Open main menu

Wikidata talk:Notability

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Notability.
Use the "Add topic" button in the upper righthand corner to begin a new discussion, or reply to one listed below.

For discussion of the "Exclusion criteria" section of this guideline, please see the /Exclusion criteria subpage.

Previous discussion at Wikidata:Project chatEdit

Magazine articles and volumesEdit

I have a question weather magazine articles or magazine/book volumes meet notability criteria. I guess the second group probably so, because they would be listed in different library databases. Does this meets criterion 2? But what about articles? What I see, that people in outrech reach libraries and archives to negotiate to get their data about articles, but which criterion of notability this meets? Juandev (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is maybe related to the issue of scholarly journal articles? There's definitely some overlap between the scholarly and regular magazine/journal scope, and we've pretty much been adding the scholarly type of articles wholesale here (though at least somewhat selectively generally via ORCID/DOI relations). I think it may be best handled on a case-by-case basis: some such articles are surely notable in their own right, perhaps referred to or cited frequently by others in some way. On the other hand I don't think every article ever published deserves its own item. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to create items about some magazine volumes i have laying around but i haven't managed to find a 'model item' yet. --Trade (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC).

Change to 1. 4. regarding CommonsEdit

There have been some previous discussions about notability and Commons, but no consensus was reached. I'd like to propose the following relatively minor change so that Commons categories can be sitelinked to Wikidata when the a main item is already sitelinked to a Commons gallery:

1. 4. In addition, sitelinks on category items to category pages on Wikimedia Commons are allowed if either (a) they are linked with category pages on other Wikimedia sites, or (b) the category item corresponds to a single main item and they are linked with category's main topic (P301) and topic's main category (P910).

This will permit some new Category items, many of which already exist, but I don't think it will weaken Wikidata notability in any significant way. Ghouston (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather the change went further to cover more Wikimedia Commons categories, but this seems like a good start to match the policy with reality. An example of the case in hand that I just created: Category:Tate Britain (Q67518323). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
So in such case, for instance, we should move this cat from Laurent Wauquiez (Q984375) to a new hypothetical item entitled "Category:Laurent Wauquiez"? And what about Wikinews cats (such as this one)? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC).
No - in the case of Laurent Wauquiez there is no gallery on Commons to link to, so there is no need to create a separate item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
OK; it's now clearer for me. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC).
Isn't it easier to just say that you're allowed to great a category item for a Commons category if a Commons gallery exists? That would take care of all these collisions without opening up a big gap. Multichill (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
+1. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC).
I don't mind a different wording. It just needs to permit items like Category:Tate Britain (Q67518323). Ghouston (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
How about: 1. 4. Category items where the only sitelink is to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, except when either a) there's a corresponding main item which is linked to a Commons gallery b) the item is the object of a Commons-related statement, such as category for pictures taken with camera (P2033). Ghouston (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I've installed this version, slightly modified for readability. This just makes the policy consistent with what people are already doing, and I think it removes one reason to retain Commons category (P373). It's easy enough to start a new discussion if you want to suggest something else. Ghouston (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Allow items for special pages with more then one sitelinkEdit

Recently Q70209157 that linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LongPages and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:L%C3%A4ngste_Seiten was deleted because it's not notable according to our current policy. It seems to me that interlinking the special pages is a valid usecase for Wikidata. I would therefore propose to change our our criteria via:

1.1 To be valid, a link must not be a talk page, MediaWiki page, special page, file, translations page, pages in User or Draft namespace, pages used by LiquidThreads (i.e. pages in Thread and Summary namespace), pages used by Structured Discussions (i.e. pages in Topic namespace), subpages of Portal namespace, or any pages that are intended for TemplateStyles (i.e. suffix that contain ".css" and/or ".js").[1][2][3][4][5] Note that a single Wikimedia page cannot have more than one sitelink in Wikidata. It is permitted for a sitelink to point to a redirect (although the software intentionally makes this difficult),[6] but such a link will not count towards establishing notability.
1.2 If a link is a template or special page, the item must contain at least two such sitelinks, and any of them must not be one of /doc, /XML, /meta, /sandbox, /testcases or /TemplateData subpages. Items for non-subpages can be created with 1 sitelink, but shouldn't be created in great numbers.

What do you think? Is there a case against having items like this? ChristianKl❫ 09:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

English Special page titles such as "Special:LongPages" work in all wikis, see for instance de:Special:LongPages which redirects to the localized title "Spezial:Längste Seiten". Special pages are Mediawiki functionality (or part of installed extensions); if interwikilinks are found to be desirable for Special pages, the software should implement them for all Wikis in the farm. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me like having a special solution for interwiki links for special pages adds complexity. If someone for example wants to write a tool that compares the amount of traffic that different language versions of a page get, it would be easiests currently when they can work on the assumption that different language versions of a page are linked towards the same Wikidata item. There also seem to be cases where the short description of a Wikipedia page gets pulled from the Wikidata page and the assumptions gets made that Wikipedia pages in general are linked to Wikidata items. It's benefitial for development when tools like that work for special pages as well.
As a matter of progress it's fairly easy for us to create the items but it would be quite complicated to get the work done to have the pages interlinked from the software side given organizational complexity. ChristianKl❫ 10:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no. Special pages exist in *all* MediaWiki project, and they can be accessed with the same generic English title in all projects. You do not need a Wikidata item to collect them all, you need a list of projects in the Wiki farm and that is well-known on the server side of the projects. Special pages in general are no content pages that one can edit. They have a, well, "special" character that separates them form usual content pages.
There is already a phabricator task at phab:T123063 regarding interwikilinks on Special pages; I suggest to revive it and see whether it has enough support for implementation as I do expect quite some opposition from the communities against this approach. Besides the phab task, there has already been related discussion at Wikidata talk:Notability/Archive 4#Why do we ban "special page"?. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC).
Return to the project page "Notability".