Toni 001

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Toni 001/Structured Discussions Archive 1 on 2022-01-26.

formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921)

Hello Toni and welcome to Wikidata! I allowed myself to revert your edits on the formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) for MusicBrainz ids because MuscBrainz doc specifies that the URIs for their objects use the http:// protocol. formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) is used for RDF identifiers and are not used as links to a web page escribing the identified entity, there is formatter URL (P1630) for this use case. Tpt (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right, I had missed this documentation. I was following their embedded JSON-LD (example, look at the source and search for application/ld+json) which uses the https scheme. I filed a ticket with MusicBrainz. Let's see whether they can make JSON-LD and their documentation consistent. Toni 001 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Tpt (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Toni 001,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, done. Toni 001 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Toni 001,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Coherent?

Hello, Tony! What do you mean by temperature difference (Q69362767)? What's the difference from temperature (Q11466)? I suppose both can be measured in Kelvins (or Celsium degrees). --Infovarius (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Infovarius: Hi. I would like to classify units into coherent SI unit (Q69197847), as defined in SI Brochure (9th edition) (Q68977219). To do this right it makes a difference whether a unit measures a temperature or a temperature difference. See for instance page 141 of the English SI brochure where it reads "Special care must be taken when expressing temperatures or temperature differences, respectively.". Further, the last sentence of the paragraph, reads "The unit degree Celsius is only coherent when expressing temperature differences.". This means that "degree Celsius" (measuring absolute temperature) is not a coherent SI unit, while "degree Celsius difference" (measuring, well, a difference) is. Toni 001 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hm, strange. Because "degree Celsius" has no prefixes in both uses (if there are 2 uses at all). Or do I understand coherent SI unit (Q69197847) wrong? --Infovarius (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe my initial response was too cryptic, but I realized that only after posting it. The simple answer (to your initial question): Different physical quantities can be measured in the same unit, there is no problem with that. Take for instance "length", "diameter", "radius", "wavelength", ..., all of which are "lengths" and can therefore be measured in "metre" (or kilometre, micrometre, ...). Now to "coherent": The "Celsius scale" (which, by the way, is a scale, not a unit - see my comment on your talk page) defines a unit, the "degree Celsius". When measuring temperature differences, say "yesterday it was 30°C and today it was 25°C" then the "temperature difference" is 5°C (note how both "temperature" and "temperature difference" use the same unit symbol). The distinction between differences and absolute values does not exist for other SI units, say length. How can you see that? Start with a stick of 10 cm. Now ask: What's twice as long? Easy, two sticks, measuring 20 cm. You can also convert 10 cm to 1 dm, then multiply by two, arriving at 2 dm, and after that, convert it back to 20 cm. The result is the same. Now try the same exercise with absolute temperatures (using °C): Start with an absolute temperature of, say, 5°C. What is twice as hot? Now the error starts: Easy, 10 °C. Now, try to do the round-trip over Kelvin. 5°C are (about) 283 K; multiply by 2, you get 566 K; now convert back to the Celsius scale: 293 °C. Oh, that's not consistent. The explanation for this error is that the "absolute degree Celsius" is not coherent. But feel free to do an exercise with "degree Celsius difference" - that means, imagine an appropriate situation where you measure temperature differences (heat capacity, ...) - and you'll see that it works out, just as it should for "coherent SI units". Toni 001 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

New page for catalogues

Hi, I created a new page for collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to expand, use for property creation. Best, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Unit of Measurement

Hi Toni,

I noticed that you removed the text "(VIM)" from the Englsih descriptions for the "Unit of Measurement". This is the recognised abbreviation for "International Vocabulary of Metrology" and was included in the text in order to recognise that the description was taken from that publicaiton. I have therefore e-instated the change (and corrected a typo). Martinvl (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Martinvl.

There is a more general question here (which we might want to answer before considering whether descriptions can or should contain reference information):

Do we want to take descriptions literally from other sources? Are you aware of any policy regarding that aspect? Short descriptions might coincide with description in other works by chance, and this is fine; but for long descriptions we go into a legal gray area (as far as I can tell) with respect to copyright (as you probably know, non-CC0 content can't be integrated into the CC0-licensed Wikidata), just because there's no easy rule as to how "short" a phase needs to be to not be copyrightable.

Coincidentally, I've been going through the VIM (3rd edition) for the past weeks, linking Wikidata items to VIM item numbers (using described by source (P1343)) and the IEV (IEV number (P8855)). (See this query for the status of this effort.)

Best wishes, Toni 001 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Q109680674

What is broadcasting service (Q109680674)? Can you add some relationships so I can understand what this item is and how it is to be differentiated from these items? For example, it might be useful to relate to:

• broadcasting (Q15078788)
• programming and broadcasting activities (Q29584328)
• broadcast network (Q141683)
• broadcaster (Q15265344)
• broadcasting authority (Q66816575)

Daask (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see the definition linked to via IEV number (P8855). Toni 001 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverts of has part item for math

Hi Toni 001,

I have seen you did revert some changes regarding mathematical semantics. If you would like to change the structure of how the Math is modeled please feel free to join

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T208758

for now I suggest keeping both versions until consensus from the Community is reached.

Moritz Physikerwelt (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Physikerwelt.

Formula variables are handled as explained here (the "new" system). This was essentially adapted by the property symbol represents (P9758) being accepted and created. Since then most formula variable explanations have been migrated.

As of today we have:

• 1273 items with formula where variables are explained using in defining formula (P7235) and symbol represents (P9758) (query).
• 144 items with formula and has part(s) (P527) (query).

Could the math extension code be updated to make use of the new system?

Thanks. Toni 001 (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It might be possible that the math extensions migrates to the new format see phab:T312893 Physikerwelt (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is the suggested change https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/Math/+/814156/1/src/MathWikibaseConnector.php it would be great to receive your feedback on this before we deploy it. Physikerwelt (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a comment on the ticket. (I has a quick look at the code, but did not have to say anything about it so far.) Toni 001 (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

number of entities (Q614112)

This item's description originally didn't specify "physical", and with that description, a lot of existing links to it don't make sense and need to be changed. There's nothing physical about, e.g., number of comments (Q111633329) Swpb (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Swpb. The "physical" in "physical quantity" refers, as far as I can tell and based on a discussion I had with an expert, to the fact that there's a well-defined procedure for determining a value for that quantity. For instance, "length" is a physical quantity because there's a procedure for measuring it (defined in the SI), so does "number of entities" (counting).

When I first encountered item Q614112 years ago it was very unclear what exactly it was referring to, with different languages disagreeing. I was hoping that the situation would be better if we restricted the meaning to something consistent with at least one of the originally existing Wikipedia articles, and adding references. Toni 001 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

What sort of expert? Because that runs totally counter to the usual meaning of "physical", and the description of physical quantity (Q107715). If an item, like words or comments, isn't physical, I don't think we can reasonably call its quantity physical. If the ISO defines "number of items", including non-physical items, as a physical quantity (and I'm not sure it does), that would be a very specialized sense of the term, and is not how the wikidata item is generally used. So as I see it, we can either:

1. Remove "physical" from the description, and qualify subclass of (P279) physical quantity (Q107715) with something like nature of statement (P5102)=disputed (Q18912752) and statement supported by (P3680)=International Organization for Standardization (Q15028), OR
2. Change the label to "number of physical entities" (which I think is what the ISO standard means) and change all the statements using "number of entities" in a non-physical sense to use quantity (Q309314) instead.

I think the first solution would be easier, and would allow this property item to continue to be used to indicate a discrete quantity, as opposed to quantity (Q309314) which doesn't specify discrete or continuous. Swpb (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

For "number of entities" it is irrelevant whether the entities are physical, they could be events or equations or whatever non-physical thing one could imagine. The relevance is that counting is a well-defined procedure (imagine counting single electrons or photons passing a slit).

Now to the "physical" in "physical quantity": This could be understood as the opposite of not-so-physical, or not really quantifiable. Say, well-being (which probably has many different meanings, some more and others less quantifiable). Toni 001 (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that strictly speaking, number of entities (Q614112) is a subclass (according to our convention) of individual quantity (Q71550118) (according to ISO, VIM, ...), and I'd see no inconsistency in switching physical quantity (Q107715) for the latter (those standards carefully avoid the term "physical quantity", "chemical quantity", ... which probably are term having more colloquial meaning than anything else). Though I'm not yet convinced that this is actually necessary. Toni 001 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Counting is only a physical act, in the commonly understood (as opposed to an ISO-specialized) sense, if the items being counted are physical. Photons are physical, so their quantity is a physical quantity. Words in a text are not physical (even if they are physically instantiated in ink or electrons), so a word count is not, in any normal sense of the word, a physical quantity, no matter how well-defined the procedure for obtaining it. The same goes for many other items with subclass of (P279)=number of entities (Q614112) – calling them "physical" quantities does not square with what the word "physical" means, outside of (maybe) this particular ISO document. So IMO, that status quo cannot reasonably stand. The question is how we resolve it. I gave two options that I think exhaust the solution space, but maybe you have something else in mind. Swpb (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source yet (after years of experience in the area of quantities and units) which clearly states what "physical" in "physical quantity" means. Therefore I'm fine to remove the wording. But I'm a little worried as to where we stop: Would you also suggest to not classify dimensionless quantity (Q126818) as "physical quantity", or not to classify number of entities (Q614112) as dimensionless quantity (Q126818) (as both together would still go against your argument)? Toni 001 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I try to stick to the standard that if A is a subclass of B, all possible A's should be B's. The lead of the English Wikipedia article Dimensionless quantity mentions uses in economics, which wouldn't be physical. So generally, I would say dimensionless quantity (Q126818) should not be a subclass of physical quantity (Q107715). But I understand that dimensionless quantity (Q126818) is usually used in a physical context, so I would be ok with just deprecating and qualifying the statement, so it doesn't show in inference trees. Swpb (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw that you classified dimensionless quantity (Q126818) as individual quantity (Q71550118) (instead of the stronger "physical quantity"), which is also what I was thinking. Thanks. Toni 001 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, for being thoughtful and accommodating! Swpb (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Progress on quantities

Hi Toni,

I've noticed that you work on units and quantities since 2019. Is there some kind of progress meter how much you've already finished?

Do you have a generic source on your edits that others could chime in?

Kind regards Amafrica (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Amafrica: The most basic units are covered in SI Brochure (9th edition): Concise summary (Q68977959). Then the next larger source is ISO/IEC 80000 (Q568496) which defines around one thousand quantities and the associated units, all of which have a corresponding item in Wikidata (quantities aligned using described by source (P1343)). An then there are external identifiers, notably Wolfram Language quantity ID (P7431), Wolfram Language unit code (P7007), UCUM code (P7825), UN/CEFACT Common Code (P6512) and a couple more.

I guess that we have most of the important quantities and units that are in use and standardized today, but I still keep stumbling over new ones in articles which deserve a Wikidata entry. But then there are historical units, which will require a lot of work cleaning up: Mostly, creating a separate item for each historical unit with a distinct definition and value. Toni 001 (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Silanols

silanol (Q420482) + silanol (Q77743902). Don't merge items that are obviously about different concepts. Right know I have reverted all of your edits and now carefully check which one are correct (as I see that most were not). Wostr (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• First of all, I completely don't understand your edits here. I see that some of them was probably caused by your trying to match the sitelinks. Wrong. Sitelinks do not define the item, only statements do. If a sitelink is in a wrong item, just move it to the correct one and do not turn everything upside down.
• silanol (Q10371457) was about a class of compounds, you changed it to 'functional group' – incorrectly. silanol (Q115765008) was created by you which was in fact about the same concept that silanol (Q10371457) before your edits. Of course your edits in silanol (Q10371457) deleting some statements about 'scientific article' were correct, that was a problem created by this edit from mid 2022 which went unnoticed. I see no Wikipedia article in these three items about any functional group (neither en:Silanol nor pt:Silanol (grupo funcional) is about one, despite the use of this term). I can create proper items for any functional group, if such items are needed.
• silanol (Q77743902) you have merged with silanol (Q420482) – again, incorrectly. The former is about an inorganic group of compounds, every silane with a hydrogen atom substituted with a hydroxy group, not just silanol (Q420482) (the simplest example). different from (P1889) is there for a reason, don't you think?
• As for the sitelinks: nl:Silanol cannot be properly placed in any item as it deals with more than one concept (i.e. Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471)), same with uk:Силаноли. Same with de:Silanole and fr:Silanol – these two articles describes both organic and inorganic compounds.
• In silanol (Q420482) there was indeed a problem with sitelinks. I have moved the problematic ones to the silanol (Q77743902) – it is not perfect (and won't be), but it is better than silanol (Q420482) and the reason is simple: Wikipedias and Wikidata have different rules and methods of describing the world and in chemistry in many, many situations one cannot have a 1:1 relationship between Wikipedia articles and a Wikidata item.

Wostr (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Wostr. Thanks for fixing my edits and thanks a lot for the detailed explanation.

I made some mistakes here which I now understand and therefore will avoid in the future.

I would like to mention the case of the functional group: Item silanol (Q10371457) seemed to have started as a functional group because the Portuguese label literally said so. Here I suspected that the meaning had morphed (as it sometimes happens) and wanted to restore the original meaning.

I'm aware that sometimes a Wikipedia article has a certain title and then talks about something related (which is completely OK: An article called "Integral" can define "integration".). I agree that ultimately the statements on an item define its meaning. Toni 001 (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The case with 'functional groups' is more complex, for example take a look at de.wiki (which has the best imho categorisation of chemical substances in Wikimedia): articles about classes of compounds and about functional groups make two different categorisations. But that's not the case in many Wikipedias (like en.wiki with its very poor categorisation), because functional groups are often described in articles about classes of compounds or the other way around. In the case of Portuguese: the label indeed, but in the whole article there were no mention about any functional group.

About 1:1 relationship and problems with it in Wikidata I just give you one example: nicotine. One article in every Wikipedia, (at least) four items in Wikidata: nicotine (Q12144), (+)-nicotine (Q27119762), (−)-nicotine (Q28086552), rac-nicotine (Q56697247) – and there is no good option how to properly link between these items and Wikipedia articles, we just add the sitelinks to the one item to which it suits better than the others. Wostr (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

hydroperoxides

I see that the above situation was not the first one. Again... in organic hydroperoxide (Q20986115) and hydroperoxide (Q56709411) you moved some sitelinks and external-IDs from one item to another, I think most (if not all, I'll check that later) were in the correct items before your edits. For example, GND ID (P227), IUPAC Gold Book ID (P4732) and Brockhaus Enzyklopädie online ID (P5019) were correctly in organic hydroperoxide (Q20986115). I know that the names do not match... but the definitions do! (GND 4160923-2 is about a 'Hydroperoxide', but only as a part of organic chemistry → organic hydroperoxide (Q20986115), IUPAC GoldBook H02905 has the term 'hydroperoxides', but refers only to organyl compounds → organic hydroperoxide (Q20986115) Brockhaus' 'hydroperoxide' refers again only to organic compounds → organic hydroperoxide (Q20986115)). Wostr (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for the fixes. Toni 001 (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Why ?

Hi,

Why did you canceled all that ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The item refers to a way of expressing angles. Statements added later (mostly by you and others) refer to a unit of measurement, which is not correct. Toni 001 (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I took the liberty of creating items for the units used in that notation: hour of right ascension (Q116443090), minute of right ascension (Q116443300), second of right ascension (Q116443506). Toni 001 (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi,
Ok. Do you know how to translate the German word "Zeitmaß"? Google Translate and DeepL just give something like "way of mesurement".
Thank you for the dedicated item for the hour. I've done the one about the minute and second yesterday. How did you enter the ^m and ^s ? I was unsucessful to do it. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello.

Unfortunately I don't know how to translate "Zeitmaß" to other language; I had already tried.

I found those superscript characters here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts#Latin,_Greek_and_Cyrillic_tables Toni 001 (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
P.S. : the link about 116443Y090 is not working. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You had introduced this typo into my text here. Toni 001 (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Wolfram-Language-Entitätscode (P4839) nicht gültig bei Fernsehserien?

Hallo Toni 001,

Du hast 3 meiner Bearbeitungen rückgängig gemacht, ohne dass ich den von Dir genannten Grund verstehe. Es handelt sich um die Bearbeitungen Nummer 1, Nummer 2 und Nummer 3. Dein Grund lautet in allen Fällen: "TelevisionProgram" is not a valid WL entity type. Wie darf ich das verstehen? Alle drei von mir hinzugefügten Einträge funktionieren einwandfrei. Sie führen zu auf wolframalpha.com tatsächlich vorhandene Seiten. Wenn es sie dort also gibt, warum soll der WL-Link dorthin ungültig sein? Vielleicht weil ein alphanumerischer Code im Link nicht enthalten ist? Die Entitäten "Planet" und "Word" z. B. kommen auch ohne ihn aus. Ontogon (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hallo @Ontogon.

Wenn man einen dieser Einträge versuch, in Mathematica zu verwenden, dann erhält man das Folgende:

In[1]:= Entity["TelevisionProgram", "IDreamOfJeannie"]["Name"]

Out[1]= Missing["UnknownType", "TelevisionProgram"]

Ich frage mich deshalb, wo Du denn diesen Eintrag genau gefunden hast.

Die Tatsache, dass der Link zur WolframAlpha Seite funktioniert, ist nicht hinreichend dafür, dass der Eintrag richtig ist. Toni 001 (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hallo @Toni 001,

wo gefunden? So z. B.: Auf der Homepage von wolframalpha.com Eingabe in das Suchfenster: Prison Break. Nach Enter öffnet sich die Website dieser Fernsehserie. Danach Bildung des Identifikators wie hier P4839#P2559 (P4839#P2559) beschrieben. Ontogon (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hallo.

Wenn man diesen Schritten folgt, dann kommt man zum Ergebnis "Prison Break (television series)" (unter "Copyable Plain Text:"). Das ist kein gültiger Eintrag für "P4839".

Wenn Du hingegen "caffeine" eingibst, dann findest du ein zusätzliches Feld "Wolfram Language code:" mit dem Wert Entity["Chemical", "Caffeine"]. Nur solche Werte sind für Wolfram Language entity code (P4839) zulässig.

Das könnte vielleicht besser dokumentiert werden. Toni 001 (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hallo Toni 001,

vielen Dank für Deine Erläuterungen. Ontogon (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Zahl der Umdrehungen eines rotierenden Körpers

Hallo Toni,

ich habe nach semantischen Unterschieden zu revolution count (Q118228582) gesucht, aber keine gefunden. Wodrin genau liegt der Unterschied? Viele Grüße, Jackie Bensberg (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hallo @Jackie Bensberg. Laut [1] bezieht sich Umdrehung (Englisch: "revolution") auf die Bewegung eines Körpers um einen anderen, während Umdrehung (Englisch: "rotation") sich auf die Bewegung um die eigene Achse bezieht. Vielleicht könnten wir die deutschen Beschriftungen verbessern: Nach [2] könnte für ersteres auch "Umlauf" oder "Revolution" in Frage kommen.

[1] https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter2-1/#rotation

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umlaufzeit Toni 001 (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Als was wäre die [Um-]Drehung einer Motorwelle zu bezeichnen?--Jackie Bensberg (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Das wäre wohl der zweite Sinn von Umdrehung. Toni 001 (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

for your work on physical quantities and units of measurement! I've been using ISO 80000-3 in trying to clean up some articles in the English Wikipedia. Recently I've described quantity "rotation count", which is now associated with Q76435127. I've also set up alternative names for it (number of revolutions, etc.). By the way, ISO 80000-6 refers to ISO 80000-3 in the entry for "number of turns of winding", so I believe it's safe to claim its a subclass of "number of turns", would you agree? I'm also considering creating subclasses of dimensionless quantities for quantities of kind "ratio" and kind "count" (perhaps restricted to integers). Fgnievinski (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Just found "number of entities" Q614112 which is well defined in ISO 80000. I also found "ratio" Q3481047, which is also well define in ISO 80000 as a dimensionless quotient; however I'm not sure if the metrology view, about similar units across numerator and denominator, is part of the lay meaning -- ratio is given as a synonym for quotient (in both Wikidate and Wiktionary). For example, the term "dimensionless ratio" is widespread in Wikidata, for emphasis if not a pleonasm; maybe we need a separate Q item for "ratio quantity" ("dimensionless quotient" or "quotient of dimension one")? Fgnievinski (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Fgnievinski. Thanks for your contributions. Note that there's a distinction between rotation (Q76435127) and revolution count (Q118228582), see for instance here. Toni 001 (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

mole per kilogram (Q88957663) vs mol per kilogram of solvent (Q21064838)

I've just found mole per kilogram (Q88957663) while adding molal solubility to an item. The proper unit of a molality seems to be mol per kilogram of solvent (Q21064838), just like we have gram per 100 gram of solvent (Q21127659) or gram per kilogram of solvent (Q60606516) (i.e. per mass of a solvent), however, in mole per kilogram (Q88957663) there is also a statement that it's an unit of molality. Wostr (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

rotational velocity (Q122209048)

Hi,

may you please translate this into German?-- U. M. Owen (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)