Fae,
Yes and I am very glad you did! I reuse a lot of your upload work and plot ways to harvest it for Wikidata, which is not easy of course. I totally agree it would be great to have dimensional data on Wikidata in such a way that you could identify miniatures (but also small bronzes or trophy cups from outside statues, etc.)

I also would always favor an approach of "dump what you have in the free dormat fields", but increasingly I am also thinking that we approach this all wrong. We should first dump the data into Wikidata, check with queries that it is as expected, and then generate the uploads to Commons, not the other way around.

Jane

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 September 2015 at 10:43, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Here is a painting that I was viewing a few minutes ago:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_molen_bij_Wijk_bij_Duurstede_Rijksmuseum_SK-C-211.jpeg

Hey, I uploaded that. :-)

My approach to these initial Rijks uploads was to just get on with it
and worry about format fixes later.  Our templates do not handle
arrays in a parameter, but that is effectively what we are attempting
to do with dimensions against artworks. Though paintings have height
and width, I have handled other objects such as statues or ancient
artefacts, where there may be many key dimensions to describe, such as
the diameter of a cup along with the width of its base.

I suggest using the free format of the parameter to add dimensions in
a consistent way. It can always be unpicked and reformatted later.

If wikidata can resolve this, some interesting questions could be
asked later on, such as automatically identifying miniatures, or life
size statues of people.

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools