Open main menu

See alsoEdit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (research on manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See steps when creating properties.

  On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2019/10.


Physics/astronomyEdit

BiologyEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Taxonomy}}
Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Biology for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Biology}}

is a synonym of taxon nameEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionmore or less the inverse of taxon synonym, P1420
Representssynonym (Q1040689) (including homotypic synonym (Q42310380), heterotypic synonym (Q59511375))
Data typeItem
Domaintaxa (Q16521), plus items for scientific names
Allowed unitstaxon (Q16521)
Example 1Enneapogon brachystachyus (Q50828916) -> Enneapogon desvauxii (Q5379150)
Example 2Asteriscus maritimus (Q50828075) -> Pallenis maritima (Q1780814)
Example 3Aristolochia littoralis auct. (Q61949225) -> Aristolochia elegans (Q1891719)
Example 4Sedum nuttallianum Raf. (1832) (Q50869677) -> Sedum nuttallii (Q15488076)
Expected completenesspartial (thousands already present in Wikidata, but the literature holds hundreds of thousands of synonyms, if not millions, mostly very obscure. It is to be hoped that most of these will never be imported into Wikidata, but it appears difficult to stop this entirely)
Robot and gadget jobsmaybe

MotivationEdit

Intended to replace "instance of: synonym" with qualifier "of [target name]" (used in several thousand items). It is noticeable that some users misunderstand taxon synonym (P1420) and use this when they want to express the reverse, namely "is a synonym of taxon name". The latter can be done at the moment by using "instance of: synonym" with qualifier "of: [target name]", but to some users this appears counter-intuitive. Since this is an important relationship, it seems wise to remove this apparent ambiguity.

This proposed property is intended to be not quite the inverse of taxon synonym (P1420), since P1420 is intended to produce a list of synonyms of a particular taxon name. This is useful for well-known synonyms, occurring frequently in the literature, as this eliminates unnecessary confusion. On the other hand, this proposed property will often be used for very obscure names that nobody ever heard of, but that somehow got introduced into Wikidata anyway. For these obscure names it is very useful to be able to establish a relationship to a taxon name, so that it is placed in perspective. Inclusion of such obscure names in a list of synonyms would not be a good idea, as this would give them more prominence, and likely would cause further confusion.

This proposed property is not intended for isonyms, orthographical variants, and misspellings (incorrect subsequent spellings and incorrect original spellings). These are not synonyms (other names), but erroneous manifestations of the same name. However, it is intended to include misidentications. - Brya (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Circeus
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Enwebb
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
MPF
Manojk
MargaretRDonald
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
PEAK99
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
RaboKarbakian
Rod Page
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
TomT0m
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
Tubezlob
William Avery
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's kinda frustrating that this property didn't exist already. Circeus (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I was looking for it! TED 19:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Redundant inverse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it is really useful to have pointers going both ways in a case like this, and that is a normal practice. Otherwise, when looking at one item there is no indication of the relationship to the other item. Strobilomyces (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, and that is so true that we should have a warning, in the kind if the one that you have when you put "category main topic" somewhere and that you forgot to do the opposite with "topic main category". Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
If the two properties which are each other's inverse are themselves connected by the property inverse property (P1696), you get a warning if the connection is only set in one direction.Wiljes (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Pigsonthewing. --Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Díaz diskutujo 06:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I do not understand why we should have items just for the synonym of a taxon. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, lots of reasons.
    • To start with, there are a lot of Wikipedia pages for names that can be nothing but synonyms (no matter what taxonomy is followed). Wikidata is obliged to have items to accommodate these sitelinks.
    • There are also lots of pages for what is regarded as valid / correct in that Wikipedia, but that is regarded in other Wikipedia's (using a different taxonomy) as being a synonym. Wikidata is obliged to have items to accommodate these sitelinks.
    • Then there is the consideration that Wikidata aims to record data. Lots of data that is found in the literature is connected to names that may or may not be regarded as synonyms (depending on the taxonomy used). To manage this data it needs to be connected to the name used in the literature. This goes easiest if each name has its own item.
    We do have items for synonyms, and lots of them. The question is how to manage these. - Brya (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2019* (UTC)
    But there is a huge problem with labes, descriptions and aliases then. I think in most cases the label of a taxon is the most common common name in the language. And every scientific and former scientific name will be an alias. This will only create much confusion, because people will add the synonym as an alias to the main taxon and the main name as an alias to the synonym. And both items will get many common names. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    There is indeed an ongoing problem with labels and aliases (hopefully not descriptions). It is slowly being cleared up with labels migrating to the scientific name, and scientific names in aliases being migrated to corresponding items.
            The only way to avoid items for synonyms would be to have a Central Authority that sets a single (Original Research) WMF-Taxonomy and prescribes that for all Wikipedia's, forbidding any page that does not conform. Given that many Wikipedia's have a No Original Research policy and given the independence of Wikipedia's, this is extremely unlikely to happen.
            There is indeed a risk of confusion, and this proposal is intended to combat this confusion. - Brya (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to have a central authority or do original reseach in order to associated together all the names referring to one organism. It is just necessary to choose one name, without claiming that it is the real current name. But it seems to me that this property proposal falls into the same sort of criticism because I think it is using the word "synonym" in a sense which excludes the current name. For instance if A is the taxon and B and C are synonyms, A would not be a synonym. But I think it is better terminology to say that A, B anc C are synonyms and at present A is the current name. Doesn't this proposal require original research because it is necessary to identify which of a number of homotypic names is the real current one? Strobilomyces (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Any indication of whether a name is current / correct (according to a particular point of view) depends upon a taxonomic reference, which documents an actual decision by an actual taxonomist. So, normal practice by Wikidata does not involve Original Research but rather VER. However, a decision to appoint a Real Current Name (as in the One and Only True Name) may well violate NOR. But this is not normally done in Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I have long been looking for this property too. --LamBoet (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Circeus, TED and LamBoet Any idea why this could not reconciled from sourced statements of P1420 ? --Succu (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Succu:: I don't understand the question. TED 07:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @*Pigsonthewing and Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Díaz why do you think ist an inverse constraint (Q21510855) --Succu (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Panek (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Brya: Do we get rid of the instance of (P31)=synonym (Q1040689) statements? Should we mark special names (basionym (P566) or original combination (P1403)) somehow? --Succu (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    The intent is to replace the instance of (P31)=synonym (Q1040689) statements, over time. However, it is probably wise not to rush into this, and to see first how things develop.
            As to basionym (P566) or original combination (P1403), this is unrelated. Both basionym (P566) and original combination (P1403) indicate nomenclatural relationships, while this proposed property deals with a taxonomic relationship. It is quite possible that a name that is the basionym of another name is not now regarded as a synonym by anybody (that there was once at least one taxonomist who based another name on it may not be all that relevant). - Brya (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not really convinced that this a good solution, but it's much better than the P31 solution. Hence   Support. --Succu (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Changed my mind. --Succu (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Unnecessary, redundant inverse. --Yair rand (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    As explained above, in some cases it is an inverse, in other cases it definitely is not. And even when it is an inverse it serves a useful function: it is not redundant. - Brya (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this proposal should be considered until there has been substantial further analysis of the meaning of the concept "synonym" and how it should be represented in Wikidata. Some relevant issues are:
    • The relationship "is a synonym of" can only apply to entities which are names. However, Wikidata applies them to items that are instances of taxon (Q16521). If Q16521 really represents a "taxon" – a group of organisms – then it's simply wrong to apply any kind of "synonym relationship" to such items. A taxon cannot be a synonym of another taxon; only a taxon name can be a synonym of another taxon name.
    • "Synonym" is not used with exactly the same meaning in the different nomenclature codes. For example, moving a species from one genus to another, creating a new combination, creates a new synonym in botanical nomenclature, but not in zoological nomenclature. The differences between the codes are not represented in Wikidata.
    • There is a significant distinction between "objective synonyms/homotypic synonyms/nomenclatural synonyms" and "subjective synonyms/heterotypic synonyms/taxonomic synonyms", again not represented in Wikidata.
    • As Brya notes, some cases of "X is a synonym of Y" imply that "Y is a synonym of X" and some do not, but this is complicated by Wikidata not distinguishing clearly what kind of synonym is involved, and by this being in some cases a subjective issue dependent on taxonomic opinion. For a botanist who chooses to place a species originally described as P q into a different genus R, as R q, the name R q is a homotypic synonym of P q. Databases such as the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families then list each name as a synonym of the other, treating the relationship as symmetric. (See e.g. the entries for Hyacinthus candicans, Galtonia candicans and Ornithogalum candicans in the WCSP.) If these were zoological names, strictly speaking they wouldn't be what the ICZN calls "synonyms" at all.
    • When one plant genus is sunk into another, e.g. Galtonia into Ornithogalum, those who choose the wider name, like WCSP, treat each genus name as a (heterotypic) synonym of the other, so that the relationship between the names is symmetric, although in this case the relationship between the taxa represented by the names is clearly not symmetric – Ornithogalum in its wider sense includes Galtonia but not vice versa. This is a particular problem in Wikidata if "synonym relationships", however expressed, are regarded as being between taxa rather than names. Also for those who maintain the two genera, Ornithogalum in its original narrower sense is not a synonym of Galtonia nor vice versa. So whether or not the two taxon names are synonyms of one another depends on the taxonomic view. Since Wikidata should be neutral on taxonomic views, we should be able to say both that they are synonyms (with a source) and that they are not (with a source). Um...
Peter coxhead (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You're (somewhat indirectly touching) onto the heart of an issue I have with how Wikidata treats taxon and names: the property system surrounding name-related properties presumes that names are items, but nothing else in the data structure does. It's literally impossible to create a taxon name as a properly documented item without violating a whole bunch of constraint! Circeus (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: in practice, if not in theory, taxon (Q16521) actually represents both a taxon name (because it has relationships/properties only valid for names, like synonym or basionym), and a taxon (because it has relationships/properties only valid for taxa, like parent taxon or images). Peter coxhead (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Peter coxhead states: Databases such as the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families then list each name as a synonym of the other, treating the relationship as symmetric. (See e.g. the entries for Hyacinthus candicans, Galtonia candicans and Ornithogalum candicans in the WCSP.) . I don't recognize this at all: the WCSPF does what most everybody does. For Ornithogalum candicans it states "This name is accepted" and provides a list of names under the heading "Synonyms". For Hyacinthus candicans and Galtonia candicans it states "This name is a synonym" and refers to Ornithogalum candicans as the accepted name. There is no trace of a symmetric relationship: Hyacinthus candicans and Galtonia candicans are synonyms of Ornithogalum candicans. And this last has two synonyms: Hyacinthus candicans and Galtonia candicans. I don't see how it could be clearer. - Brya (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Brya: the usage of "synonym" you give above works if, and only if, (1) there is an accepted name, so that "synonyms" are always alternatives to the one accepted name (which as you have said before cannot be adopted here) and (2) there are different representations for "synonym" in the sense you used it (which implies a representation for the "accepted name"), "homotypic name" and "heterotypic name". With an accepted name and these three relationships, "synonym" is not symmetric, the other two are. What I see is Wikidata's "synonym" used for all kinds of "alternative scientific names", including "homotypic name". Do you really want to restrict "synonym of" to "accepted name"?
I note you didn't address the points about the confusion between "taxon" and "taxon name". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "synonym" as used for taxonomy presupposes that there is an "accepted name" / "correct name": it is "the synonym of ...". A taxonomic paper will not call an unaccepted name that is unresolved a "synonym", but will have a separate heading for it ("unresolved names", "nomina inquirenda", etc) away from the accepted names.
        "Homotypic" and "heterotypic" apply primarily to nomenclature. "This name is homotypic with" is a symmetric relationship, and Wikidata probably could use a property "this name is homotypic with". Whether "this name is heterotypic to" is symmetric or not is more complicated: most of the millions existing names are heterotypic to most other names, and this could count as symmetric. However, in practice nobody would say anything like this. It is only relevant to comment on a name being heterotypic if there is a taxonomic relationship, and in that case the relationship will not be symmetric.
        And obviously you are right that "A taxon cannot be a synonym of another taxon;" although not about "only a taxon name can be a synonym of another taxon name": this would be "only a name can be a synonym of a taxon name". But we covered this elsewhere. - Brya (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Redundant inverse is not true, specially for quarries in the kind ("filter not exists {?item wdt:P31 wd:Q1040689.}") to exclude the taxa that are synonyms. I very often use "instance of " "synonym" "of", example Asterias echinophora (Q63607694). Therefore a such new property will be a little more easy and quick to use for me. The same principle could be applied to "subject has role" "protonym" "of" with a new property "protonym of" (same example with Asterias echinophora (Q63607694)). A property that can works to have the same result without the obligation to use qualifiers is of course much better for the future potential querries (and likely from the ontological point of view too), and should be preferrer IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think this property would be a good thing if it could be used to distinguish and conceal "very obscure names", especially old basionyms (which all need to have items in order to record the author information, following the taxonomy project tutorial). Please can I ask whether it will be restricted to items having "instance of" = "taxon"? If not, I think it could be part of a big improvement to the data model, eliminating garbage from "instance of" = "taxon". In that case it would be necessary to define what other "instance of" values are allowed. Strobilomyces (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    The proposal is to use it in items for (non-taxon) scientific names as well as in items of taxa / names of taxa. - Brya (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Although the debate has stalled I think it would be good to have a bit more support votes to confirm that the property is useful before going ahead with creating this, so I will remove the ready flag for now. − Pintoch (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

image of bone or fossil recordEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionimage of the fossil, bone or skeleton of this taxon
Data typeCommons media file
Domaintaxons
Allowed valuesFile:<foo>.<ext>
Example 1Vespersaurus (Q64836111)File:Vespersaurus foot.png
Example 2pig (Q787)File:Domestic pig skeleton at MAV-USP.jpg
Example 3MISSING

MotivationEdit

It's common for entries for taxa, especially extinct ones, to have at least two suitable images: a photo/illustration and the skeletal remains/fossil for it. It would be good to have both in their relevant entries. NMaia (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

File:Domestic pig skeleton at MAV-USP.jpg / applies to part (P518) skeleton (Q7881) and Vespersaurus (Q64836111) image (P18)
File:Vespersaurus foot.png / applies to part (P518) fossil (Q40614)?--Tinker Bell 16:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Biochemistry/molecular biologyEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Molecular biology for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Molecular biology}}

position in biological sequenceEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionindex or position of a nucleotide in a genomic sequence, or of an amino acid in a protein's amino acid sequence; used as qualifier
Representsnucleotides (Q28745), amino acid position (Q66424100)
Data typeQuantity
Domainproperty
Allowed valuesinteger > 0
Example 1Phenylalanine hydroxylase (Q420604):
has part (P527)O-phosphorylated residue (Q66735569)
→ "position in biological sequence" → 16
of (P642)protein (Q8054)
Example 2Phenylalanine hydroxylase (Q420604):
gene substitution association with (P1916)phenylketonuria (Q194041)
→ "position in biological sequence" → 39
of (P642)protein (Q8054)
Example 3PAH (Q14851781):
gene substitution association with (P1916)phenylketonuria (Q194041)
→ "position in biological sequence" → 102912840
of (P642)human chromosome 12 (Q847102)
Planned useexactly specifying polymorphisms (mutations), hereditary diseases, PTMs
See alsogenomic start (P644), genomic end (P645) (these should be renamed/redefined to include amino acid/proteins); note also series ordinal (P1545) which is abstractly similar but associated with series not fixed sequences

MotivationEdit

See Wikidata:Property_proposal/amino_acid_(start,_end)_position. In particular, commenters wished for unification of nuc/aa sequences---therefore redefinition of genomic start (P644), genomic end (P645) should happen simultaneously. SCIdude (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Andrew Su
Marc Robinson-Rechavi
Pierre Lindenbaum
Michael Kuhn
Boghog
Emw
Chandres
Dan Bolser
Pradyumna
Chinmay
Timo Willemsen
Salvatore Loguercio
Tobias1984
Daniel Mietchen
Optimale
Mcnabber091
Ben Moore
Alex Bateman
Klortho
Hypothalamus
Vojtěch Dostál
Gtsulab
Andra Waagmeester
Sebotic
Mvolz
Toniher
Elvira Mitraka
David Bikard
Dan Lawson
Francesco Sirocco
Konrad U. Förstner (talk)
Chris Mungall (talk)
Kristina Hettne
Hardwigg
i9606
Putmantime
Tinm
Karima Rafes
Finn Årup Nielsen
Jasper Koehorst
Till Sauerwein
Crowegian
Nothingserious
Okkn
AlexanderPico
Amos Bairoch
Gstupp
DePiep
Was a bee
SarahKeating
Muhammad Elhossary
Ptolusque
Netha
Damian Szklarczyk
Kpjas
Thibdx
Juliansteinb
TiagoLubiana
SCIdude
  Notified participants of WikiProject Molecular biology

  •   Support David (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment We use series ordinal (P1545) to indicate ordinal position in a lot of other cases - for example author lists on an article. Is that not sufficient here? If not I think we'd want this label to be clearer on the distinction. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe that series ordinal gets stretched too much. A protein is an entity composed of a sequence of aminoacids in a orderly fashion. But I would not say that a protein is merely a series of aminoacids. It is an "emergent property" of this series. Think about the O-phosphorylated residue (Q66735569). It is in position 16 of the biological series of aminoacids that is inherent to Phenylalanine hydroxylase (Q420604). But is not in the position 16 of the protein itself. A different entity, "series of aminoacids that make up Q420604", could (1) be a part of Phenylalanine hydroxylase and (2) have an aminoacid described by series ordinal (P1545). But again, this would be too convoluted. This property could be named position in biological sequence, as both genes and proteins are defined by their specific biological sequence, but are more than that. TiagoLubiana (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the label should make it clearer that this property is limited to these types of sequences. --Yair rand (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have changed the label in the proposal, as I agree with the suggestions given. --SCIdude (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see how series ordinal (P1545) implies that the whole isn't more then the individual parts. ChristianKl❫ 11:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl series ordinal (P1545) has other problems, see their talk page, it is not identical to sequence index since it allows arbitrary ordinals like 2,4 or 15X. Semantically a series is not a sequence, and AI applications will have problems mapping series ordinal (P1545) to a sequence index. I would agree to use an abstract "index/position in sequence" instead of this proposal, however. --SCIdude (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support More than addresses my uncertainty with [| the initial proposal] Gtsulab (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If the argument is that this is something qualitiatively different then a sequence index, I don't see why biology is a special case. Why wouldn't it be useful for other sequences correspondingly? ChristianKl❫ 10:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl As said I'm in favor of a generic sequence index property. Do you think such a proposal would pass quickly? Then it would make this one obsolete. --SCIdude (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@SCIdude: When it comes to passing a proposal quickly, it's about making clear why one choice of modeling the domain is better then other choices of modelling the domain. As long as it's not clear which choice is best, the proposal should stay open. ChristianKl❫ 14:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

ChemistryEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Chemistry}}


Electron configurationEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionproperty of an atom (atom (Q9121)) in chemical element (chemical element (Q11344)) based on electron configuration (Q53859)
Representselectron configuration (Q53859)
Data typeString
Template parameter"electron configuration" in Template:Infobox element
Domainchemical element (Q11344)
Example 1hydrogen (Q556) → 1s1
Example 2helium (Q560) → 1s2
Example 3lithium (Q568) → [He] 2s1
Example 42s2
Example 52s22p1
Example 62s22p2
Example 72s22p3
Example 82s22p4
Example 92s22p5
Example 102s22p6
Example 11[Nе]3s1
Example 123s2
Example 133s23p1
Example 143s23p2
Example 153s23p3
Example 163s23p4
Example 173s23p5
Example 183s23p6
Sourceconfigurations of the elements (data page) Wikipedia: Electron configurations of the elements
Planned useinclude in templates related to chemical elements
Number of IDs in source126
Expected completenesscomplete coverage can be provided
Robot and gadget jobscan be created
See alsoatomic number (P1086), electron configuration (Q53859)

MotivationEdit

can be used along with atomic number (P1086) instead of electron configuration (Q53859). Was nominated before Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/38#electron configuration

Saehrimnir
Leyo
Snipre
Jasper Deng
Dcirovic
Walkerma
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Kopiersperre
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Nothingserious
Antony Williams (EPA)
TomT0m
Wostr
Devon Fyson
User:DePiep
User:DavRosen
Benjaminabel
99of9
Kubaello
Fractaler
Sebotic
Netha
Hugo
Samuel Clark
Tris T7
Leiem
  Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

Васин Юрий (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Comment The proposal mentions "infobox parameter = "electron configuration" in Template:Infobox element". I note that in enwiki, this is not an input parameter but en:Infobox element reads this data directly from data set en:Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-electron-configuration (which allows reuse of this data in other tables & boxes in that wiki). -DePiep (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I got very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think such info is useful, but I don't like to have this on elements. I think the more appropriate place is atoms, like ions. The configuration, after all, is depending on whether the molecule is ionized, a radical, etc. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • No matter where to use this property in atoms or chemical elements. Any way this information frequently shown in periodic tables Васин Юрий (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment superscript is not possible in WD, so we would have to use Unicode symbols for this (like in chemical formulae). Maybe we should try to find a way to model this using qualifier(s) so as to the data could be reused in more than one way (like electron configuration = orbital s, qualifier: number of electrons = 2; orbital d, qualifier: no of e = 6 etc. or something). Wostr (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I added some examples to explain that UTF will be enough. We need only numbers ¹ ² ³... symbols. Or number can be placed in parentheses, e.g. 2s[2]. I can enter data for all elements by bot or manually. Васин Юрий (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I know that Unicode symbols would be sufficient, but I wonder if this is the best way to model this. Wostr (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Maybe brackets could be good alternative? Васин Юрий (talk)
          • That's not the question how to write it in a single string, but rather how to make the data re-usable in different ways, without the need to parse a single string of data. Wostr (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Please make it clear in every example which item should get which statements. ChristianKl❫ 14:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would suggest to use HTML <sup> and </sup> tags used for superscripting, rather than hard-coded unicode. They're probably easier to parse for downstream apps wanting to use the data in different ways. Jheald (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I   Oppose if the property uses HTML,   Support if it uses unicode. Unicode is easier to parse as it needs no added actions. It automatically works provided the software supports unicode. HTML on the other hand needs the data users to make assumptions about how we format our data.
Anything that has string as a data-type within Wikidata should be understood by data-reusers to be able to used without additional parsing.
If the data-type would be Mathematical expression I would be okay with mathml style formatting as that's to be expected with that datatype. ChristianKl❫ 08:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 14:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

contains functional groupEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthis chemical compound contains this specific functional group.
Representsfunctional group (Q170409)
Data typeItem
Domainchemical compound
Allowed valuesfunctional group, or element (only for halogen)
Example 1ibuprofen (Q186969)carboxyl (Q909913)
Example 2pyridoxine (Q423746)hydroxyl (Q104116)
Example 3sildenafil (Q191521)sulfuryl (Q3487110), ether group (does not have an item), etc.
Expected completenesseventually complete for existing item only
Robot and gadget jobsmay be imported from local categories
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/contains chemical element

MotivationEdit

This will provide a way to filter chemical compounds. GZWDer (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, a specific property does make sense over has part (P527) for this very specific relationship I think; I would prefer to reserve P527 for eg separable component parts of enzyme complexes. Could get a bit silly for big molecules if not careful, but definitely valuable and useful for smaller molecules and molecules containing less usual structures. Jheald (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Saehrimnir
Leyo
Snipre
Jasper Deng
Dcirovic
Walkerma
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Kopiersperre
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Nothingserious
Antony Williams (EPA)
TomT0m
Wostr
Devon Fyson
User:DePiep
User:DavRosen
Benjaminabel
99of9
Kubaello
Fractaler
Sebotic
Netha
Hugo
Samuel Clark
Tris T7
Leiem
  Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry ChristianKl❫ 16:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support --Hugo (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose at least at this moment. We already have totally invalid analog or derivative of (P5000), we have not yet established a way to classify chemical compounds in Wikidata, this requires a long and thorough discussion, not a quick property proposal. This will be another ill-considered approach to chemical classification. There are many problems with the proposed property: the 'functional group' term is very unprecise and sometimes it can mean a hydrogen atom, sometimes even groups stated as an examples here are not considered functional groups for certain molecules; it depends on the specific molecule. This property will tend to grow significantly for bigger molecules with potential overlapping of functional groups. "may be imported from local categories" – this is totally unacceptable; the number of badly categorised articles in Wikipedias is enormous, especially in en.wiki. At this moment the best solution IMHO to classify chemical compounds is to use classes of compounds with P31/P279 relation. Adding specific class, like amine (Q167198), implies that any instance of such class contains an amino group. But — as I wrote — this requires thorough discussion and especially not here. Wostr (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Overall, I like the idea. But I'm leaning towards Wostr's comment. What functional groups are allowed to range? Methylene? I still don't know what to think about the statements in many chemicals that they contain a carbon, and like to know more about where this is going. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Similar to Wostr: the idea is good but only if the concept of functional group is clearly defined. Snipre (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose What is the aim of this property? Having (another) classification of chemical structures (besides the already existing instance of (P31)+subclass of (P279)), looking for similar compounds, defining "active sites" of compounds+proteins (for which we could use the same property as for chemical compounds I believe)? If we have a clear(er) aim for such a proposal it would also help the discussion along I believe. I found a paper on "chemical ontology for identification of functional group" (probably there are more recent ones) which could help that discussion along (but this is not the place indeed). --DeSl (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

contains chemical elementEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionthis chemical compound or material contains this
Representschemical element (Q11344)
Data typeItem
Domainchemical compound or material
Allowed valueschemical element
Example 1sodium peroxide (Q205459)sodium (Q658) (2), oxygen (Q629) (2)
Example 2Krogmann's salt (Q6438769)potassium (Q703) (2), platinum (Q880) (1), carbon (Q623) (4), nitrogen (Q627) (4), bromine (Q879) (0.3)
Example 3dumortierite (Q677619) → See Wikidata:Property proposal/relative count for actual examples
Expected completenesseventually complete for existing items only
Robot and gadget jobsyes

MotivationEdit

Currently we use has part (P527) for this; we probably need a explicit property.GZWDer (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Saehrimnir
Leyo
Snipre
Jasper Deng
Dcirovic
Walkerma
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Kopiersperre
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Nothingserious
Antony Williams (EPA)
TomT0m
Wostr
Devon Fyson
User:DePiep
User:DavRosen
Benjaminabel
99of9
Kubaello
Fractaler
Sebotic
Netha
Hugo
Samuel Clark
Tris T7
Leiem
  Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

  •   Support David (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good improvement over has part (P527) Jheald (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support in principle. However, I think the domain should be clarified, and possibly the label. Should it be just chemical substance (Q79529), or could we include any physical object - for example human (Q5) or even Sun (Q525) - though in the latter case it doesn't strictly contain the elements as chemical species, but as nuclei in a plasma... ? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  Question I don’t get what improvement it would actually imply. Could you clarify ?
Tend to   Oppose because of the question. I think it’s at best redundant if the other kind of parts a compound could consist of have elemental parts. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose adding classes like sodium compound (Q12555933) (usually subclasses of such classes) using P31/P279 relation is IMHO the best option. Wostr (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

relative countEdit

relative countEdit

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) relative count (nominal) of someting
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Example 1iron(II) oxide (Q196680) contains chemical element iron (Q677) → 1, oxygen (Q629) → 1
Example 2dumortierite (Q677619) contains chemical element aluminum (Q663) → 7, boron (Q618) → 1, BRUHSILCON (Q670) → 3, oxygen (Q629) → 18
Example 3See Wikidata:Property proposal/contains chemical element for other examples

emperical relative countEdit

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) relative count (emperical) of someting
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Example 1iron(II) oxide (Q196680) contains chemical element oxygen (Q629) → 0.84-0.95
Example 2dumortierite (Q677619) contains chemical element aluminum (Q663) → 6.5-7
Example 3MISSING

MotivationEdit

quantity (P1114) not usable as 1. it is integer only 2. for non-molecular compound, this number is actually a proportion, not a count. GZWDer (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Saehrimnir
Leyo
Snipre
Jasper Deng
Dcirovic
Walkerma
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Kopiersperre
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Nothingserious
Antony Williams (EPA)
TomT0m
Wostr
Devon Fyson
User:DePiep
User:DavRosen
Benjaminabel
99of9
Kubaello
Fractaler
Sebotic
Netha
Hugo
Samuel Clark
Tris T7
Leiem
  Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

  •   Comment I don't see a fundamental difference between your two proposals here, it should be just a single property, with Quantity value. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Another reason to have just one is that empirical values are not strictly speaking for the compound or substance, but whatever you had in your sample (which also included impurities). Also for simple organic compounds, the integers are in experimental conditions also not integers. We round them for practical means to match our idea of chemical graphs better. I'm more in favor of having one with rational number values. Where they can simply be 1.0. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

MedicineEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Medicine}}

DoseEdit

   Under discussion
Representsdose (Q473420)
Data typeQuantity
Allowed unitsMilligrams, micrograms, international units
Example
route of administration (P636) = oral administration (Q285166)
time period of periodically occurring event (P2257) = 1 day
Sourceen:Dose (biochemistry)
Planned usePlan is to use as a qualifier for the price of different medications
Robot and gadget jobsEventually
Motivation

Doses of medications will be required for listing prices or defining how a medication is usually taken.

For example the typical dose of amoxicillin is 500 mg po TID

The wholesale price of 500 mg of amoxicillin is 0.063 USD as of July 17th, 2019 in the United States.[1]

Right now we are using "quantity" but when one adds 400 mg it gives a warning Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Gstupp
Geoide
Sintakso
علاء
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Adert
CFCF
Jtuom
Lucas559
Drchriswilliams
Okkn
CAPTAIN RAJU
LeadSongDog
Ozzie10aaaa
Sami Mlouhi
Marsupium
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
ShelleyAdams
Fractaler
Seppi333
Shani Evenstein
Csisc
linuxo
Arash
Morgankevinj
Anandhisuresh
TiagoLubiana
ZI Jony
Viveknalgirkar
  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

  • @Doc James: Please provide a description for the property and examples.
    I'm a bit weary about the potential of people adding a dose to the chemical compounds. Inutively it seems to me like only packaged drugs have a dosis and the dosis isn't a property of the underlying chemical substances. ChristianKl❫ 14:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Should this property also address dose units for other than chemicals, such as for Q186161 ionizing radiation? LeadSongDog (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • User:LeadSongDog you mean in a medication related context? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
      • No, not just in medication-related context: In a ionizing radiation safety context, workers wear dosimetry badges to track occupational exposure; In semiconductors, defined quantities of neutrons cause defined p-type doping effects; In a photochemistry context, defined quantities of light are used to power many reactions (e.g. photosynthesis, epoxy polymerization, cross-linking of synthetic rubbers, etc.); In food safety, defined radiation doses can be used to sterile-package uncooked foods as an alternative to Pasteurization. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Isn't this what defined daily dose (P4250) is for? There are also some related properties like acceptable daily intake (P2542) that cover other aspects of this. In any case the current proposal is too ill-defined to be suitable here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, hang on, you just want a property that works like "quantity" but allows units/non-integer values? It looks like we don't have something for that at all - how about calling this "amount" then? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    User:ArthurPSmith yes perfectly happy with calling it "amount". What we are looking for is a dosage which is an amount for a medication. DDD is a specific type of amount as is ADI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Doc James: We might want to try a completely new proposal for that - this one seems a little too tied to the medical context; we should also come up with some other examples where it would be useful, I'm sure they exist! ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    User:ArthurPSmith Actually it might be best to tie this specifically to medications. We could remove a constraint from quantity (P1114) but that could have a lot of negative effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I checked defined daily dose (P4250) and acceptable daily intake (P2542) to see how the proposal modeled examples for those properties. There is hardly any modeling. I tried to do some modeling here in this edit. Before it referred to an item, and now there is still that item linked but I also tried to move the administration and event frequencies here for discussion. To talk about a dose, we need an amount, a time period, and an administration route, right? Is it still worthwhile to describe a dose with less information than that? What other information is also helpful?
    I am unsure with Arthur about overlap with those existing properties, which may be sufficient. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • We may also need formulation, like is it extended release, oral dissolving tablet, liquid, tablet, capsule, etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It is needed for the particular usage of medecine. Antoine2711 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Use "quantity", and fix the constraints. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

GoodRx IDEdit

   Under discussion
RepresentsGoodRx (Q30640316)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameterProposed as "GoodRx" in en:template:infobox drug and en:template:Drugbox external links (the intent is to pull GoodRx urls from wikidata to supply the corresponding fields these templates)
Domainpharmaceutical product (Q28885102), prescription drug (Q1643563), medication (Q12140), drug (Q8386), chemical compound (Q11173)
Example 1DL-amphetamine (Q179452)Adderall
Example 2DL-amphetamine (Q179452) → Adderall-XR
Example 3DL-amphetamine (Q179452) → Evekeo
Example 4DL-amphetamine (Q179452) → Adzenys-XR-ODT
Example 5Adderall (Q935761) → Adderall
Example 6Adderall (Q935761) → Adderall-XR
Example 7methylphenidate (Q422112) → Ritalin
Example 8methylphenidate (Q422112) → Ritalin-LA
Example 9methylphenidate (Q422112) → Concerta
Example 10Insulin Lispro (Q3492616) → Humalog
Sourcehttps://www.goodrx.com
External linksUse in sister projects:
Planned useAdd the corresponding IDs to each Wikidata item from GoodRx
Number of IDs in source~6000
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://www.goodrx.com/$1
Robot and gadget jobsAdding GoodRx IDs to wikidata to permit use on Wikipedia

MotivationEdit

Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Gstupp
Geoide
Sintakso
علاء
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Adert
CFCF
Jtuom
Lucas559
Drchriswilliams
Okkn
CAPTAIN RAJU
LeadSongDog
Ozzie10aaaa
Sami Mlouhi
Marsupium
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
ShelleyAdams
Fractaler
Seppi333
Shani Evenstein
Csisc
linuxo
Arash
Morgankevinj
Anandhisuresh
TiagoLubiana
ZI Jony
Viveknalgirkar
  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

I'd like to add GoodRx IDs to wikidata to permit linking to GoodRx webpages through templates on Wikipedia. I intend to code a bot script to do this using pywikibot; I'm aware that I need to get the bot approved. GoodRx provides pharmacy price data and coupons for prescription drugs in the US. Seppi333 (Insert ) 11:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Support What is proposed here seems like routine integration of the identifiers from a popular medical database into Wikidata.
    Wikidata collects many names for what should be the same drug. We are still relying on all of these products by various names resolving as equivalent to one name. GoodRx is another layer on that depending on the foundational quality that all our data data is correct. I question whether the information we have is correct. The pharma industry is playing many anti-consumer games by marketing all these various names into the marketplace. Such as things are, this mapping plan with GoodRx matches to Wikidata's current quality and the best quality data that NIH and similar databases present for import and reconciliation with Wikidata. If we ever have separate Wikidata items for various product names, then we could easily split this GoodRx cataloging system into more specific name articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    The fact that two drugs share the same active ingrident doesn't mean that they are the same product. The ways a drug gets manifactured has often clinical effects.
    I don't believe that items about chemical compounds should link to items about individual product names. I would want items for the individual named products to be created if you want to add external ids of individual named products to items. Otherwise, I   Support having the property. There should be a single value constraint. ChristianKl❫ 12:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    The main reason I linked 2 items to "Adderall" and "Adderall-XR" is that on en-wiki, en:Adderall and en:Amphetamine both exist; the Adderall article is about a specific mixture of amphetamine enantiomers (1:3 levoamphetamine to dextroamphetamine) in clinical use, whereas the Amphetamine article is about the compound in general (i.e., 1:1 racemic and any enantiomeric mixtures of levo- and dextro-amphetamine). But, for what it's worth, DL-amphetamine (Q179452) already lists Adderall, Evekeo, and several other brands under a different property (active ingredient in (P3780)) pertaining to brands in which amphetamine is or was previously an active ingredient.
    Also, a single value constraint would almost entirely preclude the use I had in mind for this property (i.e., pulling the urls from Wikidata and linking to the corresponding GoodRx pages in Wikipedia templates). Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    may help clarify why there's so much confusion. Multiple regulators. Multiple database systems. Multiple producers. Multiple labels. Multiple formulations. Multiple dosages. Seems almost like it was designed to confound multi-national studies. Anywho, different is different: we should be careful that we do not conflate referents through sloppy handling of identifiers. This could cause serious harm. If it is made glaringly clear that formulations may differ, there might be value in identifying "related" referents. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    When it comes to adding external ids to Wikidata the first priority is to keep our order on Wikidata. Just because Wikipedia versions mix different concepts on the same page doesn't mean that we should do so as well.
    In those cases it might make sense to sooner or later mark in the templates on Wikipedia which concepts are actually covered by the pages.
    There's potential drama involved here by drawing links to thousands of pages of a for-profit unicorn startup and it seems to me like till now you haven't got a clear consensus from EnWiki that those links are considered welcome on EnWiki. Going through a bot request on EnWiki leaves less potential for drama afterwards.
    @Doc_James: What do you think here? ChristianKl❫ 09:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support David (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Can we also import some pricing data as well? More useful than just a link though of course more complicated to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: When it comes to pricing data it seems to me even more important that it's for the price for a specific drug and not the general compound. Importing privacy data might be copyright sensistive. It would make sense to ask Goodrx what they think about such an import.
      I think have a good understanding of the opinions of the medical Wikipedians on Enwiki. How much potential for conflict for linking to a for-profit website like this in infoboxes do you see? How do you think the relevant consensus should be established over there? ChristianKl❫ 13:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Seppi333: did you have any contact with GoodRx about this import project and how they stand on it? ChristianKl❫ 13:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      • What is the "specific drug" versus "general compound"? We specifically label medications by the INN and redirect all brands to generics (except when a brand is used for more than one separate medication)
        The price is a data point and not copyrightable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
        • When you buy a drug in a pharmacy you are not only getting the compound but a lot of other things in the same pill. Some compounds can be orally as well as intravenously and are sold in different drug formulations.
          To the extend that we have links to generics, we could simply link to the generics in GoodRx. What benefit would we get from also linking to brand names on it? ChristianKl❫ 14:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
        • "We [...] redirect all brands to generics" No, we do not: Concerta (Q10868995); Adderall (Q935761); Ritalin (Q47521826). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
          • @Pigsonthewing: I don't see why a many-to-one linking is a problem. This will, in fact, be an m-to-n association between our database and theirs because we have additional IDs on some medications but not others (it's going to be a painstaking process for me to resolve all of the identifiers between the two databases, but I'm hoping I can get USANs (very likely) or INNs (probably) for the drug names, as I'd only have maybe 5-10% remaining from the union of both sets to sort out (e.g., pages on obscure brand and/or generic pharmaceuticals that are poorly linked on WD/WP, of which there's quite a few). The whole point of this proposal is not to establish a 1-to-1 bijective association between two databases; it's about facilitating data utilization on other projects. In any event, the only reason that I am proposing the brand name is that (1), (2) the prototype brand of a particular chemical, and particularly a drug class, is at least as recognizable to the public - if not moreso - than its generic name, (3) doctors often prescribe a brand name, with generic substitution being intended, because the drug product (i.e., dosage form, active ingredient, and its excipients) is inherently more clear to a pharmacist than prescribing the dosage form and the generic drug name, as that is not a drug product. Case in point, there is a qualitative but rather technical chemical difference in the dosage forms of Adderall XR and Mydayis (see table; the difference in cost between them is several hundred US dollars because one is off-patent and the other is not), and I have no idea how a doctor, much less a patient, would be able to distinguish between the two if a generic term were used. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
      • It seems a bit premature for me to ask for their data without having established any form of consensus on WP to merit access to potentially proprietary information. That said, there isn't one fixed way of doing what I'm proposing, so I'm open to hearing what others have to say and, if there's consensus to do this only in a certain manner, I figured I'd broach the issue by making my request and stating those conditions upfront. If they're fine with that, great. If not, I could probably still get the data I need from a cloud-based NLP AI, but I probably wouldn't get all the relevant data (e.g., GoodRx/retail price, dosage form, dose, brand name, generic name, and/or other data items) on every drug in their database if that ends up being the only alternative. It would be a bit of a pain in the ass to go that route because they have brand name drugs and - assuming they're no longer patented - the corresponding generic(s) redirected to the same uri, so I'd be generating duplicate data on alternate identifiers through redirects. I'd probably have to delete the redundancies and save the corresponding identifiers from a web scrape after-the-fact rather than preclude writing that data because I don't think a web-scraping AI would be programmed with niche functionality like that. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose "Ritalin", for example, is an identifier for Ritalin (Q47521826), not methylphenidate (Q422112). (Also, FYI, I get the error "GoodRx is not available outside of the United States." when trying to access the site.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Genetics Home Reference Conditions IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for disease in the United States National Institutes of Health's Genetics Home Reference
RepresentsGenetics Home Reference (Q62606821)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainDiseases
Allowed values[^\s]+
Example 1Tay-Sachs disease (Q560337)tay-sachs-disease
Example 2abetalipoproteinemia (Q319812)abetalipoproteinemia
Example 3distal 10q deletion syndrome (Q21154055)10q26-deletion-syndrome
Sourcehttps://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useProperty to be used within the Template:Medical resources on EN WP.
Number of IDs in sourcebetween 1,100 - 1,500
Formatter URLhttps://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/$1
Robot and gadget jobsThe plan is to add these values by bot

MotivationEdit

Genetics Home Reference is a good source of gene and disease information from NIH/NLM, and could be a reliable external link for use in Template:Medical_resources on Wikipedia pages. Gtsulab (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Gstupp
Geoide
Sintakso
علاء
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Adert
CFCF
Jtuom
Lucas559
Drchriswilliams
Okkn
CAPTAIN RAJU
LeadSongDog
Ozzie10aaaa
Sami Mlouhi
Marsupium
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
ShelleyAdams
Fractaler
Seppi333
Shani Evenstein
Csisc
linuxo
Arash
Morgankevinj
Anandhisuresh
TiagoLubiana
ZI Jony
Viveknalgirkar
  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

Andrew Su
Marc Robinson-Rechavi
Pierre Lindenbaum
Michael Kuhn
Boghog
Emw
Chandres
Dan Bolser
Pradyumna
Chinmay
Timo Willemsen
Salvatore Loguercio
Tobias1984
Daniel Mietchen
Optimale
Mcnabber091
Ben Moore
Alex Bateman
Klortho
Hypothalamus
Vojtěch Dostál
Gtsulab
Andra Waagmeester
Sebotic
Mvolz
Toniher
Elvira Mitraka
David Bikard
Dan Lawson
Francesco Sirocco
Konrad U. Förstner (talk)
Chris Mungall (talk)
Kristina Hettne
Hardwigg
i9606
Putmantime
Tinm
Karima Rafes
Finn Årup Nielsen
Jasper Koehorst
Till Sauerwein
Crowegian
Nothingserious
Okkn
AlexanderPico
Amos Bairoch
Gstupp
DePiep
Was a bee
SarahKeating
Muhammad Elhossary
Ptolusque
Netha
Damian Szklarczyk
Kpjas
Thibdx
Juliansteinb
TiagoLubiana
SCIdude
  Notified participants of WikiProject Molecular biology

MineralogyEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mineralogy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mineralogy}}

Computer scienceEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Informatics}}

contact area countEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionamount of contact faces of a certain device
Representselectrical contact (Q394001)
Data typeint-number-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Template parameter"contacts" in w:en:Template:Infobox CPU socket
Domainproperty
Allowed valuesnatural numbers only
Allowed unitsonly full counting steps (no float values)
Example 1Socket AM3 (Q876639) → Int number of contact pins
Example 2LGA 2011 (Q748697) → Int number of contact fields
Example 3DDR4 SDRAM (Q1189682) → Int number of contact slots
Example 4Type 2 connector (Q2335519) → Int number of electric contact pins
Planned useCPU socket items, DDR SDRAM items, EV charging connector items (I'm sure there are much more)
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/number of pins, number of pin positions

MotivationEdit

I got the idea for this when I was looking at CPU sockets here on wikidata. I was looking at an AMD CPU socket and thought could/should there be the pin count here on wikidata. Since this page exists, it does make sense for me since it's a unique property of a CPU socket that never changes and is already collected in information tables on Wikipedia.
My first idea was to name it "pin count". But since I wanted to use it not only for PGA, but also for LGA CPU socket I thought a bit and came up with "contact area count". If anyone has a better name, let me know!
When I thought about other uses outise of CPU sockets I realised that there are many items which have contact pins or areas and that this count is unique for them. So eg. DDR SDRAM bars, EV charging connectors, USB connectors, storage media (eg. FC or SD cards), cables (eg. Molex or SATA power cables). I found much use here witin the IT sector.
Since my work inside of the Wikimedia system focused much more on Commons I may need somebody to explain the structure of Wikidata in case I got something wrong. I hoped that I could get away with using an item, but it does not really look like it. If Q66061119 can not be used for that, don't forget to delete it. One thought I had (this is where the Wikidata structure information would be interesting) is that I also thought about that there could be pin count (PGA CPU sockets, EV charging connectors, CF cards) and area count (LGA CPU sockets, DDR SDRAM bars, SD cards). Not sure if this is really neccessary.
--D-Kuru (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Thanks for the link, I left a note --D-Kuru (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Does the "subject item" works ? --FabC (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea what your question is. Do you have more information for me/a wikilink? --D-Kuru (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If you are referring to my question, I changed the "subject item" in the template of the Property proposal, labelled "Represents", i.e. item corresponding to the concept represented by the property, if applicable. I was asking if it fine. --FabC (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I was, but stupid me of course answered the wrong part of the discussion - I switched that. For the question: Yes, it's actually a pretty good fit. --D-Kuru (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
  Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics ChristianKl❫ 13:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment An idea: As far as I saw there is has parts of the class (P2670) which can be combined with an item and you can insert a value in that item. I saw this for CPUs where L1, L2 and L3 cache is listed in said property. Is this an OK thing to do or is a property prefered here? If it would be fine to use items instead of properties this could be solved quite easy. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose has parts of the class (P2670) lead (Q947546) with a qualifier of quantity (P1114) should suffice? Dhx1 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there actually any need for any property when there is has parts of the class (P2670)? --D-Kuru (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@D-Kuru: Using has parts of the class (P2670) with a qualifier of quantity (P1114) would provide greater detail for modelling all sorts of packages and components--for example, a through-hole header which has two sets of pins--one soldered to the circuit board, one exposed for connection of cables. Using contact area count, how would one distuingish between the types of contact areas? Also consider the case of TO-3 (Q3979666) which has two through-hole pins, and the case being the third electrical connection to the circuit board. It could be modelled as having the following parts: 2 through-hole pins isolated from the outer casing, 1 outer casing of conductive material. One could also add additional qualifier properties for each part, for example, conductor material, name/abbreviation, diameter, etc. Dhx1 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Number of active electronic terminals.Edit

   Under discussion
DescriptionMany electronic components and basic circuits are characterized by the (minimum) number of active electronic terminals. To make an electrical circuit, the minimum number of active electronic terminals are two. E.g. en:triode have three, en:diode has two, en:transistors typically has three; but also exist with four (en:tetrode transistor), en:resistor has two, en:octode has eight, en:Neon lamp has two.
RepresentsTerminal (Q182610)
Data typeQuantity
Allowed values2, 3, 4, ..., minimum 2, minimum 3,...
Example 1diode (Q11656) → 2
Example 2resistor (Q5321) → 2
Example 3transistor (Q5339) → minimum 3
Example 4octode (Q2639059) → 8
Example 5tunnel diode (Q176235) → 2
Example 6light-emitting diode (Q25504) → 2
Example 7lambda diode (Q1801327) → 2
Example 8Autotransformer (Q565668) → minimum 3
Example 9transformer (Q11658) → minimum 4
Example 10gyrator (Q677197) → 4
Example 11TRIAC (Q221499) → 3
Example 12Monolithic microwave integrated circuit (Q1945036) → minimum 3
Example 13transmission line (Q693004) → 4
Example 14relay (Q174053) → minimum 4
Example 15switch (Q5320) → minimum 3
Sourceen:Terminal (electronics) en:Electronic component Quote: "...Electronic components have a number of electrical terminals..."
Planned useMany electronic components and basic circuits

MotivationEdit

Many electronic components and basic circuits are characterized by the (minimum) number of active electronic terminals. To make an electrical circuit, the minimum number of active electronic terminals are two. This is a fundamental property of basic electronic components. User:Glenn 2019-08-18T05:08:44

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • These sounds reasonable - why "electronic" and not "electrical" though? I wouldn't generally call a switch for example an "electronic" device. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes it could - of cause. --Glenn (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Why not has parts of the class (P2670)? ChristianKl❫ 16:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hi ChristianKl - could you please explain how it would be used? (would you make classes named "2 terminals", "More than 2 terminals"...?) Are there examples you could refer to? --Glenn (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

GeologyEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Geology for more information.

GeographyEdit

MathematicsEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mathematics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mathematics}}

graph diameterEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptiondiameter of a graph
Representsgraph diameter (Q65556227)
Data typeQuantity
Domaingraph (Q141488)
Allowed valuespositive integers
Allowed units1
Example 1claw graph (Q3115564) → 2
Example 2kite graph (Q3115458) → 3
Example 3cricket graph (Q3115459) → 2
Example 4diamond graph (Q3115555) → 2
Planned useAdd diameter of graph to instances of graphs and classes of graphs that has a same diameter for all its instances.
See alsograph radius (P7391)

MotivationEdit

Diameter is a well-known property of graphs. Although there is diameter (P2386), their domains are totally different. Jd3main (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Base materialEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Materials for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Materials}}

GlaciologyEdit

glacier statusEdit

   Done: glacier status (P7442) (Talk and documentation)
DescriptionIndicates whether a glacier is retreating, surging, or stable. Qualify each value with "point in time" (P585) to indicate when.
Representsglacier (Q35666)
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesretreating, surging, stable, extinct
Example 1Arapaho Glacier (Q4784181) → retreating point in time (P585) July 2019
Example 2Grinnell Glacier (Q634287) → retreating point in time (P585) July 2019
Example 3Panmah Glacier (Q7131340) → surging point in time (P585) July 2019
Planned useAdd statuses to glaciers currently in wikidata

MotivationEdit

This is a very valuable indicator so that users can be able to tell the status of a glacier, particularly as their melting has advanced in recent years. this will allow users to be able to collate and correlate glacier statuses with particular areas Etradio1 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support David (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Are there existing organizations that model glaciers this way? If so, can you provide a few links to them? ChristianKl❫ 15:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl:The WGMS probably is the entity that most closely matches it, but their terminology is somewhat predictably towards glaciologists and hence might be too granular (WGMS-FoG-2018-06-F-SPECIAL-EVENT found at https://wgms.ch/data_exploration/). This type of information is usually derivable as in the NSIDC's GLIMS database (https://www.glims.org/) but isn't explicitly indicated.Etradio1 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that they say on their homepage that their data is freely available and thus we might want to import their data directly. For that it would make sense to use the same classification. Do you see a reason against this approach? ChristianKl❫ 13:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: That makes sense to me Etradio1 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Etradio1: Are you yourself interested in running such a bot import or do we need someone else for the bot work? In anycase I think we should specify here how certain data on the wgms website should be translated into Wikidata before we create the property. ChristianKl❫ 11:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: I could probably find some time to do the bot import unless you know somebody else eager to work on this.
  •   Comment item datatype would probably work better with a series of new or existing items as values to pick from. point in time (P585) as qualifier is probably needed. --- Jura 11:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Jura here. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Already changed to item @Iwan.Aucamp: Etradio1 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: Apologies for a probably dumb question, but is there a way to add the qualifier into the property proposal?Etradio1 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I added it above. Feel free to revert it. --- Jura 13:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Depending on the reference at hand, maybe start time (P580)/end time (P582) could work too.--- Jura 13:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Etradio1 (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment. This could be the job of an extended state of conservation (P5816) that would not focus on buildings only. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A Glacier can be retreating and not have some conservation classification, not sure this is a good approach. There may be more generic properties that could make sense but this may not be it. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with @Iwan.Aucamp: Etradio1 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree with Thierry, so   Oppose at the moment --Sabas88 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      •   Comment@Sabas88, Thierry Caro: My concern with folding it into that category is that the terms used to define states for buildings is going to be quite different than for natural objects - i.e. demolished vs. surging. I think there could be some substantial semantic mismatching here. Etradio1 (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Etradio1: The question about the datatype is still open. Can we change this to item? --- Jura 09:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment@Jura1: I'm open to changing it - what's your rationale? Etradio1 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • The value is a concept, not a word and there are just couple of possible values to pick from. Besides, it's good if these can be translated. --- Jura 13:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support amended proposal --- Jura 14:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I think this may be a bit too temporal to make sense - but still I think it would be good to see how it works. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Anarchivist (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

--Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Ainali (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  Notified participants of WikiProject Climate Change

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ChristianKl, Daniel Mietchen, Thierry Caro, YULdigitalpreservation, Anarchivist: @Etradio1, Sj, Sabas88, Iwan.Aucamp, Jura1:   Done: glacier status (P7442). − Pintoch (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

AllEdit