Good to see you! I saw your edit, but you input each interwiki respectively. I want to introduce gadget slurpInterwiki to you! It can input interwiki automatically. If you want to use it, visit your preference page. Have a good time! --Sotiale (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have since found that gadget and put it to work. It certainly makes things quicker, although the interwiki links still need checking first. --Avenue (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Avenue, on the 25th of March you responded to my proposal for the property "was a(n) / war ein(e) / était un(e)" (see here). The proposal didn't get sufficient support and the conclusion was to wait for qualifiers. Now that those have been implemented, I have proposed the creation of a qualifier "former". Would you please be so kind to have a look at this proposal on this page. It's header is "former / ehemalige / ancien(ne) / voormalige". Thanks in advance, NormanB (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
"Not uncontroversial" approachEdit
Why the approach suggested in Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons is "not uncontroversial"? What does it means? Does it means is normal to have cross-links between articles and categories? Or does it means that is against common sense to link pages which are essentially the same to each other (i.e. articles with galleries and categories with categories)? It's not an attack or something, I just don't understand this edit. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is very much the norm (though not universal) for Commons categories to have interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. A Wikidata linking practice that does not support this is not helpful IMO, and may cause substantial damage to interwiki links on Commons (as in the Albert Einstein I gave on commons:COM:VP). There hasn't been enough discussion about this, but I'm certainly not the only one on Commons who has expressed concern.
- I personally like the idea of eventually disallowing cross-namespace item links within each Wikidata item, but I think we do need them to support Commons now.
- Common sense can easily be pushed too far IMO. This might be worth reading. --Avenue (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, so let's say that links to WP articles won't be removed from categories for now, I undid my edit on Category:Albert Einstein. But the idea itself of linking Commons categories to items for categories (i.e. commons:Category:Rio de Janeiro (state) to Category:Rio de Janeiro (state) (Q8663415)) here on Wikidata shouldn't be so "non uncontroversial", should it? Given also the Multichill's Commons Wikidata roadmap, I mean. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I almost forgot to add that right now it's also possible to link Wikivoyage projects, and in the future will be possible to link the missing ones. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 12:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- That roadmap is one person's view, not an agreed consensus. I object more to the timing (massive category-category linking at much the same time as Wikidata interwikis go live on Commons) than I do to the idea of category-category linking itself. The timing comes across to me as respecting neither Commons interwiki practices, nor the right of the Commons community to determine these practices.
- I'm not sure I follow your point regarding Wikivoyage. Are you saying that Commons should include relevant interwiki links to Wikivoyage articles? I think I'd agree with that.
- Ultimately, Wikidata should be here to support the other projects (as should Commons). Commons didn't decide that Wikidata interwiki links should go live on Commons yesterday. At this point, IMO, Wikidata should be trying to support Commons' interwiki links as best it can, rather than forcing Commons into some ill-fitting straightjacket. Data purity can be worked towards later. --Avenue (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Avenue, I have been sorting through units of measurement and saw you wrote a description for the apparent magnitude of stars. Since usually there is a difference between the measured quantity and the unit, I don't really know what to do with the item apparent magnitude (Q124313). I thought magnitude (Q2028919) is a measure for visual brightness (="Scheinbare Helligkeit" in German) as well as absolute brightness, bolometric luminosity... Should they be different units or rather different quantities or both? Regards, --Debenben (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, it is a misnomer to call apparent magnitude a unit of measurement, similar to confusing "length" with "metre". The same is true for absolute magnitude (Q159653) and the general term magnitude (Q2028919) (which conflates the two more specific measures). I'm not sure I quite follow your question, sorry. These scales are defined in terms of the logarithm of the ratio of the object's radiative flux (Q7280375) (adjusted for luminousity distance, for absolute magnitude) to that of some reference object, so the measures are dimensionless. In other words, they are invariant to the choice of units involved in the flux measurement (although they would change if a different base was used for the logarithm). The situation is similar for the moment magnitude scale (Q201605) used to measure earthquakes. Does that help at all? --Avenue (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusing question. I would like all items that are instance of (P31) unit of measurement (Q47574) to have a property measured physical quantity (P111) e.g. radiative flux (Q7280375). Since apparent magnitude depends on distance and absolute magnitude does not, I would not like them to measure the same thing. Furthermore I am unsure about the interwiki-links. e.g. w:en:Absolute magnitude states that it is a measure for brightness whereas the corresponding article w:de:Absolute Helligkeit (=absolute brightness) "is an auxiliary quantity [...] like apparent brightness, absolute brightness is declared/measured in magnitudes". Should they be changed to instance of (P31) scalar physical quantity (Q181175)? I think it would be a good thing to have different items for quantity and unit because they might be used in info-boxes in the future.--Debenben (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- These magnitude scales are not units of measurement, so yes, the first thing is to correct their instance of (P31) value. I think instance of (P31) logarithmic scale (Q937378) would be more informative than instance of (P31) scalar physical quantity (Q181175). I agree it would be good for them to have the property measured physical quantity (P111) if possible. For absolute magnitude (Q159653), I think measured physical quantity (P111) intrinsic brightness (Q15230792) would be appropriate (although that item and the linked enwiki article need work).
- The articles w:en:Absolute magnitude and w:de:Absolute Helligkeit seem to be covering much the same concept (as far as I can tell with my poor German), even if they do present it a little differently, so I'm not seeing a great problem with the interwiki links there. --Avenue (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- The only difference between the articles is the title and definition of w:de:Absolute Helligkeit meaning intrinsic brightness (Q15230792). I have changed it for absolute magnitude (Q159653), but the same problem arises for apparent magnitude (Q124313) and Bolometric magnitude (Q891539). It should be something like measured physical quantity (P111) w:de:Scheinbare Helligkeit and for w:fr:Magnitude bolométrique it should be measured physical quantity (P111) w:de:Bolometrische Helligkeit. There one would have to create new items and loose the interwiki-links which are quite useful since the content of the article is similar.--Debenben (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
III. Restructure Wikidata itemsEdit
Thanks for your support at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links#III. Restructure Wikidata items. We need those changes to take place. JMK (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)