Open main menu

2012Edit

Is my gallery page size useful?Edit

I thought about the question, wich kind of gallery page may be useful in higher taxon pages. The result of my thoughts is the following: My bird galleries, Examples for such gallery pages are Fringillidae, Paridae, Corvus (genus), Cyanistes.

After this diskussion I suspect, that I made up too big gallery pages. The other way round I think a gallery page like this, only containing less than 20 photos is not worth looking on it and I never would work on such in my eyes useless gallery pages.

Therefore I would like to know if my kind of gallery is OK for you or if I am the only one who likes my kind of gallery page. --Kersti (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I must admit, I find the higher taxon galleries superfluous; navigation is easier by category, and these galleries often go unedited for long periods and miss out on the taxonomic updating from the regular IOC updates. If you are looking for 'something to do', there are still numerous species galleries (e.g. Strix aluco) lacking the very important taxonavigation template, and (even more) species galleries which only have a very poor selection of images in at all. Looking at your gallery ideas, I would add that the most important images to add to galleries are large, high-resolution photos of birds in their native environment, they should be given preference over low resolution photos and photos of captive birds. An example of a gallery bad before editing, now much better. - MPF (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Same as MPF. I don't like higher taxon galleries. They are mainly outdated (except for yours ;-)). Liné1 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Most "higher taxon galleries" are useless as they are no galleries (no picture visible) and therefore the category does the same job as good as this page does. The galleries I make contain if possible at least one photo per species showing the bird from the side and if there are only few species eggs, nests, flight, young animals are shown too - they give the possibility to see all species of a family together on one page. Galleries are not mainly about navigating, they are mainly about looking on pictures. In a way, that someone could learn something by using the page.

In most cases I don't like species galleries, as there are not enough pictures, that they make sense. Looking on the category page is better than, as all pictures are visible there. Therefore I changed not very much species galleries (Exemtion for examle Anas platyrhynchos, Chroicocephalus ridibundus). I think they start to be useful when there are lots of subcategories, and the species with lots of subcategories in their category page usually are maintained at least a bit, so that I think, it is ok, to leave the work to others.

Kersti (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore I changed not very much species galleries (Exemtion for examle Anas platyrhynchos, Chroicocephalus ridibundus)" - it is a good idea to add locations of photos included in galleries. This assists with understanding any regional variation. If the photos don't have a location specified, then maybe they aren't worth putting in the gallery ... - MPF (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Kersti_Nebelsiek idea 1: avoid duplicationEdit

Kersti_Nebelsiek is currently implementing a new idea to avoid duplication in speciesCategories / speciesArticles / familyArticles.
As his idea is interesting + modifies a lot the way categories/articles are created + he is modifying a lot of categories/articles, let me present it to you through an example:

Nb Modification Code
1 In Category:Acanthisitta chloris he puts the categories in <noinclude></noinclude> to transform Category:Acanthisitta chloris into a template. <noinclude>[[Category:Acanthisitta|chloris]]</noinclude>
2 In Acanthisitta chloris he includes the previous category {{:Category:Acanthisitta chloris}}
3 In Acanthisitta chloris he puts the <gallery> in <noinclude></noinclude> to transform the article in a template. <onlyinclude><gallery>...</gallery></onlyinclude>
4 In Acanthisittidae he includes Acanthisitta chloris for its species gallery. {{:Acanthisitta chloris}}

What do you think of his idea ? What will be the impacts on bots ?

This one is definitely a bad idea, and should not be used. It blocks automated image access by outside users of Commons content like the Encyclopedia of Life, and is thus contrary to the basic Commons principle of free use for all under the Creative Commons licenses. Please undo all such examples and return them to pre-existing taxonavigation formats. - MPF (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain us in detail ? Because Acanthisitta chloris still has a Taxonavigation. Liné1 (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Not embedded within the page itself (you can't see it here), only linked in through the template. As a result, the Commons images are missing from on the species' EOL page. - MPF (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
So the Taxonavigation needs to be called directly from the article for eol to work properly. What about articles using{{Coleoptera}}? Liné1 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I checked a page (Lucanus cervus) using {{Coleoptera}}, and its contents also do not appear at EOL (Lucanus cervus) - MPF (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Then eol has to change their way they access commons. - The header information in the bird gallery pages is not maintained, but the information in the category pages is maintained. I don't want to do this part of the work, and therefore the maintained header is includet in the gallery pages. Including gallery pages in the higer taxon is not used that often, as in most cases they would contain too much images. Therefore it is possible to copy and paste it in this cases every time it is changed. Kersti (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Then eol has to change their way they access commons" Why should they be forced to rearrange everything to suit your whims? It would be a lot easier to return the small number of your-style Commons galleries back to the pre-existing standard which is harvestable for EOL. - MPF (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You forget about the{{Coleoptera}} and{{Lepidoptera}} articles.
Personaly I think that EOL should access speciesArticles AND speciesCategory. I don't see why they limited themself to speciesArticles. Currently they must find 5 to 10% of our images.
I will run my bot to have statistics on speciesCategories and speciesArticles. Liné1 (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are some problems: Te preexisting gallery pages didn't contain pictures and their header was simply wrong - there is nothing to return to, eol could make use of! And I simply will not do the work, to maintain headers which are already maintained in the category page. Sorry, I hate this kind of work and it is already too much for me, to do it once whenever I notice faults or category pages missing this information! 2. there are the{{Coleoptera}} and{{Lepidoptera}} Articles. The eol way to harvest commons is not useful at all, as they don't find most of the pictures, as nobody does the work to put them all in galleries. What is the use of a system like theirs? --Kersti (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked them a while back why they didn't harvest from categories; it is not feasible, as there is no link from the category to the images contained in the category, only the other way round. - MPF (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand, that this is a problem, when they work the way they do now - but I think as I can see the pictures in the gallery they simply must have a better Idea for harvesting tho find the pictures in Commons. --Kersti (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why they cannot list images in categories. Or maybe they can only see the first images and don't want to simulate a next. I think that they should have used wikipedia bot library. Liné1 (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed only a few species galleries, as they are not my main interest. Kersti (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I haven't analysed exactly what these changes are, but it sounds like ideas that have been discussed before. If the aim is to avoid maintenance of duplicate descriptions and interwiki links, then I agree that it is sensible to do so. But I think for maintainability it is best not to use the category or gallery as as pseudo template for this information - that approach means that all maintaners of the gallery/category (including bots) have to know exactly what they are doing, and not stuff up the include/noinclude sections. A much cleaner solution is to have a subpage (probably of the category) that is the template. That template is then transcluded into the category and gallery descriptions. The worst damage that maintainers can then do is accidentally not include it, instead of accidentally causing the whole gallery or category to be transcluded. I'm not sure what the effect of having interwikis in subpages would be though. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Kersti_Nebelsiek idea 2: template for langageEdit

If you look at Category:Species name templates you will see a lot of templates.
Kersti_Nebelsiek wants to create one template per taxon in commons to have a centralized translation system for species vernaculare name.

As his idea is interesting + modifies a lot the way categories/articles are created + he is modifying a lot of categories/articles, let me present it to you through an example:

Call using{{Acanthisitta chloris}} Result
{{Acanthisitta chloris|short}} Rifleman
{{Acanthisitta chloris|medium}} Rifleman  (Acanthisitta chloris, cat.)
{{Acanthisitta chloris|medium|comment}} Rifleman  (Acanthisitta chloris, cat.)
Picture: comment
{{Acanthisitta chloris|long}}
{{Acanthisitta chloris|flight}} Rifleman (Acanthisitta chloris, cat.) in flight (cat.)

What do you think of his idea ? What will be the impacts on bots ?

See also: longer description here

...I think, Kersti_Nebelsiek is very busy, but I'm afraid the manual updating of these templates will be a problem. Orchi (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm also afraid that one template per species just for the vernacular name is a bit too much. Liné1 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
An interesting idea, and it does have benefits in making Commons more user-language friendly. But it badly fails the KISS principle, making changes very difficult particularly for beginner users (but also even for long-established editors who are not computer programming geeks, like myself). Keeping pages up-to-date with e.g. any taxonomic or vernacular name changes from IOC is going to be less easy. - MPF (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Orchi, Liné1 and MPF. I wonder if it is in COM:SCOPE. It seems to me to go well beyond simply listing vernacular names within a template on the file page. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons galleries concerning higher taxa start to be interesting for People who don't have a special interest in Science itself, when the vernicular names of birds are given. Same in a image description page. For people who know a bit English, for most uses an English description page is OK, but the vernicular name has to be in their own language, as they want to know this name about the bird. It it impossible for us, to write in every description page 15 or more translations of a bird name, but it is possible, to make up a template for each bird species with 15 or more translations and add it to each image description page concerning this bird.
When you look in Category:Myiothlypis nigrocristata you see, that there an edit-link is given and therefore People will find the place to add additional translations. To maintain the translations htere is the same work as maintainig it on den Category page itself, but every new translations will be used on much more pages without additional work. --Kersti (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that images should have multilingual descriptions, for animals part of that is having the animals name in different languages. But having this done in a template is not really a solution because the search function does not appear to find these translated descriptions. eg searching for "New Zealand Rockwren" (including the " quotes) does not find File:Bullers_wrens.jpg (searching without quotes does find it, but only because those words exist in other parts of the description, my point is that search does not find the description returned by the template). I also wonder if all these templates are just replicating the work done by adding common names to wikispecies entries. I think I would much prefer seeing a bot that just looked up wikispecies to update file descriptions, rather than creating a monolithic structure of templates that has to be maintained in parallel (and the two will inevitably get out of sync).
  • I also wonder how this approach fits in with the separate {{en|...}},{{de|...}} descriptions that is the standard for all other images on Commons (although many images don't have these multilingual descriptions, that is the goal). Do we intend to just have one of these CommonName templates per image description, and not have the common name mentioned in the {{en|...}},{{de|...}} descriptions, or include the template in each language description?
  • There is also a further detail that for many creatures there is more than one Common name that users will be searching for. eg for English language users the same animal often has different names in different English speaking countries. So the English language description needs to include many common names to be useful. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
First, the description ist to describe the picture. And I want to know what the animal is doing and other details I can't see in looking on the picture. This part of the description would be good enough for me, if it is in english or french, even dansk or italian I would understand good enough in many cases. Than I want to know the scientific name and the vernacular name in my own language.
The description has two purposes. One is to assist in finding the image you want when using the search function (this is where a description in your own language helps) eg Green Gurblebeast flying upside-down. Another is to tell you more about the image that may not be obvious eg Taken during Augustfeast in the winter of 1897, in the lowland forest east of Strudletown by a famous Gurblebeast expert to highlight the plight of this endangered animal.. We are not just catering for people who know more than one language, we should be striving to have the full descriptions in all languages. In many ways the vernacular names in each language are unimportant except when searching for the image - you probably already know the vernacular name as that's probably what you searched for. Not having those vernacular names as searchable text is a backward step. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Therefore the {{en|...}},{{de|...}} descriptions are to describe the details of the picture not everyone would know in looking on the picture (and to clarify the details, the scientific name has to be mentioned there again in many cases) and the template is to tell me the name of the bird in my language.
see reply above --Tony Wills (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the template should only mention one common name - more are too long - additional common names may be listed on the category page of the species.
Well it doesn't matter at present because the search function doesn't find the contents of this template. But if it did, then more than one vernacullar name in a language should be catered for - people look for images using the vernacular name that they know, they do not know which of Kelp Gull, Dominican Gull, Southern Black-backed Gull that Commons has chosen to use. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to find the templates by default, simply change your preferences accordingly.
?? I don't want to find the templates at all. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
But that the search doesn't show these results is really a problem. It is not a big problem, because people will find common birds anyway, and people searching for birds, that are not common will try the scientific name too, but it is a problem.
Yes, really a big problem if it is used to replace already existing text. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I will search for a solution as I think the templates are needet. --Kersti (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure they are needed to the degree you think, all that info should be on the category page, that should be the first aim. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the answer. The info is on the category page, when the templates are addet and in most cases there is not replaced much preexisting text by the template. Nevertheless I think search should find the bird galleries by the vernicular names too. And it is not enough, if this information is only on the category page, I would need it on the family gallery pages too. --Kersti (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Personnally, I am worried by the amount of templates (100K ?) + by the fact that it will reserve all the template name.
You certainly know that in the past we needed{{Aves}},{{Mammalia}}... In the future they would all be used ??? Liné1 (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Du you have a better use for templates with Scientific names of birds? --Kersti (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you read all the comments I added above? Do you only intend to do this for birds? I think we should have a discussion on Village Pump or other widely read forums before creating so many templates. I am not sure of the system performance implications of creating so many templates (with so many they probably can not all be cached, so each time a bird page is accessed by someone a template needs to be loaded). There are perhaps better ways of doing this, and it would be best to get more experienced eyes to look at this before making such a large number of templates. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I have read them all, but I was so angry about the way you answered, that I decided to delete what I wrote in return.
In looking on your contributions, I think you can't imagine which problems people, who are not good in english, have, when they look on commons. If a file is described in two languages, usually englisch is one of them.
A solution would be to make redirets from the foreign names to each page, but this is very much work.
--Kersti (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry my reply made you angry :-(. You are doing a lot of work and I can understand your frustration. But that is part of my caution, this template scheme is a huge amount of work and I am far from sure that it is the best way.
I try to imagine the problems of other language users, and of course come across images with no English description and have often visited other language wikis and know what it is like to try and understand using automated translators. I do constantly advocate the need to support all languages.
The templates do work well in a limited sense. I have tried looking at images while logged out and with preferences set to other languages to see how they work. And they are certainly an improvement for where there are no appropriate language descriptions. I am not so sure about how much of an improvement they are over simply having each image having the first item in the description as the scientific name, and that wikilinked to the corresponding category. The category of course then needs to have all the translations and vernacular names.
The reason I say 'limited sense' is that the resulting translations from these templates are probably never going to come up in search results. I do not think that this is a temporary problem, but a fundamental one due to the nature of templates, and what the search routines would have to do to search the template-expanded text. As category names and gallery names are only in a single language (normally English, or Latin) those are areas that really need translations available. But if those translations are never going to be found by search functions then they are of limited use. We could "Subst:" some version of the templates, which would work well, but we would need to re-"subst:" the template each time a new translation was added (a job for a bot).
  • So don't get me wrong, I think we have the same aims. I don't think we have the same faith that this is the solution though :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I think, my anger was primarily due to "pre holiday disease" - people with this disease are always in stress, get angry about minor issues and so on. ;-)
I had planned to make up some species name temlates and gallery pages before the holidays to have something to show in this dicussion and start here a diskussion about the issue now, when I am back. Unfortunately Liné1 startet it before the holidays, in a time I hadn't much time and was unnerved all the time. --Kersti (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok an experiment. I have made Category:Xenicus gilviventris into the template. So you keep all the info, translations/vernacular names taxo trees and interwiki links all in one place - this is the place to edit all those things at once. Then the category is used as a template to transclude this info into the gallery and potentially other places like file page descriptions (calling parameters 1= etc still would work). Only thing that doesn't work is the "edit translations" link as that only allows the file to be in template: space. Now the search facility should find the category page in any language. Comments? --Tony Wills (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Can you simplify the task for me? It is a bad idea to create hundreds of templates, it is a better idea to make use of parameters. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Things can and should certainly be done to make bio-pics descriptions better and more internationalized. I had a try at it myself, for instance here. Clearly vast amount of Wikipedia/Wikisources could be tapped. However, the current Wiki software is far from ideal for the task and any immediatley implementable solution would be massive redundancy with other Wiki projets. m:Wikidata is about to bring about major changes in the way information is organised and I would suggest to wait until we can use it. I should provide a much cleaner solution to the issue at hand. It probably means waiting for a year or so but I think it is worth it (I do not much like the current unstructured way of doing things but keeping it for a while will not make that much of a difference)--Zolo (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good :-). But I see that involves setting up a page under Taxon: for each. I agree that both that and the User:Kersti_Nebelsiek approach would be repeating a massive amount of material already created elsewhere. One of the main reasons I see for bothering to repeat the vernacular info on pages here is so that people searching for material, using their own language, can find something useful. If it doesn't help in searching for material then we might as well just link to the wikispecies/wikipedia material. The trouble is that with both approaches (transcluding the material) don't help when searching (transcluded material isn't found by the search function). --Tony Wills (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
== Proposal ==
  • I would really like to see the vernacular name translations included in all category and gallery pages, mainly so that they will be found when searching for images in ones own language. But the translations need to be included directly on the category/gallery page - either as straight textual content, or as parameters to a formatting template such as {{VN}}. If they are transcluded through a separate template, search will find the template, but not places where it is transcluded (eg the category/gallery page).
  • I would tend not to include the data into every image as it seems excessively repetitive and only marginally useful (it would not help the image being found by search) and the full set of vernacular names is only one click away (eg clicking on the category). I would continue to make the first line of the description the scientific name, with a link, eg:
Megalaima viridis
தமிழ்: குக்குறுவான் பறவையின் பதப்படுத்தப்பெற்ற உடலம்
English: A closeup of a taxidermied White-cheeked Barbet bird
 
and encourage full multilingual descriptions (that don't actually need to be translations of each other, eg the image may have different significance for different cultures).
(I also think that first line with the link to the category could be preceded by a multi-lingual template to translate the word 'category' and make it obvious that it links to further info and images.)
  • So I propose doing something like Category:Xenicus gilviventris for each category, just the vernacular names to help searching and links to wikimedia/wikispecies for more information. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It sounds reasaonable, except that I would suggest to use a {{taxon|Megalaima viridis}} syntax rather than ''[[:Category:Megalaima viridis|Megalaima viridis]]'' even if template:Taxon does nothing else than adding italics and a link to the category. The impact on search results should be the same, and it would be a simple way to enhance machine readability. Bots should be easily able to identify "Megalaima viridis" as a taxon name. In the future, it should make it easy to take advantage of Wikidata, for automatic internationalization of the vernacular name or whatever.
Note: I suggest the name "Taxon" because it sounds like the most natural one, but it means getting rid of the current {{Taxon}} first.--Zolo (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense to me. {{Taxon}} could be made to return something like
Category:Megalaima viridis or
Kategorie:Megalaima viridis etc.
Or even be an alias for an existing autotranslate template eg {{Cat see also}} -
There is the same category at the bottom of the page, but it may be hidden amoungst a bunch of other categories and it may not be obvious which is that first place to look. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I think I would prefer a simple link, as it would be easier to use everywhere without cluttering the description. For instance {{Specimen}} (used here) could call {{Taxon}} if it only adds a link, but not if it adds more text.
The annoying thing with links is that we never know where they lead (category, gallery, wikipedia...), but if category pages are well done, it should not be that much of a problem as it should be easy to go from category to galleries or Wikipedia.--Zolo (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I have retired {{Taxon}} and created a new one with only category name and introduced it in {{Specimen}} (usage). Is that okay ?--Zolo (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So I would propose as an informal guideline: use {{Specimen}} (calline {{Taxon}} when one species is clearly the main focus of the image. Use {{Taxon}} before the multilingual description otherwise. --Zolo (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly not. That template messes with all optional parameters of the information template and would render all the links and templates on my 2000+ images useless (compare [1] with [2]: both licenses, attribution and categories).  B.p. 23:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops I had inadvertently removed the "other fields" parameter. It should be fixed now. Are there other problems with the template ? One of its main points is that it is easily expandable if we need any other field. --Zolo (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

While hiking from Immenhausen to Gemünden the last 3 weeks, I was thinking about the problem and now think, that a new namespace which may be called "names" will be a solution for almost all problems.

There are two kinds of internationalisation templates - Templates which give formal information like Template:VN/title used in Template:VN and Template:VNIncluded and templates wich could help to find relevant categories like Template:Hamburg, and the taxon name templates. The namespace "names" should be used for Internationationalisation templates, which should be searchable like the taxon name templates. Additional to the taxon name templates themselves, templates for big towns or countries like Template:Hamburg (Hamburg) - See Category:Multilingual tags: Locations may be changed using a template similar to Template:VNIncluded and migrated there.

  • Using the syntax {{:names:Taxon name}} it could be used as template
  • A whole namespace could easily be included in the default search preferences, therefore it would be found with the search.
  • As all these templates should have a corresponding category, it is shure, that the template name is free in this namespace.
  • In the templates a link to the corresponding category and gallery pages could be included, like it is already done now in the taxon name templates.
  • Maybe we will find a technical solution to automatical redirect all search results in this namespace to the corresponding category later

--Kersti (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To me a "name" with pages similar to Category:Multilingual tags: Locations would certainly be better than the current situation, and it would probably be rather straightforward to have a bot populating it. However Meta:Wikidata plans to have something similar plans to take create machine-readable data for all Wikipedia articles, including a "label" that seems to be the translation of the name in as many languages as possible. This would be technically much better, more likely to be well maintained, and usable on Commons. I do not know when it will be effectively usable, but apparently sometime in late 2012. This is not very soon but not so late either. I am not sure it makes sense to create a new namespace with thousands of pages, given that it should be obsolete in a few months. --Zolo (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The main question ist: will it show up in the search results? If yes, It would be a wonderful solution and it could be used in here and in wikispecies. --Kersti (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there are some plans to supplement search results with Wiki searches with Wikidata, but I do not know about the details (actually I am not sure that anyone does at this point). I think that what we want is: enter search results in native languages and find all relevant results ? To me, it would be best to get the relevant category (some would say gallery) as first result. If this is not possible to use Wikidata directly for that, we could still get similar it by running a bot to hardcode Wikidata labels into Commons category - that is if Wikidata contains <entry: Fox; label-de: Fuchs; label-en:Fox;>, it could add something like {{LangSwitch|de=Fuchs|en=Fox}} to Category:Foxes. --Zolo (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Than it schould use VN and provide an editlink to Wikidata. But as long as a bot is maintaining this automatically, it will be OK. Kersti (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)