Wikidata talk:Notability/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Wrong focus

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)

I agree with your assessment entirely and hope that wikidata adopts a policy along these lines. One thing I feel care should be taken with if using "utility" is limiting utility to WMF projects, since one of the states aims of this project is to support other projects: "Support well beyond that. Everyone will be able to use Wikidata for a huge number of different services.". Certainly a large amount of the data will be useful on wikimedia projects, but I would encourage you to accept all verifiable structured data which has some conceivable use, rather than limiting the scope of the project at this early stage.

Please continue to encourage this philosophy, and don't let the current notability guideline settle into permanence. There's a huge amount of data out there useful to the world which WMF may not want on sister sites, I would love for wikidata to give it a home.--Esp261 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not intended to be a permanent. Through phase one though, we needed some kind of general notability guideline though. As the site expands in what it covers, it will change. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikidata:Project chat

See Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Notability. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdforrester (talk • contribs) at 17:15, 15 November 2012‎ (UTC).

for understanding

Is it right, that f. e. Q230440 could be obtain in Wikidata, because (in look of actual version) we have one link to a Wikipedia project? Conny (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

• Fully yes. It helps much one who will decide to translate the article to any other language. Ignatus (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata items with no links

This page states that "This page in a nutshell: If it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, it can't have a Wikidata item." This is plainly wrong. Existence of sitelinks does not imply notability, it only says that there is a page on a linked site that is known to describe the same entity as the item on Wikidata. In addition it also blocks some very important usecases where the items are part of a larger set, and that larger set is used for a list or table in Wikipedia. Examples of such items are books that have no description on Wikipedia, but still are listed in author biographies or used as sources.

I would say change this to "This page in a nutshell: If there is a Wikipedia article, it should also be a Wikidata item – but there can be Wikidata items that does not point to Wikipedia articles." Jeblad (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that you need Items for this? At the moment it is not possible to generate list or anything else if we change the rule now we do not have any control later about the items it would be nearly impossible to look for duplicates. We should definitely wait until these functions could be used (and see then if we really need empty items for lists). --Sk!d (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See meta:Wikidata/Data_model#Properties I am not sure if I understand this correctly but this might solve the list problem you might not create a item but make a list of propierties. --Sk!d (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, this guideline is to be temporary, and we'll make a new one when phase two starts. Why would we need items without sitelinks during phase one? --Yair rand (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

An easy example is books. We might have items with sitelinks about the authors of books, and we might have items with sitelinks about some books, but we simply will not have items with sitelinks about all books that might be used as sources on Wikipedia. We can assume that some of the books have sitelinks to some authority source and we can then solve the duplicate problem that way, but that would postpone use of Wikidata to hold sources for references for a very long time. There is also a whole bunch of similar problems, but mostly connected to the queries entities. Of course it is possible to say that no items without sitelinks should exist, but that isn't really what Wikidata is about as I see it. Wikidata is about storing sytructured data that might be reused on Wikipedia in a number of ways, including items with and without sitelinks, and including items that can and can not be referenced by the default mechanism (that is reverse lookup through the sitelinks). Jeblad (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As Yair said these rules are set for phase 1. After that they will have to be reexamined.--Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Exclusion criteria

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

1. German
   1. de:Vorlage: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)

-1. Bots should simply ignore all pages having templates linked on local MediaWiki:Interwiki_config-ignore_templates (e.g. fa:MediaWiki:Interwiki_config-ignore_templates). Both templates above can be added to this onwiki config page. The Rule current rule is: Interwiki Bots are not allowed to add/change langlinks to local pages containing nobots or other templates linked on this mediawiki page. Many wiki have e.g category redirect or deletion request templates added to this page. I think if there is a reason to not add langlinks locally the same reason affects adding the local page to wikidata. Merlissimo (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Adapt rules for phase 2

We need to adapt the rules for Wikidata, phase 2 (properties and infobox-related data). If we want for example cite a book as a source, we have to add the book as an item, even if there is no Wikipedia article for this book. --Kolja21 (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How about something like:

---

An item in the main namespace is considered notable on Wikidata if it meets one of the following:

1. It contains at least one site link, linking back to any language Wikipedia project.
   • If all the local Wikipedia entries are deleted, merged, or otherwise no longer exist as individual articles or pages after the creation of the Wikidata entry, the item is no longer considered notable (unless it meets criterion 2).
   • If all the site links point to User namespace pages, the item is not considered notable.
2. It is referenced as a source from at least one other Wikidata item.

Non-notable items may be listed at Wikidata:Requests for deletions.

---

Seems clear enough. This, that and the other (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Denny said: "It is planned to add claims to properties. Not full-fledged statements (i.e. they won't have refereces), but we plan for claims.", so there is no urgency. Beside, I would adopt a more inclusionist view. We seem to be on good tracks for a collaboration with OCLC. It could make it easy to mass-create items about books and other texts, aven those that are not currently used as source. It would be a really nice thing to have, and that would make it easier for users, as they could more easily add a reference for a claim, without the need of creating an additional item themselves. --Zolo (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am also oppose to change this yet. A book as a references could be easily added as a string. We should definitely wait until this goes online so we can see which notebility criteria is needed (mainly from a technical side). --Sk!d (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's take an example from wikidata-test-repo: Miguel Ángel Asturias Miguel Ángel Asturias, Place of birth: Guatemala City (item), Sources: An Introduction to Spanish-American Literature (item). So we need books, journals, and newspapers as items, even if there are no Wikipedia article about them. Or? --Kolja21 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This only reflects the current state of development. Aka currently it is not possible to add coordinates, but all this will come so we should wait. If the rules will be to strict in the future we can change them. We should not only change them because the development is not fast enough. --Sk!d (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say change point two (2) into It is referenced from at least one other Wikidata item and add a third point (3) like It is referenced from at least one Wikipedia page. Point 2 would enforce connected items no matter if the item themselves do not contain sitelinks. Point 3 allow items that only are added because they are explicitly referenced from Wikipedia. I don't think we should make their use as reference sources an issue, they should be allowed if they are linked. We should create tools that makes it possible to identify items that breaks some or all of those rules, as items without incoming links would be isolated and unnavigable. Jeblad (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In what cases would items be linked to directly from Wikipedia? This, that and the other (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For example as sources in references. Jeblad (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with It is referenced from at least one other Wikidata item. For example, a notable film has a director, but the director doesn't have a Wikipedia article. We need to create an item for the director. Jefft0 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this, then:

---

An item in the main namespace is considered notable on Wikidata if it meets one of the following:

1. It contains at least one site link, linking back to any language Wikipedia project.
   • If all the local Wikipedia entries are deleted, merged, or otherwise no longer exist as individual articles or pages after the creation of the Wikidata entry, the item is no longer considered notable (unless it meets criterion 2).
   • If all the site links point to User namespace pages, the item is not considered notable.
2. It is referenced from at least one other Wikidata item.
   • It may be part of a statement, or as a source for a statement.

Non-notable items may be listed at Wikidata:Requests for deletions.

---

It needs a link to a page explaining what statements are. Also, have I got the terminology right? This, that and the other (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that is correct and good, except that sources are also structured as statements. --Zolo (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If item A references item B and vice versa, and neither of them have any site links, is that proof that both are notable? --Yair rand (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

True, that's a problem. Change to "It is referenced from at least one Wikidata item meeting criterion 1" ? --Zolo (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would work well either. If item A, which has sitelinks, references as a source item B, a book, which references item C to fill the "author" field, should item C be deleted if neither B nor C have sitelinks? --Yair rand (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We could imagine something like "less than n steps away from an item with sitelinks", but we may end up with the whole world packed up in Wikidata (not that it is necessarily a bad thing...). Could we imagine sort of fading-away rules like "Barack Obama is so important that his parents deserve an entry, but his parents are not so important that their own parents deserve an entry" ? --Zolo (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

[Requirement 7] say that Wikidata is about statements and their references. If there is a valid reference about Barack Obama's grandparents like a government document, and the community can verify that the statement is supported by the reference, then what is the rationale for deleting it? Jefft0 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Requirement 7 does not say that all statements will be acceptable, otherwise this very page would not exist ;). --Zolo (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think Requirement 7 shows that Wikidata has different notability needs and we shouldn't think like Wikipedia. We want people to rely on Wikidata for complete information. For example a film (with a Wikipedia link) has a director, but the director doesn't have a Wikipedia link. Can we list all the films of the director, even if the films don't have Wikipedia articles? If not, then we have a big danger that Wikidata is designed to be incomplete from the start. Incomplete means "unreliable". If people know that Wikidata is designed to be incomplete and unreliable, then they won't trust and use it as a structured data source. I think we should be very generous in what items and statements are allowed in Wikidata, as long as they have references. Jefft0 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with where you're coming from, but I am also thinking about why we "need" to have Items for these people/other entities when the information could be in a string, traditional style. But what's interesting here is that an Item actually might serve a useful abstraction purpose, in a technical/formal modeling sense, even for the most non-notable actor listed in some film cast. They would have their own link that would of course work in multiple languages, like a multilingual string; some additional information could be recorded about that entity; and these new Items would reduce a bunch of other problems related to manual entry of strings, like typos. And where is it easier to maintain the multilingual information--in an Item or a multilingual string? I haven't seen the latter in action but I'm guessing it is more difficult in the latter. The "Item" concept allows Wikidata to abstract the multilingual aspect, if nothing else, away from repetitive string values that would have to exist in every instance of the Item in which they are referred to, if strings were used. Finally, it must be much easier to query a linked record (Item) for what is joined to it than it is a string. Even in the simple Wikidata interface, I can audit that by using "what links here". Even though I tend toward the conservative side in "making new Items for everything", I actually think there is a lot of argument for it. Strict policy in these "secondary items" as to what they state would be necessary. Espeso (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Data about an entity should go into an item wherever possible, not as literal data in unrelated items. Jeblad (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If I may ask, how soon is this policy planned to be updated? It's one thing for users coming to Wikidata to not be able to enter data (such as a date). It's quite another thing for a user's efforts to be deleted by an admin because it is "not notable" as is happening to me and others. I would suggest that even the most conservative proposals above would be a big improvement and is needed soon so as to not frustrate new users. Jefft0 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully soon: We need items for Property:P106 (occupation). --Kolja21 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stopped ... does anyone oppose using my second proposal above as the policy as a temporary measure? It is clear that something better than the current policy is needed in Phase II, and my suggestion is just a start. This, that and the other (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very concerned about the notability aspect of this guideline, I'm more concerned about this guideline as a mean to enforce connectivity. There should be a point in the guideline for items that are linked from Wikipedia but does not have sitelinks. Those items will typically be sources for references. Without this the source information must be kept on Wikipedia in most cases. Those items could also point to other items like authors that has no articles on Wikipedia, so they will be without sitelinks. We should although strive to connect such groups to the rest of Wikidata to avoid isolated islands. Jeblad (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we simply say, allow everything that is in VIAF, and import data from the Library of Congress or the German National Library ? Otherwise, it will be rather difficult to seriously use Wikidata for Wikipedia's reference. And it's Public Domain/CC0. --Zolo (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

+1, but since there are no references yet, how we want to prove it? Add the GND, LCCN, or VIAF no. to the AKA field? I also would allow to create an item if it is an occupation (Property:P106). --Kolja21 (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what we get in the next deployment on Monday ;). Thinking about it, it sounds likely that we will upload data from many external databases. To simplify the process, we could propose an extensible "whitelist" of accepted databases. Everything with its own entry in of them would be considered acceptable as a Wikidata item. VIAF and eol.org could be good starting points. --Zolo (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Phase 2 has started ...

... and you can add whatever property you want ;( Notability is only about items. This should be changed. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started a thread here. --Kolja21 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding items that are only in Wikipedia lists

There are many items on wikipedia which are not notable enough to have their own page on Wikipedia but which are included on list type pages: Minor characters in fictional stories, individual episodes of TV shows, etc. This is further confused by the fact that different wikipedias make different decisions as to what is a minor item (no individual page) and what is a major (notable) item and these decisions change over time.

Each of these list pages include a number of separate items about which we can make statements but, in many cases, there are few statements we can make about the list page itself.

In this case it seems appropriate to have a Wikidata page about each of the items on the wikipedia list page even though these cannot have sitelinks back to the wikipedia list page.

Once the statements have been completed then the data from all the wikidata pages can be imported back into the list page, either as a series of info boxes or as a table. Filceolaire (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that having items for them sound appropriate, but tend to think we should first adapt notability rules for phase 2 before seeing those things, that are essentially about phase 3. --Zolo (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Occupation

Please supplement the list. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In Italian infobox we have more of 500 occupation, but a lot of them don't have item. We must create all? --ValterVB (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I started to compile a table with all the occupations with item or English, valid for Italian infobox: User:ValterVB/Sandbox. --ValterVB (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Now the list is complete (need some little adjustment) I think that also other wiki can use it. Now the big work is search existing item or create it and add translate --ValterVB (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work! --Kolja21 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe need a redirect inside Wikidata, ex. Actor / Actress.--ValterVB (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Occupations (P106) without item:

1. User:ValterVB/Sandbox
2. painter (Pompeo Batoni) Q1028181
3. sculptor (Zeuxis) Q1281618
4. blogger Q8246794
   1. video blogger (use blogger)
5. ...

•  Support Occupation (if used as item for Property:P106). --BloggerABC (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Support This is needed since for many occupations no article exists. 145.53.76.181 19:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it will be valuable to split cyclist (and cycling coaches) into: cyclist (road cycling), cyclist (track cycling), cyclist (BMX), cyclist (mountainbike), cyclist (cyclo-cross), cyclist (bike trials) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Items that are clearly notable

There is no article about the taxonomic family Rhabdinoporidae that I could find in any Wikipedia. Yet it is clearly encyclopedic, notable according to any Wikipedia criteria I am aware of, and structurally relevant (I used it on Rhabdinopora). I could go and create a sub-stub on en.wp and add it here, but this would be beyond silly. Can we please have rules that allow these cases? Initially, a positive list might suffice. "Clear notability" would certainly include places (towns and cities), taxonomic entries, astronomical objects, molecules; to be continued. Besides, the sheer subservience to Wikipedia the current rules show could well harm Wikidata once the initial rush is over. --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I encountered the same thing when trying to add a family to a genus. There was only the order above it. Since the addition is in line with the pending notability update, there is no use being hampered in adding reasonable and correct items so that proper statements can be added to items that do have site links. Espeso (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That might be the "golden rule" : Items that are notable due to a positive list, and are needed for relational integrity. If I do not see any well-founded opposition to this, I will be bold and change Wikidata:Notability accordingly; tonight or tomorrow. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Though I very much agree with your proposal, the current guideline was voted with a relatively large participation at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2012/11#Proposed_guideline:_Wikidata:Notability. Even though it was made clear that it was provisional, a similar vote may be in order. The best would probably to come up with a precise proposal on Wikidata:Project chat, so that there can be a clear vote on the topic. --Zolo (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 Support let's start to vote. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please also add your support to Wikidata:Project_chat#Proposed_guideline_change:_Notability_rules. Thanks! --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FuzzyBot erroneously deleted tag

FuzzyBot deleted <references /> tag in message Translations:Wikidata/Notability/2. This caused a syntax error because the associated <ref>...</ref> tags have not been deleted. The English original still shows the reference so this deletion is an obvious error. Regards, --Michawiki (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Where you see the error? I can't see any error messages. --Stryn (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I see it in the translation tool. In this moment I delete the <references /> tag because FuzzyBot deleted it I get the error. Check it in a language other than English (but not in Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian because I have undone it). Beta16 set the </translate> in front of the <references /> tag, inside of message Translations:Wikidata/Notability/2. May be that is the reason for the error. --Michawiki (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any errors, I have tried many languages, and no error messages. Could you try again, if you still get it? --Stryn (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You must go in the translation tool. Select message Translations:Wikidata/Notability/2 and open it for editing. Then you will see a diff comparison above the edit area: Old Text and New Text. And under New text the references /> tag is deleted. In this moment I delete it in the edit area for my language and save the change, the final view shows the red error message. You mustn't save it, preview is sufficient. Oh, why my signature isn't converted?) --Michawiki

I did just like you told, but I still don't see any error message. Weird... --Stryn (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange, suddenly the error doesn't appear any more. For me this is a little unlogical because I should have the references /> tag if I have the ref tag. And I have really seen the sytax error. BTW, why did you insert an empty line in front of the references /> tag? (Why doesn't work my signature any more, Michawiki)

references /> tag comes automatically now. Before it had to be "translated", but now it is not needed. What empty line? I haven't, you mean Beta16? If you mean why references tag is after end of the translate tag, it's because references tag don't require translation. And about your signature, it works, but you forgot to close nowiki tag. --Stryn (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant this change I saw now that the <references /> tag was in duplicate. And you changed it. Please don't change in the original pages. It's irritating for translators. It was fact, <references /> tag was in the translation tool and I got the error message. Bene16 moved the </translate> tag down. Wehn I tried to delete the <references /> tag the first time, the same tag probably wasn't part of the original Upper Sorbian page yet. So I got the error message. Later anybody inserted the tag into the original page. I saved the message once more, now with the tag again. May be therefore it was twice in the translated page then. So the error message disappeared because the error disappeared. It isn't good when anybody modifies the original translated pages directly and the translator doesn't know about it. Thank you for the tip, but I didn't forget to close the nowiki tag but I forgot to open the <references /> tag. Oh this markup! --Michawiki (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It was twice, because you didn't deleted other references tag, you just removed fuzzy. What you mean "Please don't change in the original pages"? I used translation tool, when I deleted the duplicate tag. --Stryn (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw the history diff of the translation only. I don't know, how you did that. But it is fact, I wanted to remove the tag, and the error message appeared. That would have meant that - if I would have deleted the tag - this tag would not been in the translation anymore. Suddenly the error message didn't appear any more. For me anybody changed the original page because suddenly the tag was twice in the translation and the error message didn't appear anymore. You deleted the superfluous tag then. Strange, anyhow anything overlapped here. Well, end good, all good. Thank you for your help. --Michawiki (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I didn't delete the <references /> tag because the error message came and I wanted to avoid the syntax error. --Michawiki (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Okey okey, good that it works now, maybe it was just a temporary disruption somewhere. --Stryn (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirects to other projects

How about redirects, like w:Category:Redirects to Wiktionary (e.g. ALOL -> Q4652405)? I think that we should not agree those. --Stryn (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree that they should not be accepted, at least if we can explain that to the bots. --Zolo (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for property notatibility policy

We need a deletion policy for properties. A suggestion:

During phase II of the project, a property is notable if it fulfills all of the following criteria:

1. Useful in Wikipedia: The property can be mapped to an existing infobox parameter or category at some Wikipedia version, and property data can thus be included in Wikipedia, or automatically gathered from Wikipedia articles.
2. Sourced: (a) The corresponding infobox parameter is sourced is many Wikipedia articles, or (b) property data for several Wikidata items can be gathered from one external reference in structured form (as tables, lists or infoboxes) rather than manually from analys of the running text.
3. Motivated: The property is expected to be used in at least 100 items.

Mange01 (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See also: Wikidata:Project_chat#Proposed_guideline_change:_Notability_rules. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Do all of these need to be met or just at least one? πr² (t • c) 22:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I rephrased the suggestion. The first is necessary in my world - the other two could be discussed. Perhaps we should continue the discussion at Wikidata:Project chat#Proposed guideline change: Notability rules. -- Mange01 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is primarily about a new rule for items, not properties, so I think it's better for this to remain a separate discussion. --Avenue (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with #1, but more with this idea in general. First, it doesn't make sense to me to speak of the "notability" of properties. Second, Wikidata has just begun the project to become a "knowledge base" and there is no rationale for limiting what it can store (and how it is used) to what Wikipedia wants or what we think Wikipedia wants. Frankly, Wikipedia may not "want" anything -- that is up to them. Wikidata is an open project in its own right, not an appendix to Wikipedia. Espeso (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we move the notability policy into the Wikidata:Deletion policy??

Perhaps my titles above, for example "useful in Wikipedia", can be rephrased or skipped.

Arguments for requirement #1, that a property should correspond to a Wikipedia infobox parameter or category:

• Phase II is currently ongoing, and is about Wikipedia infoboxes. We should wait with other things.
• This is consistent with the current notability rule, only allowing items that have a Wikipedia page.
• Very few parameters fail this requirement. (The "Is a" property is an exception, because it lacks a firm definition, but we may decide to define it as based on Wikipedia infobox names or categories. "Shares boarder with" is another problematic example.)
• The requirement is constistent with the fact that we currently keep track of corresponding infobox parameters. In wikidata:Property proposal we encourage people to give corresponding infobox parameter, and when the property is created, they should map the property to an infobox parameter in WD:phase II.
• The Semantic wiki project never succeeded because it was a new wiki or knowledge base, built from scratch. The Wikidata project may succeed if it starts out as a help-project for Wikipedia auto-translation. Actually all three phases of the funded Wikidata development project are only about helping Wikipedia.

Argument for requirement #2:

• Wikidata should be built by bots rather than by people, gathering data from Wikipedia and other external sources. We are too few active here to manually gather data from low-strucutred sources. ("Shares boarder with" and "is a" also have problems with this requirement.)

Mange01 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree "notability" is not the right word for properties. "Deletion policy" or "deletion criteria" could be okay, but they don't reflect the positive nature of the requirements, and that there is currently more need for properties to be created than deleted. "Creation criteria" is also one-sided. "Property prerequisites", perhaps?

The first requirement does seem to reflect the needs of phase II. However I see phase II as being more about how and when the data will be used in Wikipedia than about how data should be managed here, and I'm not convinced that it should impose strict limits on our thinking and practices. In particular, if data would be useful for phase III, I don't see why we shouldn't allow people to add it now.

While I agree sourcing will be important, I don't understand why we would want to completely disallow items that can only be manually sourced by reading through Wikipedia text (or external texts, for that matter). Sure, it'll be nice when sourcing can be done automatically, but making this an absolute requirement for the creation of properties seems too limiting to me.

More generally, I strongly disagree with the idea that Wikidata should be built entirely by bots. That seems like a recipe for quantity over quality to me. Yes, a lot of bot work will be needed, but I also see a strong role for human input in crafting useful data about important subjects. --Avenue (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Geopositioning data is an interesting example, since people input latitudes and longitudes into the Wikipedias without stating sources, often manually by looking into maps and applying their own interpretation of our criteria for geopositioning. Should Wikidata start out by collecting this kind of unreliable data from the Wikipedias, or should we try to stick to reliable sources?

I believe it is a quicker for bots to gather data from many different Wikipedia infoboxes (presuming the mapping in requirement #1 is fulfilled), than to find reliable external sources and convert them to a suitable format. So if we want fast result, criteria #1 is important, if we want quality, #2 is important. If we should follow the recipe of Wikipedia success, we should first go for quantity, later quality. So we should start with #1 but may perhaps wait with #2.

When Wikidata content is included in Wikipedia infoboxes, it may be difficult for people to change the data. If we want to attract numerous people that contribute, we need a very simple Wikidata client user-interface that allows any user to change Wikidata content within just a couple of clicks from the article where the data is included. Until then, we should rely on bots collecting data from Wikipedias and (if possible) from external sources. -- Mange01 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this object acceptable? New Yorker used with demonym. Danrok (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good example! Property:P49 corresponds to en:category:Demonyms, which includes many lists, and it is also related to en:template:Demonym country, so it definitely fulfills #1, but I suppose it would fail #2. It is used in surpisingly many items, so it seems to fulfill #3. Policies should reflect practice rather than the other way around, and this is perhaps useful as test case for requirement #2. Mange01 (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've written on its talk page that IMHO it should be a dictionary property (collection of one-per-language string lists with language-dependent structure) rather than Item typed property. But actually we see that there are items?.. Ignatus (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

On the draft Help:Statements I propose the following Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria for [properties of] Statements include:

• The property is (to be) used in infoboxes of Wikipedia. With the use of Qualifiers this may be historical values too. Some properties of infoboxes might be stored on an hierarchical way. For instance Country might not be a valid property for Administrative divisions.
• The property may be used in other applications. Wikidata not only serves Wikipedia but can be used independent with other applications.
• Any relevant property with a trustworthy neutral reference.

Not included are:

* Privacy information on living persons. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

* Original research. See Wikipedia:No original research

I am in favor of combining with:

• Useful in Wikipedia: The property can be mapped to an existing infobox parameter or category at some Wikipedia version, and property data can thus be included in Wikipedia, or automatically gathered from Wikipedia articles.
• Sourced: (a) The corresponding infobox parameter is sourced is many Wikipedia articles, or (b) property data for several Wikidata items can be gathered from one external reference in structured form (as tables, lists or infoboxes) rather than manually from analys of the running text.
• Motivated: The property is expected to be used in at least 100 items.

HenkvD (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We seem to think along the same lines. Are your three initial points and/or? Mange01 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I still do not understand why some people are so keen to restrict Wikidata to only "phase 2" items (and, especially, to phase 2 items that they consider right now, rather than ones that will be available with queries). It's important that we do not have to re-do all of our properties when phase 3 hits just because we believed we should delete them all now. James F. (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost any data that people have suggested for Wikidata is already available in Wikipedia or is useful on Wikipedia. So the idea with req #1 is not to stop people from adding information that is useful outside Wikipedia, but to make people harmonize the properties with Wikipedia infobox parameter names and definitions. The aim of that is to reduce the manual work of transferring data from Wikipedia to Wikidata, and thus allow Wikidata to grow rapidly. The aim is also to simplify the job of adding inclusion syntax in thousands of Wikipedia infoboxes, with clickable links to Wikidata, and thus attract millions of Wikipedia contributors to contribute to Wikidata.

Why do you think the Semantic wiki project never succeeded? Many wikis in the world are failures because they tried to compete with Wikipedia. Starting Wikidata as a Wikipedia help project, would give this project a chance to survive.

Is your point that we should require that at least one of #1 and #2 are fulfilled? Mange01 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree absolutely that it should be "useful in Wikimedia" (not just Wikipedia). I disagree that "useful" means "useful in an infobox". We are not looking to replace Wikimedia projects, but enhance them, so your comments about issues that non-Wikimedia competitors of ours have had seem ill-placed. James F. (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Let's write in all our policies about served projects as places where our stuff is visibly used and with which we regulary co-operate. They may futurely be not only WMF-operated projects. Ignatus (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have notability guideline (or call it another word, it's however the rule about right on existence) for at least Item-typed ones, and it should on current phase be sth like (sorri fo mai Indlish, correct if you see errors):

---

Property of type Item can exist on Wikidata if all these are true:

1. There are at least two existing different items of this kind obeying item notability guideline;
2. There are presented reliable sources to approve the relation for such a property;
3. There are at least 20 pages which may use this property in all served projects, and at least 5 in a single project, where the relation is approved by reliable sources.

---

--Ignatus (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Name of this page - or the property criteria

I continue the above discussion about the name of this page - especially the property policy - under separate headline. Please add more suggestions for name, and discuss them. Mange01 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• WD:Notability (current name)
• WD:Deletion policy (where this page can be merged into)
• WD:Deletion criteria
• WD:Creation criteria
• WD:Relevance criteria
• WD:Property prerequisites
• WD:Property policy
• WD:Inclusion criteria

Need clarification/change on wording in very first sentence

The first sentence in this reads like this:

The existence of at least one interwiki linking back to any language Wikipedia project. If all the local Wikipedia entries are deleted, merged, or otherwise no longer exist as individual articles or pages after the creation of the Wikidata entry, the data entry can be listed at Wikidata:Requests for deletions."

...Pardon me if I'm having trouble understanding this, but does that mean that each entry needs to have at least one entry, or two entries? I ask this because of how I interpret the "inter-" prefix on the word "interwiki"; that prefix would have me assume that there needs to be a link between at least two articles on different Wikipedias, meaning there should be at least two entries on Wikidata. Is this correct? Steel1943 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The correct interpretation is at least one (1) entry. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Rooms

Are museum rooms considered as "places", and thus notable enough to have an item ? For major museum the room where a particular object is located is often provided on Commons file descriptions. In the medium run, it would probably make sense to migrate that kind of content to Wikidata. --Zolo (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I came in skeptical, but at least for major/large museums, 'museum room' could have some interesting downstream re-use. Might it make more sense for 'room' to be a qualifier of the 'museum collection' property (whether as an item or string)? By the way, we don't have 'museum collection' yet--could we start with that? :) Espeso (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We probably need at least two properties: the owner and the location, as they can be completely different (and actually in the French case, it is even more complicated than that)

Yes, it may be a good idea to use an item-type qualifier for the room. As for a string-qualifier, I am not sure. It would avoid the creation of smallish items, but in other respects, it may make things less convenient: strings will not be so easy to translate, and there is not much constraint on string constant, which means that if you call the same room by two slightly different names at two different places, it will be hard to detect that it is really the same room. --Zolo (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Places" in WD:N are meant for settlements etc. BTW: For the GND museum rooms are part of the organization. Example: British Library / Humanities Reading Room (GND 4583012-5, type k). --Kolja21 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you basing that on? The consensus in the discussion leading to its addition seemed far from clear. I guess it could be changed to "populated places" or something similar, but for now I don't think it needs to be changed; the connection requirement should protect against completely useless items being added. --Avenue (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Acutally, it turns out that some rooms of the Louvre already have articles in Wikipedias. I think it would make sense to create items for others as well, at least for those that could be used in P:P276. --Zolo (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Listed cultural properties

As coverage of cultural properties in various Wikipedias is just developing, we might want to add "listed cultural properties" to the default notability criteria.

This should also make it easier to organize the next Wiki Loves Monuments. --  Docu  at 06:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --  Docu  at 17:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirected pages and article sections + source requirement

A suggestion is to allow redirected pages as items. Today linking to redirected pages is prohibited by the software. Many subjects do not have their own article, but a section in an article, and a subject title is quite often redirected to that section. Of course, interwiki from a redirected subject will be invisible to the Wikipedia reader with the current user interface, but may be useful anyway, for example for machine-translation of list articles, and for builing an ontology of everything. (Actually, before Wikidata, it happened that I added interwiki links to redirected pages, making it possible for readers to find interwiki in one direction - from the language where the subject is a real article, but not the other way around.)

In this case, and also when creating items without sitelinks, I think we must require a source, since we can not rely on the Wikipedia policy for encyclipedic relevance. It might be possible to implement a technical requirement of stating reference before the creation of such an item. Mange01 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

redirects are a bit tricky. Some Wikipedia's systematically delete all of them and routinely broke interwiki links from other languages. Other Wikipedias have redirects for almost anything.

Article sections are an interesting question. For "Caspian Sea", I needed an item for "endorheic lake". In all languages this seems to be a section on "endorheic basin". The work around used was to create an item based on w:Category:endorheic lakes. I did call it "endorheic lake. --  Docu  at 06:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

An item linking to w:Category:endorheic lakes refers to a collection of endorheic lakes, not to endorheic lakes themselves. I agree an item referring to endorheic lakes would also be sensible.

The question of whether redirects and sections should be allowed items seems to me to put things backwards. The real question is whether the topic of the redirect or section deserves an item. If it does, then it should be created, regardless of whether the software currently supports links to redirects/sections or not. Personally, I think links to redirects should be allowed, where they match an item's topic. But that's very different from saying that items should be created to link to redirects. Many redirects are not about a distinct topic (e.g. redirects for common misspellings, and so forth). --Avenue (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Exception for CreativeCommons-licenses

Hi, there is a proposal for a Property "license", with that you can say how some work or project is licensed. There are no Wikipedia-articles about the different CC-licenses because in the Wikipedias the whole CC-Suit is assembled in one article. For Wikidata as an item for the license-proposal it is extremely worthwhile to also have one item for all licenses. There are hundreds of items for each license, for example:

• CC-BY: Big buck Bunny, Sintel, Knol, Identi.ca
• CC-BY-NC: XKCD, Free Culture
• CC-BY-ND: The Art of Unix Programming
• CC-BY-SA: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, …, Wikivoyage
• CC-BY-NC-SA: Ghosts I–IV, Pioneer One, WikiMapia, Code Rush, Khan Academy
• CC-BY-NC-ND: Star Wreck, Cactuses
• CC-Zero: Wikidata, Sita Sings the Blues

Therefore I suggest to add create items for the seven existing CC-licenses (BY, BY-SA, BY-NC, BY-ND, BY-SA-NC, BY-NC-ND, CC0) now. Items for the old rarely used licenses can be created when needed. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 stongly support for these ones, but thinking about CC-BY-SA/italy, CC-BY-SA/netherlands, etc. --Ricordisamoa 21:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought about the different versions and nationalisations too, but they are too many to add a item for everyone of them. Best solution for future will be to add this as qualifier in future. Until then it could be done by extra properties "Creative Commons license version" (integer) and "Creative Commons license jurisdiction" (item to the country), or simply let away for now, since they aren't such important and often left away. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support --Kolja21 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

created CC-BY and CC-BY-SA --Ricordisamoa 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

created CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-NC-ND, and CC0. Apparently CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-SA already exist. --Avenue (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-SA havn't existed, I created them now. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should just have said that Wikidata wouldn't let me create them, telling me they already existed. Thanks for creating them. --Avenue (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Shall we make exceptions for any properties which are described in Wikipedia only in lists but are significantly different ones? Let's try to put it wider, like: # Item is notable for Wikidata if it is listed in a list in served project and is used as notable property. Ignatus (talk)

It's probably a good Idea to make it wider, but I wouldn't say listed, because some Wikipedia have huge lists of things. How about "if would probably have an article in some Wikipedias but has been merged to another article, because of overlappings"? -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, if sth is just a piece of article in all projects (and possibly they have never been separate before mergeing), it's difficult to say that there could be one. Of course, some lists are so long and their items are so poor on properties, that any element of this list as property of another item could be represented best by string type value or somehow like. In fact, lists are immanently collections of items, and data of a list (this sends us ahead to phase III) has to be a structure of items. Well, we usually don't invent notability criteria wich are not based on notability criteria of served projects; but this is noted in sections above that our targets and methods are too different from ones of Wikipedia and potentially are not limited to serving ones of hers. So maybe we have to think about inclusion criteria for list items: what about it can't be represented by stucture simpler than Item type? And note in my suggestion the requirement of being used in notable property. Ignatus (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should accept many, perhaps even most, Wikipedia list entries as items. Yes, there are huge numbers of them, but I don't see that in itself as a problem. I'm not sure quite what you mean, Ignatus, by "can't be represented by [simpler structures]", although I note that the CC licenses could have been represented by a single item with various qualifiers. The discussion above settled on separate items for each meaningful combination of license conditions, with qualifiers to indicate which translation and version. This seems to indicate that we need more flexibility than an absolute "can't be represented" rule. --Avenue (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I meaned, that items are described with potentially infinite amount of properties and are referring to some real object by way that usually only human can well understand, while strings, numbers, coordinates etc. represent themselves with limited fixed stuctures of information, which are mostly given in-place in computer-readable form. Somehow so. Ignatus (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Focus on statements, not items

It seems that a lot of the discussion here has oriented around what items should be included. I suggest that it might be useful to think instead about what statements should be included as these are the valuable units of knowledge. The criteria could then be turned on its head slightly as 'statements are allowable when there is evidence to support them (following the 'no original research' philosophy and using the evidence statement structure of wikidata). Then, following from this, an item may be created if it is needed to create a defensible statement. Genewiki123 (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is a nice way to think about things. The focus on items made sense when Wikidata was just in Phase I (and still makes sense for some issues, e.g. regarding interwikis), but now that Phase II is underway, focusing on statements generally makes more sense. We have gone some way in that direction with the exceptions around default notability criteria, which require some connection (e.g. a statement) linking them with an existing item. The limited range of topics could perhaps be viewed as a way to restrict this approach to statements where the supporting evidence is easily located, because we currently cannot effectively cite evidence for statements. I'd be happy for us to remove this restriction once we can cite external sources for statements properly. --Avenue (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

See the proposed Guidelines at Help:Statements. Feel free to comment. HenkvD (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Main types (GND)

copied from Property talk:P107

Galaxy/Earth is place, but not a geographical place. We should deal something with that. Infovarius (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

copy end

I think Infovarius is right. The items we use for the GND main type aka entity type (Property:P107) are a compromise solution. They don't match exactly. (See: Wikidata:Infoboxes task force. Type p, called "person", also includes literary and mythical figures, and families.) Imho we need seperate items for the GND main types. This also would help to distinguish between properties that use "controlled vocabulary" (P107: GND main types) and those who use "uncontrolled vocabularies" (P279: generalization and P31: is a). --Kolja21 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the current items are being misused. We could address this by creating new items for the GND main types and changing the values to these items, or by simply changing the values to strings ("p", "k", "v", etc). --Avenue (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support, the current way is confusing, we should make it clearer --Stevenliuyi (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support --ThorstenX1 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we should change the definition of GND entity type, as it seems to have a very well understood set of parameters. If we want to create controlled vocabularies, we should do so, but not while Shanghaiing another property. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The definition is fixed and will not be changed; only the items don't fit. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I had to check. Infovarius pointed me to this conversation from his talk page on an apparently unrelated question. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

copied from Property talk:P107

I think special items, like for Property:P21 would be great. My bot could change all existing values. --Sk!d (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

copy end

 Question If I understand it correctly, the proposal is to create separate values for GND non-main types and make claims about them with P31 (and presumably usually P279 for terms). However, even if that proposal were put into effect, it still seems like P107 would still:

1. classify most of human knowledge as merely a "term",
2. require multiple properties for multiple different levels of classification, which requires much more work to update and maintain,
3. conflate "person" with "family" and "literary figure" etc.,
4. not use GND types as they're used by the actual GND.

In other words, it seems the proposal would not help solve the major flaws of the GND-main-type-only property P107. Is that incorrect? If so, how does this proposal solve those four problems? Emw (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Still trying to abolish GND main types ;) Sorry to disappoint you: "Type p" will stay type p, even if there is a separate item "Type p = person". (We could try to complement type s, adding lower types for biology and software, but this would be an exception and is not the goal of this proposal.)

1.) you know that this is not the definition for type s (term), see Wikidata:Infoboxes task force/terms

Most -- or at least a huge swath -- of human knowledge is not about a person, place, organization, event or work. My comment wasn't debating the definition of the GND main type "term" -- I agree with Wikidata:Infoboxes task force/terms that it represents a catch-all classification for "everything else". That is precisely the problem. Emw (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

2.) this is, of course, not the plan

The drawback of not allowing more specific classifications is that it makes this property too general for useful classifications in many items. My reply below regarding problem 4 expands on this. Emw (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

3.) type p (person) will stay type p, see Wikidata:Infoboxes task force/persons

OK, so it seems this problem will not be addressed. Note that the standard reply to this significant problem -- that "person is meant to generalize" -- does not resolve the actual problems that arise from conflating "person" with "family" and "literary figure" etc. Emw (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

4.) the GND types are the actual GND types (otherwise the bots couldn't match them with other databases)

That's not the problem. The problem is that P107 uses only main types while publicly-facing entries in the actual GND use non-main types (e.g. 'gik' instead of 'g'), or the non-main type formulation of main types (e.g. 'piz' for 'p').

So while the publicly-facing GND entry for Barack Obama or Anne Appelbaum might say just 'person' (note they use the GND non-main type code 'piz', not the GND main type code 'p') because there is no better GND non-main type, the also-publicly-facing entry for Nauru uses GND non-main types 'administrative unit' (gik) and 'country' (gil), because that offers a more useful classification than the corresponding GND main type 'place or geographic name' (g / giz). This problem 4 is largely the cause of problems 1, 2 and 3. This problem has been discussed at the P107 RFD and Property_talk:P107#type, where there was no follow-up from anyone supporting P107. Emw (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see this proposal does not solve your problems. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As I have mentioned many times before, I am nowhere near the only person that sees these problems in P107. Those who seem to have a glancing familiarity with P107 usually don't mind these problems. However, among those who have engaged in more than passing discussion about this property, an overwhelming majority seem to recognize the problems listed above as major flaws.

If this proposal doesn't solve any of the problems listed above, then what problems does it solve? Emw (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not follow the beginning of these discussion, but in the title of this section GND is refered as "main types", does this mean that GND is supposed to take a central place into Wikidata ontology ? It would be a weared thing imo ... GND does not seem to fit Wikidata needs at all, and would need to be twisted.

"The GND Ontology aims to transfer the made experience from libraries to the web community by providing a vocabulary for the description of conferences or events, corporate bodies, places or geographic names, differentiated persons, undifferentiated persons (name of undifferentiated persons), subject headings, and works."

(from this url); this is not wikidata ! Where did discussion about that occured ? TomT0m (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Main GND type refers" to the more general types used by the GND. The GND subdivides them into smaller types.

P107, is not supposed to take a central place in Wikidata ontology, at least I do not recall anyone proposing so. Indeed, according to Kolja21, who is one of the main proponents of the property: "This property is not meant to help creating a semantic web". Now if you ask me what is is supposed to be used for, I cannot give you any convincing answer. but there are lengthy discussions at Property talk:P107 and Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2013/04/05#Property:P107. --Zolo (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

GND Ontology is the title of an article by Alexander Haffner and not our goal. As Zolo said we just use the main tpyes, like it has done before in the authority templates of Wikipedia. For deeper classification we have other properties. The main types are only for a first orientation. For example an item with the title 파리스 (Paris) can be type p (person, legendary figure), type g (a place) or type w (a work, like the 1926 film Paris). --Kolja21 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I will create a special Item for "name (disambiguatin)" currently there is the item Q4167410 used. Even if most of the items are Wikipedia Disambiguations some are not. E.g. articles about a last name should be "name (disambiguation)" afaik, but don't have to be. The article about w:Smith (surname) should have this value but it is not a disambiguation page. The GND link is http://d-nb.info/gnd/181266288 . With an extra Item we can give the item the proper name. My bot could change all existing items. --Sk!d (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now created Q11651459. --Sk!d (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)