Wikidata talk:Notability/Archive 2

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

Cemeteries for Property:P119

Property:P119 (place of burial) works fairly well for cemeteries and other burial locations. Many burial grounds have articles in one or the other Wikipedia, some even have categories for some cemeteries (see Q7146913 and interwikis listed there).

For consistent use of Property:P119, it seems to preferable to always create an item for burial places and add this as location in items about persons. Thus I'd add "cemeteries, mausoleums and burial locations, if used as item for Property:P119" to default notability criteria.

Sample: Q1868 would have the name of cemetery listed instead of a town. Items should not be created if no property links to it. --  Docu  at 07:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. --  Docu  at 10:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Books

(moved from Wikidata talk:Books task force)

Right now only books that have an Wikipedia article are notabile. I think we should expand the rules. Proposals:

1. Every edition (2nd edition, translations etc.) is notable: too early
2. Every work is notable: too early
3. Every work is notable, that is used as a source: imho a good start

There is already a collection of no. 3 items, see de:Kategorie:Vorlage:BibISBN. --Kolja21 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I would also add that every work/edition which is present on Wikisource and Commons can stay on Wikidata. But right now, it is not implemented. --Aubrey (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also include all (or most) books which we have on Wikisource, or Commons. One of those years those projects will be supported by Wikidata too. --Jarekt (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There are plans to use Wikidata for citations on Wikipedia. For that, solution 3 would work, but does not seem practical. If we want to make serious use of Wikidata for citations, it means we have to create items for most of them. But restricting that to books used in Wikipedia sounds like an unnecessary maintenance headache. It would need to be updated each time a new book is used in Wikipedia, and also each time a book ceases to be used in Wikipedia, unless we have weird notability rules like "books that used to be cited in Wikipedia even if it was nothing but spam".

Using solution 1 or 2 seems much simpler. We could then upload book from external databases like worldcat. And provided we devise the right gadgets, when a Wikipedia user wants to cite a book, she can easily make make us of Wikidata, even when it is not yet cited in any Wikipedia. --Zolo (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That will be o.k. with me, but I don't know if we will get a majority for that. Let's move this discussion to WD:N. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We may also need to change the notability rule of people, because every book item needs an author property. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I support #1. Furthermore, I would like to expand that to something like "Every citeable item is notable", citeable item being a book (particular edition/translation) or an article in a journal or in a conference proceedings book, for example. Silver hr (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll be a killjoy. If each and every work cited in Wikipedia (e.g. books, articles, and web pages) needs an item created before it can be cited, then the citation model is badly broken IMO. I'm sure there are simpler ways we can cite works (e.g. by ISBN, doi, or URL). So I see no reason to link a book's worthiness for a item with it being cited in Wikipedia (or even its citeability). I'm actually undecided about whether we should include all books (or book editions), but I don't see any convincing arguments above for doing so. --Avenue (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, we cant demand that forbid people to cite books that do not have any Wikidata item, but having a Wikidata may make it easier to cite books. I do not know very well how it should work, I am perfectly fine with using en:Template:Cite doi or the like. But that can only work if the template knows what the cited doi refers to, and imo the best place to store this info is Wikidata. --Zolo (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say the citation model would be badly broken? Is it because, as you imply in your next sentence, it would be too complicated? How so? Why couldn't it be as simple as what Citation bot is doing on right now on Wikipedia? I think it could. But the issue is wider than this; please see the related discussion in Wikidata_talk:Sources. Silver hr (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

DOC of template

Q8170274: doc of template is accettable? --ValterVB (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO no. ("acceptable") --Ricordisamoa 16:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it forbidden to connect user pages with Wikidata?

I have a couple of user pages in different languages. I had always connected them with the well known spider web of interwikilinks. Now that there is Wikidata, I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to connect them in the new way, too. Why not? It is much easier to administrate if I'd add another user page.

So I was pretty disappointed to see that this was immediately reverted. Well, In the old fashioned way it worked, too, but I really don't understand why my use of Wikidata would be wrong. Can anyone tell me? Does it bother someone? I would actually encourage anyone to do it this way. Erik Wannee (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not feel that userpages are within the scope of Wikidata - Wikidata is supposed to be a knowledge base, which in my opinion does not include user pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is not the function on this database. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I understand, but I don't agree. The old fashioned interwiki spider web of links between user pages in different languages isn't supporting a knowledge base either. But it is very convenient to be able to switch from one user page to another.

Why is that option so preferred above the Wikidata option? Does it harm anyone? I wouldn't think so. Erik Wannee (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It is simply out of Wikidata's scope, unless the community says otherwise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know when, we are going to switch to global user pages, I don't know what. --Ricordisamoa 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny to see that there are no arguments at all against using Wikidata for linking user pages. Only 'it is out of the scope of Wikidata'. Is this North Korea? Erik Wannee (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that the community would see that as an acceptable use of Wikidata, post at the project chat. But the fact that earlier consensus said that doesn't make this site totalitarian - consensus can change, so you shouldn't be afraid to make a proposal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

An argument: Wikidata is a global database, not a list of links; instead, we should consider to have only one global userpage.--Ricordisamoa 06:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

But do we really want to translate every user page in all languages?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I read a lot of 'framing here, but not a single good argument not handle interwiki's for user pages in the same way as we do for articles, categories, templates, etc. Can someone give me at least one good example why WikiData would be harmed, if we treat userpages the same as all other pages? Edoderoo (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think of a pollution of the database: Wikidata is also for interwiki links, but mainly a database; how would be thousands/millions of items of userpages useful to everyone? --Ricordisamoa 09:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason why is because the community said so, primarily due to the fact that there will be universal user pages at some point in the near/far future. Until that time, you are free to maintain "your" interwiki links on your user pages, as you have been able to do since interwiki links were introduced. As before, you are free to start a proposal at WD:Project chat or at WD:RFC if you want to change it, but my feeling is that your proposal will fail. --Izno (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What a strange idea to state that a page should be usefull to everyone to admit it to Wikidata. If the same criterium was used in the case of Wikipedia-articles, then we would have to delete the vast majority of them. Many times when I write a new article, the only two things I ask myself is: will I enjoy doing the research and writing the article, and wil it be beneficial or usefull to at least someone? I think that's more in line with the general idea of Wikipedia. Further, I don't see how an English reader will profit from reading my Dutch universal user page and I think a lot of Dutch readers will not be happy if my user page will be translated into a universal English user page. I do have several userpages (one on several projects) because of the language barrier. I don't see how that barrier will be brought down, seeing how bad a job the translation programs (like Google translate or Babel fish) do. Wikiklaas (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You can simply create a global userpage at Meta, translate it with {{LangSwitch}}, then {{Softredirect}} to it all your userpages. --Ricordisamoa 12:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is my user page on the Dutch Wikipedia, containing explanations and backgrounds on things I specifically do on that language version of the project. It would be totally useless as a global userpage. I can imagine that at some point in time I would feel like creating a similar kind of page for the English Wikipedia and for Species and Commons, containing different subjects though. I'm quite curious how LangSwitch and Softredirect are going to handle that. Using Wikidata seems to be so much easier. Wikiklaas (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

For clarity: LangSwitch (in this case) is just a way to combine several userpages into one, very long, very unwieldy page. I took a look at the Softredirect template and I didn't understand a bit of it. If I don't get it, there will be quite some others who would be very well able to use different user pages on different projects, linking them with Wikidata, but cannot create the same result with Softredirect. Wikiklaas (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If users want a specific adapted user page for each project, a global user page is useless.

We have millions of articles of Wikipedia's, those aren't either useful for everyone.

If someone wants to know on what other pages someone has a user page or is active, then Wikidata can work fine with that. I see no objections for having a user page in Wikidata. Romaine (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, the community decided it. You are free to go to WD:RFC and reopen the issue, but as I said before, I do not think the community will appreciate that. --Izno (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there are many people here that can speak only one language and think that every non-English language is only trivial. So why having user pages in other languages? They probably don't understand the need for different user pages in different languages, let alone that they could be easily interconnected by Wikidata software.

So I think we'll have to mobilise a lot of multilingual people to vote for a change to this useless policy. Erik Wannee (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I speak five languages kind of fluently, but I do not see why we should store user pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to explain to you, if you really don't understand it. (If you don't want to understand, it won't help): People (like me) who work on Wikipedia/Wikimedia in more than one language often like to have a user page on all those language Wikis. If you maintain them, it is of some importance to follow the watching pages on them. Then it is very practical to be able to jump from one user page to the other and check what's happening there. That's why they invented interwikilinks, isn't it? So then you'll have to add interwikilinks to all other language versions of your user page. And if you add a new user page, you have to add an interwiki link on all other pages to that new one. Hey! didn't they recently build a new and very practical tool to make that much easier? If you understand what Wikidata does with interwikilinks, you will understand this. Then the question is if this kind of use will harm Wikimedia. Does it cost more memory space? No! Does it harm anyone? I wouldn't think so. Does it help someone? Yes! So why not using it? Only because a majority says that Wikidata 'is not meant for this' (?). So then there is only one option to change this: make the majority decide that there is nothing against using Wikidata on user pages. Erik Wannee (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As I and others have said above, you should feel free to make a proposal. However, it's quite likely that the community's consensus won't change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking people to come and !vote support on a proposal is likely considered to be canvassing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Erik Wannee, this, at least to me, is inappropriate canvassing. You may open a thread at Wikidata:Project chat, but you may not canvass another community for support.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is to you, but I feel free to tell Dutch people what is going on on another project. They are free to see what's going on and to decide whether to vote for or against, or not to join the discussion at all. Meanwhile, I started the discussion on the project chat page. Erik Wannee (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I consider this a very weak discussion, the onliest thing that some users seem to mention as con is that it has been discussed before. Please repeat it some more times and people get really pissed of about it. Romaine (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And it is still strange that that we allow Category:Wikipedians interested in photography as item, also Template:User page as item, while this isn't either for the benefit of every user. User pages are pages that are meant to inform other users about Wikipedia-related aspects of working on projects and aren't that much different from the category and template I put here as example. There are many more of it... Romaine (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get it at the end. On my user page on left side i has tool which says "add links". So i am doing these add link as a standard wiki-tool to add link to my page. This linkage is done through my page with wikipedia provided tools. If we cannot add links to user pages - why do we have such tool on user page which adds links through wikidata?Lola Rennt (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Template for notability exemptions

Since we have an increasing amount of specific exemptions from this policy, I've created {{Notability exemption}}. The first parameter can be set to a link to a discussion exempting the page, if such a discussion exists. It also automatically categorizes pages into Category:Notability policy exemptions. Enjoy! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability question

If multiple books by a single author have Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items, but the author does not have a Wikipedia article, would it be appropriate to create a Wikidata item for the author so that the books could link to a single author item via a statement? 28bytes (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We were discussing this at some point, and, even though there was no consensus (as far as I remember), the majority was leaning towards the viewpoint that this is permissible. May be it is a good time to reopen.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have created a test case: Q11589914. No Wikipedia entries for this person, but two Wikidata items link to him. He also has entries both the GND and VIAF databases. 28bytes (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

items for subtemplates and other junk data

I recently stumbled upon a bunch of problematic items that were created by a bot from pages in the template namespace of en.wiki. A typical example is Q7657318 which corresponds to en:Template:Cork Socialist Party/meta/shortname, a template whose sole function is to return the words "Cork Socialist Party". I requested the deletion of the item on the grounds that this was clearly not sufficiently interesting to warrant a Wikidata item but the deletion was turned down by Ymblanter on the grounds that "it is not up to Wikidata to decide whether there is any interest in this template". But if Wikidata doesn't decide if a template is interesting enough to have its own item on Wikidata then who decides this?

Now you might wonder why I came upon this template. I'm trying to add descriptions to articles with highly ambiguous labels and I searched for "Socialist Party". The search returns dozens of similar en.wiki pages which are not true templates but auxiliary templates used by other templates such as Q6704459 and Q6732785. A few days ago, I successfully requested the deletion of a handful of items one of which corresponded to a testcase in the template space. These completely clog up the search results and I don't see why we'd want to keep this junk on Wikidata. They're too technical to have equivalents in other languages and I can't see any interesting statement that could be made about these items.

We need to decide whether we really want every page of the template space to have an item on Wikidata. I think the only reasonable answer is that we don't want an item for every template space page but the question is where do we set the bar. I think template documentation pages, temp templates, testcases and so on should all be excluded and at the very least should never be added in bulk by a bot. Sk!d (whose bot added the items above) has suggested limiting templates to those which exist on more that one wiki and I think it's a good approximation of what we want. Pichpich (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

We should exclude those subtemplates. We have 286 Wikipedias, and if we add every small subtemplates, it does not make sense. We need some restrictions. --Stryn (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Exception for Special:Watchlist

Interwiki can be added to the Watchlist. See: sv:MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary.

I propose a new item for Special:Watchlist. See: Q6293548 for the existing one for RecentChanges, as reference. -- Lavallen (block) 18:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Exception for titles of rulers, nobles, peers and chivalric orders

I'd like to suggest we allow an exception to the notability policy requiring sitelinks for real (extant and extinct) titles of monarchs, nobles and peers as well as titles used by members of chivalric orders. It was suggested that these should be MultilingualText values for properties but the titles can be used by tens, dozens or hundreds of different people so obviously adding translations for each property isn't the best approach, the translations should be kept and maintained in one place/item and re-used across many different items. This change would allow for creation of empty items like

• Queen of Spain / Reine d'Espagne / Königin von Spanien
• Duke of Angoulême / Duc d'Angoulême / Herzog von Angoulême
• Count Palatine of Burgundy / Comte palatin de Bourgogne / Pfalzgraf von Burgund
• Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece / Chevalier de l'ordre de la Toison d'or / Ritter des Ordens vom Goldenen Vlies

etc. In many cases there will already be an item for "list of" title holders or a single gender form of the title, so these empty items can then be linked to using properties such as list of and part of, see for example Dame of the Order of Australia. /Ch1902 (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 Support but which property should the title holders use? P:P166? or a new property? --Stevenliuyi (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for something existing I would recommend "Office held" whatever code it is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Support. Makes sense. We can undelete Property:P97 (noble title). Superm401 - Talk 02:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I should have thought more before requesting its deletion, but the deleting admin said he can undelete if there was a problem. /Ch1902 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes we could use P97, but maybe we should change the label to something like "royal, noble and chivalric title" since "noble title" cannot cover all cases.--Stevenliuyi (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 Support Could be useful to have both a property for the title-page and one for the "list of persons with title"-page. -- Lavallen (block) 06:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think "list of person with the title" would be useful. In many cases, that would be 100s of people, and that can be obtained through a very simple query. --Zolo (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox of Countries on svwp, there are links to the article of: "List of chief of states/chief of goverments of {{PAGENAME}}". I do not think any Wikipedia has any article of "List of queens of Belize" yet, since it only contains one person, but an item for it would be nice. -- Lavallen (block) 15:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

An easy way to get the list would be nice, but that is the point of queries. I do not think we need an item for this. --Zolo (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Neutral. It probably makes sense, but I would prefer better general rules than keeping on piling up exceptions. If any one has good suggestions for that... --Zolo (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

A general rule would be good. I don't have any good suggestions, but the issue of individual items from Wikipedia lists (people, books, films, etc) is likely to come up again and again... /Ch1902 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a rather vague suggestion at the Village Pump, I think that would make sense, as precise solutions may not be feasible. --Zolo (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment there are several aspects here, some could be conflated or not

• office held where someone holds a position with specific authority/power; often associated with hereditary titles (historically)
• hereditary titles usually had rights granted; initially a granted honour, though hereditary. Here you probably should consider whether you wish to include consort positions (some of the queens of), or whether the spouse field is sufficient; and
• granted honours for deeds done, person of influence, which establish notability of the person; generally not hereditary, though titled positions were; comment chivalric would be part of these, however for the modern connotation it is broader than the older concept.

 — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Complicated indeed! I don't think a one-property solution would work, even with qualifiers (which are coming in the next two weeks I read somwhere) the fields are too broad to cover with one property. As I see it:

• office held is good for political (whether elected or appointed) offices (Prime Ministers, Presidents, Senators, etc). Monarchs are a grey area as they are usually heads of state, but not normally elected and don't often hold any real power (in the modern era at least). I think it would be better for monarchs to have P39 => Head of State (where appropriate) and then P97 => King of X for example.
• award received is used for things like Nobel Prize and Academy Award, but could be extended to "honours, orders, medals and decorations" like the Order British Empire, Croix de Guerre, Congressional Medal of Honour, etc. Perhaps change the name or description to be a little more inclusive?
• noble title should be used for any royal or noble titles, with qualifiers to determine queen consorts vs queen regnants, life peerages, titles by right of marriage etc.

In any case, all 3 properties are Item types so we need items without sitelinks, which seems to have support, and they'll be well linked to other items so meet "general" notability. As long as Hazard-Bot doesn't go on a RFD spree I'm happy! --Ch1902 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are also religious titles, such as Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Dalai Lama, etc. Is it appropriate to use "office held"? --Stevenliuyi (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. As they are appointed offices with authority over people in their organisations, I would categorise them under P39 too. --Ch1902 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So what was the decision on which of the properties where to be used and in which way. It is okay to change the criteria about notability, but the properties need to exist, and the direction with examples need to be given.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I just was lazy and did "instance of" for Q5975278 and someone would do well correct, and think about how we inform.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have undeleted P:P97 since here is a consensus. --Stevenliuyi (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. An aligned question is the guidance that we are going to give for the labels for people with noble titles/peerages. This bloke was William Mansfield, 1st Baron Sandhurst (with the peerage only for the last six years of his life), and then we have the son who inherited the peerage at his father's death. So what are the labels? the son would be either "William Mansfield, 1st Viscount Sandhurst" or "William Mansfield" with the remainder put into the description, and now also assigned to other statements. Noting that during that life, for 0 < 20 he was William Mansfield, 20 < 62 Baron Mansfield, and 62 < 66 Viscount Mansfield.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Exception for specific models without individual articles

I propose that it should be notable for a significant model to have a Wikidata item, even if it does not have a Wikipedia article. For example instead of relying on "Boeing 737" we should be able to use "Boeing 737-800." I think the notability criteria should include that it must have significantly different specifications or be chronologically distinct. This will become increasing important as DataValue is finally added as the Boeing 737-100 has a range of 1770mi and the 900ER a range of 6340mi Macadamia1472 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Exceptions for a consistent ontology usage

Hello,
I think that we should authorize item creation in order to keep a consistent ontology usage. For example, we can have:

• Marcel Proust <instance of> writer

But not

• Muhammad Ali <instance of> boxer

Currently, boxer does not exist because on Wikipedia, there is only a redirect from boxer to boxing. The distinction between the 2 notions is not necessary on Wikipedia, but it should be mandatory on Wikidata.
Therefore, I suggest this modification on the notability exception: As an exception to the above rules, sourced items may be created without a Wikipedia article if, and only if, they

• match one of the default notability criteria (detailed below), or
• can be connected to at least one other Wikidata item (that is, orphan items without an associated Wikipedia article authorized if is connected to an item associated to a Wikipedia article)

--Gloumouth1 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That is really needed, but I think the only way to do not get bogged in a mire of exceptions is to adopt general, though rather vague rules like those suggest by Bene* in WD:PC#A new default notability criteria.

I am using the occasion to mention the pirates/piracy interwiki conflict. Wikipedias usually have only one article, named either pirate or piracy. Splitting into two items seems like the natural way to go, but that would complicate interwiki-linking while the content is actually very similar across languages. --Zolo (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we propagate mistakes or approximations done in Wikipedia? I don't think so. If a Wikipedia does not accept some interwiki links that Wikidata has, it can either override them, or clarify its articles content.--Gloumouth1 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From a database perspective, it makes very much sense to distinguish between pirates and piracy, but from a human reader, that may not matter that much. Most people looking for info about piracy are likely to be interested in both the practice and its practicioners and splitting that into two separate articles might actually make things less readable. But ok, that sort of thing should rather be handled in Wikipedias than in Wikidata. --Zolo (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I, as a human reader, care. If someone is a textile worker I don't accept "he is textile industry". We should start with occupations (Property:P106). See above: Thread "occupation". --Kolja21 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I was just saying that an article about pirates and one about piracy may be sufficiently similar that an interwiki makes sense to a human reader.

Just in case it helps with labels: we have quite a few occupations translated in Commons ([1]). --Zolo (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if one should be using the occupation property with items like "boxing".

In the meantime, I'm relying on wikidata useful with a selection of "actor|singer|lawyer|writer|painter|sculptor|politician" ;) --  Docu  at 17:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Create_items_for_occupations. --Zolo (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! So anyone against adding:

Occupations (if used as item for Property:P106)

--Kolja21 (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. To make it easy to identify them, it might help if they'd all use a common property, e.g. Property:P279 (subclass of) with q28640 (profession).

To avoid unneeded drama as here or there, you might want to wait a few days before adding it. --  Docu  at 02:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I support this, but it should be an instance of profession. See Talk:Q28640. boxer is a profession. Subclass of means "all of these items are instances of those items". All boxers are not professions. Also, I think occupation (P106) is more specific than instance of on the person themselves: Muhammad Ali <occupation> boxer. Superm401 (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Q28640#Educational_training. Superm401 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Superm401, that description of subclass of (P279) could probably be more precise. Instances are basically tokens, i.e. things with a unique location in space and time. The domain and range of P279 are confined to classes. This is a class in the ontological sense -- i.e. a type, an abstract object, a concept. Because they are classes and not instances, I don't think it makes sense to classify 'boxing' and other concepts that can be professions or hobbies with instance of (P31). (Also, I would assert that virtually all professions can also be hobbies; "occupation" is a broader concept that seems to encompass both.) Emw (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  I said boxer is a profession, not boxing is a profession. Taking that help page literally, neither instance of nor subclass of is appropriate. The help page (though not the 'instance of' property or property talk page) says the instance must be concrete. The help page doesn't provide a new definition of subclass of, though. It says, "all instances of class X belong to class Y" and "instances of X are also instances of Y". No matter which you use, boxer and profession fails. "all instances of class 'boxer' belong to class 'profession'" is clearly not true. Muhammad Ali does not belong to class 'profession'. "Instances of 'boxer' are also instances of 'profession'" has the same problem. Based on the actual property descriptions, I still think 'instance of' is a better fit here. However, it may be that a third property is necessary. Superm401 - Talk 04:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, there is a type mismatch. occupation ⊂ activity, boxer ⊂ person. If we follow logic rather than natural language, boxer is neither an instance nor a subclass of occupation, though boxing is a subclass of occupation.--Zolo (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  Alright, given you agree neither are ideal, for now I'm going to keep using instance of. If people want to change that, perhaps we should have a better-advertised discussion. It was discussed briefly before at the profession talk page. Superm401 - Talk 06:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• The appropriate claims are 'boxer' instance of 'person' and 'boxing' subclass of 'occupation'. Claims that people are subclasses of profession are indeed not true; they're invalid. While 'instance' and 'class' aren't rigorously defined on the property talk pages, the examples given there and the help page seem sufficient to clarify how P31 and P279 relate to the questions in this section. 'Boxer' is not a profession (nor an occupation), it is a person who has an occupation of 'boxing'. Could you explain how you think Help:Basic_membership_properties indicates 'instance of' and 'subclass of' are inappropriate, and what you mean by that? What's the rationale for having a third property? Emw (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ships

Commons has a fairly extensive database on ships. Not all of them have articles in Wikipedia though. To build items for these at Commons, we'd need to add "ships with a category at Commons" to the default notability criteria. --  Docu  at 17:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. --Guerillero | Talk 23:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok for me. --  Docu  at 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Default notability criteria: recipient of notable award or honour

To make this a default notability criteria would allow us, to fully import public databases and lists (like http://www.ordens.presidencia.pt/?idc=153) with vaild source information, even if so far no article about the recipient exists. -- 79.168.51.74 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

New guideline

Per various discussions, I have proposed a new version Wikidata:Notability. See WD:PC#Notability of items. --Zolo (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed the guidelines, per PC's discussion. I removed the details of exclusion criteria from the page, as they are already listed in another page. It is a rather ugly list of very limited reelevance for most readers, I think it is better to just have a link for them than cluttering a page that is supposed to give general guidelines. --Zolo (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Subpages in projectspace

I don't believe we have a consensus to exclude or include pages such as Q11086668, user-specific subpages of Wikipedia: namespace pages. (As opposed to something like en:WP:ANI, a projectspace subpage that serves a general purpose.) Personally, I'm inclined to say we should exclude them. Thoughts? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If the projects wants to have iw-links between such pages, they can solve it with traditional iw-links. Do not spread such pages to projects (like wd) who are not involved! -- Lavallen (block) 08:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Wikidata could be usefull for different purposes in the whole Mediawiki ecosystem, to store data for example. The problems it solves for Wikipedias and knowledge exists also outside of it, I wonder why we should avoid using a good and consistent solution to solve them, Interwikis for example. But we would need a clear way to classify items (a namespace for wikimedia related items ? ontology tricks ?) that are not pure "knowledge items" (and properties) but mediawiki items or item that are there to solve pure technical or annex problems. I think it would be a good thing to leave a door open and to see what wikimedians can do with this, maybe with a warning which could look like "Wikidatains will not maintain items in this namespace". TomT0m (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no value in WD managing interlanguage links of subpages in wiki project space, they are solely a local management issue. PinkAmpersand's suggestion to exclude them and utilise standard interlanguage links is the way to manage these. They have worked well so far.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say use your best judgement. For this page, I would say exclude it (and we should probably have some kind of formal rule), but I don't see a reason to exclude in other specific circumstances. For instance, on en.wiki there is "Wikipedia:List of administrators", but on another language wikipedia, they keep it as a subpage of the "Wikipedia:Administrators" equivalent page. That's not exactly like this example, but a complete bar on subpages here might not be needed. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with best judgement as well, but am also leery of not having some guidance. Maybe not on this page though? --Izno (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say that we should exclude this kind of pages. How about document pages (Q13462945)? --Stryn (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hindi translation (हिन्दी अनुवाद)

I would like to know where is the Hindi translation of this page because it doesn't show on the list. If Hindi page doesn't exist till now then please let me know the instructions, I would like to translate it. lang-hi --Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If it does not show in the list, it is most likely because it does not exist. Just click on "translate this page", just below the page title. Let us know if there is something wrong. --Zolo (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One more thing. "Just click on "translate this page", just below the page title." - this works if Hindi is set as the default language in your preferences --Michgrig (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Select from list or Enter name to call

Thanks for letting me know. But even till now I am not able to do it. I am writting the translation here line to line. Please upload it if you can.

---

Wikidata:Notability == विकिडाटा:उल्लेखनीयता

Note that the guidelines below are intentionally left a bit vague. In case of disagreement over the notability of an item, you can launch a request for deletion. The final decision is always up to the community. == ध्यान दें कि नीचे दिए गए दिशानिर्देश जानबूझकर थोड़े से असपष्ट छोड़े गए हैं। किसी विषय की उल्लेखनीयता में असहमति की स्थिति में आप उसे हटाने के लिए अनुरोध कर सकते हैं। अन्तिम निर्णय सदैव समुदाय पर निर्भर रहेगा।

Wikidata has two main goals: to centralize interlanguage links across Wikipedias and to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfils at least one of these two goals, that is if it meets at least one of the criteria below: == विकिडाटा के दो मुख्य लक्ष्य हैं: सभी विकिपीडियाओं की अंतरभाषा कड़ियों के केंद्रीकरण करने के लिए और सामान्य ज्ञान के रूप में परिवेषण के लिए वृहत पैमाने पर एक आधार है। कोई अंश स्वीकार्य होगा यदि और केवल यदि यह निम्नलिखित दो लक्ष्यों में से कम से कम एक को परिपूर्ण करता हो, मतलब यह है कि यदि यह निम्न में से किसी एक से मेल खाता है:

It contains at least one valid sitelink to a Wikipedia page. == यह किसी विकिपीडिया पर कम से कम एक वैध साईटलिंक (स्थलसूत्र) पृष्ठ समाविष्ट करता है।

To be valid a link must not be a talk page, nor a MediaWiki page, nor a special page, nor a user page, nor a subtemplate.[1][2] Note that a single Wikipedia page cannot have more than one sitelink in Wikidata and that a sitelink cannot point to a redirect.[3] == यह वैध पृष्ठ ना ही तो वार्ता पृष्ठ, ना ही मीडियाविकी पृष्ठ, ना ही विशेष पृष्ठ, ना ही सदस्य पृष्ठ और ना ही उप-साँचा होना चाहिए।<ref|>टिप्पणी के लिए अनुरोध: गैर लेख पृष्ठों का समावेश</ref|><ref|>टिप्पणी के लिए अनुरोध: गैर लेख पृष्ठों का समावेश २</ref|> ध्यान रहे एकल विकिपीडिया पृष्ठ विकिडाटा पर एक से अधिक स्थलसूत्र पृष्ठ नहीं रख सकते और यह स्थलसूत्र पृष्ठ अनुप्रेषित नहीं किया जा सकता। .<ref|>वर्त्तमान में, जनसाधारण ने अनुप्रेषित करने को अनुमति देते हुए चुना है, यद्दपि आवश्यक परिवर्तनों को विकिपीडिया पर अभिनियोजित करना अभी बाकी है।</ref|>

It refers to a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. If there is no item about you yet, you are probably not notable. == यह स्पष्ट वैचारिक अभिज्ञेय अथवा सामग्री सत्व को सन्दर्भित करता है। सत्व प्रसिद्ध भी होना चाहिए, संवेदन यह है कि यह सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्द्ध स्रोत सहित सन्दर्भों का उपयोग करते हुए वर्णित किया जा सकता है। यदि आपसे सम्बंधित कोई विषय अभी तक उपलब्द्ध नहीं है तो सम्भवतया आप प्रसिद्ध नहीं हो।

It fulfils some structural need, i.e. it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful. == यह कुछ संरचनात्मक आवश्यकताओं को पूर्ण करता है, अर्थात यह अन्य विषयों को और अधिक उपयोगी बनाने के लिए आवश्यक कथनों को बनाता है।

See also == ये भी देखें

• विकिडाटा:उल्लेखनीयता/बहिष्करण मापदण्ड, विकिपीडिया पृष्ठों की एक सूची है जिसका कोई विषय विकिडाटा पर नहीं होना चाहिए।
• विकिडाटा:उल्लेखनीयता/समावेश मापदण्ड, विषयों की सूची जिसे उपरोक्त व्यापक दिशानिर्देशों के अनुसार स्वीकार्य माना गया है।

References == सन्दर्भ --Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, it seems that you had put everything in the same thing, while translations should be done by small pieces [2]. --Zolo (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for completing it. I never used to have this knowledge. I thought it is simple as wikipedia page. --Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Exclusion of local files

I change it because there is a consensus for exclusion of local files that are already available on Commons in Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inclusion of non-article pages 2.--GZWDer (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project chat#Wikivoyage notability

Please see the discussion. --Rschen7754 23:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 2

I think criterion 2 needs to be tightened up, pursuant to the discussions that have been held at User talk:Izno#Q13533837, User talk:King jakob c 2##Please STOP your RfD-vandalism!, and now at WD:RFD#Q14178918 (by the way, I believe the IP to be the same as the editor there in question). My feeling is that "any sourced entity which is sourced" is not a sufficient criterion in order to build Wikidata in a meaningful way. Failing the structural need imposed by item 3, or the external need imposed by item 2, either criterion 2 should "go away" or it should be significantly restricted. Are there others' thoughts? --Izno (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So ...goodbye to the idea of Wikidata becoming a universal database for all human knowledge? The idea of Wikidata still is to become a repository for complete datasets. Here, in this example, we try to implement a full database of the recipients of the German Order of Merit in Wikidata. This is a clear conceptual frame and surely Wikidata is the right place for this project, as we refer in our local project de:WP:WPBVK on those data. -- Task Force BVK (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

At what point does it stop? According to the guidelines as is, you could create an item for every house in London and claim that they are structurally needed to build a database of London houses. You could create an item for every animal in the Bronx Zoo and claim that they are structurally relevant because you're making a database of animals in the Bronx Zoo. It's this circular argument we need to fix. Right now, our notability policy doesn't distinguish well between what is truly notable and "everything can have an item so long as it's linked to another item". The major problem right now is the lack of any ability to source statements in Wikidata (beyond "imported from Wikipedia"). This sourcing feature should have been completed much earlier in the project's history. Another difficulty that arises from items with no Wikipedia links is that it makes finding duplicates even more difficult than it is right now. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The recipients of an Order of Merit are hardly to compare with the animals in the Bronx Zoo. Actually to this group of people notability is given in most of the Wikipedia versions. -- Task Force BVK (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

+1. Wikidata is not only the database of Wikipedia, contrary to what some administrators think. Pyb (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

+1 from me. --Nightwish62 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In contrast to Bronx zoo animals, there are already 12000 (!) Wikipedia articles from this category. Even if these are only 5%, why not adding the rest here? In contrast to most of the other items here, they have already a source! Another example: From the >1100 high level taxa defined in A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes (Q13416674), 95% of all items were existing as some Wikipedia had a corresponding article. Why not add the 80 remaining items to be able to state that all taxa this scientific article recognizes are available in Wikidata?  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Liangent-bot is currently adding thousands of items on villages in China, without any equivalent in any Wikipedia version. If we would follow Izno, also item Q14000000, announced on the front page, had to be deleted. -- Task Force BVK (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that "any sourced entity which is sourced" is not a sufficient criterion in order to build Wikidata in a meaningful way. You will have to argument a little bit your feeling to convince me. Wikidata is a database, I can't see why we should refuse data just for that reason. What is a database with incomplete data (see comments of other about domain completion with similar items) good for ? TomT0m (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the notability criteria are: You simple can't delete a single item from a larger group which is designated to be used for a phase III list. This completely destroys everything. It would even give a wrong number of total holders of the German Order of Merit. You already though about that? An extreme example: Just deleting Benjamin Harrison would lead that Barack Obama becomes to the 43rd president of the USA. Hooray! The same is for other items which are used for lists. --Nightwish62 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to pick up this topic again. Currently, criterion 2 basically means "If there's a source describing it, there can be an item for it in Wikidata". There are no clear restrictions made on what is seen as a valid source, except that it has to be "serious" (how serious? Do we require it to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific magazine or is a blog enough, as long as it's not obvious SEO-spam?) and "publicly available" (so excluding my personal diary and the talk I recently had with person X, but still including any tweet and possibly any grafitti on the wall). So far, okay, that's the way to create a database about everything of at least some importance, surely allowing hundreds of millions of items. But the second sentence in criterion 2 is "If there is no item about you yet, you are probably not notable", suggesting that we already have items for most of all notable objects, and so basically that virtually only those objects are notable for Wikidata that are notable for any Wikipedia (as almost all of our items fulfill criterion 1 as of now, for obvious reasons). This also is kind of understandable, preventing being flooded with items that nobody will ever use or maintain. However, I fail to get the two sentences of criterion 2 together, they seem to be contradictory to me (and if the second sentence wins the fight, criteria 1 and 3 would better stand alone, without having another rule bringing uncertainity.) --YMS (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Exclusion of category redirects

On most wikipedias, redirected category titles are technically handled as category pages using a special template rather than through the ordinary #REDIRECT method. But for all intents and purposes, they are redirects and therefore never deserving of their own Wikidata item. However, many bots have created such items, for example the utterly useless Q13236936 which should now be deleted. I propose that we use a bot to remove the thousands of links to pages in en:Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories, es:Categoría:Wikipedia:Categorías redirigidas, fr:Catégorie:Catégorie redirigée and so on. It might also be worth pointing out the problem to bot operators so that similar items are not created in future imports. Mergehappy (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Support No different from ordinary redirects. I think I've even nominated a few for deletion already. —Ruud 00:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

 Support to exclude items for category pages which use a category redirect template from Template:Category redirect (Q5828850). Byrial (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Erg. I thought I deleted most of these a while back...are bots re-creating them? Legoktm (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what "a while back" means. Sk!dbot created a bunch in mid-May for instance both from en.wiki such as Q13243190 and from es.wiki such as Q13317447. Also this one Category:United Arab Emirates (Q9902551) from hu.wiki is from April and is due to Legobot! :-) Mergehappy (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

 Support I simply agree. Recenty (7 August) i nominated Q13264953 for deletion for that reason. --Jklamo (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

 Support --Rippitippi (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

 Support Filceolaire (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

 Support --DangSunM (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Graves

I have accumulate a lot of data about graves of the Cemetery Père-Lachaise on Wikimedia Commons. Eg. commons:Category:Grave of Adolphe Eude. I would like to import those data in Wikidata. May I create an item for each grave ? According to the criterion 2, it's accepted. There is a lot of publications about graves of this cemetery. Pyb (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@Pyb: Outside WMF projects, I'm working with the EAGLE project, which is about Latin and Ancient Greek inscriptions. I don't think it will be possible to have one item for every inscription they have translated or at least identificated, as well as one item for each grave. This is why I strongly suggest you to wait for this discussion to reach a conclusion.

My idea is that those kind of info should be integrated with the file itself, and not here on Wikidata - but the Commons info repository can be substained by Wikidata. Let's make an example: you have [[File:Adolphe Eude grave.jpg]], which will have the info page [[File:Adolphe Eude grave.jpg/Info]], which will work as a Wikidata item (properties, values, stuff). I think that it is very likely to have, for example, a property "image topic" in which could be inserted a link to Adolphe Eude. Hope I made sense. :) --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see these graves in wikidata, then it becomes possible to link to them from Openstreetmap.org.

Polyglot (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

More than one sitelink in Wikidata

The sentence "Note that a single Wikimedia page cannot have more than one sitelink in Wikidata" is not compatible with the decision to create Wikidata entries not by item but by type of the page. If the Wikidata entries would be really defined by item, the article Prague should be directly linked with identic Wikidata item as the category Prague. Commons category must generally be linked equally to both a Wikipedia article and a category of its item. A typical Commons category must link to two Wikidata entries ("items"), some types of categories to three Wikidata entries (not only to the definition article but also to the list article). --ŠJů (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it might be "compatible" if one also requires that links cannot be made between pages of different types. Of course that would highly incompatible with interwiki linking practice on Commons, making Wikidata pretty useless for one of its main purposes. --Avenue (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Wikimedians who have a category in Commons

I do think that Wikimedians who only have a category in Commons are not notable enough to have own items on Wikidata. I just saw Q15080927 and Special:Undelete/Q15077676. The latter has been deleted because it was empty of categories, but also he has an category in Commons. --Stryn (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

How does this relate to notability? There are only very few printed books Jimbo is an author or a cooauthor. Some people are publishing in ISSN type publications as magazines etc. some genius chess children get notable before the age of ten. What is the problem with Gerard? לערי ריינהארט (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking notability of Gerard, I'm asking commonly notability of Wikimedians. I don't want to see items of every Wikimedians who are in commons:Category:Wikipedians. Also I would be notable then... --Stryn (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedians who authored an image should have an item, it will be necessary for structural reasons to attribute the authorship of the artwork. TomT0m (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

..."authored an image". About what images you're talking about? About all pictures which are in Commons? --Stryn (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't they deserve that we wan put a statement that express it's a personal work of them ? TomT0m (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We can put a link to the user page, no need to make an item for every Wikimedians. --Stryn (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this would be a problem, and that would be consistent with how we do things here. This would also allow to make linkx between user pages on different Wikimedia project, store a few thing about the user as his website, its other works and so on. TomT0m (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention it's babel preferences ... TomT0m (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

translations page

these pages certainly do not need interwiki.--GZWDer (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Subpage in namespace Wikipedia (ns4)

Subpages in Wikipedia namespace are accettable? I think not. Probably is better add to lineguide. --ValterVB (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure. There are prehaps some that are notable and others that should not be included in Wikidata. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 21:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the subpage. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

So use common sense is the best solution :) --ValterVB (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

see Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion_criteria.--GZWDer (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons User Category

See also: Wikidata talk:Notability/Exclusion criteria#What should be excluded from Commons?

I think commons user category (i.e. commons:Category:Images by User:Poco a poco, commons:Category:Files by user:분당선M) should be excluded. I am not sure if there is user category items exist. --by Revi레비 at 10:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Ivan A. Krestinin, what didn't you like about my change? I indicated that the source for the change came from a clarification on John's talk page, and then I simply expanded it to all category pages (because that makes sense). It shouldn't change the policy whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, in the RFC many users say that it is bad idea to create huge number of items that contain only Commons category link. All theses items are needed to be deleted after creating technical basis for III variant. So please do not remove this idea from the rule. Or start new RFC if you think that this idea is deprecated. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The difference between the previous rule on this page and my proposed change does not appear to speak about that fact either way. You are reading too much meaning into the previous version of the text, it seems, as it also is silent on whether new items should be created. In fact, I considered but chose not to add a note that says "create new items as necessary!", as that would have changed the status quo on this page.

That aside, many users also said that it is a good idea and even necessary to implement proposal 6, which was the proposal selected (until such time as proposal 3 can be implemented [mind you, that's probably not until after Wiktionary is integrated, as that wiki faces the same kind of issue]). Your assertion that number 3 is relevant in this case is baseless. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You removed part "... item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed ...", this is important part. Proposal 2+6 has too many reasoned oppose comments. I ask about it John F. Lewis, but he does not answer. Results of 2+6 variant was disabling Commons sitelinks in ruwiki, Wikivoyage, Commons usability degradation die to removing Wikipedia crosslinks and regular conflicts and misunderstandings. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're the one who just removed the important part in your reply – in full: "an item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items". This should unequivocally be interpreted as "main article items should not directly link to categories on Commons"; John's change here makes it clear that you should distinguish between how you are reading it and how it should be interpreted. Your interpretation would be correct if John had not made his change. If you're interpreting it otherwise, that's because the guidelines are unclear, which is why I asked John for clarification on what he meant, and followed it with an edit to amend the guideline.

Your assertions that 2+6 have too many reasoned opposes and that that means they should be discounted or otherwise is irrelevant to the question of whether my edit is correct. --Izno (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

John write this idea very inextricably. So for clarification the original idea the RFC text is needed. You can find that this limit was needed to avoid creation ~1-2 millions items that will be needed to merge after III variant implementation. This idea is mentioned in closure too. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)