Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inclusion of non-article pages

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inclusion of non-article pages 2

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 belive that we have reach now a strong concensus: pages of all namespaces exept User: are allowed into Wikidata Tpt (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Inclusion of non-article pages" 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.

Proposal[edit]

There is currently a discussion on Project chat about inclusion of interwikis about not-article pages. And I think that a concensus need to be found before the growing of the database.

If the consensus is difficult to be founded, I think it might be a good idea to make a vote with a section for each namespaces (Category, Help, Wikipedia and User).

Personally, I think that only article pages have to be included into Wikidata because:

  1. Wikidata is done before everything to store data about real entities (a person, a city...) not to store languages links of WIkipedias.
  2. Mediawiki will ever manage interlanguages links (because Mediawiki is not used only by Wikimedia's wikis) so there are no technical need to move all links to Wikidata.
  3. Wikidata will output a lot of lists in the future that will reduce the importance of the categories and so the utility of categories. Importance languageslinks between category will be reduce.
  4. Pages of the Wikipedia namespace are very Wikipedia-specific and Wikidata is, I think, done to work will all Wikimedia wikis.
  5. The Wikimedia Fondation will work on a Global Profile system that will links all users pages of a user. The need of interwiki for user pages will be reduce.

Tpt (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the Categories. I believe, they should be included.
  1. It will be a lot easier to have one system inside wikipedia.
  2. If we don't include categories we could also question the inclusion of disambiguation pages.
  3. When I look at the road map, the first goal for wikidata is to include interwiki.
Zil (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one don't see the value of using Wikidata for user pages, categories etc.. In the same way, and for the same reasons, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikidata should not be an indiscriminate collection of data. - Soulkeeper (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO Categories should be included, as well as Help, Template, Wikipedia and maybe Project and Portal, because there are problems on some projects exactly on interlinks. The fact that categories will be superseded by the new output may be disputed, we will still need it on the projects, so we will need links between categories too. Same with the other namespace. The only one I don't see the point in including it is the User namespace, apart from any consideration on the Global profile system. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulkeeper: You may be right, but please consider that Wikidata will be useful also for non-Wikipedia projects... what it may seem to be useless on Wikipedia, may be useful on other WMF projects - or to other projects outside WMF "jurisdiction". The goal of Wikidata is going beyond its usage on Wikipedia. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories - good idea. Other namespaces - maybe later. ShinePhantom (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support this solution. Zil (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly speaking, I do not see a problem. Non-article spaces occupy only a tiny portion of all pages, so that it is not really important. If someone is willing to invest their time in the non-article spaces - why not?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well because we are not going to allow personal pages on wikipedia main space, we might not want to allow personnal database (like the database of user pages) in wikidata. The problem is the scope of the project. If we compare to commons, we need to define something like COM:SCOPE. Zil (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if categories would have something else letter than "Q" before numbers. This way it's easier to find namespaces. What this "Q" even mean? (query) --Stryn (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it will be very usefull to have all the namespace, in particular ns "Categories" and "Help". For the others we can discuss and add them later, but I think it's a good idea to have Categories for the same type of item (e.g. a Catgory for all the physics costant or the information about elementary particles). Restu20 12:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata was initially re-proposed for achieving two goals:
  1. Getting rid of the interwiki bots spamming article's histories
  2. Creating a commons-like repository for data which all projects could use
So it is absolutely necessary to remove the interwikis from all articles. It's only metadata. At least that was consensus within the German WP when we started the discussions on Wikidata early last year or so. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And we all welcomed the idea of this project exactly for these reasons. We may focus for the time being on ns0, but sooner or later we'll have to deal also with this ns≠0 issue. I think we should extend the interlink feature also to other namespaces, for the reasons I said before. What could possibly be the harm to Wikidata if we connect the Categories through this project? --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to get rid of the interwiki bots, the interwikis of pages outside the main namespace of Wikipedias (this includes those from Wikibooks, Wikisource, etc...) also need to be kept in a central wiki (Wikidata). As for the scope, I think it is just a matter of setting up new namespaces ($wgExtraNamespaces) on Wikidata for things which are not the "main" content of Wikidata (as a project for more than just WMF wikis), but are still an important content for (one or more) WMF wikis. If needed, we can discusss inclusion criteria for each of these extra namespaces, and wether thei will be considered as content namespaces ($wgContentNamespaces) or not. Helder 16:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It's good to adopt Wikidata for all namespace, but the actual items should not be confused with those of other namespaces. Raoli (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on Helder's proposal. Looks to me as a good compromise. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I supported this already somewhere else, so I support also here. --Stryn (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea and design of Wikidata is that of an entity base: a catalog of things, ideas, or concepts. For each concept, there should be exactly one item. Having one item corresponding to en:Germany and another to en:Category:Germany would be very bad indeed. If links between Wikipedia categories are needed, they should be introduced as separate link group from the site links to Wikipedia Articles. This would allow every item to have one link to a Wikipeda article and one to a Wikipedia category (per language).

For connecting user pages, help pages, etc... it can be done, but there will be problems. For instance, if there is a Wikiepdia for whom there also exists an article (say, en:User:Jimmy Wales and en:Jimmy Wales), there should still be only one item for Jimmy - because both these pages are about the same thing. The problem is that the data item can only link to one of those pages.

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 41895

Maybe the solution would be to allow each item to have one link to a Wikipedia page per language per namespace. This way, the Wikipedia article, category and portal about Germany could be linked with Q183. Thinking about it, this seems to be the only clean solution to me. It does mean some changes to the software (and to the API though), I'm not sure whether we can afford this right now. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is doable, I would support this "one link per namespace" idea (though in the longer term, it sounds desirable to get rid of categories) For Commons it would be very convenient indeed, as there is often disagreements as to whether we should link Commons categories to Wikipedia articles or Wikipedia categories. --Zolo (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daniel Kinzler. Tomorow we will be able to know better the things. Raoli (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked on bugzilla:41895. Helder 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that concepts in different namespaces are clearly different entities. They may be related, but they are different. Just as 'Germany' is different from 'Germania' and 'Germans' and 'German culture'. We need a flexible way to identify connection between different entities. But it would be wrong to suggest that the same string means identical things across different namespaces. (Talk: may be an exception -- it is already treated specially in the list of NS'es for this reason.)
I left a detailed comment on the bug: In particular, if A is a translation of B, Category:A may not be a translation of Category:B, and Project:A may will often not be the right translation of Project:B.
What system is being used to define the connection between the entities "Male X" and "Female X" or "X (singular)" and "X (plural)" ? Perhaps we can make that more general. Sj (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases categories can be similar in all languages.for example: Article en:Lionel Messi has more than 20 categories that we can divide them in to stage

1-Categories that need to assume feminine or masculine in languages : this cases can use in many languages without any modification (only translation) such as Farsi or English that they don't have different verb or adjective for feminine or masculine e.g. en:Category:Footballers at the 2008 Summer Olympics or fa:رده:بازیکنان فوتبال بازی‌های المپیک تابستانی ۲۰۰۸ but in some languages according to feminine and masculine they have different interwikis.

2-Categories that they don't need to assume feminine or masculine in languages:these cases can be used in any languages and they will have only one translation on other wikis. e.g. en:Category:Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics or en:Category:2008 in sports or en:Category:2008

My suggestion

In my opinion we can add possibility to wikidata for adding translated version of categories number 2 to all articles that are listed in wiki data like what it will do for iterwikis and for categories number 1 users can add it directly to locale wiki.

Benefit

It will help all wikis to have good categorizing their articles and using other communities categorizing works.

p.s.
Now in fa.wikipedia we developed a bot that adds related categories to related pages automatically ,according to en.wikipedia's pages, it helps us to categorizing our articles, templates also categories in precise way.adding cat to category, adding cat to articles, adding cat to templates Photograpers (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we have a RfC page and project chat? Seems a bit redundant, especially with nobody looking at this. Also, I'd generally like to keep the Q pages to articles, but suppose I don't have a good reason to back that up. Ajraddatz (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we want to get rid of the interwiki bots, we should include all namespaces (except file, MediaWiki and special ns and the talk namespaces). en:Jimmy Wales and en:User:Jimmy Wales are not the same. The first page is about a person with a job and a birth date, the second one is about a user account with an edit count and the user groups he is in. --Morten Haan (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we allow user pages in Wikidata we open the door to other personal data outside Wikipedia. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I see a future Wikidata behaving as a Facebook directory. I think we should define the pillars for this project. In Wikipedia we have this, but not here. I prefer not to include user pages, templates, Wikipedia help pages and the like, but, if that's not possible, I'll resign myself and accept Daniel Kinzler's solution. --Dalton2 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include all pages - and in general try many different things for a while before imposing restrictions. Trying to optimize or limit scope too soon is an antipattern. Sj (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it's too early to start making decisions about the project as a whole based on a very narrow level of functionality that we now have (interwikis). James F. (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with above — WP:TOOSOON...oh wait, right. Question: for disambiguation/pages of the non-article breed, how do we want to denote them? Just a simple (disambiguation)/whatever as the description? That's what I'm doing currently. Theopolisme (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should allow certain other namespaces, in particular categories and templates. It is beneficial to store the interwiki links in one place only, which also reduces the edits by interwiki bots.
I disagree with the idea of Daniel Kinzler by the reasons stated by Sj. --Leyo 20:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata has two goals: building a free knowledge base and fixing the interwiki problem. While these goals mostly overlap, in certain cases they do not, such as in non-mainspace pages and disambiguation pages. Additionally, in both of these the setup we use for actual data items does not work well (they have no use for labels or descriptions) and can cause confusion. For example, Wikipedia:Village pump (Q16503) does not actually link to an article about the described entity, it links to the entity itself. This is the case for all categories, templates, project pages, main pages, disambiguation pages, and user pages. This is far from an optimal situation. So, I propose the following:

  • Each item should include a metadata property indicating whether it connects to an actual entity/topic or not.
  • All items that do not connect to an entity have their label and description field eliminated/disabled.
  • These items become represented in RC and so on using their associated wiki page's title as opposed to a label.
  • These items are separated somewhat from the regular items. For example, they might be excluded in search unless the user searching specifies otherwise.

Thoughts? --Yair rand (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support You're right! ... they are my same thoughts. :) Raoli (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I agree that such "interwiki hubs" should be kept separate from actual items. I would not even call them items. The easiest way to keep them separate would be a separate namespace. (Note: I'm a member of the Wikidata development team, but this is just my personal opinion. Other members of the team see this quite differently) -- Duesentrieb (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yair Rand's would be a good solution for only Wikipedia stuff (Wikipedia:, Help:, Template:, disambiguation pages... even User:) but categories should be treated in association with their topic: I mean w:en:Category:Spain is crearly and univocally linked to w:en:Spain (Q29), so we should be able to reflect this relation through an extended sort of iws for the "linked categories" to the topic in every Wikipedia. There's only one real entity (Spain) and two properties for each language: the interwiki to Wikipedia article and the interwiki to Wikipedia category. This real world relation is nowadays kept in English Wikipedia by {{Cat main}}. Maybe the same for other content namespaces (Portal:, Wikiproyecto in es:, Projet in fr:, Progetto: in it:, Référence: in fr:, Anexo: in es:, TimedText: in de:...).
I think this is the correct way to preserve the basic idea "An entity in real world, a Qxx" and simultaneously be able to carry on track of categories and other similar interwikis. --Rondador 08:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is parallel to the discussion in mathematics in the early 20th century about how to handle sets vs. sets of sets, wether 1, {1}, {1, {} }, and { {1} } were the same or different, whether there should be a separate name for a set containing other sets, &c. The final solution they came up with was both simple and good: sets could contain anything, including other sets; and there is only one kind of set.
In this case: there are both digital and non-digital things in the world. Non-digital things naturally are not themselves online. But digital things can be; so perhaps we need two different sorts of objects. Anything in the world can have a summary of itself on Wikipedia and a snapshot of itself on Commons, and a category of things related to it. Digital works might themselves directly be on a wiki: they night *be* a page (a Spanish Wikisource transcription of Hamlet, or French Wikivoyage coverage of Paris), and those might relate to *other* pages (the Spanish encyclopedia summary of Hamlet, the French Wikiquote page about Paris), which might go on to refer to non-digital physical (or legendary) concepts or things.
Every Wikidata entry should be an entity or concept. All we need to do is to capture links between different entities that are strongly related. For instance, we shouldn't really link the abstract entry for "Paris" directly to "encyclopedia articles about Paris". After all, there are countless ways to describe Paris, and only one of them looks like a Wikipedia article. Instead the abstract entry for Paris should link to all of the different entities related to Paris, including "Wikipedia pages about Paris", "Wikimedia Commons pages about Paris", "Wikivoyage pages about Paris", "Category of Wikipedia topics related to Paris", "Category of Wikimedia Commons images related to Paris", "Interface messages titled 'Paris' ", &c. The more specific these subentities can be, the better. Because there are actually thousands of sites out there with information, pages, and categories about and rleated to Paris; and all should be welcome to have Wikidata entries if someone wants to add them.
We should avoid overloading the main, unqualified namespace here in a way that makes the project as a whole useless to any project but Wikipedia. Sj (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I would however be very happy to see someone create a script so that when I am on an English Wikipedia "metadata" page, such as for a category, eg. "Category:History of Paris" or "Category:Spain", that some indicator would show up for article titles that are or are not on Wikidata. I really like the gadget that shows me the Wikidata label for the article page I am on. Jane023 (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages and other lists of links[edit]

Disambiguation pages are lists of links to other pages on that language Wikipedia. Surname pages are in many cases just lists of links to WP pages for people with that surname that haven't been labelled 'Disambiguation' (though sometimes they have a discussion of the surname instead or as well). Outline pages are lists of links.

For all these 'List of links' pages Wikidata will have a page for each of the links and the wikidata search function will recreate the list (with the help of the page descriptions). I'm not sure we still need this type of List pages. Filceolaire (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can do away with disambiguation pages, they look very bad as items. However, it sounds more consistent that each Wikipedia article has a Wikidata item. So it may be better to do it the other way round:
  1. integrate Wikidata-generated disambiguation into Wikipedia results
  2. delete Wikipedia hardcoded disambiguation pages
  3. remove dismabiguation items on Wikidata
Okay, certainly easier (and quicker) said than done. --Zolo (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I missed something, because I noticed Q1552766 was created as a list of painters. I thought Wikidata would *not* store these lists of items, but become the generator for them? Jane023 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jane, what is the problem with this list? If it uses interwiki links, they should be stored there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the time being, they can be hosted here. When phase 3 will start (so hopefully by the end of this year), there will be no meaning in having lists and disambiguation pages as we know them. They can transform (during 2014) into what Zolo said. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A list is not a disambig page. In most projects, this is just an article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know the difference. :) I just said that both disambiguation and lists are now composed of hard-coded links. When phase 3 will begin, we'll just have lists that take their informations directly from Wikidata, and so will many disambiguation pages. This is the meaning of "there will be no meaning in having lists and disambiguation pages as we know them": it means they will be different in the future, compared to what we have today.
For the time being, I agree with you in keeping lists stored here, if they have interlinks. When phase 3 will start, we'll decide also the fate of those lists and those disamb pages on the other projects. Hope this time it was clearer. :) --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure how are you going to take this list, for example, to Wikidata. And there are three other versions of this list, which are all formatted differently, and more versions potentially could be created (and some of them may indeed only contain plain links and nothing else). And there are some projects which prohibit lists, and some which send them to a dedicated namespace. I do not think this is Wikidata business to deal with these issues, they should be decided inside the projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, sorry if I may appear rude, but we're saying exactly the same things. The fate of lists and disambiguation pages will be decided "on the other projects". I know that English is not my mother-language, but it appears to me that you don't fully read what I wrote. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't want to have more misunderstandings:
  1. Should Wikidata have items regarding lists and disambiguation pages? Yes, it definitely should. They're articles, so they deserve an item.
  2. When phase 3 will start, what will happen? Probably, both lists and disambiguation pages will change, or at least will change the way we create them.
  3. Does this mean they will become completely useless and/or deleted automatically? No, because this is a decision that should be taken by projects and not on Wikidata.
What we're doing here is just speculating on what will happen later. Of course, the WP communities will be in charge of every decision, but I think it's fair to imagine what will happen in the future. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did read what you wrote, it just does not make sense to me. Well, let us wait till Phase 3 is deployed.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think disambiguation pages should be marked as special "items". Otherwise there will always be the problem that articles and disambiguation pages will be mixed. --Bookman (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reading all of these answers, I think I get it now. For example, it takes me a pretty long time to prepare a list like the "List of Flemish painters" or "List of protected heritage in Wallonia", and ultimately, there will be tooling that will turn such Wikipedia pages into simple "hooks" into Wikidata that produce the text of the list on demand for the reader. The advantage will be that all the work on the list items can be shared across projects immediately and will no longer be dependant on some individual editor in one Wikipedia project. So my take away from this discussion is 1) go ahead and create the Wikidata items for the lists, as the wikipedia pages will always exist, no matter whether there is simple text or "Wikidata hooks" in them. Jane023 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category pages[edit]

The information in the Wikidata infoboxes should mean the Wikidata search function can produce all (well most of) the 'Category' information without using the Wikipedia Categories at all. Categories which can't be found that way are mostly to do with management of the projects and probably don't need interlanguage links. Do we need these on Wikidata? Filceolaire (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in a way. I believe categories will still be very important on projects. More, on Italian Wikipedia, we usually have lots of problems in getting the interlinks between categories. So, yes, we need categories to be included here.
A couple of months ago, it was suggested to probably have a dedicated namespace for that. I don't know if it's possible, but it could be a solution. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support - One major problem with the categorization system is that when a category is renamed, it's either deleted or replaced with a soft redirect, both of which break the incoming links. A few times we (on English Wikipedia) had a category redirects or category disambiguations spammed with the interwiki links from other wikis (see here for a nice example), and frequently the links are deleted just to be re-added a few hours/days later. Migrating the category interwiki to here should, in my opinion, make things easier. Additionally, if we have a category with many incoming interwiki links, then renaming it requires lots of edits to many wikis - and thise all need to be done now; with a central repository, it's a single edit (and perhaps category renaming bots can be programmed to do it automaticly when renaming categories). Od Mishehu (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Include categories on wikidata.--Snaevar (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think it might be useful as the articles in the main namespace. --Beta16 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. --Stryn (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support: I agree on the statements above. --Leyo 19:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Carsrac (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Item hierarchy instead of categories[edit]

I was thinking that if we had a way of using other items as properties (as if each item were a category of its own), then there wouldn't be necessary to use categories at all. Let's take the example of France: it would connect with the items "Country", "French language", "Europe", "NATO", etc. Then we could produce the searches "francophone countries of europe", or "NATO countries of europe" and then we'd have the same information as we have now with categories. Categories without an associated article mean that they are better used as Properties (infobox information), so no big deal if we get rid of that kind of categories or we mass import that information as item properties. The downside is that without categories we might lose the recommendation system they offer. It depends on which graphic interface would replace them.--Micru (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal pages[edit]

Having interlanguage links for Portal pages will probably be useful. It just needs the Wikidata Description field to note that the page is "Portal page for $Item" Filceolaire (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support See above my comment about dedicated namespace. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support sounds reasonable --Guerillero | Talk 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Include portals on wikidata.--Snaevar (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I don't understand why we shouldn't have those interlanguage links in wikidata. --Nouill (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think it might be useful as the articles in the main namespace. --Beta16 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. --Stryn (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Carsrac (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template pages[edit]

With the new Template scripting language these may be about to change. Filceolaire (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support See above my comment about dedicated namespace. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment. "Chad is working on a shared repository for scripts" - mw:Lua scripting. It may be worth asking for more info from Lua people. --Zolo (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Include categories on wikidata. More information about the development of lua would be great. If we would have an lua script on an central repistory how is it going to handle local arguments and how is it going to output translated messages?--Snaevar (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I don't understand why we shouldn't have those interlanguage links in wikidata. --Nouill (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think it might be useful as the articles in the main namespace. --Beta16 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. --Stryn (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Carsrac (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User pages[edit]

I thought we were moving to universal User pages? Filceolaire (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is planned to move to universal user pages. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Per Sannita. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Per GlobalProfile / StructuredProfile Addshore (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pages[edit]

Having interlanguage links for 'Wikipedia' pages will probably be useful but a separate namespace is propably worth having. Filceolaire (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support See above my comment about dedicated namespace. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think this would defiantly be useful, probably in regards to some pages more than others. Addshore (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I don't understand why we shouldn't have those interlanguage links in wikidata. --Nouill (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think it might be useful as the articles in the main namespace. --Beta16 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. --Stryn (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Carsrac (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books[edit]

See also[edit]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Inclusion_of_non-article_pages&oldid=604386982"