Wikidata:Property proposal/image of feces

image of feces

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Withdrawn

Description	image of typical feces of the taxon
Represents	feces (Q496)
Data type	Commons media file
Domain	taxon (Q16521)
Example 1	Brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Q209582) → commons:File:Petrogale penicillata 163958014.jpg
Example 2	Asian elephant (Q133006) → commons:File:Elephant_dung.jpeg
Example 3	Homo sapiens (Q15978631) → commons:File:Human Feces (cropped).jpg
Example 4	red panda (Q41960)→ commons:File:Red_Panda_(Ailurus_fulgens)_Poo.jpg
See also	image (P18)
Distinct-values constraint	yes
Wikidata project	WikiProject Biology (Q6723002)

Motivation

Feces of fauna can be quite distinct and thus useful in identifying presence of fauna in an area. The National Poo Museum (Q65044482) would no doubt be pleased to see this property. Dhx1 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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 GoEThe (talk) Egon Willighagen Stitchbird2

Notified participants of WikiProject Biology
Support Absolutely. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 23:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above and per nom. Could be populated with existing Commons images readily. -عُثمان (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Dhx1: What about having an item for the feces of each species of interest? E.g. like dog feces (Q336441) and Elephant dung (Q17995609). We could represent using an item for feces + found in taxon (P703). I Weak oppose because of this alternate modelling, but if there is a good motivation, I'd happily change my vote. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @TiagoLubiana: I like that approach but could this taxon is source of (P1672)/natural product of taxon (P1582) be used instead so the modelling is "taxon produces feces-of-taxon"/"feces-of-taxon produced-by taxon". It's more work to create separate items (and likely the reason "lazy" properties such as flower color (P2827) exist) but is ultimately a better modelling approach. We may end up with "Asian elephant feces" and "Indian elephant feces" as separate items (one item for each taxon) so over time we'd theoretically end up with quite a few items for each taxon e.g. "Asian elephant skull", "Asian elephant ear", "Asian elephant feces", "newborn Asian elephant", etc.
Dhx1 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhx1: I'd be okay with any of those properties as long as it is consistent. I'd avoid using natural product of taxon (P1582) to avoid possible misunderstandings with the natural products community (e.g. see https://lotus.nprod.net/). With regards the entity scale up, that modelling might lead to many new items; but I'd argue that (1) it is better than trying to squeeze all that information in a single entity and (2) such items should not be created in batch, unless they are being imported from a database with more information. We should not create "feces of x" for all x on Wikidata if no other information is available IMO. TiagoLubiana (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)