Wikidata:Property proposal/attracts
visited by edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
Aliases: attracts, attractor of, attracter of, attractant of, wildlife attracted, wildlife visitors, organisms attracted, taxon attracts, visitors, plant visitors, wildlife associations
Motivation edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Biology
Many plant and gardening databases include information about the type of organisms that a particular plant taxon attracts, and this information is of great importance and use to many gardeners. Currently there is no property to record the organisms that a plant attracts. AdamSeattle (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Support --Emwille (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)- Support --cstrickler (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Support -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose From the glossary "What beneficial insects or birds the plant attracts"? attracts is a broad term easily to misunderstood. A more useful property is is pollinated by (P1703). --Succu (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- When a database gives the information as "attracts" which is very common in garden databases, that cannot be always assumed to mean the same as is pollinated by (P1703). Isn't it better to use the language found in these databases and not to make assumptions that "attracts" = "is pollinated by"? Attracts could also apply to animals that forage on the plant's leaves or fruit and help to disperse seeds. Bottom line: if a site says a plant attracts a particular group of organisms and doesn't state what function those organisms play, we should be able to record that information as given. If it says a plant attracts butterflies and the butterflies are pollinators, then we can be more specific. AdamSeattle (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's a "dumb website" without external references. Guess attracted by to higher organism groups fits more. --Succu (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- When a database gives the information as "attracts" which is very common in garden databases, that cannot be always assumed to mean the same as is pollinated by (P1703). Isn't it better to use the language found in these databases and not to make assumptions that "attracts" = "is pollinated by"? Attracts could also apply to animals that forage on the plant's leaves or fruit and help to disperse seeds. Bottom line: if a site says a plant attracts a particular group of organisms and doesn't state what function those organisms play, we should be able to record that information as given. If it says a plant attracts butterflies and the butterflies are pollinators, then we can be more specific. AdamSeattle (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree that attracts is too broad a term here. I think something like "has flowers visited by" would be better. Note that this is also what's being used in the Relations Ontology (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002623) which in turn is being used by a variety of biodiversity informatics projects, including GloBI. Sylverfysh (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed: We have the more useful pair is pollinated by (P1703) / is pollinator of (P1704) --Succu (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- The problem here is that flower visitation is not a good indicator of pollination. Most flower visitors are not actually pollinators. So calling something a pollinator just because you saw it on a plant or on a flower is not appropriate. Sylverfysh (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think "has flowers visited by" is probably too narrow for this property. While certainly many gardening sites that list organisms that a species attracts may be for flowers, it could also be for other aspects, including fruits or habitation, such as tree holes or nesting places. How about "visited by", which is up one level at http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002619? An alias could still be "attracts". AdamSeattle (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Succu@Sylverfysh would "visited by" work for you? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think "visited by" with alias "attracts" would be a good solution. There are already tons of biodiversity data sets outside of WikiData that use the RO property. Sylverfysh (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- @AdamSeattle: Can you update label and description to "visited by"? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Done AdamSeattle (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Is this now to the point it can be marked as ready? AdamSeattle (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think "visited by" with an alias "attracts" is appropriate...and agree that attracts and pollinated by are distinct relationships. --Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- @AdamSeattle: Can you update label and description to "visited by"? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think "visited by" with alias "attracts" would be a good solution. There are already tons of biodiversity data sets outside of WikiData that use the RO property. Sylverfysh (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Succu@Sylverfysh would "visited by" work for you? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed: We have the more useful pair is pollinated by (P1703) / is pollinator of (P1704) --Succu (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Crystal Yragui, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support broad is not necessarily a problem for a generic property, but use of qualifiers should be encouraged in that case. maybe "object has role"? the domain being what it is you could specify that a potato is likely to be hit with a special type of fungus, which will then act as a parasite or a symbiant I guess. @AdamSeattle: Opinions? Infrastruktur (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- In theory you could even broaden this to other kingdoms, to cover any sort of symbiotic relationship. But if you just wanted it for the original purpose that's obviously fine too. Infrastruktur (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Infrastruktur: Could you please give a „broaden“ example. --Succu (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I guess mine was a bad idea after all. I see not all the examples are necessarily a symbiotic relationship. So that's something more suitable for a different property proposal I guess.
- I couldn't find an existing property denoting a symbiotic relationship. Many of the examples provided is some kind of symbiotic relationship, like bees pollinating flowers or bats or birds eating berries and pooping out seeds elsewhere. Birds that eat insects from the back of a deer. A liana living of the nutrients from a tree. A tapeworm living inside someone's stomach. Sheeps fertilizing plants. Infrastruktur (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put symbiotic relationships under this property. Plants that attract deer, which then eat the plants, are not in a symbiotic relationship, for example. But I can see a need for a property such as "symbiotic with" or "symbiont". AdamSeattle (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I couldn't find an existing property denoting a symbiotic relationship. Many of the examples provided is some kind of symbiotic relationship, like bees pollinating flowers or bats or birds eating berries and pooping out seeds elsewhere. Birds that eat insects from the back of a deer. A liana living of the nutrients from a tree. A tapeworm living inside someone's stomach. Sheeps fertilizing plants. Infrastruktur (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Infrastruktur, Clements.UWLib, Wd-Ryan, AdamSeattle, Sylverfysh, ChristianKl:Created as visited by (P11801) TiagoLubiana (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)