but just arrogant.

I really think conversating like this isn't helpful, but just arrogant.

I don't like to be insulted. You do know that phab is covered by https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct ?

I really think conversating like this isn't helpful, but just arrogant.

I don't like to be insulted. You do know that phab is covered by https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct ?

Please note that your reactions to the work of others at this task can be really insulting too. You didn't reason your point at this task, but just did what you deemed right although people kept asking you to do so. Furthermore, I want to clarify I had no intention to attack you as a person, but to criticize your actions in context of this task and to make clear how others can perceive them.

I have absolutely no interest in escalating this.

Please note I didn't readd you on purpose, looks like Phabricator did it automaticly because of the quote.

I think the problem that forms the basis of this task is not very well formulated. It might be worthwhile to convert this task into one of documentation on Wikidata and if people still feel strongly after understanding all the issues, then maybe link it to some strategy page on Meta. As far as I can tell the main reason this functionality is desired at all is due to notability concerns on various projects. Allowing a Wikidata sitelink to a Wikipedia redirect page would enhance the notability of that redirect (somehow) in that specific wiki project. Another idea was that using Wikidata information in Wikipedia infoboxes would be enhanced if this functionality was enabled. Notability for each wiki project is different from notability on Wikidata and I don't think Wikidata can or should even try to become some sort of notability indicator. From the other end of the spectrum, maybe the conversation we should be having is to eliminate all red links that don't link out to a Wikidata item. This would force page creators to go to Wikidata first, and that would have the added benefit that we would have a much smaller backlog of merges on Wikidata. Wikipedia redirect links could similarly all be converted into greenlinks that link to a Wikipedia page as well as a Wikidata item. This would have two benefits for the page creation process: 1) new pages would be properly linked on Wikidata and 2) users of greenlinks will be able to easily opt for the Wikidata item (which may be useful if different than the redirect target).

Liuxinyu970226 awarded a token.
Eugene added a subscriber: Eugene.Jul 24 2017, 9:40 AM

I think we should first answer the question: before wikidata came, had we allowed iwiki links to chapters of the article, i. e. like this: [[de:Figuren in Tolkiens Welt#Aragorn]]? As far as I can see such links were allowed in all wikipedia on every language. Therefore why now with wikidata we can not to allow to add sitelinks to redirect pages? Maybe not to all types of redirects (it can be just different spelling, then there is no point to add its), but if it is redirect with possibilities then it definitely worth be allowed!

Restricted Application added a subscriber: PokestarFan. · View Herald TranscriptJul 24 2017, 9:40 AM
Alsee added a subscriber: Alsee.Feb 8 2018, 9:59 PM

I believe discussing this as a "Bonnie and Clyde problem" has led to flawed examination and flawed arguments, due to the example cited.

Wikidata was largely designed, and largely operated by that community, on the theory that there is supposed to be a 1-to-1 relationship between concepts and wikidata items, as well as a 1-to-1 relationship between wikidata items and the related articles.

The flaw is that it's an invalid model. The flaw is being swept under the rug with an implicit (and arrogant) presumption that English defines reality, that English takes precedence over other languages. For example:

English Wikipedia (and Wikidata) have items for "see-saw", a children's playground seat attached horizontally to a pivot point. English Wikipedia (and Wikidata) also have items for "swing", a children's playground seat attached horizontally to a pivot point. However some other languages do not consider vertical and horizontal arrangements to be different concepts. Those Wikipedia have a single article, under the single language-concept which covers both orientations.

The English article for see-saw and the English article for swing both need to link to the same foreign article. And that foreign article needs to link to both English articles. Wikidata's faulty insistence on 1-to-1 realtionships causes problems for both editors and readers.

An even more clear example is colors. Colors are literally continuous. It is impossible to objectively define one "right" answer for how many there are, and it is impossible to objectively define one "right" answer for where the dividing line is between colors. For example some languages do not distinguish between "blue" and "green". The English equivalent would be comparing "orangish-red" to "purplish-red". They are both "red", and the English language does not recognize them as distinct fundamental concepts.

And even within English, the dividing line between "concepts" is often arbitrary or fuzzy. Within English you get the "Bonnie and Clyde problem". Is the duo the significant concept? Or do you subdivide and deal with the one story in two different places? Different Wikipedia can reasonably have one article for the duo, or two articles for the individuals, or three articles for the duo and each individual. That is a judgement call, and the right answer may be different for different purposes and contexts.

The problem is fundamentally impossible to solve while enforcing a 1-to-1 relationship rule. Allowing Wikidata to link to redirects is better than nothing, but it is still a badly dysfunctional workaround. It still doesn't give readers the right interlanguage links. Having Wikidata support non 1-to-1 relationships makes things more complicated, but the world is complicated.

Izno added a comment.Feb 9 2018, 12:49 AM

Thought of a technical solution, might as well throw it out there:

  1. Let's say we create a new magic word, something like __WIKIDATAREDIRECT__.
  2. Place the magic word on a Bonnie redirect.
  3. Wikidata treats that page like it's a normal page (with all the associated constraints and behavior), with one additional constraint: A WIKIDATAREDIRECT cannot be the only link on a data item.
    1. With associated tracking and such forth and suchwith.
Izno added a comment.EditedFeb 9 2018, 12:53 AM

And that foreign article needs to link to both English articles. Wikidata's faulty insistence on 1-to-1 realtionships causes problems for both editors and readers.

This "need" is not Wikidata's fault (though Wikidata could potentially be part of a solution). Interwiki links before Wikidata had the constraint (one link to an external wiki of a particular language). And this was the fundamental issue with the old way of doing things since it caused a mess of all the differing interwikis.

Ltrlg added a comment.Feb 9 2018, 9:11 AM

Wikidata added the constraint that the relation is symmetric, though.

The constraint that it has to be symmetric would be removed by the RfC through allowing the redirect links. One those links are there it would be possible to provide additional links via a plugin to link from an English "Bonnie and Clyde" article to a German "Bonnie" and a German "Clyde" article provided there's no German "Bonnie and Clyde" article.

Addshore removed a subscriber: Addshore.Feb 9 2018, 2:42 PM