Wikidata:Property proposal/type locality
type locality (biology) edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
| Description | geographical place of capture, collection or observation of the name-bearing type |
|---|---|
| Represents | type locality (Q2405146) |
| Data type | Item |
| Allowed values | taxon (Q16521) |
| Example | |
| See also | type locality (geology) (P2695) for geology |
Motivation
As discussed on the WikiProject Taxonomy talk page, a property allowing to inform on the type locality of taxa would be required. The type locality (geology) (P2695) used in geology is different from the concept used in taxonomy (for instance it can concern two localities while it is unique in zoology). See also Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/47#P2695, where Earth and Life Sciences were kept separated. Totodu74 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Support OK. - Brya (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)- As announced: Support --Succu (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support - following my request -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: It is Totodu74 who needs to see Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/47#P2695, where Earth and Life Sciences were explicitly not kept separated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Uh? The property type locality (geology) (P2695), as it is accepted, only concerns minerals. Totodu74 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Trying to define the scope of a property like this is usually too difficult and it is easier to see where it goes once we gather some data. Even if it is added to some taxons it would not harm the exisiting ontologies in that field and splitting them later should be fairly easy. Especially since the taxonomic ontology seems to be very solid now on Wikidata."; " As mentioned above, I don't think we should constrain the usage too much at the beginning..."; "that is what I think we should do. Leave the constraints open..." HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- You are quoting User:Tobias1984 and you are ignoring the initial intention by User:Chris.urs-o. --Succu (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note: type locality for geology are actually two words, type locality and co-type localities. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Trying to define the scope of a property like this is usually too difficult and it is easier to see where it goes once we gather some data. Even if it is added to some taxons it would not harm the exisiting ontologies in that field and splitting them later should be fairly easy. Especially since the taxonomic ontology seems to be very solid now on Wikidata."; " As mentioned above, I don't think we should constrain the usage too much at the beginning..."; "that is what I think we should do. Leave the constraints open..." HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Uh? The property type locality (geology) (P2695), as it is accepted, only concerns minerals. Totodu74 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment I added taxon (Q16521) under "allowed values". --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)- Support Mr. Fulano! Talk 00:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I am not sure if another property is needed. I can't image two usages getting in the way of each other? --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)- Support As a term defined by the codes I think a property to the same effect is warranted. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 12:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Done @Totodu74, Brya, Succu, Achim Raschka, Mr. Fulano, Faendalimas: please make good use of it.
--- Jura 16:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)- Perhaps User:Jura1 can explain why they have selectively pinged only some of the participants in the above discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- User:Jura1 Well? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps User:Jura1 can explain why they have selectively pinged only some of the participants in the above discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
