Shortcut: WD:PP/SCI

# Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending – properties which have been approved but which are on hold waiting for the appropriate datatype to be made available.
Wikidata:Properties for deletion – proposals for the deletion of properties.

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

 Before proposing a property Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (manual list) and Special:ListProperties. Check if the property is already pending or has been rejected. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically. Select the right datatype for the property. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section. Creating the property Change status=ready on template to attract the attention of a property creator. Creation can be done after 1 week by a property creator or an administrator. See steps when creating properties. Add a request

This page is archived, currently at Archive 49.

To add a request, you should use this form:

=== {{TranslateThis | anchor = en
| en = PROPERTY NAME IN English
<!-- |xx = property names in some other languages -->
}} ===
{{Property proposal
|status                 = <!-- leave this empty -->
|description            = {{TranslateThis
| en = <!-- DESCRIPTION IN ENGLISH -->
<!-- | xx = descriptions in other languages -->
}}
|subject item           = <!-- item corresponding to the concept represented by the property, if applicable; example: item child (Q7569) for property child (P40) -->
|infobox parameter      = <!-- Wikipedia infobox parameters, if any; ex: "population" in [[:en:template:infobox settlement]] -->
|datatype               = <!-- put datatype here (item, string, external-id, media, coordinates, monolingual text, multilingual text, time, URL, number) -->
|domain                 = <!-- types of items that may bear this property -->
|allowed values         = <!-- type of linked items (Q template or text), list or range of allowed values, string pattern... -->
|source                 = <!-- external reference, Wikipedia list article, etc. -->
|example                = <!-- {{Q|1}} → {{Q|2}} -->
|formatter URL          = <!-- for external identifiers, URL pattern where $1 replaces the value --> |filter = <!-- sample: 7 digit number can be validated with edit filter [[Special:AbuseFilter/17]] --> |robot and gadget jobs = <!-- Should or are bots or gadgets doing any task with this? (Checking other properties for consistency, collecting data, etc.) --> }} ;Motivation (Add your motivation for this property here.) ~~~~ ;{{int:Talk}}  For a list of infobox parameters, you might want to use table format: {{List of properties/Header}} {{List of properties/Row|id= |title = audio |type = media |qualifier = |description = Commons sound file |example-subject= Q187 <!-- Il Canto degli Italiani --> |example-object = Inno di Mameli instrumental.ogg }} </table>  For blank forms, see Property proposal and List of properties/Row. ## Physics and astronomy ### Observed separation (en) In progress Description en:Observed separation Number en:Template:Starbox relpos term MISSING GZWDer (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Discussion @Paperoastro: Shouldn't this have units (degrees?) Filceolaire (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Yes! I missed it! Thanks! I'd like to correct it, but I don't know what value put in "datatype" element of property documentation! I correct it. --Paperoastro (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Support Filceolaire (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC) On hold TBD when the right datatype is available.--Micru (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC) @GZWDer, Paperoastro, Filceolaire, Micru: Quantity datatype is available, with degree (Q28390) (or minute of arc (Q209426) second of arc (Q829073 ) etc) as unit here. Can one of you confirm and update the proposal? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC) • Comment The format of the data for the separation of a double star would usually be in seconds of arc specified for a particular date of observation or a future epoch as computed from orbital elements. See WDS SUMMARY CATALOG KEY used in the w:Washington Double Star Catalog for example. For multiple star systems such as w:Epsilon Lyrae the value will change slowly over a millennium. For close binaries this data might prove difficult to keep up to date as it will change over time. For example, w:Sirius#Sirius_B has changed significantly since 1994. See the diagram at How to see Sirius B. There is also the problem of a lack of reliable sources for some star systems. --Mu301 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Note: I just noticed that the IAU Style Manual states that "it is becoming common in astronomy to use the milliarcsecond as the unit." However, I would recommend arcsecond as a more useful unit. --Mu301 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC) ### power consumed Description electrical power consumed by an appliance Number power tools Black and Decker DS321 (Q23775160) → 720 watt (Q25236) any reliable source part of import of NIOSH Power Tools Database (Q17144694) Motivation We have a property for power generated but not consumed. This would be a useful counterpart. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Discussion @James Hare (NIOSH): Done Relaxed domain to tool (Q39546) to allow both (sub)subclasses power tool (Q1327701) and electrical apparatus (Q2425052). Perhaps someone can look into the allowed units. Lymantria (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC) ### sound power Description the rate at which sound energy is emitted, reflected, transmitted or received, per unit time sound power (Q1588477) Number anything that creates sound Black and Decker DS321 (Q23775160) → 97 dB re. 1pW any reliable source part of import of NIOSH Power Tools Database (Q17144694) Motivation James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Discussion • support, this could be useful for many things where the sound output is important (amplifiers, engines, fans, etc, etc). Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 19:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC) • Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC) • Question I think the "dB re. 1pW" needs an item, so it can be used as unit? Lymantria (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC) • Lymantria, it would require an item to be used as a unit. I would create the appropriate item based on whatever the spelled-out equivalent of "dB re. 1pW" is, or perhaps use a qualifier. (Unfortunately this is not my area of expertise.) James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC) @James Hare (NIOSH), Thryduulf, Tobias1984: Done Created decibel relative to 1 picaWatt (Q23977060) for the unit. Make good use of the property! --Lymantria (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC) ### vibration Description level of vibration measured vibration (Q3695508) Number anything for which the amount of vibration can be measured Black and Decker DS321 (Q23775160) → 5.20 metre per second squared (Q1051665) any reliable source part of import of NIOSH Power Tools Database (Q17144694) Motivation James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Discussion @James Hare (NIOSH), Thryduulf: Done - Please feel free to add more possible units if appropriate. Lymantria (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC) ### Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature ID In progress Description identifier of a feature on an astronomical body in the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature External identifier Template:GPN (Q12981608) features on astronomical bodies [1-9][0-9]* Rossby (Q19972237) → 5194 http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/ http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Feature/$1
Motivation

There is a template for these IDs on multiple Wikipedias and there are even more links to the site as references. The data is also public domain (see last question), so if we have a mapping between the two datasets, we could later import data from there too. - Nikki (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Notified participants of Wikiproject Astronomy - Nikki (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support looks like an excellent source - IAU approved names, ID's (Feature ID in record) look stable and well-supported. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

## Biology / Biologie / Biologie

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Taxonomy}}
See also Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending for approved items awaiting the deployment of currently unavailable datatypes

### flower colour

In progress
Description colour of flowers of a plant species, hybrid or cultivar Item flowering plants colours Jasminum officinale (Q515610) → white (Q23444)
Motivation

Of interest to gardeners, florists, botanists and others. We may need to create items for colour ranges or groups, as used by reliable sources (e.g. en.WP describes Hyacinthoides non-scripta (Q164013) as "violet–blue"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Postscript: Prior discussion is at Wikidata:Project chat#Adding property colour (for flowers), and I should have mentioned that I posted this at the request of User:Timboliu, posting as an IP on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I really like it that we are venturing more and more into covering traits now (after things like eye color (P1340) and mushroom cap shape (P784)), but I have not seen a strategic discussion as to whether it would be better to use more generic properties on more specific items or more specific properties on more generic items, though the issue keeps popping up (see also the volcano eruption discussion). With this in mind, I am not sure about the benefit of this proposed property over starting an item for "flower of Jasminum officinale" and using colour properties like color (P462) on it. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notified participants of Wikiproject Taxonomy --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this may get complicated very quickly. For example, this means having to deal with "violet–blue", "violet and blue", and "violet or blue". I suggest first looking at existing databases (here is one, and another, but there should be lots of them). - Brya (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There is WikiProject Identification Keys, but I'm not sure if it actually goes somewhere. --- Jura 05:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment A flower consists of multiple parts. The proposal is refering to which one? Flora of North America says „violet-blue or rarely white or pink“. So we would need at least an additional qualifier. Characters (or traits) are not stable. They are depending from a certain taconomic viewpoint. I agree with Daniel. We need a more general discussion. Watson and Dallwitz are using 581 characters in their The families of flowering plants to describe flowering plants. GrassBase uses 1090 characters for species belonging to Poaceae (Q43238). We are far away from defining our own plant ontology. --Succu (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need properties for petal colour, sepal colour, etc? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I think not. Constructions like
< Flower of whatever > has part (P527) < 107412) >
color (P462) < blue >
number of elements search < 4 >
would be pretty nice in this case ... author  talk page 09:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I guess there would be a discussion if the discussion for standard flower color representation, but it seems it's not that well defined, so I think here there would be absolutely no benefit to try to be specific for no precise reason. Even if the discussion of a specific color standard was at sake, this solution would work anyway with the item datatype for color, assuming there is an identifier property, an item for each color in the standard, with
< color as defined by standard S > subclass of (P279) < color >
< blue whatever > instance of (P31) < color as defined by standard S >
, and
< blue whatever > S standard identifier search < blueZZZZZ >
, used as in my comment above:
< Flower of whatever > has part (P527) <  >
color (P462) < blue whatever >
number of elements search < 4 >
– The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomT0m (talk • contribs).
Comment I think before discussing this property, we should write up a RFC and let outsiders of this knowledge domain weigh in. I have been thinking about this a lot lately and see no clear path to follow. For example TomT0m's suggestion is nice, but it is hard to imagine that we can retrain a whole community to use constructs like that. There is also the problem of adding too much information in the qualifier-rows. Readability and editablity are concerns for Wikidata and we have to be pragmatic about that. - In my opinion the most manageable solution would be to create items for all subparts and dump all the metrics in there. There are some examples of that already on Wikipedia: sugar maple (Q214733) has part Canadian Gold Maple Leaf (Q119457). But that also means creating many items ("bee wing", "shark tooth", ..). --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• why not ? It's not that hard. And similar structure for the whole project greatly limit the amount of examples needed. I don't agree that this structure is hard to grab. author  talk page 15:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment List of mushrooms seems to work mainly with specific properties, open to non-specialists and non-template editors. Maybe a similar sub-field could be identified to build a similar set of properties. --- Jura 11:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
and a subproject specific to a kind of mushrooms would have its own set of incompatible but similar properties ? Please don't take that path /o\ author  talk page 09:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• I think it's a good path to follow collaboratively built samples that can be compatible. This way we are sure we don't just follow idle chat. --- Jura 09:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• @Jura1: So ... why chatting at all ? It's for that reason we have a property proposal process (plus I have a few stalled properties myself, easy to say I'm idle after that) but enough personal iddle chatting. On the list : in which way edibility is specific to mushrooms, to take an example in the list ? having specialized properties for no good reason could create the need for a merge later ... author  talk page 13:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Well, at some point one has to evaluate if all the talk of participants actually leads to some collaboration within the project or not. --- Jura 07:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• @Jura1: Let's be clear : should I consider this a personal attack ? You should be clear on what you consider a "contribution". There is many ways to contribute. Mine is not "maximising the editcount on the main namespace". author  talk page 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Specialized properties don't necessarily need to be merged. They can also be subclassed to more generic properties. - And I still think the structure is hard to grab. If we have many properties that each take one or a few simple statements it is easier to work with than totally generic properties that can hold 1000s of statements each with their own qualifier structure. How would a user read such a list without thinking he is reading a programming language? - But I could also be totally wrong about this assertion. In any case I still think an RfC would be a better idea than dispersing the discussion over so many property proposals. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: Yout RFC argument is also valid for discussion on similar properties spreads on a lot of property discussions. And the outcome of discussions in many specialised properties is likely to become inconsistent decisions. I also don't see an obvious way to subproperty "color of parts" like properties as the kind of part would not be specified by an item. A Rfc why not but ... This would not prevent property proposals anyway and I would not know what to ask. On the contrary the structure I propose can be used in a variety of usecase, and a few examples with the color of the flower of some plant and the color of the superhero costume pant should suggest it applies to anything ... Plus the fact that there will be property proposals for people who does not knows that is an opportunity to tell them that, and those who knows won't ever have to go through this and will just enter their statements smoothly. There is so many advantages for so less understanding problems ... author  talk page 21:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: For example this RfC also proposed a really simple and generic way of handling images on Wikidata: Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Image_properties:_many_properties_or_many_qualifiers. But even that rather simple scheme did not catch on and we still have all the specialized image properties as far as I know. So the topic might require an RfC that we need to make certain changes to the user interface that makes it easier for people to use generic properties. I might have time to draft something next week and I will ping you for your input. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Wikidata actually has the technology for this RFC nor if it's planned to develop it in the long term. --- Jura 07:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1: As a lot of your post, I don't understand what you mean. author  talk page 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I support the flower color proposal as a generic property. The values have to be added as needed. There are many standards, but most data sources use their own vocabulary, which needs to be matched. As to petal color, sepal color etc.: It may be desirable to add this, but it will not replace the unspecified flower color. For practical reasones, unspecific "flower color" is relatively highly used property in botany, without specifying the parts. Thus data available for flower color cannot be easily mapped to (often unavailable) data for the color of specific parts). --G.Hagedorn (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support as above. If different parts have different colours then use applies to part (P518) as a qualifier to identify the part associated with each colour. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: Excuse me but such a model is prone to give me headeaches :) Flowers are parts of a plant. To tell the color of the flower, or the color of any other part, like leaves, we will use either part of (P361) qualified, or ... a property "color of the part", and when the part has several color, we will use applies to part (P518) ? OK, but we could also put statements like
< plant > color (P462) < yellow >
applies to search < flower >
... I really don't like this. We should try to stay consistent in the ontology and limit the number of ways to express the same thing. This means that we should try to adopt the most straightforward rule with as few exceptions as possible, and "in the case of part colors use has part qualified with colors except for the case of flowers where we use "flower color" and when the color has parts we put several "flower color" statements qualified with "applies to" seems to me where we cross a complexity line. author  talk page 08:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support somehow the discussion got side-tracked. --- Jura 06:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The property color (P462) already exists, and can be used together with applies to part (P518) without problem. I see no benefit to creating a new property for flowers. --Yair rand (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes we have, but how would you describe the colorparts of Union Jack (Q3173323) with a generic property and applies to part (P518)? --Succu (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with using color (P462), about the rest I'm not sure. Regardless on whether we use it with qualifiers, or on a data item describing the flower part of that plant, things can get even more complicated than described above - I have two comments. First, consider e.g. butterflies. How do we describe the color of the upperside forewings of the male imago of a butterfly? Forewing is definitely "a part of the object", but in this case we have also other categories: gender male, developmental stage imago, and also upperside (which is perhaps also "a part of the object"). Second, sometimes it's not clear whether the property should apply to the whole object or its part. Is deciduous/evergreen the whole plant, or its foliage? Is phyllotaxis a property of the leaf, or the stem, or the whole plant? Prot D (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Description Code identifying a pollen or spore listed in the Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas managed by the Australian National University String No existing property is known to exist, however a link to the atlas entry could be included somehow within en:template:taxobox pollen (Q79932) and spore (Q177332) string pattern: \d+(\-\d+)*($$\d+(\-\d+)*$$)? Parietaria judaica (Q147991) → 62-14-3 Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas http://apsa.anu.edu.au/sample/$1 Codes could be scraped from the Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas and mix-and-match used for import into Wikidata Motivation The Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas website is designed to enable simple online access to the largest collection of pollen and spores information in the Australasian region. The APSA collection and office is currently located at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia. This database contains numerous fields of information on pollens and spores for flora both endemic and common to Australia. Database fields include description of the pollen and spore shapes, their arrangement and patterns. Addition of this property would signifanctly enhance Wikidata's understanding of pollens and spores, particularly those endemic within Australia (Q408). Dhx1 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Discussion Comment Not sure. A quick browse does not turn up real content? I would rather have something like FloraBase. - Brya (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Comment The unique content is demonstrated better for Acanthus ebracteatus ACANTHACEAE, Pseudowintera traversii WINTERACEAE, Dicliptera brachiata ACANTHACEAE and Bouganvillaea spectabilis NYCTAGINACEAE. I am unaware of this level of detail being provided by other organisations, including FloraBase. A quick survey of samples in this database shows that most entries have useful detail (morphology, images, etc) - Dhx1 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Comment OK, that is better, although I seem to recall having seen more extensive sites covering pollen. - Brya (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Support looks useful to me. --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC) @Dhx1: Done with datatype external identifier. I have taken your regex (with a minor correction), which has single values per species. In some cases there are multiple pages however (with codes ending in a, b, c). Lymantria (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC) ### FAO 2007 genetic ressource ID In progress Description (constructed) ID of a domestic animal species or breed in the FAO Animal Genetic ressources report 2007 breed list ftp://ftp.fao.org/DOCREP/fao/010/a1250e/annexes/Breeds-documented-GlobalDbank-AnimalGeneticResources/List_breeds.pdf http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1250e/a1250e00.htm Breeds Currently Recorded In The Global Databank For Animal Genetic Resources (Q21335650) String animal species or breed < > FAO id search < Horse > ; Wikidata property < Horse:Anglo-Arab > (exemple : 7 chiffres peuvent être validés avec le filtre d'édition Special:AbuseFilter/17) Breeds Currently Recorded In The Global Databank For Animal Genetic Resources (Q21335650) The State Of The World's Animal Genetic Resources For Food And Agriculture (Q21335767) imported in mix'n'match see this catalog Matching with mix'n'match The source file of the import is the pdf of the FAO report. The ids have been constructed by concatenating the first column (animal species name) with the column breed name, as is. There is a csv version of the file : http://pastebin.com/6BF5Aawg used to build the data imported in mix'n'match. The case should be ignored in the strings. The ":" character present in one of the breed name has been substituded with a "-". author talk page Motivation This is necessary to do the mapping to exploit the datas of the report, which are to be used for FAO risk status (P2371) and to store the mix'n'match mapping. author talk page 19:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Discussion ### ARKive ID In progress Description identifier for a taxon, in the ARKive database ARKive (Q433276) String en:Template:ARKive Taxons Valid Arkive URL slugs Heteropoda davidbowie (Q1315848) → david-bowie-spider/heteropoda-davidbowie http://www.arkive.org/ http://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)

Discussion
Looks not as a stable ID for me. Maybe datatype should be URL. --Succu (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
How would that be any more stable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
An URL can change at any time, a ID shouldn't.  Oppose --Succu (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
We have many IDs based on URL stems. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think the strengths are in quality and rarity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
There are far more than "a few" pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
So just another picture site provides knowledge about taxa? --Succu (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
•  Support Per Andy. --Averater (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
•  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. (tJosve05a (c) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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 (P1325) suits for the ones where indeed very valuable media are found. Lymantria (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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 (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)

### Micro-organisms, by environmental specialisation

In progress
Description Environmental factors that influence growth Item taxon (Q16521) AND strain (Q855769) Hypolith (Q4138781) OR Metallotolerant (Q2072873) OR Oligotroph (Q45279) OR Osmophile (Q739374) OR Polyextremophile (Q2985071) OR Xerophile (Q980491) OR capnophile (Q2072863) OR Psammophile (Q2397508) OR Lithophile (Q6648108) OR Methanogen (Q1169785) OR Thermoacidophile (Q2345861) OR Cryozoa (Q4208454) OR Hyperthermophile (Q1784119) OR Psychrophile (Q913343) OR Thermophile (Q834023) OR Piezophile (Q808724) OR halophile (Q946633) OR alkaliphile (Q917110) OR acidophile (Q196188) OR obligate aerobe (Q7075150) OR obligate anaerobe (Q2915932) OR facultative anaerobic organism (Q1091848) OR Microaerophile (Q548321) OR Photoheterotroph (Q2473042) OR Lithoautotroph (Q2075139) OR Chemotroph (Q747472) OR Mesophile (Q669652) Pseudomonas putida KT2440 (Q21079489) → Mesophile (Q669652) (sample: 7 digit number can be validated with edit filter Special:AbuseFilter/17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesophile We are planning this to use in bots that add phenotypic characterisations
Motivation

This property indicates the growth range an organism can thrive in and is mostly used to characterise bacteria. For example mesophiles grow best in the range of 20-45 degrees celsius while acidophilus grow best under acidic conditions.

Discussion
Comment Can we define a more general property to include all micro-organisms characteristics like Acidophile, Alkaliphile, Capnophile, Cryozoa, Endolith, Halophile, Hypolith, Lipophile, Lithoautotroph, Lithophile, Methanogen, Metallotolerant, Oligotroph, Osmophile, Piezophile, Polyextremophile, Psammophile, Psychrophile, Radioresistant, Thermophile / Hyperthermophile, Thermoacidophile, Xerophile ? ~Something like Micro-organisms metabolism. Snipre (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment In combination with the next property that is currently under proposal would something like: micro-organisms characteristics, be more suitable? This could contain acidic properties, oxygen properties and others...? --jjkoehorst (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
jjkoehorst I don't know, I am not an expert. So before creating some properties I recommand you to first try to define all characteristics of micro-organisms and to develop a whole system with one or several properties depending on the needs. We need a global overview before starting properties creation. Snipre (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Snipre I'll contact some microbiologist experts to create a more complete overview at the university I work at and hopefully have an answer in a few days. --jjkoehorst (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
jjkoehorst If you have some contacts this can be a big help. If not you can take some reference books and have look at their classification or description of the micro-organism characteristics. Snipre (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Snipre I have contacted some people and that did not yet came with new insights. Dusted of some old books and have created a 30+ list and still uncovering new terminologies but this creates a relatively clear picture. All topics are more or less related to pH, pressure, temperature, habitat (rocks), sunlight consumers. Thus maybe environmental type or habitat would be a more suitable terminologie for all of these terms? --jjkoehorst (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
jjkoehorst Thanks for your work. I propose you to start a section in the Wikidata: WikiProject Microbiology and to list the different parameters used to describe micro-organisms and to propose there some groups of values which will need a specific property. If you need more input (sorry I can't help you a lot because my knowledge is very deficient in that area) try to contact the project on WP:en (see en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microbiology). Snipre (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Snipre I have been in contact with the other members of the microbiology group. We have identified good properties that can be used for the generic environmental growth factor property. This can then form the basis for the organisms and each item can be further annotated using other ontologies. --jjkoehorst (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment jjkoehorst I had the same issues as Snipre but I see you are already broadening the scope. I could get behind the two you proposed or even environmental growth factor. If I remember my microbiology correctly that's how it was used in Brock Biology of Microorganisms. Emitraka (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment User:Emitraka yes in this view it is wiser to have one property for as you called it environmental growth factor which I must say sounds pretty good instead of a fair amount of separate entities for acidity, oxygen, temperature etc. Within the items that are representing such factors we can describe them further. --jjkoehorst (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Support OK, good enough for me. - Brya (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose because it's a case of classification that can be handled by generic typing properties instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279). For example we have
subclass of (P279) < ornganism >
is a subclass of organism because any instance of thermophile is an organisme. You'll just need a metaclass to mark Thermophile (Q834023) as an environmental condition used to classify organisms, with something like
instance of (P31) < class of organism whose growth is influenced by some environmental condition >
and do the same for all of the values classes. Assuming
< taxon > subclass of (P279) < class of organisms >
,
<  > subclass of (P279) < class of organisms >
and
< class of organisms > instance of (P31) < class of organism influenced by some environmental condition >
.
But I'd support a properties that can describe the kind of envrironments like "temperature inteval" for "extreme temperature environment". author  talk page 13:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Can you argument your opposition ? Just saying that the characteristics of some micro-organisms can be described using instance of (P31) is not enough especially when this is not a strict rule of Wikidata: we are using occupation (P106) to say that an human is a painter or a writer or an engineer, not instance of (P31). Snipre (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Snipre: I think I did. I did not just oppose, I gave an alternative modelling. It's not the first time I argue like this for a lot of reasons : consistency in using regular classification tools, preference for generic properties especially when the property proposal process is imho broken ... I also value parsimony to make the whole model both predictible and flexible. A few principles are better than a lot of endless discussion with not enough votes for the property proposers, especially if we can do without. What's important is to provide solutions anyway. That say in this case I could revise my judgement because we actually would need a better model for envirnometal factor and to describle classes like thermophilia, describe environments and so on. But this would need a more complete consistent proposition to actually have something worth discussing. author  talk page 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing : we also have has quality (P1552) who could be relevant here. Extremophilia, a property of organisms, could be used to describle the extremophile class for example. We are well equiped in generic properties now. Let's discuss how to use it, not do one step in one direction, then one step in the over. author  talk page 11:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: The issue with a generic property statement is that when querying the endpoints of wikidata it is not explicit enough to make clear what a statement indicates. Therefor I proposed this property to more explicitly state what is being described about such organism. I agree also that more in-depth information could be useful such as minimum, maximum, optimum which could indicate the exact range the organism can grow in. --jjkoehorst (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: +1 with jjkoehorst. When we have several statements using instance of (P31) describing different characteristics like the taxon and the metabolism, how can we extract the wanted information ?
Example for organism Sulfolobus (Q1209791). If we use instance of (P31) to describe it as taxon (Q16521) (classification), Heterotroph (Q159344) (metabolism), autotroph (Q131427) (metabolism), acidophile (Q196188) (environmental growth factor) and Thermophile (Q834023) (environmental growth factor), how can we extract the information ? If we want to get only the environmental growth factors we have to perform a second query to define which are the elements describing the environmental growth factors and to combine both queries or to create a very complex query. Snipre (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Snipre: sometimes, as espoused by TomT0m, using "instance of" is better than creating a new property. This is not the case here: using "instance of" here would be overuse, and would be confusing. - Brya (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Mmh
select ?taxon ?factor where { ?factor wdt:P31 "growth factor class" . ?taxon wdt:P279*/wdt:P31 wd:Q16521 . ?taxon wdt:P279* ?factor . }


Try it! (not functional, just a sketch atm) is far from being very complex and is not really confusing if we follow this scheme consistently. author  talk page 06:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Snipre: All of this "IS" classification. We just use different way to classify : by environment they are efficient by (growth factor), or by parenthood/organisms they can reproduce with (taxon) ... author  talk page
Well, I did not say that it could not be made to work, just that it is confusing. It is less confusing to create this proposed property and make it a subproperty of "instance of"/"subclass of". - Brya (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
What's confusing to me is to have a "growth factor", for what I'd expect a type of environment for subject, which actually have classes of organisms as subjects. "hot weather" would make sense as subject in a natural language sentence to me, "this organisms growth factor is hot weather", and not "this organism growth factor is organisms who like hot weather". author  talk page 16:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps "micro-organisms, by environmental specialization" would work better as title? - Brya (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This would fit for the metaclass indeed. author  talk page 16:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, sorry for my slow replies, somehow the notifications are not coming across. I agree "micro-organisms, by environmental specialisation" is a good terminology. Shall I transform it to that title? --jjkoehorst (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was hoping to come up with something that was a little tighter (the items that can be excepted as values, all have a title that is an adjective, uses as a noun), but this does seem to cover it. - Brya (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
As can be seen the item has been updated --jjkoehorst (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not particularly happy with the new property name. The property is not "micro-organisms" by specialisation, but the specialisation itself. Perhaps it is an idea to change into "specialisation of micro-organisms". Lymantria (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but we are now getting close to three thousand properties, and in my view it helps a lot to start with a word that indicates in what ball-park the property belongs, so I quite like starting off with "Micro-organism ...". After all, we are getting by with a title like "taxonomic type", which gets the general idea across, although this actually is quite a misdescription (a type is nomenclatural in nature). - Brya (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, Micro-organism specialisation then? Lymantria (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Nice and compact, sounds good to me. --jjkoehorst (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, although the spelling "specialization" with a "-z-" would be preferable. - Brya (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Lymantria, Brya, TomT0m, Jjkoehorst: These characteristics are not specific to micro-organisms so it is wrong to 1) defined a property only for micro-organisms, and 2) then to consider that halophile is a restricted class of micro-organism. You can have plants which are halophile or acidophile. So first we have to consider that halophile item is not a class of microorganisms but growth feature and as already metioned by Brya this term is an adjective and not a noun. The correct noun for halophile is halophily.
So we have to decide if we want to create two items, one describing class of micro-organisms and the second describing growth characteristics. Example: halophile (micro-organisms class) and halophile (growth characteristic of organisms like plant and micro-organisms). Snipre (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I pointed out that "halophile" is an adjective, used as a noun, so it is a noun (as well as an adjective). Other nouns are "halophily" and "halophyte". - Brya (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Still not convinced this solves the issues I raised. There is still a confusion beetween the type of environment and the type of organisms who like the environment. "very hot environment" versus "individual animal who likes very hot environment" versus "species or strain (Q855769) who likes very hot environment". Also the domain of the property is specified by listing all the allowed values, it would be more flexible to have an item "type of environment", to mark
< very hot environment > instance of (P31) < type of environment >
. The property then could be renamed "growth factor" back without any problem.
A more advanced stuff : we need to link classes like "hyperthermophile -" - a class of organisms to the class of environments "super hot environment" and the like (instances of "type of environment") - which could have some subclasses like hot spring (Q177380) () - just an idea with an item I could find quickly, probably incorrect in practice, maybe "super hot spring" would fit better - from which we could infer in the future framework of WikiProject Reasoning that, say, organisms who likes super hot springs are extremophiles. Then we would have
< hyperthermophile > subclass of (P279) < extremophile >
. One way to link the environment to the class of organisms could (should?) be has quality (P1552) , as any extremophile cell likes very hot environment. Say that we write this as
has quality (P1552) < unknown value Help >
growth factor search < very hot environment >
. This would imply that any thermophile subclass has the same (class of) growth factor. A SPARQL query can easily sketch what can be done by the inference project soon and check the inconsistencies in what we decide to do with this. But this is worth to discuss an expressive framework, and we can do this just by trying to define things consistently ... author  talk page 09:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

### gait

In progress
Description Gait of an animal Gait (Q2370000) Item Items walk (Q2236563), tölt (Q2337163), etc.
Motivation

We should start to document better how living creatures eat, mate, move or come to life. This property would help. Thierry Caro (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment Thierry Caro I assume (as in your example) we would generally expect multiple values for this property for a given taxon? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support. This seems like a useful piece of information to record about animals. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 00:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Thierry Caro, the given allowed values restricting the property to horse gait (Q754659), but your examples contradict this. Could you clarify this please. --Succu (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• horse gait (Q754659) is not mentioned anywhere. Just use the new property everywhere it is relevant with any animal that may fit. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Of course you can use this for horses but it will not be limited to them. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the domain is unclear. I see a subfamily Ursinae (Q7901176) and a trivial name kangaroo (Q5070208) as examples. I am not convinced that those are the most appropriate places to put this property? Wouldn't species be the correct place? Or do we cover the complete taxonomic tree of animals, plus trivial names? If Ursinae (Q7901176) are supposed to move by ambling (Q1118545), does that mean that all included taxa do, or at least one? Are non-taxa allowed values (robots?) - if so, which ones? I am not yet convinced of this. Lymantria (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Description identifier in the Index Hepaticarum, a nomenclatural database External identifier plants (hepatics) number Jungermannia lanceolata (Q21875939) -> 2690 http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/hepatic/detail.php?no_record=$1 Motivation Nomenclatural database, for hepatics (liverworts and hornworts), comparable to IPNI, at a smaller scale. Brya (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Discussion • Support - Makes sense. --Succu (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC) • Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC) @Brya, Succu, Tobias1984: Done --Lymantria (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Thank you! - Brya (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC) ## Biochemistry and molecular biology Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Molecular biology for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Molecular biology}} ### produced by In progress Description Links a biologic/biochemical entity with the entity it has been produced by Item biochemically active items, e.g. cells melanosome (Q1065756) → melanocyte (Q247101) scientific papers, databases, ontologies, stating a certain connection. E.g. ExoCarta ProteinBoxBot will use this for certain types of relations Motivation Although Wikidata has several generic properties, there is no property which allows to link a biological/biochemical product to its producer. For genes, this has been modeled quite well already (encodes (P688) and encoded by (P702)). But for all other things, no property seems to exists which could establish this link. Use cases are anything that a cell/organ/tissue/glad exkretes, be it exosomes, protein complexes (e.g. colesterol particles) milk, urine. This concept might seem broad, but as the biological details are often still lacking, therefore I think this would be a very valuable property for representing biological knowledge . Sebotic (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Discussion Support --Andrew Su (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Support At the molecular biology level, it would be good to have some sort of relationship property for relationships further downstream of the gene and this property is a logical next step following the relationship properties linking genes/gene products. Many biosynthetic entities are products of multiple genes/gene products, and are not sufficiently represented by the currently existing/proposed properties. Eg- would be able to link Dopamine and the Dopamine Biosynthetic process. This property would offer more specificity than Natural Product of taxon (which is great for non-recombinant organisms). Gtsulab (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Support lv_ra (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Comment I'd like add an inverse "produces" property, which would have as a domain "processes" (biological or not). Another interesting related pair would be "process uses"/"used by process" to link a process to its input materials. Question Do we agree on generalizing the domain ? author talk page 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I'm hesitant about creating this rather generic property for this purpose. There is another property already called "product" that seems suited to the general concept. I think my thought here is to create one that more specifically describes the nature of the biology you intend to capture. --I9606 (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) @I9606: Is there actually some practical reason not to use the generic property ? If the process item is a subclass of biological process, or a type of biological entity, then we know the products of this process captures the process nature of the process, is'nt it ? We could more simply expand the scope of the other property. (Although I think we should differentiate processes like Parthenogenesis (Q183236) and biological entities). By the way we should find a qualifier to link the process by which an entity produces something, like < > produce search < > by process search to complete the model. author talk page 08:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) @TomT0m: As the inverse property for 'produced by', 'product (P1056)' can be used. I initiated a discussion on its talk page. But as the inverse property of product (P1056) is manufacturer (P176), manufacturer sounds a bit awkward to me in the context of biology (for cells, tissues, etc.). If it could be renamed to 'producer' or 'producer' could be added as a alias and the scope could be extended, property 'produced by' would not be required. Why I think we need a property like this: For many products, it is still unclear what's the detailed process/source they are produced by and for many circumstances, simply being able to state thing X produced by Y can be very useful. Furthermore, the property biological process (P682) is rather reserved for Gene Ontology defined biological processes (see target items in its property definition). Sebotic (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @I9606, Sebotic: OK, I get the issue : in one case we refer to an "instance" entity, in the other to a class of entities, per Help:Classification. Hence I'm in favor to use generic property anyway as opposed to specific domain properties, but that make clear that in one case the producer is a real world entity, like "Iphone : <produced by entity : Apple>" vs. Iphone : <fruit> : <type of producer : Plant> for example. author talk page 10:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @TomT0m, Sebotic: I support the use of the generic produces/product properties as long as the definitions of the originating properties can be expanded. I also like the optional extension of the qualifier to describe how the production happens. I do think there will be room for more specific properties, but happy to get things started with the more generic version and either utilize the qualifier pattern or sub properties to specialize as needed. --I9606 (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @I9606: I agree, becoming more specific as new knowledge becomes available will be a good and realistic way to go Sebotic (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @I9606, Sebotic, TomT0m:Be wary of combining two concepts because there is an English word that covers both. The same may not be true in other languages.Ford is a manufacturer (P176) of cars. Apples are natural product of taxon (P1582) apple trees. Proteins are encoded by (P702) genes. All of these are similar relationships. I think there is a case for a specialist property for biological processes so I Support but I would like the property to have a name which makes it's specialist nature obvious. Unfortunately I can't think of one. The inverse property could be called 'Biological product of' but 'Biologically produced by' seems awkward, at least in English. Anyone else have any ideas? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC) @Filceolaire: Which two concepts ? In one case, the product is the result of a transformation process, in the other the prouct is the result of the transformation process. It's the same concept and this has little to do with language peculiarities. author talk page 12:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Oppose as is. “melanosome <produced by> melanocyte” doesn't make any sense. Melanosomes are an integral part of melanocytes, the relation should be “exists in” or “part of”. “secreted by” may be a better wording for the property. —Tinm (d) 01:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC) ## Chemistry Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Chemistry}} ### 3DMet ID Description External identifier chemical compound B\d{5} ethanol (Q153) → B01253 http://www.3dmet.dna.affrc.go.jp/ http://www.3dmet.dna.affrc.go.jp/cgi/show_data.php?acc=$1 Yes
Discussion

--GZWDer (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@GZWDer, Snipre, Pigsonthewing:  Done I noticed the proposer is not available (for a while?). The formatter URL suggested in the previous question is in accordance with the enwiki use, so I used it right away. Lymantria (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lymantria: Thanks for the change of the url and the property creation. It is ok like that. Snipre (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

### NSC Number

Description The NSC number is a numeric identifier for substances submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for testing and evaluation. It is a registration number for the Developmental Therapeutics Program (DTP) repository. NSC stands for National Service Center. External identifier chemical compound number N-phosphonacetyl-L-aspartate (Q10851798) → 224131 https://dtp.cancer.gov/databases_tools/bulk_data.htm Yes
Discussion

--GZWDer (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment ChemSpider is not an Open Data database (certainly not CCZero) and I wonder under what conditions this info can be extracted and used. What is the plan here? Are they involved? Egon Willighagen (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Egon Willighagen: Data can be downloaded and matched with CAS numbers or SMILES. Snipre (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Support Snipre (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Support Sebotic (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment @GZWDer: Would this be a link that could give us a formatter URL? Lymantria (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

### Molar volume

Description To be used as a qualifier with phase point (P873) to describe critical volume Number chemical compounds value with unit dimethyl carbonate (Q416254) → phase point (P873) with critical point (Q111059) and 251±51 cm³/mol scientific literature, e.g. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (95th edition) (Q20887890)
Motivation

(Add your motivation for this property here.) ∼Wostr (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

@Wostr, Snipre: Done Happy editing. Lymantria (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

### wavelength

Description To be used as a qualifier with refractive index (P1109) Number chemical compounds value with unit dimethyl carbonate (Q416254) → refractive index (P1109) = 1,3687 with 589 nm scientific literature, e.g. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (95th edition) (Q20887890)
Motivation

(Add your motivation for this property here.) ∼Wostr (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
•  Comment This needs a better description and should be applicable to other cases besides as a qualifier for refractive index - wavelength is a pretty generic physical property for light, sound, or any other mode of propagation. I could imagine wikidata items for specific spectral absorption lines for instance that it would be reasonable to provide a wavelength property for - though I can't find any examples right now... Anyway, I think the property should be recast as more generic, but otherwise I  Support creating it in principle. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Support I agree with User:ArthurPSmith that this will be used more broadly. For example Hydrogen line (Q1406191) wavelength=21.10611405413 cm. --99of9 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Support A more general application of this property should be proposed. Snipre (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wostr, ArthurPSmith, 99of9, Snipre: Done With a general description. Lymantria (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

### has role (in ChEBI Ontology)

In progress
Description the role of a certain compound in the context of the ChEBI (Chemical Entities of Biological Interest) ontology, e.g. anti-neoplastic agent Item chemistry Wikidata items which are part of the ChEBI ontology and therefore carry an ChEBI ontology ID ChEBI ID (P683) Vemurafenib (Q423111) → antineoplastic agent (Q23987513) https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/init.do ProteinBoxBot will add this relation to drug items and other chemical entities.
Motivation

ChEBI is a central ontology for biology and chemistry. In order to represent the ChEBI ontology in Wikidata, a central requirement is the 'has role' property. The as (P794) is not suitable as it can only be used as a qualifier and the role property for actors is also restricted. Furthermore, biological process (P682), the one closes to the proposed property is not precise enough and also restricted to the Gene Ontology. subclass of (P279) does definitely not apply here (because it maps to 'is a') and instance of (P31) does not seem to fit as well for this purpose.

In principle, a 'has role' property could be used as a generalized property (for natural sciences), although redundancies with Gene Ontology need to be avoided. In addition, could we just use this property proposal to decide on all required properties to represent ChEBI in Wikidata at once [1]? Some of those already exist anyway. This would enormously speed up the process of getting complete ChEBI into Wikidata. thx! Sebotic (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
•  Oppose @Sebotic: I don't think that the goal of WD is to integrate ChEBI. Doing that is the begin of a nightmare to be up-to-date with ChEBI modifications. WD is more a general ontology (top domain ontology) that a domain ontology. Snipre (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a detail: I am not opposed to a similar property but this property should be independent from ChEBI ontology. But again there is no sense to copy ChEBI: better map the WD items with ChEBI elements and people can then easily extracted ChEBI relations from WD items. Snipre (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Snipre: The reason that I want to import ChEBI is simply to give chemical compounds in Wikidata a structure. Currently, there is essentially no classification and structure in the chemical compound data in Wikidata. Moreover, it is not realistic to expect that such a structure will be created by the community nor can it be expected that a community-created structure will be of higher quality than ChEBI, which has been developed and maintained for many years now (since 2004). Nevertheless, I think for the usefulness of the chemical compound data in Wikidata, such a structure is a definite requirement. I agree that Wikidata itself is a high-level ontology, but it is not a help here but also not a hindrance. Importing and keeping Wikidata in sync with ChEBI is not a great challenge. I have done it before by importing the complete Gene Ontology structure. I have the code in place which keeps Gene Ontology in sync with Wikidata [2]. For ChEBI, this would work exactly the same way. ChEBI and Gene Ontology are approximately the same size (48,000 and 44,000 terms, respectively).
I would start with the backbone, which basically consists of 'is a' (subclass of (P279) in Wikidata) and 'has role', the rest of ChEBI can be imported if the properties are ready.
One very important point to make is that the ChEBI structure in Wikidata should serve as a backbone for the community to build on. So the import would essentially allow the community to expand ChEBI in the Wikidata space while still keeping compatibility with ChEBI (discrimination of contributions based on references and/or qualifiers). Sebotic (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Snipre - also, unless I'm misunderstanding, the meaning of this seems clearly along the lines of what instance of (P31) is intended for and is used for in other areas. Can you argue more clearly why it "does not seem to fit as well" here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
ArthurPSmith Here instance of is a bad way to describe use of some items: we can have dozen of use/role for some items and this becomes difficult after to extract the correct values among 10 or 15 possibilities. A general property use/role is needed but not only for chemicals. Snipre (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• @Snipre:@ArthurPSmith: I agree with Snipre that this property should be created as a generalized 'has role' property. I can adapt and maybe move the proposal. The instance of (P31) is mapped to W3C rdf:type and therefore represents an instance of a class, not its role in a certain context. Sebotic (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
'has role' maps to http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000087 in the Relations Ontology and is being used by several other ontologies as well (see list at the bottom of the page the purl resolves to) Sebotic (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

## Medicine / Medizin / Médecine

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Medicine}}

### onset

In progress
Description The age group in which disease manifestations appear age of onset (Q4691924) Item not yet available physiological condition (Q7189713) congenital onset (Q21953121), neonatal onset (Q21953125), childhood onset (Q21955201), juvenile onset (Q21955202), adult onset (Q21955204); gout (Q133087) -> adult onset (Q21955204); neonatal jaundice (Q1755487) -> neonatal onset (Q21953125) Subclasses of "onset" in Human Phenotype Ontology (http://compbio.charite.de/hpoweb/showterm?id=HP:0003674)
Motivation

This property is intended to model the age group in which disease manifestations appear. It precisely aligns with the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO), a widely-used clinical ontology for which much open data exists. Emw (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
•  Comment I agree that having a property for age of onset (Q4691924) is useful. However, I think more values should be allowed: all those listed under the given URL. Another issue is whether to limit this property to humans or to include other species, which may get complex easily. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Whether age groups or numerical values are allowed, the name of the property should be the less ambiguous "age of onset". Swpb (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

### incidence

In progress
Description probability of occurrence of a given condition in a population within a specified period of time incidence (Q217690) Number not yet available diseases, events 0 - 100000 cases per unit of person-time tuberculosis (Q12204) → 1000 number per 100000 person-years (Q23893296); qualifier point in time (P585) 2013; location (P276) Earth (Q2) (sample: 7 digit number can be validated with edit filter Special:AbuseFilter/17) en:Incidence Should or are bots or gadgets doing any task with this? (Checking other properties for consistency, collecting data, etc.)
Motivation

There is already a fairly similar property prevalence (P1193) which is about proportion of population with a specified disease at a given timepoint. Incidence is about occurrence of disease or other events in a population. It is a very useful metric in medicine and it describes the importance of a disease. Prevalence is not an illustrative metric for diseases with very different durations; instead, incidence correctly describes the rate of becoming sick. Also, it has wide applicability and large use in epidemiology in both descriptive and predictive modelling. Jtuom (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

### disease burden

In progress
Description impact of a health problem as measured by financial cost, mortality, morbidity, or other indicators. It is often quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), both of which quantify healthy years gained or lost due to disease and different health conditions. disease burden (Q5282120) Number not yet used but would be important with diseases and health risk factors evaluation of importance of diseases and public health policies -INF - INF with e.g. units DALY (Q23893342), DALY (Q23893342) or QALY (Q23893355) tuberculosis (Q12204) → 15 900 000 DALY (Q23893342); qualifier point in time (P585) 2013 location (P276) Earth (Q2) good external sources exist, e.g. http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/ not yet available
Motivation

There is already a related property prevalence (P1193) and a suggested property incidence. With disease burden, these three properties together are able to give a rich quantitative understanding of the public health impacts of different diseases, outcomes, and risk factors. Prevalence and incidence are good metrics for disease-specific descriptions, but they do not work when aggregating mild but prevalent and severe but rare diseases; the numbers of cases are incompatible. With burden of disease and one of its units, such as en:DALYs, the public health importance of diseases can be meaningfully compared. Also, disease burden has wide applicability and large use in public health policy and predictive modelling for decision support. Such issues are important in Wikidata as well for e.g. comparisons of countries. Jtuom (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

SupportMatleenat (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine Two property suggestions: incidence and disease burden.

I updated the example to show a unit of measurement for disease burden. --Jtuom (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

## Mineralogy

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mineralogy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mineralogy}}

## Informatics

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Informatics}}

### L2 Cache

In progress
Description Amount of L2 Cache of the CPU in Bytes (or maybe bits?) Number CPU Core2 Quad Q6600 (Q15218754): 8MB Intel website, for Intel processors Robots can gather info on the Intel website and fill the property with it. MisterSanderson (talk)
Discussion

I want to add information to the CPU items, but there aren't enough properties to that. MisterSanderson (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Support I created an item for the processor. Hopefully we will get both bit and byte in the numeric datatype. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think this is best left until we have the number type, and know how it will function, because we may only need one generic property for "size in bytes" which can be used as a qualifier. So, for example, we may be able to claim that a CPU has part L2 cache with qualifiers, quantity = 2, size = 8MB. Let's not create 100s of properties for speeds and dimensions. Danrok (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

On hold To be re-opened when the right datatype is available.--Micru (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson, Tobias1984, Danrok, Micru: So quantity datatype is now available, and we have megabyte (Q79735) and related items so in principle we can move ahead. However Danrok 's comments should be taken into account. We don't actually have any property (that I can find) that would give a generic "size" suitable for showing the number of megabytes, pixels etc - I think that property should be created first and may be all we need. Also I couldn't find an item corresponding to L2-cache: the only related one I think is cache (Q165596) (which has aliases include L2 and L3). Please look into some of these and let's have a more organized proposal for computing properties here! Is "has part" generally a suitable way to document the components of a CPU, camera, phone, etc, rather than having separate properties for each piece? That makes sense to me... ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a maximum capacity (P1083) property and this probably should become a generic "capacity" property, to be used to indicate how many things the item can hold, such as people, cars, bytes, etc. Danrok (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Well maximum capacity (P1083) seems very specific to counting people, has constraints that would need to be modified, it's been used by a Russian project etc (see discussion page). I think a new more generic property is warranted. Maybe let's add it under Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic @Danrok: can you take care of making the proposal? Or maybe I will try later this week if it's not done yet. And @MisterSanderson: - what we are specifically proposing here is as an alternative to your property, to use the combination has part (P527) with an item for "L2 cache" and a qualifier specifying "capacity" (size) in MB or GB or whatever appropriate unit. This seems reasonable to me and I think it's preferable as a rule to use more generic properties where they make sense. What are your feelings on the matter? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I could not understand what you said about not existing a generic size property.--MisterSanderson (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@MisterSanderson: I think he was thinking like
< proc > has part (P527) < L2 cache >
size search < whatever Mb >
. author  talk page 13:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

## Geology

### Mercalli intensity scale

Description measurement of the intensity of an earthquake Mercalli intensity scale (Q170350) String "intensity" in en:Template:Infobox earthquake and "mercalli" in es:Plantilla:Ficha de terremoto earthquakes (V?I{1,3}|I?[VX]|XI{1,2}) 2016 Kaohsiung earthquake (Q22662663) → VII Possibly, if there is a source (e.g. from USGS) that has this information in a convenient format for a bot.
Motivation

Mercalli scale intensity is an important and commonly used attribute for earthquakes, and is often one of the things in the infobox on Wikipedia articles about earthquakes.

I am somewhat bothered by the fact that mercalli is typically given and displayed as a roman numeral, but at least if this is used in an infobox w/ lua, special formatting could at least be done there. (and in the way we have formatter urls for identifiers, maybe there could be something for formatting this type of thing on Wikidata). Aude (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
• @Aude: Datatype should be "item", with an item created for each of the twelve possible values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Tubezlob (🙋) 17:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support @Aude: To allow roman numerals, datatype should be changed into string, and Regex should be something like (V?I{1,3}|I?[VX]|XI{1,2}) I changed that in the proposal above, but feel free to revert that. Lymantria (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support as datatype "item". --Pasleim (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aude: Done and created twelve items with intensity scale numbers as the possible values. Lymantria (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

## Geography

### Maximum sustained winds / Maximaler kontinuierlicher Wind

In progress
Description Maximum sustained wind evaluated by agency. Number See en:Template:Infobox hurricane: 1-min winds, 5-min-winds, 10-min-winds Term — hurricanes/tropical cyclones, winter storms, European windstorms (think Freie Universität Berlin), etc. Numeric — two-digit, three-digit Hurricane Sandy (Q264), Hurricane Irene (Q187621), Hurricane Floyd (Q2110774), Hurricane Gloria (Q3045816) HURDAT Manual to avoid human error.
There are differences in the usage of the number of minutes in different countries; this would result in misleading information, might need to be disambiguated. Also, consider adding a "classification" property — i.e. "Category 1," "super typhoon," "severe tropical storm," etc.? Hurricanefan24 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Support --Goldzahn (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong data type. Should be deferred until QuantityValue implemented. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Appears that's been fixed.

### snow accumulation

In progress
Description snow accumulation or snow height, qualified with location and point in time. (a maximum value could be pulled out via lua, in the infobox wants to show just the maximum) Number "hauteur neige" in fr:Infobox Événement météorologique or "maximum snow" in en:Template:Infobox storm storms, such as January 2016 United States winter storm (Q22222608) and February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard (Q2071241) amount, usually measured and reported in cm or inches 38.3 inches (97,3 cm, qualifiers: location - location (P276): Elkridge (Q755962), point in time (P585): February 6, 2010 (for February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard (Q2071241)) external reference (e.g. http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/nfdscc2.html) possibly bots could help, but think this is more an editorial decision regarding what places to include (since we probably wouldn't want to include them all, just a selection like the major airports)
Motivation

I am struggling to add information to January 2016 United States winter storm (Q22222608). I think snow accumulation is expected information in items such as this, and is one of the things represented in the infobox on Wikipedia articles. I would be open to instead just use height, but then would want a qualifier property to indicate height of what? (not sure P1629 is appropriate for that, or not sure what/if anything we have) Aude (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
• A more general purpose "precipitation" might be better, qualified as to the type (e.g. snow, rain, freezing rain, etc.). --Izno (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Would be ok with generalizing this to "precipitation", with a qualifier. Aude (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Required qualifier instance of (P31)? Also, snow accumulation/height isn't exactly precipitation e.g. some precipitated snow may melt prior to "sticking" to the ground, which would affect the height. Is that fine? --Izno (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Or maybe just "depth" would be better, though that doesn't apply to all precipitation types but might apply to other things? Aude (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Support either a specific or generic property with a qualifier. I don't think instance of (P31) is the correct qualifier, material used (P186) is the best I can find from existing properties with but I think better would be a new generic qualifier "of" or "type" (or maybe "of type"). Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 14:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• We have generic "of" lying around somewhere used exclusively as a qualifier; the notion of "type" is equivalent to "instance of" (it correlates to "rdf:type", among other things). So this also is the one you're looking for. No opinion on either.
• Ah, I didn't see generic of but I did see generic as (P794). --Izno (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• If we have a generic "of" (I can't find it though) then I'd prefer that as the qualifier. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 20:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Thryduulf: Here it is: of (P642) Swpb (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Hmm, the English label "within the scope of" suggests a narrower/different focus that what would work here. As an English sentence "35mm precipitation, within the scope of: snow" doesn't make sense (nor really does "35mm precipitation, instance of: snow") unlike "35mm precipitation, of: snow" or "35mm precipitation, type: snow". Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 21:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• This is actually why I like "as": "Precipitation: 75cm as snow, 4mm as sleet".

And I'm still confused why you think instance of != type when they are in fact the same. --Izno (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• No, "type" and "instance of" are not even remotely the same. Type: "The type of precipitation was snow." Instance: "It snowed three snows last night." Swpb (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Erm, yes they are; in fact, "instance of" is equivalently "rdf:type". Accumulated snow happens to be a subclass of an accumulation, but in the case/context of a particular storm, that makes it an instance.

But that's besides the point. Both "as" and "of" work better, and are meant to be qualifiers anyway; P31 has a questionable use as a qualifier. --Izno (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment for items about specific occurrences ("events"), a generic property probably works better. If we want to use it for locations that could get either snow or other precipitations, a specific property seems better, otherwise each measure would need to specify if it's snow or not. When selecting, one would need to filter for snow each time.
--- Jura 09:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose This case can be represented by either using height (Q208826) of (P642) snow (Q7561), or creating a more generic property "precipitation". --Jtuom (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

## Maths

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mathematics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mathematics}}

### Kimberling number

In progress
Description Identifier for triangle centers used in the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers, founded by Clark Kimberling Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers (Q1340177) External identifier triangle center (Q778806) X$$[1-9]\d*$$ De Longchamps point (Q1807042) → X(20) http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETC.html
Motivation

The Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers is a comprehensive encyclopedia giving a lot of useful information on triangle centers. Used as a source in several wikipedia's. Lymantria (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

### MathWorld identifier

Description Identifier for entries in MathWorld, online mathematics reference work. MathWorld (Q719112) External identifier en:Template:MathWorld: |id= - Template:Mathworld (Q6272939) [A-Z][A-Za-z]* http://mathworld.wolfram.com http://mathworld.wolfram.com/\$1.html
Motivation

MathWorld is on of the widest used online basic mathematical reference works. It has a template (Template:Mathworld (Q6272939)), that is used in many wikipedias. Lymantria (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

## All sciences

### probability density function

In progress
Description Mathematical density function for a probability distribution probability density function (Q207522) Mathematical expression "pdf" in en:template:Probability distribution probability distribution (Q200726) LaTeX normal distribution (Q133871) → "\frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\, e^{-\frac{(x - \mu)^2}{2 \sigma^2}}" This could potentially be filled from the templated in the English Wikipedia.
Motivation

To celebrate the arrival of the new data type "Mathematical expression" Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Comment We should convert TeX string (P1993) and keep this property for all mathematical formula. Snipre (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment As noted for another suggestion, the "Mathematical expression" will render the LaTeX. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Note there is not "one" formula for a probability distribution (Q200726). There are mean, variance, PDF, CDF. Another approach could be to use a generic 'formula' property and then use qualifiers.
Support also "TeX string" probably should be rendered as a string given its name - and for example should not be converted to MathML as is apparently planned for some renderings of "Mathematical expression". Distinct properties for mathematical expressions on an item are definitely appropriate as this proposal (and others) makes clear. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Support that would be cool. --18:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)~---
Question @Fnielsen, Snipre, ArthurPSmith: Is this property still needed? I see that normal distribution (Q133871) uses defining formula (P2534).--Micru (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Good question. :-) The formula shown is for the PDF, while every distribution has multiple formula, CDF, mean, variance, other moments, characteristic function, so what should we do about that? Have a whole series of properties? Or use qualifiers? If the equation is to be used in an infobox I suppose the qualifier approach is not well suited? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
(To avoid confusion regarding "The formula shown is for the PDF": I have now added a second notation for a normal distribution (Q133871)) — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fnielsen, Micru: I'm not sure this is really needed now. What might be needed are formulas for other properties of a distribution - for example if we wanted to create a "mean of probability distribution" property, or "variance", etc. But otherwise I think "defining formula" would be exactly what you would expect to see as a description of the distribution itself for, for example, logistic distribution (Q589603), binomial distribution (Q185547), Poisson distribution (Q205692) etc. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fnielsen: I would have expected this
defining formula (P2534) < \frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\, e^{-\frac{(x - \mu)^2}{2 \sigma^2}} >
If we use defining formula (P2534) that way, this proposal (and the next one) is unnecessary? However, this seems to stretch the original intention of defining formula (P2534), where "a theorem or a law" was to be represented. But of course, in broader sense any formula could be seen as representing a theorem or a law. Lymantria (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

### volume formula

In progress
Description formula to calculate the volume of an object Mathematical expression geometrical object LaTeX strings cube (Q812880) => "V = a^3" or "a^3",sphere (Q12507) => "V = \frac{4}{3} \pi \cdot r^3", solid of revolution (Q725939) => "V = \pi \cdot \int_{a}^{b} (f(x))^2 \mathrm{d}x"
Motivation

Adding this property with data type "Mathematical Expression" allows us to save language indepentant information, used by several articles.

This kind of property should also emphasize, why we should have several properties additionally to the TeX String one to add a meaning to the formatted TeX String.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2003:45:4f71:7301:d515:92cf:a661:d7f8 (talk • contribs) at 11 feb 2016 05:03 (UTC).

Discussion

### knowledge crystal result

In progress
Description quantitative result of a knowledge crystal knowledge crystal result (Q23893445) Number not yet available items that are instance of (P31) knowledge crystal (Q23691297) numeric values -INF to INF Disease burden of air pollution (Q23680551) → 3297000 number of cases (Q23696805); qualifiers: of (P642) death (Q4), point in time (P585): 2010, location (P276) Earth (Q2) external websites producing knowledge crystals, e.g. Opasnet (Q7095608) not yet available
Motivation

Knowledge crystals (knowledge crystal (Q23691297)) are versatile information objects that answer specific research questions. The answer to this question often has a written description, but typically the core of an answer is a quantitative result. Results of different knowledge crystals are measured in different units, and only a fraction of knowledge crystals have a result that can directly be represented using an existing property. In the example, the suggested property "knowledge crystal result" could be replaced by number of cases (P1603). But if the disease burden had been measured using quality-adjusted life year (Q614165) with unit QALY (Q23893355), there would not be a good property available.

The point is that the relations between the question and the answer of a knowledge crystal may be very different from each other and such that there are no existing properties describing them. Therefore, it makes sense to create one property that is generic enough to describe the relation of any question and answer of a knowledge crystal, rather than creating a new property whenever a new kind of relationship emerges.

Of course, specificity is needed in describing the relation of a question and an answer. This is done in several ways:

• A specific unit is used to describe the result. It is easier to create units (which are items) than properties. E.g. QALY (Q23893355) and DALY (Q23893342) are specific units that could be used together with our example disease burden.
• The result may vary e.g. between subgroups, as by observation year or country in the example. This variation and subgroup-specificity is handled by using qualifiers. Again, it is easier to use or create qualifying items than create properties.
• The question must be known to be able to understand the result. This can be achieved by locating the question into the description of the item of a particular knowledge crystal. A benefit of this is that the question can be described in several languages.

In this way, all essential information to interpret the question and answer of a knowledge crystal can be achieved by creating a single property as suggested here: knowledge crystal restult. Jtuom (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
•  Comment This appears to be exclusively associated with Opasnet and a Finnish health institute, and I don't see a large number of actual results that this would be applied to (at least not yet). Jtuom do you have an estimate of how many times this property could be used based on current data? We do have a generic property in the form of "numeric value" that could possibly be expanded in domain if the lack of suitable properties was really a problem, but I think it would be better to add these statements using existing properties and propose any missing properties as discovered in that process first. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)