Closing this under the assumption that the existing constraint is enough and the way to go.

As much as I'd love to see it it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

Thank you, @catherine.kelsey.wmde!
I looked through the spreadsheet and it seems the numbers are off. Some examples:

• For P5460 it says it is used on 99 Items but it is actually used on a lot more: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Property:P5460&namespace=0&limit=500
• For the same property it says it is used on 354 Items that have a sitelink. But logically that number can not be larger than the number of Items the Property is used on.
• Towards the end the last two columns are emtpy but should not be. For example P5629 is empty in the spreadsheet but according to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Property%3AP5629&namespace=0&limit=500 it is used on a lot of Items.

❤️
See also T329096

This work is ongoing now by the dev team. Closing this ticket to avoid people picking it up accidentally.

I'll bring it up with the team while Ifeatu is away.
In the meantime I'd love to hear from others if they think this is the right way to go or not. I don't feel I have enough information to make that call myself. (Though I agree that the current behavior needs to be addressed one way or the other.)

This was likely an update lag and has since long been resolved.

Small correction: those are best ranked statements

Do you have a link to an example edit by chance that we're trying to catch here?

In T418167#11896079, @Pfps wrote:

Any suggestions on how to word the ticket so that it gets the right attention?

See also T425758.

Note: Even the text is wrong. It doesn't mention Lexemes and EntitySchemas. See the footer text: "All structured data from the main, Property, Lexeme, and EntitySchema namespaces is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License; text in the other namespaces is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply."

Given the scalability challenges of the SPARQL endpoint this is not going to happen unfortunately.

Sounds good. Let's do this.

In T418167#11895575, @Olea wrote:

In T418167#11895319, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:

There are plans to make them queryable.

Thanks Lydia. Any URI we can check?

We are not tracking cross-project usage in What Links Here for Wikidata but instead in the entity usage tracking which is accessible here: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2&action=info That also triggers the page purges and watchlist integration.
So imho the correct way would be integrating it there so it'd show up on https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Lexeme:L1565447&action=info for your example.

Some (but not all) of the projects have Items connected via a sitelink which have labels in different languages.
Example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5830855

In T418167#11891516, @Pfps wrote:

Are there any plans to rationale the constraint mechanisms? I was on a call where we talked about class-based constraints, which are not possible in Wikidata but some of the constraints on P31 would better be based on classes.

That is... weird.
In terms of what should happen: If it's a link to somewhere outside Wikimedia it should have the external links icon.

Can we clarify what we want to achieve?

• Prevent people from adding new sitelinks but preserve existing ones
• Remove them completely from Wikidata (i.e. delete existing ones and prevent new ones from being added)
• Keep the sitelinks but "hide" them from UI view

In T424133#11876230, @Ladsgroup wrote:

The relevant part is probably this:

We acknowledge that third party tools on Cloud VPS and Toolforge may rely on the Wikibase database schema. Because of this, changes to the available tables and fields are subject to the above notification policy. However, note that the database schema is not designed to be a public API, and less consideration is given to backwards compatibility.

Flagging https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Stable_Interface_Policy to see how this is affected.

I defer this to Ifrah. Nothing to add from my side.

Good question. Maybe @hoo or @Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE can say something about that.

One thing to be aware of: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5296 and potentially others already have sitelinks in the Wikipedia section. That'd probably need cleanup.

Additional complication for the "special/automated" option: We have pages on Abstract Wikipedia that should be sitelinked but that are not articles, like help pages, community portal etc. It's probably not great to treat some one way and others another way. (We do that with Wiktionary but I feel this case would be worse because they'd still need to show up in the Item unlink Wiktionary main namespace pages.)

From my side this makes sense but I think we need a decision on T421151#11808877.

I think we need to make a fundamental decision: Do we want to treat the Abstract Wikipedia links as proper sitelinks or somehow special and automated.

This is still broken.
@Ifrahkhanyaree_WMDE do you have a replacement for it? If yes can we please link to it from the board?

Thank you for digging, Lucas!
It does look like an improvement to me as @Epidosis is saying.
I have a vague memory of @Fuzheado was also hitting this issue.

See also T212211 and T123021.
@DVrandecic was also asking about this.

Conversion makes sense from my side.

That's good to know. Thanks! Then maybe this is considerably less work than I feared.
And I guess the label service will depend on what happens to that in general.

The example queries should probably only be updated once query.wikidata.org is powered by the new system. Otherwise people will get broken queries when they select them from the example dialog.