Wikidata talk:Property proposal/Natural science

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rename this page "science"[edit]

Current property proposal classification is not satifying. We have nothing for general sciences and a property proposal for astronomy, which is a subfield of this page. Nothig for maths ... Can't we do better ? TomT0m (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start something new for other kinds of sciences (math is not a science at all). - Brya (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "Property proposal/Non natural science" ??? Everything scientific shouldn't be described by math ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
? I cannot say I ever heard "non natural science" used, and I suggest we use actual existing terms. As to math, I don't care if everything scientific should be described by math, or not (you can do science without math), or, for that matter, if everything non-scientific should be described by math (why not, if you like to apply math?). Math itself is not science (although there is a lot of science you could not do without math, or without a wordprocessor, or a harddisk, etc). - Brya (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [1]. Danneks (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As defined there math appears to be just about the same as taxonomy. The entry looks like a good example of the dangers of oversimplifying things. - Brya (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Structure" and "relation" are very general concepts, they can not be reduced to classification (although classifications are often very useful). Danneks (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, taxonomy can not be reduced to classification either. - Brya (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I have thought you speak about this taxonomy. OK, taxonomy in biology is a science, and mathematics is a science, so they have some things in common :) Danneks (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was using taxonomy in the wide sense of the word; indeed this taxonomy does not look scientific. The problem I have with the Brittanica entry is that I don't see it applies to mathematics; it has been simplified too far. - Brya (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Is not it possible to recognize the current property proposal tàxonomy is a mess without invoking every troll in the universe ? :) We just need to set up rules, even imperfect. For example star taxonomy is clearly in the scope of astronomy, so it's not satisfying to have its property proposal entry at the same level of any natural sciences. TomT0m (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my messages look like trolling, I did not intend this :( In Russian, mathematics is always called "наука" (=science), if you feel that this is controversial, I would not object division. Personally, I'm not able to see how something bad can happen if we call mathematics a science. Danneks (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree :) maths are of course special because of their philosophical status, Platonic world and so on, but it's not really a problem here. TomT0m (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not so much the placement of mathematics, as it is just by itself and it does not fit anywhere else either. Unless you have a special area with mathematics, logic, etc you can leave it here.
        The issue is the other sciences which would fit really bad here. - Brya (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: I don't get your thoughts. TomT0m (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As usual. - Brya (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: Interesting. TomT0m (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some broader sense ideas: All science is either physics or stamp collecting. Rutherford at Manchester (1962)
One and one is two and its consequences are mathematics, so there is no science without mathematics. One and one is two is truth, so it is religion (church/ mankind).
Physicist are camouflaged mathematicians, chemists and ingeneers are camouflaged physicists. I don't see a real border on these things. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no shortage of evocative pronouncements, but this does not mean these are accurate. Somebody once said that mathematics is the queen of the sciences. More often it has been said that theology is the queen of the sciences. And it can certainly be argued that mathematics is a form of theology. Still, you can have theology without mathematics, and science without mathematics. - Brya (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Still, you can have theology without mathematics, and science without mathematics." Here you must be wrong. Theology without logic ??? Science without logic ??? No way; mind you, the lie is the enemy of the church. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here I was, thinking that lying is the core business of churches. Look at what happens in the IS. - Brya (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tyranny is evil, lie is evil, evil is the enemy of the church/ mankind. Human beings don't destroy mankind. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the churches behind IS, christianity is evil, and to many christian churches islam is evil. Evil is, very often, a church-defined and local phenomemon. As to whether "Human beings don't destroy mankind.", the jury is still out on whether or not that will happen. If destruction does not happen, it won't be for want of trying ... - Brya (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pragmatic here. The spirit is one, the human beings can't destroy themselves (mankind). The evil people are another spirit. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have really lost me. - Brya (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Brya ;) I think that you make a mistake when you relativate the truth. The truth is a timeline of facts, it is past, nobody can change it. The evil will is one in a evil spirit, and the good will is one in a merciful spririt. One of the tools of the evil spirit is confusion. Using the same names for different meanings adds confusion: so the enemy of the church is a "church"; conquest war is a "defence"; sex addiction is "love"; stealing and murdering is "fair"; slavery is "liberty" and so on ... Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.urs-o: I agree to some extent with your explanation. Concepts have multiple origins, the first time when they were realized or characterized and each time that they are employed. Sometimes they are borrowed for other uses, sometimes they are imprinted with additional nuances that were not there originally, and those are used to "sneak in" personal interests or views. However I would be careful with the use of the word "spirit", since it is one of those that has been used in so many contexts that has lost its original meaning. I think a more precise way of stating would be: every human is a class of him/herself instantiated at every moment of their existence. Whenever their instances through their acts shift the class they belong to, to what it could be known as "clade of evil spirit", they are speciating themselves away from "mankind" which is the "clade of good spirit", as such mankind cannot be destroyed, only speciated away by instances of evil deeds.
However I think the original question was posed in more pragmatic terms, like, where can we put all fields of studies so we don't have so many pages? If you don't mind (this also goes for Brya), I would like to rename this page to "fields of study", because all sciences are fields of concepts where the mind is brought to work with a high zeal and dedication, no matter if you agree with the methods used while working, or if you personally find the resulting product more or less satisfactory.--Micru (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, I agree, organisation is Evil. … TomT0m (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Micru. "Fields of study" is ok for me, but it will be controversial, although I believe nothing really better will be found. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to find similarities among the most disparate subjects, so that does not mean anything. I would regret seeing this page renamed to Wikidata:Property proposal/Science. I am not sure what "Fields of study" means. - Brya (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about 'Wikidata:Property proposal/Science and mathematics' ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: Fields of study may mean everything and that is what we need here, some flexibility. Remember that you can have as many sections inside the page as you wish, for instance a section for "natural science", another one for "mathematics", another for "computer science", another one for "linguistics" and so on.--Micru (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it would be possible to just dump everything here and then later separate out different fields at need. But I would prefer to do it right from the start. - Brya (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: Please, define what "right" means for you. For me in this particular case "right" is equivalent to "useful", and useful for me is having a smaller set of property proposal pages that are generic enough to provide support to the use case of any user proposing a property. And I must say that this is not the only section that needs change, perhaps it would be easier to pack all the changes in a general proposal, I don't know.--Micru (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not adventurous. Something like Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Formal Sciences, Technology/Applied Sciences (en-wiki) would do. There are a few other ways to arrange things. Well-trodden territory. - Brya (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help[edit]

Hello,
I'm new to these pages. I need help on how to ask for a new property.
I know of course how to create the section and copying the template, but I don't understand all the data to give with.

My proposal is to add CITES identifier in the same way that it exists a UICN identifier Property:P627. It would have the same characteristics: apply to taxon, the identifier is (at this time) a number (integer), and it is related to Q191836.

Here what I can answer, and ??? when I don't know: 

 |status                 = <!--laissez ceci vide-->
 |description            = {{TranslateThis
 | en = identifier for the taxon on Species+ site (CITES)
 | fr = identifiant du taxon sur le site Species+ (CITES)
   }}
 |subject item           = ???
 |infobox parameter      = ??? none at this time I guess
 |datatype               = number (integer exists?)
 |domain                 = taxon (or maybe Q18609040?)
 |allowed values         = (all?)
 |source                 = référence externe, article de liste de Wikipédia, etc.
 |example                = ??? An example of existing external link? http://speciesplus.net/#/taxon_concepts/5541/legal for ''Uroplatus sikorae''. Is it what requested here?
 |formatter URL          = http://speciesplus.net/#/taxon_concepts/$1/legal
 |filter                 = ???
 |robot and gadget jobs  = ???

Motivation: same motivation than for UICN identifier (Property:P627): allow to get external links on CITES website called Species+.

Thanks in advance to help me to complete missing field or to point me to the right documentation (preferably in french if exists, else english is fine). Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hexasoft the example is OK. Leave all the unclear parts empty. --Succu (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. after some try/error I managed to put the request. Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move physical science proposals to "Space", renamed "Space" to "Space & Physical Sciences", rename this to "General & Life Sciences"?[edit]

This page is getting unwieldy, a lot of proposals with long discussions. The "Space" page is very short. I'd like to propose moving the Physics, Chemistry, Geology etc. over to "Space" and renaming it "Space & Physical Sciences", and leave the Biology, Biochemistry, Medicine, Math, Informatics and Generic science here with it named "General & Life Sciences". Or we could split each science off into its own page? With it the current size I was hitting LUA errors today until I archived some of the Done/Not Done proposals. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would help if properties were created, instead of being kept pending for a long time. If this page is divided, I would prefer something like 1) Space, Physics, Chemistry, 2) Earth & Life sciences (Geography, Geology, Mineralogy, Biology, Biochemistry) and 3) Generic, Math, & Informatics. - Brya (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: I've looked at all the proposed properties there now and it looks to me like they all either have only 1 or no supporting comments or there's been discussion with a number of unresolved issues. If you feel some of them are ready please add your support and suggested resolution of anything pending - that would be a big help. I may look at splitting the page in a week or two (your suggestion seems good to me) if things stay as they are. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gender of a scientific name of a genus" has four supporting votes (three of them from users in the know). There is also a lot of comment, but this is on an issue long resolved.
  • "Species Profile and Threats Database Identifier" has three votes in support. No opposing comments. - Brya (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I took care of the first one. The second the database source seems to be down, I'd like to confirm the example etc before creating. In general, if you see a property that you feel has been discussed enough and all the issues are settled it would be helpful to edit the property documentation for the proposal and set the "status" value to "ready" - that highlights it for the rest of us. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating this one. But I think the proposer should never promte his/her proposal as Ready or create a proposed property by him/herself as it was done today by Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will try and keep this "ready" in mind. - Brya (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No links to section titles in edit summaries[edit]

It is really cumbersome not to have a link to section edited in edit summaries. Like this, it may take quite some time to identify the section that was actually edited. Isn't there any possibility to solve this issue? --Leyo 00:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the next step to get the property live[edit]

Specifically this one Wikidata:Property proposal/Defined daily dose so that we can begin using it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Property_proposal/Natural_science&oldid=566599273"