@Daniel - the further back you go, the more notable the engravings in books become (see for example the whole family of engravings and copies thereof for the 17th-century "Counts of Holland" series) and sometimes engravings from books are the source for paintings. @Nemo - I don't follow your thinking on this one - when you say "new Commons pages, do you mean new Wikidata items based on Commons categories? I don't see a problem with that. Things that have needed a category on Wikimedia Commons are probably notable enough for Wikidata (though I can think of some non-notable categories like "1610 engravings" that would be unnecessary on Wikidata)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com> wrote: > In my opinion "how many items will X add" is a false problem. If p.a. we > moved file categories to subpages as we do on templates, we'd have 20 > millions new Commons pages: but the question would be, are they as > accessible as they were before? Similarly, the only danger is when items' > statements are not transcluded outside Wikidata. > When stuff is in use on projects, as for authority codes; and when it can > be edited in-place, as we all do for sitelinks and ru.wiki does for much > more: then there is nothing I worry about. > > Nemo > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
