Wikidata talk:Notability/Archive 3

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

QOTD archives

According to this policy, are pages like q:es:Wikiquote:Archivo de la Frase célebre del día/diciembre/2012 notable? --Ricordisamoa 23:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ...

Imho items like Q9991988 can be deleted by a bot (6.557 results for "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets"). --Kolja21 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Emw (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Useful for xwiki vandal.--GZWDer (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Criterion 3

From what I understand about criterion 3, it means that for example if John has an item here and his mother Jane doesn't, you can create an item for Jane so you can list Jane as John's mother. Correct? Do you create an item for Jane's mother Janice or would you exclude items created under C3 as a "supporting item"? If the former, what about Janice's mother? How far would it go? The notability policy used to be so much simpler... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: I found this in the Project Chat archives. It touches upon this subject. --Jakob (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So they are excluded? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'd gather. --Jakob (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So the indication is one w:degree of separation from notability can justify a creation (if it is important/significant), though not two. That is useful as a heuristic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@billinghurst:Excuse me, what? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Added a wikilink … always difficult to know when something is a colloquialism. Basically we consider notability is a node, and things can be seen to string off one step from the notability node, but no further if that node is not independently notable. [My chemist brain was originally thinking that it is like an alkane chain, where notability is the carbon atoms, and non-notable additions are hydrogen atoms, and you can see why I ended up with my one degree of separation statement. lol.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'one degree of separation' guideline is good but there is another reason to add non-notable items. To complete a set or a list or a pattern.

Consider 'Family tree of Bar'. If we need to include someone who is two degrees away from notable but is right in the middle of a family tree then I would say they get an item. The guideline here, in my opinion, would be that they are two degrees away from at least two different notable items.

Consider 'Western league season 1889-1990'. we don't have much info on this season but we have items on every season of this league from 1898 to 1927 when it folded. I would include this item. The guideline here, in my opinion, would be to complete a set of which more than half the members are notable. Note that the set membership has to be limited for you to be able to decide how many is 'more than half'. No open ended sets.

OK? Filceolaire (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'one degree of separation' guideline is good but there is another reason to add non-notable items. This is literally nonsense :)

Please guys don't come back to these cold accounting (and often meaningless) criteria. Solving problems that are actual problems in enough, and these criteria are most probably not applicable in many cases as to be expressive, Wikidata needs several items by pages. We innovated by creating subclass trees without always asking ourselves whever or not the class would be or not notable, take the {Q|16334295}} item for example, it has tremendous subclasses, solved problems, now has a big subclass tree. I created this item, I really like not to have to hesitate to create and worry about having to worry about picky on the criteria admin. We still have a lot to learn and to create with Wikidata, please don't include such rules who are really restrictive and not really helpful trying to put meaningless numbers and draw lines on which we could fight ... Wikidata did pretty well without it at the moment. TomT0m ^(talk) 18:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@TomT0m: It is a policy though. I don't think that creating more items like one for Janice's mother would be bad for Wikidata, but I don't want to create a bunch of items that are deemed "not notable" because I think the policy is "meaningless". Maybe the policy shouldn't be a policy because of Wikidata's young age and uncertain future? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the "one degree of separation" is a policy, actually it's the first time I read about this. TomT0m ^(talk) 19:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I thought you we're talking about Wikidata's notability policy. SMH, I am confused. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This page was created at a time when people were hesitant about creating items with no sitelinks. This was a way to say "go ahead, as long as there is some sense in what you are doing". AFAIK, there has not been any major issue with item notability, so I do not think it is worth spending too much time refining this policy at the moment. --Zolo (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Exception for w:Module:Convert/documentation/conversion data/doc

The notability policy currently excludes all /doc subpages of modules. However, w:Module:Convert/documentation/conversion data/doc and its Vietnamese counterpart vi:Mô đun:Convert/documentation/conversion data/tài liệu aren't really documentation. They're at least as notable as any other template or module we have here. The page has a subpage name of "doc" so that MediaWiki treats it as wikitext rather than Lua. Would it be possible to make an exception for this page? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Are both having the structured datas? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Property of a geographical feature

I'm new here. Am I correct in thinking that any property/value pair listed at Wikidata:List of properties/Geographical feature is an item in its own right, as well as being a sub-item of a geographical feature?

To the notability criteria mean that something/someone, for example, a head of government, listed at Wikidata:List of properties/Geographical feature should not be added unless the person or thing to be added is notable in his/her/its own right, for example, because he/she/it is the subject of a Wikipedia page? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that I skipped some steps. Apparently, if I wanted to add a statement to a geographical feature, say, Q1049714, that is, Castleton, Vermont, the addition itself wouldn't be an item, it would be a statement. The statement would consist of a property (head of government) and a value. But for the value, I can't just type "Charles Jacien". I would have to search for an item describing Charles Jacien. If there wasn't one, I'd have to create one. But if he wasn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about him, I'm not supposed to create the item, and thus, I should't create the head of government statement in the Castleton Vermont item. Have I got that right? Jc3s5h (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Jc3s5h You can create an item for Charles Jacien because that fulfills a 'structural need' i.e. you can't make the "head of government" statement until you create the "Charles Jacien" item. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Filceolaire (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Criterion 3 needs tightening

An SEO promoter inadvertently managed to get his (personally my opinion) not notable items[1] to be kept when the deleting admin declined to delete them due to structural needs (see Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2015/05/06#Bulk deletion request). Each of the items were only linked among each other.

Technically I agree with the non-deletion since per the present WD:N these items are fine. What I don't agree with (and I shan't reference the failed proposal for WD:COI) is the keeping of these items due to a structural need.

Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, requirement for structural elements is not meant for self-promotion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I think you're supporting/agree with my point, but could you clarify? --Izno (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as criterion 3 is concerned, it would sound fair to assume that structural need cannot work circularly, ie structural need means structural need for an item notable through another criterion.

What sounds more problematic is that the items might be considered notable under criterion 2. Maybe it is time to get more specific for items about people and companies/organization. They seem make up most of the sensitive cases --Zolo (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Zolo says about circular structure alone should be specifically removed from point 3 of WD:N. If this were to happen perhaps a tool to check the structure around a single item would be good (other wise checking such structure would likely eating up time that people don't want to waste. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 23:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the basics above, but I do not like to see WP-centric ideas installed as a trojan horse because of this. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New RFC

Please see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Wikidata:Notability_overhaul ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 08:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Only reference article is a stub?

Should items like Q19757826 be treated special because the reference article is a stub?
I just started contributing to wikidata and stumbled upon this item via wikidata game.
C.bewernitz (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the value of an article is not based on it's number of bytes, but rather on if it has good sources. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Draft:" Yes or No?

C.F. Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q19961999. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The "Draft:" namespace should definitely not be linked to, IMO. A draft is simply not an article. Drafts should belong to the exclusion criteria. Jared Preston (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. They are just drafts, not yet "published" articles. --Stryn (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, drafts are definitely not articles. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it can be linked, but an item shouldn't be created just for draft namespace. @Nikki: --- Jura 13:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Jura. If the item is going to be notable enough here anyway, I don't see what the disadvantages of linking the two are (would someone who thinks there are disadvantages like to elaborate on what those disadvantages are?). I do see advantages though:

• The draft will be able to use data from Wikidata, e.g. in infoboxes like Jura said.
• It's possible to get from other languages to something in English. Wikidata doesn't judge the quality of articles. If the English Wikipedia wants to put things it considers too poor for the main namespace in another mainspace, that's up to them, but I don't see why that means we cannot link to them. Many of the smaller Wikipedias have many worse articles than the one here in their main namespace and are considered completely acceptable to link to from Wikidata.
• There will be no risk of accidentally creating a duplicate Wikidata item once the draft is moved to the main namespace.

- Nikki (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability and chapters in Wikisource

See Wikidata talk:Wikisource#Interwiki and Notability. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Book: namespace

Shouldn't articles in "book:" namespace be excluded? These are just collections of WP-articles someone wants to have collected or even printed. See Q20203380 for an example. Lymantria (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well we have Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) items and "book:" items that exists in more than one language. So I'm not sure. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this someting we normally have in User-namespace? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW: Book:Enigma (Q20203380) can be added as a sitelink ("Wikibooks") to Enigma (Q485512). --Kolja21 (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I've confused the "book:" namespace with en.wikibooks.org. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kolja21: The difference between Wikimedia-lists and "book:" is that Wikimedia-lists are meant to be a complete list on some subject, while books seem to be a more subjective collection. Innocent bystander's question reflects well what I was thinking. Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO they should be included, for example en:Book:Harry Potter has many interwiki links. --Stryn (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Good example. Lymantria (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Subpages of template:BibISBN

Current discussion: w:de:Vorlage Diskussion:BibISBN#Löschung auf Wikidata

Imho we should allow subpages of Template:BibISBN (Q13416982) since these books are notable (cited by Wikipedia or Wikidata). --Kolja21 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kolja21: But they maybe should be included as source-items, as books and not as Templates? Compare with Småorter 1990 (Q20087097), which I have added here, not because it has any page on Wikipedia (it has none), but since it is used as a source. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the items are instance of (P31): version, edition or translation (Q3331189) with or without the link to the template. On the long run hopefully Wikidata will replace Template:BibISBN (Q13416982) and the subpages can be deleted. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Items on these template subpages should be pointing to an item on the book through template has topic (P1423). They shouldn't be about the books themselves. Lymantria (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Then we would need one item for the edition and a second item for the subpage = the subpage item is not notable. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct, unless there are two of those subpages in different wikipedias. Like Q20193115. Lymantria (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

To be frank: Is interwiki really an essential part of that template? Are we loosing some information if those two pages were not interwiki-linked? I do not propose that item to be deleted, since it takes as much space in the database deleted as undeleted. But is it worth anything for anybody to add them here? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this is any different from the subpages of Template:Cite doi (Q6453799), so I would reject this request. Items representing the actual books should have thier own items. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We have three options: A) A bot can import Template:BibISBN (Q13416982) and we have hundreds of high quality biographical data for free that can be shared by Module:Cite. B) Happy typing: Much work, unnecessary erros, and redundancy. C) We don't use Wikidata for books and keep working at Wikipedia with the templates. --Kolja21 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that if you think there are books to import, then import them--just name them as the items on books rather than as the subpages of any one particular template. I believe that would be the 4th option that you declined to mention. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, then they're unlinked as sources or otherwise. So then that's a problem. --Izno (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, import the editons: Wikidata will delete all items that are not already used as source in Wikidata. Import the subpages: Wikidata will delete all items because they are not recognized as editions. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Two or three goals

Hi! A bit new to wikidata, I'm not sure if I could dare edit it myself: in the first paragraph, it mentions one of these two goals but three points are listed below... ;-) Have a nice day Vonvon (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vonvon: Welcome :) It looks correct as it is to me. There are two goals - they are the two things stated in the first sentence. The three bullet points are the notability criteria for meeting one of those goals, not the goals themselves. - Nikki (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Vonvon you might be interested in this discussion, noted a few sections above: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Wikidata:Notability overhaul -Pete F (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ups, indeed! :-) Thanks! Vonvon (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Are Commons categories notable by themselves?

This page provides ambiguous guidance on whether categories on Commons can have their own Wikidata items (i.e., even if the category does not exist on other pages). On the one hand, it meets the criterion of an item having a sitelink to a Wikimedia page (and not in one of the prohibited namespaces). But then it comes with these confusing caveats:

• In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items.
• However, it is allowed to link Wikimedia Commons categories with categories in other Wikimedia sites in items.

The second one is straightforward to me: commons:Category:Dogs can be a sitelink on Category:Dogs (Q6830323) as one of many categories called "Dogs." I read the first one to mean that if, somehow, there was no Wikipedia article on dogs anywhere, or any other corresponding page called "Dogs" (or "Dog") on the other projects, I could not create an item "Dogs" and then have commons:Category:Dogs be the sitelink. This reading of the rule would not preclude me from creating an item called "Category:Dogs" with the statement instance of (P31): Wikimedia category (Q4167836), with the only sitelink being the Commons category (again, assuming no other categories with that name existed). This would be because the item is not a "main article item," but an item about a wiki category.

I want to make sure others agree with me on this reading of the policy, as I see many Commons categories don't have corresponding Wikidata items and I am interested in using the pre-existing Commons categories as a way of associating images with semantic concepts. Harej (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely like to see this clarified. I've always had trouble understanding what it's supposed to be saying, because the first sentence has never made any sense to me: it says "an item ... is not allowed on main article items", but how can an item not be allowed on an item? The sentence "an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed" would make sense (although I wouldn't agree with it), as would the sentence "a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items" (although that's nothing to do with whether an item is notable and would be more appropriate on a page like Help:Sitelinks), but combined together, I don't know how to interpret it. - Nikki (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are now approaching 4 million categories on Commons. My understanding is that we are not going to create 4 million new items here. Instead, when Commons has its own Wikibase instance ("CommonsData"), then that is where people might try to document them in a Wikidata-esque structured way -- for example to allow categories to be auto-augmented with files that match a particular criteria, or to have different useful sort-ordering criteria recorded.

Nevertheless, there is always the get-out in the Wikidata notability requirements, that if a new item "fulfills some structural need" -- eg to better organise or structure existing items, or to create a path linking together related items that would not otherwise be connected, then such an item can be freely created, even if it links to no page on any main wiki.

I see no reason why such an item should not then have a Commons category (P373) if there happened to be a corresponding Commons category.

However, we probably don't want to go down the road of creating intersection subclasses corresponding to the kind of intersection categories that one sees on Commons -- eg categories which bring together statements for which A, B, C, D and E are true. In a case of that kind on Wikidata we are probably more likely to want to see if we can handle A, B, C, D and E (or at least some of them) through properties, rather than subclasses -- because properties tend to give a much more flexible, easier to query, more compact way of representing that kind of combinatorial relationship. Jheald (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We tend to talk about Commons categories as a single thing, but there are different types of categories, which is why I don't agree with a broad statement that Commons categories are not notable on their own:

• There are categories which have nothing to do with Commons being file-based (e.g. categories for grouping users or templates) and I don't see why they should be treated any differently just because they're on Commons.
• There are categories which group files about a specific identifiable individual person, place or object (e.g. a building, a ship). I think the items for those should always be notable, even if they don't link to anything else (i.e. don't meet criteria 3). An article or category about the same thing on any other wiki would always be notable here which then allows people to add information which can be used by the local wiki. Commons shouldn't be any different and shouldn't have to depend on another wiki having a page to be allowed access to information about it.
• There are categories about a single topic (e.g. Category:Dogs, Category:Volcanoes). It depends really on whether we can ever get people to agree on where to link Commons categories, but if main items should link to galleries and categories should be linked to category items, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to allow single-topic categories to have items which are linked with the main topic using topic's main category (P910) and category's main topic (P301) regardless of which wiki the sitelink comes from (you could argue that doing that meets criteria 3, since it provides information about what the main category for an item is).
• There are intersection categories, which (as I understand it) are the ones people don't like much, because Commons has a lot of them and they rarely correspond to categories on other wikis. I don't have a strong opinion on those, but if we do want to exclude those, I think we should be clearer about what we're excluding: We don't currently have a formal process here for deleting items where people are notified and have a set period of time to argue that something is actually notable. Non-admins can't see the history of deleted items either, so when an item is deleted, the chances are that they won't even know which item got deleted, let alone be able to argue that it shouldn't have been.

- Nikki (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that your middle two cases are already covered by the second prong of the notability guideline which green-lights items for any "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" [that] "...can be described using serious and publicly available references".

As for your first case, I'm not sure I see why there would be value in creating Wikidata items for purely project-organisation or maintenance Commons categories, unless they had clear parallel structures on other projects that one would want to sitelink to. What is the benefit of Wikidata machine-descriptions of such things, which can grow (and disappear) like mushrooms? Jheald (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are right, I do not see the value of having Category:NPOV disputes from October 2015 (Q21035480) here. Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes (Q5324249), yes, but not the first one. I was very suprised to find it here at all. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that broad statements like "Commons categories are not notable by themselves" make it more likely that someone will see an item which only has a Commons category sitelink, conclude that it's not notable because the notability criteria exclude Commons categories and delete it (going back to the original problem: it's not clear if that is what it says). You don't get a chance to argue that it meets one of the other criteria instead. See Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2015/11#Deleted_items for a similar situation from just a few days ago.

My point regarding project organisation and maintenance categories is that they're not a Commons-specific concept, so Commons should not be singled out and treated differently. Whether we think that project organisation and maintenance categories are notable or not, it should apply to all projects. - Nikki (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The "intersected category" question is absolutely not the same here in Wikidata the in commons. With instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279), and with part queries like CLAIM[31:(TREE[5][][279279])] or ?item wdt:P279*/wdt:P31 wd:Q5 we really have much more possibilities to use subclasses or intersected subclasses without real troubles. Plus on Wikidata we really have a much better definition of classes wrt. Categories who can mean whatever they want. The question should then really not be though in term of "Commons people don't like intersected categories" but "what can handle Wikidata ?" author  TomT0m / talk page 17:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the answer is, what you need to avoid is letting a Commons category become a backdoor way to get a Wikidata entry. Hypothetically: there are four pictures of me at conferences on Commons, and there is a Category for me, Category:Outriggr. I am nevertheless not notable and the existence of the Commons category should not allow me to get a Wikidata item referring to material entity "Outriggr" nor to "Commons Category:Outriggr". :-) Thus I don't think the idea mentioned above -- "There are categories which group files about a specific identifiable individual person, place or object (e.g. a building, a ship). I think the items for those should always be notable" -- is workable. There are many ships and people on Commons that cannot "be described using serious and publicly available references", but have convenience categories on Commons. Outriggr (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Jheald, my understanding was that CommonsData was not a Wikibase instance, but a way to make the description boxes on files machine-readable.

According to the plans being developed a year ago, before the project was put back in the freezer, the view was that CommonsData would be a wikibase, but with most items being linked 1-to-1 with Commons pages, and referred to by a page name rather than a Q-number.

The aim would be to have the templated description boxes draw from the Commons wikibase in the same way that templated Wikipedia infoboxes draw from Wikidata.

But if you know of more recent ideas than that, then I would be interested. Jheald (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nikki and others, I generally agree that maintenance categories and userspace-type categories should not be included on Wikidata (including your Commons category, Outriggr, or mine, for that matter).

In any case, would it be satisfactory for a Commons category Wikidata item to be created if the category described one thing, or an intersection of things, that are all notable by Wikidata standards? Not having Commons as a backdoor for getting a Wikidata entry created when you otherwise don't meet criteria, but for things that already meet criteria. Let's take commons:Category:2004 in Łódź as a random example. In addition to being an instance of a Wikimedia category, it would have the statement category combines topics (P971) --> 2004 (Q2014), Łódź (Q580), as the year 2004 and the Polish city of Łódź are both notable things. Would this work for people? Harej (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The way I read the policy, you can create a "category" Wikidata item for any Commons category, but you can't make a corresponding "article" Wikidata item without finding a site link for that item. If you really wanted such an item, I suppose you could create a Commons gallery to fill that role. Ghouston (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As for intersections, I think quite a few of them already exist on Wikidata, such as Category:Mountains of India (Q7143642). Ghouston (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: On Wikidata:Project chat#Q21197409, you said "[...] items only consisting of a Commons category are not notable. This is the result of an RfA about two years ago.". Are you referring to the RfC linked from WD:N or something else? The RfC linked from WD:N says option VI was successful and option VI says we should create items for Commons categories so that we can link them using category's main topic (P301)/topic's main category (P910) ("[...] there will be category-items representing either Wikipedia categories, or Commons categories, or both [...]" and "Commons categories that have no Wikipedia equivalent still have no item. Solution: create one"). It doesn't say anything about other Commons categories not being notable. It seems to me that it was intended to say that Commons categories should not be sitelinks on non-category items and the idea that Commons categories aren't notable was all a big misunderstanding. If you're referring to something else, could you give us a link? - Nikki (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, now I see that it is very clear on WD:N: "In addition, an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items."--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And I do not see how this could be changed without another RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Consensus can change.

But besides, I don't know how much weight we ought to set by the previous RfCs. The way they evolved became highly confused; there was little or no input into the process from Commons itself; and, above all, there seems to be no great desire in the community to enforce the claimed outcomes -- for example "cross-namespace" sitelinks to Commons categories from article-like items now number over 200,000 and have doubled in the last year, but as far as I can tell the prevailing community attitude is "okay, fine, whatever..." Besides which, Wikidata is now a far more developed project, and we have a far better idea of what works and what doesn't.

One needs to recognise that many Commons categories are rather different in nature to Wikipedia categories. Wikipedia categories are collections of things which will have Wikidata items. Commons categories are very often collections (and sub-divisions of collections) of media, which won't. As a result, probably the majority of Commons categories will never have a matching category on any Wikipedia, because they are collections of such different things.

The other point is that there are basically no useful properties defined on category-like items. Indeed, when I tried to suggest some about a year ago, the strongest element of the response I got back was simply "We are not interested in properties on categories. Wikidata should about building a database of facts about the real world, not about things of purely internal-project interest." At the moment, we cannot ask even the most basic of questions about Wikidata category items: what items are members of the category; and what categories is the category itself a member of ?

So what useful value is there in creating items for Commons categories ?

On the other hand, when the categories represent distinct real-world things, and even when they don't, there is often very real value in creating article-like items for Commons categories, linked either by Commons category (P373) or by direct sitelink. Unlike category-like items, article-like items can actually describe facts about the person, place, event, concept that the category represents. These are the kind of data that it is really useful to have in machine-readable, searchable form; that can be extracted onto templates; and that we have a wealth of properties to describe -- just as we don't for category-like items.

Wikidata's notability policy is intended to be inclusive. I would far rather have some extra items included on minor subjects of Commons categories (that can then be described and filtered as required), rather than not being allowed article-like items to describe subjects of categories, so that then they can not be searched, summarised or filtered. I would far more happily prefer to accept the occasional extra Wikipedian included, rather than to lose the machine-readable description of a painter, or a place, or an event that we have images of, because somebody feels it's more valuable to be a zealous notability enforcer. Jheald (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the result, to make it clear, my decision to delete the item, which conforms with the policy, was overruled, and now the item which explicitly does not conform with the policy, exists. The only motivation was that someone did not like my decision. I am not really happy with this situation, and I have at the moment no motivation to perform any administrative tasks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I mean, my personal preference would be to disallow creation of items which only have a Commons category sitelinks. As an administrator, I would be fine with any solution, as far as it is written down and enforced. However, I am not at all fine with the situation when any decision can be reverted on the grounds that have nothing to do with the policies. We are not supposed to be on the minefield.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me. An item is not allowed on an item? What does that even mean? The sentence "an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed" (without the last few words) would make sense and would mean exactly what you're saying it means. The sentence "a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items" (without the first few words) would make sense and would mean exactly what the RfC says. But it doesn't say one or the other, it says both, simultaneously... :/ - Nikki (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It means what it means: One is discouraged to create items which only contain a Commons category as a sitelink (actually, I was trying to find a page with exact same formulation - "creation is discouraged", which I remember should exist, but I failed); however, if there is a valid item which has sitelinks to a category to one of the projects (for example, one of the Wikipedias), a Commons category can be added to the item as a sitelink. This is my understanding of the policy, and this is also the practice followed from the early days of the project (I participate here from Day 1).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it say you shouldn't create items for Commons categories themselves (e.g. an item that is about the Commons category "Category:2004 in Łódź", with no other categories with that name, therefore no interwiki linking), or that you shouldn't create items for concepts if the only sitelink would be a Commons category (e.g., I shouldn't create an item about the concept of the year 2004 transpiring in the city of Łódź, since the only thing I would have to show for it would be a Commons category)? More importantly, what should it say? Is it worth formulating a rewrite of that bullet point to make it clearer? We shouldn't be arguing about the meaning of a Wikidata policy as though it were some centuries-old constitutional law that needs to be re-applied to the modern day. And while I have a case for creating Wikidata items for Commons categories—even when they describe categories that exist solely on Commons and nowhere else—others may not agree with my ideas, and I want us all to be on the same page. I would like to have this question settled. Harej (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It says "not allowed on main article items". However it says nothing about category items. Creating category items for Commons categories is required by Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Commons_links. Ghouston (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Notabilities about Meta & MediaWiki.org

Follow here please:

• Wikidata:Meta-Wiki/Development
• Wikidata talk:MediaWiki.org

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

1 million FLOSS projects

Hi there, What about the 1 million floss projects out there? sf.net, github, bitbucket, gitlab, etc. Are they notable? can I add them? I am working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdupont/Open_content and have collected many many entities. thanks, Mdupont (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Are Wikimedians considered notable?

Hi. Dispenser has recently created a few entries for Wikimedians. These Wikimedians don't have Wikipedia articles or other non-project pages on Wikimedia wikis. Are all Wikimedians notable enough for inclusion in Wikidata? Are users of other sites (e.g., Facebook or Google) notable for inclusion in Wikidata? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

These have been high profile users (many Top 5,000 users), have their names publicly listed, been written about in the Signpost or Wikimedia Blog. In the future, Commons metadata initatives automatically create these entries. Information has been sourced logged out to ensure only public available data is used.

It is also understood the threshold for notability is profoundly lower than on Wikipedia where a data donation of NYC lamppost locations would be accepted (or so I was told in Wikidata class last year). Dispenser (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that Wikidata has a lower notability threshold. However, I think that if we are creating entries for things that do not have Wikipedia articles (or equivalent) then they should fulfill some practical purpose, whether to augment existing Wikidata entries or to provide some functionality that benefits the Wikimedia projects. I am not sure what the practical purpose is here. Harej (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Wikimedians rarely meet any of the 3 criteria listed here. The Signpost and the Wikimedia Blog are not serious external references but are internal to the movement. --Izno (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Currently Ars Technica, a top 500 website in the US, links to a Wikimedia Blog Post on Pokemon Notability as recommended reading. They've also cited the Signpost in their articles. You're not giving enough credit. These are very well established Wikipedians (Top 5,000). Dispenser (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This feels like innocent-intent but still very uncomfortably close to doxing. Please don't continue this experiment, and consider deleting the recent creations. I don't want to find my (non-notable) personal address and phone number in here just because (hypothetically, not based on the existing recent creations) some historic versions of databases like yellowpages and domain registries have become widely mirrored, and I was (hypothetically) mentioned in a WikiProject article in the Signpost. We are not about.me. Please stop, and guideline against this, before trolls start "helping out" and making this unpleasant for many many people. ~~Throwaway account by a "Top 5,000 user" who feels very uncomfortable with this and doesn't want to be publicly hunted down and officially compiled and easily stalked.~~ UWT (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to relax Notability standards in favour of Wikimedians. - Brya (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I share the concerns of the throwaway account (which sadly I had to block under our socking policy, which is much stricter than enwiki). I just deleted one of these such items, that were it about me, I would be a very unhappy camper, since it had virtually every prominent social media account of that user. It's a violation of privacy. --Rschen7754 07:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why the people in question here would even meet the notability policy in the first place. They clearly didn't meet criteria 1 or 3 (no sitelinks, no backlinks) and none of the information (from what I remember) had any references nor were there any identifiers for other databases (only usernames), so I can't see how criteria 2 would apply.

This also isn't about making exceptions for Wikimedians - there are some Wikimedians who do clearly meet the notability policy, nobody is disputing that. It's about when they become notable. If this was about any other website and someone wanted to create items for people who had made a lot of edits there and had sometimes been mentioned in that website's blog, I can't imagine that we would agree that those people are notable.

- Nikki (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

So... should these Wikidata items created about Wikimedians be deleted then? I think Rschen7754 deleted some of these items, but a quick look at Special:Contributions/Dispenser shows that there are still other items not yet deleted. Do these items qualify for speedy deletion? If so, what is that process? Or if there's a formal process that should be used, what is it? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I only deleted the ones that needed to have personal information oversighted. For the rest there is WD:RFD. --Rschen7754 01:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability and public databases

In the project page related to this discussion, I read that can be added to wikidata any type of information about material entities which can be described using public and referenced sources.
What I'm worrying about, it's that the same page in which this rule is in, is marked as intentionaly left vague, as if the "current" community doesn't like what I put into the database, it can append arbitrary rules to what can and can't be inserted.
I don't think that this project could continue its growth without strict rules and precise goals other than be the wikipedia database. Eg, what happens if London cadastre and registry office decide to insert the public part of their database into wikidata?
To do that, they need some consistency guarantees.
--Ogoorcs (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It's likely that such an import go through different canals - and we might create new one for official datas. There is some development efforts such as signed statements and community pages such as Wikidata:Data donation to guide them. I guess there is no real notability problem. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm subscribing to signed statements page. Thank you very much!

--Ogoorcs (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Page readability/design

Hello,

I wondered if that page could be a bit improved in terms of visual appearance/readability. I think, a small improvement could already be separating the content from the infoboxes a bit with 1 or 2 <br/>. Also, if we put the policy box below the fmbox with Note that the guidelines visual "jumping" of the left edges of the boxes is less prominent. Does this make sense? I already tried to create a "preview" of the changes as a userspace draft, but it looks a bit different, since the translation box is not copied along. --Jan Dittrich (WMDE) (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Elected politicians of non-European Parliaments

I have had some inquiries from people in the Open Data community about why people keep deleting the data sets they add for politicians from non-European Parliaments. One data analyst I talked to added data sets for MPs from Estonia, Vietnam and some other places, but these were deleted because there were not articles on Wikipedia for them yet.

Personally, I think these data sets meet a need, and the people they represent meet the notability criteria for people on Wikipedia. There are far less Wikimedians in places like Vietnam and Estonia, and by adding their politicians to Wikidata, we can then try to automatically create stub articles and do useful analytics with the data. It's quite frustrating for people who are adding useful data sets which they want to analyse for people to come along and delete some but not all of these sets. I would like to strongly argue that we specify that data sets of people who do not yet have Wikipedia pages but qualify for Wikipedia's notability criteria should not have their Wikidata items deleted. Wikimedia projects are works in progress, and we should be extra-careful when dealing with data sets from developing and small-language nations, where it will be difficult for most European people to find references to them. We need to spend more effort to improve Wikipedias for language communities which are smaller or less economically developed. --Jwslubbock (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jwslubbock:: It would be good to have link to a deleted item. It's likely that the items didn't include any references or sufficient statements identifying them as such.
--- Jura 22:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jwslubbock: I couldn't agree more, English speaking wiki is overly pedantic about references.

At Wikidata it is possible to exclude unsourced items, non-English items e.t.c.

Same standards or rules cannot work for every situation.

If native speakers report that items were incorrect en masse, then we should remove them again. d1g (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality items lacking notability?

Please see Wikidata_talk:Item_quality#Add_an_additional_class_.28e.g._.22F.22.29. Apparently checking for notability isn't implied in checking for quality.
--- Jura 22:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Template subpages

There are quite a lot of template subpages which cannot clearly be classified as "/doc" or something else which is mentioned in the criteria, and which have two sitelinks, so they are in principle notable. However, I don't think that pages like Q21845026 or Q23758062 should be kept. Furthermore, /XML, /Meta and /preload subpages are also not covered by the current criteria. I would suggest to change the criteria so that subpages of templates are not notable in general. Steak (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikidata:Project_chat#Wiktionary_sitelinks_enabled_in_Wikidata

The main and Citations namespaces should not be allowed, and what about Appendix? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not clear

@Steak: Can you explain what you mean with "maintenance subpage that is not transcluded in the main namespace" that you have added here?

@Steak: --ValterVB (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I mean subpages of the type /doc, /sandbox, /testcases, /TemplateData, /Meta, /XML/, and all other stuff e.g. Q23758062 and Q21845026 which does not fulfill one of the before mentioned patterns and is not trancluded in the main article namespace. I don't mean e.g. Q13413893, which is (technically) a subpage in german wikipedia, but is transcluded as a normal template in article namespace. If you can come up with a more clear formulation you are welcome. Steak (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, @Steak:, do not change this page without clear consensus. Please, revert the changes you made and add a new formulation only if consensus upon it is reached. You may start a RfC if you think that is necessary. Lymantria (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I changed back to the previous formulation. However, the linked discussion was clearly in favor of excluding more subpages, not only those which are listed at the moment. The point is, at the moment /XML subpages and also other types of subpages are notable, which is not useful at all. Steak (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That may be the case, it doesn't at all cover the description you gave, and which you misleadingly announced in PC as "slightly change". I don't think subpages of not notable subpages will be a big issue, and there was some consensus at PC about /XML, /Meta or /preload. If you want to include your tiny generic change in description, more discussion (best an RfC) is the way to go. Lymantria (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand you right. You are saying that including in the list XML and Meta pages can be done, but changing the wording to something else would need a RfC? Ok, I could live with this. Steak (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, based on the PC discussion you may add those. Lymantria (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Steak: Would you classify items such as Q30997194 and Q30997770 as non-notable subpages? Jared Preston (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I cannot read chinese, but I think this should be not notable, yes. Steak (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Steak: That's along the lines that I was thinking. I'll delete them; thanks for your input. Jared Preston (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability of geographic places

Is the hill behind my house notable if it is named on some official map and/or is found in an official publicly available database? I am trying to get a clearer sense of where the limits of notability of geographic places/features can be expected to be found. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think indeed if there is mentioning in an official map or an official database, it fulfils criterion 2 "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Lymantria (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that geonames would be sufficient as source, but this is my personal view.
--- Jura 10:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool. I created an item for a small group of islets to test things out. Is it adequate to include the ID for a suitable reference database (the Norwegian Central Place Name Register ID in this case), or should the reference feature be invoked somewhere?

With this interpretation of notability, importing all place names from suitable databases would seem like a good idea for future bot jobs. --Njardarlogar (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Looks good, I added some data as well. Feel free to add even more…
• “Import all [data]” from another database needs to be permitted by the license of the external database. If it is not compatible to our CC0 license, we cannot import all data.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hence suitable. :-) (on another note, seeing now that the islets actually form a natural reserve, they were more notable than I had initially thought..) --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

leftover text

"An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals, that is"

Please drop it next time d1g (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree - specially since now there are three goals listed :) Oainikusama (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The two goals are: to centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects and to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large. Where is the third goal? --Pasleim (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It contains at least one... is too long

Shouldn't it be "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on any of supported Wikimedia projects"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It contains at least one... is too short

Sorry, Liuxinyu970226 ;). Currently this section lists some restrictions for Wiktionary (citation pages not allowed and main namespace not needed), but doesn't list Wiktionary in the first place when it's about sitelinks in which projects generate notability. So it looks like it's missing there, right? If Wiktionary sitelinks aren't valid sitelinks in the sense of criterion 1, then there's no need to explain any restrictions for them here anyway. --YMS (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@YMS: And how about the "other projects" sidebar? If we fully disallow Wiktionary ns:0 pages, then no Wiktionary links can be happen on non-Wiktionary sites, but by adding such pages e.g. in Dongping County (Q1198276), we can see a Wiktionary link on zhwiki (although this sidebar is unlikely to be available on Wiktionary) (See also phab:T173626). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm only concering about "on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons" which looks like a manually maintained list, and even miss MediaWiki.org (Q15633578) and Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (Q1063116). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to influence what can be found in the "side bar", then you have other options than adding sitelinks to Wikidata. In this page at svwikipedia you see a link to svwiktionary in the sidebar. But that solution demands that some codes have to be added to the .js/.css-pages. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: it is strange to have sitelinks to Wiktionary words. Many notions can be expressed in different words/symbols (at least synonims, or orthography variants), which of them to choose? In your example, why not to link with wikt:zh:东平县? Or with wikt:zh:東平? --Infovarius (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction?

To my opionion there is a contradiction between those 2 sentenses (from the main text):

... the item ... "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, ..."

On Wikidata, items and properties are not allowed to link as sitelinks.

I believe the "items and" in the 2^nd sentence should be removed? Or do I miss something? Geertivp (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It means you shouldn't do this (if it wasn't the sandbox).
--- Jura 13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Then the sentence above should then read: "On Wikidata, items and properties are not allowed to link to Wikidata sitelinks. Which means that Wikidata entities can only refer internally to each other, not externally via Wikidata sitelinks... if you agree I will change the text in the WD page... Geertivp (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it really makes things clearer. That part just enumerates namespaces. You can always link to other namespaces, e.g. Q4657574#sitelinks-special links this policy (Wikidata:Notability).
--- Jura 16:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I got it - it should read as: "On Wikidata, items and properties are not allowed as target sitelink.". I was confused, as I believed it referred to Wikidata items and properties as link source. But Wikidata items are always the source of a sitelink (to e.g. Wikipedia ⇒ this was the 1^st functionality of Wikidata anyway... Geertivp (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Items not yet on Wikipedia

1. What are the criteria for creating items which are not yet on a Wikipedia?
2. How do I know if an item not yet on en:Wikipedia is on another Wikipedia in a language that I do not understand?

For example, there are terms defined in glossary articles which do not have their own article yet, or things currently adequately covered in an article section, which may some day be split off into their own article, when someone has the inclination to do the work. Cheers, Pbsouthwood (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The criteria on the front page of this talk page define under which conditions you can add items. If there is no Wikipedia article, you either need to use the item in other items (structural need, criterium #3), or it should have authority controlled external identifiers (e.g. entry in some database which has a Wikidata property, criterium #2).

Regarding searching: if you used the regular search function and don’t find a result, don’t hesitate to create a new item. If someone finds out that there was already another item, we can merge it easily. Once again, use of external identifiers makes it easier to spot duplicates, thus add whatever identifiers are possible. Also those which do not make the item notable (i.e. external identifiers without authority control, such as social media profiles).

Any questions? Feel free to ask! Regards, —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: IMO #2 is a bit more permissive than that. A "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity", that can be "described using serious and publicly available references" doesn't necessarily need to have an authority-controlled external identifier (though as you say, they certainly help). But eg a Commons category for such an entity (but not just a Commons "intersection" category) would be enough that we should have a corresponding item here. Jheald (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes but: must be demonstrable, if only you think that is "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" is not sufficient, you must add reference to permit also to other users check that the item fall in this guideline. --ValterVB (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)