Wikidata talk:Notability: Difference between revisions

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

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

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

I am unable to find discussion about the notability of bachelor's thesis and master's thesis. At first glance, I may guess that these are not notable, but we have massive items of them. If a thesis has DOI-code, it is suitable for Wikidata. If we really keep these thesis (without DOI-code) it means that theirs authors meets WD:Notability ('structural need'), but it would be superclutter for Wikidata? Estopedist1 (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure even a DOI should count as reason to create an item for these. Do you have rough numbers on how many of these we have now? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth including if they have been cited? Also, perhaps, if the author has become a noted public figure? Jheald (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith@Jheald:

1. as far I know then the DOI identifier makes the item pass WD:Notability.
2. backlinks for bachelor's thesis (Q798134) are 395 + redirects
3. backlinks for master's thesis (Q1907875) are 45,000 + redirects
4. not sure about citing
5. if a person itself meets WD:Notability then maybe his/her master's thesis is worth of mentioning, but sometimes there may be co-authors, and these should be already infoclutter if standalone items will be made

Estopedist1 (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some universities like the University of Vienna (Q165980) issue DOIs for all theses that are available online (bachelors theses aren’t eligible for the repository). I’m not sure if I like the idea of mass imports of all those theses including authors … --Emu (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose including bachelor/master theses en masse, as well as doctoral thesis (sciences) (Q100328456) in parallel system. We haven't even all PhD theses (Q187685?) or Doktor nauk dissertation (Q100328465). The latter I consider most notable of all other classes. --Infovarius (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support including bachelor/master theses en masse. If it has a DOI-code, it is able to be identified and in my view qualifies under WD:N #2 Jack4576 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding 'Superclutter' are not an argument I find particularly compelling. The site is already full of an unwieldy amount of information; which is a feature of WikiData, not a bug. Jack4576 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely there are discussions about Special pages as Wikidata items. Important links for future discussions:

• 2019: Wikidata_talk:Notability/Archive_5#Allow_items_for_special_pages_with_more_then_one_sitelink
• 2020: Wikidata_talk:Notability/Archive_6#Item_for_Special:AboutTopic_sitelinks,_e.g._cy:Special:AboutTopic
• 2022: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2023/01/05#Q112333026
• 2022: Wikidata_talk:Notability/Archive_4#Why_do_we_ban_"special_page"?
• 2022: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Bulk_deletion_request_of_MediaWiki_special_pages Estopedist1 (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2023: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#MediaWiki_special_pages addition on 05.07.2023 by Estopedist1

 Oppose Those pages are populated by software itself, not by our edits, such items may only used by LTAs and their sock(meat)puppets for their funnies. If all of their reason for creation is for interwiki links, then as per Midleading, we should consider installing Cognate extension on all wikis, and enable it for all Special pages. I just wonder why those creations are not barred by our AbuseFilters? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 nothing more to reply? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: no, nothing more. I opened this discussion because I am quite sure that in future we have problems with Special pages. I just collected up information/discussions about special pages in Wikidata Estopedist1 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order to monitor sitelinks for Special pages, there is now a report that my bot will update on a weekly basis: Wikidata:Database reports/Special pages as sitelinks. It does include *all* sitelinks of this type in all of Wikidata. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomodachi94 was confused on Discord what a "serious source" is as part of rule #3. Could we create our own page for what a "serious source" is on Wikidata and link to it? We should probably change it from "serious source" to "reliable source" too. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that this is a terribly good idea. Experienced users all know what “serious source” is supposed to mean (I know it when I see it) – it’s not that hard. Creating additional official guidelines will just result in more work as people try to somehow get their item past WD:RFD. It is true that there might be cases where newbies can’t quite figure out what is meant by “serious” but I don’t think that additional words will really help here. --Emu (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we could supply a non-exhaustive list of examples? BrokenSegue (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a good approach. Say a bullet list below the current rule giving examples of what is and isn't acceptable. For example, as discussed on Discord, "user generated content" is not acceptable. Lectrician1 (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do that here for personal use: User:Emu/Notability#“serious_and_publicly_available_references”. However, I don’t think it’s a terribly good idea to make this official. --Emu (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emu What if we specified the fact that user-generated online content is not allowed? Lectrician1 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would drop “online“ because offline user-generated content wouldn’t be any better. But even then, “user-generated content” might be even more open to interpretation: Of course we know what is meant (most wikis apart from those with an editorial staff that reviews all changes, many databases, some portions of the media) but those in the know also understand “serious”. --Emu (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "user-generated content might be even more open to interpretation" mean? Lectrician1 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure that people have all kinds of ideas what “user-generated content” is supposed to mean. It’s even more unclear than “serious” to the untrained eye, at least that’s what I think. --Emu (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we give examples of user-generated content such as Reddit, Fandom, and Twitter, people will be able to understand better what it means. Lectrician1 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I doubt it. --Emu (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think people will get confused with? Lectrician1 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced users all know what “serious source” is supposed to mean

But beginners like Tomo, do not. Which is what brought up this issue in the first place. Lectrician1 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure whether just changing the wording (e.g. from "serious" to "reliable") is helpful. In fact, reliable is not the ultimate decisive factor.
• We generally have a relatively inclusive idea of serious sources.
• It is much easier to (non-exhaustively) blacklist types of sources which are usually not considered serious (sources under direct or indirect control of the described subject, user-generated content, obviously promotional articles, etc.), than to whitelist types of sources that are usually considered serious.
• Listings in databases such as (company) registries, directories, yellow pages-like works are often also not considered serious in terms of notability, although these usually are reliable sources.
• Serious sources can vaguely be described as authentic, organic sources from independent third-parties.

MisterSynergy (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If were brainstorming a list of sources that aren't serious I would suggest: websites that are written by the general public, press releases republished verbatim, paid articles in sources (i.e. ads), websites of companies/people the item is about, websites that accept submissions unfiltered from the general public (iTunes Podcasts / Spotify database) and personal blogs of the subject (i.e. Medium / Twitter). BrokenSegue (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good list. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to attempting to define the word 'serious' in more detail. Let users make good-faith intuitive judgements as to how the word is applied, the status quo is fine. Issues like this are always going to be fraught with indeterminacy, no matter the length of clarifying prose one attempts to provide as a supplement Jack4576 (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone,

The notability guidelines are important. They do leave some people/projects disappointed however of course. I think we could make this better by guiding people more clearly towards alternatives. With the Wikibase Ecosystem growing and becoming more mature this is really becoming more of an option for people now who have larger data sets. What do you think about calling this out on the page? We could say something like "If the data you're trying to add falls outside of the notability guidelines, your data unfortunately won’t be accepted on Wikidata. But, our sibling projects, Wikibase Cloud or Wikibase Suite could be a good home for your data. Go to Wikiba.se to learn more about the options."

Cheers Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO we could add it. --Epìdosis 10:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe also make a page with alternative Wikibase instances and their scope? Multichill (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess we could link to some useful query on https://wikibase.world? Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good idea. Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a good query to link to? Otherwise I'll add the text for now and when someone has a good query we can add it. Until then there is the showcase section on wikiba.se. Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section for this now. LydiaPintscher (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> 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]

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:

• Souvenir Concept-Store (Q121634502) Frankenpost
• Barnes & Noble (Q795454) in Naperville (Q243007) NBC Chicago

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]