Wikidata:Property proposal/AmphibiaWeb Species ID

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

AmphibiaWeb Species ID[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Under discussion
Description identifier at AmphibiaWeb
Data type External identifier
Domain Amphibia (Q10908)
Example Nasikabatrachus bhupathi (Q37785702)8667
Source no label (Q47263042)
Planned use Taxonbar template
Formatter URL$1
See also iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151)

This is my first proposal on Wikidata, so sorry if (when) I mess up. Amphibiaweb seems like a good resource, comparable to other IDs that populate the taxonbar. I think it would be a nice resource. example: 8667 Nasikabatrachus bhupathi (Q37785702) NessieVL (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Nis Jørgensen
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Prot D
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy --Succu (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks useful to me. I will add the values with my bot. --Succu (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems good. I'm mostly into plants, so not fully able to judge the merit of the source. A few questions - and bear with me, this is my first time too:
  1. Will/could the property also list the home page or search page of the site? The "source" when taken without an identifier, gives an error.
  2. More nerdy: Would it be possible - and within the "normal ways of doing things here" - to formally restrict this to "taxa which are subclasses of Amphibia"? This would probably not be necessary in practice, but it makes explicit exactly which taxa we are intending this to be used for. In fact, since the database contains only species, we could limit to "taxon rank = species" as well. NisJørgensen (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. As to its taxonomy, this site has been around since 2000, or so, and is supported by the University at Berkeley, so this taxonomy seems notable enough to me. As to the deviant nomenclature, this site is not alone in this (birds, butterflies). A special separate property to deal with deviant nomenclature seems called for. The deviant nomenclature is out there, and will remain so, whether we have a property to link to this site, or not. The site has plenty of content so a link would add value. - Brya (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 05:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC) 06:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, due to issues shared within members in Wikispecies, I have to remove my support. Funny though, how the MOL map to the right show Africa, and the link ends up in Congo, while the BerkeleyMpper gives an accurate location map. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 06:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This site has in the past been the subject of several issues on WP, it uses a taxonomy favored by a single person to the exclusion of all others. It often does not follow the currently accepted nomenclature because that disagrees with the views of the owner of the site and his circle of researchers. I could only agree to it if it is not used to change nomenclature where it disagrees with Amphibian Species of the World. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)