Wikidata:Requests for comment/handling of data objects for pages in the project namespace
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.
- stale --Emu (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
| An editor has requested the community to provide input on "handling of data objects for pages in the project namespace" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
Currently there is no uniform handling of how data objects for pages from the project namespace are dealt with. On the one hand there are data objects such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (Q22897) or Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261), where the data object describes the page in the project namespace. On the other hand, there are also data objects such as WikidataCon 2019 (Q42449814) or Wikiexpedition West (Q29999758), which link to a page in the project namespace and are also relevant, but do not describe the page in the project namespace, but the topic described on this page. Is this different handling okay?
Discussion edit
- From my point of view, this different handling is at least dubious, because for me the second variant contradicts equal rights, namely equal rights from the association "Wikimedia Foundation" and other organizations. The second variant of handling creates quick and easy relevance for topics that are important for the Wikimedia Foundation or one of its projects. If you want to put it that way, the Wikimedia Foundation can make everything in its cosmos relevant, even if there are no neutral sources, such as for the data object Wikiexpedition West (Q29999758). The cause of this problem is that the relevance criteria in the project namespace are completely different from those in the normal article space or, in the case of Wikidata, the data object space. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I completely understand and agree with your thoughts.
- I think that this comes down to Wikidata:Notability. Rule #9 states "Status of pages in Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki.org, Wikimania and other supported special Wikimedia sites is undetermined. They should be discussed in a case-by-case basis." However, we clearly are not here to sort out a case and instead establish a standard.
- I think that the standard should be changing the goals of Wikidata. The current goals are: "to centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects and to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large."
- I think that should be revised to: "to document Wikimedia-relevant data and relationships across Wikimedia projects and to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large."
- The current sitelink system serves only to benefit the movement, not document sources or improve data on a notable topic. Items like Wikiexpedition West (Q29999758) are no different. They also benefit the movement. Same for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (Q22897), just in a different way.
- Yes, revising the goals of Wikidata to allow all Wikimedia-relevant data is a huge change, but we're already doing it, so why not make it official?
- I find that the current state of these items is fine. We should not be concerned about the namespace and instead make links and items when appropriate for the movement. Current notability guidelines regarding not creating items for talk pages, etc. should remain in place though of course. Lectrician1 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I come to a different conclusion, which is certainly completely contrary to your conclusion. Wikidata wants to be a knowledge database and as such you have to have clear relevance criteria, which do not allow any preference. We at Wikidata also require our sources to do the same if we want to use them for the second point of the relevance criteria. Then we have to be so consistent and implement this rule here as well. This implementation is difficult or will be torpedoed by the second variant and that cannot be, so I am in favor of the second variant no longer being used. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Are you saying that Wikidata currently isn't a knowledge database because the relevance criteria are vague? That seems like a strange argument. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- I come to a different conclusion, which is certainly completely contrary to your conclusion. Wikidata wants to be a knowledge database and as such you have to have clear relevance criteria, which do not allow any preference. We at Wikidata also require our sources to do the same if we want to use them for the second point of the relevance criteria. Then we have to be so consistent and implement this rule here as well. This implementation is difficult or will be torpedoed by the second variant and that cannot be, so I am in favor of the second variant no longer being used. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if I see much value in changing things. There is some value in having interlanguage links between things like templates or wikipedia namespace pages and our first responsibility is to be useful to the various wikis. I don't think there's a real notability issue as long as it is easy to filter out the items that are given "special consideration" which we seem to mostly have. I wouldn't want to change things unless there's a practical issue. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Info I propose to close this RfC as stale after 31 January 2024. Please comment if you don’t agree. --Emu (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)