Wikipedia talk:Authority control integration proposal: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:38, 30 December 2013

Revision as of 22:58, 27 April 2014

Line 194:

VIAF is not a quotable source. It's like citing Wikipedia. The original sources are LCCN, GND etc. VIAF is only (a useful) collection of authority control files (often outdated and faulty). So FAQ no. 2: "Why use VIAF and not another identifier?" should be changed. Proposal: Only use VIAF as a second source together with an original authority file. --[[User:Kolja21|Kolja21]] ([[User talk:Kolja21|talk]]) 13:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:Who is using it ''as a source''? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 14:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

:: Kolja, I do not understand the context (same as Andy).

:: Do you interpret our insertion of template {{tl|Authority control}} as a statement that we have identified the biography subject reliably, and interpret each of the authority ID numbers as a compact reference for the statement?

:: Do you suggest that our biography pages should not link to VIAF unless the bundle includes at least one true source that we believe to be correct?

:: --[[User:P64|P64]] ([[User talk:P64|talk]]) 22:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)