Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inclusion of non-article pages 2

Die nachfolgende Diskussion ist geschlossen. Bitte bearbeite sie nicht. Nachträgliche Kommentare sollten in einem neuen Abschnitt erfolgen. Eine Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse folgt.

As this RFC has been open for a month with little participation in the past week, I am closing it with the following consensuses:

• Talk pages of any sort shall not be the subjects of Wikidata items.
• Special pages are generally excluded, with the exception of Q6293548.
• MediaWiki namespace pages shall not be the subjects of Wikidata items.
• There should not be items for local files that are already available on Commons. However, there is no consensus as to whether or not there should be items for files that cannot be uploaded to Commons; therefore such items will be allowed until and unless there is a future consensus that they should not be.
• There is a general opposition toward excluding pages found in namespaces that are not available on all wikis. These items remain eligible for inclusion on Wikidata.

Finally, I note that so far the community has allowed case-by-case exceptions to be made, usually through discussion on WT:N. I see nothing in this RFC that would proclude the continuance of that tradition, so it should be understood that none of these categorical decisions should overrule future consensuses supporting the inclusion of specific items in the now-excluded namespaces. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Jemand wünscht, dass die Gemeinschaft zum Thema "Inclusion of non-article pages 2" gemäß dem Meinungsbild-Verfahren (RFC) Kommentare abgibt. Dies ist die Diskussionsseite zu dem Thema.

Wenn du zu diesem Thema eine Meinung hast, kommentiere unten. Danke!

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

To have clear rules for including or excluding wikipedia namespace which are not discussed in Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inclusion of non-article pages please leave a comment or vote.

Talks Namespaces

talk namespaces means any talk pages (Article_talk ,user_talk ,wikipedia_talk,file_talk,Mediawiki_talk,template_talk,help_talk,category_talk, portal_talk and other namespaces' talk ,...)

Talk pages don't need interwiki so we can exclude them from wiki data and take in mind they have BUG 26085 which is technical issue.

Excluding Talks pages

•  Pro ▬ Reza1615 / T 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro This makes total sense. Legoktm (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Stryn (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro, technically there werent posisble interwiki links JAn Dudík (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Yes. Exclude them. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Snaevar (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --β₁₆ - (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Per above. Sotiale (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Per above. --Rondador 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 06:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro - as the main pages are linked, there's no need to connect the accompanying talk pages, too. Erik Wannee (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --CENNOXX (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment

There might be a possible extension for Wikidata here for a talk page link to appear on the talk pages given the connection of the already linked normal page. Just a musing technical fix for what some might see as a problem. I otherwise support the above. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In german Wikipedia come out some ideas to use a linking tree in Wikidata of projectdiskussionpages to organize these people using Wikidata well in their dayly work (for better communication and guideing over language bricks). But maybe there is an better other way, lets look... Conny (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC).

Special pages

Most of Special pages don't need interwiki but some of them have interwiki like en:Special:Recentchanges.

Excluding Special pages

•  Pro exclude all Special pages except Special:RecentChanges which can use wikidata for it's interwikis▬ Reza1615 / T 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro, is it even possible to show iw-links on special pages? Links on recent changes pages comes from MediaWiki message where those are included. --Stryn (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro, see comment below JAn Dudík (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Yes. Exclude them except RecentChanges. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Snaevar (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Each project may make own decision which links to add to Special:RecentChanges (like close languages, project size, etc). I think implementing such links in Lua with array of language codes is much better idea then item in Wikidata. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Per above. FallingGravity (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Per above. --Rondador 21:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro exclude all Special pages except Special:RecentChanges which can use wikidata for it's interwikis (so per Reza1615) Mabdul (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --CENNOXX (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediawiki

Mediawiki pages don't need interwiki

Excluding Mediawiki pages

•  Pro ▬ Reza1615 / T 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Technically MediaWiki pages exist on any wiki so it doesn't make sense to add langlinks. Legoktm (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Stryn (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro, see comment below JAn Dudík (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral - they would be useful for gadgets and scripts which so far have being copied all over WMF wikis (we won't have global gadgets until gadgets 2.0 is ready, and this may take a while). It is a PITA to keep all copies in sync, and even worse not having a easy way to find all such copies... Site links would help with that. Helder 12:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Snaevar (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro per Legoktm --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Per Legoktm. --Rondador 21:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro Yep. Ge'em out. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --CENNOXX (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

File

File pages don't need interwiki but some of the because of fair use can not upload in commons.

Excluding File pages

•  Pro In my opinion we can leave fair used files with old interwikis like user namespace▬ Reza1615 / T 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro generally, but  Kontra for files that cannot be on commons and as a result are uploaded on multiple wikis. Legoktm (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Stryn (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro, some wikis have local upload disabled JAn Dudík (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro For files on Commons.  Kontra for NFC files stored on independent wikis. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Snaevar (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro for files on Commons.  Kontra for non-free files on the different wikis. See, for example, w:File:Wiki.png. This, that and the other (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro for files on Commons, oppose for NFC files. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 15:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra for files that can't be uploaded to Commons. No need to use old interwikis here, and can use properties for licenses and so on. --Rondador 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Pro generally, but  Kontra (as with lego) for files that cannot be on commons and as a result are uploaded on multiple wikis. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment

• What is being supported and opposed above? I can't figure out from the other users' comments what a "support" means and what an "oppose" means. Quite frankly, we shouldn't be linking any file pages, but I'm not sure about the above users... --Izno (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • My vote means that we should exclude all files stored on Commons because they are unique; they don't have interwiki versions. I oppose excluding NFC files because we may have several files, wich are eventually the same, locally stored on different wikis that allow local upload. So, we should have items for locally stored files, but not for Commons files. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering, if we link all of these images, will that fall afoul of the various minimal use doctrines of each of the wikis, per the WMF resolution? Could it have the potential to? What would be the ramifications of having N number of the same image? Hmm. I wasn't even aware that it was standard practice to link images together. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Other namespaces, that exist only on individual wikipedias

There are some wikis which has their own namespace like Anexo namespace on es.wikipedia and pt.wikipedia or wikiproject namespace.here is the list of Other namespaces till 8 March 2013

Excluding Other namespaces which exist on more than one wiki

•  Kontra These namespaces can expand to other wikis like book namespace so they can use wikidata for interwikis▬ Reza1615 / T 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra, but depends what are those all namespaces. --Stryn (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra, these special namespaces are often crosslinked with another namespaces like Wikipedia (WikiProject) or main (Anexo, Rejstřík) JAn Dudík (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per above, mostly. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per JAn Dudík. --β₁₆ - (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per JAn Dudík Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per above --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per JAn Dudík. --Rondador 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Excluding Other namespaces which exist only on one wiki

•  Pro Till they are used in one wiki so they can not have correct interwiki to other wikis and they should exclude from wikidata▬ Reza1615 / T 08:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral these special namespaces are sometimes crosslinked with another namespaces JAn Dudík (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per JAn Dudík. --β₁₆ - (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per JAn Dudík Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per above --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Kontra per JAn Dudík. --Rondador 21:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Technically is possible to made gadget for interwiki on special pages or in mediawikipages, see w:cs:MediaWiki:Gadget-specialPagesInterwiki.js and wikt:de:MediaWiki:Onlyifsystem.js.

please help to separating this list to subsection to know which namespaces are Unique.‍‍‍▬ Reza1615 / T 09:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See also

• Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inclusion of non-article pages
• Wikidata talk:Notability/Exclusion criteria

---

Die obige Diskussion ist archiviert. Bitte bearbeite sie nicht. Für weitere Kommentare sollte ein neuer Abschnitt genutzt werden.