Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/Classificació de Baltimore

< Wikidata:Property proposal

Baltimore classification edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Not done
DescriptionVirus standard classification system
RepresentsBaltimore classification (Q782725)
Data typeItem
Template parameter|virus_group= in ca:Plantilla:Infotaula d'ésser viu
Domainvirus
Allowed valuesdouble-stranded DNA virus (Q2901600), single-stranded DNA virus (Q9094469), double-stranded RNA virus (Q3307900), positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus (Q9094478), negative-sense single strand RNA virus (Q9285327), single-stranded RNA reverse transcriptase virus (Q9094482) and double-stranded DNA reverse transcriptase virus (Q3754200)
ExampleHepatitis C virus (Q708693) → positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus (Q9094478)
Sourceen:Baltimore classification
Planned useAdd property to all virus in catalan wikipedia
See alsoICTV virus ID (P1076)
Motivation

It would be very useful for virus taxoboxes. Paucabot (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  Notified participants of WikiProject Microbiology

  WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

@ChristianKl: What exactly do you need to know? Paucabot (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Paucabot: What's special about this virus classification scheme. How does it differ from others? I think it's possible to find a more informative 1 or 2 sentence description than "Virus standard classification system". ChristianKl (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. It's my first property proposal. This virus classification scheme is one of the two most used to classify virus as you can read in en:Virus classification. The other one, has already its property: ICTV virus ID (P1076). Paucabot (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Support It's the main classification criteria for viruses. It should be as a property. thnks,--Amadalvarez (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont't think this property should be termed "Baltimore classification" because the the classification is outdated and distinguishes between seven groups termed Group I ... Group VII. I think the main intentions of this proposal is to denote the genome composition. That is listed in the newer ICTV Taxonomy. The values of the property are similar to the above listed (taken from ICTV Master Species List 2016 v1.3 (Q29000566)):

--Succu (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: I didn't know it was outdated. It is not noted in en:Baltimore classification nor in en:Virus classification. So, in your opinion, ICTV virus ID (P1076) does the job? Paucabot (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Paucabot: ICTV virus ID (P1076) was intended to provide the external IDs of www.ictvdb.org, a database down now for some years. For details please see this discussion (in German). But I think the information you want to provide is essential. According to ICTV the genome composition is defined as „The nature (molecular and genetic composition) of the virus genome packaged into the virion”. I see two options: Rename the current proposal and notify all participating users - or - withdraw this proposal, make a new one and notify all participating users. --Succu (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: I see. I agree with renaming. What is the name you propose? Could you help me doing it? Paucabot (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe Viral genome composition is a good name for that property. The values are listed above. Most of the item mappings you'll found in your proposal. --Succu (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: What about viral genome group, viral genome classification? Paucabot (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to create the non-existing items? Paucabot (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if your proposals are better suited. I'm not a specialist for this domain. I would postpone the creation of the missing items until we have to use them (e.g. one of constraint).
@Succu: Do you know someone that could enlighten us? Paucabot (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Paucabot, Amadalvarez, Succu, ChristianKl: Hi, I think the new property should be nucleic acids (Q123619). The Baltimore classification is correct, but it is based —and is what makes the difference among all values— on the characteristic nucleic acid of every virus. If you search for a table in a virology book, you will find that the column title is Nucleic acid. --Xavier Dengra (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Xavier Dengra, the term used by International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (Q580606) is genome composition which is clearly different from your proposal --Succu (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Notified participants of WikiProject Microbiology   WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

Should we create this property even when Baltimore classification is an old classification system and there seem to be newer ones? ChristianKl (✉) 14:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Succu, Xavier Dengra, Paucabot, Amadalvarez, Yeza:   Not done, given that we now have ICTV virus genome composition (P4628). ChristianKl (✉) 22:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Classificació_de_Baltimore&oldid=606041148"