Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/Red List status of species

< Wikidata:Property proposal

Status in the Red List of the Czech Republic edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Withdrawn
Descriptionendangerment status of species in the national Red List of the Czech Republic
Representsspecies (Q7432)
Data typeItem
Domainspecies (Q7432)
Allowed valuesitem for species and subclasses of
ExampleAbemus chloropterus (Q1470623) → Critically Endangered (Q219127)
Sourcethis
Planned useimport several thousand data related to Red List of the Czech Republic
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoIUCN conservation status (P141)

Motivation

I wanted to start a property called "Status in the Red List of the Czech Republic" but then realized that this approach would in future lead to dozens of very similar properties related to various national/regional red lists (most countries have them). All statements using this property should use a qualifier such as country (P17) to denote the country to which a Red List applies. This is potentially a very important property so I'd like to invite everyone to discuss the best solution. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repurposed this property to Red list of the Czech Republic to accommodate comments below. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

  WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. —Tom.Reding (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true. We should find a way to link to the specific national database using a qualifier. Also the property name should reflect that not all these lists are "Red lists". Do you have a specific suggestion, @Faendalimas: ? Thanks--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment   Oppose. Please sketch the usage of the property with different local evaluations using the IUCN criteria. --Succu (talk)

  •   Oppose for reasons of my comment and agree with Succu. This needs to be better thought out, tease out the system to separate it from IUCN conservation status (P141)) appropriately. Show why we want to list the local declarations on species also. Not really sure what you want but at present too much overlap. Get this to a clear and useful proposal and I am happy to reconsider. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Example

Hello Succu, what about this? "Vulnerable" and "Endangered" should IMO be country-specific items. Each country has a different definition of "vulnerable", "endangered" etc; only a few use the IUCN system.

from here

--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Vojtěch Dostál, but your Germany example is wrong. The source should be Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands, Ausgabe 2009 ff. Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands, Ausgabe 2009 ff. (=Q23787493). According to Methodik der Gefährdungsanalyse für Rote Listen the catagories used in this list do not have an exact match to that used by the IUCN. Methodically different evaluations should use there own vocabularities, hence different properties. --Succu (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu Yeah, it might be wrong, sorry - I'm not an expert on German Rote Liste and I don't plan to import them anyway. But you wanted me to give you an example so I did my best. The important thing is the structure of statements, isn't it? And I agree with what you said on the categories - precisely what I thought. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: The Red List of South African Plants makes use of the IUCN categories with some extentions (National Red List Categories). Could you refine your above mentioned list with links to national (regional) assessments? --Succu (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was on a vacation. As for your request: I don't quite understand what you mean. The national assessments are already linked via stated in (P248). Would you like me to do the same example with South African Red List? It would be the same principle, but instead of using non-IUCN categories we could use preexisting IUCN category items. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I'm not sure what would work better a general property "conservation status" with values for each country or one property for each country.
    --- Jura 13:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • After some more thought, I'd suggest doing a property for a specific country. This simplifies the choice of values to use. Even such a property might eventually have multiple values and combining this with other countries is unlikely to work well in Wikidata. In another field (i.e. films), we have separate properties per country and I'm not aware of any disadvantages.
      --- Jura 11:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas, Succu: Helloǃ What do you think of the data structure I suggested above? Is it clear? I'd appreciate if we could move on with this. If you think this is too complicated, I'll be happy with a property "Red list of the Czech Republic" but I'm afraid we'll end up with dozens of similar properties like that and I'm not sure what is better. Thanks --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas, Succu, Jura1, John Samuel, Tom.Reding, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Hello, I repurposed this property to Czech Red List only. Please comment/vote. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Oppose as country-specific (I would support the original proposal, which can be used with suitable qualifiers to indicate the geographical scope). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think you over-read the above comments. What you initially proposed was doable, though needed some refinement. My initial oppose was qualified. I said if you sorted the issues I would reconsider and I meant that. I do see value in this. One of the difficulties is there are state lists, national lists, regional lists as well as the IUCN list. Rather than the geographical region it may be better to include the legislation under which it has been enacted, which would obviously include the country/ state etc. However, if you want to restrict it to Czech only I can support this too. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Faendalimas Frankly I don't know what's better. I initially thought we should do this properly and have an international property with qualifiers. But that did not really receive any support and when I tried to refine the qualifiers, noone seemed to care. Your suggestion - to include legislations - is unworkable in many cases because the Red Lists are often not part of any national legislation at all (red list does not have much to do with protection status). --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vojtěch Dostál: Please withdraw this proposal and create a new one. --Succu (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Succu, would you prefer a general or Czech-only property? --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
repurpose to Czech red list only. --Succu (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Succu Sure, here it is: Wikidata:Property proposal/Status in the Red List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Red_List_status_of_species&oldid=2029003059"