User talk:Harmonia Amanda/Showcase items

Active discussions


  • 100 is a very low number of contributions for a project as Wikidata, where every single thing you alter is one edit. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree. A couple thousand edits and one or two months of contribution? -Ash Crow (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree too. --Casper Tinan (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to automate the process more? It should be possible to check the requirements with a tool. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Most of them, yes, but how could a tool check if a statement is trivial or not? -Ash Crow (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we need more specific categories? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


If it lacks participation, I don't see how adding barriers helps. Couldn't we just attempt to select automatically items with a given amount of statements for various fields? Currently we feature items that still have potential grow (as most of Wikidata). I think this is an advantage. --- Jura 12:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The lack of participation is big, yes. But it seems like most people find it scary to promote things without a clear consensus. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There aren't that many actually being proposed. If someone takes the time to propose it, I usually take the time to review it. --- Jura 12:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

At sysop votes all registered users can vote. I would adopt that rule. 100 edits does not really add something to it. --Pasleim (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


At this moment we concentrate on items. That is fine. Arguably lists like the people / organisations that received an award is as relevant. Does it make sense to have a special category for such data? Thanks, 14:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking along similar lines - rather than just showcasing particular items, one of the powers of wikidata is in the linking of things together and providing a common reliable data source for a large collection of items. Maybe we should consider a (separate) process for showcasing property-class combinations where all or many of the instances of a class have had reliably sourced statements with that property added? Some of the bioloigcal taxonomy stuff maybe (though I understand there's a lot of debate about some issues there) or some identifiers? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if it's a good idea to base the selection on some external distinction if we want to highlight our compilation. Currently, I think we already make sure that showcased items are sufficiently connected to other items. --- Jura 09:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Harmonia Amanda/Showcase items".