User talk:Paperoastro/Archives/2013

Active discussions

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Labels and descriptions task force

Are you interested in an italian subpage Wikidata:Labels and descriptions task force/it? More details on Wikidata_talk:Labels_and_descriptions_task_force#Language_worklist_subpages. Merlissimo (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Serve una mano con etichette e descrizioni? :) --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


Domanda da principiante: gli elenchi delle pagine con label/descr mancanti vengono aggiornati da un bot, o devo editarlo manualmente quando ne completo qualcuna? Grazie Angian (talk) 12:12, 21 Feb 2013 (UTC)

Corpi celesti

Visto che segui il progetto astronomia ti segnalo Descrizioni per Wikidata: Corpi celesti--ValterVB (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Labels and descriptions task force

Visto che ogni tanto lo aggiorni, se ti può servire in questa pagina hai i link veloci ai mancanti. --ValterVB (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied

On Wikidata_talk:Infoboxes_task_force/places, πr2 (tc) 03:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Astronomical objects

Credo che il nome tecnico (per distinguerlo dal nome di una persona) sia una delle cose fondamentali che debbano essere indicate per un oggetto. L'unico dubbio, che ho riportato anche nella pagina delle proposte, è la fattibilità tecnica, ma un modo per inserire questa informazione credo che comunque si trovi quando l'implementazione della fase II sarà completata. Parere mio personale è che la comunità di wikidata è ancora troppo giovane ed impreparata a questa novità. Ci si sta muovendo (tutti) senza sapere bene cosa abbiamo a disposizione né come usarlo. Speriamo di crescere in fretta che WD ha grandi potenzialità secondo me. --Beta16 (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

annullamenti

Ciao, ho annullato due tue modifiche in quanto "provincia" va in minuscolo mentre "stato" in maiuscolo (it:Wikipedia:Maiuscolo#Diritto). --Viscontino (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

grossomodo si trovano qui, sono quelle "ufficiali" diciamo. --Viscontino (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk of deleted property P99 (planet - astronomical object orbiting a star)

This property is used on "Sun" to indicate the planets that the sun "has". An equally common, or ultimately more common usage, would be the more obvious one: <Great Red Spot> ("is on") planet <Jupiter>. This is also the default interpretation of statements, I think. Does it matter if these two usages of "planet" coincide? Should there be a "has planet" property and an "on planet" property? These descriptions fulfill the meaning of "statement" more accurately when there is ambiguity. Espeso (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right. My idea has been to create a property that lists the planets of a star (for example "Sun", but also other stars with planets), but I have not thought a meaning like your proposal. In this discussion Art-top suggests to join this property with natural satellite, so, in my opinion, the ambiguous meaning can be solved. --Paperoastro (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, this property is now actually being used to say that "Subject:Io is a moon of Object:PLANET Jupiter" and that "Subject:Sun has Planet:Jupiter in orbit". It is being used in two conceptually distinct ways. There is yet another way it could be used, as in my first comment: "subject (crater, rover, Great Red Spot) is ON Object:Planet X".

The "Planet" property will have such limited use, I think, that maybe the "problem" isn't important. But I would prefer properties like "orbits" and "is orbited by", leaving the type of object to be obtained through reference to the attached Item... Espeso (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I open a discussion here concerning the organization of astronomic objects. --Paperoastro (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Duplicazione item

Ciao Paperoastro, scusa il disturbo ma nel tentativo di creare dei collegamenti interwiki per la voce sulla cometa C/2012 F6 (Lemmon) ho duplicato un elemento qui su Wikidata: ho creato infatti C/2012 F6 (Lemmon) che duplica Q5007231. È possibile cancellare il primo e rinominare il secondo come C/2012 F6 (Lemmon) (ho integrato in quest'ultimo gli interwiki)? Ho provato ad utilizzare il Template:Delete, ma non sono riuscito ad inserirlo in C/2012 F6 (Lemmon). Puoi indicarmi come procedere? Grazie mille. --Harlock81 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Grazie mille, chiarissimo. Probabilmente è intervenuto qualcun altro ed ha cancellato gli item di sopra perché quando ho scritto in effetti erano blu. Buon lavoro. --Harlock81 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

hi

Grazie for contacting me on my talk page. You are a polite person and follow the "wiki way", willing to examine different perspectives.   Espeso (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Discoverer" degli asteroidi

Ciao Paperoastro, in attesa che si completi l'iter per le altre proprieta, potremmo iniziare a popolare il discoverer degli asteroidi. La fonte da cui partire sarebbe questa mentre per avere il nome completo dovremmo usare questa. Naturalmente serve un bot per ottenere i Qxxx degli asteroidi e degli astronomi. Sai se ci sono botolatori attivi e smart su wikidata? --Ysogo (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Attività

Grazie mille per il lavoro su User:ValterVB/Sandbox, se ci si divide il lavoro possiamo finire presto! Già questo fine settimana dovremmo partire. :) --Nemo 22:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

'Discovery date' property

Hi Paperoastro. Given the unanimous support for the 'discovery date' property proposal you made, I don't think anyone would object if you created that property. Best, Emw (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Two questions, one header

Do you have any ideas for properties for "orbit-illustrations" and "temporary designation"s? Or should we be pleased with the image-property and the aliases? -- Lavallen (block) 18:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Proprietà Unicode astronomic symbol

Hello, Paperoastro. You have new messages at Ricordisamoa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: "fondato/creato da" e "scoperto da"

Non sono certamente la stessa cosa, ma stiamo rischiando di creare in poco tempo una giungla di nuove proprietà con cui dovremo fare i conti tra qualche mese, e molte di esse finiranno in PFD, magari cancellate. Non sarebbe proprio ottimale avere "data di inizio dell'opera", "data di inizio del mandato", "data di prima pubblicazione", "data di prima messa in onda", "data di messa in onda in Italia", "data di scoperta", "data di invenzione", "data di sviluppo di software", "data di nascita di un pianeta" ecc. ecc.

Pertanto sarebbe opportuno ridiscutere tutte queste proprietà, per le quali c'era supporto un tempo (quando non si sapeva nulla di qualificatori e query), ma che ora potrebbero già essere obsolete. --Ricordisamoa 23:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rotation period

Are you sure that you can write the rotation period using the time datatype ? In reality time datatype is more date datatype. Just try to see. Snipre (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Property:P619 "launch date", Property:P620 "landing date", Property:P621 "decay date",

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion. --  Docu  at 20:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Property:P622 "docking/undocking dates",

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion. --  Docu  at 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

ISTAT ID (P635)

The property ISTAT ID (P635) that you supported is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Wikidata's primary sorting property

You recently participated in a deletion discussion for P107 - main type (GND). The discussion has been closed, as it is clear that a resolution won't come from PfD, and an RfC has been opened on the matter at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Primary sorting property. You are invited to participate there. Please note that this is a mass delivered message, and that I will not see any replies you leave on this page.

Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Catalog numbers

Good day! I understand that you are interested in astronomy. Can you please tell me a reliable online database, from which the title of the object I can find other catalog numbers of galaxies, stars and other celestial objects. I have the ability to transfer these data by bot. This will reduce confusion and allow more qualitatively detect duplicates. --Art-top (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Art-top! The problem of duplicates is very intricate, especially for the objects in the New General Catalogue (Q14534)! There is some (professional) catalogues that can be useful for your purpose:
  • SIMBAD - a catalogue that contain informations of all objects
  • NED - a catalogue for extragalactic objects
  • HyperLeda a catalogue for galaxies
  • and last, VizieR - a database of all astronomical catalogues!
For some of them probably will be difficult to extract automatically informations. If you have problems, do not hesitate to ask me! Because also you are interested in astronomy, give a look to the Astronomy task force ;-). --Paperoastro (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • About SIMBAD. Which information useful for Wikidata can be, for example, on page [1]? I see:
  • P60 (P60) => galaxy (Q318) (string in "Basic data": IC 1427 -- Galaxy)
  • catalog code (P528) => IC 1427, LEDA 67948, NPM1G +14.0536, WB 2201+1452, BWE 2201+1452, 2MASX J22033515+1506244, UGC 11889, Z 428-25, 87GB 220110.3+145217, MCG+02-56-010, UZC J220335.2+150625, Z 2201.2+1452
  • It may be something else. --Art-top (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Concerning SIMBAD, I confirm you that the only information useful at now are the ones you listed (we need numeric datatype!). For catalog code (P528): catalogue LEDA and PGC are the same (see last rows here. In Wikidata there is a lot of items with PGC names as alias, so it is better change the name "LEDA" with "PGC". The number is the same. I suggest you to add, for every information, the source stated in (P248) =>SIMBAD (Q654724). Thank you very much for all and... good work! :-) --Paperoastro (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Please advice. What is written in "P60 (P60)" for these types:
    • Emission-line galaxy
    • Extra-solar Planet Candidate
    • Interacting Galaxies
    • LINER-type Active Galaxy Nucleus
    • Pulsating variable Star
    • Radio Galaxy - galaxy (Q318) or radio galaxy (Q217012)?
    • Seyfert 1 Galaxy
    • Seyfert 2 Galaxy
    • Star suspected of Variability
    • Variable Star - star (Q523) or variable star (Q6243)?
    • Variable Star of beta Cep type
    • Variable Star of delta Sct type
    • Variable Star of gamma Dor type
    • Variable Star of Mira Cet type
    • Variable Star of delta Sct type
  • Types from SIMBAD database. --Art-top (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Another question. In the database is the name of a symbol "*" (example: * 51 Peg, ** RBR 21). I understand that this character before migration should be removed. Is it? By the way - first test: 51 Pegasi (Q14265). --Art-top (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi: for the list above I suggest:

My idea is to use different properties for star variability (see this proposal) and for activity of galaxies (e.g. Seyfert 1 and 2 and LINER).

I read the help pages of SIMBAD: the symbols "*" and "**" indicate the importance of the catalogue: I confirm that they should be removed.

I have seen your test: you are making a great job! Thank you! --Paperoastro (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I put my suggestion to the second lists. Please, is it possible for you give me a link for an object with SIMBAD type Interstellar matter and High-Mass X-ray binary Candidate? Thank you very much! --Paperoastro (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My error!

Hi, Art-top, I gave you a wrong information concerning Open (galactic) Cluster. I suggested you to add also parent astronomical body (P397) -> Milky Way (Q321), but {{Q|1035619}, for example, is parent astronomical body (P397) -> Small Magellanic Cloud (Q49984), but SIMBAD classify it as Open (galactic) Cluster (see this and [3]. So it is better to avoid to add this information. I'm very sorry for the error! --Paperoastro (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not worry, I'll fix it. --Art-top (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Interstellar matter

It is very strange that SIMBAD classifies the object you linked as "interstellar matter": they are nebulae! If they are a small number, we can put "by hand" the type. I suggest you to put the list in the talk page of Astronomy task force. If bots cannot insert "unknown" or "novalue" values, we can insert them by hand (for now, imho, it is a good solution). --Paperoastro (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Bright Nebula" I have proposed variant nebula (Q42372). What do you think? Developers have already reported about the bug "novalue", we hope that they will fix it. I found a complete list of the types of Simbad here. However, it seems to me, most types do not need. --Art-top (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way I found "High Mass X-ray Binary", see SS 433 (Q1029902) (SIMBAD). --Art-top (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
nebula (Q42372) for "bright nebula" could be a good solution. Thank you for the complete list of types of SIMBAD! :-) My idea as your: most type we do not need. For now I prefer to use types useful to distinguish infoboxes in Wikipedia. For this reason I would use binary star (Q50053) as astronomical object for SS 433 (Q1029902) and other "High Mass X-ray Binary". What do you think about it? --Paperoastro (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a good option. Will do so. --Art-top (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Judging from the list on the SIMBAD for the types of "Interstellar matter" and "Emission Object" can also use a type of nebula (Q42372). What do you think? --Art-top (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm having doubts about the type of "Interacting galaxies." For example, Messier 32 (Q13720) everywhere called "Galaxy", and it is of type SIMBAD "Interacting galaxies." Similar examples abound. What to do? While I unplugged type "Interacting galaxies." --Art-top (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Imho SIMBAD definition is "excessive". NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (Q488563) classifies Messier 32 (Q13720) as galaxy. --Paperoastro (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC) P.S.: for comparison, NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (Q488563) classifies Whirlpool Galaxy (Q13957) as pair of galaxies

JPL Small-Body Database ID (P716)

The property JPL Small-Body Database ID (P716) that you supported is available now. Please help out with other science identifiers at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Chemistry_.2F_Chemie_.2F_Chimie and Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Stratigraphy. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor Planet Center observatory code (P717)

The property Minor Planet Center observatory code (P717) that you supported is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

asteroid spectral type (P720)

The property asteroid spectral type (P720) that you proposed is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

asteroid family (P744)

The property asteroid family (P744) that you supported is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Stellar classification

Please see Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P215. This is the first attempt to add code from the SIMBAD. They are a bit do not match the specified filters, it may be possible to convert them somehow? Also SIMBAD have morphological types of galaxies (example: [4], [5], [6]). --Art-top (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to modify the constraint, but I do not know so well regular expressions! Concerning morphological types of galaxies, you can use Property galaxy morphological type (P223) ;-) --Paperoastro (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Types of astronomical objects

Only a few types of astronomical objects:

Thanks for your job! --Paperoastro (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    • Don't mention it!   Done --Art-top (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And what point in this case: "no value" or "unknown value"? (Bug fixes, now bot can add this data) --Art-top (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    In this cases I use "no value" because there isn't any objects... --Paperoastro (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

New proposal based on yours - User:Paperoastro/sandbox

Based on your proposal I made one myself here. I've used your organization to try to explain mine. I would like to copy my proposal to your page, if it's OK, but I would like if you see it first. I made an announcement in the taskforce's page, to make your proposal official. I'm waiting for an opinion. - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

decays to (P816)

The property decays to (P816) that you supported is available now.--Tobias1984 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

decay mode (P817)

The property decay mode (P817) that you supported is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paperoastro!

Would you possibly be interested to comment on the new economic property proposals for Wikidata? Here is a link: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term

Thanks, Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

arXiv classification (P820) as qualifier

I think it is a good idea since both come together. Just update the description and leave a note on the talk page. Thanks!--Micru (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

P107

Hello! As I understand it, P107 (P107) is removed, is it? --Art-top (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! ;-) Yes: the community decided to remove P107. At now its use is deprecated and in this discussion people are discussing how "migrate" from it. --Paperoastro (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :) Apparently for astronomical objects, this property will migrate to P60 (P60). I can do this by bot. --Art-top (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Confusion with galaxies

Please look at the elements of galaxies NGC 1516: [7]. I think there is confusion to the SIMBAD. --Art-top (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)   Done--Paperoastro (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done (there was confusion also between interwiki!) --Paperoastro (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

spectral type

Hello, why did you remove the spectral type here ? --Gloumouth1 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Asteroid spectral types - 2

Your interpretation of subclass of (P279) doesn't correlate with Help:Basic membership properties. --4th-otaku (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mh... probably I misunderstand the help page? Could you explain me, please? :-) --Paperoastro (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I saw your edits... I underestood... Thanks! --Paperoastro (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

This is not a mistake? --Art-top (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is strange, it is right: A multi-domain approach to asteroid families identification (Q15102469) ([8]) pag.10 section 5.15 (The Padua family): "This family, previously associated to the asteroid (110) Lydia... " ;-) --Paperoastro (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The spectral class of asteroids

The spectral class of asteroids is specified in JPL Small-Body Database for various classifications: Tholen spectral type, SMASSII spectral type (for exapmle: 110 Lydia (Q135916)). Now they are not specified. I think it needs a qualifier such as "classifier" or "classification" to indicate the type of spectral class. --Art-top (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I made the proposal for the qualifier property here. --Paperoastro (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Hard for me to make up phrases in English, they are likely to turn out incorrect. --Art-top (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Asteroid planet

Hello, in Nysa family (Q2342796), you have added "instance of Nysa family (Q2342796)". I think you meant asteroid family (Q249083), but I preferred to check rather than changing it myself :). Actually the source seems to talk about a "Nysa/Mildred/Polana family", not a "Nysa family". --Zolo (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: it was a my mistake! I have corrected it. Thanks! :-) Concerning the name, you are right: the source talks about three families together. We can change the name, but before I'd like to verify the existence of items of Mildred and Polana families. --Paperoastro (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I read the source, and created the item Nysa/Mildred/Polana family (Q15111680); 44 Nysa (Q110037) and Polana family (Q3738898) are subclass of it. Thanks! :-) --Paperoastro (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

provisional designation (P490)

Do you have any serious objections to the use of P490 for other items than astronomical objects?

My concern is that the "official name" of a Swedish "småort" (locality with normally between 50-200 in population) is not very "official" at all. And the use of a property like the proposed "official name" would be misleading. I can propose another property, but an alternative would naturly be this. A natural objection is that the constraints used in P490 does not fit a "småort".

My intension is not to use this kind of property in a near future, since I have many many other things to do first. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

When I proposed P490, I didn't think that it could be useful for other kinds of item. Of course, I agree for the use outside astronomical objects, and if could be useful in the future, we can modify the constraints.. ;-) --Paperoastro (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to interrupt the conversation. I think it's not a good idea - mix such diverse concepts. It will be impossible to control the format, type and other item data. Maybe I'm wrong. --Art-top (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
A proposal in PP/Place about "controlled place name" looks to fail, so I am not very optimistic about a proposal about a "designation"-property for localities. Those who oppose prefer "official name" instead, but it will make no sense. Statistics Sweden sometimes gives "official names", and in other cases only give a "designation".
It will take several months, maybe as long as a year, before I can start with this task. We'll see if the system with contraints, will look the same then. The opinions in PP/Place may also change. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You are right, Art-top, concerning constraints, and I assure you that I don't want to change them. My hope is that in the future we can manage constraints with qualifiers; at now it seems to be a task too much hard. The idea of Lavallen could stimulate the develop of this. --Paperoastro (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Types of planet

As you consider whether or not the property "type of planet"? (see: en:Category:Types of planet). --Art-top (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would not oppose, but the trend here is that properties like "type of ..." are proposed to be deleted. Consider if the use of "instance of" Gas-giant etc would do the job instead? -- Lavallen (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
There are precedents removal of these properties? --Art-top (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, since I cannot read deleted pages, is it a little hard to give you an example, but vessel class (P289) was proposed to be deleted here. That proposal failed, but it gives you an example of how the arguments can look like. -- Lavallen (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a property to categorize planet, but, as Lavallen noted, could be rejected. My idea is to limit the use of P31/P279 only to real objects (used directly in infoboxes) and use properties for their characteristics (infobox parameters). At now, for me, there is a lot of confusion concerning this topic and there are people that for some arguments want to use absolutely P31/P279, but for other similar not (for example someone could be ask to delete occupation (P106) for using P31...). I'm studying how to propose this property, to open a more general discussion concerning this idea. --Paperoastro (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

NGC 5162, NGC 5174 and NGC 5175

Hello! There are suspicions that the NGC 5162 (Q1117396), NGC 5174 (Q3393828) and NGC 5175 (Q1117488) in the SIMBAD merged incorrectly. If not difficult, see please. --Art-top (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)   Done --Paperoastro (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In the next few days I will give a look. --Paperoastro (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry: the data was imported by Netherlands Wikipedia, and the names NGC####-1 are not standard names! I'll give a look. ;-) --Paperoastro (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand that NGC####-1 (also NGC####/1) is the same as that NGC####A. Am I right? --Art-top (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is true in the most of cases. But there are some others (see NGC 94 (Q2598377) and PGC 1670567 (Q570995)) where the -1/-2 do not have any correspondence! --Paperoastro (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Age of the Universe

Hello, as someone added "source: en.wikipedia" to the age of the Universe in Q1 I tried to use en:Age of the Universe to get something better. I do not think we can explain all the complexity of the measurement in Wikidata, but perhaps, we can do better than what I did, so if you can give it a look... --Zolo (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Zolo. Yours is a good start point. ;-) I will search some review articles to try to add some old measurements! --Paperoastro (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Astronomical objects properties

Look, please: {{Astronomical objects properties}}. Maybe need to change or update. --Art-top (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! :-) Is there consensus for this very useful task? ;-) I tried to group astronomical properties here. I hope it could be useful for you. --Paperoastro (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not my idea. I saw this and decided to make a template similar to astronomical objects. Used on the talk pages of the properties. --Art-top (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I like it. When I finish to organize astronomical properties, I will ask you some updates... ;-) --Paperoastro (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Detection method

By the way, about the methods of detecting extrasolar planets (see property [Wikidata:WikiProject Astronomy/Properties#List_of_properties|here]]). I think it is quite possible to use the item datatype. Here are some of these methods: doppler spectroscopy (Q2273386), transit method (Q2069919), Transit Timing Variation (Q2945337), gravitational microlensing (Q1028022), polarimetry (Q899381), astrometry (Q181505). The rest can search in the language sections of wiki or make empty elements. --Art-top (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about determination method (P459)? --Paperoastro (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC) P.S.: I'd like your comment here.
I think this is an acceptable solution. Although the concept of "determination method" and "detection method" somewhat different in meaning. Example: Kepler-41b (Q15114570). --Art-top (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You are right, probably this property could generate confusion, because the name of the field in Template:Infobox planet is discovery_method, but the label is "detection method"! Furthermore P459 is created as qualifier property! Before an intensive use, I will ask in its discussion page. --Paperoastro (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Your and Zolo objections here convinced me: here there is the proposal ;-). --Paperoastro (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I supported the proposal. --Art-top (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lists of asteroids

Do need lists of items with asteroids? In my database now more than 78,000 numbered asteroids and more than 11,000 unnumbered. If needed, it is better to put them where? --Art-top (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Something like http://208.80.153.172/wdq/?q=claim<nowiki>[60:3863] this? ;-) One or more pages with all asteroid list should be impracticable. What do you think about a table like Wikidata:Bar/Archive/2013/08#Località italiane this? I'm sorry, it is in Italian! There is a list with all the properties involved in cities. Try also to give a look to this --Paperoastro (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, in the classical wiki lists seems to be no need. Thank you. --Art-top (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Asteroid spectral types

Hi. I see that you replaced many "subclass of (P279):asteroid (Q3863)" with "instance of (P31):asteroid spectral type (Q1750705)". In fact, both these statements are equally legitimate here.

Any object classified as e.g. X-type asteroid (Q2314759) can as well be classified as asteroid (Q3863). Therefore, by definition, X-type asteroid (Q2314759) (or any other instance of asteroid spectral type (Q1750705)) is a perfectly valid subclass of asteroid (Q3863). (BTW, the similar kind of thing also appears in our stellar classification structure, see e.g. A-type main sequence star (Q471805) which you classified mostly by yourself.)

In case you are confused by the "type-token distinction", please note that it doesn't work on Semantic Web. --4th-otaku (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, my idea is to distinguish object hierarchy and their characteristics. An asteroid instance of (P31) -> asteroid (Q3863) and asteroid spectral type (P720) -> X-type asteroid (Q2314759). For this reason I decided to change "subclass of (P279):asteroid (Q3863)" with "instance of (P31):asteroid spectral type (Q1750705)" for asteroid types. --Paperoastro (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
To be consistent with your logic, we should remove any subclass of (P279) from Wikidata entirely.
Any given class is simultaneously both a set of "characteristics" (distinctive features of objects of this class) and a corresponding set of objects (so-called "class extension"). You can't discriminate some classes as "characteristic", because any class characterizes its instances in some way. --4th-otaku (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. I write the answer I gave to Izno here: << it is a question of semantic: where do we stop P31? We can classify all with P31! Brad Pitt (Q35332) "is a" -> person, not "is a" -> actor" plus "is a" person with light hair" without use properties for job or colour of hair. The same: Delta Cephei (Q13024) "is a" -> "star", not "is a" -> " Cepheid variable" plus "is a" -> "G-type supergiant". >> So, if we want to use P31 for a characteristic of stars, asteroids, mountains, cars, and so on, we should not classify persons as "human", but for their jobs, their colour of hairs and so on. The same for other kind of items. If we want to make this choice, we need to remove most of the properties we created.
This is about P31, not P279 we are talking about. --4th-otaku (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. P279 is very useful for hierarchy between objects: see my proposal for astronomical objects.
Agreed. So, why we should artifically cut the hierarchy at some arbitrary level? It still can be useful there, even if we can't imagine any use case now. --4th-otaku (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Using P31 or P279 for characteristics, is more difficult to associate them to infoboxes parameters. asteroid spectral type (P720) is directly associated to the spectral_type parameter of the infobox en:template:Infobox planet. In this manner is more simple to recover the right information.
--Paperoastro (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that specialized type properties can be more convenient in Wikipedia than P31. But, please note that we aren't discussing P31 in instances of asteroid (Q3863) now. We are talking about P279 for instances of asteroid spectral type (Q1750705) instead. Are there any infoboxes for instances of asteroid spectral type (Q1750705)? --4th-otaku (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Ops! You are right! :-P Sorry for my misunderstanding! I made the change for two reasons: 1) avoid confusion between P31/P279 hierarchy and P720 specialized property one and 2) avoid confusion between other subclass-type of asteroids, i.e. asteroid families and asteroid groups (all them are parallel sub-class of asteroids!). I tried to think a manner to distinguish them each other with P31/P279, but I did not succeed! If you have some ideas, you are welcome! --Paperoastro (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion, but it's actually really easy to fix: Use P279 as is appropriate here, and use P31 as is appropriate here. P31 should be 'spectral type' and p279 should be 'asteroid' (or one of its subclasses as appropriate). To draw a parallel, the same thing is done with ship classes. See e.g. Yorktown-class (Q634024). This also makes it very easy to query for the types as they are often used on Wikipedia; see e.g. ship type in en:Template:Infobox ship. --Izno (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Izno! Thanks for your suggestion. Give a look to Hungaria family (Q223376). It should be as you suggested. ;-) Paperoastro--23:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that is a wrong use of subclass of (P279), because the family is not a subclass. The instance of (P31) claim there is correct. --Izno (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Mmmhhh, so you suggest to remove P279 and leave only P31. Is it correct? I need to make "some" correction. --Paperoastro (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, in the case of asteroid families (oops! :P). --Izno (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
On a different note: This is weird. These families are not subclasses, but rather parts of, the Outer Main Belt. --Izno (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah! Sometimes I confuse subclass with part of. So I need to make other corrections. Thanks for your suggestions! --Paperoastro (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The easy way to tell the difference is whether you would say "is type of" (subclass of (P279)) or "is part of" (part of (P361)). This of course can cause some weird (unfortunate) things when different wikis name the objects differently—for example, the "Outer Main Belt" article could be named "Outer Main Belt asteroid" on one wiki and vice versa on another, or to be pertinent to the above section, Type-X instead of Type-X asteroid, in which case the relation is not so obvious. I'm not quite sure what should be done in that situation, but my feeling is that that's a rarer case than not. (Excepting boats, that is. En-wiki names it "ship class name"-class "ship type" rather than "ship class name"-class. It definitely makes more sense to do the former rather than the latter in English, at least....) --Izno (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
How welldefined are these families? I have hesitated to write about them on svwp, since very few Swedish-speaking sources talks about them. (On the other hand, is very little written in Swedish at all.) -- Lavallen (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
@Lavallen: I took information in the article A multi-domain approach to asteroid families identification (Q15102469) (if you are interested on it, see the arXiv ID (P818) link). The most important families have articles in en-wiki; most of them have articles in ru-wiki. If you want, you can start from them. The other families have minor importance (i.e. few asteroids). Unfortunately all the sources I found are only in English! --Paperoastro (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
@Izno: I corrected all the occurrence! Thanks for your and other users help! I have a question: some families are subclass of other families (see Ulla family (Q15124264) for example). Does exist a manner to show the dependence tree? I tried to use this tool, without results! --Paperoastro (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, except those are still not subclasses of those other families. Part of the relation to use again, in which case, you could use one of the tools Magnus Manske has put together to see the hierarchy of composition. But that aside, I think we've run into exactly the problem I described above (at 14:28, 27 November 2013)! Some wikis call it a family, others an asteroid type. As I said before, I'm not sure of the best way to deal with it, though I'm inclined to say that someone should suggest a move of the en.wp page to "x family". My 2 cents. --Izno (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess there also are two kinds of families? Families mainly based on orbital element only, often with Orbital resonance with Jupiter or Neptune. While the other families have common spectral type, chemistry and orbital elements, based on a possible common history before a collision of some sort. These two families can also be found among the TNO's. Like the Haumea-family compared with the Plutinos. The Haumea-family are proposed to have been parts of one larger object a long long time ago, while the Plutinos have the 2:3-Orbital resonance with Neptune in common, but not necessarily anything else. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is correct. Usually astronomers call families (asteroid family (P744)) the ones that have "common spectral type, chemistry and orbital elements, based on a possible common history before a collision of some sort"; and groups (minor planet group (P196)) the ones that are "mainly based on orbital element only, often with Orbital resonance with Jupiter or Neptune" (I add also Earth and Mars). Sometimes there is some confusion also between astronomers, caused by the use of family and group word as synonyms! I almost finished to check items of families (there is still some "groups" classified as "families"!). --Paperoastro (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
When you say Mars and Earth, I can only think of Trojan, 1:1 or near 1:1-Resonance? Are there anything else? -- Lavallen (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and also near Earth (or Mars) objects that have orbits near the 1:1 resonance. A list can be found here and this page of the Minor Planet Center can help you the differences between the groups of near Earth asteroids. --Paperoastro (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Asteroid families

If you are caught lists asteroids by families, I can add them by the bot with the source. I will need: family name, numbers of asteroids or temporary notation (if not numbers), prepared the source element. --Art-top (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow this link, press the button "submit" without insert anything in the fields, and you will have the list of asteroids used by the authors of A multi-domain approach to asteroid families identification (Q15102469). --Paperoastro (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's cool! :) There are those links that can specify in the property "URL". --Art-top (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This article should probably also classified. I did not succeed. --Art-top (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    It is a sub group of Near Earth asteroids, so we will classify it in asteroid groups instead of asteroid families. ;-) --Paperoastro (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

P60 deletion

Please see: Wikidata:Properties for deletion#Property:P60 (type of astronomical object). --Art-top (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Paperoastro/Archives/2013".