# Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

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

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

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

This page is archived, currently at Archive 29.

To add a request, you should use this form:

=== {{TranslateThis | anchor = en
| 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 = ...
}}
|subject item           =  <!-- item corresponding to the concept represented by the property, if applicable; example: item ORCID (Q51044) for property ORCID (P496) -->
|infobox parameter      = Wikipedia infobox parameters, if any; 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
|allowed values         = type of linked items (Q template or text), list or range of allowed values, string pattern...
|source                 = external reference, Wikipedia list article, etc.
|example                = {{Q|1}} => {{Q|2}}
|formatter URL          =
|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.)
}}
;{{int:Talk}}
Motivation:

Proposed by: ~~~

(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

## Biology / Biologie / Biologie

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Taxonomy}}
Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Biology for more information.
See also Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending for approved items awaiting the deployment of currently unavailable datatypes

### not-a-taxon-name

In progress
Description intended for scientific names that once were published, but that may not be used for a taxon (no matter what taxonomy is followed): such as later homonyms, combinations with later homonyms, etc String scientific names Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839) (Q17280121) => Pachyneurum J.J.Amann ; Pachyneurum revolvens (Q17268007) => Pachyneurum revolvens Brya (talk)
Discussion

A lot of stuff is imported from various databases. Some databases (CoL and The Plant List being notorious) have a lot of names that may not be used as a name of a taxon, ever (illegitimate names, later homonyms, rejected earlier homonyms, and combinations with these). Still, they are out there, and they are being imported here. They must be weeded out of "taxon name", where they create havoc. Having this property allows these names to be put somewhere, and then taxon rank (P105) could be added (perhaps even parent taxon (P171)). Brya (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Brya I think this can be done using existing properties but I'm not completely sure. If this is an obsolete name for a taxon then use taxon name (P225) with an end date qualifier and mark that name "deprecated". If it is enough of an entity to deserve it's own separate item then use instance of (P31) to link to "obsolete taxon" or taxon rank (P105) to link to "obsolete species" i.e. create some new items instead of a new property. Does this make sense? Filceolaire (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire No, this is a hundred percent guaranteed not to work. In most cases, this approach is what caused the problem in the first place: there are dedicated databases that have entries clearly marked as not being taxon names, and then there comes a user (often enough a highly educated professional) who takes these entries and then promotes them to existing species and genera.
And, no, theses things are not notable enough to rate an item, but there are Wikipedia's that have a page on them. BTW, often enough it proves not possible to delete/redirect such pages on a Wikipedia; this will often enough give the response "Sure, this is not an existing species, and it is in violation of basic Wikipedia policy, but so what: it is valuable content, and we must keep it" (happens time and again).
In addition, deprecating a taxon name (in as far as it may work at all) is necessary for something else, namely for taxon name that has actually been used, and could theoretically be used again in future, but is not used now. There are a lot of shades of grey that could need to be expressed, without dragging in taxa that do not exist, never have existed, and that never can exist.
As shown by the example these items are now handled by "instance of", but this is not all that satisfactory. It will do, to make it clear that they are not taxon names, but it would be better to have a property which allows adding details. For example the taxobox module now (provisionally) in use cannot handle cases where such a name is a basionym (short term this is not so bad as the taxobox module does not work for many other names either (the structure chosen is too complicated for my taste), but long term this will cause problems). There are constraint violation problems now as well (like here). - Brya (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Brya but I still don't get it. You want to make the following statements:
What do these statements mean?
Is Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839) (Q17280121) not a taxon name or is it Pachyneurum J.J.Amann?
If they are not taxon names then what are they and how did they get in the databases?
You describe Pachyneurum revolvens ( Q17268007) as "name that must not be used" but Wikidata is not just for taxonomy and that sounds like a great name for my rockabilly band. Why can't I use it?
That's 4 questions. Filceolaire (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839) is not, never has been, and never can be used as the correct name of a taxon (the whole string "Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839)" is just a matter of notation: it is the Pachyneurum that counts). This is because there is a Pachyneurum Bunge (1839) which may be used as the correct name of a taxon (and is: Pachyneurum (Q15943018)). There also exists a Pachyneurum E.B.Bartram (1939) non Bunge (1839), which also may not be used as the correct name of a taxon. All three are formal names (are "validly published"), that is, they exist in that particular nomenclatural universe. Q17280121 is an item that refers only to a formal scientific name (a name that may not be used)
Names such as these are in databases so that people are forewarned not to used them (the two later ones) and to decode possible.
You may use Pachyneurum revolvens for your rockabilly band, like any other string you like. However, it may not be used as the scientific name of a plant. There is a rulebook that says so.
Hope this covers it, - Brya (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not use "instance of (P31) Q-do-not-use-on-a-taxon" ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That is how I am doing it at the moment (but with the relevant term without the instead of "Q-do-not-use-on-a-taxon"), and this works to a degree, but:
• This does not allow indicating the correct spelling, or even the name at all, in a property. These can only be in a label.
• This does not allow correct author citation of other scientific names. These other scientific names are for existing taxa and do have pages on Wikipedia's. They cannot have a correct author citation as Wikidata has a complicated mechanism for entering authors, which involves more than one item. - Brya (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• "This does not allow indicating the correct spelling" →‎ Your current proposal does not allow indicating the correct name of a taxon. And for the spellling, there is already IPA (P898).
• "This does not allow correct author citation of other scientific names." →‎ What do you mean by that?
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Your current proposal does not allow indicating the correct name of a taxon." This does not come into it, and has nothing whatsoever to with the proposed property.
Well, conceivably IPA (P898) may be used, but this is really something else, there can easily be three IPA (P898) for each not-a-taxon-name (which is closely constrained).
""This does not allow correct author citation of other scientific names." →‎ What do you mean by that?" See below. - Brya (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Brya from you answer it seems that this property does not link from a subject item to another item or a value. Rather it tells you something about the subject item. The standard way to do this is with instance of (P31) as Visite fortuitement prolongée said just above. So we say "Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839) (Q17280121):instance of (P31):Unacceptable taxon name - does not comply with International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Q693148)" where "Unacceptable taxon name - does not comply with International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Q693148)" is a new Qitem. This statement should have a reference linking to the edition/chapter/page in the Nomenclature that the name doesn't comply with. If the reason the name is not acceptable is that it clashes with another name then you should think about a property for linking to the item for the taxon that it clashes with. In the meantime I  Oppose the creation of this new property as, so far as I can see, it wouldn't work as you have described it. Filceolaire (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire. No, this "this property does not link from a subject item to another item or a value.": it is a string property. This is nothing exceptional: "taxon name" is also a string property. See also directly above. - Brya (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Brya sorry about that. My mistake. I am feeling really dumb here but what does the statement "<Not a Taxon name "Pachyneurum J.J.Amann"> actually mean and what does it tell us about the subject item.
Why can't you use taxon name (P225) to indicate the correct spelling. Is the problem with these incorrect names that they are misspelled?
You mention problems using the "correct author citation" above by 'correct' I assume you mean citation of the taxon name, author and date in the approved compressed format. I assume you understand why wikidata uses three separate properties to indicate the taxon name, author name and date. Filceolaire (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire Well, it is very specialised topic, and the proposed property is uniquely designed to fit in with how Wikidata handles this, which is also complicated (needlessly so in my opinion). The statement"<Not a Taxon name "Pachyneurum J.J.Amann"> tells us that there is a scientific name Pachyneurum with that spelling, published by Amann, and that this scientific name may not be used as a taxon name. Other than the name there is no subject item. This could also be filled in "<Not a Taxon name "Pachyneurum"> but this looks less clear to me (maybe I will change my mind once the property is in use).
A different example is Bisaschersonia clusiifolia (Q17235272), this is a name that was published as a political statement (part of a revolution attempt), and it is no more than a curiosity item. Again, there never was a taxon by that name.
It is not possible to use taxon name (P225), as P225 is a Wikidata-defined property (not existing anywhere else), for the correct name of a taxon (the name that is in use in the real world), usually as on a Wikipedia-page, but sometimes as in the cited reference. There are lots of other names that may not be filled in in taxon name (P225), like synonyms.
No, "author citation" is not "citation of the taxon name, author and date in the approved compressed format". Author citation is about what authors may be cited and in what relationship to each other. Date is not formally part of the author citation, although in practice it is often cited along with it. The present way of author citation used in Wikidata for algae, fungi and plants in the case of later combinations is that each item provides the author(s) who made the new combination. To get the complete authorship it is then necessary to also go to the item that holds the basionym, and get the authorship of the basionym (for animals it is different) and combine it with the other authors to give the complete author citation. - Brya (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the full name of Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839) (Q17280121) is "Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839)". So a reword of the current 2 examples is: Q"Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839)" => "Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839)" ; Q"Pachyneurum revolvens" => "Pachyneurum revolvens". The third part is redundant. This is a flawed design, a waste of ressources, and an useless point of failure. It could be abbreviated to a boolean, such Q"Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839)" => yes. Or, if I reverse the meaning: Q"Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839)" => no ; Q"Pachyneurum Bunge (1839)" => yes. Or, with P31: Q"Pachyneurum J.J.Amann (1912) non Bunge (1839)" =instance of (P31)=> Q"unacceptable taxon name DO NOT USE exept for historical purpose" ; Q"Pachyneurum Bunge (1839)" =instance of (P31)=> Q"acceptable taxon name" or taxon (Q16521) (thanks to Filceolaire for "unacceptable" adjectiv). Therefore I  Oppose the proposal in its current wording. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

### Dyntaxa ID

In progress
Description Q16497181 (Q16497181) String Taxa number Caeciliusidae (Q1952486) => 2000976 Probably GZWDer (talk)
Discussion

(Add your motivation for this property here.) GZWDer (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you give more detail? I looked at this site, http://www.slu.se/sv/centrumbildningar-och-projekt/artdatabanken/, but a quick look leaves me mystified. A look at https://www.dyntaxa.se/taxon/info/2000976 shows only a barebones skeleton. - Brya (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
GZWDer: Any remarks? --Succu (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
See sv:Mall:Dyntaxa, but it is used in few pages.--GZWDer (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am dubious as 1) this does not appear to have original information, but is just a gathering of material from elsewhere and 2) this is a local database (this is also the case for the two proposals below), so this would start a trend to have a database for every country (and there are many countries). - Brya (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

### type is held by

In progress
Description The institution or collection which houses the type specimen/illustration of a scientific name (of a taxon) Item n/a taxon names scientific literature/databases (etc) Ichthyosaurus anningae (Q19346236) => Doncaster Museum (Q5295507) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
Discussion

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why restrict to holotype (Q1061403)? --Succu (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good question: the normal thing would be "type" (nomenclatural type). BTW: why in French? Why disregard databases? Perhaps we should do "type locality" first, as there are quite a few Wikipedia pages already reporting that. - Brya (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
"French"? "disregard databases"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, "taxons" is French for "taxa". And I imagine there are more sources for this information, in particular databases. And I don't see a reason for separate properties, or qualifiers, for the several kinds of types. There (usually) is only one type, and it is in only one place, and to that location it is irrelevant what the nature of the type is. It would make more sense to have a property "nomenclatural type" referring to a type specimen (or illustration) and attach a qualifier to that, to indicate the nature of the type.
But location of the type is pretty far down the list of properties I would want. I would rather have a property indicating the gender of a generic name, or indicating if a specific name/epithet is a noun or adjective. Type locality looks more desirable as well. Or, if there is interest in types, a direct link to a picture of the type (there are tens of thousands of these available). - Brya (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You are of course welcome to propose any additional properties you see fit; we're hardly likely to run out of space for them. The term "Taxons" is in the pro-forma proposal template; I'm not aware that the source parameter is required to be exhaustive. I wonder how you would distinguish Paratype (Q926578), Syntype (Q719822), and allotypes, from holotypes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Paratypes, syntypes and allotypes are not really an issue: they are not types, but terms having "type" in the term indicating them (there are a lot such terms). Actually, syntypes are odd, they are not types under the ICNafp, but they are (more or less) under the ICZN. However, the moment a serious taxonomist looks at them they stop being types. - Brya (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not averse to having a single "type specimen" (or whatever it might be called) property, if that's what "serous taxonomists" advise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
We could have another property for other type(s) or have one and add a qualifier, I suppose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Neutral: I suppose it would not hurt to have this, but I don't see it has any priority. If we would have links to type specimens, this would become mostly superfluous. - Brya (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

type is held by is superfluous. We can model this allready:

1. Create a new item, name it DONMG:1983.98,
2. add collection (P195) = Doncaster Museum (Q5295507),
3. add instance of (P31) = type specimen (Q3546082),
4. add taxonomic type (P427) = DONMG:1983.98 to the taxon item.

What we need is a property for the type status. And we need a clear understandung how to model a Specimen or Taxon Occurrence. The new created item DONMG:1983.98 could have a bunch of other usefull information eg:

• catalog number
• collector
• collecting date
• geolocation
• type for taxonname
• sex
• ...

-- Succu (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume the taxonomic type (P427) = DONMG:1983.98 and perhaps the collection (P195) = Doncaster Museum (Q5295507) (a qualifier?) would be added to the taxon item.
Well yes, I suppose this is possible. It would also be possible to give every specimen ever collected its own item. Given that we have some 1.9 million taxon names we could have some 1.8 million items for type specimens/illustrations. However, it looks like an immense amount of effort for only a small gain in the amount of information. Who would really want to know this? There has been only a small start in eliminating completely fictitious taxa, so data quality is far from guaranteed in what data now is present. And I imagine there are other properties to add that would be more interesting to the user of data. - Brya (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
We have a little bit more than 500 usages of taxonomic type (P427). I do not expect a great incease using type speciemens in the near future. But we have c:Category:Type specimens too. So if someone is interested s/he could work on these. If Andy Mabbett agrees I would remodel this proposal into one for type status. --Succu (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW: Europeana (Q234110) has more than 75,000 images of type specimens. We can link to them via Europeana ID (P727). --Succu (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Five hundred usages of taxonomic type (P427) is indeed very little, especially given how commonly this is included on Wikipedia's. What do you mean by "type status"? The link to Europeana (Q234110) does not lead to type specimens (there are four specimens of Schotia africana on the first page). Typing in "holotype" gives 16 results. - Brya (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
type status - or however we name that property - should provide the „type of the type” eg holotype (Q1061403), lectotype (Q2439719)... --Succu (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, that. As pointed out above we will indeed need that, as a qualifier, once we have some kind of property/structure to handle type specimens. Something like "nature of type" ("kind of type"?) looks better to me; they have the status of "name-bearing type" or "nomenclature type". - Brya (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I gave it a second thought and came to the conclusion that we don't need a new property. Have a look at the value of taxonomic type (P427) in Ichthyosaurus anningae (Q19346236), Acanthocalycium ferrarii (Q337692) (holotypes) and Cereus hexagonus (Q1055079) (an illustration as lectotype). instance of (P31) should do the job. --Succu (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That would work, in principle. It will then be convenient to have an "is the type of" property. -Brya (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep. That's the one we need. --Succu (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
However, misuse seems likely. It would be appropriate for a type specimen to have "is the type of" and for an animal it would be appropriate for a type species to have "is the type of", but for a plant species it would not be appropriate to have "is the type of". - Brya (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Sry, but I do not catch your point. A type specimen acting as a nomenclature type should be linked to the taxon item. Otherwise it might be got lost. --Succu (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a big difference between the ICZN and the ICNafp: Under the ICZN the type of a family is a type genus, under the ICNafp the type of a family is a specimen (or illustration), and it may be indicated by referring to a type genus (the "type genus" is only an indication, not a type). Thus, there is an asymmetrical relationship (even under the ICZN there is a degree of asymmetry: a single type genus can be the type for a tribe, a subfamily, a family, a superfamily, etc) . - Brya (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We found a better solution (see above discussion):  Oppose --Succu (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

### common name

In progress
Description common name of a taxon common name (Q502895) Monolingual text taxa literature, curated databases house sparrow (Q14683) => Haussperling (de), House Sparrow (en), Домовый воробей (ru), 家麻雀 (zh) (Source: Avibase) --Succu (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I think it's time to include vernacular names. --Succu (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Notified participants of Wikiproject Taxonomy

Support I support the property. I am just not sure how the Wiktionary-integration will work and whether this needs to be an item-datatype of monolingual-text. Will Wiktionary have an item for "Haussperling" for example (and potentially a page in each language, because Wiktionary also includes foreign words)? --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Support I assume you mean common names, more important than vernacular names. Also, there are lots more vernacular names than there are common names. In what sequence are these languages going to be listed? - Brya (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Brya, Succu: We will even have multiple labels in each language, so the lists will get long and will need qualifiers. One of the weirder examples might be: Fragaria (Q745): Common name -> "Ananas" (Qualifier: used in -> Eastern Austria). --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this could become a long list. Adansonia digitata (Q158742) has a lot of local names. Reliable sources are important. --Succu (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. This is why the distinction between common names and vernacular names is important. A well known example is Bellis perennis in the Netherlands: it has one (official) common name, but if everything is counted that ever was used this will run up to (IIRC) something like two hundred 'names'. In at least some countries (I don't know how many, but it is not rare) there are official common names for plants. For example, the USDA Plants site (see above) has official standardized US common names for plants. When botanists were inventorying in the Far East they quickly gave up on trying to record vernacular names, there were so many it was obviously hopeless. - Brya (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW: Wikispecies has a Vernacular names section. --Succu (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm also worried about how such things will be affected by Wiktionary integration, but that's still quite some time away, and the property would be useful well before that. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Eventually the Labels for these should be changed to their common names, at least for those languages spoken in the range of the creature, with vernacular names listed in the aliases. I can see there is also a case for these to be recorded more systematically using statements, so qualifiers can be added for range, end date etc.  Support. Filceolaire (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Support These common names should already exist in a wikipedia article or wikispecies entry, or else it would be to easy to vandalize the wikidats.

Bfpage (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

### GrassBase ID

In progress
Description ID in GrassBase - The Online World Grass Flora String plants GrassBase - The Online World Grass Flora Zea mays (Q11575) => imp10873 http://www.kew.org/data/grasses-db/www/\$1.htm Succu (talk)
Discussion

GrassBase is a database curated by Kew Gardens (Q188617). It contains the descripion of nearly 11,000 species and related genera. Succu (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Notified participants of Wikiproject Taxonomy

Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Brya (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Support --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

## Biochemistry and molecular biology / Biochemie und Molekularbiologie / Biochimie et biologie moléculaire

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

## Chemistry / Chemie / Chimie

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

### applies to taxon

In progress
Description Used as qualifier. see Wikidata:Chemistry_task_force/Properties & Wikidata:Molecular_biology_task_force/Properties. Item chemicals taxa see the example above. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

@John Vandenberg, Emw, FelixReimann, Brya, Snipre, Tobias1984: It seems applies to jurisdiction (P1001) was kept. What now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This property applies to jurisdiction (P1001) is a mess so instead of trying to extend it better propose a new one. Snipre (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

### IRAC code

In progress
Description Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) class Item chemical compound (Q11173) 1A, 1B, ..., 25, 28 IRAC MoA Classification Scheme 7.3 Dichlorvos == Dichlorvos (Q420622) == 1B limited number of allowed values (50 alltogether) Kopiersperre (talk)
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)

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)
Kopiersperre; I think that Snipre is suggesting you need to propose a 'mode of action' property as well. Does that make sense to you? Is there another property that could be used for this? Filceolaire (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to know if the mode of action was necessary or not in the definition of the IRAC Code. Snipre (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kopiersperre: Would you like to respond? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

### IUPAC name

On hold
Description full name of a molecule according to IUPAC nomenclature Multilingual text (not available yet) "IUPACName" in en:template:chembox Molecules, especially useful for organic molecules The many sources of IUPAC nomenclature are listed [=nomenclature here] ethanol (Q153) => Ethanol; acetone (Q49546) => Propanone; Bots could import names from the prescribed infoboxes on various Wikipedias —Wylve (talk)
Discussion

IUPAC nomenclature is one of the standard naming systems of molecules. This information is also used on many Wikipedia infoboxes. —Wylve (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Notified participants of Wikiproject Chemistry --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. Emw (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Emw, Wylve: WikiProject Chemistry has this property listed under multilingual-text-dataype. I too think, that string is a bad idea because the IUPAC naming convention exists for many languages. Currently we only have mono-lingual available as datatype. I am still not sure what the difference of multi- and monolingual will be, but we should decide for one of them. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
It really depends on how multilingual will be implemented. The definition here is not clear IMO. Regardless of which datatype we settle on, we should not create this property until there is a consensus on this problem. I don't wish to go through the (OBSOLETE) title (use P1476) (P357) => title (P1476) fiasco again. —Wylve (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Wylve, Emw, Tobias1984: This property can't be string: different rules apply for the different langages. Ex.: in English 3-Propanol, in French propan-3-ol; sulfide in English, sulfure in French. The normal datatype is at least monolingual datatype. But the multilingual datatype is still in discussion. No real refusal from the development team, only comment about the number of properties which can use this datatype. The difference between the monolingual and the multilingual datatype is the relation between property and value. With the monolingual datatype there is only one relation property-value. You can create additonal relations for each langage you want to add but in the data structure but you still have property-value pairs. With the multilingual datatype you assume several values for one property property-value-value-value... Monolingual datatype is useful when only a few number of values in different languages will be added. If now you assume that you want to translate one value in all possible languages, then the monolingual datatype is limited. For comparison, the monolingual datatype is a table with two cells (value+langage). Each time you add a new value you create a new table. The multilingual datatype is a table of X lines and two columns. Snipre (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre, Emw, Tobias1984:: I have changed the proposed datatype to multilingual text. —Wylve (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

## Medicine / Medizin / Médecine

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

### Gray's Anatomy 1918 page

In progress
Description The page number of this article's respective entry in the 1918 edition of Gray's Anatomy String "GrayPage" in en:template:infobox anatomy anatomical articles on EN WP and many other language wikis. number from 1 to 1396 (from page 1 to page 1396) wikipedia infoboxes, already populated. Intervertebral disc (Q502781) => "289" (page 289) number from 1 to 1396 (from page 1 to page 1396) A bot could be automated to take data from the infoboxes. From discussion at Property_talk:P1698 --Was a bee (talk)
Discussion

Not a few parts of English Wikipedia's Anatomy articles are made from public domain anatomy book "Gray's Anatomy 1918 edition." Sharing its source pages through WikiData is valuable not only for EN WP, but also for many other WPs which translated large quantities of anatomy articles from EN WP.Was a bee (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support -- LaddΩ chat ;) 15:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose There is already a page property and a reference data structure. Redundant. Snipre (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment Thank you @Snipre: for commenting. I forgot to stated explicitly the relationship between this property proposal ("Gray's Anatomy 1918 page") and the already-existing property ("Gray's Anatomy 1918 subject": Property:P1698). Historical and technical reason, the way to refer to Gray's anatomy in Wikipedia infoboxes uses 2 digits, "subject" and "page". Property:P1698 is for "subject", and this proposal is for "page". History in brief....
1. Formerly Gray's anatomy was linked to the copy hosted at Yahoo!. And Yahoo needs subject digit to link.
2. But Yahoo had some problems (about 20% of their page was blanked one years ago. And now, Yahoo's Gray is down).
3. So, in English Wikipedia, currently Gray's anatomy was linked to Open Library. Open Library needs page digit to link.
For more details, see en:Template:Gray's Anatomy link and its talk page, and Property_talk:P1698. As a result, we need this "page" property to link to the each pages of the book. I feel sorry for my low skill to explaining this complex situation clearly. Thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC) bit added explanation of the situation. --Was a bee (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Was a bee: Don't feel sorry, it's a normal way to act when working in a specialized field. But your explanations are not very in favor of creating new property: you say that you use one parameter to link Yahoo's webpages to WP but that now Yahoo is not working anymore so why do we need to create a property for dead links ? From your explanation better delete this outdated data and use only valid data. Snipre (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Was a bee: I just spend a little time to understand your way to use this reference and I think you don't read help:sources. Gray's Anatomy is a book so the first step is to create a item for the book. Here we reach the first problem: this are several editions. So we have to create a item for the work and others items for each edition
work item: Gray's Anatomy (Q200306)
edition item for 20th edition: Gray's Anatomy (20th edition) (Q19558994)
So now to use the reference to 20th edition, just use stated in (P248): Gray's Anatomy (20th edition) (Q19558994) and page (P304): XXX where the page is the real page number of the book. Then if you want to include a URL for a online copy use the properties reference URL (P854) or archive URL (P1065).
So the property Gray's Anatomy 1918 subject (P1698) is not more useful and can be deleted. Snipre (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: We can't delete it, because the English anatomy infobox uses the data. The book can be used as a source, but it is also used as an identifier on English Wikipedia. We have to accepts that, even if it is somewhat redundant on Wikidata. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: This not a data, this just a piece of code used to create an URL to webpages which no longer exist. That's typically a case of URL obsolescence. If en:WP wants to keep this kind of data, why not but plenty of other WPs have other rules so I don't think that en:WP has some priority. WD is an international project not an en project. I am ready to find solutions but global solutions and not solutions for every type of infoboxes from every WP. The solution I propose is to see if the subject parameter can be correlated with a real chapter in the book. If yes, use chapter (P792) instead of Gray's Anatomy 1918 subject (P1698). Snipre (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: Sorry but please look at that page: beside old yahoo webpages this are 3 others online versions of the book. So why do we have to create a special structure for outdated links if we have the possibility to use active links which require less data (only the page number) ? Snipre (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I am sure, we can find a way of improving the current situation, but we have to inform the communities that we are changing something. And we need a working solution in place, before we can switch over to the better version. We can't break these links, even if it is just for one day. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: We don't break anything because we don't modify anything in en:WP articles. These are the guys which want to use WD data in infoboxes to see how they want the final data. I just want to have the answer of Was a bee and after we can organize the deletion process of the property (which is only 5 days old). Snipre (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tobias1984, Was a bee: The problem if we look at the use of Gray's Anatomy 1918 subject (P1698) is the specificity of the property to one book and one type of URL. If we allow that we will create bunch of properties only for URL creation. This is not the goal of WD.
The best way is to use this structure
described by source (P1343): Gray's Anatomy (20th edition) (Q19558994)
reference stated in (P248): Gray's Anatomy (20th edition) (Q19558994), page (P304): XXX
Then we can use lua to extract that information in the infobox to create the link or if this is too complex we can use directly the properties reference URL (P854) or archive URL (P1065) to store the URL in the reference section and at the end use lua to extract it in the infoboxes.
This is not the most simple way but if we think about anatomy and all possible online references, we just can't create a specific property for each online version. Snipre (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre, Tobias1984: thank you very much for discussion. That "structure" idea seems very interesting. I want to know more about the idea. Before that, let me put here the background motivation. Perhaps this is something redundant, but I think this can be some help for discussion.
Motivation: "Why Gray's anatomy (1918)?": Gray's Anatomy (1918) is widely used in Wikipedia. Actually major part of English Wikipedia anatomy articles consist of copy-and-paste from Gray's Anatomy 1918 edition (because it is Public domain). And there are numerous articles, outside of EnWP, created based on translation from EnWp anatomy articles (in other words, translation of Gray's Anatomy 1918 text). I don't know exact portion, but I suppose 30%-50% of anatomy text in EnWp would be made by copy-and-paste from Gray's Anatomy 1918 (and I suppose 20%-30% anatomy text in other language Wikipedia). So I feel systematic sourcing of Gray's Anatomy 1918 through Wikidata, in a way that all language projects can easily use, is important. And from this line....
Both data would be nice: However I don't claim about what type or format is suitable for implementation of these data (Property, structure, or something else? Simply because I don't know well...), from the motivation above, I feel both subject-data and page-data are needed. Because websites which uses page (Open Archive and HathiTrust) are book-reader style website (which providing book content as images, like this). So we can not machine-translate that. This point is not problematic for English speaking readers. Because Gray's Anatomy is written in English. But for non-English speakers this point can be problematic. Websites which uses subject (Bartleby and Yahoo) providing book content as plain-text. So we can easily copy-and-paste and machine-translate that (like this).
Future vision: At Wikiproject:Anatomy in EnWp, there has been proposed that inclusion of links to other online anatomy texts (for example Sobotta's Human Anatomy). So Snipre's worrying about "one property for one book" sounds reasonable to me. I also feel that more smartly expandable style would be nice.
Test case: I tried making test case for Snipre's idea at frontal lobe (Q749520). I feel this can possibly be a solution. What do you think?
Thank you very much. --Was a bee (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC) bit added future vision. --Was a bee (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Was a bee: I think the important thing is that the solution can be used in Wikipedia. We probably need to talk to the lua-module and wikidata-module people. The other thing I would prefer is creating an item for each edition of Gray's anatomy. Filling 10 string-fields in thousands of items is very prone to errors. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: thank you for advice. I post WP:Anatomy and Module:Wikidata.
And about " The other thing I would prefer is creating an item for each edition of Gray's anatomy", User:Snipre made item for 20th edition (Gray's Anatomy (20th edition) (Q19558994)). I feel it seems OK by this, at least for our current task. --Was a bee (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I'm one of the Anatomy editors at EN:WP. Gray's Anatomy is an english-language textbook and the 1918 edition contains a lot of material which has formed the basis for the EN:WP, and by virtue of translation probably a significant portion of other language articles too, as is noted above. I think whether or not page numbers of relevant textbooks should be included is a question for wikidata regulars. 1918 page numbers sure, but there's another 39 editions after that, and what's the benefit to editors? None as far as I can tell other than 1918. I can think of some downsides (from my point of view) however -- creating an extraordinary number of items, large maintenance value, little (other than 1918) multilingual use, and I am not sure why Gray's should get this special treatment as compared with other textbooks. Page numbers other than 1918 are only really useful if a user has bought the textbook, so for recent editions are we encouraging this? Lastly there are international and local editions of the more recent editions, I'm not sure if they differ in page numbers. So I think 1918 page numbers yes, but am not too supportive of fields for the remaining 39 editions. --LT910001 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
We have Help:Sources which provides the structure for the items used as references. @Was a bee: I modified the qualifier structure in frontal lobe (Q749520): put only the relevant data, i.e. the item of the edition, the page number. All other data (author, edition number, publication date,...) can be retrieved from the edition data. Then use archive url only for archive links and for normal links use reference URL (P854). Snipre (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Was a bee: You can use the reference structure to add several URLs to the same statement. By the way you can create all URLs and at the end you don't need to create the lua function to build the urls on the client sid~. See the examples at frontal lobe (Q749520). If you apply a strict way to enter this type of data (bot) you can select the desired URL by filtering the title data from all references. So if you want to use only the Bartleby web site, you can filter the references using the title data and display only this one in your infobox. But here you need lua expertise.Snipre (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Snipre:. At EnWp Module:Wikidata, User:Paweł had made new function for us, which enables us calling any data we want from Wikidata. So, now, there are no big barrier for storing data at reference section (or any other sections). However some conditional branch code would be needed if we stably use data at reference section, I think such conditional branch code is not so difficult (because there is already nice function made by Paweł). So I'll try to bot-request of importing "Gray page" data from EnWp and moving "Gray Subject" data into its reference section. Thanks!--Was a bee (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Info Wikidata:Bot_requests#Gray's Anatomy data was proposed. --Was a bee (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose}. I think we can manage with the existing properties. I have editted frontal lobe ( Q749520) to add links to the Yahoo copy and the chapter name (instead of the Yahoo chapter specific number). There is nothing to stop us creating a separate item for the Yahoo edition of the book if it is really felt to be needed but I would rather we find a more general solution - like creating a Wikisource edition to link to, with proper #section links to each section instead of these links to pages and chapters. Filceolaire (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that I have added Gray's Anatomy 1918 subject (P1698) to the Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion. Filceolaire (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Specifically we should use described by source (P1343) with qualifiers for chapter (P792), page (P304) and section, verse, or paragraph (P958) and references (with reference URL (P854)) to online editions - like frontal lobe ( Q749520). Filceolaire (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Filceolaire. I proposed the bot-request which includes the same heart you wrote just here. If property deletion doesn't delete data, we can process the property deletion request independently from the bot request. --Was a bee (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

### WHO INN

Done: P1805
World Health Organisation International Nonproprietary Name
drug identifier
Description The WHO INN (Word Health Organisation International Nonproprietary Names) are a drug identifier, which should also be added to all drug objects in Wikidata. String International Nonproprietary Names for drugs Strings containing drug names http://www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/en/ Warfarin (Q407431) => warfarin bots will fill in the respective property numbers and create new objects with this property
Discussion

Motivation: For drug data which should be added to Wikidata, the available identifiers should be comprehensively covered, therefore the United Nations International Nonproprietary Names should also be added.

Proposed by: Sebotic (talk) (Add your motivation for this property here.) Sebotic (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Useful identifier. Emitraka (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sebotic, Emitraka, Filceolaire:  Done World Health Organisation International Nonproprietary Name (P1805) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

## Mineralogy

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

### Solid solution series with

In progress
Description the mineral forms a continous or discontinous "solid solution series" with another mineral solid solution (Q787619) Item put Wikipedia infobox parameters here, if existing; ex: "population" in en:template:infobox settlement Q templates valid minerals mindat.org (Q15221937) - [1] chrysoberyl-mariinskite series; chrysoberyl forms a series with mariinskite and vice-e-versa; hedenbergite-petedunnite; hedenbergite forms a series with petedunnite and vice-e-versa (sample: 7 digit number can be validated with edit filter Special:AbuseFilter/17) no Chris.urs-o (talk)
Discussion

(Add your motivation for this property here.) Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Snipre: --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry too specific for me. I have only knowledge in chemistry and engineering stuff. Snipre (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Support Looks useful. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

### Pseudo crystal habit

In progress
Description the chemical compound may seem to have a higher symmetry Item put Wikipedia infobox parameters here, if existing; ex: "population" in en:template:infobox settlement Q templates pseudomonoclinic, pseudoorthorhombic, pseudotetragonal, pseudotrigonal, pseudohexagonal, pseudocubic mineralienatlas.de, mindat.org Leucite and CdCl2 have a orthorhombic crystal symmetry, but they show a pseudo cubic crystal habit (sample: 7 digit number can be validated with edit filter Special:AbuseFilter/17) no Chris.urs-o (talk)
Discussion

(@Sbisolo:, @Tobias1984:, @John Mortimore:; it could be a subproperty of habitus; it is important to know that a mineral appears to have a higher symmetry although it is not perfect) Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am wondering if it is also possible to query this. A mineral has a crystal structure that links to a symmetry. The habit of a mineral also has a symmetry. If the symmetries don't match, then the habit is called e.g. pseudocubic. But maybe this explicit approach would be good too. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Ok, let's try. The crystal system is a physical characteristic determined in the laboratory. The habit is a visual appearance of the species sample. I suppose that the pseudocrystal habit would be a subproperty of habit.
• Halit (NaCl) has a cubic symmetry, with following cell parameters: a =5.6404(1) Å =b =c and α=90° =β =γ
• Analcime (Na2(Al2Si4O12) · 2H2O) has a triclinic symmetry, but it always looks pseudocubic. Cell parameters: a =13.723 to 13.733 Å =b =c
• Boracite (Mg3(B7O13)Cl) has a orthorhombic symmetry, but often a pseudocubic morphology. Cell parameters: a = 8.577(6) Å, b = 8.553(8) Å, c = 12.09(1) Å
• Perovskite (CaTiO3) has a orthorhombic symmetry, but often a pseudocubic morphology. Cell parameters: a = 5.447(1) Å, b = 7.654(1) Å, c = 5.388(1) Å
• Bernalite (Fe(OH)3 · nH2O (n = 0.0 to 0.25)) has a orthorhombic symmetry. Morphology: flattened pyramidal crystals, pseudo-octahedral to pseudo-cubic. Cell parameters: a = 7.544 Å, b = 7.56 Å, c = 7.558 Å
• Pertlikite (K2(Fe2+,Mg)2Mg4Fe23+Al(SO4)12 · 18H2O) has a tetragonal symmetry, but often a pseudocubic morphology. Cell parameters: a = 19.2080 Å, c = 27.2158 Å
Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

## Informatics

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

### Kernel version

In progress
Description put English description for property here, e.g. same as in the infobox documentation Linux kernel (Q14579) String Linux and BSD distributions Valid version numbers Distribution mailing lists Debian (Q7593): version (P348) => 7 with qualifier "kernel version" => 3.2.41 --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Notified participants of Wikiproject Informatics --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• This seems like an overly specific property. Wouldn't it be better to create a more general property that lists the packages supplied by a distribution, with the version number as a qualifier? (This would also imply making an item for each major version of a distribution. Also, some distributions ship multiple kernel versions over their lifetime, which I think would be difficult to express if kernel version already is a qualifier.) —Ruud 16:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose @Tobias1984:I would rather see the use of the has part (P527) property with a qualifier "version", or directly a "linux 3.2.41" item, subclass of "linux" or something, with a "version" statement.
•  Comment You can’t put qualifiers on qualifiers, so in the above example, this would require a separate item for Debian 7. —DSGalaktos (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

### upstream software

In progress
Description software which is "upstream", meaning that patches are inherited from it Item software software Red Hat Linux (Q220182) = Fedora (Q48267), Ubuntu (Q381) = Debian (Q7593) Tobias1984 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
• Important information in software development. Tobias1984 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Notified participants of Wikiproject Informatics -Tobias1984 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Use based on (P144) instead. Filceolaire (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think Filceolaire's suggestion makes sense. —Ruud 16:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

### Lithography

In progress
Description lithography in nanometers number with dimension-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype) central processing unit (Q5300) / electronic circuit (Q1815901) 22, 32, 45, 65, 90, 130, 180, 250. Intel website, for Intel processors Xeon 3040 (Q15229424) : 65 nm Robots can gather info on the Intel website and fill the property with it. MisterSanderson (talk)
Discussion

I want to add information to the CPU items, but there aren't enough properties to that. MisterSanderson (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

changed datatype. Filceolaire (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Why "number with dimension" instead of simply "number"?--MisterSanderson (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Because this is a measurement of length. Remember that while current processors are measured in nanometers past processors were measured in micrometers and future processors will be measured in picometers. Filceolaire (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the diameter of a silicon atom (over 0.2 nm), I think it will be fairly unlikely that we will ever need the measure lithographic processes in picometers ;) —Ruud 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Support the dimension would be the physical unit "meter". I think everybody uses simply number because the other thing doesn't seem to work with the template. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
What about AMD?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kopiersperre: I am not an expert where else this measurement is used, but I think the domain "semiconductors" would probably sum it up? --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: I must point out, that a 22 nm processor does not have any element, which is 22 nm long. (See Keine 14-Nanometer-Struktur in Broadwell) --Kopiersperre (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kopiersperre: That certainly makes things more complicated. In that case we should rely on independent measurements and not the marketing words. Maybe even require a qualifier that states how the measurement was made (e.g. with an ion probe). --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think what Kopiersperre means is that the term "22 nm" is the name of a particular lithographic process (sometimes it's qualified by the name of the semiconductor foundry), and should not be directly interpreted as a physical quantity (nor should we try to make it into one by relying on "independent measurements"). We can be pragmatic and make it into a number with dimension as the names of lithographic processes have always followed the convention of being a number followed by "micrometer" or "nanometer". —Ruud 17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia already has articles on the various processes and Wikidata thus has items on them: 22 nanometer (Q1059061), 1.5 µm process (Q1135912), Category:International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors lithography nodes (Q7003854), ... We should probably link them to those instead. —Ruud 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ruud Koot: - It might be a good idea to make this an item-datatype instead. That way we can avoid the situation described by User:Kopiersperre. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

### TeX string

In progress
Description the appropriate string to show a concept in Tex or Latex string (multilingual for examples?)-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype) ? very diverse tex commands with simple example values in them tex documentation Fraction (Q1109871) = "\frac{numerator}{denominator}", binomial distribution (Q185547) = "\binom{n}{k}", square root (Q134237) = "\sqrt[2]{x}", circumflex (Q11175) = "\^{o}" ? ? --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Notified participants of Wikiproject Informatics --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Notified participants of Wikiproject Informatics --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose LAtex is not a standard. Why use this kind of programming language and not another one ? Snipre (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I don't know if it has been standardized, but it is used were widely. And it would be a nice feature to ask Wikidata "What is the latex symbol for a vector?" and have the string returned. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Support seems useful. @Snipre: latex is used in wikipedia articles for maths formula. Allow Wikidata to store tex code seems at least useful in this context. 22:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Wikipedia uses lua as well: do you want to create a property for the name of the lua function describing the mathematical function ? And what's about the people using python to create bots ? And for c++, matlab,...? From a specialised point of view, you can find always an application to some data. Snipre (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I don't know, seems out of scope of this discussion. What I know it is it's pretty common to have a latex formula in infoboxes about a math concept. I really don't get your point. For the standardisation argument, there is reference statement that an acknoledge this is a common notation. 11:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

## Geology

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Geology for more information.

## Maths

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

### proposed by

In progress
Data type Item all human (Q5) abc conjecture (Q306393) => Joseph Oesterlé (Q1385606), David Masser (Q687611) Danneks (talk)
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)

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. 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
instance of (P31) miga < (mathematical) conjecture (Q319141) >
end time (P582) miga
. With a
proved by search
point in time (P585) miga < year 2003 >
statement and a
conjectured by search
I think we're not so bad. 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 ? 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 ;) 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. 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. 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

### statement describes

In progress
Description a formalization of the statement contains a bound variable in this class Item all mathematical object (Q246672) Pythagorean theorem (Q11518) => right triangle (Q158688), abc conjecture (Q306393) => natural number (Q21199) Danneks (talk)
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)

Support good compromise beetween expressivity and modelisation of the formula. 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

### input set

In progress
Description a superset of the domain of a function or relation. This is usually much simpler than domain (P1568) input set (Q18720436) Item instances of map (Q370502), function (Q11348), morphism (Q1948412), binary relation (Q130901) instances of set (Q36161), class (Q217594) tangent (Q1129196) → real number (Q12916) Petr Matas
Discussion

For motivation see Property talk:P1568#Domain or input set? Petr Matas 15:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. Danneks (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

### image of a function

In progress
Description the set of values that a function actually has image of a function (Q1806121) Item instances of map (Q370502), function (Q11348), morphism (Q1948412), binary relation (Q130901) instances of set (Q36161), class (Q217594) square function (Q3075175) → non-negative real number (Q18729403) Petr Matas
Discussion

A function must produce all values specified by this property, but it does not need to produce all values specified by codomain (P1571). Therefore the former provides more information, whereas the latter is simpler. Petr Matas 15:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Petr Matas: Can you still create the target-item in the example. We could put a list of number-sets on the property talk-page and make a "one-of" constraint for that list. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I could not find the right item, probably we will have to create it. We should also discuss, whether item is the right data type for this property and for domain (P1568). Petr Matas 15:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Petr Matas: Items seems right to me. It makes translation easier in this case and I think that number-sets could hold statements of their own. In the case of non-negative real numbers could have statments like: smallest value = 0, largest value = infinity, ... - I also don't think that there is an item for "non-negative real numbers". If we ever find one in minor language, we can just merge the items. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, non-negative real number (Q18729403) created. Petr Matas 17:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Tobias1984, Petr Matas: count nonzero real number (Q19546578) () in :) 18:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Support. 18:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

## All sciences

### study of

In progress
Description the subject is a science or domain studing the object Item indiquez ici les attributs d'infobox de Wikipédia correspondants, s'il en existe, par exemple : « population » dans fr:Modèle:Infobox Subdivision administrative branch of science (Q2465832), broader pretty much anything exemple d'élément qui utiliserait cette propriété, avec une valeur proposée; par exempl : algorithmics (Q13636890) => algorithm (Q8366) ; physics (Q413) => matter (Q35758) physics (Q413) => motion (Q79782) ; <  > study of search <  > <  > study of search <  > study of search <  > <  > study of search <  >  ; <  > study of search <  > <  > study of search <  > ... (exemple : 7 chiffres peuvent être validés avec le filtre d'édition Special:AbuseFilter/17) Devrait-il y avoir ou existe-t-il des bots ou des gadgets qui effectueront des tâches avec cette propriété? Par exemple: vérifier les autres propriétés afin d'être cohérent, collecter des données, automatiser un lien externe, etc.
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. 10:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, it can be very useful as a replacement of categorization. Danneks (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
@Zolo: I just took the statements from the Wikipedia articles. Study of numbers is a pretty common definition of maths, so there is no harm, and numbers (or sets in maths foundations) can pretty much the starting point to encode any other math objects. So it's just a matter of choice, there is no problem with beeing somewhat redundant if their is no contradiction, it's not a big deal. And it's just a detail, I think it's important to link a science to the type of concept it studies (way more) :) 11:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)