Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/Antecedent anatomical structure

< Wikidata:Property proposal

antecedent anatomical structureEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science


No existing property is appropriate to express this relation. We have similar properties for the antecedents of manufactured items (material used (P186)), creative works (based on (P144)), chemical compounds (analog or derivative of (P5000)), and lexemes (derived from (P5191)), but none for anatomical structures. The properties has part (P527), part of (P361), and said to be the same as (P460) don't generally cover it; subclass of (P279), follows (P155), and has contributing factor (P1479) are often a stretch. Swpb (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


  •   Support David (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology ChristianKl (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Was a bee (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC) Okkn (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

  Notified participants of WikiProject Anatomy

  • Before this property is ready we should analyse how this modeling relates to how the other biomedical ontologies model things. ChristianKl❫ 21:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @ZI_Jony: Please don't mark a proposal like this as ready. The proposal has no input from domain experts at this time and the relevant Wikiprojects aren't yet contacted. ChristianKl❫ 21:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please note that we have develops from (P3094) for anatomical structures, although I can understand the current proposed property is different from it. We must clarify the difference to avoid misuses. How about renaming the current property to "evolutionary origin"? This property may also be useful in gene items or in taxon items. --Okkn (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, I wasn't aware of develops from (P3094) when I made this proposal. Maybe there is no need for a separate property, just an expansion of scope and some new aliases? If we could do that, I'd be inclined to withdraw this proposal. Swpb (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)