Wikidata:Property proposal/ARKive ID

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ARKive ID[edit]

Descriptionidentifier for a taxon, in the ARKive database
RepresentsARKive (Q433276)
Data typeString
Template parameteren:Template:ARKive
DomainTaxons
Allowed valuesValid Arkive URL slugs
ExampleHeteropoda davidbowie (Q1315848) → david-bowie-spider/heteropoda-davidbowie
Sourcehttp://www.arkive.org/
Formatter URLhttp://www.arkive.org/$1/
Motivation

ARKive is a non-profit repository of high-quality, high-value media of endangered species. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
Looks not as a stable ID for me. Maybe datatype should be URL. --Succu (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would that be any more stable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An URL can change at any time, a ID shouldn't.  Oppose --Succu (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have many IDs based on URL stems. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Watson & Dallwitz family ID (P1761) is a problematic one. Stable but incomplete, because it did not inculde The families of gymnosperms. --Succu (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be no connection between that and ARKive, whatsoever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed „We have many IDs based on URL stems“ - I gave an example. That's the „connection“. --Succu (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As these pictures are not freely usable, this will be of very limited value to Wikimedia projects? - Brya (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no requirements for us to only include links to pages with free media; or that are specifically of use to Wikimeda projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it helps. And although there are some great pictures, there don't seem to be all that many of hem. - Brya (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the strengths are in quality and rarity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is already possible to use a reference URL to access pages. If there are only a few pages that are of interest, is it worth making a separate property? - Brya (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are far more than "a few" pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The site holds more than a few pages, but many of these deal with taxa where there is sufficient picture material available from other sources. So I am not convinced there are all that many pages "that are of interest" to this project. - Brya (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The site, which is of course still growing, has circa 16,000 species and over 100,000 films & photos, according to ARKive today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So just another picture site provides knowledge about taxa? --Succu (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not "just" that at all. As I said in my proposal (emphasis added), it is a "repository of high-quality, high-value media of endangered species". That media is provided by world-leading film makers, including PBS, the BBC natural History Unit, and National Geographic. I have also pointed out that its "strengths are in quality and rarity". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Andy. --Averater (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I don't see how this could be a bad thing at all, the more thngs like this, the better. Most websites we have IDs for does not have freely licensed content. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Andy. The strength of the argument about both the quality and rarity of the images has resulted in my support. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have visited a sample species (Cinnaber moth) of which I know a bit more than is in general sources. I'm far from impressed by the description, but okay, it is not seriously flawed either. The biology section may be valid for only a part of its range, as two British books form the main source. That also causes a weird GB-centric description of its range. But this source is presented as a source of quality media. I am seriously disappointed here. Photographs are small to medium sized, not exceptional, video's of its eating caterpillar are okay. But this does certainly not exceed the quality of commons:Category:Tyria jacobaeae, while commons has the favour of having photographs of the chrysalis (pupa) and mounted specimens. This sample species does not convince me that all or most pages of ARKive are of interest, while some special ones may be. I think external data available at URL (P1325) suits for the ones where indeed very valuable media are found. Lymantria (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say or intend to say that there do not exist pages on ARKive with interesting media, where commons fails to have them (like the David Bowie spider), but my browsing through ARKive didn't convince me that a general ID for ARKive is something we should have at Wikidata.
    Indeed, one might argue that data as meant by external data available at URL (P1325) does not stretch to visuals. Perhaps a similar property for external media is a better idea. Lymantria (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, Averater, Josve05a, Ambrosia10: ✓ Done, opinions slightly favor creation. User:Succu voiced concern about the possible instability of URLs, but the URLs chosen here seem pretty deliberate, so I don't think this is a great concern. This could have used an URL datatype as well, but this is just a matter of taste, and I used the type as proposed, especially since the hostname is redundant. User:Lymantria voiced concern about the site's quality. But this seems to be a minority opinion, considering the pro voices. Also, this is not a structurally important property, so the impact will be fairly small, if it turns out that this property was a mistake. --Srittau (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/ARKive_ID&oldid=335477809"