Wikidata talk:Notability

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Strange wording about .js

[edit]

> or any page that is intended for TemplateStyles (i. e. suffix that contain ".css" and/or ".js")
I assume .js has nothing to do with TemplateStyles? You can have .js in MediaWiki and User, which are already excluded. JWBTH (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are stores that have very few secondary news articles about them notable?

[edit]

If a new store opens in town or is going to close and an article is written about them does that mean they are deserving of a Wikidata item?

Should we really make an item for every Starbucks that opens in a town and a publication decides to write about? Seems questionable.

Examples:

Lectrician1 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn’t about “deserving” in a moral sense (otherwise our notability criteria would probably look very different). Those items seem to be notable per WD:N #2. Sure, one might wonder if the world is in dire need for those items but you can ask similar questions about probably more than 95% of items. CC @PantheraLeo1359531 as creator. --Emu (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Emu for pinging. For the Concept Store topic: I can say that this is not only about closing, opening, whatsoever. It's not just any store, but was sponsored by the city and a measure of a federal ministry, and became known as far away as Upper Franconia (larger surroundings). It should not be talked about so disrespectfully as if it were just a banal store. In addition, it has many regional products, which makes it relevant in terms of local culture, etc. pp --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IHK also informs there, which is no small institution (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie-_und_Handelskammer) --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Emu and @Lectrician1 for this insightful information.
Can you please elaborate on the criteria specified in section 2 of this project page (Wikidata:Notability)
What types of serious and publicly available references would you accept?
This is in regards to specifically a person entity. ABuddhavarapu (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ABuddhavarapu See User:Emu/Notability. Note however that this is just my interpretation, not some universal guideline. --Emu (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Emu
I have read User:Emu/Notability.
I have updated Wikidata for the item Athreya Buddhavarapu.
I am hoping this now meets notability criteria 1 or 2. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A notability change was suggested and discussed in telegram wikifunctions channel: "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons." -> "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikimedia Commons, or Wikifunctions." WDYT? So9q (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but there ought to be some caveat I think like #7 for Wikidata. Not sure what makes sense for that wiki though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Suggested caveat: "On Wikifunctions, only functions Z8 (not implementations or tests) are allowed as target sitelink."–So9q (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is good enough as we have 3 functions for multiplication of various number types: one for natural numbers, one for signs, one for integers. That is only going to get worse as we get more number types. -- ScienceD90 (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you take multiply two natural numbers Z13539, what value would having a Wikidata item about it provide? What kind of statements would you want to add to it? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See formula for carbon dioxide emissions based on the kg CO2eq ratio and fuel/electric consumed (Q128596152) as an example item for a complex formula linking to units in Wikidata that I created. This was not my idea BTW. Someone suggested using items in the Wikifunctions telegram channel a while back. So9q (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not your idea, I  Oppose. If a person has an idea that a major Wikidata policy should be changed, they should make the case that it should be changed on Wikidata and argue for it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, unfortunately it seems some of the discussions in Telegram never reach this wiki. The community is perhaps divided?
So far nobody has supported it, including members of the telegram community where it was discussed, which is interesting in itself.
The reason I posted here was to see if the community had a reaction to 1) the idea in general 2) the example item I created personally. So9q (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to foundational decisions, I do think it's important that people in ten-years can come back and see why decisions were made the way they are made. Discussion on Telegram doesn't allow for that. Either OnWiki dicussion or discussion in Phabricator does allow for that.
To me the item looks like having all the statements in structured data like WikiCommons would serve the same function and there's no added benefit from having a Wikidata item for it.
One advantage of having statements over at Commons that are distinct from the statements at Wikidata is that federalization allows hosting the statements about Commons items on a separate server. It allows us to store more data overall without getting database sizes problems.
I don't see the fact that it's claimed that the WikiFunctions team currently does not want to develop that functionality at WikiFunctions as a good reason why the data should be hosted on Wikidata directly. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting is that the Wikifunctions community would like to have structured data directly on Wikifunctions ZIDs like commonswiki, but the team declined that and asked us to be creative and find other ways to annotate and find functions easily. So9q (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Wikifunctions team made such a decision, please link to that decision, so that it's possible to read the reasoning for it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm not aware of such a decision having been published anywhere. @DVrandecic (WMF) perhaps knows? So9q (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not that the Wikifunctions community would like to have structured data directly on Wikifunctions ZIDs. There has never been consensus for this, there have just been a few people who said that they would like to have this functionality. --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the "ceb"-Wikipedia from automatic notability

[edit]

We currently have Nuremberg Hgbf (Q42916713)named after (P138)Nuremberg (Q116874675) while Nuremberg Hgbf (Q42916713)located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)Nuremberg (Q2090) which those being two different items for "Nuremberg". Wikidata users don't seem to be able to tell the meaning of the two items apart and I'm not sure whether there's any meaningful distinction. We only have two items because of the bot import in ceb-Wiki from GeoNames and currently can't merge. The new sentence would be "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia (expect Cebuano), Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons." Note, that this won't stop users from ceb-Wiki to add sitelinks to existing Wikidata items. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong support. Didn't User:Ymblanter propose this before? Multichill (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support So9q (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment sec = Cebuano Wikipedia (Q837615)? -- Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Your last sentence suggests that you want to implement some kind of automation (perhaps an abuse filter) as just changing the phrasing in the criteria will not actively stop any users. Is that part of the suggestion, or did you mean that "this won't cause administrators to stop users..." and we are keeping normal processes of vigilantly blocking people creating non-notable items? Ainali (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "vigilantly blocking people creating non-notable items" is an accurate description of our current policy when it comes to blocking people. I don't think we need an abuse filter.
For most topics that people in small Wikipedia's write about there are articles in bigger Wikipedia's about the same topic and sitelinks to the smaller Wikipedia can be added to the bigger one. In any case, where users of ceb-Wiki want Wikidata helps for getting sitelinks, they still get those sitelinks. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong support —Infrastruktur 20. Oct. 2024
 Oppose, in spite of the situation at cebwiki being a mess. The proposal is a dangerous precedent to exclude other inconvenient content as well; it creates plenty of exceptions at various processes; and it is ultimately not enforcable anyways. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, I would expect the main enforcement to be that this justifies that someone runs an bot to merge items like Nuremberg (Q2090) and Nuremberg (Q116874675). In addition, we won't allow bots that automatically create items for pages in ceb-Wiki that don't have items and revert QuickStatements badges that would add those items in bulk.
We already have Wikipedia articles that live in the incubator that have to deal with being unable to be interlinked with Wikidata. What kind of expections do you expect to be problematic? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"we won't allow bots that automatically create items for pages in ceb-Wiki that don't have items"
This does not work, as each bot operator needs to implements this exception into their code, and every one of them will find out by violating this policy change. We will not repeatedly delete large amounts of items just because someone did not notice such a change as proposed. We do not even manage to remove large datasets with questionable notability once they have been imported. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many bot operators do you think we have that create empty items as a result of pages on ceb-Wiki without items? If someone mistakenly creates a bunch of items in violation of policy it's on them to remove them.
When it comes to removing large datasets with questionable notability, I think the issue is largely that there's some people want to remove them while others don't and without a consensus to remove them, we don't remove them. We don't have a bunch of open requests at RfD about deleting large datasets without anyone being willing to do the work to actually delete them.
Having a clear policy that being on ceb-Wiki does not confer notability will make the consensus finding on RfD easier (and admins can feel empowered to delete them even without RfD). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago there was a discussion that ceb-bots created separation between administrative divisions and equivalent(?) populated places. I suppose that there's an opinion that they are indeed different entities. So we should discuss this at first. --Infovarius (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong oppose - I will only support we not to mass import cebwiki page without non-GeoNames identifiers (which will have no bearing with existing entities) - for following reason: (1) Spliting actual natural settlement and specific administrative divisions to two items, even if unorthodox to (most if not all) Wikipedia, has a valid reason. (2) Some databases such as GNS Unique Feature ID (P2326) still maintain this distinction, so even if we does not count cebwiki links as notable, such items are still likely notable for being included in such databases.--GZWDer (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We currently lack a "natural settlement" item and items like Nuremberg (Q116874675) are not listed as such in Wikidata but listed as cities. More problematically, they are actually used in a lot of places where the city is actually supposed to be used. I'm not sure what the phrase "natural settlement" is supposed to mean.
urban agglomeration (Q159313) on the other hand has a quite clear meaning and it's often useful to distinguish it from city (Q515). I can see a "Nuremberg urban area" or "Nuremberg urban agglomeration" item being notable but Nuremberg (Q116874675) is not that item.
Practically, you have many case where you have multiple administrative divisions within one urban area and I'm skeptical that GeoNames has data quality of actually being able to see that it's not two urban areas.
If we take another example that was recently discussed in the project chat Bautzen (Q31906993) and Bautzen (Q14835), they are both administrative entities. They don't split into the clear city/urban area distinction. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bautzen (Q31906993) has GeoNames type PPLA3 which is one type of PPL (populated place), so it is different from Bautzen (Q14835) (administrative entities). For example the start date of Bautzen (Q14835) is when this specific administrative town is established, and the start date of Bautzen (Q31906993) is when this town is settled (no later than 1002). And if all local government in Germany is dissolved Bautzen (Q14835) will no longer exists (new administrative entities will be created in place of it), but Bautzen (Q31906993) will continue to exist as long as the town is not abandoned.
TLDR: a city/settlement/populated place will exist even if all local governments are dissolved, but an administrative entity can not. Natural cities are much more stable than administrative entities.--GZWDer (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What population do you consider the settlement/city/populated place of Paris to have and how do you draw that line? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the settlement of Paris" can have different number of population depends on determination method.--GZWDer (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I understand the rationale of it, but I wonder in what sense it is reasonable to extend the geographical mess at cebwiki to a "not notable" declaration of all ceb-only items. For instance the problems with taxon items at cebwiki are quite similar to some other wikis. --Lymantria (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other Wikis did not have a million taxon items with bot articles added, but most of those taxons should be notable for other reasons anyway. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 08:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The taxon problems may have lower count at other wikis (although svwiki, viwiki, warwiki have large numbers as well), the types of problems are similar (mostly importing errors from external databases). Another example: if we strictly follow the proposal, ceb-only category items would become not notable. I just don't think the proposal approach is the right thing to do. --Lymantria (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per MisterSynergy and Lymantria --Ameisenigel (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Notability&oldid=2268384932"