Jump to content

Wikidata:Project chat

Edit links
Add topic
Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?
From Wikidata
Latest comment: 6 hours ago by TTWIDEE in topic Gold funkiness
Edit
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Systematic pattern of mass deletions using non-official criteria

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago43 comments10 people in discussion

I report a documented pattern of mass deletions applying criteria absent from the official notability policy (WD:N), involving a coordinated chain between three editors.

During the period of July 1–15, 2026, Bovlb's deletion log records more than 500 items removed, concentrated via the Nuke tool. The operational flow is consistent:

  1. Bovlb distributes the unofficial template User:Bovlb/uw-notability, which imposes criteria more restrictive than WD:N.
  2. William Graham nominates items in bulk for deletion (RfD), using the essay Self-promotion as justification — an essay that is not official policy.
  3. Yamato Shiya executes the mass deletions via Nuke, without individual assessment of each item.

Documented evidence

[edit]
  • Absence of individual review — The deletion comment applied to Q139762140 (an organization) reads: "Person subject not notable...". The use of a boilerplate incompatible with the item type proves no case-by-case reading occurred.
  • Admitted divergence from policy — On the template talk page, Bovlb acknowledged that its content reflects "deletion practice" and not community policy, refusing to accommodate alternative interpretations.
  • Capture of the oversight channel — A report filed at WD:AN was closed by Bovlb within 26 minutes, without substantive resolution, evidencing that the local control mechanism is compromised.

Personal impact

[edit]

The following items of my authorship were deleted on July 8, 2026:

The same Graham → Yamato pair operated six days earlier against Vagan Arzumanian, confirming the pattern is not isolated to my case.

Request

[edit]

I request:

  1. Community review of the documented pattern, with participation of independent editors;
  2. Administrative intervention to suspend the application of non-official criteria until the notability RFC is concluded;
  3. Provisional restoration of deleted items for individual reassessment under current WD:N.

— Johnnytelles (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you please not create many different topics about ostensibly the same thing? Yirba (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I realise that you are new to the Wikidata community, but serious accusations of this kind should be accompanied by evidence.
This is, I believe, at least your sixth thread concerning the deletion of substantially the same group of items. Please keep related concerns in one discussion rather than repeatedly opening new threads.
Only a small fraction of the deletions I made during the period you identify used the Nuke tool. Your claim that my deletions were concentrated through Nuke is incorrect.
My template is part of an item-rescue workflow intended to help editors improve items before deletion is considered. It does not impose criteria more restrictive than WD:N. That claim is also incorrect.
I encourage you to focus on making constructive contributions to the project. Repeatedly posting unsupported allegations across multiple forums is not a productive use of community time. Bovlb (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
In one of your many threads you have confirmed that one of them items is you. I presume the rest are connected to you. Secretlondon (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that’s correct. The items are connected in some way, and I appreciate you pointing that out. Thanks for taking the time to look into it and for sharing your observation. David001122 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Secretlondon Yes. One of the items is about me.

Rosa Parks was also the person on the bus. That didn't make her wrong.

Being the subject of a record does not invalidate the record.

  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?* The community. Together. Documenting what it sees.

That is exactly what I did.

— Johnnytelles Johnnytelles (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You think you're Rosa Parks? LOL. Looks much more like self promotion. We don't like spam. Secretlondon (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Bovlb — Three responses to three claims.
On the Nuke tool: The deletion log records Q139762124, Q139790566, Q139762140 and Q140000366 deleted on 8 July 2026 at 08:31 UTC by Yamato Shiya with tag Nuke (log). Whether Nuke covered a fraction or all deletions in the period is beside the point: the criterion cited — "self-published" — does not appear in WD:N. The tool used does not change the criterion applied.
On the template: Four independent editors documented in Template talk that the template's criterion 2 is more restrictive than WD:N: Ainali (23 May, 24 Jun), QubeCube (26 Jun), TiagoLubiana (6 Jul), and Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (5 Jul). Your own response to those editors was: "I don't feel it's useful for this template to try to accommodate alternative interpretations of notability policy." That is not a rebuttal — it is confirmation that the template intentionally diverges from the policy.
On the number of threads: When a section is closed 26 minutes after opening — before other editors can respond — the only path forward is a new section. The proliferation you cite is a consequence of that closure pattern, not a separate violation.
One additional fact: The deletion reason applied to Q139762140 reads: "Person subject not notable." Q139762140 is a company, not a person. That single discrepancy is proof the items were not reviewed individually before deletion.
The same pattern was independently documented by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton on 6–7 July — six days before my items were deleted — involving the same editors and the same non-official criterion. Johnnytelles (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I did not delete any of those four items, so I'm not sure why you're tying these claims to my deletion log.
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton made similar allegations earlier this month, but they were never substantiated. When asked to explain them or provide evidence, he was unable to do so. Repeating those allegations here does not strengthen them. In any event, my item-rescue workflow is unrelated to the deletion of these four items.
You are, of course, welcome to request the undeletion of your items. I even wrote a guide explaining how to do so. What is not helpful is repeatedly opening substantially the same discussion in multiple venues while making serious but unsupported allegations. Bovlb (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Bovlb A pattern is emerging in this discussion: you deflect, change the subject, close sections before others can respond, and say a great deal. But you do not respond to what is actually put to you. Two specific corrections below.
The log cited is Yamato Shiya's, not yours. I said so explicitly. The point is that "self-published" appears in Yamato's deletion reason, and that criterion does not exist in WD:N. Your original argument was about the Nuke tool fraction; my response was that the tool is irrelevant if the criterion is unofficial.
Regarding Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton: four editors documented in Template talk that the template's criterion 2 diverges from WD:N. That record exists regardless of what happened in other threads.
One fact requires no allegation: the deletion reason applied to Q139762140, a company, reads Person subject not notable. That text is in the deletion log. Johnnytelles (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I looked at the template + archived request for deletion at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2026/07/08#Bulk deletion request regarding User:Johnnytelles:
  • @1: Template:Uw-notability isn't more restrictive than WD:N. It restates WD:N's three criteria in plain language and flags self-promotion as a caution.
  • @2: William Graham's nomination explicitly cites WD:N: it begins with "Does not meet the notability policy."
  • @3: The archived bulk deletion closing message shows Yamato Shiya did review items individually: "Deleted all except Q139762399, merged into Q10387902."
Difool (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
1. The template text says that that the item "must have", whereas N2 only says that an item "can be described" using sources. In fact, that N2 is so relaxed about the sources is a part of the ongoing RfC for the notability policy. Ainali (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Ainali. The wording in the template is stricter than WD:N, particularly regarding sources under N2. QubeCube (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Ainali @QubeCube The distinction you identified is exactly the central point of the concrete case: "must have" versus "can be described".
The RfC on notability policy reform confirms the current policy. The proposal to make "self-promotion" a policy was put to the community. The answer was no. The current policy remains as is.
The template applied a criterion the community reaffirmed does not exist. The deletion of July 8 followed the template, not WD:N. That is on the record. Johnnytelles (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The deletion messages literally link to Wikidata:Notability. Yirba (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Difool Looking at the same documents. What they say:
1. Template vs WD:N The template requires "both strong identifiers AND reliable sources". WD:N says "can be described using serious and publicly available references". The difference is not one of language: it is one of obligation. @Ainali and @QubeCube documented this in the same thread today. Bovlb responded to both on Template talk:Uw-notability: "I don't feel it's useful for this template to try to accommodate alternative interpretations of notability policy." The template's own author described it as a reflection of "deletion practice", not of policy. That is on the record.
2. Graham cited WD:N in the header Citing WD:N in the header and applying WD:N are different things. The criterion actually used in the nomination was "self-published". That criterion does not exist in WD:N.
3. Yamato reviewed items individually The deletion log of July 8, 08:31 UTC shows the Nuke tag: a mass deletion tool. One saved item does not prove individual review of the others. Concrete proof to the contrary: Q139762140 (MKPE) is a company. The recorded reason: "Person subject not notable." That error does not happen when the item is read.
The same Graham/Yamato pair, the same non-official criterion, appears in the case of Vagan Arzumanian six days earlier — @Vagan_Arzumanian. This is not an isolated case.
Against logs, there are no arguments.
Johnnytelles (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Difool — I understand what you analyzed. I don't think we are looking at the same documents.

Let's compare. The template says: "items must have both identifiers and serious sources."

WD:N says: "can be described using serious and publicly available references." The word missing from WD:N is "both...and".

The template requires identifiers and sources. WD:N requires only sources. That is an additional restriction, not a simplification. "Self-promotion" also appears in the template as a caution criterion. It is not in any of the three points of WD:N.

This is not my reading: four independent editors — @Ainali, @QubeCube, @TiagoLubiana and @Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton — documented exactly this on the Template talk page. Bovlb's response to them was: "I don't feel it's useful for this template to try to accommodate alternative interpretations of notability policy." That confirms the divergence.

William Graham's nomination header may cite WD:N. The criterion applied in the deletion was "self-published", which does not exist in WD:N. The header and the actual criterion are two different things.

On individual review: the deletion log for Q139762140, a company, records "Person subject not notable." That error does not happen when you read an item before deleting it.

The documents are available for any editor to verify. Perhaps a second reading would help.

Note: the same editor has opposed BulkPatrolBot, an independent patrol mechanism that would bring transparency to mass-deletion reviews. Johnnytelles (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rather than starting from the assumption that a serious wrong has been done and then looking for evidence to support that conclusion, I encourage you to spend some time learning how Wikidata’s deletion processes and community norms actually work. You may still disagree with them, but your criticism will be much more persuasive if it is based on an accurate understanding of the project.
Doing that first would also be a more respectful use of the time and effort of the volunteers who are trying to help you. Bovlb (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You have already been asked to keep this complaint to a single discussion, and you currently have three open threads concerning substantially the same matter.
Please choose one thread to continue so that the other two can be closed. Bovlb (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Bovlb Interesting timing to join this conversation. This was a dialogue with Difool.
The argument does not start from an assumption. It starts from three documents that anyone can read:
  1. Deletion log of July 8 [1]
  2. Template:Uw-notability [2]
  3. WD:N [3]
The comparison between the second and the third is what is being discussed. The second criterion of the template states that an item must have both identifiers and serious sources — but that requirement does not exist in WD:N. Four editors have already pointed this out recently on Template talk:Uw-notability: @Ainali, @QubeCube, @TiagoLubiana, @Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton. The response to all four was: "I don't feel it's useful for this template to try to accommodate alternative interpretations of notability policy."
If the criterion exists in WD:N, cite where. If it does not, the issue is not about learning how Wikidata works. It is about whether a non-existent criterion was applied.
This is the fourth time you have responded to this thread without addressing the argument: "serious accusations should be accompanied by evidence" (July 16, 03:42), "I did not delete any of those four items" (July 16, 22:53), "spend some time learning" (July 17, 04:40), "keep this complaint to a single discussion" (July 17, 05:23). No logs. No policy citations. No facts.
The issue here is not about me learning how Wikidata works. It is about stopping to deflect the argument and applying the criterion that is actually in WD:N.
Johnnytelles (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's true that the current notability policy says "can be described" and not "is described". However, if the item is not described using serious and publicly available references, then it is perfectly fair to ask for evidence that it can be described in that manner. If no evidence is put forward, then the item cannot be proved to be in compliance with the notability policy, and is subject to deletion. Perhaps it would be more precise if the template said that the subject of the item should have serious sources, rather than the item itself. But I think it gets the general point across. At the end of the day, if serious and publicly available references exist, then why not reference them? Yirba (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@1: The template never appears on your talk page: that page currently doesn't exist. Whatever the template's wording (and yes, there is a discussion on that talk page + a notability RfC), it didn't play a role in your case.
@3: The full deletion log for Q139762124 is "Does not meet the notability policy: Person subject not notable, although already own some publications, most of them were preprints and self published, the rest articles are not notable due to low readership and limited citation." Starts with WD:N, "self published" explains the WD:N judgment, it doesn't replace it. And a shared Nuke summary doesn't imply "without individual assessment.": Q139762399 was merged rather than deleted, a different outcome from the rest of the batch. Difool (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ for reference

I have already opened a thread on the administrators' noticeboard. However, because Bovlb is an administrator, no action was taken. Predictably, some users claimed I was in the wrong; administrator noticeboards across the Wikimedia movement consistently protect sysops at all costs, even when their actions conflict with community consensus and policy.

"At the end of the day, if serious and publicly available references exist, then why not reference them?" - Yirba

What exactly is the expected reference for wallet (Q131740)? Not everything has an external reference, and evaluating this through a traditional Wikipedia lens is a mistake. In many instances, we are the reference. Take items like Foto '48 (Q131420151) or Salto a cavalo (Q53137546). We catalogue GLAM collections and act as their database. In this capacity, Wikidata functions as the secundary* source.

Why are they deleting entries of books, of books? Even if the books have ISBN they delete them. Who are they to decide what is notorious or not?

We are not Wikipedia. We do not just compile existing knowledge; we structure and sometimes create it. The only wiki of the Wikimedia Movement that needs a notability criterion is Wikipedia, because it needs a tertiary source; all the others, no. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

As per Wikidata:Introduction, we are a "secondary knowledge base". That means we record statements that exist in a primary knowledge base and provide a reference to the primary knowledge base. You might not like that, but it's simply how Wikidata works. Yirba (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"In many instances, we are the reference" >> and we shouldn't be the reference, we should organize references.
"Even if the books have ISBN they delete them. Who are they to decide what is notorious or not?" >> If with "they" you are pointing to admins, they are not. And being notorious is not the threshold for notability here. In previous parts of the discussion you presented yourself as the correct interpreter of our notability criteria, "notorious" however is never mentioned. It is true that notability criterion 2 leaves room for interpretation, but it is undisputed that serious and publicly available references (plural) are necessary.
Consistently across the Wikimedia movement some users who see their work deleted try to blow this up to an example of the huge and dishonest way the system of admins neglects community consensus. Luckily it is rather rare at Wikidata. Let's keep it that way and discuss matters, disagree at times, but not look for not existing conspiracies. --Lymantria (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both for your replies. It seems we need to clarify some fundamental concepts regarding data ontology and procedural governance on this project.
@Yirba:: I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "secondary knowledge base" means in the context of linked open data. Being a secondary knowledge base does not mean every item must be backed by a tertiary encyclopedic article or an external website. It means Wikidata aggregates and structures metadata derived from primary sources.
When we catalog a GLAM collection, the physical artifact or the museum's internal registry is the primary source. When we catalog a published book, the book itself (along with its official ISBN registry) is the primary source. By structuring this metadata, Wikidata perfectly fulfills its role as a secondary aggregator. Imposing a Wikipedia-centric requirement on a structured database fundamentally misunderstands the semantic web.
@Lymantria:: I appreciate your linguistic correction regarding my use of "notorious" instead of "notable"-a classic false friend for speakers of Romance languages (notório). It is always refreshing when an administrator focuses on a minor vocabulary slip from a non-native speaker rather than addressing the core procedural issue at hand: the deletion of valid, verifiable bibliographic metadata.
Regarding your point that we need "references (plural)": an ISBN is not a random number. It is an internationally standardized identifier backed by national libraries, bibliographic agencies (like Bowker), and global distribution networks. A single published book inherently possesses multiple serious, publicly available references by the sheer nature of its legal publication and cataloging globally. Deleting books with ISBNs because of the identity of the user who typed the data is an indefensible data practice.
Furthermore, dismissing documented procedural concerns as a "conspiracy theory" is a convenient rhetorical device, but it does not change the facts. It is not a conspiracy to point out that an unapproved essay (Wikidata:Self-promotion) was used as the functional basis for expedited mass deletions without a standard RfD process. That is a documented procedural bypass.
When valid facts are deleted based on unapproved personal essays and linguistic pedantry, it is completely natural for the community to push back. I am not looking for conspiracies; I am simply asking that sysops follow the established consensus regarding what constitutes a factual database, rather than trying to apply Wikipedia's editorial biases to raw metadata.
Best regards,
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
ISBN-13 (P212) is explicitly tagged Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320), so the claim that a book "inherently possesses multiple serious, publicly available references by the sheer nature of its legal publication" doesn't match how Wikidata treats it. An ISBN confirms a book was registered; it doesn't establish that the book has been described by serious references, which is what N2 asks for. Difool (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
What makes this discussion confusing is that your items are quite different:
  • Rodrigo's items: a batch import of conservation areas. The main issue was that several lacked identifiers and had only Portuguese labels, making them hard to distinguish from nearby areas. Bovlb flagged this on 4 July, and since then Rodrigo and others have added sourcing, for example check: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q140432476&action=history.
  • Johnnytelles items: a self-created cluster, himself, his company, and his work. These went straight to RfD and were deleted, citing WD:N.
Both sets of items are now being discussed together here as if they represent a single pattern.
IMO, a self-created cluster is a reasonable trigger to actually check N2; so not a different standard, just a reason to look rather than assume the identifiers are sufficient on their own. Difool (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Difool @Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton: The distinction you propose is not in WD:N. Johnnytelles (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, but it's a useful heuristic. Yirba (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"Useful heuristic" — that phrase itself confirms what this thread has been arguing: it is not in WD:N.
The items were deleted citing WD:N. Not a heuristic. WD:N. At the time of deletion, the central item (Q139762124) had records issued by five independent institutions:
The other three items (Q139790566, Q139762140, Q140000366) are directly linked to this verified identity — and were deleted alongside it.
A heuristic absent from policy triggered deletions that cited policy. That is exactly what this thread documents. Johnnytelles (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Difool, a direct question: is "self-created cluster" a rule or an opinion? If it is a rule, give me the link.
It is not in WD:N.
No identifier confers notability on its own. None. The IMDb ID does not. The DOI does not. The ORCID does not. Notability comes from the entity. A show performed by Elvis in an unknown venue does not make Elvis notable: he already is. But the show is a verifiable record of an established entity, and it belongs in Wikidata.
"Self-created cluster" is not in WD:N. Opinions do not delete items. Policy does.
Johnnytelles (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's not a rule; if I came across a cluster it would be a reason to look closer, same as Yirba said. Difool (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am genuinely a bit baffled by the direction of this thread.

I am not here to discuss my items. I am trying to discuss the broader posture of sysops deleting and flagging entries based on their own personal beliefs. I have no idea why my batch of Brazilian nature reserves (Unidades de Conservação) was even dragged into this as a justification...

Wait... sorry, did I read that right?

Are you actually saying that having labels "only in Portuguese" was the actual trigger for this scrutiny? Have I perhaps missed some unapproved personal essay dictating that local geographic data can no longer originate in its native language?

It does strike me as rather curious that this recent wave of warnings wasn't just sent to me, but to a remarkably large block of Brazilian editors. It takes a certain level of... confidence, shall we say, to approach contributors who have meticulously built 2,000, 5,000, or even 9,000 items, and mass-lecture them on how to create basic entries. I must confess, I wouldn't quite have the boldness to do that myself.

But to focus that level of systemic scrutiny on a group of a specific nationality, and then have someone explicitly confirm in this very thread that the underlying "problem" was indeed the use of the Portuguese language... well...

And what on Earth is the problem with information being added at a later stage, or by another volunteer? The way that was phrased made it sound as though making subsequent additions to an entry is somehow a bad thing. I swore it was literally in Wikidata's core definition that we are a collaborative environment. Isn't iterative improvement exactly how the Wikimedia movement is supposed to work?

Which brings me back to the actual issue I came here to discuss. Are we now officially swapping out community-approved rules for personal heuristics?

Because when Johnnytelles accurately pointed out that the criteria used to delete his well-sourced items are nowhere in the official policy (WD:N), Yirba explicitly replied: "No, but it's a useful heuristic."

"Heuristic". For anyone else who, much like myself, wasn't entirely familiar with such a complicated word, it turns out it is essentially just a fancy term for taking a "shortcut".

And if that wasn't enlightening enough, Difool has now generously chimed in to confirm this pattern. When Johnnytelles directly asked if the "self-created cluster" rationale used against him was a rule or an opinion, Difool candidly admitted: "It's not a rule [...] same as Yirba said."

So, let me get this straight: well-sourced items, backed by five independent national institutions (Web of Science, CNPq, FAPESP, Ministério do Trabalho, ISBN), were summarily deleted based on criteria that you yourselves are now openly admitting on this very page are "not rules"?

Why is it that certain sysops are allowed to take these procedural shortcuts and enforce unwritten opinions, whilst those of us who actually read the official policy and point out the contradictions are told we are in the wrong?

I just want to understand the current state of play. If the new standard is that individual shortcuts and opinions can freely override Wikidata:Notability, I would appreciate some clarity. Should we all start inventing our own personal shortcuts and enforcing them on others? Otherwise, I would respectfully ask that we stick to the rules as they are actually written.

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a sysop, and I haven't spoken with any administrators about this. Johnnytelles asked for "community review... with independent editors," and that's exactly what I'm doing.
I never claimed Portuguese labels were the issue. My point was simply that the items I looked at had no identifiers at creation, so the label was the only way to tell them apart from nearby areas. If they had been Dutch labels (my own language), I would have said the same.
Here's how I see the sequence of events:
  1. Rodrigo imported items that were hard to identify.
  2. Bovlb raised concerns on Rodrigo's talk page.
  3. The items improved. Your items (Q140432473, Q140432476) were not deleted; they were improved by you and others over the following two weeks. That is good, I never suggested otherwise.
As for "self-created cluster”: it isn't a rule. It's simply a reason for me to look more closely. I made that clear when asked. It did not cause any deletions, and I never said it did. Difool (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Difool: "self-created cluster" is not a rule. You said so yourself.
If a deletion requires a rule, and this is not a rule, then my deletion had no policy basis.
Yirba said the same about "significant publications": a useful heuristic, not policy. Two admins. Same conclusion.
My item was deleted without a rule to support it.
What happens now?

Johnnytelles (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton: The record is complete.
Two admins. Two admissions. "Useful heuristic." "Not a rule." Same conclusion.
Your pattern and mine are the same. The criterion was not in WD:N. It was applied anyway, as @Ainali, @QubeCube and @TiagoLubiana have already documented on Template talk.
In the RFU for JETSAR, I documented a case I found while researching the deletion log: an Indonesian academic journal, with no connection to me. Items with official identifiers recognized by the country's Ministry of Education, deleted under criteria absent from WD:N. Eight items. Three minutes. Individual review impossible.
The only thing my case has in common with that one is the pattern and the hand that deleted.
No argument is missing. What is missing is a reviewer. Without a conflict of interest.

Johnnytelles (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Difool and I are independent editors who looked at this and gave our opinion. I'm not sure what more you want other than to hear from someone who agrees with you. Maybe there's some miscommunication but I really don't know what more I can say other than to reiterate that the process is sound and the deletions are being made consistent with WD:N and other Wikidata policies. Yirba (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yirba: thank you for the reply. But there is an inconsistency that needs to be resolved before moving forward.

Difool used "self-created cluster" as the criterion. When asked directly, he confirmed that this is not an official rule. Now you cite WD:N.

These are two different criteria. One of them does not hold.

If the criterion is WD:N, the question is simple: which clause covers items with official identifiers recognized by the country's Ministry of Education? Those items had exactly that. Verifiable identifiers, issued by a public authority.

I am not asking for agreement. I am asking for the policy basis. Johnnytelles (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Johnnytelles: The way I see it, verifiable identifiers issued by a public authority aren't enough to qualify as notable. For example, countries often allocate an ID to every registered company. That doesn't mean that every company is notable. It's true that WD:N doesn't specifically say which identifiers suggest notability and which do not. It's largely something determined by community consensus. Unfortunately, there isn't a clear-cut way to determine if a subject is notable or not. There will always be ambiguity. However, there is an unwritten standard that is used by the community, and items are judged against that standard. Yirba (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yirba, could you explain why we should not have all registered companies in the world represented here, provided they can be reliably identified and described?
What I see here is a Global North standard being applied to the Global South as though it were universal.
Again, this is not Wikipedia. We should not be excluding items merely because someone decides, based on an unwritten interpretation of WD:N, that a subject is not sufficiently "notable". That becomes particularly problematic on a multilingual and multicultural project.
How is someone in London supposed to determine whether a local organisation in Pirapora do Bom Jesus is "notable enough"? How is someone unfamiliar with Swahili-language publishing supposed to decide whether a particular book deserves an item? The answer cannot simply be an unwritten standard developed largely from the perspective of editors who have access to the sources, institutions and forms of recognition common in their own part of the world.
And using online presence as a proxy for importance is even more problematic. Many subjects were historically important but never had that importance transferred into the digital world. Others exist in places where institutions, archives and local media are poorly digitised, difficult to search, or not indexed by the platforms most editors use. Their lack of an online footprint does not mean they lack relevance or verifiability.
This is undoubtedly where structural bias enters the project. People editing from relatively privileged information environments can easily mistake the visibility of a subject for its importance. A company, book, organisation or cultural institution from Europe or North America is much more likely to leave the kind of digital trail that editors recognise as evidence. The same standard, applied mechanically elsewhere, systematically excludes subjects from underrepresented regions and languages.
So my concern is not simply that WD:N contains ambiguity. It is that this ambiguity is being filled by an unwritten standard that is neither culturally neutral nor equally applicable across the world.
If an entity can be reliably identified through authoritative identifiers and described with verifiable statements, I think the burden should be on explaining what harm its presence in Wikidata causes, rather than starting from the assumption that it must prove some vaguely defined level of "notability" before it is allowed to exist here. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yirba: thank you for the reply. But this sentence reveals a criterion substitution that needs to be named.

WD:N N2 requires that the item "can be described using serious and publicly available references." What you are applying is different: a prominence threshold, expressed as "significant publications." These two criteria are not the same thing.

On the identifiers: the ISSN is not an administrative registration number. It is assigned by the ISSN International Centre, an intergovernmental body created exclusively to certify serial publications as intellectual works. GARUDA is not a registry. It is the official academic index of Indonesia's Ministry of Education. Together, they prove exactly what N2 requires: that the item can be described using serious and publicly available references.

The company analogy does not apply. A company registration number is an administrative identifier. An ISSN certifies intellectual content with international registration.

What you describe as an "unwritten standard" is, in practice, a criterion that replaces N2 with prominence. You confirmed that this standard is not documented. That means there is no policy basis for the deletion. I ask again: where is this criterion written?

The goal of a policy discussion is not to determine who is right. It is to verify whether policy was applied correctly. That requires willingness to acknowledge when a criterion does not exist, when an analogy does not hold, and when a standard is undocumented. I am not asking for agreement. I am asking for rigor. Johnnytelles (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's exactly for reasons like this that the notability policy is undergoing review. The community tries its best to uphold the current policy, but there will inevitably be disagreement in how that's done. It seems like you have high standards when it comes to rigour, which is fair enough, but I don't think the current policy can be upheld to that standard. We can only try our best. Yirba (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

AUGMANITAI items created by User:AndreasEhstand

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Hi, the user @AndreasEhstand has, at time of writing, created 5,556 items about himself, his research programme, and all manner of related concepts. Does anyone have thoughts on whether any of this is actually notable?

Let's pick an item he's created at random (and it really was random): Preference Drift Misalignment (Q139027330). Apparently it's a neologism. So I can just make up new terms and create Wikidata items for them? The description makes no sense and appears to be cut-off. The statements don't describe what this is at all. I don't know how a neologism can be subject to copyright, but apparently it has a Creative Commons licence. It's also apparently available on a Github-hosted website except the link doesn't work.

Is it just me who thinks this doesn't belong on Wikidata? Yirba (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yirba, thanks for flagging this — you're right that many of these entries are in poor shape. Several have truncated descriptions and at least one broken link, and that's on me. To be transparent: these are terms from my own research vocabulary project, so I have an obvious conflict of interest, and I understand the notability concern. I'm happy to cooperate: I can fix the descriptions and dead links, and I'm fine with removing the entries that don't meet Wikidata's notability standards — including nominating the weakest ones myself. Please point me to the right process, or feel free to batch-nominate; I won't contest reasonable removals. Sorry for the cleanup this creates. AndreasEhstand (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yirba This should be something for WD:AN. RVA2869 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, though usually I post to the Admin Noticeboard if I see that our rules have been broken. In this case, I wasn't too sure, and especially due to the sheer number of items involved, I thought it would be useful to get community input first. Yirba (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Support removal from wikidata under WD:N and WD:NOT for original research, a quick glance shows many of the items are self-published articles and concepts from self-published articles. For @AndreasEhstand, please consider using your own wikibase instance instead, iirc Wikimedia Deutschland will even host a cloud instance for you for free. IntensionalLogician (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply


Thanks, everyone — and IntensionalLogician, the Wikibase Cloud pointer is much appreciated; I'll set up an instance and move the vocabulary there. As the sole creator, I request deletion of my non-notable coined-term items — the ones that are instance of (P31) neologism (Q130989) (neologism), roughly 5,500 — and I won't contest. To be safe for the batch, please keep only my genuine publications/research and real-world entities (most have DOIs, and they are of course open to review too): Q138522830, Q138522835, Q138634675, Q138773774, Q138970385, Q139042690, Q139042691, Q139042692, Q139042694, Q139042698, Q139042701, Q139042704, Q139042705, Q139042707, Q139042708, Q139042709, Q139270039, Q139270040, Q139387178, Q139491246, Q139491267, Q139491268, Q139491269, Q139491270, Q139491284, Q139491285, Q139491286, Q139491295, Q139549783, Q139690594, Q139690608, Q139700038, Q139700042, Q139700049, Q139700054, Q139848987, Q139889950, Q140147800, Q140554521, Q140558386. Everything else among my neologism items can be deleted. Happy to provide the full Q-ID list or take this to WD:AN in whatever format is easiest for an admin. Thanks again for the patient and constructive feedback. AndreasEhstand (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
How does this happen? They all need to go. Secretlondon (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
So how are we resolving this? I suggested a specific deletion list at User talk:AndreasEhstand#Notability. Bovlb (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
1751 / 5556. I'm opposed to keeping the Zenodo DOI publications despite their identifier. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. We should definitely delete the ones the creator suggested. But we should review all the items created. If they aren't notable, they should go. Zenodo DOI does not suggest notability. I realise it's a lot of items to go through. If I get a chance, I'll have a go at it. Yirba (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've found that, of the 5556 items, 5521 of them are instances of neologism (Q130989) and should be deleted as requested by the item creator. That leaves 35 other items. I've started reviewing each one, and it seems clear that most should also be deleted. That said, Bundesvereinigung Mittelstand in Deutschland (Q140554521) is an example of an item that I'd argue actually does meet our notability criteria and should be kept (but could do with some improvement). Yirba (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Quick clarification first: the comment above from 15:06, 26 July signed "~2026-41725-01" was me — I replied from my phone and didn't notice I had been logged out. Apologies for the confusion.
On substance nothing changes: I fully support deleting the ~5,521 neologism items, and I won't contest the removal of the other research-programme items either. I would only ask that two items be judged on their independent, non-Zenodo sources rather than batch-deleted:
Andreas Ehstand (Q138634675) — covered by three independent press articles (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Münchner Merkur, ispo.com) plus a university project page; more can follow of course by my side and will follow soon.
Faszination Padel (Q139549783) — a book published by Meyer & Meyer (2024) and listed in the German National Library catalogue; my co-authorship is verifiable in the publisher's official reading sample (already cited on the item).
I am also cleaning up these items (removing dead links, trimming statements). If the community concludes these two don't meet WD:N either, I will accept that. Thanks @Yirba for the careful review. AndreasEhstand (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. To start with, I've requested deletion of the 5,521 neologisms at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Bulk deletion request: neologisms coined by AndreasEhstand, although it seems something went wrong with the formatting for some reason. Yirba (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Bovlb @IntensionalLogician
Thanks for following up and for the concrete deletion list on my talk page.
I fully support batch-deleting the non-notable neologism items (the large majority). As previously stated, I will not contest those removals.
Regarding the smaller set of items with DOIs / research-programme entities: I am fine with the community deciding case-by-case. If the consensus is that even the Zenodo-DOI ones do not meet WD:N, please delete them as well. I will move the entire vocabulary to a Wikibase Cloud instance and will not recreate the deleted items here.
Happy to provide any additional lists or help with the cleanup process in whatever format is most practical for the admins.
Thanks again for the constructive handling.
— AndreasEhstand ~2026-41725-01 (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Merge request: Q140676305 and Q63445736

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Please review DAU 2026 (Q140676305) and Dau (Q63445736). The Russian sitelink on Q63445736 and the English and Italian sitelinks on Q140676305 appear to refer to the same film DAU directed by Ilya Khrzhanovsky. The German and Portuguese sitelinks on Q63445736 may not match this subject and should be checked. Autremoi (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Autremoi: Hi, I think these are different films with the same name, that are both part of a wider project. Dau (Q63445736) refers to the 2019 film Dau described in this BFI article. DAU 2026 (Q140676305) refers to DAU 2026, an upcoming film described on the official website. Yirba (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm positive there is just one film Dau (cf. https://dau.film/, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt43702526/?ref_=ttfc_ov_bk). The ones that are part of Dau project are called Dau.Natasha, Dau.Degeneration etc, the full list available in the article on Dau Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAU_(project). Thank you! Autremoi (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
PS what BFI article describes is actually DAU project consisting of a list of products. Dau film not being one of them Autremoi (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Then isn't Dau (Q63445736) about that 2019 DAU project described by the BFI article, which is a collection of short films? Yirba (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Autremoi: In that case, is it a 2019 film or a 2026 film? If it's a 2019 film, then what's being premiered this year that includes footage filmed in 2024? If it's a 2026 film, then what was it that was released in 2019? Yirba (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

How to create Q-items for dictionary entries about words

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My main question here is how to connect these Q-items to Lexemes and/or Wiktionary. I'm not trying to recreate it, but take this as an example. There would be one main-space sub-page (on Wikisource) for each dictionary entry, and one Wikidata Q-item per sub-page. With encyclopedia articles, I use P921: main subject relative to it, but that doesn't work for lexemes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A separate property would be needed to link to a Lexeme instead of an Item. Circeus (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help panel question on Q68050127 (12:08, 26 July 2026)

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Муртазо --Муртазо (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Муртазо: Hi, can I help? Yirba (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A multidimensional ontology for comparative political science

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Over the past three weeks I have written and substantially expanded a series of articles on comparative political science for the Danish Wikipedia.

During that work I repeatedly encountered conceptual inconsistencies in the way related concepts are represented in Wikidata. This led me to undertake a systematic review of the existing ontology and to develop the proposal presented here.

The project consists of four documents:

  • Report
  • Proposed ontology
  • Bibliography
  • Request for Comment

The proposal does not suggest immediate changes to individual Wikidata items. Instead, it presents a conceptual framework intended as a basis for discussion before proposing specific implementations.

Project overview:

Request for Comment:

Comments and suggestions are very welcome.

IvarT (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you advertise it at Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology where the experts reside. Vicarage (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Experimental notability evaluation tool

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I’ve been working on a Toolforge tool that evaluates automatically detectable evidence relevant to notability and displays the results as a compact visual indicator. The tool is still experimental.

The tool is intended to help editors quickly see what types of evidence are present on an item. It is an aid to human reviewers, not a replacement for them. It cannot determine whether an item actually meets Wikidata's notability policy, and it can only evaluate information currently present in the item.

Documentation, installation instructions, known limitations, and a feedback page are available at User:Bovlb/wd-notability.

I’m particularly interested in reports of:

  • evidence that the tool failed to detect
  • evidence that the tool evaluated incorrectly
  • user interface or usability issues

This implementation is intended to reflect the current Wikidata notability policy, informed by community discussions and existing editorial practice. If you want to discuss Wikidata’s notability policy in general, that is probably better placed at the current RFC. Bovlb (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for building this. It took me a little while to figure out how it works, but fortunately the documentation is very helpful. It's a good way to identify items that could do with more work. --Yirba (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Remove protection at Q156723 (Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz)

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can you please remove protection of Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. ~2026-41429-58 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why? If you need to edit the item, you can request someone else to do it here. Samoasambia ✎ 20:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Given that your only other edit, now reverted, from your current temporary account was this one, it would seem to be unwise to allow you to edit such items without oversight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request: new item for HSKStory (COI — founder requesting)

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to request creation of an item for HSKStory, a graded Chinese reading web application aligned to the HSK 3.0 proficiency standard (launched January 2026). I am the founder, so per COI norms I'm asking an uninvolved editor to create it rather than doing so myself; disclosure is on my user page.

Independent references:

Suggested statements: instance of (P31)web application (Q189210); genre (P136)computer-assisted language learning (Q1194674); official website (P856)https://hskstory.com; inception (P571)January 2026; language of work or name (P407)Chinese (Q7850) and language of work or name (P407)English (Q1860). Comparable item: Drops (Q67604101).

Happy to provide anything else needed. If reviewers feel the sourcing is not yet sufficient, I'd welcome that feedback rather than a contested creation. Bezlant (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide some evidence that this application meets Wikidata's notability guidelines? I don't get a strong impression of notability just from the links you provided. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 04:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Fair question. Both are curated directory listings rather than editorial coverage: Hacking Chinese Resources reviews submissions before publishing, and the ISTE EdTech Index listing is reviewed rather than open. Neither is press. I don't have press coverage or a published review to offer, and I'd rather say so than pad the list.
Where I'm unsure is criterion 2. The entity is clearly identifiable and the listings are public and third-party maintained, but "serious" is carrying the weight there, and I shouldn't be the one judging that for my own project.
If it doesn't clear the bar, I'm fine with the request being declined. I'll come back if editorial coverage turns up. Bezlant (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Property for context-aware notes in Listeria tables?

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sometimes, what prevents a Wikipedia table from being replaced with a Wikidata/Listeria table is having some kind of note or remark column. One idea could be to suggest a property like "Listeria comment text" that requires a qualifier for which Wikipedia pages it will apply to and perhaps language. That way, we can have a kind of context-aware column. Any thoughts? Are there other ways to solve this? --Ajarmund (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #742

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2026-07-27. Missed the previous one? See issue #741.

Discussions

  • New requests for permissions/Bot:
    • AuntuBot - Task/s: Per the approved bot request at commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/AuntuBot, I am in the process of uploading approximately 50,000 issues of the Bangladesh Gazette to Wikimedia Commons. We need to a parent Wikidata item for each specific issue/volume to import and organize these files on Bengali Wikisource. Note that AuntuBot has already been granted a bot flag on Wikimedia Commons for the file uploads.
    • Rebot 2 - Task/s: We recently created the new property perspective (P14345) (Wikidata:Property proposal/anatomical view). With Rebot, I plan to move:
  • About 570 statements from depicts (P180) to perspective (P14345) as a property
  • About 1400 statements from depicts (P180) to perspective (P14345) as a qualifier of image (P18)
    • Rebot 3 - Task/s: Import 1389 instances of taxon author citation (P6507) from this Catalan Wikipedia list, compiled by bot from the articles.
    • Rebot 4 - Task/s: The task consists in changing these 1072 items. It has to change creator (P170) to the new property photographer (P14574). Also there are 1000+ items in which the property should be used as a qualifier.
    • Openpep - Task/s: Maintenance of Politically Exposed Person (PEP) data on Wikidata for Thai government officials. Specifically:
  • Creating new Wikidata items for Thai politicians not yet in the database
  • Adding P39 (position held) claims with proper qualifiers (P580 start time, P582 end time, P2937 legislative term for legislators, P1365/P1366 replaces/replaced by, P1545 series ordinal)
  • Adding P102 (member of political party) with date qualifiers
  • Adding P569 (date of birth), P106 (occupation), P21 (sex or gender), P19 (place of birth), P1559 (name in native language)
  • Setting and correcting labels, descriptions, and aliases
  • Removing incorrect claims and deduplicating
  • Adding social media profiles (P2003 Instagram, P2013 Facebook, P11705 Facebook numeric ID)

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

  • OWL Places, the Wikidata-OpenStreetMap matching tool, can now add OpenStreetMap IDs to Wikidata

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Development

  • The team were at Wikimania this past week so not much development happened.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Weekly Tasks

Default for all languages

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The mul Default for all languages is no longer appearing at the top of every page for me anymore. This is a serious issue, since "Redundant" labels in specific languages are being removed. I need to know that the mul label exists and what it is. This should properly appear as the top placed label on every page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: Hi, I'm not seeing an issue. Is mul listed at Special:MyLanguageFallbackChain at all? Yirba (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey: Is it that "default for all languages" doesn't appear in the "In more languages" table at all? Or is it that it doesn't appear at the very top? I noticed you recently updated your Babel configuration with English as your native language and mul as a secondary language. I think this means that English should appear above "default for all languages" in the table. Yirba (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I had to list it in my Babel because these same removals of "Redundant" labels meant that the Default label was being preempted in my watchlist, recent changes, etc by any other language that is on my Babel list. This is a problem for someone like me who edits taxonomic items regularly, because I don't always know what a class, family, or genus is called in every other language I speak. So, for example, Phaeophyceae (Q184573) began showing up as "Braunalgen" in my Watchlist because that is the German label on that data item. German is one of the languages that has permanently duplicated taxon items in Wikidata, so I need to be able to see the mul label. I added mul to my Babel configuration so that I would see it instead of the German.
So, either I have mul in my Babel in order to see the mul label in Watchlist, Recent changes, etc. OR I have mul at the top when I visit pages, but wont see the mul label in Watchlist, etc. Are you saying I have to choose one or the other because of the push to remove the "Redundant" labels? If so, then this removal should be halted or reversed, because of this unpleasant side effect that will hinder editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey: Is it important that mul is listed at the very top of the table. If so, why? I have my Babel configured as {{#babel:en-GB-N|en-N|mul-N|ja-2}}. It prioritised British English, then English, then mul, then Japanese. Interestingly, mul actually appears at the bottom of the table. I'm not sure why. But the labels appear correctly on my watchlist, recent changes and elsewhere. The order that the languages are listed in the table don't cause me any issues. Yirba (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's important for the mul label to be at the top. Whether it's a book title or a taxon name, the mul takes precedence and people shouldn't have to hunt for it. I have 10 languages in my Babel box, and having the mul default label appear halfway down the list is a problem when it's supposed to be the master label. Is the system meant to penalize people who deal in multiple languages?
So, I need to lie in my Babel listings to get the desired result? I am not a native speaker in multiple languages, but you're telling me that I need to make that lie in order to overcome the defects in the system? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey: To be honest, I don't know how the languages are ordered in the table. I think it's a fair point you make. I had to put mul-N in my Babel config because otherwise I would see labels in Japanese. Although I can read Japanese, it makes more sense for the mul label to take precedence (since it's probably going to be the more canonical form). But it is counter-intuitive that you have to say you're a native speaker of mul, I'll give you that. Honestly, I think the whole mul feature, whilst a good idea in theory, has turned out to be a bit of a mess. Yirba (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

How best to contest a weakly cited claim

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

For Temptation (Q3517802), we have a statement that it is a musical film, cited from the French Wikipedia, which in turn cites nothing for that claim. I've added a solid source describing it as a crime drama; the posters for the film also strongly suggest the latter. Is there any appropriate way to deprecate the claim that it is a musical, other than for me to try to fight it out on the French Wikipedia, in a language where my skills are at a very basic level? - Jmabel (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, I was wrong about the film: the same source I had shows a poster referring to "cabaret sequences," so that would be the music in question. - Jmabel (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, for future reference, you can absolutely deprecate a statement for lack of sufficient sourcing, and any Wikipedia import source is more an interim hint to possibly help with tracking down the real source than an actual acceptable source itself. All of the following are at your disposal for reason for deprecated rank (P2241):
(Bookmark User:IagoQnsi/deprecation reasons for easy reference too!)
But yes, it's also responsible to do as you've done and investigate a bit before you make any hasty deprecations. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 04:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think that in many cases it's fine to remove the statement altogether, if there's no reference and the claim is clearly incorrect. But when in doubt, deprecation can be a good choice. Yirba (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
My rule of thumb is to deprecate if it's likely a claim might be added back (e.g. the ISSN database gives a bunch of URKs which get dumped into the "official website" property of Wikidata, when they should at best be "work available at"). Circeus (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's a good way to think about it. Yirba (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Merge 2

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can Q55330415 be merged into Q9973968? Thanks. --Like the windows (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Like the windows: Yes, looks like they should be merged. Yirba (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yirba: So... can you do it? And also–Q140265349 into Q115522139? --Like the windows (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Like the windows: Sorry, I thought you were asking whether they are able to be merged and that you'd merge them yourself. But I've now → ← Merged both pairs of items. Yirba (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Community Wishlist entry for Wikidata citations

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a wishlist entry:

Provide a tool to convert multi-statement Wikidata citations to "stated in" citations

Please express your views on that page and/ or the linked Phabricator ticket. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Guidance on possibly doing a large-ish automated edit?

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I have a set of 2080 (give or take statements already present) different from (P1889) statements ready to execute with QuickStatements for every pairwise combination of the 65 items with at least one label or alias matching the exact string "admiral" case-insensitively in any language (and I've looked over the list to make sure none of them are duplicates). I think this should be fine, and everything looks to be in order based on the QuickStatements preview, but this is a lot of edits and would be my first time making an automated edit of this size. Is there any sort of pre-approval I need to get or etiquette I should be aware of for this kind of edit? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you more clearly explain your proposed edits? William Graham (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@William Graham: Sure. I've been working on User:Pasleim/projectmerge, merging duplicate items and adding different from (P1889) statements for items that are not duplicates so the bot can ignore them in the future. Along the way I've also been trying to add different from (P1889) statements related to similarly-named items besides the ones highlighted by the bot from sitelinks. The problem with doing this by hand is that the amount of statements needed to cover every possible pair of items quickly becomes unmanageable once you're dealing with more than just a couple of items, so I figured I could automate it. And since I was doing that, I figured I might as well automate finding the items to put the statements on as well, so I figured out a SPARQL query that returns every item with a label or alias in at least one language that matches a given text string exactly (in this case, "admiral", which returns items for the military rank in several specific countries, a few ships named Admiral, etc.). My edit would be all of the statements necessary to have all 65 matching items claim that they are different from (P1889) the other 64 items. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 23:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think different from is only really useful if it is conceivable that someone could mix the two items up. Just sharing the same label isn't that. I'm talking about situations where the items have the same instance of and even then automated additions seems excessive. Different from statements, in my experience, largely exist in limited circumstances because a human being thought other people might confuse two similarly named concrete entities and not as a blanket rule.
In your example, the 64 some statements of different from would like 3x-5x the number of statements on the items. I treat such statements as disruptive and would revert them if I saw them in live items.
If you're trying to modify items in support of other automated or semi automated type bot activity, I would encourage you not to. An alternative might be using Wikidata:Do not merge or creating your own version in your user space. William Graham (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
That's fair. I considered that might be a possible objection when I really sat down and thought about it. Luckily, I'm gradually learning to ask whether it's actually a good idea before doing things like this. I could imagine coming up with a more targeted subset with clearer justifications, like putting different from (P1889)admiral (Q132851) on each of the items for the rank in particular countries' militaries. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 04:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
You only need different from (P1889) for items with similar instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279), as there is no confusion between say a ship and a publisher called Admiral. But just for watercraft we have 9 Admiral, 7 Canmore shipwrecks called Admiral and an SS and USS Admiral, so we have 11 legitimate pairwise combinations (and perhaps a few more Almirante etc, I only glanced at them). Say 15, which is 210 pairs. You should try to remove the Canmore stuff, which has a very large number of shipwrecks that were also labelled ships. I did some work merging the entries if the ship's identity was known, but there is a lot of vagueness there, with multiple parts of the same ship, uncertain identification, said to be the same as (P460) etc. I suggest you join me in Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ships to discuss this further, but doing this for all common words in ship names is a worthy project. Vicarage (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not sure how you get 65 pairs. As I say below, for ships, the most likely use for the word, you might only have 15. As factorials are involved, you do need to keep tight control of the set. But people love re-using ship names, and being mobile objects, the chance of confusion, say visiting the Port of London at some point in history, is indeed very high. Doing a contemporaneous filter would reduce the pairs, but while most ships have known launch dates, end dates are usually missing, and ships last a long time. Vicarage (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

COI request: correct founder claims and split Tempo company from blockchain

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Paid-contribution disclosure: I work for Tempo Labs Technologies, Inc. dba Tempo, and I am making this request as part of my paid role. My disclosure is on User:Juan-tempo. I created Tempo (Q140472934) and added the statements discussed below. I am asking for independent review of the proposed split.

The item has listed Stripe (Q7624104) and Paradigm Operations (Q131756903) under founder (P112). Those statements should be removed because the available sources support incubation, not founding:

  • Stripe describes Tempo as incubated by Stripe and Paradigm.
  • Paradigm describes the blockchain as incubated by Stripe and Paradigm and Tempo as a new company with its own full-time team, jointly incubated by both organizations.
  • Bloomberg Tax reports that Stripe and Paradigm were incubating the blockchain and that the company would operate independently.

I do not see a Wikidata property whose meaning precisely matches “incubated by,” so I am not proposing a looser replacement for P112.

The item also appears to combine two identifiable entities:

  • Fortune distinguishes the Tempo blockchain startup from the blockchain developed by that startup.
  • Tempo’s official privacy policy identifies the legal company as Tempo Labs Technologies, Inc. dba Tempo.
  • Paradigm’s announcement separately describes the blockchain and the new company.

Proposed modeling:

  1. Retain Q140472934 for the Tempo Layer-1 blockchain and network.
  2. Create a separate item for Tempo Labs Technologies, Inc. dba Tempo.
  3. Move company-only statements, including business type, headquarters, country, and Crunchbase organization ID, to the company item.
  4. Review shared brand identifiers individually rather than moving them automatically.
  5. Link the network to the company with developer (P178) and, if appropriate, link the company to the network with product or material produced (P1056).

Does this split and property mapping match community practice? Independent implementation or corrections are welcome.

PAC2 (talk) User:NGOgo (talk) (Focus on Non-profit-Organizations) ArthurPSmith (talk) PKM (talk) Jjanhone (talk) Legonin (talk) SonalDahanayaka (talk)

Notified participants of WikiProject Organizations

Juan-tempo (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is this organisation notable? The item is largely cited to Crunchbase and paradim.xyz -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am getting block when creating item

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 hours ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: specific spam items


I tried to create an item for Cryptool (portfolio software) and it was disallowed by filter 132 (specific spam items). Could an admin review whether this qualifies, or create it? Happy to provide sources. Thanks.


Regards,

Ron Cryptool (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you need an administrator, you should post this over at WD:AN. This page is for matters that don't require the attention of anyone with special permissions. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 16:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The last time you posted here I told you that unless your item is (or becomes) notable then we will not create an item for it. It seems like you decided to ignore that, and keep trying to create it. This means that our abuse rule is doing exactly what it is supposed to do: stop you. M2Ys4U (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Question about the deletion of my artist item

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello WikiBayer, Thank you for your work on Wikidata. I noticed that the item I created for my artist profile (TIEP.) was deleted with the reason "Does not meet the notability policy." I would like to better understand what requirements were not met. The artist currently has: a MusicBrainz artist page Spotify Artist profile Apple Music Artist profile YouTube Official Artist Channel TikTok Artist profile Musixmatch profile officially released music distributed through DistroKid My goal is to improve the data so it complies with Wikidata policies, not to create promotional content. Could you please let me know what additional evidence or identifiers would be needed before recreating the item? Thank you very much for your time. Tiep.official (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to make sure you reach the user you're mentioning, I'll ping them here: WikiBayer. But as for your question, I can help a bit. Wikidata's official notability policy, which you can see at Wikidata:Notability, states that an item with no sitelinks must be something that can be described using serious and publicly available references (emphasis in original). Pages on music stores and social media profiles are not sufficient for this; not every artist with a record label contract is automatically notable. The English Wikipedia's general notability guideline does not apply here, strictly speaking, but I find it to be a much clearer statement (and anything notable under these stricter terms would definitely be notable under Wikidata's more loosely defined terms): notability generally requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (emphasis in original). The sources you mention prove existence, but not necessarily notability. I would also encourage you to read the essay on self-promotion to get more of a sense of why creating an item about yourself or an entity you're directly affiliated with is generally frowned upon here and considered to be inherently self-promotional, even if done in good faith. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 18:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Relevant items: Q140720684 (Tiep.official). CC deleting admins @WikiBayer Bovlb (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request for independent notability assessment — MaidProvider.ph (COI disclosed)

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I am Amanda Safra, Managing Director of MaidProvider.ph. My professional affiliation and conflict of interest are disclosed at User:AmandaMPH.

I searched Wikidata for “MaidProvider.ph,” “MaidProvider,” and “MAIDPROVIDER.PH CORP.” and did not find an existing item for the company.

Because I am directly affiliated with the company, I will not create the item myself. I would appreciate an independent editor’s assessment of whether MaidProvider.ph satisfies criterion 2 of Wikidata:Notability as a clearly identifiable entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references.

The relevant sources I found are:

  • Good Housekeeping Philippines, “Maid Matters,” April 2015, page 95 — a print expert column featuring a MaidProvider.ph supervisor alongside other contributors. The original publication does not appear to have a surviving public webpage. A company-hosted archival scan of page 95 and bibliographic archive record are available for verification.

I recognize that several of these are brief references or guide listings rather than substantial profiles devoted entirely to the company.

I am not relying on MaidProvider.ph’s own Human+ articles, press releases or syndicated press-release pickups, social-media accounts, forums, business directories, company registrations, or third-party articles that primarily cite company-produced research.

Could an uninvolved editor please assess whether these references are sufficient for a Wikidata item and, if appropriate, create the item? If the references are insufficient, I will wait for stronger independent coverage rather than create it myself.

Thank you. AmandaMPH (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can Someone Help me or Share a guide to Add our Business on Wiki Data?

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Project Community,

I would appreciate your guidance on creating a Wikidata entry for Mechatronix Solutions, a Pakistan-based company operating since 2003 in integrated security, automation, and fire safety.

Our clients often ask why the company is not listed on Wikidata or Wikipedia. We want to add accurate, verifiable information responsibly and understand the need for independent sources and neutral wording.

Please guide us on eligibility, acceptable references, and the correct process to follow. Kind regards,

Abdul Rehman Mechatronix Solutions Abdu774 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

WD:N is the reason it is not and likely will not be listed on Wikidata, which is not a general business directory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
But wouldn't a company's entry refer "to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references."? Flominator (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looking at it again, Wikidata:SELF might be the more accurate rules page. --Flominator (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Separate new item page discussion page needed

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago13 comments6 people in discussion

The last 5 topics here have all been about new promotional item creation, only of interest to the authors and approving admins. And the first topic is a bloated discussion about notability 2 weeks old. If we leave them here it only encourages more, and makes this page unusable for discussion of general topics. Its was agreed months ago to have a new page for this under the Community Portal, can this be implemented before most users stop reading this page. I raised this 10 days ago here to praise and few objections, but nothing was done. Vicarage (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

We should absolutely have a separate page. Does it require anyone in particular to set it up, or just someone to be bold and do it? Yirba (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Previous discussion: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2026/07#Suggested rule, no arguments about article creation or deletion here, although I'm not sure where an articles/items for creation page was promised. Yirba (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata talk:Requests for comment/Notability policy reform on 5th June where Lydia agreed it was a good idea. I think it needs to be done formally rather than me doing it and slapping down posts here. Vicarage (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Hi, do you happen to have any thoughts on what the process should be for establishing a 'requests for addition/creation' page? Do we need to raise a request for comment first? Yirba (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't have any specific thoughts, no :) And I don't think this needs an RfC. I'd say this falls under Wikidata:Be bold. Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. In that case, if there are no objections, let's just go ahead and do it. I've started drafting a page over at User:Yirba/Requests for new items. I welcome anyone to improve it. Yirba (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
These are not requests for new items as much as spammers arguing against deletion. Spammers will still go where gets the most eyeballs. Secretlondon (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are a lot of different types of request on this page. But at least if we can reduce the amount of new item proposals on this page, it should help. Yirba (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
If we have a dedicated place for such discussions, then there is a clearer case for just moving discussions there when they pop up elsewhere. For example, we should probably be more proactive about moving undeletion requests to AN.
But I worry that such a notice board will be essentially unread. And while item creation help can have an administrative dimension, it’s not directly about admin approval. Bovlb (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
A separate noticeboard that is essentially unread is better than this project chat becoming unread because of the low signal-to-noise ratio. And yes, although the guidance of admins is very valuable, I don't think it needs an admin to approve it. If someone looks at an item creation request and thinks it warrants creation, they can just go ahead and create it. Likewise, people are free to object to the creation of items, in which case it ought to work on a community consensus basis. Yirba (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Right. Admins are not in charge of what's in or out. We're the only ones who can actually delete or undelete, but we're doing our best to enact community consensus, so the more that is expressed the better. Bovlb (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Secretlondon, @Yirba, @Bovlb: I think it's also worth noting here that this sort of thing is highly precedented in Wikimedia projects given Wikipedia:Requested articles (Q4664111) and Wikipedia:Articles for creation (Q9137223). There are a number of valid reasons that someone may not feel comfortable creating an item themself, or may want to get confirmation via discussion that the subject meets notability (which I feel like Yirba's draft covers pretty well).
I'm also inclined to agree with Yirba that a separate noticeboard that is essentially unread is better than this project chat becoming unread because of the low signal-to-noise ratio (link). There's definitely also some value just in having a place for these types of requests to go that's not here. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 19:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gold funkiness

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

gold (Q897) has loads of values for SureChEMBL ID (P2877). I haven't checked all of them, but all the ones I checked are for non-existent isotopes of gold. Normally if something is obviously wrong I'll try to fix it myself, but there are a loads of SureChEMBL ID (P2877) values on gold (Q897), so it would be a pain to fix it manually, and my gut feeling is that this was probably done by a dodgy bot, so if we remove these IDs the bot might just add them back again. We should try to find the root cause.

These IDs seem to be for isotopes of gold, and IDs for specific isotopes should go on the items for said isotopes, although, again, the IDs that I've checked seem to be for non-existent isotopes, and so should be deleted. TTWIDEE (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Added by this edit William Avery (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted that edit, and then re-added one ID (the ID just for the element gold). @AdrianoRutz Something seems to have gone wrong with your QuickStatements batch. The same QuickStatements batch that caused the gold issue also added two IDs to 9-(2-Hydroxyethyl)-9H-purin-6-ol (Q82922138): one for 9-(2-hydroxyethyl)-6,9-dihydro-1H-purin-6-one, and one for 9-(2-hydroxyethyl)-9H-purin-6-ol. We should check if there are more issues like this. I wonder if there's an easy way to automatically check if there are any other cases where multiple IDs have been added to the same item from that QuickStatements batch. TTWIDEE (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

How best to create many items in a similar form

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I mainly edit on Wikisource, but I also want to create Wikidata items for the sub-pages I create. However, for a large work which I'm currently looking at transcribing, the number of sub-pages would be wasteful to create manually. I have created an example for the first entry here. Some values (instance of (P31), language of work or name (P407)) will always remain the same; some will depend directly on the item itself (title (P1476), published in (P1433), site link); while subject lexeme (P6254) will need to be determined individually every time, and may need to be created for the item specifically. What would be the best way to go about this? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've never used it personally but from what I'm reading, it seems highly likely that OpenRefine may be a good option for what you want to do, if you can set up the data you want to enter as a CSV table first (which, based on your description, doesn't sound like it would be difficult). Of particular interest would be OpenRefine's ability to create new Wikidata items.
It should also be possible with Pywikibot (most conveniently usable through PAWS) if you're comfortable with Python scripting, but that's probably the hard way.
And honestly after more carefully reading what you're trying to do a second time, Pywikibot still may be useful as a data extraction tool to help create that CSV for OpenRefine, since that's not hard in principle but it sounds like there's a lot of it and you may be able to programmatically pull the information you need from Wikisource. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 19:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure we want entries in a particular dictionary to be items here in their own right. I'm no expect on the subject matter, but we would normally tie in external sources like this to items already here. I suggest you ask in the relevant WikiProject before proceeding. Vicarage (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
And @TE(æ)A,ea., for reference, in my digging it looks like the closest thing to a relevant WikiProject (unless there was somewhere in the categorization hierarchy for WikiProjects that I should've explored further) is Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data. And at any rate, even if there is a WikiProject to ask as well, lexemes are one of the big things here. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 20:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • But these aren't words, but dictionary entries for words (which would be standard items, not lexemes). And dictionary entry (Q1580166) has hundreds of thousands of uses (and encyclopedia article (Q13433827) similarly), so it's not like this is an unheard-of use. Kinsio, thank you for your suggestion of OpenRefine, that should work well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    I do think this is an intriguing project, but I can sympathize with the argument @Vicarage makes that it's a bit major to undertake without some discussion first. It's worth noting that WD:N#1 addresses Wikisource specifically, saying that subpages of mainspace pages (for example, individual chapters) are not considered valid [for the purposes of being a "valid sitelink" under notability criterion 1] unless they are written by separate authors, could be considered stand-alone works, or have been translated separately (related discussions: [1] [2]), so the Wikisource links here don't guarantee notability as sitelinks usually do. As I mentioned above, Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data feels like the most relevant place to start such a discussion. And speaking of lexemes, since you do potentially anticipate needing to create new ones here, it'd also be prudent to look over Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Notability. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 21:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
    • Based on the discussion from this year in particular, it seems like the Wikidata notability policy with respect to Wikisource follows Wikisource's own policy with regard to disambiguation pages. For example, it makes sense to have a page listing all poems entitled "Spring", and all encyclopedia articles about Japan, but not to list the fifth chapter of every book. (For example, Foreword doesn't list every foreword from every book which has one, but just two poems called "Foreword".) In this context, dictionary entries would fall on the former side, and so should be viable for inclusion here. (After all, I know that it's standard policy on enWS to create Wikidata items for all encyclopedia articles, so dictionary entries should be no different.) Just two last questions: (1) Do you think this needs a larger discussion, and if so, where should that discussion be? (2) For lexeme notability, would the presence of the term in Hepburn's dictionary be sufficient, or is something more needed? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Appropriate property for Wikimedia category that represents a subset/superset of another?

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So I happened to notice that Category:Character-substitution templates (Q9702814) seems to be essentially a superset of Category:Templates for generating characters used in wiki code (Q32859349) (it's expected that any member of Category:Templates for generating characters used in wiki code (Q32859349) would also be a member of Category:Character-substitution templates (Q9702814), and the implied subcategory relationship does seem to exist in English Wiktionary, the only wiki that has both categories according to currently recorded sitelinks). Is there any way to model this? You can see a couple of my clumsy attempts in the history of Category:Templates for generating characters used in wiki code (Q32859349), including the current property has part(s) of the class (P2670) that still doesn't really feel right (I don't think Wikimedia categories are considered classes), but I'm kinda stumped here. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Warsaw Military District (Q4104092) vs. Warsaw Governorate-General (Q4104100)

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 hours ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Are those two maybe about the same topic? en:Namiestnik_of_Poland claims that the "the role of namiestnik—viceroy of the former Congress Kingdom—passed to the Governor-General of Warsaw—or, to be more specific, of the Warsaw Military District". I don't find any English sources outside of Wikipedia, about a Warsaw Governorate-General (Q4104100) starting in 1874 (not to be confused with Warsaw General Governorate (Q3496993). Or did the Governor-General of Warsaw simply rule both?

Notified participants of WikiProject Poland

Notified participants of WikiProject Russia

Thanks --Flominator (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe that these are different entities, and the English article is mistaken. From the primary sources (Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire (Q4370355)):
- Namiestnik of Poland (Q501831) (Наместник в Царстве Польском) until 1874 and later Warsaw Governor-General (Варшавский Генерал-Губернатор) since 1874 had complete power in the Polish Tsardom (Congress Poland (Q221457)) in the name of the Russian Emperor. The chancellery of the Namiestnik was transformed into the chancellery of the Warsaw Governor-General on January 17th 1874 (julian calendar).
- Warsaw Military District (Q4104092) (Варшавский военный округ) was created on July 6th 1862 (julian calendar). It was a military structure responsible for the military forces on the territory the Polish Tsardom. It was under the military command of the Namiestnik and the Commander of Armies in the Polish Tsardom (Командующий войсками в Царстве Польском).
- There was a different office of Warsaw Military Governor-General (Варшавский Военный Генерал-Губернатор), who had civil and military power in the absence of the Namiestnik. This office was discontinued on July 4th 1862, just before the creation of the military district, likely in connection with the creation of the new office of the Commander of Armies in the Polish Tsardom.
- It is not clear to me that Warsaw Governorate-General existed as an administrative-territorial entity under that name. The territory ruled by Governor-General is always referred in the law as Polish Tsardom (Царство Польское) or Governorates of Polish Tsardom (губернии Царства Польского). But it definitely existed as an office and was separate from purely military offices. VLysikov (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot for your research, VLysikov. Do I get you right, that removing the half sentence about the Military District would already fix the English article (and the German one, that uses the same sentence)?Courtesy ping to Piotrus, who started the English article based on Polish Wikipedia.
When looking at the first version of the Russian article (after removing the redirect to Congress Poland (Q221457)!), it more looks like the intention was to describe the office of the Governor-General, rather than the administrative unit. The article topic is described the continuation of the Namiestnik of Poland (Q501831), which also was an office. --Flominator (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, see en:Namiestnik_of_Poland#Governors-General_of_Warsaw Piotrus (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I believe that would fix the English article.
The Russian article from the first version states that Warsaw Governorate-General was an "administrative-territorial unit", but as far as I can see this unit was officially named "Polish Tsardom" and unofficially "Vistula land" (Привислинский край). Russian wiki cites a source that I cannot check and would call very dubious (it is published by the Russian Ministry of Interior in 2003, with the minister as the editor and no academic degrees listed for other editors). VLysikov (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@VLysikov: I think, I've found it online: https://runivers.ru/library/10419.html -- Flominator (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Translation of p. 14 by Gemini: "By IMPERIAL Decree issued in Warsaw on December 1, 1815, the Viceroyalty (Namestnichestvo) of the Kingdom of Poland was established. On January 11, 1874, it was reorganized into a governor-generalate; at the same time, the Chancellery of the Viceroy was reorganized into the Chancellery of the Governor-General." So we're apparently back at the 1874 document you mentioned above, that doesn't state the term General Governorate as such, right? --Flominator (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Right. The decree is here: [4] at the bottom under the number 53051. My rough translation: "On renaming the former Chancellery of the Namiestnik in the Polish Tsardom to the Chancellery of the Warsaw Governor-General. The Eᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ, after a report of the Minister of the Interior, on the 17th of January of this year, decreed: to assign to the former Chancellery of the Namiestnik in the Polish Tsardom the name of the Chancellery of the Warsaw Governor-General, and to keep it, until special orders, with the same structure and with the same staff, assigning the staff to the Ministry of Interior."
This is purely bureaucratic change, and there is no decree on abolishing the office of Namiestnik or creating the office of Governor-General; the last mention of the Namiestnik is in July 1873. Contemporary sources state that the appointment of the first Governor-General Kotsebou was on January 11 but I cannot find any document about that. VLysikov (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Small addition: Originally, the Military District was introduced into the Polish article by Mathiasrex. --Flominator (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
On pl wiki the latter entry (Warsaw Governorate-General (Q4104100)) redirects to Q2068091 (en:Vistula Land), which from what I can see in my quick read states that the WGG term is a synonym. Piotrus (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply


(edit conflict) Warsaw Military District (Q4104092) and Warsaw Governorate-General (Q4104100) both have articles in Russian and using Google translate they were different. As suggested by the English labels the first was military and the second civil. TSventon (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, seems like the case of military vs civilian administration, not the same entity Piotrus (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Where the civilian administration ("Governorate") might need conversion to an office, to a person performing the job of Governor General. If I understood VLysikov correctly, at least in Russian, the administrative unit never was named Warsaw Governorate-General (again, not to be confused with the later German/Austrian occupation). So maybe the creation of that term was the result of a translation mistake and it doesn't really exist outside of the Wikimedia universe? --Flominator (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Should Q7895225 and Q136755107 be merged?

[edit]
Latest comment: 14 hours ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Both Q7895225 and Q136755107 describe the same organisation and share properties like Property:P2003. Should they be merged into one entry? CoderThomasB (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, I think not, both are different kind of information node. University of Canterbury Students' Association (Q7895225) has student society (Q1685451) as instance of (P31) value, while University of Canterbury Students Association Incorporated (Q136755107) has nonprofit organization (Q163740) as instance of (P31) value. They might be related to one another as subsidiary. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 03:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Looks more like a failure to match to me. University of Canterbury Students Association Incorporated (Q136755107) was created in a QuickStatements batch adding data about nonprofits and they have identical values for official website (P856) and Instagram username (P2003). Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 11:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ping @NGOgo. Samoasambia ✎ 12:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Eligibility guidance for an item about a researcher

[edit]
Latest comment: 19 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I am Shivnath Tathe, a software engineer and independent AI researcher. Before creating a Wikidata item about myself, I would like guidance on whether I meet Wikidata's notability requirements.

The following public records identify me and my research:

I understand that self-controlled profiles alone may not establish eligibility. Do these sources establish a clearly identifiable entity or a structural need under Wikidata's notability policy?

I am disclosing that I am the subject and will avoid promotional editing. Thank you. Shivnathtathe (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reading the records available in the ORCID and Google Scholar, I do not think you are notable for inclusion in Wikidata. Please refer to this article on editing/creating items related to oneself. Thank you. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 07:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

How to search only in en label

[edit]
Latest comment: 17 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all! I want to carry out a search that looks for the phrase "(disambiguation)" in only [en] labels here on Wikidata. Any ideas? I couldn't get it to work in normal search. Fallen Sheep (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Rohini (Rohini (Q3238710)) conflates a nakshatra with a Songkran goddess

[edit]
Latest comment: 15 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Q3238710 appears to cover two distinct subjects:

1. Rohini, a nakshatra (lunar mansion) in Hindu astronomy and astrology 2. Rohini, one of the Songkran goddesses of Thai tradition

The item is instance of lunar mansion (Q6413359), constellation (Q8928) and deity (Q178885) simultaneously. It also carries sex or gender: female, father: Brahmā, country of citizenship: Thailand, part of: Goddesses of Songkran, and colour: yellow — all of which describe the goddess rather than the lunar mansion.

The sitelinks are split between the two meanings. enwiki is "Rohini (nakshatra)" and hiwiki is "रोहिणी नक्षत्र", while bnwiki is "রোহিণী (দেবী)" and guwiki is "રોહિણી (દેવી)" — Rohini (goddess).

A side effect is that Rohini is the only one of the 27 nakshatras that cannot be used cleanly in queries on P31 = nakṣatra (Q1125935).

I'm a new editor and don't want to attempt the split myself, since moving sitelinks is easy to get wrong. Would someone experienced be willing to take it on, or advise on the right process? I know the astrological side of the subject and am happy to help identify which sitelinks belong to which concept. Ragesh Waikar (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The enwiki article en:Rohini (nakshatra) says she is a Goddess and a personification of a star, and a lunar mansion. It also says she is Gorakak Devi in Cambodia. All three senses are in the one article. I think there used to be a separate article for the Goddess, there is certainly a redirect. It may be that we need to make two Wikidata items and then decide what to do with each site link. Secretlondon (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Solar Impulse conflation

[edit]
Latest comment: 11 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Q742889 conflates three topics:

  • Solar Impulse (later Solar Impulse 1) - a specific aircraft; registration HB-SIA; followed by Solar Impulse 2 (Q105412966) (registration HB-SIB)
  • The Solar Impulse project (see linked Wikipedia articles) using both aircraft
  • "Solar Impulse" as an aircraft model, of which two were made

The item was created when only the first aircraft had been completed.

I think the concepts should have separate items. Which one should Q742889 be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

A experimental aircraft model and 2 instances of it, but not an item for the project to design the model. I'd guess every wp article is about the model, so that one Vicarage (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There are multiple Wikipedia articles, but the opening of the one in English reads:
Solar Impulse is a Swiss long-range experimental solar-powered aircraft project, and also the name of the project's two operational aircraft. The privately financed project is led by...
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: By default hide patrolled edits from Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages

[edit]
Latest comment: 13 hours ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The proposal is rather self-explanatory. We see such a firehose of edits and ~97% of edits are already auto patrolled so it would be nice to hide them by default and only show stuff that needs patrolling not everything that is happening. People still can change and see patrolled edits too but the default would change. Amir (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2525987614"