Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/distinguishing property

< Wikidata:Property proposal

Distinguishing property edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done
Descriptionqualifier for property constraint. Same as separator (P4155) but for properties with distinct-values constraint (Q21502410).
Data typeProperty
DomainWikidata property (Q18616576)
Example 1taxon name (P225): property constraint (P2302) distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) → <qualifier value>


[Use wikidata should recognize as distinct with the above]

Full list: (>11000)
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Planned useremove the need to list exceptions manually on taxon name (P225)
See alsoseparator (P4155)

Motivation edit

Currently, a property with distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) must have every single exception listed manually. With a property like taxon name (P225), this causes enough exceptions listed that trying to add one freezes the page. I'm proposing a property that would be the equivalent of separator (P4155), but for use with distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) instead of single-value constraint (Q19474404). In this case, the property would probably be different from (P1889) or a new "nomenclatural homonym" property. Circeus (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

  WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --Succu (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This property is not necessary for things like Solanum cardiophyllum (Q59424086). In cases like this, the first priority is to discourage very strongly that such items are created. They decrease the value of Wikidata, only causing confusion. Secondly, if such items are created, they should not have a "taxon name" as this is not the name of a taxon, but rather the opposite: a name that may not be used for a taxon. If they don't have a "taxon name", they don't need a qualifier for that property. Brya (talk)
    1. Solanum Cardiophyllum was necessary as the target of replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694) at Solanum boldoense (Q17400584).
    2. If we follow your argument, then we literally cannot use replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694) ever because its target should never be created.
    3. The main reason for this argument is not single-code names (though there are no doubt enough of them to justify it due to replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694)), but hemihomonyms, which are the bulk of problem-causing exceptions at taxon name. You would know this if you'd taken the time to actually read the proposal.
    4. You can't even use nomenclatural status (P1135) (hah. there's the distinguishing subproperty I need!) as a direct property of an item.
    Circeus (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Necessary" is a big word for a replaced synonym; it is not as if it is a basionym (which is necessary; lots of basionyms still missing). There are cases where a replaced synonym is quite prominent and definitely should be included.
        I did read the proposal. It is indeed not possible to add further names to P225 (not many anyway): it was full quite awhile ago. But I am not clear how this proposal is supposed to help in this respect.
        But indeed perhaps nomenclatural status (P1135) should be used for statements rather than for qualifiers.
- Brya (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat myself: I am not super knowledgeable with the inner-working of constraint, and it is possible that separator (P4155) does the jo, but no one has explicitly confirmed that. The point is that if this can be worked directly into the constraint definition of taxon name (P225), there will be no need to manually list exceptions (and indeed the entire list could be removed from there), since merely having the appropriate subproperty on these elements will prevent them triggering the constraint in the first place. Circeus (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the need for a feature exists independently of the optimal way of handling cases like Solanum cardiophyllum Dunal (1852) (Q59424086). Maybe we can replace the sample above and you might want to continue the discussion on the relevant wikiproject. --- Jura 09:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this, so I will take the coward's way out: if this does what it aims to do, I am in favour. If it does not do this, I am against. - Brya (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does it help to reduce constraint violations? We have code of nomenclature (P944)}, so   Oppose. --Succu (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a way to define a query that would find actual distinct value violations. Maybe <qualifier value> should be P944. What query would you use to find them? --- Jura 08:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one (for Aa). --Succu (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/distinguishing_property&oldid=945815295"