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.
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)
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Inclusion of non-article pages 2" 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.
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).
Support 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)
Support, 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)
Oppose 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)
Support generally, but Oppose (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)
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
Oppose 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)
Oppose, but depends what are those all namespaces. --Stryn (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, 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)
Oppose per above, mostly. — ΛΧΣ21 14:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per JAn Dudík. --β16 - (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)