Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

< Wikidata:Property proposal

Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Computing Lexeme

See also edit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Search if the property already exists.
  2. Search if the property has already been proposed.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Read Wikidata:Creating a property proposal for guidelines you should follow when proposing new property.
  6. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below by editing the two templates at the top of the page to add proposal details.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the creation of the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See property creation policy.

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/05.


Physics/astronomy edit


Biology edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Taxonomy}}
Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Biology for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Biology}}

Life stage edit

   Not done
DescriptionLife stage of an animal, plant, or other taxa
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1Leptobatopsis mesominiata (Q2855459) has image (P18); needs qualifier life stage → adult (Q80994)
Example 2Chaoborus (Q2707905) has image (P18); needs qualifier life stage → larva (Q129270)
Example 3Tortula muralis (Q71869) has image (P18); needs qualifier life stage → sporophyte (Q647173)
Example 4Crocothemis nigrifrons (Q1318898) has characteristic (P1552) aquatic (Q441122) needs qualifier life stage → larva (Q129270)
Sourcephase of life (Q1811014)

Motivation edit

My primary use case is as qualifiers for images of individuals on commons, i.e. but this may also be used for if there is an item about a particular life stage of an animal, i.e. Chaoborus (Q2707905), which is an image of the larval stage, probably because the larval form is more well known, though in most species the adults form is more well known. Mvolz (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  • @ Mvolz: Can you fix up your examples so they look like Wikidata statements? They should have a subject item and then the value (which is presumably what your current list is of allowed values?) - if you intend this as a qualifier for images or something like that you may need to clarify more how it should be used. See other property proposals for how to do this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlaueBlüte: We have a good number of items representing life stages of individual species, e.g. flaxseed (Q911332)      , mouse embryo (Q105811019)      , chicken embryo (Q70071341)      . There are also some that represent life stages for larger taxonomic groups, e.g. tadpole (Q168525)       or hatchling (Q2892050)      . --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols4/ontologies/ecao/classes/http%253A%252F%252Fpurl.obolibrary.org%252Fobo%252FUBERON_0000105?lang=en has in UBERON "life cycle stage". If we create a new property reusing the Uberon name would likely be better than the one specifically for Drosophila. I however don't see that the added complexity of having two properties provides any benefit here. Changing the constraint works for this usecase and nobody showed that we would have a problem if we just reuse it here.
Given that the existing constraint was set automatically by a bot and not by any human I just changed it to allow usage on qualifiers. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Species ID of an ecoregion edit

   Under discussion
DescriptionDatabase with climatic, environmental and biologic informations about terrestrial ecoregions
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainecoregion (Q295469)
Example 1Admiralty Islands lowland rain forests (Q19634429)→AA0101
Example 2Andaman Islands rain forests (Q73649988)→ IM0101
Example 3Atlantic mixed forests (Q773074)→ PO402
Formatter URLhttps://worldspecies.org/ecoregions/display/$1

Motivation edit

That’s an useful data base about wwf ecoregions. There is a detailed map, really precise data about climate, species, land use… Sincerelly. Uchroniste 40 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

Discussion edit

What I meant is that the identifier code is identical, or am I missing something here? Sure, one takes you to a map when you click on it but that is just a convenience. Infrastruktur (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand what you mean. Yes it’s the same code because none of both created this cause, it was created by scientists in the 90s, so they both use the same code, but that’s a different website, ruled by different organization and with differents informations. Same code but not same identifier. Sincerely. Uchroniste 40 (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrastruktur: any reaction ? Uchroniste 40 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎YList ID edit

   Not done
Descriptionidentifier for Japanese species (and infraspecies) of plant in the YList database
RepresentsBG Plants: Japanese name–scientific name index (YList) (Q98090379)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Example 1Alnus hakkodensis (Q15378007) → 22165
Example 2Phacelurus latifolius (Q5700194) → 3
Example 3Persicaria thunbergii (Q27236033) → 49319
Sourcehttp://ylist.info
Number of IDs in source39714 rows in the 2021-05-14 download [1]
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttp://ylist.info/ylist_detail_display.php?pass=$1
Applicable "stated in"-valueBG Plants: Japanese name–scientific name index (YList) (Q98090379)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)

Motivation edit

A Template:Taxonbar (Q22741012) identifier (Q853614) with scientific names, Japanese/Chinese/Korean names, and bibliographic data, for Japanese plants; thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  •   Question How do you deal with taxonomic changes? It seems they treat Japanese common names as axes, not scientific names, so IDs will not make sense in some cases. For example, I show you hamayabukarashi (Jap.: ハマヤブカラシ) case where they abandoned connection of ID 37340 with Cayratia maritima Jackes, replacing the latter with its recombination Causonis maritima (Jackes) Jackes (vide 13 April 2023 et 24 February 2024). Currently Cayratia maritima has ID '49489' instead. --Eryk Kij (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I guess it might be possible to look up changes between a future download and the current, but there is no apparent log of changes and the download(s) are not regularly updated; in your example, 37340 shows a data-editing date that is before the change you note; it might be possible to structure the proposed property formatter URL instead as a search (like the Wikispecies template), but I fear maintenance issues as YList is currently operated make this identifier non-viable; thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @エリック・キィ:, would you like to give your opinion based on the response? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Not done, no support for creation. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identifiers for Species Files databases edit

Background

Species Files provides a platform for a number of taxonomic databases covering insect orders or other groups, some of which already have Wikidata identifiers that are used for Template:Taxonbar (Q57623579). Since last September the existing databases were frozen as they began the transition to a new software, Taxonworks. This transition is now almost complete.

There are currently seven external identifiers for different species files databases: Orthoptera Species File ID (P6050), Phasmida Species File ID (P4855), Mantodea Species File ID (P6055), Cockroach Species File ID (P6052), Psocodea Species File ID (P8145), Coreoidea Species File ID (P6053), Lygaeoidea Species File ID (P11311). Five have have completed the update. Unfortunately, they have changed the taxon IDs, so just changing the formatter URL is insufficent. All the identifiers would need to be updated in more than 50,000 Wikidata items. A better solution might be to create identifiers for the new Taxonworks version of the databases. This has been done in other cases, e.g. Fauna Europaea New ID (P4807) for Fauna Europaea ID (P1895) and Fauna Europaea New ID (P4807) for Flora of Australia ID (old) (P3100). What is the best solution here? I think new identifiers is probably the best way.

In addition, there are nine new or updates Species File databases that don't have Wikidata identifiers. These are all in Taxonworks and are actively curated. The proposals for these new identifiers are below. Jts1882 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion
  • @Succu: The Species Files databases have updated (with a couple of exceptions), as we discussed last September (see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy/Archive/2023/11. I've created the property proposals for the Species Files that didn't have items (see below), but am unsure what to do with the ones that had identifiers. The IDs have changed so all the entries would need changing, so perhaps a new identifier is appropriate (the old species files remain avaialable in archive). I can create new proposals if you think this is the better approach. Jts1882 (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be great to have all of these various authority files linked via Wikidata, as they are pretty much universally genuine authoritative sources. With few exceptions, the information in them is up-to-date and accurate, significantly more so than essentially all of the "compiled" sources like GBIF, EoL, BioLib, WoRMS, etc. Frankly, I would rather have the Species Files as Wikidata sources than these error-filled compilation sites. I would endorse making all of them into Wikidata sources, and if adding new identifiers is the most practical way to address the bulk changes due to the TaxonWorks migration, then I'd go for that option - unless some whiz kid at TaxonWorks can figure a way to provide a "rosetta stone" and a script so that the process of conversion of old identifiers to new identifiers could be automated and managed by a bot. This might not be impossible; if you look up Matt Yoder, he might be someone who would be willing and able to help - after all, linking TaxonWorks to Wikidata is in the best interest of BOTH sets of people. Dyanega (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

identifier for Zoraptera Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon on the Zoraptera Species File Online website
RepresentsZoraptera Species File (Q115665927)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Zoraptera (Q540502) → 924464
Example 2Spiralizoridae (Q102178240) → 924520
Example 3Zorotypus (Q10724982) → 924470
Example 4Zorotypus amazonensis (Q21297637) → 924500
Sourcehttps://zoraptera.speciesfile.org/otus/924464/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source163
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://zoraptera.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valueZoraptera Species File (Q115665927)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for order Zoraptera (Q540502). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for insect orders.Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

identifier for Dermaptera Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon on the Dermaptera Species File database
RepresentsDermaptera Species File (Q115665911)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Dermaptera (Q13676) → 887721
Example 2Forficulidae (Q1931619) → 888282
Example 3Forficula (Q3024850) → 888460
Example 4Forficula auricularia (Q2537221) → 888572
Sourcehttps://zoraptera.speciesfile.org/otus/887721/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source~5000
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://dermaptera.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valueDermaptera Species File (Q115665911)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for order Dermaptera (Q13676). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for insect orders.Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

identifier for Plecoptera Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon in the Plecoptera Species File database
RepresentsPlecoptera Species File (Q115665917)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Plecoptera (Q203547) → 890815
Example 2Nemouridae (Q146297) → 891549
Example 3Nemoura (Q1326065) → 891621
Example 4Nemoura trispinosa (Q10596263) → 891804
Sourcehttps://plecoptera.speciesfile.org/otus/890815/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source~8000
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://plecoptera.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valuePlecoptera Species File (Q115665917)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for order Plecoptera (Q203547). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for insect orders.Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

identifier for Grylloblattodea Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon in the Plecoptera Grylloblattodea database
RepresentsGrylloblattodea Species File (Q122839961)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Grylloblattodea (Q796470) → 924558
Example 2Grylloblattidae (Q13582699) → 925080
Example 3Grylloblatta (Q1383624) → 925108
Example 4Grylloblatta barberi (Q13582696) → 925119
Sourcehttps://grylloblattodea.speciesfile.org/otus/924558/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source~1000
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://grylloblattodea.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valueGrylloblattodea Species File (Q122839961)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for order Grylloblattodea (Q796470). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for insect orders.Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

identifier for Mantophasmatodea Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon in the Mantophasmatodea Species File database
RepresentsMantophasmatodea Species File (Q115665941)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Mantophasmatodea (Q754029) → 925578
Example 2Mantophasmatidae (Q13560459) → 925579
Example 3Mantophasma (Q18523036) → 925586
Example 4Mantophasma zephyra (Q4043697) → 925587
Sourcehttps://mantophasmatodea.speciesfile.org/otus/925578/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source73
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://mantophasmatodea.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valueMantophasmatodea Species File (Q115665941)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for order Mantophasmatodea (Q754029). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for insect orders.Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

identifier for Embioptera Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon in the Embioptera Species File database
RepresentsEmbioptera Species File Online (Q115665913)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Embioptera (Q467392) → 915589
Example 2Archembiidae (Q2609839) → 915989
Example 3Diradius (Q13604714) → 915942
Example 4Haploembia solieri (Q2782959) → 916293
Sourcehttps://embioptera.speciesfile.org/otus/915589/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source~900
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://embioptera.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valueEmbioptera Species File Online (Q115665913)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for order Embioptera (Q467392). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for insect orders.Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

identifier for Isoptera Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon in the Isoptera Species File database
RepresentsIsoptera Species File (Q122839980)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Termitoidae (Q21069206) → 585557
Example 2Termitidae (Q1050699) → 83484
Example 3Termes (Q13582623) → 85835
Example 4Amitermes floridensis (Q13582636) → 85193
Sourcehttps://isoptera.speciesfile.org/otus/585557/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source~6000
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://isoptera.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valueIsoptera Species File (Q122839980)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for termites, currently treated as infraorder Termitoidae (Q21069206) and formerly treated as order termite (Q546583). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for major insect groups.Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

identifier for Aphid Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon in the Aphid Species File database
RepresentsAphid Species File (Q115665963)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Aphidomorpha (Q20639416) → 901309
Example 2Aphididae (Q1354085) → 901982
Example 3Aphis (Q2717643) → 907566
Example 4Acyrthosiphon gossypii (Q14086541) → 910324
Sourcehttps://aphid.speciesfile.org/otus/901309/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source~8000
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://aphid.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valueAphid Species File (Q115665963)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for aphids, currently treated as hemipteran infraorder Aphidomorpha (Q20639416). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for major insect groups.Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

identifier for Coleorrhyncha Species File edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a taxon in the Coleorrhyncha Species File database
RepresentsColeorrhyncha Species File (Q115666044)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Coleorrhyncha (Q15728076) → 915385
Example 2Peloridiidae (Q138276) → 915518
Example 3Craspedophysa (Q18098238) → 915527
Example 4Peloridium hammoniorum (Q10622541) → 915555
Sourcehttps://coleorrhyncha.speciesfile.org/otus/890815/overview
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useTemplate:Taxonbar (Q57623579)
Number of IDs in source~8000
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://coleorrhyncha.speciesfile.org/otus/$1/overview
Applicable "stated in"-valueColeorrhyncha Species File (Q115666044)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)
Motivation

This new Wikidata property to identify taxa (Q42396390) would improve our coverage of entomology (Q39286) by adding links to a curated database for the hemipteran infraorder Coleorrhyncha (Q15728076). It adds to the range of Species Files databases for major insect groups. Jts1882 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

‎taxon synonym of edit

   Under discussion
Descriptiontaxon item (considered a preferred name according to a given reference) of which this taxon name is a synonym - the new property will be the inverse property of taxon synonym (P1420)
Data typeItem
Domaininstance of (P31) = taxon (Q16521)
Example 1Inocybe acutofulva (Q107800296) needs property "taxon synonym of" -> Inosperma acutofulvum (Q125928529).
Example 2Umbelliferae (Q10387485) needs property "taxon synonym of" -> Apiaceae (Q145794).
Example 3Littorina nebulosa (Q10567953) needs property "taxon synonym of" -> Littoraria nebulosa (Q3173727).
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)

Motivation edit

The taxonomy data structure currently uses property of (P642), but that property is now deprecated (see discussions starting from Property_talk:P642#Essay:_P642_considered_harmful). Property taxon synonym (P1420) requires an inverse which presently needs P642; this was discussed here and here in the taxonomy project and the conclusion was that we should change to use a new inverse property "taxon synonym of". See also Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642, where this property is needed for use case i21 (use cases i22-i24 will need 3 similar properties). Strobilomyces (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  •   Support Long overdue, it will be a good subtitute for "instance of synonym" or "subject has role synonym of", and will allow to the visitor of an item to know, without to click anywhere, if the taxon is or not a synonym. As well said by Strobilomyces, this new property should have a "citation needed" constraint, but I guess we can add it when the property is created. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support This new property will make it clear that the "taxon synonym" property is intended to be asymmetrical. If the proposal is approved, users should be careful not to automatically add it based on existing "taxon synonym" statements without a supporting reference. Kbseah (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral constructs like synonym (Q1040689) of (P642) should simply removed. It makes no sense to list synonyms that way. The reference should allways be placed at taxon synonym (P1420). --Succu (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎protonym of edit

   Under discussion
Descriptiontaxon item of which this taxon name is a protonym (original name, for zoological taxa) - inverse property of original combination (P1403)
Data typeItem
Domaininstance of (P31) = taxon (Q16521)
Example 1Spindasis dufranei (Q21324189) needs property "protonym of" -> Cigaritis dufranei (Q5119852).
Example 2Brisinga membranacea (Q105395007) needs property "protonym of" -> Hymenodiscus membranacea (Q2142688) and Brisingella membranacea (Q105395049)
Example 3Cribrella praestans (Q105519302) needs property "protonym of" -> Henricia praestans (Q3199008)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)

Motivation edit

The taxonomy data structure currently uses property of (P642), but that property is now deprecated (see discussions starting from Property_talk:P642#Essay:_P642_considered_harmful). Property original combination (P1403) requires an inverse which presently needs P642; this was discussed here in the taxonomy project and the conclusion was that we should change to use a new inverse property "protonym of". See also Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642, where this property is needed for use case i22 (3 other use cases will need similar properties). Strobilomyces (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

‎basionym of edit

   Under discussion
Descriptiontaxon item of which this taxon name is a basionym (original name, for botanical and similar items) - inverse property of basionym (P566)
Data typeItem
Domaininstance of (P31) = taxon (Q16521)
Example 1Agaricus gibbus (Q46795858) needs property "basionym of" -> Infundibulicybe gibba (Q765631).
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)

Motivation edit

The taxonomy data structure currently uses property of (P642), but that property is now deprecated (see discussions starting from Property_talk:P642#Essay:_P642_considered_harmful). Property basionym (P566) requires an inverse which presently needs P642; this was discussed here in the taxonomy project and the conclusion was that we should change to use a new inverse property "basionym of". See also Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642, where this property is needed for use case i23 (3 other use cases will need similar properties). Strobilomyces (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion edit

‎replaced synonym of edit

   Under discussion
Descriptiontaxon item which replaced this taxon name (now only a synonym) - inverse property of replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694)
Data typeItem
Example 1Ranunculus ficaria (Q19796483) needs property "replaced synonym of" -> Ficaria verna (Q157557).
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Wikidata projectWikiProject Taxonomy (Q8503033)

Motivation edit

The taxonomy data structure currently uses property of (P642), but that property is now deprecated (see discussions starting from Property_talk:P642#Essay:_P642_considered_harmful). Property replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694) requires an inverse which presently needs P642; this was discussed here in the taxonomy project and the conclusion was that we should change to use a new inverse property "replaced synonym of". See also Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642, where this property is needed for use case i24 (3 other use cases will need similar properties). Strobilomyces (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit


Biochemistry/molecular biology edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Molecular biology for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Molecular biology}}


Chemistry edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Chemistry}}

Medicine edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Medicine}}

Mineralogy edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mineralogy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mineralogy}}

Computer science edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Informatics}}

Geology edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Geology for more information.

Geography edit

Linguistics edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Linguistics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Linguistics}}


Mathematics edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mathematics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mathematics}}


Material edit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Materials for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Materials}}

Meteorology edit

Glaciology edit

All edit

model for and its inverse property modeled by edit

   open
Descriptionwhat the subject is a conceptual or scientific model/theory for
Representsmodel (Q1979154)
Data typeItem
Domainitem (instance of/subclass of conceptual model (Q2623243) or formula (Q976981) or model (Q1979154) or theory (Q17737)… )
Example 1data model (Q1172480) → data (Q42848)
Example 2database model (Q267136) → database (Q8513)
Example 3abstract data type (Q827335) → data type (Q190087)
Example 4Navier–Stokes equations (Q201321) → fluid dynamics (Q216320)
Example 5Peano axioms (Q842755) → non-negative integer (Q28920052)
Example 6hybrid system (Q2665508) → cyber-physical system (Q1120057)
See alsohas role in modeling (P6530), computes solution to (P2159), approximation algorithm (P1171), is the study of (P2578) Property sometimes abused for this relationship : is the study of (P2578), for example used in the relativity theory item to link to spacetime.

Motivation edit

There are many conceptual models and formulas that are a model for some thing. It would be nice to be able to express these relations with a simple property instead of having to use awkward statements such as abstract data type (Q827335)subclass of (P279)mathematical model (Q486902)of (P642)data type (Q190087).

There is also has role in modeling (P6530) but that does not express the same relation "has role in modeling X" does not mean that it's a model for X ... but rather that it is a part of a model for X.

Other properties (by User:Fgnievinski like represents/represented by are misused to represent this relationship.


Previously
a 2016 proposal ; a more recent one (this one is basically a reopening of the previous more examples, from the discussion)
User:Push-f, the creator of the last proposal, withdrew the proposal with reason I withdraw my proposal in favor of using statements like Xhas use (P366)scientific modeling (Q1116876)of (P642)Y, and the discussion was closed by a property creator asking for a new one, which is this one. There were only support the property.

I reopen because the model proposed by Push-f is using of (P642)   qualifier on a usage Search statement which is deprecated, and because I think this is a genuine relationship, very common and many examples that deserves its own property. It's also simpler, note that the model does not seem to be much used only 4 results to a corresponding query.

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, YULdigitalpreservation, ArthurPSmith, Andrew Su, Salgo60, Andrawaag: @Yair rand: (also pinging the participants to the has role in modelling discussion as I discover this was the initial proposal and it is related to [the OBO discussion https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/288] that discussed more specific properties. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

discussion edit

  Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Participants of the old discussion ping : @Push-f, The-erinaceous-one, Tinker Bell, Fgnievinski:

Being a proposer you don't have to vote for your own proposal. Please note that having your own vote does not give you an advantage when creating a property. See WD:PCC. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma Please consider the circumstances, this is actually a reopening of an old proposal I actually voted for. It's recreated, actually, after the property creator closing which is actually questionable because the initial proposer closed it with a bad idea and the proposal actually had only support. Creating a regular proposal on Wikidata is usually an arduous journey, please don't be a cold actor making this actually more difficult. We have very few reviewers in a lot of cases, and this is the third attempt for this important and legitimate one. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No/reject. I'm responding to the posting over at WPPhys. My knee-jerk reaction is that this is a terrible idea, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and/or science in general. If you're going to link spacetime to general relativity, then what happened to Newton or Cartan or MOND? Are you pronouncing all these other theories of spacetime to be bad/wrong/rejected? What about Kaluza Klein? Is your space-time 5-dimensional, with hidden dimensions? Kaluza-Klein did their work in the 1920's; Einstein himself spent decades on it, its a foundational concept in string theory, but you're going to reject it because you've got some preconceived notion about spacetime that matches what the folks on reddit talk about? As to the equations themselves: they also apply to fluid mechanics, and to configurations of lattices, e.g. the black hole solution (schwarzschild solution) is a soliton, that is, a Lax pair, (Belinski-Zakharov), so are you going to link Lax pairs to gravitation? Or to water (KdV eqn) or to nuclear physics (say, Skyrme model)? The QCD confinemnt of the skyrme model, the quarks can be unconfined by shrinking Einstein spacetime to about 3-4 times the size of a nucleus, at which point, the Skyrmion kind of melts and releases all the quarks: confinement is gone, due to high local space-time curvature. So is nuclear physics all about space-time, now? Yes, I've written a tirade here, but the point is to show that classifying relationships in the sciences are necessarily vague and tenuous when they're correct, and inhibit forward progress, becoming dangerous when enforced by some cultural committee. 67.198.37.16 17:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can link several theories to one kind of objects, this is not a monopolistic claim, no problem with that, it's just a claim about what theory is about what kind of object is all. You can link both Newton and MOND and Cartan to "spacetime" if that's relevant. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you link space-time to 5-dimensional spacetime? There are several kinds of 5D spacetimes: the KK one, mentioned above, but also the recent results on 5D black holes with naked singularities and Cauchy horizons. They're two different kinds of 5D spacetimes. Then of course, the affine lie algebras are 26-dimensional spacetimes, unless they're fermionic, in which case they're 10-D. The obvious solution is to say "if wikipedia article X has a wikilink to topic Y in it, then X and Y are related". But to try to then say "the relationship between X and Y is that of theory and model" runs afoul of the details. 67.198.37.16 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(p.s. looking at above examples: the descriptive set theory people and the reverse mathematics people might not like your link of peano axioms to the non-negative integers. Seems like a flawed understanding of what the peano axioms are trying to do, and what they are actually used for, in day-to-day applications: how people actually use them, and what they are good for, as opposed to the ostensible "thing they describe": They describe a fragment of set theory; that fragment has a model which happens to include the non-negative integers. But what matters are the results of model theory, and not that one possible model just happens to be the non-negative integers.) 67.198.37.16 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Peano axioms are used to define the integers, in a formal model, and addition, etc. The fact that there are other models is not a problem for this property, as already said before.
As for your previous point, this property is not intended to solve all the problems nor to model every possible relationship like "this article as a link to that other one", this is nonsense. But yes, N-dimensional theories about spacetime may be link to space and time, what would precisely be the problem ? author  TomT0m / talk page 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(anyway, the sentence about the links on Wikipedia pages seems to imply you are kind of against the whole Wikidata idea, so … why coming here commenting, upset about me talking about this on enwiki ?) author  TomT0m / talk page 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could somebody explain why the property 'objet of a theory' is not sufficient to link a theory to an object  ? The idea of model (in science) has been much discussed in history of science and it is historically strange to apply this for instance to the Peano axioms. Perhaps, one should change the name of "object of a theory" to "important object in or for a theory", but "model" for me describes a very specific type of link (perhaps too specific for a property in Wikidata, as it may lead to debates, depending on one's epistemologic views). Thank you in advance. --Cgolds (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cgolds What property are you referring to precisely is the study of (P2578) (it's intended to link academic fields to their objects) ? has role in modeling (P6530) (which may fit but I find the example stranges, it links gene items to deseases) ? I can't find anything searching that label.
    I understand that in "model theory" in maths indeed this is kind of reversed, as the "specification" (the axioms) and the objects that have theses properties (natural numbers for peano axioms) are called "models" of the theory, so yes, the term seems to be a bit off but this is the exception ? If we look at the article about « fr:Modèle scientifique », although there are not many sources, kind of reflects what is usually understand as a scientific model nowdays, and it's in that sense I think it's used.
    For I dug a bit, because the "gene - disease" relationship seems way to broad, a gene is not by itself a model or a theory for a disease in any sense, that's why they renamed it : see this related discussion on the OBO ontology in link with the discussion on Wikidata about the proposal. They are talking about more specific relationships if needed, in relationship with Wikidata, and I think that's exactly related to this proposal. A gene may indeed "has a role" in modeling a disease, but it's usually far from being a whole model by itself ? They broadened the label from "is model of" to "has role in modelling" out of practical problems it seems, because it was in practice or they wanted to use it like that. I think Wikidata is larger so I think we could benefit from clarity. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TomT0m I was indeed refering to objet de la discipline (P2578), but if I understand you well, this property means "what is the object(ive) of the discipline" (and it would have been better to call it "subject" then :), not "an important object of the discipline". Or is your problem with "discipline" instead of "theory" ? It is true that "model" is not very appropriate for mathematics, but even in physics you may have a lot of discussions (see above !). For the (general) relativity theory, I understood that it modelizes gravitation more than spacetime (although of course the issue theory vs model(ization) is already a difficult topic). We are looking for for "object playing an important role in" or something of the kind. Cgolds (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cgolds yes, this is this meaning, "objet" have both meanings this may be ambiguous (I think I proposed the property, and it was labelled study of but properties have a way of living their life in Wikidata, I can't fully tell what happened after). I make a difference between the process of studying something and the body of knowledge this process produces. Theories and models are output. If physics eventually everything is bound to model the real world if you take a realistic point of view, which I think we should do. Something else like "nominalism" is self-referential, in practice we reflect visions and descriptions of the world, but … how different visions are tight to each over ?
    I don't think it's a problem to model both gravity and spacetime, why should this be exclusive. Although yes, "spacetime" if you look at the wikipedia articles like en:spacetime is actually defined as a class of model in which space and time are intimately tight. But in the real world it can be translated as "if we take two clocks in two referentials that moves relatively fast from each other you cannot get them synchronised, you have to take into account there speed relative to each other (and the mass repartition, for GR) to make sense of it.
    There is also the distinction of a theory and a model, a theory can be entirely abstract but if you want to make a model of the world, say a climate model, you have to take measures and datas from the real world to feed the equations, of course. Is it a real problem here ?
    "object playing an important role in" really feels like a catch all almost meaningless relationship. The question is "but what role is this ? What kind of importance" ? (oh, it's too hard and philosophical, so we gave up). If you can link almost anything to almost anything it's probably a bad idea, I think we should avoid such properties. We have a couple of them like facet of (P1269)   that people sometimes use when they don't know what to use. I think it's not really good because we don't then make the effort of asking ourselve if there is a more precise and purposeful relationship that could be created.
    To take the example of a climate model and the earth climate "has a role in modeling" is really an understatement. "simulates" would be a much better choice. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a real problem with this, because space-time and gravitation do not play the same role in (general) relativity theory. Would you say that Newton's theory modelizes space (or time for that matter) ? Space and time (or later space-time) is a constituent/a fundamental element of the theory, but the theory does not modelize (or theoretize or simulates or ... whatever is your philosophical viewpoint on the issue) it. A climate model modelizes the earth climate, but neither the earth nor the PDEs at the basis of the model (if it is a model with PDEs). Perhaps we need indeed two properties, something like "modelizes" (gravition, earth climate etc) and something like "is a constituent of" or "a constitutive element of" or something of the kind (space-time, PDE, ...). It would be nice to have some other inputs, would not it   ? Cgolds (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition edit

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science&oldid=2160968538"