Talk:Q2299100
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — magnetic vector potential (Q2299100)
description: vector field whose curl is the magnetic flux density
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “magnetic vector potential” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- magnetic vector potential (Q2299100)
- physical quantity (Q107715) (@)→
- vector potential (Q521126)
- potential (Q12559031) (¤)→
- vector field (Q186247)
- section (Q11703678)
- vector (Q13471665)
- tensor (Q188524) (℧)→
- multivector (Q2377336)
- →(℧) tensor (Q188524)
- multilinear map (Q1952404)
- →(●) mathematical object (Q246672)
- →(℧) tensor (Q188524)
- →(§) field (Q185674)
- vector quantity (Q2672914)
- magnetic potential (Q86453206)
- magnetic vector potential (Q2299100)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
magnetic vector potential⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Defining formula[edit]
Hello @The-erinaceous-one: You added another defining formula which is equivalent to the already existing one - only the notation differs, not the meaning. I'm wondering whether it is possible to avoid such duplication as it would be nice to have exactly one defining formula per item. The formula you added has preferred rank, meaning that the version with a (non-Wikipedia) source does not appear in normal queries. Should we change the formula with the IEC-80000 reference to the form you gave? Toni 001 (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Toni 001: Yes, that's fine. I added the second formula because it is a more common notation (in my experience) but I was unsure if I should modify the existing statement. In general, do we never want two defining formulas, or do we just want to avoid multiple formula that only differ in notation? I'll make the change you suggested and delete the statement I added. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- @The-erinaceous-one: Thanks. I had collected some thoughts about the single-value constraint on the property talk page. Until we come up with a general understanding and rule I'd say that we should try to avoid duplicates if possible, but not at all cost. In general, we should enter data into Wikidata as given in a source, say, without unit or calendar conversions. But in the case of a formula, I'd say that we should be able to "format" the operators and choose the symbols we like most, as long as the meaning remains the same. Toni 001 (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)