Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Lexeme Wikimedia Commons

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 2020/06.


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}}

forearm lengthEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionlength of an animal's forearm
Data typeQuantity
Allowed unitsmm, in
Example 1Giant golden-crowned flying fox (Q775576) → 215 mm
Example 2Little brown bat (Q746127) → 36–40 mm
Example 3Rousettus aegyptiacus (Q754983) → 81–102 mm
Planned useBegin adding data for bats with identified forearm lengths on English Wikipedia

MotivationEdit

Forearm length is one of the most essential characteristics for differentiating bat species, of which there are more than 1,400. Enwebb (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Canley
Circeus
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Enwebb
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
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)
Succu (talk)
TiagoLubiana (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
TomT0m
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
Tubezlob
William Avery
Minorax
Culex
Koala0090
Mike Krüger
Friesen5000
Salgo60
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy ChristianKl❫ 17:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Sounds good, though I'd allow mm / cm (and perhaps m for elephants & giraffes!) only, no non-metric stuff - MPF (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I take it that this is for mammals only? Lymantria (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Lymantria (talkcontribslogs) I'm only aware of "forearm length" being a standard measurement for bats. Looks like there's a smattering of usage for humans and other primates, but most results I've seen from search engines are specific to bats. Not to say you couldn't use it for other groups. I just don't think it typically is. Enwebb (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Would 'forelimb' be more appropriate than 'forearm'? Friesen5000 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure what the rules are around here, but by English Wikipedia logic, the "common name" of the measurement would be forearm length. 127k results on an exact Google search compared to 15k results for an exact search of "forelimb length". Enwebb (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Thought it over some more, and no, they are distinct. The forelimb is the entire limb while the forearm is a portion of the forelimb. Enwebb (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it would be good to specify what's meant with forearm in the description. The Wikidata item for forearm (forearm (Q228537)) is about the part between wrist and elbow which is different then the forelimb which includes the whole arm, hand and shoulder. MeSH's forelimb is also specifically about non-primates. thefreedictionary seems to consider forearm length to be from the tip of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger which means that it does include the hand which our main forearm definition doesn't. ChristianKl❫ 21:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • It would be useful to be precise about this, and ideally match it to existing data sources. For example, the Pantheria database has lots of relevant data for the following measurement: “8-1_AdultForearmLen_mm: Total length from elbow to wrist of adult (or age unspecified) live, freshly-killed, or museum specimens using captive, wild, provisioned, or unspecified populations; male, female, or sex unspecified individuals; primary, secondary, or extrapolated sources; all measures of central tendency; in all localities.” If the property is consistent with this definition then it would be straightforward to populate Wikidata with this data. --Rdmpage (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    • For bats, the forearm is discrete and is measured from the elbow to the wrist. No digits included. Enwebb (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Tend to   Oppose more generic : use . This works for any part of the body of the organism without needing to create a property for each one. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I quite like suggestion from @TomT0m: because it also removes ambiguity as to what a "forearm" means, it is defined by forearm (Q228537), which has identifiers from various ontologies (e.g., MESH and UBERON). --Rdmpage (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

distribution map of taxonEdit

   Under discussion
Description(Dynamic) distribution map of taxon
Representsshould be similar to taxon range map image (P181), but not static. Perhaps an instance of distribution map (P1846).
Data typeGeographic shape
Domainproperty; f.ex. Q301535 could link to c:Data:Atlas de Mamíferos de Portugal/Arvicola sapidus.map
Allowed valuestext
Example 1MISSING
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useI intend to add distribution maps for all species of mammals present in portugal, see c:User:GoEThe/Atlas de Mamíferos de Portugal
See also(note the different datatype)

MotivationEdit

I have recently started importing geojson data related to the distribution of mammals in Portugal to Commons. I was following mw:Help:Map Data and Wikidata:Map data to help me use this new format, when I realized I couldn't link this to the species item because a taxon is not a geoshape (P3896). taxon range map image (P181) is for static images of distribution maps, and distribution map (P1846) is not specific for biological taxa. So, I think this should be a new property. GoEThe (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Canley
Circeus
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Enwebb
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
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)
Succu (talk)
TiagoLubiana (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
TomT0m
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
Tubezlob
William Avery
Minorax
Culex
Koala0090
Mike Krüger
Friesen5000
Salgo60
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy, Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; * *Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler Tris T7 TT me Photocyte Nomen ad hoc

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology GoEThe (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

taxon range map image (P181) is not for geo-shape data. GoEThe (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you please provide some examples other like the one from c:User:GoEThe/Atlas de Mamíferos de Portugal. --Succu (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Use P181 (Taxon range map image). It has been used for many plants: see Q15287793, Q14861081, Q15366854 and many, many other plant species. As it is an image shape maps can be used. However, they are static. Linking to live maps would mean that such live maps MUST be CC-BY-0. Your example fits that requirement, but how many others do? MargaretRDonald (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong support I think we should migrate all the image maps to geoshapes in the future. --Tinker Bell 18:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Reject (in its current form.) Geoshapes are NOT appropriate for occurrence data. They are not the form of the occurrence data given in the example, and they imply an (unjustified) inference by their maker of continuities which may well fail to exist. The proposal above only makes sense if the datatype proposed is a URL. MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The Atlas I am using uses presence/absence in an area (in a 10x10km UTM grid) instead of point localities, but provide the coordinates in the centroid of each square. Still, I am trying to figure out how to transform the data to polygon data, in order to display it correctly, as it is done in the original publication. This is a common form of publishing Atlas data. Any distribution range map infers presence in a continuum, so I don't understand that objection. I also don't understand why such maps must be CC-BY-0 if they are hosted in Wikimedia Commons. The example I gave is CC-BY-SA-4.0. Here are other examples: [1] GoEThe (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think Wikimedia should include occurence data, such as every location where a given species has been observed. I think this property should be for polygon data such as IUCN's maps (unfortunately not CC). The example I gave is similar in that the presence is given per unit in a square grid. GoEThe (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I see some more examples here now. GoEThe (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong support This seems to be a really useful move forward. Images are nice for people, but terrible for machines. If we had GeoJSON files to represent distributions those files would be much more computer friendly, and could also lead to better visualisations by client apps using Wikidata (in other words, those apps could read the distribution data and display it in different ways, rather than rely on a fixed image). GeoJSON supports polygons, points, etc., so distributions could be represented in whatever way is appropriate. Sources might be problematic initially, but people could generate them from, say GBIF, or other sources and add them to WikiCommons. --Rdmpage (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Just found another source of cc-by geoshapes https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1198-2. GoEThe (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)





viability on surfaceEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptiontime of viability of this biological entity on the surface of a given material
Data typeItem
Domainitem; preferably strains such as SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) but might apply to other items such as HIV (Q15787)
Allowed valuessubclass of base material (Q214609)
Example 1SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> plastic (Q11474) duration (P2047) 3 days
Example 2SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> steel (Q11427) duration (P2047) 3 days
Example 3SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> cardboard (Q389782) duration (P2047) 1 day
Example 4SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> copper (Q753) duration (P2047) 4 hours
SourceAll examples are referenced by [2]
Planned useImmediate use for SARS-CoV-2. Long term use for all viruses for which this data is available.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)

MotivationEdit

This is an important information about viruses and other pathogenic entities. It is something that is on Wikipedia (i.e. it is of encyclopedic interest) and I believe we currently do not have any ways of modeling that on Wikidata.

Any suggestions of how to better model it are super welcome. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


DiscussionEdit

TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Chchowmein (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Dhx1 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Konrad Foerstner (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC) -Netha Hussain (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Neo-Jay (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC) KlaudiuMihaila (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Salgo60 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Andrawaag (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Whidou (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC) TJMSmith (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Nehaoua(talk) 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Peter Murray-Rust (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Kasyap (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Denny (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Kwj2772 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Skim (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC) SCIdude () 15:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC) T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Mlemusrojas (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Yupik (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Csisc (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) OAnick (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC) ❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ 12:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Jjkoehorst (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) So9q (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Nandana (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) ·addshore· talk to me! 15:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Librarian lena (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Jelabra (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC) AlexanderPico (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Higa4 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC) JoranL (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Alejgh (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Ranjithsiji (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) AntoineLogean (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Farmbrough21:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC).
Ecritures (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Sj 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) EricaAzzellini (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Julián L. Páez (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC) LaMèreVeille (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Meenakshi nandhini (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Minh Nguyễn 💬 15:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject COVID-19

  Question I like the idea, but what are the allowed values of this property? subclass of (P279) base material (Q214609)? --SilentSpike (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@SilentSpike: That is a very good question. subclass of (P279) base material (Q214609) are for sure inside the allowed values. cardboard (Q389782) is a subclass of (P279) paper (Q11472) that is a subclass of (P279) intermediate product (Q16829513) that is a subclass of (P279) base material (Q214609), so subclasses of subclasses also count. A similar situation happens for alloy (Q37756). So yes. Unless an exception appears in the future, the values should be subclass of (P279)* base material (Q214609). TiagoLubiana (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  Support With that defined, I think this is a reasonable and valuable proposal. Have updated with the constraint. --SilentSpike (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Retracting my support (for now) based on further comments. I like the idea behind this proposal, but see that it needs some more development. --SilentSpike (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Besides the surface material, the viability depends on some other parameters, e.g. temperature(s), humidity, surface microstructure, mode of pathogen delivery, or the presence of fluxes (people, water, air etc.). So we might need some structure around potential qualifiers. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think the reference given above is a reliable one for an unqualified statement. --- Jura 00:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good comments. I am actually trying to reproduce something that is widely regarded as "knowledge". It is stated even in the SARS-CoV-2 Wikipedia page. I totally agree that it would require qualifiers to achieve an ideal degree of precision. But still, if it is on Wikipedia, shouldn't it be on Wikidata? (It is an actual question). I also used the very same reference as in Wikipedia. If it should not be on Wikipedia, then the solution is removing it from the Wikipedia side instead of adding it here, I guess.TiagoLubiana (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • At Wikidata, the question is in general only what rank to use. Once in a while, we have Wikipedia editors deleting statements or references that don't meet some enwiki standard. As I don't edit enwiki, I'd find it problematic to do the same myself there.
    For the above, from the summary I was given, adding qualifiers to indicate that it's a lab experiment, the mode is aerosol (likely not be the most frequent), that the cardboard results were inconsistent (if I recall that correctly). Apparently, some might also note that it's a lab experiment published in journal for clinical studies .. Adding other papers that conclude longer (or shorter) periods could help. --- Jura 11:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

and perhaps

I was not able to find a qualifier to indicate surface microstructure, mode of delivery, or fluxes. Or the initial viral levels, which influences directly the time of detectability. I see that they would be important. On the other hand, the article has been cited a few hundred times, and its results are reported frequently without even the basic constraints of temperature and air humidity. An option to address these limitations would be to create a new qualifer similar to valid in place (P3005) and valid in period (P1264) in the likes of valid for experiment described in, and then the item for reference article. This is conceptually different of a reference, as it is not the source of a statement, but a qualification of scope. What do you think? TiagoLubiana (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Is "viability" well defined? My instinct would be that the half-life is better defined. ChristianKl❫ 17:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: Viability seems to be used in this context both in the scientific literature and on Wikipedia. But I agree, viability is a rather loose concept, and half life would be much better. TiagoLubiana (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • How comparable are the standards for viability over multiple different papers? ChristianKl❫ 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: This is a hard question, and would require a systematic review. Usually they just report like "the virus survives for n hours" (ex: [3] [4] [5]. These reports are widely cited, both in the cientific as well as in the popular media [6] and Wikipedia [7]. In Wikidata, we can at least register an expression of concern of the preciseness of such reporting. Would changing the name to "reported survival time on surface" help? Again, I agree this is not precise, but as the sources apparently do not care about that, it is hard for Wikidata to change this (at least now). TiagoLubiana (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


entry receptorEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionreceptor protein used by this virus/microorganism group to enter cells
Data typeItem
Domainitem; preferably strains such as SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) but might apply to other items such as HIV (Q15787)
Example 1SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> Angiotensin I converting enzyme 2 (Q301630)
Example 2HIV (Q15787) --> CD4 molecule (Q412587)
Example 3HIV (Q15787) --> C-C motif chemokine receptor 5 (gene/pseudogene) (Q418404)
Example 4HIV (Q15787) --> C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (Q415718)
Planned useImmediate use for SARS-CoV-2. Long term use for all viruses and microorganisms for which this data is available.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)

MotivationEdit

This is an important information about viruses and other pathogenic entities. It is something that is on Wikipedia (example 1, examples 2-4 ) (i.e. it is of encyclopedic interest) and I believe we currently do not have any ways of modeling that on Wikidata.

When created, this property will need a citation/reference constraint.

Any suggestions of how to better model it are super welcome. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Chchowmein (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Dhx1 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Konrad Foerstner (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC) -Netha Hussain (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Neo-Jay (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC) KlaudiuMihaila (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Salgo60 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Andrawaag (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Whidou (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC) TJMSmith (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Nehaoua(talk) 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Peter Murray-Rust (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Kasyap (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Denny (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Kwj2772 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Skim (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC) SCIdude () 15:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC) T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Mlemusrojas (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Yupik (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Csisc (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) OAnick (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC) ❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ 12:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Jjkoehorst (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) So9q (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Nandana (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) ·addshore· talk to me! 15:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Librarian lena (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Jelabra (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC) AlexanderPico (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Higa4 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC) JoranL (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Alejgh (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Ranjithsiji (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) AntoineLogean (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Farmbrough21:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC).
Ecritures (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Sj 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) EricaAzzellini (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Julián L. Páez (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC) LaMèreVeille (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Meenakshi nandhini (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Minh Nguyễn 💬 15:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject COVID-19 TiagoLubiana (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support It will be interesting to add the possible number of values. John Samuel (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think that for detailed information like this, references are essential. Please add to the specification that this property can only use used with a (one or more) scientific article(s) as reference. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Egon Willighagen: Totally agree. I am not sure how to add this restriction to the infobox. I have added it to the motivation for now. TiagoLubiana (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

edible partsEdit

MotivationEdit

It is fairly common for plants in nature to have some edible parts and some toxic parts. Having a property for this would be useful to classify further between the edible and non-edible plants. M.A. Miron (📬) 05:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Sebleouf
Teolemon
Vladimir Alexiev
Ash_Crow
AVRS
d1g
Dhx1
Tris T7 TT me
Gobonobo

  Notified participants of WikiProject Food




derived from organism typeEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe organsim from which a given cell line was derived.
Data typeItem
Domainmainly instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279)* cell line (Q21014462) allowed values = instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279)* taxon (Q16521)
Example 1HeLa (Q847482) -> Homo sapiens (Q15978631)
Example 2CHO-K1 (Q54812705) -> Chinese hamster (Q2539773)
Example 3108CC15 (Q27870067) -> house mouse (Q83310)
Example 4108CC15 (Q27870067) -> Brown Rat (Q184224)
SourceThis info is available on https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/ and is currently uploaded in Wikidata via found in taxon (P703) by the User:CellosaurusBot
Planned useIn the next release of Cellosaurus, the cell lines on Wikidata would be updated with this property. It would then be used for every run of the bot.
Robot and gadget jobsThe CellosaurusBot will use it
See alsoestablished from medical condition (P5166), parent cell line (P3432), autologous cell line (P3578)

MotivationEdit

There are 227126 instances/subproperties of cell line on Wikidata as of now (https://w.wiki/Qet).

The source of those cell lines (as regarding the species) are represented with the property found in taxon (P703). That is a sub optimal modelling.

The current description of found in taxon (P703) says: "the taxon in which the item can be found". Two logical issues that I believe are crucial:

1) Cell lines are end products, they cannot be "remade" from new individuals. HeLa cells are derived from a human being, but cannot be found in any individuals of this taxon.

2) Cell lines can be of mixed origin. This is currently modeled as found in both taxons (exː 108CC15 (Q27870067)), but the cell line would not be found in any of the taxons specifically. It is a new, human-made construct.

Additionally, having such a property would allow a few other improvements, such as having allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) that refer to the individualː

  • Use of sex or gender (P21) as a qualifier for this property, instead of TO found in taxon (P703) as the taxon is (rigorously) not gendered, but the individual from which it originated is.
  • Sometimes we know the exact individual from which the cell line derived. name (P2561) could be used as a qualifier for named individuals (see "Cocca", the cat, on https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_V013) .
  • age at event (P3629) could be used when the source is Homo sapiens, and we know the age of the individual when the cell line was originated. Other property, more general for age stages of other taxons, could be created later.
    TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2020 (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
Photocyte
Yusra Haider
JS
  Notified participants of WikiProject Molecular biology TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I would expect that there's prior art about naming this relationship. I think that should be investigated before creating this property.
For how many cell lines do we know more then just the taxon of the originating individual? We could link to an item about that individual. ChristianKl❫ 17:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: By prior art you refer to other available properties? Me and User:Amb_sib studied this possibility, and the only other property we found that resembles this is natural product of taxon. That property refers to something that is constantly derived from individuals of a taxon, and not a product of a single individual. We have spent some time looking at ways of modelling it with the current infrastructure, and it does not seem possible.
Additionally, there are not many cell lines with "notable" sources for linking on Wikidata. I do not have a precise number, but it seems to be way less than 1%. We thought about modeling this as "originated from" and then adding the individual. But this is not standardized in any database. I agree that it would be interesting to link individuals in those special cases, but that would require extra modeling (perhaps a dedicated property/qualifier, even). As of now, HeLa cell line is linked to Henrietta Lacks only by the named after property, which seems suboptimal. TiagoLubiana (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@TiagoLubiana: By prior art I mean naming of the relationship outside of Wikidata. There are plenty of people in the field of biology that have thought about how to name relationships in biology. The OBO Foundry would be one place to look for prior art. Ideally, we only want to invent a new name for a relationship like this if there either isn't an existing name or we have explicit reasons why the existing name isn't good for what we are doing.
How do the databases from which you want to import data call this relationship? ChristianKl❫ 10:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Oh, okay, I get your point, thanks for the clarification. User:Amb_sib is responsible for the Cellousaurus database, from where the User:CellosaurusBot imports its edits. It is modeled as "Species of origin", which has a similar meaning. I like the idea of making that it a bit clearer that it comes from a single individual to avoid misunderstandings in Wikidata, as the set of users might not be familiarized with cell lines.
In OBO, it is not direct. The Cell Line Ontology (http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/CLO) embeds this relation in "derives_from some (epithelial cell and (part of some (uterine cervix and (part of some (Homo sapiens and (has disease some adenocarcinoma))))))" for HeLa cells, for example. It can be (more or less̠) shortened to "derives_from" "epithelial cell " "part_of" "some" "Homo sapiens", which is a modularized combination of the property proposed here with extra info. TiagoLubiana (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I looked at "in taxon" (which we consider to be a synonym found in taxon (P703) of RO: X is in taxon y if an only if y is an organism, and the relationship between x and y is one of: part of (reflexive), developmentally preceded by, derives from, secreted by, expressed.
Do you think developmentally preceded by applies or doesn't to the cell lines? ChristianKl❫ 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: Thanks for finding that. I do not think developmentally preceded by applies here, at least in the OBO sense (x developmentally related to y if and only if there exists some developmental process (GO:0032502)). One reason is that cell lines are not derived by any developmental processes. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Cell Line Ontology defines "derived from organism". In addition to taxons they also consider "male organism" a valid value.
We could additionally say HeLa (Q847482) derived from organism Henrietta Lacks (Q1647793). ChristianKl❫ 13:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl:I agree that "we could additionally say HeLa (Q847482) derived from organism Henrietta Lacks (Q1647793)". However, this would not be applicable for most cell lines, where we do not know the organism per se, but only informations about it (taxon it belonged to, age, gender, etc). This could be another property, if it seems useful.TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • After thinking about it a bit more I changed the name to derived from organism as I see no reason to deviate from Cell Line Ontology. I don't think we should allow individuals as values but only instance of (P31) of taxon and an item like male animal will still subclass taxon in our system (maybe we can find a qualifier for the individual). I   Support it in that state. ChristianKl❫ 18:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: Hello, thanks for seeing value in the proposal. I prefer to have it as derived from organism than not having it all. For me, "Homo sapiens" is not an organism, but a a taxon. Henrietta Lacks (Q1647793) would be an organism. CLO is a good reference, but I disagree with their wording on this instance. I believe it is an opportunity for Wikidata to be precise, instead of relying on a less-than-optimal description. But as I said before, derived from organism is okay for me too, I just wanted to point these things out. TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @TiagoLubiana: As far as I understand Cell Line Ontology they chose their wording because they want to be able to state that a given cell not only comes from a Homo Sapiens but in the case of

Henrietta Lacks "female homo sapiens". "Female homo sapiens" inturn isn't a taxon in the way the term taxon is normally used in biology. If databases follow the Cell Line Ontology it would be a problem for us to import from their database into a more narrow property.

It's worth noting that description and name aren't the same thing. derived from organism is a name and not a description. It's useful to make names relatively short and put extra information into the description.
There's the old Xkcd comic about introducing new standards. Databases interoperatility is a lot easier when different databases use the same term and Wikidata is far from getting other biology databases to adept our naming conventions. While I'm more open to doing original research then EnWiki, original research should still be limited to the cases where it's necessary on Wikidata and here it isn't.
If we do want to highlite the distinction between classes, I would be okay with derived from organism type. That's still near enough to the Cell Line Ontology that it should be able to be used by researchers who are used to the Cell Line Ontology with the expecation that it means the same thing but would clarify that Henrietta Lacks (Q1647793) isn't a valid value. ChristianKl❫ 17:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making your point. I would be okay with derived from organism type too, I think it is a good compromise between precision & interoperability. TiagoLubiana (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support (Disclaimer: I proposed this property originally. It has been changed before and I support it with the modifications) TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

ICTV taxnode IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptioncode for taxon history at the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) website.
RepresentsInternational Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (Q580606)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainvirus (Q808)
Allowed valuesstring of digits
Example 1Carrot mottle virus (Q5046708) → 201905268
Example 2Measles virus (Q573943) → 201901616
Example 3Torque teno midi virus 12 (Q18966253) → 201902549
Example 4Xinzhou yingvirus (Q57876525) → 201906037
SourceICTV Master Species List
Number of IDs in source6590
Formatter URLhttps://talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy/p/taxonomy-history?taxnode_id=$1

MotivationEdit

Links to the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (Q580606) website were previously made via ICTV virus ID (P1076), which has been depreciated, see discussion at project chat. The ICTV's Master Species List contains a Taxon History URL column with a taxnode_id component, that links to the virus's taxonomic history on the ICTV website. The taxnode_id is updated with each update of the master species list, but ids from previous versions of the list still link to the current history page for the virus, e.g., Xinzhou yingvirus (Q57876525) had taxnode_id 201856037 in master species list 2018v2, and taxnode_id 201906037 in list 2019v1, but both lead to the virus history on the website. I am assuming it is possible to extract this data from the spreadsheet and that an ID that is updated annually would be useful and manageable. I'm not familiar with Wikidata, but came across this issue when editing Wikipedia (see discussion here). DferDaisy (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • This is not an external id. For the abolished genus Coronavirus (Q290805) you will find 24 different urls (MSL#1: taxnode_id=19710022 … MSL#24 taxnode_id=20081054) but none in MSL#25. The information provided is very useful of course. The first excel spreadsheet containing this "taxonnodes" is the one from 2014. --Succu (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • If it's stable, but a new value is generated in every version (or every year?), I suppose it could still have external-id datatype. We could set the most recent one as preferred. --- Jura 07:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre taxon IdentificatorEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentificator for a taxon in the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre database
Representstaxon (Q16521)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainQ4582714
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1Atlantic Puffin (Q26685)3611
Example 2Viola canina (Q1333239)102795
Example 3Eurasian Lynx (Q43375)48020
Example 4Hirudo medicinalis (Q30041)4910
Sourcehttps://www.artsdatabanken.no/
Planned useauthentification
Number of IDs in source100000+
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://artsdatabanken.no/Taxon/Fratercula%20arctica/$1
Robot and gadget jobsMix 'n' Match can be made, a CSV file is already available
See alsoNederlands Soortenregister ID (P3405)

Motivering/begrunnelseEdit

(Legg inn motivering/begrunnelse for forslaget til denne egenskapen her.) Pmt (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC) An officila database giving an identifier for Norwegian taxones.

DiscussionEdit

The ID referred to in the proposal is the "ScientificNameID" ("LatinskNavnID"). The database also contains a "TaksonID".

The URL format when using the ScientificNameID can be simplified to https://artsdatabanken.no/ScientificName/$1 (w/o substitution to the scientific name, e.g. https://artsdatabanken.no/ScientificName/3611), while the URL format if using the TaksonID is https://artsdatabanken.no/Taxon/$1. - 4ing (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have established contact with an employee in Artsdatabanken and asked for input to whether we should use the Taxon ID or the Scienticic Name ID. - 4ing (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Biochemistry/molecular biologyEdit

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




derived from organism typeEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionThe organsim from which a given cell line was derived.
Data typeItem
Domainmainly instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279)* cell line (Q21014462) allowed values = instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279)* taxon (Q16521)
Example 1HeLa (Q847482) -> Homo sapiens (Q15978631)
Example 2CHO-K1 (Q54812705) -> Chinese hamster (Q2539773)
Example 3108CC15 (Q27870067) -> house mouse (Q83310)
Example 4108CC15 (Q27870067) -> Brown Rat (Q184224)
SourceThis info is available on https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/ and is currently uploaded in Wikidata via found in taxon (P703) by the User:CellosaurusBot
Planned useIn the next release of Cellosaurus, the cell lines on Wikidata would be updated with this property. It would then be used for every run of the bot.
Robot and gadget jobsThe CellosaurusBot will use it
See alsoestablished from medical condition (P5166), parent cell line (P3432), autologous cell line (P3578)

MotivationEdit

There are 227126 instances/subproperties of cell line on Wikidata as of now (https://w.wiki/Qet).

The source of those cell lines (as regarding the species) are represented with the property found in taxon (P703). That is a sub optimal modelling.

The current description of found in taxon (P703) says: "the taxon in which the item can be found". Two logical issues that I believe are crucial:

1) Cell lines are end products, they cannot be "remade" from new individuals. HeLa cells are derived from a human being, but cannot be found in any individuals of this taxon.

2) Cell lines can be of mixed origin. This is currently modeled as found in both taxons (exː 108CC15 (Q27870067)), but the cell line would not be found in any of the taxons specifically. It is a new, human-made construct.

Additionally, having such a property would allow a few other improvements, such as having allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) that refer to the individualː

  • Use of sex or gender (P21) as a qualifier for this property, instead of TO found in taxon (P703) as the taxon is (rigorously) not gendered, but the individual from which it originated is.
  • Sometimes we know the exact individual from which the cell line derived. name (P2561) could be used as a qualifier for named individuals (see "Cocca", the cat, on https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_V013) .
  • age at event (P3629) could be used when the source is Homo sapiens, and we know the age of the individual when the cell line was originated. Other property, more general for age stages of other taxons, could be created later.
    TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2020 (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
Photocyte
Yusra Haider
JS
  Notified participants of WikiProject Molecular biology TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I would expect that there's prior art about naming this relationship. I think that should be investigated before creating this property.
For how many cell lines do we know more then just the taxon of the originating individual? We could link to an item about that individual. ChristianKl❫ 17:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: By prior art you refer to other available properties? Me and User:Amb_sib studied this possibility, and the only other property we found that resembles this is natural product of taxon. That property refers to something that is constantly derived from individuals of a taxon, and not a product of a single individual. We have spent some time looking at ways of modelling it with the current infrastructure, and it does not seem possible.
Additionally, there are not many cell lines with "notable" sources for linking on Wikidata. I do not have a precise number, but it seems to be way less than 1%. We thought about modeling this as "originated from" and then adding the individual. But this is not standardized in any database. I agree that it would be interesting to link individuals in those special cases, but that would require extra modeling (perhaps a dedicated property/qualifier, even). As of now, HeLa cell line is linked to Henrietta Lacks only by the named after property, which seems suboptimal. TiagoLubiana (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@TiagoLubiana: By prior art I mean naming of the relationship outside of Wikidata. There are plenty of people in the field of biology that have thought about how to name relationships in biology. The OBO Foundry would be one place to look for prior art. Ideally, we only want to invent a new name for a relationship like this if there either isn't an existing name or we have explicit reasons why the existing name isn't good for what we are doing.
How do the databases from which you want to import data call this relationship? ChristianKl❫ 10:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Oh, okay, I get your point, thanks for the clarification. User:Amb_sib is responsible for the Cellousaurus database, from where the User:CellosaurusBot imports its edits. It is modeled as "Species of origin", which has a similar meaning. I like the idea of making that it a bit clearer that it comes from a single individual to avoid misunderstandings in Wikidata, as the set of users might not be familiarized with cell lines.
In OBO, it is not direct. The Cell Line Ontology (http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/CLO) embeds this relation in "derives_from some (epithelial cell and (part of some (uterine cervix and (part of some (Homo sapiens and (has disease some adenocarcinoma))))))" for HeLa cells, for example. It can be (more or less̠) shortened to "derives_from" "epithelial cell " "part_of" "some" "Homo sapiens", which is a modularized combination of the property proposed here with extra info. TiagoLubiana (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I looked at "in taxon" (which we consider to be a synonym found in taxon (P703) of RO: X is in taxon y if an only if y is an organism, and the relationship between x and y is one of: part of (reflexive), developmentally preceded by, derives from, secreted by, expressed.
Do you think developmentally preceded by applies or doesn't to the cell lines? ChristianKl❫ 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: Thanks for finding that. I do not think developmentally preceded by applies here, at least in the OBO sense (x developmentally related to y if and only if there exists some developmental process (GO:0032502)). One reason is that cell lines are not derived by any developmental processes. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Cell Line Ontology defines "derived from organism". In addition to taxons they also consider "male organism" a valid value.
We could additionally say HeLa (Q847482) derived from organism Henrietta Lacks (Q1647793). ChristianKl❫ 13:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl:I agree that "we could additionally say HeLa (Q847482) derived from organism Henrietta Lacks (Q1647793)". However, this would not be applicable for most cell lines, where we do not know the organism per se, but only informations about it (taxon it belonged to, age, gender, etc). This could be another property, if it seems useful.TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • After thinking about it a bit more I changed the name to derived from organism as I see no reason to deviate from Cell Line Ontology. I don't think we should allow individuals as values but only instance of (P31) of taxon and an item like male animal will still subclass taxon in our system (maybe we can find a qualifier for the individual). I   Support it in that state. ChristianKl❫ 18:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: Hello, thanks for seeing value in the proposal. I prefer to have it as derived from organism than not having it all. For me, "Homo sapiens" is not an organism, but a a taxon. Henrietta Lacks (Q1647793) would be an organism. CLO is a good reference, but I disagree with their wording on this instance. I believe it is an opportunity for Wikidata to be precise, instead of relying on a less-than-optimal description. But as I said before, derived from organism is okay for me too, I just wanted to point these things out. TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @TiagoLubiana: As far as I understand Cell Line Ontology they chose their wording because they want to be able to state that a given cell not only comes from a Homo Sapiens but in the case of

Henrietta Lacks "female homo sapiens". "Female homo sapiens" inturn isn't a taxon in the way the term taxon is normally used in biology. If databases follow the Cell Line Ontology it would be a problem for us to import from their database into a more narrow property.

It's worth noting that description and name aren't the same thing. derived from organism is a name and not a description. It's useful to make names relatively short and put extra information into the description.
There's the old Xkcd comic about introducing new standards. Databases interoperatility is a lot easier when different databases use the same term and Wikidata is far from getting other biology databases to adept our naming conventions. While I'm more open to doing original research then EnWiki, original research should still be limited to the cases where it's necessary on Wikidata and here it isn't.
If we do want to highlite the distinction between classes, I would be okay with derived from organism type. That's still near enough to the Cell Line Ontology that it should be able to be used by researchers who are used to the Cell Line Ontology with the expecation that it means the same thing but would clarify that Henrietta Lacks (Q1647793) isn't a valid value. ChristianKl❫ 17:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making your point. I would be okay with derived from organism type too, I think it is a good compromise between precision & interoperability. TiagoLubiana (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support (Disclaimer: I proposed this property originally. It has been changed before and I support it with the modifications) TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

ChemistryEdit

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

DSSTOX compound identifierEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifier of compound in DSSTOX
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainchemical compound
Allowed valuesDTXCID\d+
Example 1benzene (Q2270) → DTXCID20135
Example 2bisphenol A (Q271980) → DTXCID30182
Example 3aspirin (Q18216) → DTXCID50108
Number of IDs in source848662 from dump
Expected completenesseventually complete
Formatter URLhttps://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/$1
Robot and gadget jobsCan be mass imported from database dump
See alsoDSSTox substance ID (P3117)

MotivationEdit

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Will this identifier be different from DSSTox substance ID (P3117)? If so, how? Gtsulab (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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

  •   Oppose The proposer does not participate in the relevant project discussion and did not even answer the request to fix the constraint conflicts from his last rampage. --SCIdude (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support This seems like a reasonable identifier to keep track of. Walkerma (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

ChemSynthesis IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID of a chemical compound in ChemSynthesis
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaincompounds
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1cyclohexyl bromide (Q82427)1
Example 2p-bromoacetanilide (Q27259868)2
Example 31-Octyne, 1-iodo- (Q82264706)3
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source40000+
Formatter URLhttps://www.chemsynthesis.com/base/chemical-structure-$1.html
Robot and gadget jobsprobably

MotivationEdit

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • We should ping the Chemistry project people. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

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

  • @GZWDer: did you approach the owners of the database? Can they provide a dump of their identifiers with InChIKey or something similar? Will they link back to Wikidata? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I see nothing against this, but who is behind this database? It looks quite anonymous. Wostr (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe you can try reaching out to the site owner or aurora fine chemicals for a dump of the identifiers as per Egon Willighagen's suggestion. --Gtsulab (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

descriptive solubilityEdit

   Under discussion
Description(qualifier) term used to describe level of solubility, if an exact value is not available
Representssolubility (Q170731)
Data typeItem
DomainQ79529
Allowed valuesset of new items: practically insoluble (Q87723625), very slightly soluble (Q87723632), slightly soluble (Q87723634), sparingly soluble (Q87723647), soluble (Q87723650), freely soluble (Q87723654), very soluble (Q87723656), miscible (Q87723658), reacts with a solvent (Q87723660)
Example 1cetyl alcohol (Q161632)somevalue with qualifier descriptive solubility = very soluble (Q87723656), solvent (P2178) = ethyl ether (Q202218), temperature (P2076) = somevalue
Example 2benzyl alcohol (Q52353)somevalue with qualifier descriptive solubility = soluble (Q87723650), solvent (P2178) = ethanol (Q153), temperature (P2076) = somevalue
Example 3allyl alcohol (Q414553)somevalue with qualifier descriptive solubility = miscible (Q87723658), solvent (P2178) = ethanol (Q153), temperature (P2076) = somevalue
Sourceacademic books, scientific articles, chemical databases
See alsosolubility (P2177), solvent (P2178)

MotivationEdit

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

In some cases there is no exact value of solubility in the reference, but a mere description. There are a few reasons for this qualifier:

  • sometimes we don't have an exact value of solubility available (probably it is available in general, but we don't have time or resources to find it); however, the information if substance A is soluble in substance B — even without an exact value — may be important, even to quickly find out in which solvents the substance can dissolve, and then look for value for a specific solvent
  • right now we don't have a way to tell that substance is practically insoluble – many sources state that substance is insoluble/practically insoluble without giving any value
  • also, we don't have a way to tell that substance is miscible in other substance

This proposal is to create a qualifier for existing solubility (P2177), used only if there is no exact value for solubility of a specific substance in a specific solvent in WD. Such statement should be modified accordingly if someone have a source with value for this solvent – that means this qualifier in many cases should be used temporarily. This qualifier is meant to be item-datatype with only a few allowed values which would prevent from adding ambiguous comments.

1. proposal
new qualifier descriptive solubility as proposed above
solubility
  somevalue   edit
solvent ethyl ether
descriptive solubility very soluble
temperature somevalue
▼ 2 reference


+ add value
2. proposal
using sourcing circumstances (P1480)/nature of statement (P5102)
solubility
  somevalue   edit
solvent ethyl ether
sourcing circumstances/nature of statement very soluble
temperature somevalue
▼ 2 reference


+ add value
3. proposal (proposed by ArthurPSmith below)
using stated as (P1932) (see example below or example in Q312244)
solubility
  somevalue   edit
solvent ethyl ether
stated as (P1932) very soluble
temperature somevalue
▼ 2 reference


+ add value

However, stated as (P1932) is string-datatype, so it wouldn't be possible to use items like practically insoluble (Q87723625), only term in the source language. EDIT: Proposal #3 added: Wostr (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

---

But I'm not sure that this would be better, to use general qualifiers to such specific situation. Wostr (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

maybe stated as (P1932) with a string value could be used for this purpose? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's could be another option to achieve the same. Thanks for that. Wostr (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Arthur's "solution" sounds soluble to me. --99of9 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  Support sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. Of course, ideally we have exact data, but I think this is indeed quite useful. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  Support This will be very useful for working chemists. Walkerma (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Egon Willighagen, Walkerma: thanks for participating in this discussion; could you elaborate – are you supporting the creation of a new property or the method proposed by ArthurPSmith? Wostr (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Wostr: Mainly I'd like to see a way to include an inexact solubility in some way. I think #1 is the clearest, but if we are trying not to create new qualifiers then #3 seems OK. I found use of P805 (see below) rather a confusing solution, but I'm quite inexperienced on Wikidata so that may just be me. Walkerma (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Wostr, Walkerma: I also don't understand the P805 proposal below. I guess I can see the usefulness of having an item value for this property, so I'm not strongly pushing for my approach (#3 above now). ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
solubility
  somevalue   edit
solvent ethyl ether
statement is subject of very soluble
temperature somevalue
▼ 2 reference


+ add value

--Tinker Bell 06:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No - the "subject of the statement" is "solubility of cetyl alcohol in ethyl ether" which does not have an item.--GZWDer (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I'll   Support a property like this that could work for any physical quantity, not just solubility. The property could be called 'quantity in scale' or 'descriptive quantity'. --Tinker Bell 00:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

BitterDB Compound IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID of chemical compound in BitterDB
RepresentsBitterDB (Q4918969)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainchemical compound
Allowed values\d+
Example 1caffeine (Q60235)46
Example 2strychnine (Q194406)100
Example 3epirizole (Q5383219)200
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar][de][en][es][fr][he][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source1041
Expected completenesseventually complete
Formatter URLhttp://bitterdb.agri.huji.ac.il/compound.php?id=$1

MotivationEdit

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

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.[8]

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
Antoine2711
Viveknalgirkar
JustScienceJS
  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
Antoine2711
Viveknalgirkar
JustScienceJS
  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)

differential diagnosisEdit

   Under discussion
Data typeItem
DomainDiseases and disorders for living organisms
Allowed valuesQ template
Example 1smallpox (Q12214)chickenpox (Q44727), monkeypox (Q382370), impetigo (Q28971)
Example 2chickenpox (Q44727)smallpox (Q12214), monkeypox (Q382370), impetigo (Q28971)
Example 3monkeypox (Q382370)smallpox (Q12214), chickenpox (Q44727), impetigo (Q28971)
Example 4impetigo (Q28971)smallpox (Q12214), chickenpox (Q44727), monkeypox (Q382370)
Sourceen:Differential diagnosis
Planned useDifferential diagnosis for diseases such as smallbpox

MotivationEdit

I think that having differential diagnoses for diseases would be useful. (Please excuse any errors in the form of this proposal. This is my first proposal for a Wikidata property.) ↠Pine () 08:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Please complete the examples. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

  • @Pine: Thanks for creating a propoosal; I edited it slightly to better conform to our usual pattern. However as Nomen ad hoc said just above, the examples need to show how you plan to use this property - after the arrow you should provide the value you expect this property to have for each given disease. Also you have specified the type of the property as 'item' - that means the value would also be a Q item. Is that really what you intend? You may need to explain more or at least provide a reference. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Nomen ad hoc, ArthurPSmith: this property would have the value of other Wikidata items which are differential diagnoses for the diagnosis that is the subject of each Wikidata item. I edited the links to show what I have in mind. ↠Pine () 20:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, then   Support. Best, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC).
  •   Comment Looks good, but the boundaries can be clearer. 1 - What do you mean exactly by differential diagnosis? And 2 - couldn't the same modelling be achieved with the property different from? TiagoLubiana (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @TiagoLubiana: the English Wikipedia article at en:Differential diagnosis explains the concept. The different from property's documentation appears to emphasize different entities which have easily confused names. That is different from a differential diagnosis. A differential diagnosis may have a very different name from the original diagnosis, but its symptoms may be similar. If the Wikidata community wants to use the "different from" property to refer to "differential diagnosis" then I think that the examples in the "different from" property should be expanded to include two entities which have similar properties but very different names. Also pinging ArthurPSmith (talkcontribslogs). ↠Pine () 04:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Hmm, I was expecting from the label that the values of the property would be in some way the mechanism for differentiating this disease from others, not just a list of other diseases it may be confused with... I think we already have existing properties that would cover that. Perhaps different from (P1889) as suggested above. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Is anyone able to show structured data which already modeled this somehow? I think this might already exist somehow, and Wikidata could adapt an existing system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  Comment What would be the reference for a differential diagnosis? I mean, fever can mean pretty much anything, I've seen Dengue mixed up with Malaria in the clinics, for example. Is there a database for these kind of association (as pointed out by Blue Rasberry below)?. In any way, the name should not be "differential diagnosis", as it does not link the two terms of interest. Wikipedia says that it is "distinguishing of a particular disease or condition from others that present similar clinical features". The link between two diseases would then be "similar clinical fatures". We already can cross that info via "Property:P780. Are there standard guidelines that strictly say when two diseases merit diff diagnosis? TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Pine: But you are proposing to model it very differently here. In your proposal, the property is applied to the disease, but with schema.org the property is on a "MedicalCondition", not the "DDxElement". I think this proposal would make more sense if the Q items it applied to were medical conditions like fever (Q38933) or abdominal pain (Q183425). However, in that case I think that would make this proposal simply an inverse property for symptoms (P780), no? So I'm still not sure how this is a useful addition... ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @ArthurPSmith: The way that I see "differential diagnosis" used in English Wikipedia infoboxes for articles such as Smallpox is what I have in mind for the "differential diagnosis" property on Wikidata. I would be OK with using different from (P1889) instead of creating a new property if the description of P1889 is expanded with a relevant example. ↠Pine () 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Wait the property needs a descriptions that makes it clear to readers who are not familiar with the term what it's about. ChristianKl❫ 17:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)



study typeEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionclassification system for clinical trial (Q30612), experiment (Q101965), research (Q42240)
Representsstudy type (Q78088984)
Data typeItem
Template parameternot currently implemented, but see en:PARAMOUNT trial for infobox example where this would go
Allowed valuesexpected use is with ClinicalTrials.gov (Q5133746) and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (P3098), which in 98% of cases take take 1 of 3 types, interventional study (Q78089383), observational study (Q78089804), or expanded access (Q407954). ClinicalTrials.gov strictly applies this property in this way, but this property could could apply to other research classification systems in other fields of study.
Example 1PARAMOUNT trial (Q17148583)interventional study (Q78089383)
Example 2RV 144 (Q7278028)interventional study (Q78089383)
Example 3Medical Cannabis Registry and Pharmacology (Q63597344)observational study (Q78089804)
Example 4Expanded Access Protocol to Provide Brincidofovir for the Treatment of Serious Adenovirus Infection or Disease (Q64790189)expanded access (Q78093526)
SourceClinicalTrials.gov (Q5133746), Data elements
Planned useitems with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (P3098)
Number of IDs in source~320k for ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (P3098); anyone else can bring in other research databases
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/research status, research intervention (P4844), clinical trial phase (P6099), research site (P6153), medical condition treated (P2175)

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
Antoine2711
Viveknalgirkar
JustScienceJS
  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

A group of Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine participants have been modeling out clinical trials at Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine/Data models/Trials. Related, I recently also proposed Wikidata:Property proposal/research status. See the data model at the above linked "trials" project page. We have been building out Wikidata content over time, first working with the property for study intervention and what Wikidata already had, then adapting other properties, and now this one should be the last property proposed before a catch up point at which time we finish some uploads and present some useful queries.

In clinical trials, the "study type" is a broad classification of research which notes whether an experiment puts experimental drugs into humans for drug development, or does postmarket / safety surveillance, or treats anyone with "expanded access" as a last resort when no other treatment works. This culture is well established in the United States and anywhere else connected to the United States pharmaceutical industry.

Here are some interesting queries which we can do with this:

  1. What is the research profile of a given university in terms of the sorts of studies its people conduct?
  2. What is the count of interventional studies per city?
  3. What fields of medicine tend to offer expanded access?
  4. What trends can we detect for observational studies after a major medical lawsuit?

Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Chchowmein (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Dhx1 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Konrad Foerstner (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC) -Netha Hussain (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Neo-Jay (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC) KlaudiuMihaila (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Salgo60 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Andrawaag (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Whidou (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC) TJMSmith (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Nehaoua(talk) 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Peter Murray-Rust (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Kasyap (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Denny (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Kwj2772 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Joalpe (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Skim (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC) SCIdude () 15:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC) T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Mlemusrojas (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Yupik (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Csisc (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) OAnick (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC) ❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ 12:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Jjkoehorst (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) So9q (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Nandana (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) ·addshore· talk to me! 15:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Librarian lena (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Jelabra (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC) AlexanderPico (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Higa4 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC) JoranL (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC) Alejgh (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Ranjithsiji (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) AntoineLogean (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Farmbrough21:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC).
Ecritures (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Sj 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) EricaAzzellini (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Julián L. Páez (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC) LaMèreVeille (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Meenakshi nandhini (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Minh Nguyễn 💬 15:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  Notified participants of WikiProject COVID-19

DiscussionEdit

@TiagoLubiana: Thanks for asking. The disadvantage is that many observational studies are a subclass of many types of studies, and not only clinical trials. Items probably should have a property and value indicating both "clinical trial" and "observational study". Right now Wikidata is only beginning to index clinical trials, but if for example we had items for all sorts of research, then observational studies include business and market research, user experience in design, sociology or psychology studies which are not clinical trials, wildlife tracking, agriculture, and statistics of all kinds. If someone queries for clinical trials probably they want to know about human subject research, but if they query for observational studies without also saying they are looking for clinical trials, then they might get anything. To take that cannabis example further, the interventional cannabis studies are going to be about medical effects and probably only interesting to medical researchers. The observational clinical trials about cannabis might of interest to psychologists, business researchers, anthropologists, and education researchers.
The same is true for intervention study in that many fields do these. "Expanded access" is different probably unique to clinical trials, such that if a study is "expanded access", then it must be a clinical trial. Still, these are established designations from ClinicalTrials.gov. I think that it is ideal to have a channel for importing their values. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@TiagoLubiana: In order to see the value of having something other than instance of (P31) to describe such entities, let's consider humans, where we have a generic statement of P31 = human (Q5) for every Wikidata item about a human who actually lives or lived, and all the differences between humans are expressed using other properties like occupation (P106) or position held (P39). The proposed property would lead us onto a similar path for clinical trials. Using P31 for expressing the differences would be akin to saying things like Marie Curie is/ was and "instance of" a chemist, physicist, Nobel laureate or some such, which would add lots of confusion compared to the status quo. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen, Bluerasberry: Thank you very much for the answers. Now I can see clearly the benefits of spreading the info in specialized properties. It sure does make the data clearer, and reduces confusion. Once again, useful modeling. I believe that with a bit more modeling, it will be a great property. Thank you for the proposal. TiagoLubiana (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it is useful to capture whether a particular study is observational or interventional in nature or something else or something more specific. I am not sure "study type" is the best way to frame and name it. I am leaning more towards "study design" or perhaps "study design type", but upon checking what we have on the matter, I noticed that there is design of experiments (Q2334061), which confuses the method with the scientific subdiscipline, so I feel a bit more cleanup is needed around this proposed property before it can be created. Otherwise, we might have to clean up lots of statements later if they involve this property, once it is created. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, I see that too now, better to sort now with a few dozens of items than to do edits at scale then have to fix tens of thousands. Let's model this a bit more in the next week then reconsider. I also agree that the name is ambiguous. It is the name mentioned in ClinicalTrials.gov but they do not define it as a technical term, I think. Let's check to see if we can find sources on the right name. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
There is Clinical study design (Q17007018) which also has an English Wikipedia article describing the concept. Part of the challenge is separating this concept as a method versus a field of practice. The product of work in the field of "study design" is a "study design". This item and Wikipedia article have the same problem of conflating these concepts. Let me think more about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

clinitalregister.euEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionin addition to ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (P3098) and OpenTrials ID (P6220)
Data typeMISSING
Example 1MISSING
Example 2https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001271-33/FR
Example 3MISSING
Planned useinteresting in the context of articles describing clinical trials during the covid-19 pandemics
See alsoClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (P3098), OpenTrials ID (P6220)

MotivationEdit

I apologize for this submission being so incomplete. Maybe somebody else will be interested and fill in all the missing information. This is a bit technical for me. Lewisiscrazy (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

nerve originEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionAnatomical structure, where a nerve begins. For a cranial nerve, it would be a nucleus. For a peripheral nerve, it would be a spinal cord segment. For a branch of peripheral nerve, it would be its trunk.
Representsnerve (Q9620)
Data typeItem
Template parameter"BranchFrom" in en:template:Template:Infobox nerve
Example 1vagus nerve (Q190140)dorsal nucleus of vagus nerve (Q5298797)
Example 2femoral nerve (Q545676)L2 segment (Q66569020)
Example 3posterior cutaneous nerve of arm (Q7234189)radial nerve (Q1365325)
Planned useclassify nerve origins for subclass of nerve (Q9620) (wikidata query)

MotivationEdit

To be able to do anatomical searches. For example to list affected muscles in spinal cord lesions and in nerve lesions. Pavel Dusek (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  Comment @Pavel Dusek: I thought we already had a property very similar to this but more general. There are a number that seem very close - for example presynaptic connection (P925) and postsynaptic connection (P926) which should at least be referenced via "see also". More generally there's connects with (P2789). There's innervates (P3190). I see we have a very close property for muscles in muscle origin (P3490). So maybe this is needed... Might want to do a bit more searching among existing properties first though? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  Comment @ArthurPSmith: There are different levels to the problem:

Thanks for pointing those properties out, they are very useful (for functional connectivity information etc) and I didn't know about them. Pavel Dusek (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Thank you, that's very useful. However, should this be the case also in stating that "femoral nerve begins in L2 to L4 segments of spinal cord"? That's not branch in its proper sense, it's rather the origin, anatomically speaking. What is the consensus? Thanks. Pavel Dusek (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, the work have have done on the nerves is far from complete. If you have a good argument for listing the nerve origin in addition to the branch I'm happy to hear it.ChristianKl❫ 10:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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
Antoine2711
Viveknalgirkar
JustScienceJS
  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

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}}

GeologyEdit

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Geology for more information.

US Quaternary Fault IDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionID Number of Quaternary Fault in the US as assigned by the United States Geological Survey
Representsfault (Q47089)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem
Example 1Olinghouse fault (Q60201199)1668
Example 2Benton Spring Fault (Q4890601)1320
Example 3Furnace Creek Fault Zone (Q5509613)144
Example 4Honey Lake Fault Zone (Q5893568)22
Sourcehttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/qfault/query_main_AB.cfm?CFID=1724039&CFTOKEN=897910b8280e59b-73E299EA-C444-2225-B8E3E5C39F24EE4D
Planned useExtract data from USGS site and create wikidata items for Quaternary Faults in the USA
Number of IDs in source5550
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/qfault/show_report_AB.cfm?fault_id=$1&section_id=

MotivationEdit

Faults exist throughout the world and, where they exist, they can significantly impact our lives and economy. Creating wikidata items for each fault, representing key data of the fault, and providing citations which exist in growing numbers in wikidata, will enable researchers to find relevant and cited information. Trilotat (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC) User:Tobias1984 User:PePeEfe User:Trilotat User:Daniel Mietchen Tris T7 TT meUser:99of9 User:Romaine (Belgium/Netherlands) Your name ;) ...   Notified participants of WikiProject Geology I hope you'll consider supporting or offer suggestions to earn your support. Trilotat (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Some faults in this collection have subfaults or are part of a larger system, as in [10]. There are some faults with a letter designation that don't fit easily (at least easily for me) in this ID numbering convention. I would certainly welcome help in the ID definition if there's a way to include those with letter.Trilotat (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • datatype should probably be external-id --- Jura 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I tried to change it, but didn't want to mess up the proposal. @Jura1: please feel free; I appreciate the help. Trilotat (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

GeographyEdit

NVE River Network elvIDEdit

   Under discussion
DescriptionUnique identifier for rivers and tributaries in NVE River Network
RepresentsNVE Elvenett (ELVIS) (Q58876342)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainriver (Q4022) : of (P642) : Norway (Q20), and also natural watercourse (Q55659167) : of (P642) : Norway (Q20). For international rivers it also applies to some rivers in Sweden (Q34), Finland (Q33) and Russia (Q159)
Allowed valuesString
Example 1Glomma (Q214535) → 002-34-1
Example 2Isoa (Q19342031) → 002-34-32253
Example 3Ropelva (Q34533097) → 246-43-1
Example 4Simoa (Q829748) → 012-1-12982
Example 5Sagelva (Q28720485) → 167-61-1 -->
Sourcehttps://temakart.nve.no/link/?link=elvenett
https://www.nve.no/karttjenester/kartdata/vassdragsdata/elvenettverk-elvis/
https://atlas.nve.no/html5Viewer/?viewer=nveatlas
Planned useas authority control and identificator
Number of IDs in sourceunknown, but at least 10,000.
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoNVE Drainage Basin (REGINE) ID (P4528) NVE Lake Database ID (P5079)

Motivering/begrunnelseEdit

Using this identifier allows for far more accurate sourcing of information about rivers in Norway, as opposed to the more fuzzy "Stated in NVE River Network (ELVIS) (Q58876342)". Geanixx (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

MathematicsEdit

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

Group Properties wiki IDEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an article on the Group Properties wiki
RepresentsGroup Properties wiki (Q92557397)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaininstances and subclasses of group (Q83478)
Example 1symmetric group (Q849512)Symmetric_group
Example 2cyclic group (Q245462)Cyclic_group
Example 3T-group (Q7667912)T-group
Example 4Klein four-group (Q550593)Klein_four-group
Sourcehttps://groupprops.subwiki.org/
Number of IDs in source7000
Formatter URLhttps://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/$1

MotivationEdit

A large wiki on groups, it would be nice to have its IDs. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Opensofias
Tobias1984
Micru
Arthur Rubin
Cuvwb
TomT0m
Physikerwelt
Lymantria
Bigbossfarin
Infovarius
Helder
PhilMINT
Malore
Nomen ad hoc
Lore.mazza51
Wikisaurus
  Notified participants of WikiProject Mathematics Wikisaurus (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Base materialEdit

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

GlaciologyEdit

AllEdit

NutritionEdit

food compositionEdit

   Under discussion
Descriptionnutritionally important components of foods
Representsfood composition (Q5465452)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameter"fat", "satfat", "transfat", "carbs", "fiber", "protein", etc. in en:template:nutritional value
Domainfood (Q2095)
Allowed valuesfood (Q2095)
Allowed unitsgram (Q41803), milligram (Q3241121), microgram (Q1645498), international unit (Q835916)
Example 1Big Mac (Q506796) → 28 gram (Q41803) of (P642) fat (Q127980)
Example 2Big Mac (Q506796) → 25 gram (Q41803) of (P642) protein (Q8054)
Example 3Whopper (Q1135327) → 49 gram (Q41803) of (P642) carbohydrate (Q11358)
Example 4Baconator (Q4839954) → 5.25 milligram (Q3241121) of (P642) iron (Q677)
Sourcehttps://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Planned useMove data from infoboxes into Wikidata
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)

MotivationEdit

I was surprised this property is missing. This seems neccessary to include data about the food composition (Q5465452) of an item. I believe this should have a required qualifer: of (P642). This property should also be distinct per of (P642) qualifier (i.e. an item cannot have 28 gram (Q41803) of (P642) fat (Q127980) and 34 gram (Q41803) of (P642) fat (Q127980) at the same time). U+1F360 (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Sebleouf
Teolemon
Vladimir Alexiev
Ash_Crow
AVRS
d1g
Dhx1
Tris T7 TT me
Gobonobo

  Notified participants of WikiProject Food