Wikidata talk:WikiProject Infoboxes/places

Astronomy places / - / Lieux astronomiques

By definition places need to be identified by coordinates. This may include places on other globel than the earth (also the prefix geo would not perfectly correct then) but plantes, stars, galaxys etc are not places. These should be moved to a section Astromomy in Terms. --Spischot (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one definition, but not our definition. Extraterrestrika are Typ gix and therefore part of Typ g.[1] The description of Typ g as "place / Geografikum / lieu" is not to be taken literally. --Kolja21 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this:

• Comets / - / -
• Dwarf planets / - / -
• Asteroids / - / -
• Trans-Neptunian objects (maybe we don't need this though)
• Stellar wind [???] (includes solar wind)
• Planets [and exoplanets] / - / Planètes
• Natural Satellites / - / Satellites naturels
• Artificial Satellites / - / Satellites artificiels
• Stars / - / Etoiles
• Brown dwarfs
• Compact starts
  • White dwarfs
  • Neutron stars
  • Black holes
• Gamma-ray burst (ACTUALLY AN EVENT, NOT A PLACE)
• Planetary systems (i.e., solar/extrasolar systems) / - / -
• Star systems / - / -
  • Star clusters / - / -
  • Galaxies / - / Galaxies
• Galaxy clusters / - / -

Maybe some more could be defined, but I'm not an expert astronomer (but I do know something at least). πr² (t • c) 00:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen this discussion and try to propose my ideas about astronomic places:

* Object of the solar system (they do not need coordinates, but orbital parameters):

• Planets [and exoplanets] / - / Planètes
• Dwarf planets / - / -
• Natural Satellites / - / Satellites naturels
• Artificial Satellites / - / Satellites artificiels (but they are astronomic places?)
• Comets / - / -
• Asteroids / - / - (that includes Trans-Neptunian objects)

* Object outside the solar system (they can be identified with coordinates, usually Right Ascension and Declination):

• Stars / - / Etoiles
• Brown dwarfs / - /
• Planetary systems (i.e., solar/extrasolar systems) / - / -
• Star systems / - / -
• Star cluster (globular and open clusters and star associations)
• Nebulae (emission nebulae, supernovae remnant, dark nebulae, planetary and proto-planetary nebulae)
• Galaxies / - / Galaxies
• Galaxy clusters / - / -
• Quasars / - / -

Maybe, I would add to the last list also:

• Gamma-ray bursts (they are events, but they have also coordinates and sometimes astronomers identified the emission source)
• Supernovae explosions (for the same reason)

For other "places" considered before:

• Stellar wind is an astrophysical phenomenon and should not be treated as "place".
• Stellar wind is not a "place", but a term and have not to be included in this list.
• Compact stars (i.e., White dwarfs, Neutron stars, Black holes) would be considered a sub-category of stars.

--Paperoastro (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Note: de:Sternwind (stellar wind) is treated like a term, see authority control in German Wikipedia. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, stellar wind is not an astronomic "place" (or, better, object), but a term, an astrophysical phenomenon associated to every star ;) --Paperoastro (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC) P.S.: I added also quasars to the list

Ah, forgot quasars. Thanks for the adjustments. Your version seems good. I'm also wondering whether or not arms of galaxies are places. I think w:Orion Arm would be considered a place (it has coordinates), but maybe it's really a definition. Gamma-ray bursts/supernovae explosions are debatable because they're really events, but I'm fine with adding them (you're certainly more knowledgable about astronomy , I'm just an amateur with a telescope ;) ). The source of the burst/explosion could be a place, but maybe it would be better to treat the explosion/burst itself as an event? Anyway, thank you! Grazie! πr² (t • c) 03:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(I was also thinking of adding nebulae, but I wasn't sure it was specific enough. Thank you for adding that!) πr² (t • c) 03:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you about terms like w:Orion Arm: they are definitions that groups a lot of astronomic objects and also for me is better to not include them in "astronomic places". Probably will be useful add to them a property that indicates the position. ;) In my opinion Supernovae explosions would be considered as "astronomic places" even if they are also events: they are a well-known phenomenon due to the explosions of stars and have specific physic characteristics: position, host galaxy, magnitudes, type, redshift... like other astronomic object. Instead GRBs would be considered as an event, because they can be associated to other objects, as supernova explosion or some kind of binary stars, but also GRBs have position and redshift... It is possible use more than one principal classification for items? ;)--Paperoastro (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes but are the items in the list above Properties or are they Values for the Property 'type of solar object' or 'type of extra solar object' - assuming we start with the property 'Is A' then load a template based on the response depending on whether the item is a solar object, extra solar object, footballer, politician, administrative area, etc.

Don't worry! :) I'm sorry that this separation created a misunderstanding question! My idea is like yours: categorize astronomic objects for their type (stars, planets, galaxies...). I make this distinction only to organize better the objects, not for proposing a property like 'type of solar object'! Here I remove the distinction. --Paperoastro (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reuse of the data in Wikipedias and NPOV

(I confess I have not browsed through the help pages, please redirect me if I am rehashing a common complaint).

I am a bit astounded of the project to choose the "CIA Factbook" as a privileged source of data. Some of the data covered by this project, say the chemical formula of carbon, are obviously not subject to variations between authoritative sources. But some are, especially in this "geographical" area. Some of these variations are more or less random, some others are subject to a preliminary political POV. For an instance of the former, for the CIA Factbook, the area of France is "643,801 sq km; 551,500 sq km (metropolitan France)". For this book it is "675,417 sq km" (OK this is hardly an authoritative source for a country area, but some probably exist - I did not try to spend one hour selecting the best possible). Here there is no contentious world view behind : this is simply a matter of methodology, choosing to add or not the French overseas collectivities (say New-Caledonia). A more contentious example might be the size of Cyprus, which is "9,251 sq km (of which 3,355 sq km are in north Cyprus)" for the Factbook. OK but choosing to include the area of North Cyprus is a political preliminary decision with which not all of our readers will agree. More obvious problems are to be met : you will not find an area for Palestine in the CIA Factbook, which some of our readers will consider legitimate, but certainly not all of them.

I need a clarification on the objectives of the project : if nothing is changed from this preliminary work, does it mean that the CIA POV will be automatically included by a bot in the infobox about, say, Cyprus, in Wikipedias of all languages ? How will it be manually editable ? What will be the consequences of manual editions on further automatic updates ? Touriste (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You can add different versions of the information. So you could add both versions of your example with Cyprus, but you need to add a source to where you found those versions (factbook, almanac, Turkish site, whatever). I think local wikis will be able to choose which version to use. Please see: news article about it, especially the comments from Wikidata developers/WMDE/WMF people at the bottom. πr² (t • c) 16:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer. The article you linked is pretty instructive. As always, I am quite pessimistic about the results - but things don't turn bad as often as I am pessimistic, so let's cross fingers. Touriste (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Factbook source of Wikipedia is mainly historic. Most country articles started out with a copy-and-paste from there. --  Docu  at 10:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Population

Any reason why there is no population property? Seams quite essential for place characterization... Same goes also for area...

This shall be top of the list! -Theklan (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

beach / praia

In Portuguese Wikipedia there is an infobox about beaches, some of the parameters could be useful: Predefinição:Info/Praia. Here is the translated parameters:

{{Info/Praia
|name        = 
|image       = {{P|18}}
|legend      = 
|location    = {{P|132}}, {{P|17}}
|coordinates = {{P|625}}
|extension   = (extension of the beach)
|type        = (type of beach = oceanic, fluvial...)
|banhada_por = (needs a translation - the body of water that contacts with the beach = Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea...)
|waves       = (type of waves, useful for surf = calm...) 
|sand        = (type of sand = white sand...)
|rivers      = (if some river {{P|403}}
|islands     = (island in the river)
|access      = (by road, foot, boat, helicopter...)
|lista       = (if the beach is part of some list)
|lista_nome  = (more specific name)
|map         = {{P|242}}
}}

I hope this is useful. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

North America vs northern North America

People here might want to comment on this: Talk:Q49#North America vs northern North America. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)