Wikidata talk:Notability/Exclusion criteria

Active discussions

Exclusion criteriaEdit

Articles of the following categories and templates should not be added to Wikidata:

  1. German
    1. de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Obsolete Schreibung (583 pages)
    2. de:Vorlage:Falschschreibung (1852 pages)
  2. English
    1. ...

We need a list that helps bots adding unwanted items. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that we should have exclusion criteria, although I think this is less of a policy thing than a change bots must accommodate via changes to their programming.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
+1. I don't want to change the policy. This list is just an appendix. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles that aren't articlesEdit

Moved from WD:PC#Articles that aren't articles.

The Rambling Man (talkcontribslogs) brought it to my attention that we have an item on a de-WP page that serves no purpose other than directing readers to the proper spelling. Likewise, we have numerous items (1, 2, etc.) that are members of en-WP's en:Category:Redirects to Wiktionary. These are all types of pages that have no real encyclopedic content, and in a more perfect world could be handled directly by the edit interface. So, would anyone object to:

  • Adding to WD:N that pages that serve no purpose other than to direct readers to another page (excluding disambiguation pages, of course) do not merit items.
  • And instructing all bot-ops to avoid creating items for such pages. (These could be detected by categories or any number of other indicators.)

The latter point is, I think, crucial, as when this issue has been raised in the past people have pointed out that the bots will just keep re-adding the items. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  Support. We have been discussing about that many times. Hopefully this time we can add this to the notability guideline. --Stryn (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  Support this should become a guideline. --Bene* talk 16:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  Support Tpt (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  SupportReza1615 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  Support Naddy (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  Support. For anyone just reviewing this discussion it is not about conventional redirects but actual "soft redirect" pages. However it should be clear when changing WD:N that the page must truly serve no other purpose; that is, it would be serving a purpose if it appears to have useful statements on it (unlikely), or, more importantly right now, it is linked to by a page with sitelinks (per the other pending update to WD:N). Espeso (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  Support see Wikidata talk:Notability#Exclusion criteria. --Kolja21 (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  Support --Saehrimnir (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Against for two reasons, the second being the more important :
1) The border between "soft redirects" and "true articles" is not really clear, there is a continuum between both. In French language Wikipedia, the category w:fr:Catégorie:Article court contains such kind of soft redirects, but nobody was directive enough to force how they had to be shaped. The result is that they go from the very short to the hidden article - do open w:fr:Espace mesuré, w:fr:Arrondissement de Maastricht-Centre, w:fr:Charles d'Orléans (1820-1828). Which ones are to be covered by this proposed policy ? This is too tricky to send bots, and this is a total loss of time for human editors to take individual decisions on the merits of each one. Keeping a few useless items in Wikidata is in no way a problem.
2) This policiy goes in the wrong direction (in my judgement). It is awfully common to have a redirect which refers to a topic which is not the same as the topic of the article it points to - they are (sometimes) byproducts of merge operations ; they may come from linguistic differences -X and Y seeming the same in one language while having slightly different meanings in another. More than once, there will be two items in Wikidata because some Wikipedia, say the Volapük one has an article for "Foo" and an article for "Bar". But in another language, say Klingon, these two articles have been merged into "Foobar" - "Foo" and "Bar" are two redirects towards "Foobar". It would be nice to allow these Klingon redirects to be interlinked through the Wikidata items related to the Volapük articles "Foo" and "Bar" - as long as topics are covered by at least one Wikipedia full article, it is counterproductive not to allow to link them with redirects. The reader of the Volapük article about "Foo" _could_ be interested by the very large section on this topic in the Klingon article and it is pointless to forbid the system to offer a Klingon interwiki in the Volapük article. Touriste (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree the FooBar problem is a real problem but the solution is not that easy.. Foo and Bar are separate items so each should have a separate WikiData item page and statements, each with links to the separate Volapuk WP pages. They could also have links to the Klingon redirects for Foo and Bar. The Klingon page for FooBar can have infoboxes for both Foo and Bar, imported from the relevant WD:Foo and WD:Bar pages but which sitelinks do we add to the Klingon page - links to Foo pages; links to Bar pages or, as at present, links to WP's with FooBar pages only, even though these are all short pages with less info. Filceolaire (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
@Touriste and Filceolaire you are right about many things but none of the is in the scope of this proposed policy its about a very specific set of articles described in Wikidata talk:Notability#Exclusion criteria. @Touriste court Articles are by no means soft redirects they are stubs with a link to the parent topic. Soft redirects are like real redirects, but not automatic instead showing "you will want to go there to get your info but we didn't want to redirect you directly because of ..." .--Saehrimnir (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the rationale for point 1 is wrong, but if it is rephrased to only cover soft redirects it could be "almost right". A page X that informs that the user should go to page Y can not be said to not merit an item in general. If page X is not the same entity as Y then both entities should have items. If page X is a mere spelling error of Y then only the item Y should be created. If page X is a redirect to page Y then an item can't be created for page X, at least not without changing page X to not be a redirect (that is it must be a soft redirect as in the example). Without point 1 point 2 is invalidated.
Right now we follow redirects anyhow during normalization, but it could be nice to have some way to mark redirects we should not follow through. Use of __STATICREDIRECT__ could be one solution, but then we must tell the ordinary Mediawiki API that we want to stop during normalization if there is a link marked with the double underscore magic word. Jeblad (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikidata:Notability if what i created could serve the purpose.--Saehrimnir (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I support the removal of these items, per the reasons listed above. The added line to WD:N also looks pretty good. I love just agreeing with everything that has been done sometimes :3 Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Images « Fair Use » de Wikipedia - pas autorisés à WikidataEdit


Images «Fair Use» de Wikipedia ne sont autorisées que sur la Wikipédia en anglais à cause de la loi américaine sur le copyright. Pas sur d'autres Wikipédias. Pas sur des Commons.

Depuis Wikidata est une base de données dans le monde entier, il ne devrait pas permettre à des images protégées, je crois. Les images raison «Fair Use» ne sont pas autorisés sur des Commons est la même raison, ils ne sont pas autorisés ici. Merci, Farrajak (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Those images will not be copied to Wikidata. Only the names of the files will be stored in Wikidata, to facilitate interlanguage links. The fair use concept is present in few other copyright laws, see en:Fair_use#Influence_internationally. Even in the French copyright law there are some exemptions (see Article L513-6). Rsocol (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Category redirectsEdit

Since en:Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories is already excluded, I propose all equivalents of this category in other languages should also be excluded. For a list of equivalents, see Q6175758 and Q4616723. Rsocol (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be nice if we could come up with a clean machine readable format for this list, so import bots don't have to be hardcoded. Legoktm (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Can't it just extract the link targets after bullet points? --Saehrimnir (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Pages on it.wikipedia that don't really exist. In my opinion, they should be excluded, too. Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 23:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mnn, looks like white paper protection (i.e. create=sysop, or the Special:ProtectedTitles). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation pagesEdit

Can anyone explain what the purpose is of having interwiki links for disambiguation pages?? As far as I understand it, ambiguity will be different from language to language. Consequently it does not make sense having them in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not?? Disambiguation pages are pages among the other pages. Yes, ambiguity will be different from language to language, that's why we connect disambiguation pages as their titles are, not as their meaning. --Stryn (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand.. The purpose of linking is to connect what is the same.. Disambiguation is not the same by definition. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The ambiguity of Groningen (or Groningue) will be rather similar in many languages. -- 14:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Userbox templatesEdit

Are userbox templates included in the exclusion criteria? I've found several items depicting these templates and I don't think they adhere to the notability guidelines:

--Wylve (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Related RFCEdit

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Exclusion criteria in wikipedia namespace‎ is open about adding some exclusion criteria. Please give your comment. cheers,--DangSunM (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Filter Special:UnconnectedPagesEdit

Could the excluded articles be filtered out from Special:UnconnectedPages on the Wikipedias/Wikivoyages? That would make it much more convenient to clear the log of unconnected articles regularly. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


I changed it. see Wikidata_talk:Notability#Exclusion_of_category_redirects.--GZWDer (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(edited on Sept 27)

Wikiproject related categoriesEdit

I think we should exclude pages like Category:File-Class San Antonio task force articles (Q8450463). There is hundreds of File-Class articles categories on en-wiki. --Stryn (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What should be excluded from Commons?Edit

At least all pages in Commons:Category:User categories. Also something from Commons:Category:Wikipedians (see also Wikidata_talk:Notability#Notability_of_Wikimedians_who_have_a_category_in_Commons. --Stryn (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  Support--DangSunM (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  Support User categories should be excluded. --by Revi레비 at 05:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject subpagesEdit

Hallo all,
What is the exclusion policy for subpages of Wikiprojects like /Members? If they should not be included, then this should be added to Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria. -      - (Cycn/talk) 12:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  Support also potal subpages.--DangSunM (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Temporary tracking pagesEdit

WP has temporary tracking pages, that will be deleted after the articles have been checked. They should be excluded from WD. Example: de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:GND fehlt 2012-01 has been deleted. Q9194012 will be deleted soon. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

enwiki and commonswiki's Category:MassMessage delivery listsEdit

Should or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. --Stryn (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
To be clear; I mean that the categories should not be excluded, but the pages inside of those categories should not be added to Wikidata unless they are otherwise notable. --Stryn (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Blog drafts on Meta-WikiEdit

I think these can be excluded. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


This RFC seems to have "legalised" the use of sitelinks to redirect pages: Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/A_need_for_a_resolution_regarding_article_moves_and_redirects#new_Proposal_zero. Should this page be updated? Ghouston (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008)Edit

As consensus of that property states elsewhere, I boldly mentioned this that items that only have this property are invalid, if you don't agree, revert me and start another RFC are welcome. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus. When you want to remove items with P5008, you first have to negate the validity of that project.. they do end. With a running project deletion of items is vandalism, wanton destruction. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
This page basically lists exclusion exceptions of the notability criteria, but technically there is nothing exceptional with on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008). In my opinion, there is no reason to list it here. If you think that a project abuses this property, e.g. by creating really large amounts of items which they don’t care about thereafter for a longer time, please open a topic at WD:RfD (“nominate all items with P5008:Qxxxx, because $some_reason”). We will then figure out on a case-by-case basis whether the situation is okay or not. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Exclusion of sandbox pages in project namespaceEdit


as encouraged by Matěj Suchánek I propose to exclude sandbox pages in project namespace from being worthy of getting listed as "interwiki" sitelink.

In dewiki we use the Artikelwerkstatt as a place of exile to articles from sock puppeteers who are well known for mediocre content at best. There is a well defined procedure before this measure is taken, so it is safe to assume that the pages listed there should not be taken as equivalent to a "real" content page.

When a page gets moved to the Artikelwerkstatt the corresponding sitelink in the Wikidata item will be corrected to the sandbox page automatically, which is to say that the sitelink has to be removed manually. Sometimes people tend to forget to do so. It would be advantageous to have the rule defined and visible.

I do not know if there are similar cases in other wikis, but I think a general solution and not only a solution for Artikelwerkstatt should be targeted.

Best regards, → «« Man77 »» 10:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  Support They still need to be removed manually though. That a namespace is on the exclusion list, doesn't make it impossible to add them. But removing them could be done with a bot though if people forget to do it manually. Mbch331 (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Notability/Exclusion criteria".