Wikidata:Property proposal/Status in the Red List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic

Status in the Red List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Done: Status in the Red List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic (P5841) (Talk and documentation)

Description	endangerment status of species in the national Red List of the Czech Republic
Represents	species (Q7432)
Data type	Item
Domain	species (Q7432)
Allowed values	item for species and subclasses of
Example	Abemus chloropterus (Q1470623) → critically endangered (Q56084734)
Source	this
Planned use	import several thousand data related to Red List of the Czech Republic
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
See also	IUCN conservation status (P141)

Motivation edit

To import data on thousands of species in the Czech Republic (abandoning original request at Wikidata:Property proposal/Red List status of species, as advised by Succu). Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support David (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in fact I already opposed this at Wikidata:Property proposal/Red List status of species ("Oppose as country-specific (I would support the original proposal, which can be used with suitable qualifiers to indicate the geographical scope)") and I don't see any good reason why it is being presented again here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Succu (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jklamo (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brya (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question could someone explain to me why this is narrowed to one country? I don't see any arguments — here or in the first proposal — for creating at least several country-specific properties rather than creating one property and use existing qualifiers with it. Wostr (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably you overlooked this and that argument. --Succu (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, I saw this — but I don't see how this is an argument for different properties. The number of items (about categories) that need to be created is the same. The only difference is that there should be always another qualifier with a country (or better: with a document, 'red list' or other publication). Proper constraints can also be applied for such situation (i.e. complex constraints checking if qualifiers are properly used, e.g. if country = Germany, then category should be item Qxxx, Qyyy or Qzzz). Imo even IUCN conservation status (P141) could be remodelled for this purpose, but that would be a bad idea given the age and number os uses of the P141. Wostr (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Qualifying country specific evaluation stati (items) with the country makes no sense to me. --Succu (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - In fact there could easily be several 'red lists' for one country (each published by a different organization). The only differentiation between such databases would then be the authority which publishes them, and that would really make the property quite messy. So the "one database, one property" approach is easier in this sense. It would be cool if we could tag all such future properties with a subclass(of) so that data can be queried for all related properties and displayed together.--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems straightforward enough to me, one property for one database. Why try to artificially serve several different databases by only one property? - Brya (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not an external identifier, so we are not mixing different databases in one property. There is no need for several (dozens? hundreds?) different properties (and almost identical property proposals for every one of them) if it can be achieved in a such easy way as adding one qualifier (country or document) for every statement (or maybe it could be even modelled like pregnancy category (P3489)). I have to add an Oppose tag here, because creating country-specific properties would be a waste of time (on discussions, processes of creation, checking constraints violations etc.), different properties created at different times would be scattered all over the item properties list instead grouped in one place (in visual interface). Wostr (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are guessing. We have 3 to 4 examples with different vocabularies. None with the same. KISS (Q131560) is an excellent guide. Another design principle is not to make assumptions about future usages. --Succu (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frettie (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Jklamo, Brya, Wostr, Pigsonthewing, Frettie: @Succu, Vojtěch Dostál: Done: Status in the Red List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic (P5841). − Pintoch (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]