Wikidata:Property proposal/taxon described in publication
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
publication in which this scientific name was established[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
| Description | individual publication, in which a unit of biological nomenclature was first formally established, aka protologue, aka publication in which name was made available |
|---|---|
| Represents | first valid description (Q1361864) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | items about works |
| Example | Synalpheus pinkfloydi (Q29367343) → Synalpheus pinkfloydi sp. nov., a new pistol shrimp from the tropical eastern Pacific (Decapoda: Alpheidae) (Q29390847) |
Motivation
There doesn't seem to be any way to link a taxon with the publication in which it was first described. Abyssal (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
Discussion
Oppose I think the inverse would be better - "Taxa first described in this publication", or whatever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment This proposed property may be a good idea. At present, it is possible to add this information (many items already have this information), but in a roundabout way. A separate property will be clearer. The "notes in which individual publication that a unit of biological nomenclature was first formally named" has the intention right, but may be better phrased as "work in which this scientific name was established" or more technically: "protologue of this scientific name".- The "taxon described in publication" is a red herring; usually it is uninteresting when a taxon was described. It is the establishment of a scientific name that Wikidata needs to track. The description of a taxon may well be a year, decade or century before the establishment of a scientific name (many of the taxa named by Linnaeus had been known centuries, or even millennia, before he formally named them). - Brya (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- When I said "description", that's what I meant. Abyssal (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Support. - Brya (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)- Support. - just a 'small comment, if you want to define this more accurately, I get what you mean, the term in taxonomy is circumscription, this is the publication where the name is attached to a population, what you mean by described. Described may be a little ambiguous. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment why is it not enough to add the taxon as main subject (P921) or so in the publication item? − Pintoch (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- There may be any number of publications (dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more) that have a taxon as main subject. There is only one publication in which the scientific name is formally established. - Brya (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, there could be a lot of them, but you should be able to query for the earliest one, no? − Pintoch (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- That may work, part of the time, but there could be five references, while the one in which the name was established is not present. This would give a false result. Also, it is possible to publish on a taxon before it is named (not common, but it happens). This would give a false result, as well. - Brya (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, there could be a lot of them, but you should be able to query for the earliest one, no? − Pintoch (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- There may be any number of publications (dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more) that have a taxon as main subject. There is only one publication in which the scientific name is formally established. - Brya (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch, Abyssal, Faendalimas, Brya, ChristianKl, Pigsonthewing: 
Done: P5326 (P5326). − Pintoch (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)