Wikidata:Requests for comment/Wikidata:Notability overhaul
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Wikidata:Notability overhaul" 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.
- no consensus --Pasleim (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contents
Backgrounds are at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Speedy vs Regular deletion, Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikidata talk:Notability.
I propose Wikidata:Notability to be changed to:
- (status quo)
- (Spilt to two criteria)
The item has at least one statement with reliable, third-party, published sources, or such described by source (P1343), or authority control properties. (For example, Andy Mabbett (Q15136093) is notable because it have a GND ID (P227) statement) Note:- Items only having IDs which everyone can register, like ORCID iD (P496), is not considered notable, neither is website username or ID (P554).
These sources must not only indicates relationship between the item and other items.
- This item is mentioned by at least one reliable, third-party, published source, which described non-trival information that can indicate the topic's importance. This can be claimed by source of one statement, or described by source (P1343), but if it's claimed by source of one statement, the source mustn't only described such relation (but also described other information about the topic).
- For example, topic mentioned in White or Yellow Pages are't always notable, and Wikidata should not be a telephone directory collecting every person and their name and telephone number or e-mail. In all cases, Wikidata:Use common sense applies.
- This item has at least one authority control statement, which describes non-trival third-party information but can't be registered by everyone.
- For example, this mentioned a book he wrote and thus is non-trival.
- "Third-party" means the information should not be added by themselves.
- The item is or will be used in at least one page in any Wikimedia project except Wikidata, including using the future arbitrary access and query feature. For example, any individual topic in a list is notable, as this will possibly be generated by a query. In future, this also includes items used by 3rd party cilent (community can clearify proper usage of Wikidata).
- The item is useful for linking two items meeting #1 or #2 (and probably #3) which are not directly linked (for example Mary Montague (Q19302079)).
- For example, if Q1 links Q2, which links Q3, ... , which links Qn, and Q1 and Qn are notable, then Q2, Q3, ... will be notable.
- The item is directly linked from an item meeting #1 or #2 (and probably #3 and/or #4).
Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria and Wikidata:Notability/Inclusion criteria are still used.
Maybe these criteria can be discussed. Note: This is not an overhaul of deletion policy, which will be discussed at another RfC.--GZWDer (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale
[edit]- I have to add/repeat some examples why the current policy needs to be reworked. The urgent need of a new notability policy is missing in the statement by GZWDer:
- The guideline is indeed quite vague in points of what "serious and publicly available references" are. In theory, every person which was mentioned in any local newpaper is notable on Wikidata, as the newspaper is serious for sure and also publicly available. This issue also came up on RFD several times when items were listed for deletion which described some (on Wikipedia irrelevant) companies. However, as they were mentioned on some journals etc. there exist "serious and publicly available references" so the notability guideline was in favour of them.
- Criteria 3 already works quite well at the moment, However, there are also a lot of people or other things out there which might be somehow connected to a notable item. Basically, the whole humanity is if we use father/mother/children properties. Therefore, we also need some limit for criteria 3.
- Best regards, -- Bene* talk 09:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
#1
[edit]- What's the reason to exclude items with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons? --Pasleim (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be clearified. However Addendum 2 of Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links only indicate consensus of having article-gallery and category-category link.
- Are items with sitelinks only to draft namespace or user subspace notable? --Pasleim (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Drafts should not be included per Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2013/12#Draft_name_space and Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/05#What_do_do_with_Wikipedia:Draft_articles. User subspace should not be included per Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inclusion of non-article pages.--GZWDer (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This however is, concerning draft: namespace, not explicitly mentioned in the notability criteria. It should however. Lymantria (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lymantria: Updated.--GZWDer (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Lymantria (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lymantria: Updated.--GZWDer (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
#2
[edit]- I don't really understand how the second point is different from what we have at the moment. "can be described using serious and publicly available references" and "reliable, third-party, published sources" describe basically the same thing. This does not fix the problem we have with the current #2. -- Bene* talk 09:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bene*: See en:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I think this may be tightened to secondary sources.--GZWDer (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You know however, that we have neither Wikidata:Identifying reliable sources nor WD:PSTS here, so "reliable, third-party, published sources" can just be interpreted as one whishes. I suggest to either define "reliable, third-party, published sources" in another policy or, and I prefer that solution, to reword this statement in the notability policy itself, so that it gets clear what we mean with "reliable, third-party, published sources". As stated above, every local newspaper can be considered reliable, is third-party and publicly available. -- Bene* talk 10:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My idea is: items should not be notable merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. For example, Andy Mabbett (Q15136093) is an editor of The Amazing Pudding (Q7713332) does not mean Andy Mabbett (Q15136093) is notable per #2 (But indicates the notability per #5).--GZWDer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bene*: I have updated #2.--GZWDer (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What's your motivation below Andy's case ? What does work so bad with the current rules that would need to modify them ? I'm not under the impression there is a need to tighten things and that practically we got a lot of notability problems. TomT0m (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is maybe that many users here comes from large projects with a very big set of long policies and guidelines. Do these users feel uncomfortable without seat belt (Q200403), personal flotation device (Q1262971) and parachute (Q482816)? I do not want to see any exact definition of "reliable sources"! Try to think outside the box! This project is not mature enough for such definitions, the software for it is far from ready to set such limits! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What's your motivation below Andy's case ? What does work so bad with the current rules that would need to modify them ? I'm not under the impression there is a need to tighten things and that practically we got a lot of notability problems. TomT0m (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You know however, that we have neither Wikidata:Identifying reliable sources nor WD:PSTS here, so "reliable, third-party, published sources" can just be interpreted as one whishes. I suggest to either define "reliable, third-party, published sources" in another policy or, and I prefer that solution, to reword this statement in the notability policy itself, so that it gets clear what we mean with "reliable, third-party, published sources". As stated above, every local newspaper can be considered reliable, is third-party and publicly available. -- Bene* talk 10:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bene*: See en:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I think this may be tightened to secondary sources.--GZWDer (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
#3
[edit]- This can easily go against what WD is about and can end up with notable entries mistakenly deleted because others don't necessarily understand the notability without a Wikimedia page to back it up. Examples:
- A book has an author, a publisher, and a printer. (Assume the book is notable.) Perhaps there may be a Wikisource Author page or even Wikipedia page made for the author in the future, but this is very likely not true of the publisher and printer. Does that mean we should lose that data?
- There are subjects of books that don't have WP pages. Some may read this as "there may be a Wikimedia article in the future" but others may not. See the next example.
- Recently I've been transcribing entries in a 1920 biographical encyclopedia and trying to get the basic information onto Wikidata. This includes educational institutions that are now defunct and may have only existed for a relatively short period of time (<50y). The chances that they will every have a WP page (if I don't make one) are pretty slim.
- Despite not meeting criterion #3, I'm strongly against destroying the relationships that this data forms. Hazmat2 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hazmat2: If these person sre mentioned in a encyclopedia, they meet #2 and thus educational institutions meet #5.--GZWDer (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this still doesn't except the publishers, printers, etc. Also, I didn't see any notice above that said only one had to be met, so assumed that all had to be. Hazmat2 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hazmat2: If the book is notable, the publishers, printers are notable per #5 as long as they are used in statements.--GZWDer (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Thank you for the clarification. I had misread number 5 despite its simplicity. Hazmat2 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hazmat2: If the book is notable, the publishers, printers are notable per #5 as long as they are used in statements.--GZWDer (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this still doesn't except the publishers, printers, etc. Also, I didn't see any notice above that said only one had to be met, so assumed that all had to be. Hazmat2 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
#4
[edit]- Needs to be rephrased. The way it is worded right now it allows to introduce my dog Floppy as an item, because she was born in Florida and is an instance of Poodle. So it links Florida and Poodle, and would thus be notable. --Denny (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Denny: This is limited to Q1->Q2->Q3->...->Qn, if Q1 and Qn are notable but not directly linked, Q2, Q3, ... will be notable.--GZWDer (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the example here could be clarified. It's not clear why it's an example (i.e. what the missing link was). I presume Mary Montague (Q19302079) is linking people who are indirect relatives, but then it's not clear why you couldn't/shouldn't just use relative (P1038). - Nikki (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's unclear, and I doubt it's easy clarifieable as it's highly subjective and subject to value judgment. Strictly number based criteria are also quite arbitrary and cold. Usefulness is also highly blurry. This criteria needs to be tolerants and the project must sta inclusive, or I fear we wil have issues similar to some other Wikipedias where people uses a lot of energy to delete, recreate, edit wars, or tries to play with the rule to force them. Bad perspective imho. TomT0m (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely support trying to be as tolerant and inclusive as possible (within reason, of course, I'm not arguing that Denny's poodle needs an item). The deletionist attitude I keep seeing on the English Wikipedia is what made me never see the point in contributing there. For me, the notability policy is a way for me to determine which things are definitely going to be OK, because it's just a waste of my time if I contribute something and someone deletes it for not being notable enough, which is why I'm keen to have clear examples of things which are considered notable. - Nikki (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's unclear, and I doubt it's easy clarifieable as it's highly subjective and subject to value judgment. Strictly number based criteria are also quite arbitrary and cold. Usefulness is also highly blurry. This criteria needs to be tolerants and the project must sta inclusive, or I fear we wil have issues similar to some other Wikipedias where people uses a lot of energy to delete, recreate, edit wars, or tries to play with the rule to force them. Bad perspective imho. TomT0m (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Denny, Nikki: It's useful to construct a family tree. For example, If A bore B, who bore C and D, It's useful to create an item for B. If we use relative (P1038), We can not imply C and D have the same father.--GZWDer (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we really create items for nonnotable (#1) living persons? I am used to write
children = three
when the children are not notable in themself. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Nobody forces you to do anything anyway :) So regardless of the policy, what you do is fine. But there should be a better way to express the number of children, I don't get your precise modus operandi. TomT0m (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the information is available from good sources, why not? Many Wikipedia articles already talk about the children of well-known people but without items for them, how do you store information about them? Simply saying "children = 3" does not tell you what they're called, who their other parent was, when they were born (and therefore how old their parents were at the time), where they were born, what gender they are, etc, etc. You could use "children = 3" to query for well-known people who have three children, but you couldn't use it to query for well-known people who have three girls. - Nikki (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Innocent bystander, TomT0m, Nikki: Other children of these linked people will be notable per #5. --GZWDer (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Their age, who the other parent is, is a kind of private information. Some well known persons have well known children, but they are the exceptions. Do we want to have a database here of underaged persons who are not famous themself with statements about their private life? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Innocent bystander, TomT0m, Nikki: Other children of these linked people will be notable per #5. --GZWDer (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we really create items for nonnotable (#1) living persons? I am used to write
- probably we should limit n in Qn to a common sense value. Even if Princess Charlotte of Wales (Q18002970) is a 32th cousin of mine, I still don't think we should create an item for all people in between and at the end an item about me. --Pasleim (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One answer is : Who would do that ? It's not because it would not be formally impossible (and actually it is because it would require a lot of sources and barely published or pure personal datas) that it would be done. A different way to say this : A notability policy is not an injunction to create every possible items. TomT0m (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is useful for distinct family with reliable sources. An example is this.--GZWDer (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- mmm there is already a document about this on common, I really don't understand why if somebody wants to enter these datas on Wikidata we'll have to say No. TomT0m (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Image of family tree is not machine-readable data. Someone purposed a genealogy project, I think Wikidata is useful to store data of it. If we find a source of genealogy data, we can create items for every person that the source mentioned with non-trival information (per #2), and items useful to link them.--GZWDer (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we have sources of genealogy data, the items will meet #2. But with #4 we allow to create family trees without sources. --Pasleim (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is family tree imported from other genealogy database (such as WeRelate) acceptable? a part of it have sources, but the rest are usually imported form set of offline GEDCOM files ([1][2]). By the way, #2 only accept items with sources with non-trival information. Other cases are resolved by #4 and #5.--GZWDer (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Family relations are in my opinion non-trivial information but you're right, WeRelate may not count as reliable source. --Pasleim (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is family tree imported from other genealogy database (such as WeRelate) acceptable? a part of it have sources, but the rest are usually imported form set of offline GEDCOM files ([1][2]). By the way, #2 only accept items with sources with non-trival information. Other cases are resolved by #4 and #5.--GZWDer (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we have sources of genealogy data, the items will meet #2. But with #4 we allow to create family trees without sources. --Pasleim (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Image of family tree is not machine-readable data. Someone purposed a genealogy project, I think Wikidata is useful to store data of it. If we find a source of genealogy data, we can create items for every person that the source mentioned with non-trival information (per #2), and items useful to link them.--GZWDer (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- mmm there is already a document about this on common, I really don't understand why if somebody wants to enter these datas on Wikidata we'll have to say No. TomT0m (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is useful for distinct family with reliable sources. An example is this.--GZWDer (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- One answer is : Who would do that ? It's not because it would not be formally impossible (and actually it is because it would require a lot of sources and barely published or pure personal datas) that it would be done. A different way to say this : A notability policy is not an injunction to create every possible items. TomT0m (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This proposed #4 is a very good replacement of the existing #3. Denny made a good point that it can be written better, but I can't see why someone can't abuse the existing #3 to include their dog onto Wikidata... Deryck Chan (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dogs of notable person are notable according to the existing #3 and they will stay notable with the proposed #5. The only way we could go around this is to restrict the proposed #4 and #5 to certain domains. --Pasleim (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
#5
[edit]- The wording for this and #4 right now feels too similar to me and I had to read them a few times to understand what they were trying to say and what the difference was. Perhaps something like "The item is needed to add a statement to an item which meets one of the criteria above" would work better? - Nikki (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikki: This limits the number of notable items. See Wikidata_talk:Notability#Criterion_3 for related discussion.--GZWDer (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @GZWDer: I've seen that page, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that my wording restricts it too much, or that it doesn't restrict it enough compared to the proposal? Either way, my suggestion for #5 is supposed to mean exactly the same thing as the proposed #5, so if it doesn't, I still haven't understood what #5 is intended to mean. - Nikki (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikki: If we don't set an 'one degree of separation' guideline, almost everyone will be notable. genealogy book (Q1184488) lists almost all people in China and Korea, which are descents from notable people. So we could create items for ourself if we should find a chain between us and notable people.--GZWDer (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikki: This limits the number of notable items. See Wikidata_talk:Notability#Criterion_3 for related discussion.--GZWDer (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I struggle to see why this is needed - I don't think it's a good idea to include items that meet #5 but neither #1 nor #4 (if there are any). Deryck Chan (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- #5 is needed to add parents of a person meeting #1 or #2. Or to add the CEO of a company meeting #1 or #2. --Pasleim (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other notes
[edit]- I quite like the existing criteria #3, having a key phrase "structural need" makes it easy to remember and refer to, which is something missing from the proposed changes. The main problem I have with the existing criteria 3 is that it doesn't actually clarify what counts as a structural need, so I like that you've tried to address that. I would suggest combining both into something along the lines of:
- It fulfills a structural need:
- The item is useful for linking two items meeting #1 or #2 (and probably #3) which are not directly linked (for example Mary Montague (Q19302079)).
- The item is directly linked from an item meeting #1 or #2 (and probably #3 and/or #4).
- It fulfills a structural need:
- - Nikki (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that criterion 2 needs tightening. A "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" can apply to virtually anything. I would suggest changing it to something akin to "is discussed by at least one reliable, independent source". Criterion 1 is good as it is, in my opinion. Criterion 3 could be clarified slightly; perhaps something allowing a) items that are linked to from another item and b) items that complete a set of mostly notable items. --Jakob (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jakec: This is part of why we badly need a verifiability policy, because at this time "reliable, independent source" is for the purposes of Wikidata ill-defined.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Current #3 criterion covers much more cases than suggested #3-5 criteria. I think we do not need to make #3 more strong. This will limit us in creating data structures. Also I think we need working on extending other criteria to include non-Wikimedia projects needs. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ivan A. Krestinin: This prevents Wikidata from being a collection of unreferenced, questionable data. Any topic is acceptable by #2 if they are supported by a reliable source.--GZWDer (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggested #2 criterion does not cover all cases too. Protecting from questionable data is less important problem than project growing. Wikidata project is too young now, we have too low number of data clients, too low number of users. We have too bad understanding of data clients needs. So now is too early moment for introducing strong notability criteria. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ivan A. Krestinin: Items used by WMF projects meet #3. I have expanded #3 to cover non-WMF use cases.--GZWDer (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, this covers some cases, but not all. Also I think that current #2 and #3 criteria are better because its are formulated more shorter and more clean for understanding. I think we need to stay its unchanged, as basic rules. Suggested cases can be added to Wikidata:Notability/Inclusion criteria. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand this correctly, then it allows any Commons category to generate using #1 a Wikidata Category item, and using #5 and linking with P301, a Wikidata Article item. Since there isn't a notability requirement on creating Commons categories, this means any concept that can be used to describe an in-scope image on Commons can be represented as Wikidata items. So no citations are required. Ghouston (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem (at least at first glance) that the output of this WikiProject would meet these notability requirements: Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData If we were, for instance, to create a Wikidata entry for every news article used as a citation in Wikipedia, does each article need to meet the notability requirement on its own merits? I wonder whether an additional qualifying characteristic might be worthwhile, such as "fits into an active project of a WikiProject." By the way, I do like the overhaul proposal in general! -Pete F (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion we can do citations quite adequately with an item for the newspaper and source properties to identify the article title, subtitle, publication date, author, url (none of which link to an item). Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiProject Source MetaData is not about news articles but scholarly articles. I think it makes sense to have items for these if they are used as sources for statements here or on Wikipedia. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion we can do citations quite adequately with an item for the newspaper and source properties to identify the article title, subtitle, publication date, author, url (none of which link to an item). Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's my attempt to bring this back to life. I see the existing three criteria as establishing different levels of notability. Criterion 1 establishes what I call "project notability", criterion 2 establishes "independent notability", and criterion 3 establishes "dependent notability". In my view, anything that is independently notable by meeting criterion 2 should be included, as should anything meeting the standards of project notability. However, dependently notable topics should only be included if their inclusion benefits either items with independent or project notability or Wikidata as a whole. While I generally prefer fixed rules over judgement calls, I do believe that this judgement is best made on a case-by-case basis. I don't necessarily prefer one version of criterion 2 over the other, but I believe that common sense should dictate the interpretation of criterion 3, rather than a list of rules. -happy5214 06:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Also posted to chat) It seems we have agreed that we can create entries for the spouse, parents, siblings, and children of notable people. Are we limiting that to one degree of separation? Once the spouse has an entry, if we apply the rule again, her parents and siblings are eligible for entries. I think the goal is to have one degree of separation from someone with a Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikiquote, etc. entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Answered at Wikidata:Project chat.--GZWDer (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One degree of separation from one person with a wikipedia etc. entry. If they are linked to 2 people (e.g. granddaughter of one, grandmother of another) then we should allow 2 degrees of separation and so on for 3, 4 and any value of n - in my opinion. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is much too liberal for me. Just give us more properties like 'grand-parent' etc. and part of the problem would be solved. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Grand-parent" (as in English and most European languages usage) is ambiguous, as it can mean father's parents or mother's parents. One-to-one relations are less ambiguous. With other relations as "uncle", "cousin" or "step brother" polysemy is even worse.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is much too liberal for me. Just give us more properties like 'grand-parent' etc. and part of the problem would be solved. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]