Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Notability

< Wikidata:Requests for comment

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 nobody opposes to this Request for Comment and neutral votes are not counted in the outcome consensus has been reached. --Wiki13 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Notability" 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.

Moved from Wikidata:Project chat. --Zanka (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above thread (Wikidata:Project chat#Autobiographies) brings up that we have no way to deal with such an issue yet, we probably need to draft or adopt a general notability guideline until a more thought-out, detailed one can be agreed upon. We have no measure of notability on the inclusion of a Q* entry. For the beginning phases of the project. We I think we can agree upon something simple:

  • As a general measure of notability for article namespace content, a Q* data entry should have at least one interwiki linking back to any language Wikipedia project to gauge notability.
  • If the local Wikipedia entry is deleted, merged or otherwise no longer exists as an individual article after the creation of the Wikidata entry, the data entry can be listed at Wikidata:Requests for deletion.

Again, this should just be a temporary measure until we make proper inclusion criteria. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't anticipate many occurrences of this, since most Wikipedia artcles that would be deleted probably wouldn't be brought over here to begin with. Assuming that they are though, and if we can identify which Q* page it was at before, it can be restored if it was the same topic. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, ATM we don't need any items where is not links. --Stryn (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, as a temporary measure. In the future links to the Universal Authority File and ISBN will imho result in a change of the notability guideline and the way Wikidata works. @Justincheng12345: I think restoring the old item no. would be the best way. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per above. --Sotiale (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as an rule for items. Having those rules for properties (phase II content) won't work. But then again property data entries will be P*, so it is ok as it is.--Snaevar (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with all the views already expressed. Raoli (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good guideline, and something which we've pretty much been doing already. Ajraddatz (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support seems a good idea. Per request by an IP I deleted the page which looked like a (spam) autobiography.--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per Jeblad --Morten Haan (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support at least for now (in agreement with Jeblad): In the future, someone will want to create items about notable topics that don't have pages on Wikipedia, and will add the correct "infobox" information for them. Should we allow pages like that? They may in fact be more notable than German autobahn #XYZ is, but Wikipedians haven't yet created an article on this topic. In reply to Justincheng12345: that's a very good question, but I have no idea how to handle this. πr2 (t • c) 15:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support at the moment this is the best thing to do. Restu20 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - Although I agree with the concept of notability on Wikipedias, ATM I'm neutral on this subject on Wikidata, we are in the infancy of this project and the development is ongoing, evolving and there are too many unanswered questions on how these datas will be used in the future, will it only be used on Wikipedias or also on wikis or projects that don't necessarily use notability, will the data be only used on infobox or can it be used inline on an article. I believe that data here is not necessarily useless if it don't have it's own article on a Wikipedia, that data can still be useful inline in an article even if that subject can't pass notabilty but important enough to be included as part of an article. What if an editor wants to create the data here first prior to creating an article on Wikipidia, do we hastily delete that entry too because it's not link to a Wikipedia (a tagging system may useful on this scenario to allow an editor some time to create the article to link to)? Just some thoughts.--Lam-ang (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral. My reasoning (from Wikidata talk:Notability; didn't know this thread had been started here:
    This currently says that Wikidata should only have entries for entities that have a Wikipedia article (in at least one language). I think this is the wrong focus for Wikidata for a few reasons:
    1. Wikipedias and Wikidata have different needs; human-readable text should cover "enough" to be read usefully, so the topic cannot be small, but machine-readable data must be "precise", so topics cannot be aggregated as is common on Wikipedias.
    2. Wikipedias and Wikidata have different aims; though Wikipedias are building human-readable text, we at Wikidata are creating machine-readable data. That means that rules about "notability" apply differently here than on Wikipedias.
    3. Wikidata is its own project; though we want to serve the Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects, Wikidata is a project in our own right and we should determine values for the project ourselves, and not follow blindly the decisions of the various Wikipedias.
    4. "Notability" is a very messy criterion; lots of our projects have struggled with having an objective measure for this and I worry about trying to come up with one here.
    For example, no Wikipedia currently has a seperate article for the city "Washington, D.C." (Q61) as opposed to the land "District of Colombia" (Q8705), but data about cities (e.g. current Mayor) and land (e.g. geology) are different and we would want to attach the different data elements to the right one. That doesn't mean that we are wrong, or that the various Wikipedias are wrong - we are working on different things, and so we shouldn't be surprised that we have different results. Instead, we should focus on what we want to achieve first, and then come up with some rules (probably about 'utility' rather than 'notability') after that.
    Finally, I'd suggest that this go to Wikidata:Requests for comment before any more is written up here).
    James F. (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it would be clearer to move this section to a request for Comment, rather than creating a RfD from scratch. --Zolo (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support temporary restricting item creation to topics, and also support accepting anything that has a Wikipedia page - with a few pre-definable exceptions like disambiguation pages. But there can be many reasons why something does not have a Wikipedia article, it does not have to be related with notability. So Wikidata:Acceptable items, or any more elegant phrasing I cannot think of ?--Zolo (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support agree to votes above IW 20:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. One interwiki link seems like acceptable criteria to begin with. --J36miles (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Kaldari (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Notability&oldid=189168407"