Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WD:PP/SCI



This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property
  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (manual list) and Special:AllPages.
  2. Check if the property is already pending or has been rejected.
  3. Check if you can give it similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data automatically can be transferred. See WD:WikiProject Infoboxes for suggestions.
  4. Select the right datatype for the Property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Creation can be done after 1 week by a property creator or an administrator.
  2. See steps when creating properties.

Add a request

This page is archived, currently at Archive 26.

To add a request, you should use this form:

=== {{TranslateThis
| en = PROPERTY NAME IN ENGLISH
| de = <!-- PROPERTY NAME IN German (optional) -->
| fr = <!-- PROPERTY NAME IN French (optional) -->
<!-- |xx = property names in some other languages -->
}} ===
{{Property documentation
|status                 = <!--leave this empty-->
|description            = {{TranslateThis
  | en = put English description for property here, e.g. same as in the infobox documentation
  }}
|subject item           = Qnnnnnnn <!-- item corresponding to the concept represented by the property, if applicable; example: item ORCID (Q51044) for property ORCID (P496) --> 
|infobox parameter      = put Wikipedia infobox parameters here, if existing; ex: "population" in [[:en:template:infobox settlement]]
|datatype               = put datatype here (item, string, media, coordinate, monolingual text, multilingual text, time, URL, number)
|domain                 = types of items that may bear this property; preferably use Q templates, as specialized as possible, or text. Special values (having specialized validation schemes): Persons, Taxons
|allowed values         = type of linked items (Q template or text), list or range of allowed values, string pattern...
|source                 = external reference, Wikipedia list article (either infobox or source)
|example                = sample items that would use that property, with proposed values; example: {{Q|1}} => {{Q|2}}
|filter                 = (sample: 7 digit number can be validated with edit filter [[Special:AbuseFilter/17]])
|robot and gadget jobs  = Should or are bots or gadgets doing any task with this? (Checking other properties for consistency, collecting data, etc.)
|proposed by            = ~~~
}}
;{{int:Talk}}
(Add your motivation for this property here.) ~~~~

For a list of infobox parameters, you might want to use table format:

{{List of properties/Header}}

{{List of properties/Row|id=
|title          = audio
|type           = media
|qualifier      =
|description    = Commons sound file
|example-subject= Q187 <!-- Il Canto degli Italiani -->
|example-object = Inno di Mameli instrumental.ogg
}}

</table>

For blank forms, see Property documentation and List of properties/Row


Physics[edit]

Biology / Biologie / Biologie[edit]

See also Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending for approved items awaiting the deployment of currently unavailable datatypes

uBio namebankID[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: ID in the uBio taxonomy database
Discussion
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I guess this is OK, at least a professional site, although this too really is an aggregator. Can't say I ever used it. - Brya (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The idea behind Universal Biological Indexer and Organizer (Q3551271) is a good one (see e.g. Name Matters: Taxonomic Name Recognition (TNR) in Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL)). But the project seems to be outdated. Main problem is - as far I can rember - they do not resolve ambiguous names (author, year etc.). So I think it's better we do not support this LSID (Q6459954). --Succu (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC) An example: Cactaceae. --Succu (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

natural product of taxon[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: links a natural product with its source (animal, plant, fungal, algal, etc)
Discussion

This property will be used to separate the plant from the fruit it produces. In cases like wine making, it makes no sense to say that the wine is made out of the plant, but out of the fruit. The inverse property (fruit of) is also needed. --Micru (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I think that "fruit of" would be the better property as most properties go this direction (e.g. part of, subclass of). We don't really need the inverse property because it is a simple query. Just to be critical we should also consider making a qualifier to "part of" which could be named "part concerned --> fruit". Also: how well is "fruit" defined in Biology? -Tobias1984 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Josve05a (talk)

FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Soulkeeper (talk)
Brya (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Tobias1984 (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Alexander Vasenin (talk)
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants to Wikiproject Taxonomy -Tobias1984 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

perhaps better "product of". It is not just fruits, but also seeds, leaves, roots, wood, etc. It is possible for one plant to yield more than one product (flax gives oil and fiber). And fruits are well definied in biology but this does not match with the culinary definition (tomatos are fruits biologically, but a vegetable culinary; strawberries are fruits culinary, but not biologically, etc). Also, the same may apply to animals; should there be two properties or just one? - Brya (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984, Brya: I have realized that we have the property produces (P1056) but only for manufacturing, I think it could be generalized. As for this one I have changed the label to "product of" which is generic enough to cover all cases. What do you think?--Micru (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Micru, Tobias1984, Brya: seems useful for all kind of processes. we almoest could have a input/output property pairs, for maths I'll suggest a function range / function domain property pair. TomT0m (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Good. I would like it to be limited to products of living things. That is big enough. Generalizing it more may lead to unforeseen complications. - Brya (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Brya, Micru: With the current name this property will be used in a lot of places. But after a few months we might be able to see patterns in the data and will be able to split it into different properties (Or we might see that we don't have any problems. -Tobias1984 (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984, Brya: What do you think of calling it "raw product of" without limitation to living organisms? That way we'd avoid unintended uses, or we could create two properties at once, the other one being "manufactured product of". One of the examples reads Zinfandel wine (Q17329207) => Zinfandel (Q204433), and that is actually a manufactured product since it requires a human-staged process.--Micru (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984, Micru: I don't like the look of "raw product of", and was thinking of either "natural product of" or "product of taxon"? - Brya (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984, Brya: Changed the label to "natural product of taxon". If there are no objections, I will create it in a couple of days.--Micru (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. - Brya (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support - belatedly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Plant breeder[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: Person or organisation who bred a plant hybrid, variety or cultivar
Discussion

Widely used in horticulture. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You added |breeder= on today (8 September 2014). So I have some doubts it's widly used. --Succu (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I did indeed, but as I said, it's widely used in horticulture. See also en:Plant breeders' rights. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not relevant for hybrids (by definition), but would be relevant for plant varieties. This would also need a different example as it does not apply to Clematis ×jackmanii. - Brya (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it does not (how grown up). - Brya (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read w:en:Clematis 'Jackmanii' (and cut the snide comments). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Mabbett, undoubtly you'll have fun reading this. --Succu (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at the enwiki page. Sad to see such a bad violation of basic policy. Anyway, it is not relevant. - Brya (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See above. --Succu (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Biochemistry and molecular biology / Biochemie und Molekularbiologie / Biochimie et biologie moléculaire[edit]

Please notify Wikidata:Molecular_Biology_task_force of new property proposals in this section.

Genome size[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: size of the genome in bases
Discussion

Motivation is that we want to collect this information for all the genomes in wikipedia, or annotate lists of genomes for automatic querying of genomic information and for cross language updates. Dan Bolser (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Such basic metrics should be in Wikidata proper, not just in some external resource. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol wait.svg Wait The information is usually measured in "SI-Prefix"+"Basepairs" which is why we should maybe wait for the datatype "number + unit" to become available. For items about Genomes (e.g. human genome (Q720988)) a more generic "information stored"-property would allow us to use the same property for a wide array of items (e.g. also hard drives etc...). Tobias1984 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Tobias, the value for an "information stored" property in a genome is interesting to consider, but I don't think it's what we'd be looking for in this property. Genomes are conventionally measured in base pairs (or nucleotides), not bits. (Genomes often contain huge tracts of repetitive sequence whose information content can be highly compressed depending on the algorithm, etc.) Emw (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I agree with Emw on this point. --2001:630:206:4001:F1A1:AEAA:B627:DDA0 11:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Dan, Magnus, since genomes are commonly treated as sequences, I think it would make sense to at least change "size" to "length" in the proposal. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/assembly/GCF_000001405.26/, http://ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Info/Annotation#assembly.
Following up on "genome size" vs. "genome length": the English Wikipedia article Genome size is illuminating. It says genome size "is typically measured in terms of mass in picograms (trillionths (10−12) of a gram, abbreviated pg) or less frequently in Daltons or as the total number of nucleotide base pairs". In other words, "genome size" can have units of mass or length, depending on the audience. "Genome length" cuts down the ambiguity significantly. And although "genome size" has more hits than "genome length" in scholarly publications (compare here, here), Ensembl and NCBI databases both seem to prefer "length" when talking about this kind of thing. Emw (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Template:infobox genome already notes units of "Mb", but I'll note here that "b" (bases) and not "bp" (base pairs) seems like the best unit for genome length. This accounts for organisms with single-stranded DNA genomes like phi X 174 (the first sequenced genome). Emw (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: From the evidence given, I agree that genome length (in bases) is a better property. --2001:630:206:4001:F1A1:AEAA:B627:DDA0 11:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It's also worth considering that there are several types of biological sequence data we'll want to describe the length of on Wikidata: genes (b), proteins (aa) and chromosomes (b). Do we want one length property for each of these, or one property for all of them? As I note in a related discussion, I'm inclined to use one length property for all sequences. Emw (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Su
Genewiki123
Marc Robinson-Rechavi
Pierre Lindenbaum
Michael Kuhn
Boghog
Emw
Chandres
Dan Bolser
Dan Lawson
Kizar
Pradyumna
Chinmay
Timo Willemsen
Salvatore Loguercio
Tobias1984
Daniel Mietchen
Optimale
Mcnabber091
Ben Moore
Klortho
Hypothalamus
Vojtěch Dostál
Gtsulab
Andra Waagmeester
Sebotic
Mvolz
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants to Wikiproject Molecular biology Tobias1984 (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: We couldn't come to any agreement in our local group... are you suggesting something like Length of nucleotide sequence, which would be a property of items of type gene, genome, etc.?
Length of nucleotide sequence sounds fine to me, and better than just genome size or length. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry / Chemie / Chimie[edit]

Please go to Wikidata:Chemistry task force/Properties for discussion about properties.

applies to taxon[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Data type: Item
  • please specify domain
  • please specify allowed values
  • Example item and value: see the example above.
  • Proposed by: GZWDer (talk)
Discussion

Motivation. GZWDer (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Motivation? Example? --Succu (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Mercury(II) chloride (Q143200)<lethal dose>41 mg/kg with qualifier taxon=rabbit (Q9394), route of administration (P636)=dermal, specifically=Median lethal dose (Q711849).--GZWDer (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not just use taxon name (P225)? - Brya (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I think P225 is not senseful - instead of a plain string, it should of course connect to the item (aka concept). Nonetheless - I'm not sure if a new taxonomic-specific property is required which itself is used only as qualifier but not used as property in the taxonomic model itself. Either, you could use invalid ID (P89) which we already have or - what I propose - an even more general property - for example something like "applied to". But I have to confess that I do not see the overall Wikidata qualifier model yet. Nonetheless, in combination with your property "lethal dose" a more generic qualifier property could IMHO be sufficient.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see why not. But perhaps the intent is to indicate one of a few model organisms (there are not all that many different ones used, I believe) and then it might work to have a property with a few pre-defined values? - Brya (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it would be useful as a qualifier for items like Nodding disease (Q895930). In the statement for "possible causes" the qualifier for the parasite is not always a species. So a more general qualifier would be good. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Still, I believe that for the lethal dose example, a more general qualifier would be sufficient. You would have my support there. However, for your example, Tobias, wouldn't you need to propose a property "possible cause" which than can have taxa as well as for example toxic substances as target, i.e., the proposed property would not work.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
@FelixReimann: I am still uncertain about a lot of connections between medicine and the rest of the Wikidata-space, so I can only give you bad answers. The property "possible cause" is already created and in my example (Nodding disease (Q895930)) I linked it to "parasitic disease". But linking directly to the parasite or toxic would be possible too. There is still a lot to figure out. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose invalid ID (P89) is enough. Snipre (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
@Snipre: But not everything we want to link is a species. So either we have to rename it or create another property. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Now I am confused. In the example given we saw a model organism in which a certain test result was obtained, but apparently the discussion is now about vectors?
        These look like two quite different things to me. Medical and pharmaceutical testing uses a quite limited number of model organisms, which are often quite special. Rabbits used for tests are not comparable to rabbits in general, let alone wild rabbits. A new property for this seems possible, although it should not be called "taxon", as these often have nothing to do with taxa, but are man-made organisms.
        On the other hand vectors which transmit diseases are wild animals, in no way distinguishable from others of the same species. For these "taxon name" still seems the straightforward option. - Brya (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: I agree for the question of the name of the property invalid ID (P89) but in the toxicity framework they don't considered the real species only the type of animal. Here we can consider different ways of using invalid ID (P89) according to the data we want to save. Snipre (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. This property would need a more specific name; "taxon" is too ambiguous. I agree with Felix that something like "applies to", or perhaps "observed in", would be preferable if we want to capture this information in a qualifier claim.
On the other hand, we should also be mindful that qualifiers will not be queryable for the foreseeable future. So taxon-specific LD properties might be a better way to model this data, since then all the values will be queryable. Lethal dose (LD) properties for different taxa like those in GZWDer's example can be clustered together by automated statement ordering. The relationship between them can be formally captured with 'subproperty of' statements in the property's documentation template. Emw (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment P89 was deleted by user:Delusion23 after being deprecated by user:Jakob at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2014/Properties/1#Taxonomic rank properties. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg, Emw, FelixReimann, Brya, Snipre, Tobias1984: I have changed the name to "applies to taxon", in consonance with other properties like applies to part (P518) and applies to jurisdiction (P1001). If there are no further objections I will create this property in the next days--Micru (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Micru: Instead of creating a new property shouldn't we merge applies to part (P518) and applies to jurisdiction (P1001) a one with the label applied to and use this new property for our case ? In the case of interest taxon is not very understandable. Snipre (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre: I think that is a good idea. I had nominated applies to jurisdiction (P1001) for deletion, probably we can convert applies to part (P518) into a generic "applies to" property and merge both. Then this property wouldn't be necessary.--Micru (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@John Vandenberg, Emw, FelixReimann, Brya, Tobias1984, GZWDer: Please put your comment there. Snipre (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Explosive velocity[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
Discussion

Motivation. GZWDer (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@GZWDer: I'missing a motivation. :) --Succu (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I know that Explosive velocity is one of the explosive characteristics but for me this is limited to 30-50 components perhaps 100. This is not sufficient for a property at that level of the WD development. Snipre (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support There's no harm in having a property that doesn't get used much. atomic number (P1086) will also never see much use, but it's a useful property. --Jakob (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --LydiaPintscher (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Lydia. --Eurodyne (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

IRAC code[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) class
Discussion

Insecticides can be classified by their target site into mode of action groups (IRAC Mode of Action Classification Poster). This is already available as a big table in german wikipedia (de:Insecticide Resistance Action Committee); I want this in Wikidata, too. This is my first proposal, please apologise when it's not conform to the rules. --Kopiersperre (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question - Wouldn't string be better for this property? No need to translate this code. No statements need to be attached to the code, if items were created for it? -Tobias1984 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Some of the groups (like 1A – Carbamate (Q422899), 1B – Organophosphate (Q411097), 3A – Pyrethroid (Q745766) and 4A – neonicotinoid (Q902225)) have articles (=an item). In my opinion there should not just be a string (e.g. "3A"), but a link to the group article (e.g. Pyrethroid (Q745766)).--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
User Rjh told me, that the proposal should be extended:
  • ) The IRAC Code (example: "1A" – Carbamates) as item
  • ) The mode of action (example: Group 1 – Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) as item--Kopiersperre (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Please provide a complete exemple. Snipre (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't figure out what's missing.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Property, value, qualifier, value. You propose two relations: this means two different properties or one property and a qualifier. Snipre (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Beilstein Registry Number[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
Discussion

- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Gmelin Number[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
Discussion

- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

General formula (wikt:general formula)[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: molecular formula of a class of compounds
  • Data type: string + string for n= + up to n items for R1 to Rn
  • Domain: maybe family of compound (Q15711994)
  • please specify allowed values
  • Source: Externe Referenzen, Listenartikel in der Wikipedia (entweder Infobox oder Quelle)
  • Example item and value: Q41581 => CnH2n+2, (n = 1, 2, 3, 4, ...)

Q2602701 => R¹R²C=N−R³ with R³ IS NOT hydrogen (Q556)

Discussion
@Kopiersperre: There is a relevant discussion and bug report here: Wikidata_talk:Development_plan#Formula_datatype -Tobias1984 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Medicine / Medizin / Médecine[edit]

See also Wikidata:List_of_properties/Terms#Medicine

Mineralogy[edit]

Please go to Wikidata:Mineralogy task force for proposal and discussion about properties.

Geology[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Geology for more information.

Geography[edit]

Maths[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mathematics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mathematics}}

function domain Q192439 / input set Template:Q1756942 of a relation or a partial function / codomain / output set[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    Done
Property:P1568
  • Description: relations to link definition domains domain of a function (Q192439) (View with Reasonator) of functions or partial function and relations ; (domain/codomain are for the subsets of the input/set where a (partial) function always a value , input / output sets are for any relation.
Discussion

There is a lot of mathematical functions and so on articles. TomT0m (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC) }}

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Maybe it would be better to call it domain and codomain of a mapping, it would also apply to functors. Some people use the word "function" only for number-valued functions and "mapping" in other cases, for example there are rational mapping (Q987226) and rational function (Q41237). Danneks (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, terminology issues can be complex :/ (I lost myself in Wikipedia writing this proposal ^^) (not to mention idiosyncrasys). I tend to agree we should have a scope as big as possible for properties and to split them only for good reasons. Still can't decide if it is useful to have two distinct pairs of properties. I guess we must be careful not to introduce ambiguities. TomT0m (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Technically speaking, we have several distinct concepts here. I'm not sure that we need "domain of a functor" property right now, since we don't have many such items, and terminology of domains is not much used. For most of morphisms, it will be enough to specify category to which this morphism belongs (and "part of" applies perfectly here). So we only need domain and codomain of a function; we can write in description "(co)domain of a mapping between sets" to avoid ambiguity. Danneks (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I would use only "domain" and "codomain" for clarity and simplicity. Cuvwb (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @TomT0m, Danneks, Cuvwb: ✓ Done --Jakob (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jakec: Thank you, but what about domains? Danneks (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jakec, Danneks:. I think this was (implicitly) proposing 2 propoerties. I have changed the label of fr:P1568 to domain and created codomain (P1571).--Zolo (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@TomT0m:, shouldn't the French label be "fr:ensemble de définition" rather than "fr:ensemble de départ" ?--Zolo (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Number of faces[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: Number of faces of a solid
Discussion

It seems easiest to express through a dedicatd property.

I note that the French infobox says something like: "pentagonal bipyramid": number of faces: 10 (shape: triangles). Should we also do something like that, using qualifiers ? And how do we apply that to elongated pentagonal pyramid (Q143112) - total number of faces: 11 (5 triangles, 5 squares, 1 triangle) Zolo (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support -Tobias1984 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
if we use quanitfiers could there be perhaps a more universal solution like "number of facet" these could be used for facets of any dimension: vertices, edges, faces, cells, and so on..? --opensofias (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jakec:. Thanks but still not sure how to use it, per questions above. --Zolo (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Number of edges[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    Done
Property:P1569
  • Description: Number of edges
  • Data type: Number
  • Domain: maths
  • Allowed values: blah
  • Proposed by: Zolo (talk)
Discussion

I was propmpted to propose this by fr:Modèle:Infobox Solide de Johnson. I do not feel knowledgeable enough to have an opinion about whether it makes sense to use the same property for number of edges in a geometric figures and number of edges in a graph (@TomT0m: ?). --Zolo (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support -Tobias1984 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Eurodyne (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Number of vertices[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    Done
Property:P1570
  • Description: Number of vertices
  • Data type: Number
  • Domain: maths
  • Allowed values: blah
  • Proposed by: Zolo (talk)
Discussion

Opensofias
Tobias1984
Micru
Arthur Rubin
Cuvwb
Danneks
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants to Wikiproject Mathematics

@Zolo: and Symbol support vote.svg Support I made a ping-template for WikiProject Mathematics now. -Tobias1984 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --opensofias (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

proposed by[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description:
Discussion

Might be useful to link conjectures (and algorithms, constructions, maybe some other methods) with those humans who described them for the first time and made them notable. Some people are already using notable works (P800) for algorithms (I've seen it in William Kahan (Q92782)), which doesn't look quite correct. Danneks (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, I don't think the use of the work notion property is wrong, a work is the product of human thinking and/or realization, it does not have to be an artwork. But if someone conjectured something, the work is the act of conjecturing, and if someone proved, the work is the act of proving, and the result is the proof.
This raise a question : how do we model the difference beetween a conjecture and a theorem ? A conjecture is a math property supposed to be true, and a theorem is a math formula or idea for which there exists a proof.
So maybe a better modeling could be an item to the proof in this case, the proof will have one or several authors. I can't think of an equivalent for conjectures, maybe an item to the scientific publication or letter in which the author made the conjecture ? We can call this class of documents conjecturing documents, and we could say the author of a conjecture is the author of a conjecturing documents. The conjecture itself beeing the item about the formula/property. Maybe, in a longer perspective, we can express all these in terms of more generic properties ?
Anyway I would recommand to change the scope of this propery to maths formulas or properties, whether they are proved, disproved, undecidable or whatever. TomT0m (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, we already have something like that in universe (Q1), connected with multiverse (Q3327819)! Maybe we can use described by source (P1343) with instance of=conjecture or proposal as a qualifier? Danneks (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC) No, it is not not clear whether the item is conjectured, or the statement that it is described by source... But maybe as (P794) would do? Danneks (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of as (P794) as it is not really well defined by itself and needs a lot of domain knoledge to be understood, I think its use has to be specified in the main property (the as qualifier used with this property means ...). I think a good solution could be . With a
< Poincaré conjecture (Q203586) (View with Reasonator) > proved by search < Grigori Perelman (Q117346) (View with Reasonator) >
        point in time (P585) miga < year 2003 >
statement and a I think we're not so bad. TomT0m (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good, but I don't see why we should restrict usage of this property to statements in some formal language (those which can, in a precise sense, be proved). I think that it can describe any propositions, including one about Q1 and Q3327819, and that provability or existence of formalization in a given system are additional properties. Danneks (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Danneks: We got different name for this : theories. Theories may have authors, and are refuted rather than proved or disproved ... The ontological nature of maths is different from other sciences (at least controversial :)), and mathematical statements can be proved, whereas theories are different in nature (theories are models of the world); so that justifies the different properties I think. But yes, we can discuss the analog problems for Lorentz ether theory (Q1870029) or general relativity (Q11452).
But I (re)realize we are talking about the proposed by property /o\ but anyway I would be fine with author, this is a kind of authorship. I don't really know which meaning is added by the proposed by idea. Except something that seem very cultural : artists are authors, scientists are theory creators ? TomT0m (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought that only single works have authors, and that there are no authorship rights for theories yet :) But for many theories there is a person who is clearly associated with it, who described it and said that it is a good theory for the first time... Is this too ambiguous? I agree that conjectures and theories are proposed in different ways, but anyway there are (often) a person who proposes it, and a community which accepts it or not. Mathematical community accepts something if it is proved, natural scientists have other criteria for evaluating hypotheses. Both are notable for the history of science, so why to split? If you are only interested in scientific facts, then it makes a little difference who proposed something, but it is important from a historical or sociological viewpoint. Danneks (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Danneks: It's not because their is no copyrights or authorship rights on scientific theories that there can't be authors to them :) Actualy in french wikipedia the larger definition of author is
De manière générale, un auteur (du latin auctor) est une personne qui est la cause, le responsable. On peut être l'auteur d'une découverte, d'un accident…
Trad :
In general, an author (from latin auctor) is the person who is the cause, the responsible. One can be author of a discovery, an accident...
so the difference seems indeed cultural. In this sense the author property is enough, so why to split :) ? I don't really like the english wikipedia's definition because it seems somehow self referencing : an author is someone whom society gives author rights. Author rights are given to people who authored. (yes I skipped parts :) ) Really legalist but that does not tell much about authorship, except a restriction of the kind of works who gives legal rights. In conclusion I agree with you : we need only one property. At most :), I'm perfectly fine saying Einstein is the author of Relativity theories, even if he never had legal rights on them, thank humanity ;) TomT0m (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
An author is an author of the whole work, and it could be argued that a theorem is not a theorem without a proof. And a theory may be subsequentially refined by many people. Maybe discoverer or inventor (P61) is better? The general definition of invent applies perfectly to abstract objects. If it can be used together with a qualifier published in (P1433), it will be great. Or maybe we need a qualifier description published in? Danneks (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Danneks: We already have proved by (P1318) for the author of a proof. (Maybe we should have a converse property refuted by anyway). I'm fine with discoverer or inventor (P61), although it may be a good solution for taxon author (P405), maybe author (P50) as well. TomT0m (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@TomT0m: OK, I will use discoverer or inventor (P61) then. I think we can close this proposal and discuss whether we need to model the content of (some) scientific articles in another place. Danneks (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Danneks: For the record, we should document this on WikiProject Mathematics and/or on the conjecture and theorem items. TomT0m (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

statement describes[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: a formalization of the statement contains a bound variable in this class
Discussion

Notable property for theorems; could be used in substitution templates, in preambles of Wikipedia articles. Danneks (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to add that I don't think this is an ideal way to organize the data about theorems, but it will be needed (at least) during the initial period to make the data more discoverable. At the moment, Wikidata knows about circa 1800 theorems and 200 conjectures, and the only search option are labels (which is not very good, because the name of a theorem usually does not describe its content). Danneks (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

has vertex figure[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: the figure exposed when a corner of a polytope is sliced off.
Discussion

it's basically the opposite of has facet polytope (P1312) --opensofias (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Opensofias
Tobias1984
Micru
Arthur Rubin
Cuvwb
Danneks
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants to Wikiproject Mathematics

Symbol support vote.svg Support -Tobias1984 (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

All sciences[edit]

study of[edit]

Wikidata:List of properties • v · d · e
Status:    In progress
  • Description: the subject is a science or domain studing the object
Discussion

Help scoping a lot of items and linking object to their sciences. A lot of structuring power, a help on automatic item disambiguation, a help on scoping Wikipedia article who sometimes mixes the two subjects. Can potentially help restoring lost interwikis : if some Wikipedia has an article on the science and the other one on the object, the interwiki language link might have been lost, as this is a common pattern a custom template can propose a link to the Wikidata item and redirect to the corresponding article in the other language. TomT0m (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, it can be very useful as a replacement of categorization. Danneks (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, is just part of (P361) for science--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not "part of", it would be more like has part (P527), but I do not think it is exactly that either. I support the idea, but as a general rule, I think it should be used only with more generic values. If "number: subclass of: mathematical object", and "mathematics: study of: mathematical object", then it does not seem necessary to add "mathematics: study of: number" (else where do we stop ?) --Zolo (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)