Examples include lists, indexes, outlines, disambiguation pages, and glossaries (eg.w: Glossary of glass art terms, which is not about a glossary, but is a glossary itself).
These pages' associated items, like those for categories/templates/etc, exist primarily for interwikis, but they also make use of certain properties for tracking purposes, for the sake of convenience, even though it is not how the property should normally work.P31 is used in these items, acting as though the item is about the linked pages themselves in such situations.At what point are claims too granular (or numerous) to go in Wikidata? The article has a topic, and it is Alexander Hamilton's relationship with slavery, and not some Wikipedia article.--Yair rand (not logged in) , 24 December 2017 (UTC) No.In the new search ( Search) it didn't show in the top 500 items at the time.
In general it's often hard to find items for technical terms that are similar to "heart rhythm" when the items don't have much use. But: a) it's not possible to use it in completion suggesters and b) implementing an option will take time (we'd need to do some refactoring work on underlying parser, probably) and boosts are available right now. :-/ I would think that a statement along the lines, of "good initiative, though we also need to look to how people wishing to search for scientific articles, or other entity based search, are able to perform searches more functionally to get results." Would get a response of "good point, let us see what we can do" rather then "sit and spin Captain Grumpy".
I support Smalyshev's suggestion though do share Andy's concerns.
— billinghurst The problem with even your reformulated version is that it contains no concrete ideas of what kind of queries Andy has in mind where this would be a problem.
Setting the label that way indicates that the item can be used that way and that's a wrong impression to give people who aren't familiar with our items. I could understand listing the yearly rank, but adding hundreds seems overboard. Should we delete it in January to add the new one??? Why not to have the latest and the best population of a place? Xaris333 (It should certainly not be "Wikipedia article".
Why do you think misleading most naive users is worth adding the alias? The bot's user page does not link to a relevant bot permission request, so I'm assuming this has not been discussed already. That's not the topic; the linked articles do not start with the text "The Wikipedia article 'Alexander Hamilton and slavery' was created in October 2016 by...".
For those things that aren't in the should section it makes sense to see on a case by case basis whether it's valuable to include them, and the policy refers currently refers to the Project Chat for further discussion (I think the talk page would be the better venue).