Wikidata:Property proposal/Idaho Species Catalog ID

Not done

Description	item number for taxa in the Idaho Species Catalog by Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Q16939120)
Represents	Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Q16939120)
Data type	External identifier
Allowed values	string pattern
Allowed units	[0-9]
Example	Abagrotis apposita (Q13220970) → 1474133 Holospira (Q3074524) → 10000
Formatter URL	https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/$1

A database of specis in Idaho, created by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Q16939120), making it a governental database whcih we should include. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Minor local US database with less than 5,000 entries. --Succu (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A US state government is not a "minor" institution. Idaho has an area of has an area of 83,569 square miles - around five times the size of the Netherlands, for example, and larger than Senegal, Cambodia, Syria, Uruguay, Tunisia, Nepal and many other countries. ~5000 entries is more than many of the databases we link to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond comparing areas and an unprofen we did that before - What's your argument? --Succu (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support If someone searches for a lot of information about a species having the link might be helpful to them. ChristianKl (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this is really scraping the bottom. What content is being offered here? No description. No original pictures (just something borrowed). Some links to dubious sites. - Brya (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the examples represent what is to be found in this database, I think there is not really any additional value. Lymantria (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lymantria: No it is not. I just picked the first ID I saw, and a random "common" big number. There are much better examples, but I wanted to just show how th elinks was ment, not to show of the "best of the best" IDs. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please provide an example to convince me, then. The information on your example Abagrotis apposita (Q13220970), "A moth" in the database, is basicly empty. Lymantria (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - See e.g 74432 for Sharp-shinned Hawk (Q386569). (t) Josve05a (c) 08:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the geospatial data on observations in Idaho, native status, temporal status and state conversation ranks seems like very useful information for anyone working on North American wildlife. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a, Succu, Pigsonthewing, Lymantria: Not done for now. If the database improves in the future it can be proposed again.--Micru (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]