Il giorno 22/ago/2013 19:28, "David Cuenca" ha scritto:
> Since the BookManagerv2 extension (coming soon) will be storing all
metadata from any work (sourced or not) in the (new) "Book:" namespace,
IMHO the best would be to link those pages to the edition items as outlined
in the Books Task Force.
@Luca: it would be great if you could take a look to this page:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikisource
Since the BookManagerv2 extension (coming soon) will be storing all
metadata from any work (sourced or not) in the (new) "Book:" namespace,
IMHO the best would be to link those pages to
Il giorno 22/ago/2013 18:34, "Lydia Pintscher"
ha scritto:
> We're currently trying to figure out how to best do this.
>
Great, thank you all. :)
L.
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
I am not completely sure if there currently is such a thing. I guess we
need to implement that first.
One suggestion was that AbuseFilter could do this, but there was concern
raised that this may overload AbuseFilter, and a native implementation
would be better.
We will need to figure this out. I
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Luca Martinelli
wrote:
> @Denny: is it possible to temporarily disallow sitelinks to certain
> namespaces for certain projects, in order to allow them when we've got a way
> to deal with them? This could be a trick to be used also with Wikisource's
> Index namespac
Il giorno 22/ago/2013 16:09, "Denny Vrandečić"
ha scritto:
> I guess we should disallow sitelinks to the File: namespace, in order to
avoid people trying to add metadata about the media files themselves?
+1 to this and +1 to Marten's proposal.
@Denny: is it possible to temporarily disallow sitel
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood that the birth date is somewhere around 640 to
around 568.
Yes, in this given case Byrial is completely right.
2013/8/22 Byrial Jensen
> At 22-08-2013 17:32, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
>
>> This doesn't really work yet in the UI. Basically, you could only enter
>> sth lik
At 22-08-2013 17:32, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
This doesn't really work yet in the UI. Basically, you could only enter
sth like 6th c. BC which in this case would not be correct.
6. century BC for birth date and 5. century BC for death date is both
correct and possible.
1st Millenium BC would
Hey :)
I just published my report from Wikimania. You can find it at
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/08/22/wikidata-and-other-technical-bits-at-wikimania/
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Technical Projects
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
This doesn't really work yet in the UI. Basically, you could only enter sth
like 6th c. BC which in this case would not be correct.
1st Millenium BC would be possible and correct, but it is a bit too wide.
That's the only thing supported right now.
We will be working on improving this situation.
C
Hello,
I'm beginning with wikidata and didn't find how to add a date which is
not exact. In fact I found [1], which would gain clarity with an
example, but the given format is refused when I try to use it. For
example, I want to add birth and death date for Pittacus of Mytilene[2],
for which
(sorry for cross-posting)
Dear semantic wiki users and developers,
We are very happy to announce that early bird registration to the 8th
Semantic MediaWiki Conference is now open!
Important facts reminder:
--
* Dates: October 28th to October 30th 2013 (Monday to Wednes
Hi Maarten,
thanks. That's the best proposal I have seen so far in how to proceed with
Phase 1 on Commons. I usually had pushed Commons support further to the
back, but with this I think we would indeed create some real value with a
small change. I will bounce Commons Phase 1 client support up on
Hello Markus ,
thanks for pointing to wda code it's very useful ,
i guess by looking on the Wikidata glossary property data types and data
value types are the same thing :
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Glossary#Datatypes
this may be shallow a little bit , but what i saw is that (correct
Hi all,
I think one source of confusion here are the overlapping names of
property datatypes and datavalue types. Basically, the mapping is as
follows right now:
[Format: property type => datavalue type occurring in current dumps]
'wikibase-item' => 'wikibase-entityid'
'string' => 'string'
'
15 matches
Mail list logo
