Wikidata:Requests for comment/Exclusion criteria in Wikipedia namespace

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Exclusion criteria in Wikipedia namespace" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue. If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. I closed it and changed Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria after 3 month's discussion. Note that the interwiki links should be added back to ALL of the linked pages in all languages.--GZWDer (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

---

I asked before about meetup page is meets nobility but I think it should be not added. So I made this RFC to define like that pages. --00:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Archiving pages

Should we add pages like ko:위키백과:사랑방/2013년 제29주, en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 104 and es:Wikipedia:Café/Portal/Archivo/Técnica/2009/10?

Yes or No

• No, not any kind of archives. --Stryn (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• No I don't see a point to having pages on archives here. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• No --LadyInGrey (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• No --DangSunM (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• No need. Littledogboy (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• No. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• No -·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 07:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• No — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

But how we defined that archived pages--DangSunM (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Meetup pages

We can add categories in Exclusion criteria such as ko:분류:위키백과 오프라인 모임 and en:Category:Wikipedia meetups by year. But we should made inclusion of Q79786 because some wiki links Vailded sitelink in Q79786.

Yes or No

• No, of course category like "Wikipedia meetups" is okay, but all pages in those categories should not be added to Wikidata. --Stryn (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• No, --LadyInGrey (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• No --DangSunM (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• No per Stryn. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• ...

Discussion Pages

Adding discussion pages like CU requests, Requests for deletion, permissions and etc...

Yes or No

• No--DangSunM (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• No --Stryn (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• No — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

comments

• I find some error in my propose, I forget to write subpage of them. For example, en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be fine but not like en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evixion--DangSunM (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We understood. The main pages are not "discussion pages," but the subpages are. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Any other to adding in Exclusion criteria?

• Documentation subpage. Any subpage in general. --Nouill (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  Documentation subpages? You mean for templates? They are already excluded. --Pyfisch (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  I guess you mean pages like /header or /footer in WP and Help-namespaces. I think they can be excluded. -- Lavallen^talk(block) 11:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia, and probably in several other wikis as well, we have a separate subpage of Requests for Deletion for each article to be deleted, and the same for Featured article discussions. These should probably not be included in Wikidata. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The same for checkuser requests etc. one-project-wide pages. --Stryn (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree and I made another topic about discussion pages.--DangSunM (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I support excluding archiving pages and meetup pages but there are many other pages in Wikipedia namespace which should have Wikidata items in my oppinion. I propose to exclude most subpages in Wikipedia namespace. --Pyfisch (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Or, we could chuck them aside, by creating a special item type? Littledogboy (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think these discussions are kind of pointless, we have more important problems than to decide whether or not we add those items. It's very low on my personal priority list, I even think that it's really losing time to have a cycle (creation, deletion, creation, deletion), telling the nnob that he is comiting a crime be recreating them, etc. Let just create them once, maybe do the mapping between languages, or not, once and for all, roughly classify them and forget about them. TomT0m (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Before this is closed and actions are taken such as deleting already existing itmes please make sure that the interwiki links are added back to ALL of the linked pages in all languages. Otherwise all of these pages will suddenly not be linked together at all (similar to what happened with some files that were recently deleted) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 07:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  I see no point into linking archives together, but if some of these pages have interwikis there items should not be deleted at all. TomT0m (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• A separate namespace on Wikidata for non-articles in general could be helpful. --  Docu  at 08:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.