Wikidata:Property proposal/molecular model
molecular model edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
| Represents | molecular model (Q2196961) |
|---|---|
| Data type | Commons media file |
| Domain | chemical substance (Q79529), molecular entity (Q2393187) |
| Allowed values | format regex: .+\.(jpg|JPG|svg|png|PNG) |
| Example 1 | ethanol (Q153)molecular modelFile:Ethanol-CRC-MW-trans-3D-balls.png |
| Example 2 | ethanol (Q153)molecular modelFile:Ethanol-3D-vdW.png |
| Example 3 | sodium chloride (Q2314)molecular modelFile:Sodium-chloride-3D-ionic.png |
| See also | chemical structure (P117): image of a representation of the structure for a chemical compound |
Motivation edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry
- See also this entry in WikiProject:Chemistry.
Right now in image (P18) we have a lot of different images depicting chemical substances, we already have chemical structure (P117) for chemical structures (that should be used for structures more or less compatible with Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008) (Q54062325)). However, for most chemical compounds that have a page in one of the Wikimedia projects we have some sort of molecular model (Q2196961) present in Wikimedia Commons, but it is not possible do distinguish between 3D models and other images in image (P18) while reusing WD data in Wikipedia infoboxes.
Creating this property would also require bot or QS job to move many 3D models from image (P18) to the new property. That could be done for most of the images by using regex for filenames (3D molecular models usually have something like 'vdW', 'ball-and-stick', 'model', '3D', 'spacefill', 'model', 'sticks' in the filename).
Also, I think that this property could also be used for biomolecules (ribbon models etc.).
What's more:
- molecular modelproperty constraint (P2302)distinct-values constraint (Q21502410)
- molecular modelproperty constraint (P2302)required qualifier constraint (Q21510856)
property (P2306)depicts (P180) with a value being an item with instance of (P31)molecular model (Q2196961) - molecular modelproperty constraint (P2302)property scope constraint (Q53869507)
property scope (P5314)as main value (Q54828448) - new property couldn't be added to items with instance of (P31)group or class of chemical substances (Q17339814) (or one of its subclasses like group of stereoisomers (Q59199015), as 'group of stereoisomers' (= 'compound without fully defined stereochemistry') means that at least one stereocenter is not defined, 3D model of such concept cannot exists.
Wostr (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Support David (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)- Support while I think it possible to achieve the same using a qualifier, it's certainly better this way because of constraint conflict monitoring possibilities. Moving to the new property should be moderately easy, as others say, and I can help with that. --SCIdude (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I believe one can simply use Commons search to sort out types of molecular models (it allows to view 500 of images in a convenient way), see commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Classification_of_molecular_models, and then run a QS batch. I am ready to do it, if you do not mind. Wikisaurus (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, how should one specify isomers? For example, shouldn't DL-lactic acid (Q161249) have File:D-Lactic acid molecule ball.png or File:L-Lactic acid molecule ball.png, or are they only for D-lactic acid (Q27077083) and L-lactic acid (Q27080955) and DL-lactic acid (Q161249) should have no molecular scheme? Wikisaurus (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that group of stereoisomers should have any illustration that shows exact stereoisomers with an exception to the graphics that shows comparison between the stereoisomers (then with proper media legend (P2096)). DL-lactic acid (Q161249)molecular modelFile:D-Lactic acid molecule ball.png
depicts (P180)ball-and-stick model (Q905563) statement is subject of (P805)D-lactic acid (Q27077083) is imho redundant since we would have this image in D-lactic acid (Q27077083). It would also cause a lot of images in items about groups of stereoisomers that have more than one stereocenter. Also, we don't duplicate statements from stereoisomers to the items about group of stereoisomers, even if that would make easier to reuse WD data in Wikipedia infoboxes. Wikipedia users should find a way to import data from more than one item – it is rather common that something described in one article may constitute more than one item and it's not just chemistry. Wostr (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that group of stereoisomers should have any illustration that shows exact stereoisomers with an exception to the graphics that shows comparison between the stereoisomers (then with proper media legend (P2096)). DL-lactic acid (Q161249)molecular modelFile:D-Lactic acid molecule ball.png
Oppose I don't like the name of the proposed property, because it is not clear enough that property only applies to structure depiction. I would prefer to keep the existing property but adding a qualifier to specify the kind of model used in the picture. Then what's about tautomers, especially if the picture shows both forms ? I am not convinced so I prefer to be opposed, mainly because creating new properties just lead to more error possibilities. Snipre (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you are writing about qualifiers to image (P18), I already doing this for samples of chemical compounds manually (with depicts (P180)); this is of course doable with 3D models. However, if you are writing about adding 3D model to chemical structure (P117), that was never agreed and I cannot agree to that. If the picture shows a form that is not valid for the concept, it shouldn't be added to the item – this is identical to the current situation with image (P18) and chemical structure (P117). Wostr (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- This could be renamed to molecular model of a molecule (but I think it's a pleonasm) or model of a molecule, but molecular model seems to be the simplest option. Wostr (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support I like the idea of using this qualifier for biomolecules too. For example, even for the famous insulin (preproinsulin (Q7240673)) there are no models linked in Wikidata. It seems to be a good specialization of image (P18). TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
