This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Authority control. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If the German Wikipedia has 159,000 links, that speaks to me of automated addition (i.e. tool support) is there any chance of getting some of that for the English Wikipedia? I guess it could eitehr be done directly, or by transferring the links from the other wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, there was a bot run in 2009/early 2010. I think it used the PND numbers that were already included in many bio articles by a template that is used to link to the German National Library's database. The bot was de:User:APPERbot, operated by de:User:APPER. After that, most of the work was done by hand by various editors. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikisource
Has anyone taken this idea to Wikisource yet? This is what they are all about--tracking authors and their works. I wouldn't have known about this effort except that an edit to a page popped up on my watchlist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Authority control is the librarianship term for unique identification of things (people, subjects, books, places, etc); this combines the functions of disambiguation pages, redirects and hatnotes in wikipedia. Getting authority control information into wikipedia will (in the long term) allow much better connections between creators and their works (in libraries, download sites, etc). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Link in template
Recently, wondering what it was there for, I clicked on a newly-added Authority Control template, and was taken to Authority control, which to a layman did nothing to explain what the purpose of the template is. Since then, User:FeanorStar7 has kindly steered me to Wikipedia:Authority control, which made the matter much clearer. Could the template perhaps be changed to point to that article rather than to Authority control? Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
National Library of Australia
Why doesn't the template support the National Library of Australia? Is this an artefact of importing the idea from the Germans? I'd expect the English language Wikipedia to support national library coding for major English-speaking countries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right, it's an artefact from the German Wikipedia. Originally, the German template only supported PND and LCCN. There were some discussions whether to include other authority files like the French BNF. But then VIAF became available which included lots of authority files, including BNF and other discussed additions. So it was decided that VIAF would be enough because it already did a better job at linking entries of the various authority files and Wikipedians didn't want to put so much work into recreating all that work locally. So we sticked to including only the most important authority files: PND, LCCN and VIAF. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
"So it was decided that VIAF would be enough" you state, but could you provide a serious source for that decision processing? Who decided? I'd like to know that. - By the way you're wrong about the "including only". Definitly the swedish SELIBR is also included. I really miss the french BNF. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Justus. Yes, the SELIBR parameter also exists, but AFAIR it was added to the template on the German Wikipedia before VIAF became a viable alternative. On the German Wikipedia, it's not widely used anymore, only in ~2,500 articles because it can also be reached via VIAF just as well. As to your first question: there wasn't a big discussion where this was decided, bur rather a few short discussions here and there about whether to add other authority records like the French BNF. Take a look at de:Vorlage Diskussion:Normdaten and de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Normdaten and the archived discussions. I guess the main reason was that there's little reason to replicate all of VIAF's work here on Wikipedia by adding all kinds of additional authority files when we can simply link to VIAF, who are way better at finding and merging all the corresponding entries from dozens of authority files. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Citation
Suppose an editor uses one of these databases to provide bibliographic data --say, a missing publication date for the {{infobox book}}. Should the database be cited? If so, how? Alternatively, is the completed template intended to constitute a citation that goes without saying?
The article may be improved by addressing this matter, how wikipedia editors of a particular article are expected or encouraged to use these resources after one of them has completed the template.
P.S. The article includes at least six mis-spelled words adress (4), libary (1), one for ca (1). --P64 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What article do you refer to? You forgot to give an internal link.
2012-05-03 interjection: Excuse me for missing this reply.
... In English wikipedia I have not yet anywhere provided a formal reference to one of the authority catalogue pages [honest but unreliable recollection, and false]. I have proceeded as if the template in a biography footer constitutes a citation that goes without saying. That is, it implies that wikipedia editors may have used the authority catalogues as sources without providing specific references.
The article I first edited in such fashion is Uwe George, where I corrected a factual error and provided more information by resort to catalogue data:
>> His first book was published in 1976 with 114 illustrations, In den Wüsten dieser Erde (Hoffmann und Campe, 1976). Its first English language edition was published in the United States next year, translated by Richard and Clara Winston, In the Deserts of this World (Harcourt Brace, 1977).
I visited multiple pages via PND: 124765483 and LCCN: n90622000 --multiple catalogue pages for particular works in two databases-- in order to compose those two sentences. I added the authorities template to the footer but did not provide any formal references to the catalogues, neither specific pages nor in general.
In German wikipedia I have edited only "the same biography" de:Uwe George, where I provided the same information about In den Wüsten dieser Erde in its first German and American editions. Numbered references 1-3 are mine.
P.S. Justus Nussbaum, thank you for time. Since I am not a speaker of German, much less a native, there may be elementary German-language errors there. --Nor have I registered there so I am identified by ISP. --P64 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
At the top i have linked to Template talk:Authority control which is now active, partly re matters that I have previously expected to be discussed at locations like this one. (And I have provided a header for the first section.)
Should there be some WikiProject banner up there? If not then a hatlink to some project. --P64 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Opening sentence
"The Authority control template is used to display a special set of metadata that can and should be added to biographical articles where such identifiers exist."
First, that's an odd way to begin a WP page as it doesn't say what this page is. As near as I can tell, it's documentation for the template. If so, it should say that. Second, and more important, it reads like a mandate to add the template in any article where any of the metadata would be generated, even if that data would not be helpful to the article. What is the source of this "authority" (pun intended) to somehow require the use of a template through the documenatation of that template? Template documentation may provide guidance on how fields in the template should be used, but the documentation should not tell editors that the template is required.
At a minimum, I propose changing the opening sentence to: "The Authority control template is used to display a special set of metadata that may be added to biographical articles where such identifiers exist." That doesn't address my first point, but it resolves the second.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
For template documentation, visit template {{authority control}} itself. The template and template documentation are distinct, but displayed together (at least with standard settings). They have unified Talk whose scope in fact extends to overlap with this Talk (see the preceding section).
This page should include brief explanation of authority control (but see its encyclopedia article) and adequately explain purposes of authority control, including the template specifically, with some guidelines about where to use the template. The template documentation should cover how to complete the template; with inevitable overlap here, where to place it in article code; only incidentally, its purposes.
When introducing GND to the German Normdaten template, we quickly agreed that SELIBR didn't provide much of an extra benefit, and decided to get rid of the paramter. SELIBR is a small file, it is very well integrated within VIAF, and wasn't used much anyway. At the same time we decided to introduce NDL (the Japanese file), since it was not part of VIAF (it maybe soon, if I interpret some hints on a VIAF blog correctly), and since it does give another perspective to our Western-only authority files that we have been using for years now. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
More VIAF Integration
Hello, I was just hired as the Wikipedian in Residence for OCLC. I really like the work that you've been doing so far with regards to integrating WorldCat into OCLC. We want to further integration, and invest time and developer efforts on our end to accomplish that. It seems that the linking to worldcat has mostly hurdled the linkspam controversy. So we want to think large, as we might be able to provide some deep hooks into our DB. I was wondering if you have an ideal vision for what cool things you think the WorldCat/Wikipedia integration should do -- on both sides? One thing we're pursuing at the moment is to partner with the new m:Wikidata project and put some of WorldCat in Wikidata for easy use in populating infoboxes across all language versions. Another thing to do that is more immediate is to create an infobox generator based a single ISNB, LCCN, or OCLCnum using our webservices. What do you think is the best direction? Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well done, maximilianklein! As suggested, leaving my thoughts here. Not sure if a user page (or even an individual user talk page!) is the best place to have a multiway thread about this - I think a wider discussion involving some of the relevant wikiprojects would be the way to go - but here are some random thoughts:
I think links between wikipedia and library name authority files are exciting, and I'd be interested in helping to see them extended. As far as linking goes, I'd be interested to see the most important (in some quantitative sense of important) authors who do not have links to wikipedia - & conversely the most important wikipedia bios (e.g. by article traffic, for which stats are available) who do not have links to LCCN ids. This could lead to content generation in two directions: wikipages for authors etc. who do not yet have a wikipage, and (though I don't know anything about the institutional process by which these are generated) name authority records for individuals who at present do not have them.
As far as displaying/exploiting these linkages on wikipedia goes, I think there are short-term and longer-term issues. In the short term, as I've said at Template talk:Worldcat id, I think that template is now really superseded by Template:Authority control. I'd like to hear your comments on that. I like your infobox generator idea. In the longer term, I think m:Wikidata is extremely exciting. I don't know if that could result in e.g. (semi-)automatic production of lists of works etc. (I often use worldcat identities to find the most important works by an author and list them in a Works section.) The MARC records have alternative name forms which could find a wikipedia place in persondata (or as redirects). Dsp13 (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you move this discussion to wherever you think it's most apt?
Ed summers from the Library of Congress, has found that there are 300,000 links in VIAF to Wikipedia. (I'm still trying to track down in the organization how exactly these links were created.) But the {{Authority Control}} template is only in use on 4,000 pages. Ed suggests writing a bot that would follow the links from VIAF to WP, and then placing the Authority control template with a link back. What do you think? Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Max, this sounds like a good plan. Ideally, there could be updates in both directions -- especially since Wikipedia allows human updates, while VIAF does not, so the Wikipedia links may be corrections to mistaken bot links. Hmm. That makes me wonder if there wouldn't be value in knowing where the link originated, and whether they could be versioned. Making the links in both directions could lead to an update loop. LaMona (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic VIAF announcement - I'd missed that! SOunds like a good scheme to me - though I don't know any of the practical details of getting bots approved. Not sure quite where the best place is to attract people to a discussion about authority control - through the template talk page would be one straightforward place to start. Dsp13 (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi all - I'm Max's counterpart at the British Library, and I'm keen to do what I can to support this as well :-) If we want a central location for this, Wikipedia:Authority control (talk) seems a good location - it's currently focused around {{Authority control}} but it's an easily repurposed title for any overall work on this.
Regarding a bot, something that would affect this many articles will almost certainly need a widespread community RFC rather than simply the usual bot approval process (WP:BAG, but that's for a later discussion! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
And hello as well from the US National Archives. :-) I'm also really interested in encouraging these developments (though NARA's scope means it doesn't have as many of these types of authority files). I would encourage you to think even bigger in a couple of ways. It should be possible to extend {{authority control}} to all the Wikipedias in other languages using interwiki links, once it has been added to a page. As well, Wikisource's texts and author pages are ripe for this kind of bibliographic linkage, but there has been almost no work done on that project (we're still working just on getting the pages linked with their corresponding Wikipedia articles). I would love to see a system imported to Wikisource, which already has well-structured headers on each page that would be perfect for it. Dominic·t18:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a Dutch librarian. I admire the German Wikipedia and their handling of VIAF, LCCN and more. Germans don't talk, they work. See these examples:
It is, I've been looking at it enviously for years :-) IIRC, the German matches were developed using their {{persondata}} structured data; this has only recently become fully widespread on the English Wikipedia, and so it's suddenly a lot more practical to do the same thing. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, friends. I have been following the VIAFbot's insertion of the VIAF numbers into various articles on my watchlist with interest. This seems like a worthy idea. That having been said, I seriously question whether the best approach to placement on the article pages should be done as some sort of de facto navbox/footer with the other navboxes on the page. I would be grateful if an editor who is overseeing this process would respond to this inquiry. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There's no pressing reason that it needs to be done this particular way, but it's the system we originally had in place before VIAFbot came along, and so it's the one we went with!
We talked briefly during the proposals about inserting it into an infobox, but of course this would depend on having an infobox in all the articles, which isn't the case. Otherwise, I don't think we discussed alternate styles or placement very much at all; we just went with what was there already. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a great tool by User:Magnus Manske for adding the authority control template to pages on the German wikipedia, the English wikipedia, the French wikipedia or English wikisource. It's particularly good for wikisource authors. For en.wikipedia there's currently a problem with the positioning of the template, in that it places the authority control after the persondata and before the defaultsort/categories, which I think is non-standard. But I was surprised not to see it mentioned here. Dsp13 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I tested adding a BNF number both with and without the letters (two before the number, one after), and I can't get a working link either way. I checked current uses and found it not working on Deng Xiaoping or Ed Wood. Deng's is formatted with the letters, and Wood's without, so I get different error messages. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope everyone here understands that the inept translation "authority control" sets off Kafka-esque alarm bells in many, many heads, especially given from whence it was translated. In short, it sounds like authoritarian, control-freak, fascistic bullshit. We seriously need to re-think how this is being presented to the global WP audience and in what terms. My first encounter with this phrase here made my blood pressure shoot up to dangerous levels, and I doubt I'm alone in that. What "authority" and what "control"? YES, I have read all the background material and I know quite well what innocuous library databases are involved. I'm saying you can't push such a harmless idea in totalitarian wording. FFS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 13:56, 12 November 2012
It is a slightly stark phrase, but AIUI it's not an inept translation - as far as I know, this is the generally accepted English language term for the concept. I'm open to a better phrasing, though - "standard identifers", perhaps? Andrew Gray (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"Authority control" does read weirdly to me. Afaict it's standard terminology in library science, but not really seen outside of the library world. Put on the bottom of articles, I'm worried it may give some readers the mistaken impression that it refers to some kind of authority having vetted our article. But this seems mostly like a presentation issue to me: perhaps instead of being displayed inline in the article, the VIAF number could be treated as a kind of metadata shown less prominently, especially because clicking the link in the majority of cases doesn't give the average reader much useful information, so is not that useful for public consumption (I do see why the numbers are useful for machine consumption). --Delirium (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
My point is that it's fairly specialist database information that most readers won't have a way of using. Heck, I'm a professor who regularly uses university libraries and I don't find the information useful; I can't imagine most non-academic readers would find it more useful. I do think it should be available somewhere, of course, I just question whether the current prominence with which it's displayed in most articles is in line with its usefulness to readers of those articles. A particular problem is that the destination of the link (the viaf.org pages) is particularly confusing (as an end-user tool for someone who wants to find works in libraries, it seems much less user-friendly than WorldCat). --Delirium (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I had initially hoped that we would be able to generate Worldcat Identities links directly from VIAF, but this is proving a little slower than anticipated. Hopefully we'll be able to turn these on quite soon. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah ok, that would be helpful. On second thought I'll withdraw complaints on the manner of presentation, because a "real" fix seems like it requires waiting for Wikidata to be rolled out. There's been some discussion that once that happens, there will be a better framework for managing how Infobox-like data gets presented in articles (e.g. there may be a separate tab that lists all the data, and then some subset is displayed in infoboxes and headers/footers in a customizable way). --Delirium (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
VIAF's are the 'less useful' ID to give, to be honest. Giving the LCCN activates the link to the "Worldcat Identities', which is the information most people will want. If you go to the VIAF page (via the link) and look for the version of the name with a US flag next to it, that will take you to the Library of Congress page to get the LCCN. Revent (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe off topic, but related...category comparison
Is there a way to get a list of the articles in "Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers" that are NOT in "Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers"? I'd specifically like to try to work on the Biography ones, since WorldCat links are so useful, and it was suggested elsewhere I ask here. Thanks. Revent (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have done this by restricting, or subsetting, so that Catscan reports are comprehensible, and so that I have some interest in the selected biographies. Perhaps the Catscan tool also works more quickly --slowly rather than veeeery slowly-- when the first-designated category is small. (If so then the tool instructions should suggest "smallest first".)
Many children's award-winning writer and illustrator categories are done. So try a subset that is interesting to you, such as Historical fiction writers.
The article currently claims, "The English Wikipedia currently has 15 articles tagged with {{Authority control}}." This doesn't make sense, I've personally seen well over fifteen articles tagged with Template:Authority control. Someone either vandalized the number or it's far outdated. djr13 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I found the error, but I don't no how to correct it:
As of October 2012, the English Wikipedia has more than 4,000 articles tagged with {{Authority control}}.
Oh, that's interesting, I should have checked that for a template before asking about it. Investigating briefly, it seems like PAGESINCATEGORY can't do recursive counting? I tried a couple parameters to confirm this. See Help:Magic words#Parser functions and meta:Help:Magic words#Statistics. Unless someone knows some wiki magic to get it to count total files in all subcategories, it seems like there's two workarounds: go with a static number (maybe round to ten-thousands) or pick one of the subcategories. As of this post, Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers is by far the largest with nearly 260,000 pages. If it means anything against using it, the meta article identifies the function as "expensive". djr13 (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Recursive counting doesn't work in wikipedia categories, since wikipedia categories are graph-structured not tree-structured. Yes, this is a pain. Yes, there have been attempts to fix it. But the consensus of the community is that graph-structured categories are what is wanted. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see how 'ids' links are really particularly useful, at least how they are atm...most of the included 'links' are references to information about various classification schema (such as http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/rdf/v1.html#PersonalName).
Also, while you can 'get' from the 'permalink' page to the authorites and actual, the reverse is not true....there the no way to 'get to' either the permalink page /or/ an actual catalog search from 'ids.loc.gov'. They are 'directly clickable' from the permalink page.
The 'argument' is that LoC has 'comitted' to making the 'lccn.loc.gov' links stable despite any changes in their website or software... by using them, WP won't have to 'track' however they decide to mess with things. (for instance, catalog.loc.gov vs catalog2.loc.gov) Revent (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Suppressing Authority Control information
I find the authority control in wikipedia entries, with its purple box, an unwanted distraction. Is there a way of hiding it using a configuration option or custom .css file, as I do the annoying cite tags? Vicarage (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi: I am in the process of adding LC authority control information for selected biography articles. The links to LC's file work; but the links for several OCLC WorldCat Identities links to a 404 error page. Is this a problem with the template or a problem with OCLC's website? I know that the Identities pages give a graph of publication history and other information. Thanks for any help you can provide.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No, they only work properly for people, not for things. For things (books, musical compositions, generally non-biography material) one can't enter LCCN unless one's satisfied with the Worldcat link being broken. Some sort of LCCN2 - or something - might be good here that turns off the Worldcat auto-generated link so that entering LCCN can still be useful in such cases. (Or not. I only suggest!) Schissel | Sound the Note!04:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Having multiple VIAFs for pseudonyms isn't a VIAF error....it's a list of 'names', not of 'people'. The question is simple how to handle it.
These 'pseudonym' records also have individual entries in LCCN, as they list works 'under the name used'. (this is the source of the multiple records in VIAF). They are actually 'well described there... see http://lccn.loc.gov/no95009413 . (I mean 'well described' in the sense of having crosslinks, and a 'distinction' between how 'real names' are handled vs the 'pseudonyms').
(Just to hopefully shine a bit more light on the issue)
As far as BLP issues with VIAF data...for records connected to the LCCN records, the LoC 'Name Authority File' (the 'real name' of the 'names' part of the LoC catalog) 'should' have sources explicitly cited for all of the 'pseudonyms and alternate name forms'...
Actually, as far as the particular author named, "Dictionary of pseudonyms, 2010: p.248 (Katherine John and Catrin Collier are pseuds. of Karen Watkins, née Jones, b. 1948)". The other 'pseudonyms' are sourced to the website of a book festival (where she was apparently 'introduced' at a crime writers roundtable with the list). Revent (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
1. I have found that LC is inconsistent. Even for a single pseudonym, the catalog records for some works show up and others do not, in automated search from lccn. In this case, from http://lccn.loc.gov/no95-009413, where three cross-reference links to LC Authorities are provided, but none to the Online Catalog. Provision of such cross-references is not routine. I wonder whether LC needs, or welcomes, reports from us.
2. For human readers of the biography Catrin Collier including editors, either [1] include explicitly in the footer [a] multiple renditions of template {{worldcat id}}, or [b] multiple handmade links to avoid repeating the boilerplate, or [c] multiple equivalent links to lccn, or [d] some combination. Or, for WorldCat, [2] provide one rendition of the template with explicit instruction on use of the "Alternative Names" links displayed in the right margin. Something like, "This WorldCat page covers only works published under the pseudonym Catrin Collier. See 'Alternate Names' in the right margin."
At this point I would happy to go with [1a] despite the repetitive boilerplate.
(However, if I did work on this particular biography the text would say something about the works under different names --at least, that several novels by 'Katherine John' are her works much the most widely held in participating libraries-- so that one or more of her WorldCat pages would be formal references rather than External links.) --P64 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Google Scholar
Are Google Scholar IDs (for authenticated authors) potential candidates for authority control on user pages? --DarTar (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Difficult to find this info
I created a biographical stub, found a VIAF for the subject, but couldn't remember how to add it to the article. I had a wild goose chase starting at WP:VIAF, including a brief look at {{Viaf}}, before finding my way here and adding the template. Could I suggest that WP:VIAF be redirected somewhere more useful? Thanks. PamD13:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Several of our documentation pages relating to VIAF/AC are now stale; some still refer to the now-finished "big project" to import the data. Reordering them is on my to-do list, but sadly not at the top. So be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits19:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Multiple VIAFs for a single person
I recently added an authority control template to the article for Victorius of Aquitaine. In searching for the VIAF reference, I found that there are eight different authority control records for this person that VIAF has not yet consolidated. There is apparently no way to provide multiple VIAF entries (I tried and only one appeared).
The proper way to deal with this is with the 'Send Us a Comment' link at the bottom of the search page on VIAF. Some author records aren't properly automerged, so they end up with a separate VIAF for each of the contributing libraries until it's manually fixed.
If you find a duplicate in VIAF, the person is probably also duplicated in ISNI (www.isni.org), so checking there and giving them feedback too is also helpful. Revent (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me reports some progress.
Last year for about 100 biographies of British award-winning children's writers and illustrators I completed several tasks including provision of External link {{Authority control}} with VIAF, LCCN, and GND id. More than 10 were "Multiple VIAFs", two, specifically for the LCCN and GND id that I entered in the template. All of those have been merged. The persons may still have multiple VIAFs but not for what seemed to me their primary U.S. and German national library name authority files.
This is not true of batches that I completed this year.
I suppose that the "more than 10" were corrected at least semi-automatically, reading the LCCN and GND id specified in the biography footers. --P64 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I did not report any of the 10-odd Multiple VIAFs, or edit the DE.wiki biographies or their Talk page. All were completed prior to the mass operation of VIAFbot last fall. --P64 (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I was told a couple of months ago that they were actively working on 'ancient greek authors', many of which had 5+ duplicates....I haven't looked at them recently, though. Revent (talk)
What we can do depends on the nature of the problem. Both the U.S. and German national libraries respond to some email error reports. That may suffice to resolve all integrity errors in LCCN and GND records, and derivative VIAF problems in turn.
Hi all, I know that VIAF incorporates existing WP pages into its authority cluster. But if a new WP article is created, how does VIAF (really staff at LC) know to use that article in the VIAF cluster? Does someone tell someone? If so, who? -- kosboot (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That is my understanding from Kolja21: VIAF is a database updated automatically insofar as we do identify VIAF clusters in our biographies using this template. (If you care, this is my interpretation of Kolja's latest closing at User talk:Kolja21#GND fix at EN.wiki, 00:44, 10 July 2013.) --P64 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, if one creates a WP article and puts the authority record template in it, there's no reason for VIAF to find it. I know that VIAF automatically gathers records from library authority files but I've never heard that they do this for WP articles. Is Max able to answer this? -- kosboot (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I sent my query to VIAF (i.e. OCLC) on 29 July but never heard back. But shortly thereafter I met with someone from the Library of Congress who explained to me that VIAF is still an experiment with lots of things which have not been totally worked out; he was unaware of any "continuing" plan. Indeed, an authority I created a few weeks ago (accepted on 23 October) has not shown up and neither has the Wikipedia article (Julian Klemczyński, which I created on 15 October). My gut feeling is to talk to Max to see if "sustainability" is part of his mandate. -- kosboot (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Just now I put the redirect Stanislaw Burzynski in two redirect categories including {R from person} --as well as three hard categories-- so that that count is now 1 of 1054 (977, 77). I believe this confirms that I use the tool correctly.
I suggest that you take steps to make it more integrated into the infobox. In the past there have been discussions which have concluded that all fields in the infobox were equal. See for example WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Would it be possible to have it appear more like Alma mater does in this example? Stuartyeates (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
While I would prefer that visual presentation, I'm not sure that it's possible, without either a) making separate AC parameter(s) to each biographical infobox or b) making a separate template for use in infoboxes, while retaining the original template for use outside infoboxes. Anyone else got any thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've now added the relevant hCard microformat markup to the AC template; when it's used in an infobox, the first-found UID will be emitted as part of the infobox's microformat. For that reason, I've moved VIAF into the first position. Once we decide on a solution, it can also be mapped in DBpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you propose or what is illustrated here. To wit, the authority control module(?) of {{infobox person}} in our biography Marshall Goldsmith displays ISNI: (on two lines, for me), BNF: and (data) links as well as VIAF: and GND: [2 plus the label] that are displayed here in talk space, for me now. I don't know how you have effected that difference technically or what you propose in this regard.
Btw, no value is provided for parameter LCCN in either of those two locations, nor at WikiData: Marshall Goldsmith. That may change, whence WorldCat: and LCCN: links may or may not be displayed here.
Btw and fwiw, many many uses of template {{worldcat id}} occur in External links sections of our biographies wherein the same WorldCat link is displayed by template {{authority control}}. There may be little redundancy in effect, for most visitors, and I feel sure there is none in big sections. For instance see Aristotle#External links (whose worldcat links are broken for me now).
14 days seems short to me. In the event, however, the latest activity in Archive 1 is almost 90 days old, 4 December 2013.
Can it be advanced manually to Archive 2 now? --in effect, turnover with the new year as SamB suggests above. --P64 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It's 14 days or three threads, but feel free to extend it if you think that's better. I don't see any need to manually bump the archive page number, we don't do that for other pages which are similarly archived by a bot; and besides the archives are searchable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits22:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The section on LCCN says "leading zeros of the serial number have to be removed", but the last example given does not remove them. Why not? Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I keep having difficulties adding a LCCN number to the template. I am formatting them correctly, (i.e., LCCN=no/2014/028264) but I keep error messages that the LCCN is not valid. This has been happening for a while now. I find that if I keep copy/pasting the number eventually it will accept it but I don't know why it's so buggy. Thanks for any insight! Nashona (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You may be inadvertently copying hidden control characters from your source. Try manually typing the number. Better still, add the values to the corresponding entry in Wikidata, and not here. That way, they are magically included here, but are also available to Wikipedias in up to 280+ languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I have also manually typed the data. Still doesn't like it sometimes. So how do you add this info in Wikidata? Been looking at Wikidata for an hour and can't figure it out. Thanks. Nashona (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Try wikidata:Wikidata:Tours; let me know (on my talk page, rather than here) if you have any questions, after running through the tutorials there. Don't forget, once you've got the data into Wikidata, you need {{Authority control}}, with no parameters set, in the article here, to make the data visible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits07:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
VIAF linking to English Wikipedia
The OP has been blocked per checkuser
Currently the VIAF system links to English Wikipedia. That excludes other Wikipedias. Why is this not done via Wikidata? Several pages exists in other Wikipedias, and several items exist in Wikidata that have no English Wikipedia page. This in turn means that no link to Wikidata/Wikipedia is created. John B. Sullivan (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been using VIAF a lot in the past year. Please be aware that in many case, there is no internationally agree-upon single entry. Of course the famous people are usually unified, but once you go down a step lower you'll find multiple entries for a lot of people. Perhaps that's a problem that should be dealt with. kosboot (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
"Please be aware that in many case, there is no internationally agree-upon single entry." - is there any? It is matching of different databases, work in progress. What can be seen are matches of multiple entries but does make them "internationally agree-upon single entry". If a new library takes part, there could be a new VIAF item. John B. Sullivan (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The basic syntax is: {{Authority control|VIAF=xxxxxxxx}} where you replace xxxxxxxx with the VIAF number. To find the VIAF number, you go to VIAF.org, change the drop-down box from "All headings" to "Personal names" and look up your subject. For example, if I want to get the number for José Ortega y Gasset, I type in: Ortega y Gasset, and I get a results page saying 13 headings found for Ortega y Gasset. Looking at the entries, I see that the one I want is no. 2. I click anywhere on that heading and I get sent to a page detailing the various headings. After the four forms of names in boldface (the third one in Hebrew), I see it says VIAF ID: 95155380 (Personal). That number is the information you want. Then I plug it into the syntax to get {{Authority control|VIAF=95155380}}. (If I want to be really elaborate I can go to the various authority files and get the individual numbers for particular national libraries.) That template goes directly before the categories at the bottom of the page. If you have problems, give us a link so we can see what's the matter. Good luck! kosboot (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Why add the VIAF in Wikipedia? Should that not go to Wikidata? Also, if there is an ISNI, then probably it is better to use the ISNI instead of the VIAF. John B. Sullivan (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
