Talk:Q404293
Autodescription — Falkon (Q404293)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Falkon” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics/FLOSS
QupZilla has been renamed to Falkon with an overlap in versions existing (Falkon 3.0 has been released but there's still a final version 2.x of QupZilla upcoming). Should we create an extra item for Falkon or Change the Name and Identifiers here? -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- My proposal is: renaming QupZilla (Q404293) to Falkon and creating new item QupZilla - as a redirection only. With versions, we could use Mozilla Firefox (Q698) as an example; problem there was a new browser engine since 57.0 version. Greetings for all --Jasc PL (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I tend to think software versions should be handled like editions of books : one item per version. The scope of has edition or translation (P747) 
could even be extended. This would allow for example to use based on (P144) or replaced by (P1366) on those items (or on the « work » item. So yes, we should create items. :) And to tight the dependencies to a version. author TomT0m / talk page 18:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- An item for every version? That is a *lot*. I think it's an interesting idea but at least for now I think it's unrealistic. The software as well as the editing-processes are not suitable for this. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- « the editing-processes » what do you mean ? We don’t have to create every items anyway, just starting with current versions is OK. Not doing this has a number of consequences, for example for dependancies they varies from time to times, they may be putted as « preferred » for the last version, but an old dependancy we can’t use « end date » for example, as old version still exists, or we have to qualify the statement with all version numbers, or we have to create new qualifier like « dependancy from version » … « to version ». Also if we want to assign a version to dependancies it could be a challengex Ordering version number from strings may also be not that easy (version 0.01 versus 0.1 and 0.10 versus SP whatever) . Actually we already have items for some software versions, see Microsoft Office 2003 (Q1153760) for example. This seems to be solved with the « series » properties, which is a little weird but why not. author TomT0m / talk page 17:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)