Wikidata:Property proposal/age estimated by a dating method

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

age estimated by a dating method[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Motivation[edit]

Currently people are trying to capture this using inception (P571) (see HE 1523-0901 (Q74288) as an example) and this very inconvenient. Formatting that for infobox is much more difficult that it should be, and it is impossible to express arbitrary ±error. It would make life much easier if we will have dedicated quantity property (see corresponding discussion) Ghuron (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Do we ever have newly born stars that we are aware of? Other than that case, I think this is perfectly appropriate, rather than trying to use a date. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. The same problem might exist with rocks, fossils. Thierry Caro (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Feel free to adjust definition Ghuron (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and +1, might as well do something for geological ages in general. Romuald 2 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tinker Bell 21:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. I don't tink the property should be restricted to stars only. Other astronomical bodies and geological features etc. using some method of datation could benefit from this. J. N. Squire (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ghuron, ArthurPSmith, Thierry Caro, Romuald 2, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Tinker Bell: Per comments in talks above, I've "quickly" tried to expand the property in order to solve the same problem with as much topics and dating methods I could think of in such a little time (and find on Wikidata/Wikipedia). I've renamed the property "geological age" before changing for the more accurate "age estimated by a dating method". I'm feeling uneasy to have this property created right now because the changes have been significant. So I'm asking you: any improvements possible, or let's just create it now and improve it by adding potentially missing stuff later when we hear about them? J. N. Squire (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @J. N. Squire: this looks good to me. Maybe abbreviate the English label to just "estimated age"? Except we do want to avoid it being used to estimate the age of people I think... ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
        • @ArthurPSmith, Fralambert:The issue Arthur points out is the very reason why I used such a long name for this property. Whatever name we come up with, we need to avoid ambiguities and imply the dating method should be mentionned too, or it would be misused by mistake and increase maintenance. I would rather keeping it a little longer since the infoboxes only use the query ID and their own naming of properties anyway. Also please note that aliases may be used if shortening the property is need to search it. J. N. Squire (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with the name suggested by ArthurPSmith. --Fralambert (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, J. N. Squire, Romuald 2, Ghuron, Thierry Caro, ArthurPSmith: @Fralambert: ✓ Done: age estimated by a dating method (P7584). − Pintoch (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)