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_Rijk...
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