Talk:Boop! The Musical

Using the Interlanguage Link template to link to Wikidata for Jasmine Amy Rogers

First, the WP:REDLINKBIO content guideline states As with other topics, red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. All the rules that apply to our biographies on living people equally apply to red-linked names. As the lead in Boop! The Musical, Jasmine Amy Rogers will likely meet the notability standards.

Second, the the red links and interlanguage links section of the WP:REDLINK content guideline states: The subject of the red link may be covered on another edition of Wikipedia. [...] if not (able to create the article), use a link to the article in the other edition of Wikipedia instead of or next to a red link. Such links can be made manually or by using the interlanguage link template {{ill}}. Thus, the content guideline encourages the use of the template.

Third, the documentation for {{ill}} has instructions on how to link to Wikidata. A version of the ill template has existed since June 2013 before being merged in late 2016. This functionality has thus existed for nearly a dozen years.

With this edit, I added {{ill|Jasmine Amy Rogers|qid=Q123916545|short=yes}}, which produces Jasmine Amy Rogers. SchroCat removed both the red link & the unobtrusive link to Wikidata with this edit although SchroCat restored the red links a while later.

With this edit, I wrote on SchroCat's talk page that the content guideline referencing red links and interlanguage links {encourages the use of encourages the use of {{ill}}, & that this template explicitly allows for the use of |qid= to link to Wikidata. SchroCat did not respond to my comment before deleting it.

On the last reversion of my second addition of the template, SchroCat wrote in the edit summary, Per BRD, maybe the talk page is better than edit warring?. Hence the reason that I am opening this discussion.

I feel strongly that using the {{ill}} to link to Wikidata is useful. It can provide editors with information that can help in creating an article & readers with additional resources to find related information. Indeed, the output of Reasonator can provide the initial text for a draft or a stub. Peaceray (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. If she had an entry in, say, French Wikipedia, with a good biography and strong reliable sources, that would be worth linking to. But the Wikidata link her has no useful biographical information in it whatsoever and contains no useful sources. The link was not helpful. Just because one *can* link something does not mean that the link is automatically useful. It is very likely that Rogers will have an English Wikipedia article someday, but there is no rush to redlink her until someone has written such an article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ssilvers, as noted in my first paragraph above, "WP:REDLINKBIO content guideline states As with other topics, red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. All the rules that apply to our biographies on living people equally apply to red-linked names." As lead in a major Broadway musical, there are already dozens of reliable news sources for Rogers. By stating that there is no rush to redlink her, you are not suggesting that we disregard the content guideline, are you? Peaceray (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you should or that it is a good idea. You are not failing to assume good faith, are you? I am assuming that you are acting in good faith even though you have created all these long and very bad arguments about the demonstrably useless wikidata link and are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe that I am failing to WP:AGF if I point out a statement that seems inconsistent with content guidelines. I also obviously have a different opinion of whether Wikidata items are useless, since I usually begin biographies in Wikidata before I create an article or expand a draft. Peaceray (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata is a terrible thing to point readers towards. They end up with a page of gibberish that count uses and confounds rather than explaining and enlightening. In this case the page contains only a URL rather than anything of benefit. Hardly a page that will satisfy any reader in search of information about Ms Rogers. - SchroCat (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The gibberish article characterizes the word as meaning nonsense: ranging across speech sounds that are not actual words, pseudowords, language games and specialized jargon that seems nonsensical to outsiders. The Welcome to Wikidata states that Wikidata acts as central storage for the structured data of its Wikimedia sister projects including Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wiktionary, Wikisource, and others.

We use structure data frequently in Wikipedia, most commonly in infobox templates & {{authority control}}. One could even make an argument that citation templates are structured data. Surely you are not dismissing all structured data as gibberish.

The primary reason for pointing people to Wikidata is for other editors to access data useful in creating an article. Why would you want to hinder this by eliminating unobtrusive links to Wikidata?

Even if a non-editing reader does click through & arrives at the Wikidata item, in the case of Jasmine Amy Rogers (Q123916545) they would have access to three news sources on Rogers & linked data such as IMDb & the Theatrical Index.

I think that this is significant cost benefit to having a single unobtrusive letter as a link. Peaceray (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it’s gibberish that won’t assist readers and will only confuse, annoy and bamboozle them. Editors should be more than able to do even a basic google search to find information should they wish to start a new article. It would probably take you less time to put up a passable stub article (including basic research) than it took you to waste time looking up fatuous dictionary definitions and posting the needlessly long and over detailed opening statement and the two needless responses to the comments here. Why don’t you give it a try? It would be more constructive than wasting more time on further responses and you may learn something. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I should think that you might want to compare the number (or ratio) of live edits for each of us before you presume to lecture me.

I have high standards for creating articles so that they handily meet notability.

I will create Wikidata items for a myriad of reasons. One reason is that I am not motivated to create an article. The Betty Boop is of interest to me, Boop! The Musical less so, & Jasmine Amy Rogers is two degrees of separation from what interests me. I have other things that I would rather work on, but I do think that this is an important discussion.

I think it is a disservice to other editors to not offer a connection to Wikidata. Google usually does not return Wikidata items in its results. Yet often there is linked data & reliable sources to be found on Wikidata items. This is legwork that has been already done. Why deny it to our fellow editors? Peaceray (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s rather creepy that you’ve decided to look at my editing stats in a discussion about a disputed link. Why on earth would anyone do that? The fact it means absolutely zero in the context of a poor link raises more questions too.

I am sorry you were unable to grasp the point about Google being able to easily find the Variety article, rather than the Wikidata gibberish, but it’s a moot point, given the consensus is against you. - SchroCat (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was responding to your last statement suggesting Why don’t you give it a try?. I routinely check other edit counts or XTool's edit counter for other editors when I am in a discussion regarding content guidelines, template instructions, RFCs, & etc. If an editor has more or a similar # of edits compared to me (like those here), I want to adjust my remarks accordingly. If an editor is not yet WP:XC, then I know some education about policy & content guidelines may be in order.

I accept that WP:SNOWBALL applies to {{ill}} linking to Wikidata in this article. However, I do think that this has been a useful discussion for me. Peaceray (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

So you base your responses on whether someone may have made a similar number of edits, but not the quality of those edits? Odd, and it still feels rather creepy, particularly when you're talking to someone with more edits than you and a large number of featured articles under their belt.

On the whole, what appears in an article's text should have nothing to assist editors do anything: what appears there should be focused on the reader, and making them click through to the gibberish provided by Wikidata does not aid them one iota, but will cause confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I just like to get a sense of who I am in conversation. BTW, I do have more edits than you across all projects.

Yes, I am more a Wikignome, but I do engage with featured article editors in Cascadia Wikimedia.

If we are only focused on readers, then why do we have redlinks? It seems to me that we are trying to engage both readers and editors. We are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We should encourage that. Peaceray (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don't give a toss how many edits anyone has. I've seen awful dross from people with several tens of thousands of edits and moments of brilliant editing from complete noobs. Edit counting is a lazy habit that proves absolutely zero (particularly with the dick-measuring nonsense of saying you have more edits than someone else, whether it's here or elsewhere: it means nothing).

Encouraging editing is one thing; doing so while confusing readers is quite another. I'm delighted to read of the RfC that says Wikidata links shouldn't appear in the body of articles, which is the important point , along with the consensus here that it's not appropriate on this article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that # of edits is not the only criteria. Indeed, WP:WBE states that total edit count is considered a crude measure. I note that XTool's edit counter has other metrics as well & works for a quick if not thorough assessment.

You state a partial truth when you write that the RfC ... says Wikidata links shouldn't appear in the body of articles. It also states As to the other proposed exception of linking to WD, by inline inter-language link, given that there is roughly a numerical tie and there's no clear-cut refutable argument(s) from either side, I (Winged Blades of Godric) am unable to see any consensus. Peaceray (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

As per this RfC, Wikidata links shouldn't appear in the body of articles (except in hidden comments). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, this is different than merely adding a Wikidata link to the body of an article. What you refer to in that RFC is akin to adding [[:fr:Marianne Costa|Marianne Costa]]; for example [[:wikidata:Q121599910|Délia Amoreux]]. To be clear, that is not at all what I am advocating.

The RFC that you linked to in fact says As to the other proposed exception of linking to WD, by inline inter-language link, given that there is roughly a numerical tie and there's no clear-cut refutable argument(s) from either side, I am unable to see any consensus.

What I am advocating is the use of the {{Interlanguage link}} as recommended by the Red links and interlanguage links section of the WP:REDLINKS content guideline. Thus the above examples would instead become {{ill|Marianne Costa|fr}} & {{ill|Délia Amoreux|qid=Q121599910|short=yes}} which would generate Marianne Costa & Délia Amoreux respectively. Peaceray (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The RfC though did not find consensus for that practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That was my point. The RFC did not disallow it. Peaceray (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You're saying the practice is recommended. I don't agree that is correct for Wikidata links given the RfC outcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the content guideline recomments {{ill}} for interlanguage links, the template gives instructions for using the template to link to Wikidata, & the RFC did not disallow using the template to link to Wikidata. That is what I am saying. Peaceray (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)