Open main menu

Property talk:P2695



type locality (geology)
the locality where a particular rock type, stratigraphic unit or mineral species is defined from (can coincide but not the same as p189)
Representstype locality (Q1973416)
Data typeItem
Examplecarboborite (Q3658269)Da Qaidam Lake (Q23498113)
According to this template:,, Handbook of Mineralogy (MSA), reference search ([1]), IMA-CNMNC Newsletters
According to statements in the property:
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
See alsotype locality (biology) (P5304)
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Search for values
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)


What do you think about including "type section" (Stratotype (Q2911158)) in this property? I think type locality and type section are sufficiently similar to treat them the same on Wikidata. After all a section is also a locality that you can visit. Maybe we need to work out some of the statements that target items should have. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A good summary for the geologic concept can be found here: --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Terra typicaEdit

type locality (Q2405146) is another candidate for inclusion in this property. I also seems to be used in geography for landscape types. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Collected versus definedEdit

I just noticed that one of the labels now reads collected. In my feeling, that could be understood in the sense, that for example a meteorite specimen was collected at a location and is now somewhere else. Or in other words, there is nothing left at the collection site. Does anyone else have this feeling and does this fit within this property? The other problem with dropping defined from the description is, that stratigraphy really talks about units being the same or very similar to their type section. A type section is like a reference that you compare other sections with. It is not merily a place where rocks of that unit can be found. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that small pieces of the Allende meteorite will still be found in the area. There is type specimen (Q7860915), using it with this property is a possibility. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Allende meteorite is located in an administrative territorial entity and so a type locality. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Giving this property to holotypesEdit

@Pigsonthewing: Hey! User:Succu pointed out to me that there is some confusion about the correct usage of this property going on at Rausch 572 (Q19359611). This is probably to be expected because it is a rather fuzzy scientific concept, that to my knowledge is only still used in stratigraphy. Let me reiterate how I understand the correct usage:

A group can be defined in science in many ways. One of the less obvious ones is: Go to this place and look at the stuff you find their. If it is the same stuff as you found in another place then you have the right group.

Naturally this concept was abandoned for anything that couldn't be easily brought to a lab. It is far easier to define a Mineral by its chemistry and a species by its genes. Actually even a photo or good drawin might be more useful (What is the species migrated away from its type locality). And it is equally understandable that todays usage of type locality is mostly stratigraphy and landscape (for Geography), because it is impossible to take a representative sample of a landscape of complex stratigraphic sequence. Any sample you take is biased, so there is no other option than to revisit the type locality for every new method or question.

There is also another problem with the statement at Rausch 572 (Q19359611): A group can be defined by a type locality. But a specimen is not a group. It is defined by itself. Can you explain how you understand the current usage?

Hopefully we can sort this out and make this page a good reference on proper usage. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think your own comments in Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/47#P2695 are clear; albeit that you didn't respond to the concern I raised there in response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: In my feeling the concerns against a creation were sorted out. I did put an end to that discussion, so that people can use the property where its usage is clear. Arguing about edge-cases or Wikidata community dynamics (or power struggles, ... ) is unavoidable and those things have to be sorted out after creation. So I would like to ask you, also for the benefit of future readers of this thread, to explain how you understand the statement that you added. After all the community and Wikidata benefit from all these discussions and conflicts. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
You "put an end to that discussion"? Did you mean what you said, or not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Yes. I ended the property proposal discussion. Please let us get back on topic. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Then, since you meant what you said, my comment here, time-stamped '18:52, 5 April 2016', stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Tobias1984's ping was malformed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

First DescriptionEdit

Please review the labels in various languages and the relevant literature. Is "first description" really the best way to describe the concept of a type. Types are actually very often not the place or material that was described first. The type locality can coincide with the location of discovery (P189), but we created this property in order to distinguish the two! --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


The zoological definition as The type locality of a nominal species-group taxon is the geographical (and, where relevant, stratigraphical) place of capture, collection or observation of the name-bearing type is given in ICZN article 76. The type locality is simply the location where the typifing specimen was found that was attached to a species name. --Succu (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


On the creation of "type locality" for biology (Property:P5304), I had to add "geology" to the label of this property. We can't have two properties with the same label nor should one of the two just be called "type locality". Please don't remove "(geology)" from the label, but translate it if needed. --- Jura 05:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to "P2695" page.