Wikidata:Property proposal/Calflora ID

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Calflora ID[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

   Done: Calflora ID (P3420) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionitem number for taxa in Calflora (Q18812401)
RepresentsCalflora (Q18812401)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainterm / taxon
Allowed valuesstring pattern
Allowed units[0-9]
ExampleArctomecon californica (Q638217)9285
Formatter URLhttp://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=$1
Motivation

Database of wild California plants, a good new ID for taxons. (tJosve05a (c) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
 Oppose About: A third class website about the local flora of California (Q99). --Succu (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have similar "local" IDs, such as Flora of China ID (P1747). (tJosve05a (c) 19:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsens: California (Q99) is only a U.S. state (Q35657) and well covered by USDA ID or FNA ID. --Succu (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's bolluck (yes, using same level of disussion here). Simply because another dattabase covers the same information, should not mean we should not include both IDs. Wikipedia might cover "all" encyclopedia subjects, but we still have Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417). And IMDb ID (P345) might cover all movies, that should not cause us not to have Swedish Film Database film ID (P2334). Simply beacuse other databases exists for the same topic, does not limit us to just include one. The more IDs the merrier. And California is a 'state', and therefore just as much a country as Scotland. (tJosve05a (c) 20:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If have no idea what's the meaning of „bolluck“ is. Your example teachs me Arctomecon californica, a dicot, is a perennial herb that is not native to California and refers to USDA and FNA. Why should Wikidata include this kind of website? --Succu (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which species are and aren't native in Califorina seems like useful information to me. In a case like http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-taxon=Polemonium+occidentale it also provides the bloom period which is information that's not currently contained in the Wikidata item.  Support ChristianKl (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you expect that a local flora provides information about taxa that „aren't native“? The information about Anthesis (Q593803) of Polemonium occidentale (Q7209292) has no source. The whole entry seems to be based on ITIS. Why should we link to such websites? The ugliest part of this kind of website is when users start to create misinformed items based on them. --Succu (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My local flora includes non-native species. Why would it not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not read my objections and comment on this. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did; my post above specifically addressed your "So you expect that a local flora provides information about taxa that „aren't native“? ". I addressed your other, equally facile, objections in the comment where I expressed my support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a serious government project. Do you have a reason to believe that it contains misinformation? ChristianKl (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hab ich das irgendwo behauptet? Ich sehe nur nirgends belegte Informationen, die über das was wir schon wissen hinaus gehen. --Succu (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Google tranlsation of Succu's comment: Did I asserted somewhere? All I see is nowhere documented information that go beyond what we already know beyond.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. The local distribution maps are of particular interest, and unlikely to be found in such detail on national or international websites. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is marginal, but at least it has its own pictures. What is really hurtful is to see this compared to the Flora of China, which is a state-of-the-art multi volume work composed by specialists, offering information in depth. A hundred sites like this combined could not begin to compare to the Flora of China. - Brya (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. This site has a lot of useful information about the distribution of plants in California. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Maps look more granular. Useful considering how varied the microenvironment in California can be. Gtsulab (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol note.svg Info A better alternative is the Jepson eFlora (= „the foremost authority on the native and naturalized vascular plants of California”). See e.g. Arctomecon merriamii (mentions Arctomecon californica). --Succu (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • By all means create a proposal for that. The two are not mutually-exclusive, nor are we limited to one property per topic (or geographic) area. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should limit ourself to high quality content, not web noise. If I find the time to analyze this site in more detail, I will make one. --Succu (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not "web noise": as noted above, " The local distribution maps are of particular interest, and unlikely to be found in such detail on national or international websites". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citing yourself with a green rendered template gives no new insight other than that of your old comment. --Succu (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed not; hence it is only necessary to do so when you make false insinuations which are refuted by pre-existing comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Josve05a, Pigsonthewing, Succu, Gtsulab: ✓ Done ChristianKl (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]