User talk:PhilMINT

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PhilMINT! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Task Center
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Constant314 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

qids
Hello. I noticed that you added qids to equations in several articles. I was wondering what that does. Constant314 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. If you click in the respective equations, you now get information about the formular. There are still some broken links, which I will fix today... PhilMINT (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

qids (2)
You have been adding Qids to a number of articles, at a rate of 5 articles per minute. My random check found that about half of your Qids link to wrong equations and pages with no content. Please revert your edits ASAP and stop adding any more Qids. This is not constructive editing. Ponor (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ponor, Thank you very much for spotting broken links. I will fix everything today. Best regards Phil PhilMINT (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The annotations were made using the annomathtex.wmflabs.org tool, recorded here: https://github.com/ag-gipp/dataAnnoMathTex/tree/master/evaluation PhilMINT (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please help me by specifying some examples. Thank you! PhilMINT (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . It'll be hard for me to list all the wrong Qids, it takes many humans to fix one bot. These formulas are from Torque, as of 2020-12-10 9:30 EST:
 * All qid links are wrong. What took your script a few seconds, took me almost 8 minutes to locate and copy for you here ( working in one Read window and one VE window, and opening qid links in many tabs). I think they have very strict rules about running bots on wikipedia. I hope an admin who I see patrolling these articles can tell you more, . I am a VE guy, so qids in markup code don't bother me, but I wonder if those editing code directly will appreciate more machine code added where there is really no need. In most cases, I've noticed, qids add no value, they take you to pages with trivial content. So please, before running your script on real pages, practice in your sandbox, and ask on talk pages whether editors want qid links added by a bot. For now, either you or an admin should revert all the edits your script has made. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All qid links are wrong. What took your script a few seconds, took me almost 8 minutes to locate and copy for you here ( working in one Read window and one VE window, and opening qid links in many tabs). I think they have very strict rules about running bots on wikipedia. I hope an admin who I see patrolling these articles can tell you more, . I am a VE guy, so qids in markup code don't bother me, but I wonder if those editing code directly will appreciate more machine code added where there is really no need. In most cases, I've noticed, qids add no value, they take you to pages with trivial content. So please, before running your script on real pages, practice in your sandbox, and ask on talk pages whether editors want qid links added by a bot. For now, either you or an admin should revert all the edits your script has made. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All qid links are wrong. What took your script a few seconds, took me almost 8 minutes to locate and copy for you here ( working in one Read window and one VE window, and opening qid links in many tabs). I think they have very strict rules about running bots on wikipedia. I hope an admin who I see patrolling these articles can tell you more, . I am a VE guy, so qids in markup code don't bother me, but I wonder if those editing code directly will appreciate more machine code added where there is really no need. In most cases, I've noticed, qids add no value, they take you to pages with trivial content. So please, before running your script on real pages, practice in your sandbox, and ask on talk pages whether editors want qid links added by a bot. For now, either you or an admin should revert all the edits your script has made. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All qid links are wrong. What took your script a few seconds, took me almost 8 minutes to locate and copy for you here ( working in one Read window and one VE window, and opening qid links in many tabs). I think they have very strict rules about running bots on wikipedia. I hope an admin who I see patrolling these articles can tell you more, . I am a VE guy, so qids in markup code don't bother me, but I wonder if those editing code directly will appreciate more machine code added where there is really no need. In most cases, I've noticed, qids add no value, they take you to pages with trivial content. So please, before running your script on real pages, practice in your sandbox, and ask on talk pages whether editors want qid links added by a bot. For now, either you or an admin should revert all the edits your script has made. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All qid links are wrong. What took your script a few seconds, took me almost 8 minutes to locate and copy for you here ( working in one Read window and one VE window, and opening qid links in many tabs). I think they have very strict rules about running bots on wikipedia. I hope an admin who I see patrolling these articles can tell you more, . I am a VE guy, so qids in markup code don't bother me, but I wonder if those editing code directly will appreciate more machine code added where there is really no need. In most cases, I've noticed, qids add no value, they take you to pages with trivial content. So please, before running your script on real pages, practice in your sandbox, and ask on talk pages whether editors want qid links added by a bot. For now, either you or an admin should revert all the edits your script has made. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All qid links are wrong. What took your script a few seconds, took me almost 8 minutes to locate and copy for you here ( working in one Read window and one VE window, and opening qid links in many tabs). I think they have very strict rules about running bots on wikipedia. I hope an admin who I see patrolling these articles can tell you more, . I am a VE guy, so qids in markup code don't bother me, but I wonder if those editing code directly will appreciate more machine code added where there is really no need. In most cases, I've noticed, qids add no value, they take you to pages with trivial content. So please, before running your script on real pages, practice in your sandbox, and ask on talk pages whether editors want qid links added by a bot. For now, either you or an admin should revert all the edits your script has made. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thank you for the examples. Apart from the second example, which should instead link to torque (Q48103), all are linked correct in my opinion. Please note that the equation seeded in Wikidata, where the formula and identifier semantics are retrieved from is not always the one which is linked, since one formula concept can have different equivalent representations. One example in your list is work (Q42213), which is 'A = \int_{\Gamma} \mathbf{F} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{r}' in the Wikidata item, while 'W = \int_{\theta_1}^{\theta_2} \tau\ \mathrm{d}\theta' is linked in the Wikipedia article.

The script was actually tested in a sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Physikerwelt/sandbox) and discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Zentralbot#Discussion It was a one time bulk edit, which is evaluated in a research project. The use of the Wikidata QID links is discussed here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.09417 PhilMINT (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * don't get me wrong, I am not being hostile here, but are we seeing the same thing?
 * How is the same as $$T=M\cdot e_Q$$? (what are M and eQ anyway?) How is  in Force the same as $$m-M=5(\log_{10} d-1)$$?! Or  the same as $$P=\frac{dE}{dt}$$?
 * Should all 'work' equations link to the same wikidata item, or does it depend on the physical system in question? When you link to impulse, do you link to relativistic or classical impulse? Who gets to choose that? I am sorry, I don't see how these links add any value or explain anything that's not already in the articles.
 * What I see on the bot discussion page is that you were (sort of) OK'd to introduce the changes your script made only after you checked them for accuracy, manually. I don't think the script you ran can be called reliable, and to check a ~hundred links it introduced will take a lot of manpower, if anyone even bothers to check. That's why I'll propose reverting all, what, 30 edits en masse. I hope you'll understand. Best wishes, Ponor (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi no offence taken, I appreciate your feedback. You are absolutely right on  in Force, which should be linked to magnetic field, not magnitude (which is too general). The semantic connection between $$P = \boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{\omega},$$ and $$P=\frac{dE}{dT}$$ is made via the natural language meaning 'power'. Power can have a variety of different formulae (depending on the system that is modelled) but the idea is to bundle them all as one concept 'power'. The problem with  and $$T=M\cdot e_Q$$ both describing 'torque' indeed is that the 'defining formula' property of the corresponding Wikidata item is edited / evolving independent from the Wikipedia articles it can be linked in. So the question is whether to create dedicated items for just one specific representation, which is not the intention to generalize concepts. If that's ok for you I would like to wait some days to get specific feedback from the editors of the individual articles. I already got some in Coriolis force and Centrifugal force . If there is a lot refusal from the respective editors, I am of course open to bulk reverting but would be happy to get more feedback from editors and an admin. Thanks, PhilMINT (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: Today, I manually re-checked all 25 articles. It is already the forth round (one annotation and three sandbox iterations). In my opinion, everything is linked correct now (of course the question with the different formula concept representations and Wikidata item independence remains). Do you have more examples, where you disagree? I expect other editors will also react soon. PhilMINT (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, let me help you, since this is a one-time thing. When it comes to other editors - miracles can happen, but don't expect too much: I've seen numerous articles with blatant errors (even in the lead) that have been there for many years. I wouldn't have checked your qids were I not curious about what they do in the article that I had on my watchlist. Then I kept on digging...
 * Here's another random sample, as I don't have too much time. I'll use some quick plaintext notation because it's really hard to follow, check and copy these changes. So:


 * In Mass, that you just re-checked, constant grav. field points to r-dependent grav. field (misleading): F=Mg to F=-Gm1m2/r^2 \hat{r}. Gravitational vs. inertial mass formula a=M/m g is totally unrelated to g=-GM/r^2 \vec{r} (M here is not M there). In section: In quantum physics, Schrodinger eq. points to Q272621, which is Dirac equation.
 * In Force, F=dp/dt is not always the same as F=ma, I'd call this misleading.
 * In Torque, we still have T=M e_Q that's supposed to be the same as tau=rxF. How does this help? I know both are, somehow, about torque, but why would you want to link to something as meaningless (?) as T=M e_Q?
 * In Harmonic oscillator, F=-kx points to F=ma. I don't see why; why not to Hooke's law? A human editor would make such a choice. This formula x(t)=A cos(w t+phi) points to spherical pendulum and A cos(kx-wt+phi), but why? I don't see how these are related. And I don't understand what the latter formula means.
 * All in all, even when these links are correct, I don't really see how they help. I don't think it'd be a good idea to have any kind of bot do this en masse at any time in the future, wiki markup is already overwhelmed with human-unreadable stuff (references, images and templates). A few equations here and there should be fine, but not all, and not without supervision; adding them is easy, checking and removing not so much. Ponor (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I just tried the five equations that Ponor listed above.  I found them all to be unhelpful, mainly because they did not define any symbols.  I think it is a nice idea that isn't ready for general exposure; really its a bit of an irritant to click on the equation and get nothing helpful. Constant314 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer. I helped PhilMINT to develop a script that inserts his manual edits to the Wikipedia articles he annotated using the annomathtex user-interface before. While qIDs that point to wikidata items with different representations on wikidata should be avoided at all costs, I think overall the edits are not only destructive. However, a feature that displays the information in form of popups T208758 as currently only available for wiki-links and references. Here the formula itself will not be displayed again, which makes it even more important to ensure that the formula in wikidata and wikipedia are an exact match (with the exception of trailing white-spaces, commas, or periods). However, given the complicated process to get data flowing from annomathtex to wikipedia, I think it is better to focus on building proper tools into the visual editor to annotate in place. (I think Wikimedia Germany planned something similar for info boxes and data tables). Here I would add the constraint the you can only add a link between Wikipedia and Wikidata if the defining formula property matches. If there are different versions for exactly the same formula concept, this will be OK as well. I filed T269942 for further discussion. Physikerwelt (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Starting tomorrow, I will carefully revisit all annotated formulae to make sure that the linked Wikidata items are precise / granular enough to represent the specific formula that is linked in Wikipedia. Particularly, I will ensure the TeX string matching and create new items in case the linked item was too general (Newton's second law of motion vs. Newton's law of motion for constant mass). F=-kx should of course be linked to Hooke's law - that was a human mistake. There were no automated bot decisions involved in the past annotations (the bulk edit was just for means of transfering annotation files from the annomathtex system) and there will be no additional annotations until everything is correct. PhilMINT (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As a proof of concept, I started with the cases you mentioned to be wrong/debatable. Can you please check whether you would agree with my changes / fixings. I totally understand your concern for the articles being "messed up" by the qids introduced. To avoid your fear of "once more edits are added to the affected articles, these won't be that easy to revert", I only added changes to the articles affected by your examples so far, keeping track of them *(Mass, Harmonic oscillator, Force, Torque, Motion). I had to create new Wikidata items to account for the specific formulae: work from torque (Q104145165), power from torque (Q104145185), kinetic energy of rotating body (Q104145205), and magnetic field of test current (Q104145274). The goal of the entity qid linking debut was not to decrease the quality but increase the readability of the selected articles. I am willing to revert all changes if at the end of this fixing period we cannot ensure all links lead to exact representations with explanation of the specific formula (tex-string matching). I will not edit more articles until we agree on (the correctness of) all links in the example selection*. Two issues occured: 1) Hooke's law (Q170282) can be represented as $$\vec{F}=-k \Delta \vec{x}$$ as in Force, $$F=-kx$$ as in Harmonic oscillator or $$F= k X$$ and and $$\sigma = E \varepsilon$$ as in the Wikidata item Q170282. Only the first defining formula of the item is displayed in the special page. 2) Spherical pendulum (Q3299367): $$\psi(x,t) = A \cos (k x - \omega t+\varphi)$$ in Wikidata is a general version of $$x(t)=A cos(w t+phi)$$ in Harmonic oscillator. We have different cases i) quantum oscillations, usually denoted using the wavefunction psi, classical oscillations denoted using x, y, z and other variables ii) sin or cos ii) kx, wt iv) with or without phase phi. It is not trivial how to distribute these cases over different Wikidata item names. These are example issues occuring, and I would like to discuss with the community. Currently, we are still waiting for more feedback from the article editors... PhilMINT (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an improvement, but some of the definitions are comical such as defining work as "particular form of activity, sold by many people to sustain themselves".Constant314 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of the experiment, I decided that the descriptions provided could be improved. I found that I had no ability to edit them.  The only recourse I have if I don’t think the qid formula is helpful is to delete the qid.  I think that this is a step away from the spirit of Wikipedia.  I think that qids should not be added until everybody has the ability to edit the content.Constant314 (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly! I fear that if qids start getting added (~uncontrollably, like in present case) to wiki articles they will be too hard to verify: you see them in diffs, but you don't know what they are until you open up the article, click on the formula, compare the formula with wikidata, and if something is wrong go to editing (markup code only), where you need to locate the exact spot where qid was added. Maybe I don't understand what wikidata and special pages are good for, but I don't see how qids in wiki articles make them better if symbols in formulas are already described there. When it comes to popup descriptions - yes they might help, but who guarantees they will be reliable and stable? (how many "W=particular form of activity, sold by many people to sustain themselves" can we tolerate? what if we correct the special page with this definition to W=F x r and spoil it for those who need the "labor" definition?) Will many qids need to pre-load many special pages (unsolicited content, imo), will they work for mobile and app users (that's up to 60% of all users), and again, what will they show that's not already in the article? Just asking... as a devil's advocate. Ponor (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There are different meanings of the word "work", such that different Wikidata items exist. There is -work (Q42213): energy transferred to an object via the application of force on it through a displacement -work (Q6958747): particular form of activity, sold by many people to sustain themselves -work (Q386724): physical or virtual object made by humans.

You can of course edit the items. At the bottom of the Special page you find the link to Wikidata, where you can edit names, descriptions, formulae, etc. In the case you find, the disambiguation did't work properly, such that Q6958747 (work as profession) was linked, where it should have been Q42213 (work in physics) instead.

I agree with you that it should be possible for a Wikipedia reader / editor to edit the formula and identifiers directly on the Special page, such that the changes get transferred to Wikidata. Thank you for pointing that out. The Special page is a relatively new feature and it will evolve with such valuable feedback. PhilMINT (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that the special page doesn't have a "what links here" link. Constant314 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by that. There is a 'Data Source' section at the bottom that links to the Wikidata item. PhilMINT (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On a normal article, there is a link on the left called "What links here". If you click it, you get a list of every page that has a wikilink to this page.  You would need something like that on the qid formulas so you can see what depends on them before you change them.  I also noticed that there is no talk page on the qid formulas.  It indicates to me that it is not ready for Wikipedia.Constant314 (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right, in this case a 'what links here' summarizing all qid entity links to the Wikidata item would be very beneficial. We will think about possibilities to make this feasible. The talk pages are available on Wikidata, provided you click on the source link below. PhilMINT (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey When it comes to Hooke's law (Q170282), which exactly form to use depends on the context (what x is, do you only need the magnitude of F or its direction as well) and the system (a spring, a pre-loaded spring, is it a continuous medium, etc.) Similar case will be Ohm's law: current=voltage/resistance and current_density=conductivity x E-field are both valid but used in different systems. As for the Spherical pendulum entries (Q3299367) - funny, just recently I made a few major edits in that article. I don't think $$\psi(x,t) = A \cos (k x - \omega t+\varphi)$$ belongs to that system; this is a travelling wave formula, and neither of these oscillators is travelling (again: what is x?). "It is not trivial how to distribute these cases over different Wikidata item names" makes me wonder (again) on the very purpose of wikidata: item Q3299367 is a mess that I would not know how to fix! Very perplexed, I must say. Cheers, Ponor (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What admin help is needed here? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here to ask the same question. You can't expect us to read through the conversation above to work out what you need us to do - please make a clear statement explaining what help you need below this comment, or remove the template. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  14:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the template, to avoid it being a distraction for anyone else. If you still need assistance, please reinstate the template, with a clear and brief statement saying what it is you need an admin to do. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  15:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I did not place the admin help request, but since that time we have been having a very polite and productive conversation.  No admin help needed at this time. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of experiment, I opened an account on Wikidata (another account? Not sure.)  I followed the link to the “power from torque” formula. Sure, enough there is a discussion page. I also tried to edit the formula. Apparently, I am allowed to edit almost any part of that page, except the descriptions. Do those come from somewhere else? But look at the description for power: “ability to influence the behavior of others.” That is comically incorrect in the context. Seriously, that is not a creditable addition to Wikipedia. I am going to join with Ponor and suggest that you revert those additions for now. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, the item name and description can not be changed once created. I did not know that. Can you tell me in which Wikipedia article the wrong 'power' item was linked? Looks like the annotation system had problems with disambiguation of items. The annotation should of course be power (Q25342): 'energy transferred to an object via the application of force on it through a displacement' instead of power (Q25107): 'ability to influence the behavior of others'. Thus it would not have been beneficial for you to edit the correct description of the wrong item. Given there are apparently some errors, which I could not see from the annotation system, I agree with you. An action needs to be taken to ensure the quality of qid entity linking. We are going to have another MSc. Physics annotator soon to check all annotations in the Wikipedia articles AND the corresponding items in Wikidata. Some possible ways to proceed now are: 1) we do not revert and the annotator checks and fixes all articles directly in Wikipedia 2) we revert and he checks them in a sandbox, such that you can have a look at it before we transfer them again. Concerning the annotation extent we again have two options 1) we start with one entire article where we agree on the correctness 2) we only annotate the first formula in each of the 25 articles, such that we agree on their correctness. I think 25 formulae are a manageable amount to check. What are your thoughts on that? PhilMINT (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to feel like an old, grumpy professor :) but power isn't "energy transferred to an object", it's the rate of that transfer. I believe Constant314 was referring to Q104145185 where Description is "power from torque at angular velocity" (quite meaningless, imo) and Power is "ability to influence the behavior of others". Your questions are techical, and I am more worried about the value added to wikipedia articles: what's on wikidata pages that's not already in the articles, why should we annotate any formulas? would annotating many/all equations only add more entropy (hard to fight entropy) with little to no value added? is your project about annotating wikipedia articles or about populating wikidata; in the latter case, why wouldn't you just populate wikidata without touching the articles?
 * I copied the wrong description for the item Q25342. It's description says 'rate at which energy is transferred, used, or transformed'.
 * If this project will at some point insert qids into many articles, that should be discussed at a higher level, say somewhere in the labyrinths of WP:MOS.
 * I am willing to help, time permitting. But please let's do it in your sandbox where you can invite a few editors to comment. How about you create a page structured like this:


 * (more comments on #N)
 * (more comments on #N+1)


 * This way, you won't have to change any articles, and will make things much easier for us to review.
 * I didn't get any answers on my 2020-12-12 posting, and I'm still curious: how did Spherical pendulum entries at MathWikibase Q3299367 get populated, because everything there is wrong: the formula itself (doesn't belong there), Psi is described as "linear strain" (no strain in Spherical pendulum), x is "location" (of what?).
 * You are right, the 'spherical pendulum' item is wrong (both formula and parts). x(t)=A cos(w t+phi) should be linked to a newly created item name something like 'cosine oscillation with phase'.
 * Finally, I don't think having a person or two to annotate many articles is a good thing. It's OK for simple cases (E=mc2), but it fails in most others (as we can see). If WP:MOS, at some point, agrees on adding qids to mathematical equations en masse, the wikipedia article editors should be encouraged and helped to add them themselves. And they will, if they see any benefits. Ponor (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the equation called power from torque. A better title would be Power from angular motion. It is this equation:
 * It describes power as ability to influence the behavior of others.
 * I fixed it. You have to edit the respective 'has part' property of the Wikidata item. It was pointing to the wrong 'power' item.
 * Yes, that is a much better description. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now consider this equation: where work is particular form of activity, sold by many people to sustain themselves.  Please do not fix it yet, so we can continue to use it as an example.  Let's suppose that I try to fix it.  I was able to get to the description using the 'has part' property and I was able to edit the description, but I didn't save the edit.  But, if I did edit that description, wouldn't it make some other use that description no longer correct? Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You should not edit the description of the item but link the correct one. If you type in the name for the 'quantity symbol' 'W', you get some options for items (name and description). There you should select the correct one: 'energy transferred...' instead of 'particular form of activity...'.
 * I tried it. It worked.  I hope it doesn't cause reverberations in the Wikidata universe. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried it. It worked.  I hope it doesn't cause reverberations in the Wikidata universe. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I will get soon back to your 'spherical pendulum' issue and start populating the table you suggested the next days. PhilMINT (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

QID annotation table
I will start with our example selection of articles we discussed *(Mass, Harmonic oscillator, Force, Torque, Motion):


 * (more comments on #N)
 * (more comments on #N+1)

Note
I did not write the descriptions. They are from various authors of the respective Wikidata items. PhilMINT (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

comments on #1
s should be displacement instead of location.Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right -> changed. PhilMINT (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

comments on #2
I suggest that the description of force be changed to "influence that tends to causes an object to change motion" because forces and torques do not always causes motion. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "tends to" is too vague. How about 'influence that can change motion or cause deformation of an objection'? PhilMINT (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that there is always some deformation even if it imperceptible. Torque is described by "tendency of a force to rotate an object" so "tends to" would echo that. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The more I reflect it, I think 'tendency' is also not suitable in the description of 'torque'. What do you think, ? PhilMINT (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

comment on #6
Momentum described as "conserved physical quantity related to the motion of a body". That says almost nothing. It could also describe energy or mass. How about "the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion" but that is sort of the same thing as inertia. Of course, inertia is a characteristic of the object and momentum is a dynamic characteristic. And then momentum is only conserved for a system and not a single object. In application of the formula at that qid, momentum is not conserved. That is a long way of saying that the I disagree with the current description to the point that a blank description would be better, but I do not have a recommended replacement. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe 'amount of linear movement of a body'? PhilMINT (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

comment on #9
Leads to a different equation. It leads to the same equation as #10. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the wrong duplicate numbering. I created and linked the more specific 'gravitational force on Earth's surface' (Q104411252). PhilMINT (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

comment on #10
No descriptions of variables. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, is because the authors of the Wikidata item used the 'calculated from' property instead of 'has part', where only the latter is supported to be displayed. We discussed this in the Wikidata community here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P4934 (Section 'Has part (P527)'). Hopefully, both formats are supported in the future. PhilMINT (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I will add more examples soon. PhilMINT (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed many issues directly (still caused by the need of synchronization between Wikipedia and Wikidata). I tagged them with comment 'unfixed' and will make the necessary edits soon. PhilMINT (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Torque equation
I thought it might be useful to start a different talk section to discuss a particular equation.

Consider this equation



Its qid result is terrible. I don't even know how to reproduce it here, but basically it says that torque is the moment of force times a unit vector. That really translates to a a torque is a torque but it has a direction. In this case, the entire equation needs to be replaced. Constant<b style="color: #1100cc;">314</b> (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Good idea starting a new talk section. I had the same at the same time, resulting in a merge conflict ;)

This problem was already pointed out by Ponor. I already fixed it in the Wikidata item but my changes were reverted: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q48103&action=history PhilMINT (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I fixed it by creating Q104177819. PhilMINT (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)