Jump to content

Wikidata:Project chat

Edit links
Add topic
Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?
From Wikidata
Latest comment: 6 minutes ago by IntensionalLogician in topic Feedback on IORO Publications journal-article items (Ijter)
Edit
 SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 7 days.

Need of a process to become a mentor

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Since just recently, we have the possibility to use the Mentorship features like many Wikipedias already have. However, currently we have self enrollment disabled. So either we need to turn that on, or we should add how to request to become a mentor on Wikidata:Requests for permissions. I suggest that we do the first one, and the current limit of a 365 days old account with at least 500 edits seems like a reasonable number to start with. Ainali (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

For comparison Event Organizers have no formal requirements for experience on Wikidata whatsoever. One is bound to have instances of the blind leading the deaf, to use a metaphor.
I see no use-case for having people request mentor rights. Since edits are easy to farm on Wikidata, the emphasis should be on account age, not edit count. It's in the spirit of Wikipedia to give users a lot of freedom even if that leaves room for messing up, so if an enthusiastic user with a half year old account wants to have a go at this, that seems ok to me.
One of the worries on Wikidata is new users making edits by the thousands, and not reading through all of the documentation or asking others for advice. Establishing a feedback cycle early can only be a good thing. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what you really want. Are you totally against users getting mentor rights, or against it being manually handed out? Ainali (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
The latter. People can self-enroll. I just find it strange to expect that mentors should have Wikidata experience when there currently is no such expectations of Event Organizers. Infrastruktur (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I agree. So would you rather go with even longer time than 365 days? Ainali (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nah. They don't need to be experts. I would be ok with as low as 6 months of experience for either role. Infrastruktur (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great! Then all we need is an admin checking the Editors who meet all eligibility criteria are automatically eligible to enroll as mentors on Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship. Ainali (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm supportive of this. We can always change the configuration later if need be, but let's give it a try with the default settings. Yirba (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Alright, discussion has been open for 5 days, so I guess it's time. Mentorship has been enabled. Settings are still TBD. Currently configured to allow let accounts over 365 days old with 500 edits to self-assign themselves the mentor role, so give it a try. Mentees are currently automatically removed from mentorship after reaching either 500 edits or having an account registered for 30 days. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for doing that. I won't be participating myself, but I'd be curious to hear what mentors and mentees on Wikidata make of this feature. Yirba (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thoughts on transcluding Special:ManageMentors as described at [1] so it can be added to Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list (Q14339834)? IntensionalLogician (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a good idea. Ainali (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
This RFC seems relevant. Bovlb (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
What are your thoughts regarding Trainers vs Mentors? It seems like the requirements are similar but they would serve different purposes: Trainers being more organization and group facing while mentors are more individual-new-user facing. They could probably be combined into a single thing that does both as well, but the workloads seem distinct enough that they probably shouldn't. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Secretlondon The question does not change depending on who the affected items are about. What is being debated is whether a criterion absent from policy can justify mass deletions. That holds regardless of who the subjects are. If the criterion exists, cite it. If it does not, the question remains open. Johnnytelles (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi, you've already created many, many topics. Please don't take over other, unrelated topics. Yirba (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Notability of businesses and business chains

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Hi all,

@WikiBayer: recently deleted Q138763371, without going through an RfD and notifying the item creator (me). I noticed this because I had the item on my watchlist. This item described Bingz, a minor fast-food restaurant chain which operates 7 locations in Canada.

I had created this Wikidata item so it can be referred to in OpenStreetMap so shops can be associated with their chain brand (e.g. [2] and [3]). I appreciate that OpenStreetMap isn't a Wikimedia project, however I was under the impression that Wikidata items can be created to hold data about OSM objects. This is also encouraged by OSM's "Name Suggestion Index" (although Bingz specifically is not yet in NSI).

I would like to get some clarification on notability for businesses so I can avoid putting work into items that would be deleted.

For this deletion, the admin cited Wikidata:Notability, which states that an item must fulfill one of three main criteria, one of which is "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references."

It seems to me that basically any chain restaurant can be described by public references, as there's usually a "business opening" puff story in local media. Are these to be considered "serious" references? Examples for Bingz specifically could be [4] and [5] - obviously there is little critical reporting there, it is a reprint of what PR served them, though it confirms this place exists/existed at the time.

Previously, Q109377032 was deleted as "not notable" (brief RfD). I haven't seen the item before it was deleted, I only know of it because it was linked in OSM briefly. The store's website has a list of press references although again not much critical reporting - is this below the threshold for inclusion in Wikidata?

I am assuming places like Steve's Music are in the clear as their existence (although especially their closing) has been widely reported beyond reprinting PR releases. How about small chains like Craig's Cookies which was in the news for its workers unionizing? Is a former pharmacy important to a local community operated by a person with links to obituaries okay? If someone's going to delete those in the future, I would like to know so I can host the data I've researched elsewhere instead.

Is there a better place to ask this?

Thank you, Qviri (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Qviri Items need a reputable not selfcreated source Steve's Music doesn't it either. Even though OpenStreetMap has similarities to Wikidata, they are not the same. WikiBayer (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I can't understand "Steve's Music doesn't it either.", is a word missing? --Qviri (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Steve's Music doesn't have the required sourcing either. Secretlondon (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Steve's Music Store (Q138253811) has references to two online articles in CBC News (Q2931014) with reporting on people's reactions to its closing. Is further sourcing required? I am rather surprised this doesn't meet Wikidata's notability requirements, can you create an RfD so this can be discussed? I will adjust my Wikidata contributions if this turns out to be the case. --Qviri (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@WikiBayer: can you respond to my questions about Bingz and Steve's please? I have provided references. Are you saying BlogTO and CBC are not reputable? What criteria are we using for "reputable"? Please note that I have no affiliation with these businesses other than having eaten at Bingz exactly three times and having edited the two locations on OSM, so WD:SELF doesn't apply. Qviri (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Qviri take some photos of the chain, upload them to commons using c:special:uploadwizard, add them all to a c:com:category, then link that category back to the wikidata item, and set c:com:depicts = the wikidata item of the chain.
this doesnt guarantee protection from wikidata deletionists, but if they still delete it, that's gonna piss off more people because that deletion messes up commons data. RoyZuo (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
"@WikiBayer recently deleted Q138763371, without going through an RfD and notifying the item creator (me)."
if this is true, this sysop should face consequences.
because his action already messes up commons.
out of curiosity, i checked https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=bingz&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image . strangely, it finds 1 file, even though bingz doesnt appear anywhere on its file page. i guess it might be because someone added 西少爷 bingz's chinese name to the wd item so commons somehow was able to find it.
with that i found http://industry.people.com.cn/n1/2018/0326/c413883-29889936.html https://vibes.8world.com/food/bingz-chinese-crispy-burger-singapore-2313456 https://cn.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202404/26/WS662b2287a3109f7860ddb1b4.html ...
deleting without going through an RfD is serious abuse of sysop tools. it wastes other users' time and effort. RoyZuo (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I just want to leave a note of support, as I'm someone else who sometimes puts data in Wikidata as a way to store information about items in OpenStreetMap. I thought that having a place of storing structured data (especially about real-world entities) to be used across many projects was the whole point of Wikidata. I totally get that not every little company out there might be "notable" and that the notability criteria are under discussion to maybe tighten them up a bit. But there needs to (1) be clear guidance about how to establish whatever that baseline level of notability is, especially for common things like stores and local chains, and (2) a process that at the very least notifies creators before deleting their work when it looks like they're trying to add data in good faith. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
and i just found Q133829650: no description was also deleted by User:MisterSynergy out of procedure. how is a publicly listed company not notable? what's all this out-of-procedure deletion here? RoyZuo (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Scale back your aggression. There is no "out of procedure" deletion here at Wikidata per Wikidata:Deletion policy. The vast majority of deletions is not being discussed at WD:RfD or elsewhere, and there is no policy which would prescribe a discussion. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
vibes.8world.com and co. are reputable sources are you really going to claim that here? WikiBayer (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@WikiBayer YES.
Do you know what you are talking about when you try to deflect the blame to a handful of random news articles I found in 5 minutes?
  1. I dont see the equivalent of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (Q59821108) on wikidata. Who decided these websites to be unreliable?
  2. Channel 8 News (Q15940701): Chinese-language news department based in Singapore, rated by zh:Wikipedia:來源評級/8視界新聞 to be "generally reliable", including its "vibes" subdomain, quote: "旗下娛樂網站亦為通常可靠".
  3. people.cn (Q5967721), which is internet branch of People's Daily (Q54340).
  4. China Daily (Q851422).
When you're done discrediting those 3 news agencies, you can continue doing the same for the following:
  1. https://www.news.cn/food/20230531/218edfe737844a228e5ce78a0d643de8/c.html
  2. http://m.cnwest.com/xian/a/2021/06/27/19768232.html
  3. https://app.dahecube.com/nweb/news/20240427/198292n70d2303b3b3.htm
  4. https://www.bjnews.com.cn/detail/162401019614610.html
  5. https://finance.sina.cn/china/gncj/2023-07-26/detail-imzcymix7231277.d.html
  6. https://zqb.cyol.com/html/2014-11/17/nw.D110000zgqnb_20141117_1-09.htm
  7. https://i.ifeng.com/c/89OJnLiMcb1
RoyZuo (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The fact that multiple sysops could dodge questions without any problem shows everyone how bad this system is and how it enables this kind of behaviour.
I noticed that other users have pointed out the problems of undiscussed deletions, e.g. on 25 June 2026 "...the editors restored them after I contacted them and explained the situation. But I have never been contacted about an item I created before it was deleted, and even at my comparatively very low output these were frustrating..." Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Notability_policy_reform#c-Emwille-20260625200600-Round_3:_Votes.
It's enlightening to learn that wikidata is a project that doesn't care about its users' work. Thanks for showing people reasons wikidata should not be contributed to. RoyZuo (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Contradicting requirements for properties

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Marvel character ID (P5621) requires Marvel Universe (Q931597) for the property from narrative universe (P1080), but said property has it as a constraint that Marvel Universe (Q931597) should not be used for it. StarTrekker (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @OmegaFallon who added the none-of constraint to P1080 and @Shisma who added the item-requires-statement constraint to P5621. Yirba (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I've created a SPARQL query to find similar cases where one property's item-requires-statement constraint conflicts with another property's none-of constraint: https://w.wiki/SJYM Yirba (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yirba: Since neither person pinged has replied, would it be ok if I just went ahead and tried to resolve it on my own?StarTrekker (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@StarTrekker: Well, it's not really for me to say, but you might as well. I think there are maybe two options. We could update the constraint on Marvel character ID so instead of requiring Marvel Universe, it instead requires more specific universes such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Or if we think that it's fine for characters to belong to the "Marvel Universe", then we should get rid of the none-of constraint on the other property. What do you think? Yirba (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yirba: There are a ton of universes connected to Marvel, so Imho I think the simplest solution would probably be to remove the non-off constraint for Marvel Universe, as well as make it so that any sub-universe of Marvel Universe can be acceptable for the other property.StarTrekker (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@StarTrekker: Makes sense to me, but to "make it so that any sub-universe of Marvel Universe can be acceptable for the other property" isn't so easy. You'd either have to list every Marvel universe on the property constraint on Marvel character ID (P5621) or use a complex constraint. Do you have a particular approach in mind for this? Yirba (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yirba: My assumption was that "instance of or subclass of" would do the job. But maybe all the sub-universes aren't subclassed of Marvel Universe.StarTrekker (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@StarTrekker: You can do that with subject type or value type constraints, but not with item-requires-statement constraints. A subject type constraint isn't applicable here because we're not saying that a Marvel character is an instance of a Marvel universe. Instead we're saying that a Marvel character is from a Marvel universe. So we need an item-requires-statement constraint for that, but you can't just provide a class. It doesn't cascade to subclasses or instances of that class. Yirba (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Yirba: Well then I'm not sure my idea works. Maybe it's best you just decide what you think would be easiest.StarTrekker (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@StarTrekker: Okay, what I've done is remove Marvel Universe from the item-requires-statement constraint, meaning any universe is allowed. However, I've also applied a complex constraint so that there needs to be a "from the fictional universe of" statement the value of which is part of the Multiverse Yirba (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Suggested rule, no arguments about article creation or deletion here

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm sure many of us are fed up with the endless discussions here about adding and deleting articles, notability and article merging. Most people don't need to follow the pleading of new users that they are special. Could we clearly say that Project Chat is for discussion of general issues for the site, and specifics like that should be raised elswhere, in the Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard, Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions and (promised) Articles for Creation pages, and attempts to raise them here will be reverted. The more trivia that appears here, the fewer people will read the page. Vicarage (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requests for undeletion are already supposed to go to AN. It says so at the top of both pages and in the guide. People don’t always follow the rules.
In general, we will respond to them here because we are trying to be flexible and avoid unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, but it might be better to move them. Bovlb (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Most of AN is requests for undeletion or reports or vandalism or spam. There can be a separate page, similar to the other projects' pages at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (Q13429672). Peter James (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not opposed, but this has been proposed several times with no consensus. Bovlb (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy to help with merges. New users are the future. Spam undeletions are a pain but I think banning a lot of content wouldn't make this noticeboard lively as much as dead. Secretlondon (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Don't miss a Wikimania:Wikidata session

[edit]
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikidata-enthusiasts, we created a Wikidata-only program page for the 2026 Wikimania.
Feel free to open a discussion thread for questions, conversation topics or to coordinate session attendance and the lunch Meetup. Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Meta:Requests for comment/The future of Abstract Wikipedia

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Meta:Requests for comment/The future of Abstract Wikipedia. Warudo (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A note for fellow WikiData users going to participate in this discussion: As of writing, every user with WikiData as their home wiki participating in this discussion has opposed closure, while many users with other home wikis are mixed, but many lean in favor of closure. I think it is important to try to have these users from other wikis try to understand Abstract wiki from the perspective of providing a benefit to Wikidata, by helping make our work here more accessible, rather than viewing it as a threat to (or replacement for) their work. I encourage fellow WikiData users to engage with the discussion and share a WikiData perspective on it. IntensionalLogician (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
What are the main outputs for WD for this project? I know we were hoping to get automatic item descriptions, but what else? I'd hope if they do descope the project we can save the description part. Vicarage (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Other than automatic item descriptions, I'm not sure if anything else would be a direct output for WikiData, maybe LydiaPintscher knows more? My current view is that as the data source of abstract wikipedia, wikidata would benefit from both the increased access to our content being available to wider audiences, and from this, the reciprocal flow of new users being interested in wikidata for the purposes of improving content on abstract. I'm also hopeful it will give a 2nd chance to things like Magnus Manske's dream for automatically generated lists from Wikidata in Wikipedia articles (which to my knowledge is currently banned on enwiki). -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah the main next step is increasing usage of Wikidata's data and especially lexicographical data. With that we will hopefully also see another push towards high-quality data, especially consistently modeled data. LydiaPintscher (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Systematic pattern of mass deletions using non-official criteria

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 hours ago41 comments9 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
@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 [6]
  2. Template:Uw-notability [7]
  3. WD:N [8]
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: 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

good to add romanized names in disambiguation labels ?

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

en:United Opposition (Soviet Union), en:Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka) good to add romanized names as english labels on Joint Opposition (Q112762315) কল্কি (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Identifier for Luxembourg cantons

[edit]
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am looking for the appropriate way to record the two-digit identifiers used by STATEC for the twelve cantons of Luxembourg, for example:

  • Capellen: 01
  • Luxembourg: 03
  • Echternach: 10
  • Remich: 12

The Luxembourg communes already use LAU (P782) for their LAU identifiers, generally in the form LU1001, LU1002, etc. These correspond to the former LAU 2 level and to the current single LAU level used for municipalities.

For the cantons, however, I have not found an equivalent property for the former LAU 1 level or for the national two-digit canton code. As Eurostat no longer maintains a separate LAU 1 level, using LAU (P782) for the cantons may be semantically misleading.

The codes and the relationship between communes and cantons are published through Luxembourg’s Open Data portal:

https://data.public.lu/fr/datasets/limites-administratives-du-grand-duche-de-luxembourg/

The downloadable dataset contains the list of communes and cantons, together with the LAU 2 codes of the communes. The two-digit canton component can also be seen in STATEC’s LUSTAT geographical classifications, where cantons are represented, for example, as CT01 for Capellen.

Is there an existing property that would be appropriate for these canton identifiers? If not, would a dedicated external-identifier property such as “STATEC canton code” be justified, despite the identifier system containing only twelve values?

The intended domain would be canton of Luxembourg (Q1146429), with values matching the pattern 0[1-9]|1[0-2]. Gilleszeimet (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply


Requesting help creating an item for Cryptool.io (disclosed COI) — edit filter blocks it

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

Hello. I have a disclosed conflict of interest (noted on my user page): I would like to create an item for Cryptool.io, a non-custodial crypto investor-management SaaS. When I try Special:NewItem the edit filter disallows it ("specific spam items"), I assume because my account is new. I do not want to work around the filter — could someone advise the correct process, or create the item if appropriate? Proposed minimal data: label "Cryptool.io"; description "non-custodial crypto investor management platform for portfolio tracking, capital raising, OTC, and fund administration"; instance of (P31) = web application (Q1348783); official website (P856) = https://cryptool.io. Independent references available: Crunchbase, Messari (messari.io/project/cryptool), G2, Capterra. Note this is distinct from the existing "CrypTool" cryptography-education software item. Thank you. Cryptool (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is the subject of your proposed item notable? A quick web search would suggest that it is not. Unless it is (or becomes) notable then we will not create an item for it. M2Ys4U (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Clickable page protection icons?

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, would it be possible to make it so that clicking on page protection icons (in the top right corner) links to Wikidata:Protection policy? This would make it easier for new users to understand exactly why they cannot edit some pages. For instance, in Q64141588, we should be able to click on the grey padlock icon and be redirected to the protection policy page. I’m asking because some new users complained to me about this exact issue. I tried to look for the location where these icons are defined, but couldn’t find anything. Cheers — Danÿa (:3 🏳️‍⚧️) 22:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The relevant documentation seems to be mw:Help:Protection_indicators. It suggests we can set the target for each badge by creating local pages in the MediaWiki namespace. Bovlb (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Abuse filter blocks new item for a published Thai author (crypto topic)

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

Hello, I tried to create an item for myself: Peeraphat Hankongkaew (Thai: พีรพัฒน์ หาญคงแก้ว), a Thai author with five traditionally published books on Bitcoin and digital assets (e.g. "Bitcoin & Blockchain 101" ISBN 9786167752853, "The Bitcoin Standard" Thai edition ISBN 9786160843107, sold at SE-ED and naiin bookstores), board member of the Thai Digital Asset Association (listed at thaidigitalasset.org/comittee-advisor/), and founder of the crypto news outlet Bitcoin Addict Thailand (bitcoinaddict.com). The "specific spam items" abuse filter disallows the creation because my account is new and the description contains crypto-related words. Could an experienced editor either create the item or advise how to proceed? I can provide independent references for every statement. Thank you! Peeraphat.han (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

We will not have Items for these. Wikidata is not here for PR and SEO. LydiaPintscher (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Create two items for me?

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

Hello! I am not yet autoconfirmed, so I cannot use QuickStatements. Could someone please create these two items for me? I have gathered sources and notability notes below.

Statements requested
Item 1: Parry Headrick
Labels: Parry Headrick
Description: American public relations executive; founder and CEO of Crackle PR
Aliases: Parry J. Headrick; Parry Headrick (public relations)
Statements to add:
instance of: human (Q5)
country of citizenship: United States of America (Q30)
occupation: public relations executive (Q1120575) / entrepreneur (Q131524)
date of birth: 1978
place of birth: Boston (Q100)
official website: https://parryheadrick.com
LinkedIn personal ID: parryheadrick
X username: parryheadrick
Facebook username: parryheadrick
notable work: AI Citation Pyramid — https://cracklepr.com/ai-citation-pyramid
notable work: Under Embargo (podcast) — https://cracklepr.com/podcast
Reference URLs to use on statements above:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/parryheadrick/
https://cracklepr.com/leadership/parry-headrick
https://www.linkedin.com/in/parryheadrick/
https://x.com/parryheadrick
Item 2: Crackle PR
Labels: Crackle PR
Description: American senior-led B2B technology public relations agency
Aliases: Crackle; CracklePR
Statements to add:
instance of: public relations agency (Q1120575) / business (Q4830453)
country: United States of America (Q30)
headquarters location: Boston (Q100)
founder: [Q-number of Parry Headrick from above]
inception: 2021
chief executive officer: [Q-number of Parry Headrick from above]
industry: public relations (Q1120575)
official website: https://cracklepr.com
LinkedIn company ID: crackle-pr
notable work: AI Citation Pyramid — https://cracklepr.com/ai-citation-pyramid
notable work: Under Embargo (podcast) — https://cracklepr.com/podcast
Reference URLs to use on statements above:
https://cracklepr.com
https://www.linkedin.com/company/crackle-pr/
https://www.prweek.com/article/... (or other independent source if available)

Notability notes for talk pages For Parry Headrick: Forbes byline contributor; founder/CEO of Crackle PR; co-host of Under Embargo podcast; creator of AI Citation Pyramid framework; public speaker on PR/GEO topics. For Crackle PR: Senior-led B2B tech PR agency founded 2021; notable client roster includes VC-backed B2B technology companies; produces the Under Embargo podcast and AI Citation Pyramid research. Thank you in advance! ParryHeadrick (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @ParryHeadrick. No we will not do this. Wikidata is not here for PR and SEO. LydiaPintscher (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieving data from an item linked to another

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, my question is probably pretty dumb, but i didn't find the answer in documentation yet, so i came to ask here: from a Wikipedia template, i want to retrieve the surname (family name (P734)) of an author (author (P50)) of a book edition, providing the id of the book (Vortaro de Esperanto (1922) (Q137784570)). In other words: if i use {{#property:P50 |from= Q137784570}}, i get "Kazimierz Bein". But how can i get (automatically) the id of this person (Kazimierz Bein (Q12749)), knowing the id of a book written by him, so i can retrieve some of his properties (family name (P734), given name (P735)), in order to create something like "BEIN, Kazimierz" for a reference template? Thanks in advance, CasteloBrancomsg 19:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Castelobranco: It looks like you will need to move beyond the simple functionality the parser functions provide and use Lua. See Wikidata:How to use data on Wikimedia projects#Modules. LydiaPintscher (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Danke, @LydiaPintscher! CasteloBrancomsg 11:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

help request

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

I'd like to create an item for TrustSniffer (crypto-security platform, trustsniffer.com); I hit the spam filter as a new user — can someone review/create it?" TrustSniffer (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No we will not do this. Wikidata is not here for PR and SEO. LydiaPintscher (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion

These three pages have information about exactly the same matter. I was trying to link them together but I'm getting an error and cannot finish the edit. The Russian version is proposed for deletion which is apparently a sign of the Russian-associated propaganda.

There are other languages in the list if you dive into Russian and Ukrainian versions.

It would be the right thing to link them all together to the English version.

Maybe someone can help to resolve this. Thank you. ~2026-40444-88 (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-40444-88: defection (Q332988) is about the act of defection. defector (Q101007738) is about the person doing the defecting. The two items cannot and should not be merged. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
The sky is blue, the grass is green, the piss is yellow. ~2026-40444-88 (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why are you trying to merge items https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q332988 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q101007738 together?
Who proposed merging them?
Are you okay? ~2026-40444-88 (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

best way to add few statements for list of items at once

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

i am creating non-existent items of municipalities. at the end of day, i want to few default statements for all items created by me with suffix municipality. whats the best way ? কল্কি (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You probably want to have a look at Help:QuickStatements or Wikidata:Cradle. LydiaPintscher (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@LydiaPintscher i just made initial batch with QuickStatements and its quite easy ! কল্কি (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request for help with Babel and languages ​​on User:UBX/ASD

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, I am trying to set up the language interface on the Wikidata item to centralize languages; however, I do not know how to configure it so that the item appears as:

  • Instance of (P31): Wikimedia template (Q11266439)

Could an experienced Wikidata editor help me with this? Thank you very much for any guidance on how to do it. Jonalopez11 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

¿Tienes dos cuentas? Madamebiblio (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Are you trying to create a Wikidata version of en:User:UBX/ASD? I found Template:Non-smoker, so perhaps you could create Template:ASD. I don't know if or how you can make an interlanguage link between the English template and the Wikidata one. TSventon (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because en:User:UBX/ASD exists in the User: namespace, we cannot create a sitelink to it. Yirba (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for replys. Okey. Jonalopez11 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

VIAF confusion

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I saw that some identifiers for Thomas Dampier (Q7788834), Thomas Dampier Bishop of Ely 1748-1812 relate to N. Thomas, French engraver c. 1750 - c. 1812.

I have created N. Thomas (Q140611040) for the French engraver and moved some identifiers. I have also created c:N. Thomas on Commons.

I think the problem goes back to 2013, when Q7788834 was created for en:Thomas Dampier and linked to http://viaf.org/viaf/31061989, which seems to relate to N. Thomas, by VIAFbot. Then bots have added identifiers for N. Thomas and identifiers for N. Thomas have linked to Q7788834, e.g. https://data.cerl.org/thesaurus/cnp01326059 has information about N. Thomas, a link to Q7788834 and a picture of Thomas Dampier.

Is this a common problem and what more needs to be done? TSventon (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You might find Help:Conflation of two people helpful. Bovlb (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) pointed me toward this as I was working on a tool for graph visualization outside of Wikidata.
I was going to provide some static graphs or something, but managed to deploy the tool this morning (very much a work in progress in terms of the UX etc) however I hope you might find it useful?
Basically you can put in the 2 Wikidata IDS you are looking at, and view how the tool tries to explore the graph outside of Wikidata.
When conflicts are found they are highlighted, and it will try to help you resolve them too.
https://lll.addshore.com/resolve?input=Q7788834 & https://lll.addshore.com/resolve?input=Q140611040
Prepare for bugs, and let me know what you think! ·addshore· talk to me! 08:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Bovlb: yes, Help:Conflation of two people is helpful, I have created Thomas Dampier (Q140622594) for Thomas Dampier Bishop of Ely 1748-1812.
@Addshore: I think your tool is a bit advanced for me, most of my Wikidata experience is linking Wikipedia articles and categories to Wikidata and adding simple statements. My new Thomas Dampier seems to be mostly fine https://lll.addshore.com/resolve?input=Q140622594, but my new N. Thomas has some problems, perhaps some identifiers need to move back to the conflation page. Are you planning to write a manual? TSventon (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I took another pass at the UX of the tool last night, with any luck it will slowly make more sense and become easier to use.
Looking at https://lll.addshore.com/resolve?input=Q140611040, the main thing it highlights is that the links out there on web end up including 2x isni different numbers currently, 2 different wikidata ids and 2 different libary of congress ids if you follow them all.
A large part of this is due to the fact that Thomas Dampier (Q7788834) still has the IDs on it, and that I don't have any special handling for conflation (Q14946528), however that is not the only reason.
As far as I can tell the 2 sources below which you link to from N. Thomas (Q140611040) still in turn link back to the incorrect thing on Wikidata.
I tried to include just the graph of these nodes (during hop2 of exploration) File:(lll) linked data explorer Q140611040 21072026T0730Z.png
These links in turn reveal more connections back into concepts that likely should not be conected. ·addshore· talk to me! 07:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Addshore: thank you for your advice, I have moved four conflicted identifiers from N. Thomas (Q140611040) to Thomas Dampier (Q7788834). I have also added more biographical information and Volume 33 of Thieme-Becker as a described by source. Hopefully the remaining identifiers are not conflicted.
I can't see any problems with Thomas Dampier (Q140622594), which probably means I am not looking hard enough.
Is it possible to get the identifiers to disentangle themselves? It seems odd that a French engraver and an English clergyman with different names get confused even if they did live at the same time. TSventon (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

AUGMANITAI items created by User:AndreasEhstand

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments5 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
[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

is there any way to sort search results at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1 by number of items of item কল্কি (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary 741

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata in the
week leading up to 2026-07-20. Missed the previous one? See issue #740.

Discussions

Events

Press, articles, blog posts, videos

Tool of the week

Other Noteworthy Stuff

Newest properties and property proposals to review

You can comment on all open property proposals!

Development

  • Wikidata Query Service: We are working on adapting the Query Service UI to get it ready for the move to QLever
  • Mobile editing of statements: We are continuing to fix small issues found in testing
  • Lexemes: We are continuing the work on adding support for Lexemes to the REST API
  • Sustainability:
    • We are preparing the migration of some database tables on the client wikis that track the usage of Wikidata's data in articles on Wikipedia and co
    • We are further investigating how many changes from Wikidata that currently get sent to Wikipedia and co don't actually lead to a change in the article to be able to reduce these cases further

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

Dutch lexical data is inconsistent and features a lot of redundancy.

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

This is an expansion of a comment I already made here Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data/Documentation/Languages/nl/modeling#c-Seraph3ne-20260720120600-Clarity Around Verb Forms? however, after looking further at the data, I feel that there are a large number of issues with all of the Dutch lexical data.

Starting with verbs as mentioned in my original comment, there is inconsistency around how certain things are labeled, but there are also certain things that are simply incorrect. Lexeme:L1459448 lists Q22716 incorrectly on many of the forms. I also think that there may be unnecessarily repeated data, for example, L1459448-F5 and L1459448-F6 are listed as Q77768790 and listing formal forms seems to be common practice despite there not actually being a specific formal form. Presumably they are listed as they are used with the formal pronoun 'u' however, these forms are not distinct from the second person jij, or the third person hij and so are already listed on the page. Verbs also seem to be tagged as instances of Q1340504, even though they are already given lexical category Q24905. I also think the listing of forms for the first person, second person, and third person, plural may be considered redundant as these are also consistently the same.

There are also issues with nouns, primarily I believe there are a number of duplicate pages based on grammatical gender, for example L1418654 and Lexeme:L1455300 represent the same lexeme, however the second lists Q499327 instead of the more common Q1775461, the use of the masculine gender for this lexeme is simply a dialectism and does not represent an entirely new lexeme, as such I think this should just be listed on the original lexeme. The problem is that this is not an isolated case Lexeme:L1458907, Lexeme:L1458908, and Lexeme:L1458909 refer to the same lexeme, with different gender properties. Some nouns are also marked as grammatical number Q110786, which seems unecessary.

Adjectives also list certain forms inconsistently Lexeme:L1419968 and Lexeme:L1458491, list the relative forms with different tags, and generally they lack accurately descriptive tags on many of the forms.

I think a more thouroughly written standard would help address many of these issues, and many of the lexicographical data projects for other languages do have more thourough standards. Seraph3ne (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Feedback on IORO Publications journal-article items (Ijter)

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

Hello — I operate the Ijter account, which keeps Wikidata in sync with journal articles published by IORO Publications, a small open-access publisher. I was recently granted a one-year IP block exemption for this task and, as suggested there, I've made a handful of edits and would like feedback before running the full back-fill.

Sample article items just created: Balancing Development and Environment: A Doctrinal Analysis of Bangladesh’s EIA Legal Regime (Q140645736), Selling Arms, Waiving Rights: The Structural Failure of US Human Rights Law in Weapons Transfers (Q140645737), The Impact of Diplomacy on the Balance of Power in International Relations: Challenges and Opportunities (Q140645738).

Each article item carries: instance of scholarly article (Q13442814) (scholarly article), title (label + P1476), DOI (P356), published in (P1433) linked to the journal item, publication date (P577), and author name strings (P2093). The parent journal items (e.g. International Journal of Law, Politics and Governance (Q140451759)) carry title, ISSN (P236), and publisher.

Does this modelling look correct, and is there anything you'd change before I create the remaining ~260 article items? I'd especially welcome guidance on author handling (name strings vs. resolving to author items) and any missing properties. Thanks! Ijter (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for asking about this. I'm not a fan of the use of first line (P1922) for (what appears to be) the abstracts, I've never seen this used for any other scholarly articles. Also does not meet the English description guideline for capitalization. I also have to ask, is the address used for work available at URL (P953) going to be persistent? If the DOI directs to it anyway, this should probably be sufficient. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
I personally like the idea of including abstracts but notice that Wikidata:Property_proposal/abstract failed. The consensus of the discussion at Property_talk:P1922#Scope in 2016 seems seemed to support adding abstracts, but is at odds with the conclusion of Wikidata:Property_proposal/abstract in 2020. Curious what others think of this. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Person who appears never to have existed

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion

en:Edward Spring, 1st Baron Askeaton was deleted from en-wiki in 2018 as a possible hoax (See deletion discussion).

His entry has since been removed from ThePeerage website, and marked as "may never have existed" on Wikitree [9] with all family connections removed.

Yet we still have an item for him, Edward Spring, 1st Baron Askeaton (Q16821927), with links to profiles for him on Geni.com and Prabook that are not (yet?) deprecated.

What is the best way forward here? Deletion? Or retention with some kind of appropriate P31 warning and heavy deprecation of other statements, to flag the apparent invention for anyone who finds him still on another site? Do we have any established best practice or policy?

And: how many other en-wiki articles may there be, that have been deleted there as hoaxes, but still have items here? Jheald (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I reckon it should either be deleted, or perhaps we change it to an instance of human whose existence is disputed (Q21070568). Yirba (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia hoax (Q125168941) also exists, or is that too strong? Jheald (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well, we don't know for a fact that it's a Wikipedia hoax. There's some evidence that it is, but it's not 100% conclusive. Yirba (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Help panel question on Q140661932 (10:44, 22 July 2026)

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

how to add the statement --Dine ALEMTO (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Dine ALEMTO: Hi, please see Help:Statements#Adding statements, but also note that we discourage people creating items about themselves. Yirba (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Merge

[edit]
Latest comment: 10 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, can someone merge Q21152915 into Q3707833? Thanks! --Like the windows (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

✓ Merged, thanks. Yirba (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Aguacapa Dam and Hydroelectric

[edit]
Latest comment: 27 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both Q4694461 The Hydroelectric power station and Q113956791 the Dam are separate items. As far as I understand in cases like Hoover Dam Q172822 , the object should be an instance of both dam and hydroelectric power station. This would help link the articles about the Hydroelectric and the Dam construction. Thanks!

Tian2992 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Description discussion at Talk:Q5367197

[edit]
Latest comment: 23 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's an open discussion at Talk:Body & Brain (Q5367197) about whether the item description meets the neutrality guidance in Help:Description. I'm affiliated with the organization and have disclosed that in the thread, so I'd welcome an uninvolved editor taking a look. Sources are laid out there. Arnelque (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=2521390640"