Wikidata:Property proposal/BTO five-letter code

BTO five-letter code edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Done: BTO five-letter code (P4567) (Talk and documentation)

Description	five-character identifier for a bird species, issued by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	bird species occurring in the United Kingdom
Allowed values	[A-Z\.]{5}
Example	Long-tailed Tit (Q170831) → `LOTTI` Black Grouse (Q155878) → `BLAGR` Eurasian Teal (Q25700) → `TEAL.` Eurasian Jay (Q25354) → `JAY..`
Source	https://www.bto.org/about-birds/birdfacts/british-list
Robot and gadget jobs	Mix'n'match
See also	ABA bird ID (P4526) EURING number (P3459)

Motivation

British Trust for Ornithology (Q2925763) are a highly-reputable, scientific organisation. These codes are widely used in the scientific surveying of birds and their nests, in the United Kingdom. The proposed property name disambiguates these identifiers from the set of BTO two-letter codes found in the same source document. Names shorter than five letters have one or more full-stops (periods) appended. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment @Pigsonthewing: Why do we care about symbols and do not care about the pages themselves?! And formatter URL will be "https://app.bto.org/birdfacts/results/$1.htm".Thank you David (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. Who is the "we" you mention? Why not ask them? Also, both https://app.bto.org/birdfacts/results/LOTTI.htm and https://app.bto.org/birdfacts/results/lotti.htm return 404 error codes. Did you mean some other URL? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant to change the examples and formatter UR but there is no need for it David (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we are getting a lot of properties giving various codes (euring, ABA, and now this), but that don't link to anything. Why would Wikidata want these codes? - Brya (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pigsonthewing: Based on Brya's comment, What I proposed already exists. What is the benefit of the new proposal? David (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It enables someone in possession of such a code to determine the species to which it refers; and someone in the possession of a species name, or another identifier, to determine the applicable BTO code. AFAICT, no other online source allows this, programmatically. Such a service is surely core to Wikdata's mission? P3459 is interesting, but not mutualy exclusive with this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But somebody without this code is equally well placed; all he needs is the scientific name. - Brya (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Wikidata is a knowledge repository; and those codes are a facet of our knowledge about birds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually no: there is no knowledge involved. This is just an arbitrary code, intended for internal use within the BTO; it is useless anywhere else. - Brya (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just me thinks the answer to this is blindingly obvious: it's for similar reasons to having REDIRECT pages on Wikipedia, to allow cross-correlation of various codes so that someone with one code can look another one up. HTH HAND —Phil Boswell (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support David (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this looks like an attempt to hasten the entropy death of Wikidata, by choking it with arbitrary junk. - Brya (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another egregious failure to assume good faith on your part Brya. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously. There is data beyond linked-data, and some of it is worth having. Jheald (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful, as Andy showed: people encountering such a code can readily decipher it and connect to a wealth of other resources (Wikidata as a nexus of data), and people planning to conduct research at/with the BTO can prepare the codes the BTO would expect before approaching the BTO. The code not being translatable to a meaningful URL is not a sufficient reason to not record this identity. Ijon (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appears to be a well-established identifier. Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For all the reasons above. --Magnus Manske (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As above. Phil Boswell (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jane023 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit late, but support for the same reasons as Ijon— Envlh (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Brya, Phil Boswell, Jheald, Ijon: Done as BTO five-letter code (P4567). Thierry Caro (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]