Wikidata:Property proposal/Stellar Rotational Velocity
stellar rotational velocity edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Space
| Data type | Number (not available yet) |
|---|---|
| Template parameter |
|
| Domain | star (Q523) |
| Allowed units | kilometre per second (Q4220561) |
| Example | Pollux (Q13028) → 2.8 km/s |
| Planned use | Import from Wikipedia to Wikidata. |
- Motivation
(Add your motivation for this property here.) Mikey641 (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
Notified participants of WikiProject Astronomy--Mikey641 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment Hmm, this is computable from rotation period (P2147) and radius (P2120) so do we really need a separate property for this? It may be more directly measured I suppose (and the radius for example might not be known). Also I note the proposed name has been shortened to "rotational velocity" leaving out "stellar" so it could be applied to non-stars; however the value would depend on where on the surface of the object you are measuring - the rotational velocity of an asteroid, say, is not a well-defined quantity because different parts of the surface are at different distances from the axis of rotation and so move at different speeds. So not sure about this at the moment. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- If it should be created at all, it shouldn't be called "rotational velocity" because that is too much like angular velocity (Q161635). No reliable source has been presented showing that the term "rotational velocity" is used by the scientific community, or if so, it means what this proposal says it means. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h: Changed it to Stellar Rotational Velocity--Mikey641 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Mikey641: Is there a reason it is capitalized, as far as I can find, it should not be. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- fixed - no we don't capitalize generic properties ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Mikey641: Is there a reason it is capitalized, as far as I can find, it should not be. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h: Changed it to Stellar Rotational Velocity--Mikey641 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- If it should be created at all, it shouldn't be called "rotational velocity" because that is too much like angular velocity (Q161635). No reliable source has been presented showing that the term "rotational velocity" is used by the scientific community, or if so, it means what this proposal says it means. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- What's the prior art with naming this relationship in astronomy? ChristianKl (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
