Shortcut: WD:PP/SCI

Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Event Creative work Term Space
Place Sports Sister projects
Economics Transportation Natural science Property metadata

See also[edit]


This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. 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.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See steps when creating properties.


On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2018/02.


Physics and astronomy[edit]

collecting area[edit]

   Under discussion
Description The collecting area of a telescope (or any other instrument that has an area that is used to gather something)
Data type Quantity
Template parameter Area in en:Template:Infobox telescope
Domain Telescopes, but also any other instrument with a collecting area
Allowed units The same as area (P2046)
Example Hale telescope (Q2471197) → 31,000 square inch
Motivation

So far the area (P2046) parameter has been used to represent the collecting area of a telescope on enwp through en:Template:Infobox telescope. However, @Alphos has pointed out that this is not what that property is intended for - it should be used to describe the area of the telescope overall, not just the collecting area. Hence this proposal for a new property that is more specific. The existing data for areas of telescopes needs to be migrated to this new property if it is created. (Note that there is also the complication of antenna effective area (Q571946), which depends both on frequency and surface accuracy, but that's probably a problem for the future.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Obviously full support. We can't have an area of a piece (however major) of item share a property with the area of the item itself. Alphos (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why not? We do that frequently for other properties, for example demographic subdivisions. However, if your meaning is that "collecting area" is an area in a different sense or meaning from "geographic area" then perhaps a new property is warranted. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • can't we attach the qualifier applies to part (P518) for this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: Have you checked how the same property gets modelled in other ontologies? Is there relevant prior art? ChristianKl (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: As far as I'm aware there is *no* prior art here - there are no other databases of telescopes that we can compare to here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose use area (P2046) with qualifier applies to part (P518). Qualifiers were exactly introduced for such cases. --Pasleim (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ChristianKl (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, use area (P2046) with qualifier applies to part (P518). − Pintoch (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

fully subdivised into[edit]

   Under discussion
Description that location or object is fully subdivised into the parts given in qualifier
Represents partition (Q518554)
Data type Item
Domain places, physical objects
Allowed values places, physical objects
Example

Amended on 1/1/2018 This proposal needs to create one additional qualifier « into ». don’t have a better idea. of (P642) View with SQID could be used as a general purpose qualifier but linguistically this does not fit. And does seem like a details. Maybe the property could be renamed into something like « fully consists of » or something like that, but maybe this would not fit in other languages as these small arbitrary words in expression tends to be quite arbitrary. Maybe the whole idea of general purpose qualifier is broken because of this simple fact, and we should create property/qualifiers pair each time to let translators freedom of translation. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Motivation 
The administrative division process is a known and studied problem (see for example this document in french - https://publications.polymtl.ca/832/1/2012_PierreDelaPoixdeFreminville.pdf ). Also administrative territorial entities can be quite complicated and there could be several kind of divisions that fully covers a division - electoral divisions can be different from other administrative divisions of the same territory. There may also be non administrative relevant divisions of a territory. This proposal can solve this by regrouping those into several statements. Under the same rationale that lead to disjoint union search and disjoint union of (P2738) View with SQID this allows to state that the list of divisions is complete. If that information is spread into multiple « has part » statement it’s more difficult to state that we know nothing has been forgotten (Maybe with
subject > has parts of the class (P2670) View with SQID < canton >
quantity (P1114) View with SQID < 7 >
…) author  TomT0m / talk page 15:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


Discussion
  • Why isn't this under Generic property proposals? - Brya (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the first usecase should currently be handled with contains administrative territorial entity (P150).
    --- Jura 13:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Jura1: This does not seem to state that the list is full, information in Wikidata may only be partial. author  TomT0m / talk page 21:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm aware of that. Thus I don't think it's a reason to oppose this proposal. BTW, what qualifier would "into" (in the above sample) be?
    --- Jura 22:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @TomT0m: 1. How exactly will you represent different groupings (electoral vs administrative)? Give a specific example. 2. "Fully" is a slippery thing. If a new subregion is created, or I delete one of the statements, does that make all the "fully" statements untrue? 3. Please be precise in your descriptions and examples! You use the P' template with non-existing props, Q' template with some strings where the result just doesn't parse reasonably, etc. Second time today I see a sloppy proposal from you, and this is just not like you, Tom! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Vladimir Alexiev: « How exactly will you represent different groupings (electoral vs administrative)? » with different statements if relevant, one for the electoral division, one for the administrative. The subdivisions listed as qualifier of a single statement are not supposed to overlap. Plus we know the type of the subdivisions by their instance of statements, it’s enough. the P' template is designed to handle non existing props. This one is proposed.
    «  does that make all the "fully" statements untrue » : No, it just adds an end date if a new administrative subdivision is added. Just as any statement in Wikidata. A new statement with the full list of divisions has to be created.
    the P' template is designed to handle non existing props. This one is proposed.author  TomT0m / talk page 21:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Vladimir Alexiev and Jura. changed to Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralPintoch (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Pintoch: Replied to them, as they did not oppose you may want to change your vote. author  TomT0m / talk page 21:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    As qualifiers, that sounds more promising to me - but what would be the main value of the statement? Would you create a specific item "values in qualifiers"? That looks weird to me. Maybe that could be an item that represents the type of the parts? And also this would require creating the "into" property - creating properties with such short names is a bit dangerous because they could be used in a not-so-controlled way in many other places… So changing to "neutral" for now, because I'm not entirely convinced. − Pintoch (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    It already exists. list values as qualifiers (Q23766486), used for union of (P2737) View with SQID and disjoint union of (P2738) View with SQID author  TomT0m / talk page 21:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be great to have a way to state that a specific number of subparts form together the whole. I'm however not sure this is the right way to go about this. It might make more sense to have a qualifier that can be used to qualify contains administrative territorial entity (P150) in a way that indicates that all of the parts together form the whole.
Maybe something like:
ChristianKl () 21:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I don’t get it, "A" seem to be Nantes (Q12191) actually. However the number of parts could be stated with for example. author  TomT0m / talk page 21:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thinking about it, It’s also possible tu use some class items as the main value of the statement. Assuming that « Canton de Nantes » is the class of all Nantes’ canton, it may be possible to state
< Nantes > fully partioned by search < Canton de Nantes >
. The number of Nantes’ canton can then be stated by
< Canton de Nantes > quantity (P1114) View with SQID < 7 >
. Then we could check Wikidata is complete by counting the instances :
select (count(?instances) as ?count) ?class ?number_of_instances {
  # this query computes all the classes Wikidata seems to know all the instances 
  ?instances wdt:P31/wdt:P279* ?class .
  ?class wdt:P1114 ?number_of_instances .
} group by ?class ?number_of_instances having (?number_of_instances = ?count)
Try it! Interesting stuff is that there is already a few results of known complete class ! Also @Pintoch: as he seem not to like the idea of having a dummy main statement value (a note on this, I initially proposed to use unknown value Help_in the proposal for « (disjoint) union of » — that would be perfectly meaningful here as this would mean « there is an entity like « Canton de Nantes » but nobody bothered to create it (or the creator of the statement did not found it » — someone suggested that using an item would be more informative for the lambda user as it allows to have a textual description). So we would have two ways of using the property. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
A follow up of this discussion : Wikidata:Project_chat#Instance_completeness (permalink : https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=624744034#Instance_completeness ) author  TomT0m / talk page 12:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting proposal. I think the inherent limitation at the moment is that qualifiers can only be given for statements, not for properties, as ideally, this would be captured by a generic qualifier on the respective property. Generic approach, because many other things than contains administrative territorial entity (P150) can be complete, for instance child (P40), spouse (P26), languages spoken, written or signed (P1412), ... But no matter how this is modelled, maintenance is a challenge, when data changes, ideally, the user should be prompted to confirm that completeness still holds. Ls1g (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Some concerns: (1) what happens if it is not really full; (2) data duplication -- e.g., data values for fully_divised_into = data values for contains administrative territorial entity; (3) it is not generic, as also @Ls1g said -- e.g., what if we want to say "complete for all children". Fadirra (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support at least Peninsular Malaysia (Q1973345) would need it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Biology[edit]

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


segmental innervation[edit]

   Under discussion
Description property to reference segmental innervation
Represents segmental innervation (Q7446273)
Data type Item
Template parameter en:template:Infobox_muscle NerveRoot parameter
Domain animal organ (Q24060765)
Allowed values subclasses of spinal nerve (Q937076)
Example biceps brachii (Q201363)C5 spinal nerve (Q5065354), C6 spinal nerve (Q5065355), C7 spinal nerve (Q5065356)
Planned use for muscle and organs description of their segment innervation
Robot and gadget jobs yes
Motivation

Muscle description Usualy include innervation of such muscle. As currently in wikidata, there is such a property to describe nerve branch to a muscle "innervated by" (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P3189) Another important description is the segmental innervation. This is usually present in anatomical and neurological books and bear an important value in term of medical diagnostic. This could also relate to specific organs, or portions of skin. We could plan a list of possible values, but they might differ from species. For human they would include :

  • 12 cranial nerves : CN1,CN2..CN12
  • 8 cervical roots : C0,C1,C2..C7 ( yes it must start at 0 here)
  • 12 thoracic roots : T1,T2...T12
  • 5 lumbar roots : L1,L2,L3,L4,L5
  • 5 sacral roots : S1,S2,S3,S4,S5
  • 4 coccygean roots: Co1,Co2,Co3,Co4

We could also plan for a main segmental/ root . For example for biceps brachii in human some sources consider that the main root could be C5 Jppialasse (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Gstupp
Geoide
Sintakso
علاء
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Adert
CFCF
Jtuom
Lucas559
Drchriswilliams
Okkn
CAPTAIN RAJU
LeadSongDog
Ozzie10aaaa
Sami Mlouhi
Marsupium
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
ShelleyAdams
Fractaler
Seppi333
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

Discussion

Symbol support vote.svg Support Strongly support this proposal. Segmental innervation is immensely useful in medicine and is present in every textbook. As stated, it helps with tracing back neurological problems to nerve roots set and allows the clinician to discover other findings such as defects in sensory modalities in the skin or other muscles. Adding a possibility to define the main root would also be a big plus. Tinss (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Cervical root doesn't seem to be a concept that's either represented in Uberon or the FMA. I would prefer to have values for the item that do have FMA ID's and it makes sense to create the relevant items before adopting the proposal.
When it comes to one of the values being the main root, we can add that information via object has role (P3831) once we create this property.
Can you give your argument for why segmental innervation is the best way to name this property? Why do we prefer it over "nerve root"?
We still need a better description for people who don't know what the term means. ChristianKl❫ 12:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @David thank you for your answer and comments, here few hints : Jppialasse (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
regarding FMA and the concept of roots and spinal nerves, FMA indeed uses "spinal nerve", which will then gives "Peripheral segment of nth cervical spinal nerve" and then anterior and posterior roots of cervical nerves. Using Spinal nerve will be enough for the purpose, as what is mostly pertinent is the neurological level associated to the muscle.
for the main root, it would be perfect to use information via object has role (P3831) once we create this property
for "segmental innervation" this is neither my favorite choice, but I tried to relate to the only existing Q I could find. THe infobox parameter seems to me also a better choice : "Nerve Root"
Wikitext can unfortunately be a bit confusing. I wrote the above text and not David.
Using the concept for the spinal nerves means that the cervical nerves are numbered from C1 to C8 and not from C0 to C7 (both according to en.Wiki usage and according to FMA).
I can understand the desire to seek for existing items within Wikidata. It's however preferable to find a name that works well with how the same thing is named outside of Wikimedia. I found http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/FMA?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/FMA_63492 which suggests that FMA speaks of segmental innervation. https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/segmental+innervation also uses this term. To me that suggests the term is okay, but it might also be valuable to check a few up-to-date text books and see what term they use. ChristianKl❫ 19:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@ : sorry indeed you are right, wrote this late, C1 to C8 is right, not C0 to C7. Whether we choose "segmental innervation" or "Nerve Root" the other name might be added to "also know as". They are not per se identical, as one might want to make the difference between anterior and posterior roots, but again the purpose here is more the neurological segment level Jppialasse (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote above I think it's good when the target items do have FMA IDs. Given that they are not subclasses of nerve roots, I moving to the opinion that the original label of the proposal "segmental innervation" is better than "nerve root". Are there other viable candidate for the name?
When the label is setteled we still need a good description that tells people who don't know what the term "segmental innervation" means what it's about. ChristianKl❫ 10:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
what about something inspired from there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_nerve#Clinical_significance : "The muscles that one particular spinal nerve or cranial nerve supplies are that nerve's myotome, and the dermatomes are the areas of sensory innervation on the skin for each spinal and cranial nerve. Lesions of one or more nerve roots result in typical patterns of neurologic defects (muscle weakness, abnormal sensation, changes in reflexes) that allow localization of the responsible lesion." Jppialasse (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


ChristianKl (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Was a bee (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC) Okkn (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Fractaler (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Anatomy ChristianKl❫ 12:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @ChristianKl thank you for your answer and comments, in term of medical usage a nerve branch could have plenty of fibers from different roots, and innervate different muscles or organs. Most of them will receive indeed elements from the different roots, but not always. Another use I could see there would be to fill information against reflexes, where again direct link to spinal nerve segment is important. Another illustration of the concept of mixing of spinal nerve across could be seen at least with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus. Have a look to radial nerve and then to all muscle innervated by and their associated spinal nerves Jppialasse (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Okkn: Backtracing like this gives you too many different nerves. The biceps gets innervated by the Musculocutaneus nerve which in turn gets innervated by the brachial plexus and further down the chain you have C5–Th1 (plus a bit C4 and Th2) which is more than just C5-C7. ChristianKl❫ 19:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jppialasse, Tinss, Okkn: Can one of you provide a good description for this property? That seems to be what's still missing for it to be created. ChristianKl❫ 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    How about something like "specific level(s) of spinal cord responsible for the function of this muscle or organ"? --Okkn (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

AmphibiaWeb Species ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description identifier of a species, at AmphibiaWeb
Data type External identifier
Domain Amphibia (Q10908)
Allowed values [1-9]\d*
Example Nasikabatrachus bhupathi (Q37785702)8667
Source https://amphibiaweb.org/
External links Use in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned use Taxonbar template
Formatter URL https://amphibiaweb.org/species/$1
See also iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151)
Motivation

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

Abbe98
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Nis Jørgensen
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy --Succu (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks useful to me. I will add the values with my bot. --Succu (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems good. I'm mostly into plants, so not fully able to judge the merit of the source. A few questions - and bear with me, this is my first time too:
    1. Will/could the property also list the home page or search page of the site? The "source" when taken without an identifier, gives an error.
    2. More nerdy: Would it be possible - and within the "normal ways of doing things here" - to formally restrict this to "taxa which are subclasses of Amphibia"? This would probably not be necessary in practice, but it makes explicit exactly which taxa we are intending this to be used for. In fact, since the database contains only species, we could limit to "taxon rank = species" as well. NisJørgensen (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. As to its taxonomy, this site has been around since 2000, or so, and is supported by the University at Berkeley, so this taxonomy seems notable enough to me. As to the deviant nomenclature, this site is not alone in this (birds, butterflies). A special separate property to deal with deviant nomenclature seems called for. The deviant nomenclature is out there, and will remain so, whether we have a property to link to this site, or not. The site has plenty of content so a link would add value. - Brya (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 05:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC) 06:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • As I said I can agree to this and I agree it does have considerable good information, just be wary of where it deviates and more thorough sites would be better to be followed in these cases. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, due to issues shared within members in Wikispecies, I have to remove my support. Funny though, how the MOL map to the right show Africa, and the link ends up in Congo, while the BerkeleyMpper gives an accurate location map. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 06:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Please be specific; "issues shared within members in Wikispecies" is not a valid reason to block a property here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This site has in the past been the subject of several issues on WP, it uses a taxonomy favored by a single person to the exclusion of all others. It often does not follow the currently accepted nomenclature because that disagrees with the views of the owner of the site and his circle of researchers. I could only agree to it if it is not used to change nomenclature where it disagrees with Amphibian Species of the World. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

helps[edit]

Vincnet41 Tubezlob Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Botany

   Under discussion
Description companion plant that helps other plants
Represents Companion planting (Q1935508)
Data type Item
Domain taxon (Q16521)
Example Allium (Q49391)Solanaceae (Q134172)
Source List of companion plants

Motivation[edit]

This property would be useful for creating diagrams of companion plants relations in order to design a garden. The current List of companion plants is not very readable to have a global vision of all plants. Other properties like attracts, repeals, distracts or avoid could be added too. See WikiProject_Botany. Vincnet41 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • The title "helps" is extremely general. Even "companion plant that helps other plants" is more general than what apparently is intended. - Brya (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The current wording is too general. How is this relationship conceptualized outside of Wikimedia? ChristianKl❫ 20:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I was thinking of "is a companion plant of", but it does not precise the direction as "helps" / "helped by" does. If these words are too general, we could uses "benefits from" / "is beneficial for" like on this page : List_of_beneficial_weeds and Beneficial_insects. I think we should use words that make no distinction between plants and animals, because we could extend to beneficial insects for example. To be more specific, maybe we should have information about the type of benefits (nitrogen fixer, ground cover...), but these kind of information are intrinsic to the plant and does not depend of other plants relations. Vincnet41 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think that we should have both this property and its reverse? If not, maybe it would be better to keep "helped by", because most of the time, gardeners wants to know what plants to use to improve the growth of their current plants. You can see here the other reverse/opposite properties that could be added. Vincnet41 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Plants of the World online ID[edit]

   Ready Create
Description identifier of a (vascular) plant name in the Plants of the World online database
Represents Plants of the World Online (Q47542613)
Data type External identifier
Domain plant (Q756)
Example
External links Use in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned use upon request
Formatter URL http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/$1
Robot and gadget jobs yes
See also for a different use of IPNI numbers, see IPNI plant ID (P961), which uses a different subset

Motivation

Upon request. Should be useful. Can't hurt: respected database, with substantial content. - Brya (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Abbe98
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Nis Jørgensen
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy

Discussion

Three times now, Brya has reverted my closing this as "not done". Such behaviour is highly disruptive. There is not a snowball-in-hell's chance of us creating a duplicate property proposed as holding the same values as another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Twice now Andy Mabbett has refused to answer a basic question, making it a near certainty that he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. - Brya (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Which question? (Your indenting was again broken, BTW). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That question (although since that time there was a shift from an assumption to an assertion). I can't say I find Andy Mabbett's attitude of "ignorant and proud of it" amusing. - Brya (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That question was answered in the subsequent edit; as you know, since you replied it it. So stop posting falsehoods. And knock of the ad hominem attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett can play ignorant all he wants, but he did present an assumption ("If ..."), and when asked to substantiate this, he shifted this to an assertion, apparently based on the presumption that if one does not know what one is talking about, and being called out on that, it is a good idea to start shouting. - Brya (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
There was, as stated, no assumption. What you wrote in the original proposal (regarding $1 in the formatter URL) was "$1 is an IPNI number (P961)". And you, too, need to stop your abusive ad hominem attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
As Andy Mabbett note I wrote "is an IPNI number" and Andy Mabbett wrote down the assumption "If these values are those in IPNI plant ID (P961), ", and later went even further, shifting to an assertion. Andy Mabbett apparently really likes acting the part of being an ignorant loudmouthed bully. - Brya (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Mabbett finally got it „same source as last edit also says "By 2020, POWO will be the most comprehensive single information resource covering all plants")“. --Succu (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The external identifier used by POWO is an URN, so I changed the formatter URL accordingly. --Succu (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this is not an independent ID, at least for the examples provided so far. The original request regarding Malva acerifolia (Q47519412) has IPNI plant id "561509-1", and when you use the plantsoftheworld 3rd party formatter URL for this you get this link which seems correct. As to the original requestors intent @Peter coxhead: seemed to be looking more for a supporting reference than an ID, so that direct URL to plantsoftheworldonline.org can be used as is via reference URL (P854), there's no need for a new property for this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • So how do you know that all URNs used by POWO as an identifier can substituted that way, ArthurPSmith? --Succu (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't, however all examples presented so far do. If you find a counterexample I would be happy to change my opinion here. Also note that the URN format explicitly includes "ipni.org", which suggests they are relying on IPNI. If there are URN's on the site that use a different format that would be another story. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't know why do you think inductive reasoning (2 out of more than 800,000) applies here. As far as I know there exists no documentation of POWO. This URN is an LSID (Q6459954). LSIDs includes a authority part. In this case ipni.org. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
          • because we have nothing better to go on. However, I did browse the POWO site looking for counterexamples, and among hundreds I looked at, every single one was using IPNI. If you actually do find a counterexample please present it here. Also, IPNI is referred to throughout the POWO site as a reference source. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
            • „because we have nothing better to go on“?! Really? Maybe creating a separate property for more than 800,000 entries, if we are not sure? Why not using the URN as POWO does? --Succu (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
      • As anybody who has basic familiarity with taxonomy should know, IPNI is a nomenclatural database. It contain entries for all kinds of things ("names" sensu lato) with each entry having a number that can be used as an external identifier in P961. PotWo is a taxonomic database, presenting "correct names" according to a particular taxonomic point of view: it uses a subset of these IPNI numbers, which, conversely, means that many IPNI numbers do not have a PotWo entry. Wikidata also holds a subset of these IPNI numbers in statements using P961. Given the size of IPNI, a detailed breakdown of numbers will not be easy to come by, but clearly many of the entries in PotWo can not be reached through Wikidata statements, and many IPNI numbers in Wikidata statements will not lead to PotWo entries. - Brya (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
        • "it uses a subset of these IPNI numbers" QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Indeed, QED. These two subsets are different and will remain different. - Brya (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment My reason for raising the issue in the first place was so that a POWO link was picked up by en:Template:Taxonbar, e.g. at en:Malva acerifolia. Although the identifiers are the same, the information is most certainly not; so far in the last week, for example, I've had four authorities in IPNI corrected to match POWO, which does seem to be more up-to-date. Precisely how the link to POWO from the Wikidata entry and hence Taxonbar is implemented in Wikidata isn't my concern; I leave that to you guys. It does seem that, at present, only IPNI identifiers are used, but as Brya notes there are many IPNI entries that don't appear in POWO, and as POWO expands, they will encounter taxa that don't have names in IPNI. Maybe they will ensure that IPNI is updated. I've tried e-mailing POWO at the address given, but haven't had a reply to date. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The POWO database contains valuable information. The identifier to POWO is not the same as the identifier to IPNI as they point to different information, even though the identifier uses the same ID. The important item is the data, not the ID ((hence WikiData, not WikiID). Jts1882 (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for confirming that these are "the same ID". However, you appear to have posted support here after being canvassed on en.Wikipedia [1]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Not at all. As you have read my comment you know I said I had found this page and added support. @Peter coxhead:'s original comment neither requested support or stated where to add it. I found it myself before I saw his subsequent comment.
      • Further, you have not addressed my point. An identifier for POWO would provide two pieces of information, the fact that the POWO contains a corresponding data item (the important thing) and an ID to access it. The IPNI property says nothing about whether a POWO entry exists. Jts1882 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
        • As I understand the issue now, the key piece of information is the first one: the Wikidata item needs to indicate that a POWO entry exists. Then so long as the identifiers remain the same (which we don't know they will, but they may) the link to the database can be picked up using the IPNI property value. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
          • @Peter coxhead: "the Wikidata item needs to indicate that a POWO entry exists" That is easily achievable like this (albeit the reference URL is superfluous to your requirement), using existing properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
            • @Pigsonthewing: so why did Succu immediately remove your addition? How will that help us move forward? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
              • @Peter coxhead: You'd have to ask them that - since they failed to leave an edit summary, a talk page comment or a comment here - but I suspect for the reasons described at en:WP:POINT. Absent such an explanation, I've restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
                • I simply removed your wrong experimental reference. As you should know it's not possible to add a comment while removing a refenence or statement. --Succu (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Assuming that Veronica chamaedrys (Q157343) is the model solution, w:Veronica chamaedrys's {{w:Taxonbar}} fails to show any POTWO information. The desired behavior is to display both an IPNI and a POTWO entry/link. Since the current "solution" is inadequate, the POTWO property needs to be created. Tom.Reding (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Further support, since all IPNI IDs do not map perfectly to available POTWO IDs, and that POTWO has the potential to fork/expand beyond IPNI. — Tom.Reding (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The statement "the current solution is inadequate" is false. You appear to have been mislead by this edit on en.Wikipedia. It is clear from that discussion and the one on this project's "chat" that the desired behaviour is to display both an IPNI and a POTWO entry/link in an en.Wikipedia template. It currently fails to do so, because that template has not yet had the necessary (but perefectly feasible) code added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Isn't the point of Wikidata to avoid wiki-specific work-arounds? How is editing en-wiki's template a better solution than adding this parameter? — Tom.Reding (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
        • You have that wrong; the point of Wikidata is to hold and make available data. Even if the proposed property were created, the template would have to be updated to make use of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Adding this new property to {{en:Module:Taxonbar/conf}} is a trivial task one can do without any Lua coding experience. Would a similarly trivial change be needed to display POTWO on w:Veronica chamaedrys with the current configuration? — Tom.Reding (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Probably not; but - especially as plenty of en.Wikipedia editors have the necessary skills - that's immaterial to the discussion at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
            1. Actually it is material if it makes maintenance of this highly used template unnecessarily complicated.
            2. People looking for this sub-property would be required to know a priori to look under IPNI, which is unreasonable.
            3. POTWO is a separate effort from IPNI, and doesn't belong as a reference, as all other property references are related real-world entities or aliases.
            4. There's the possibility of POTWO forking from/expanding beyond IPNI, which, by itself, is enough to warrant its own property. 'nuff said. — Tom.Reding (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
            • It doesn't make maintenance of the template unnecessarily complex. Who would be looking for this property? We have other cases where third parties use an existing identifier, and have third-party formatter URL (P3303) specifically for such cases, where it is used without fuss. PotW uses, as as been clearly demonstrated, IPNI identifiers, Not one PotW page without an IPNI identifier has been shown. We don't create properties based on a hypothetical "possibility". Come back when - if that happens. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support some way of getting POWO incorporated into Wikidata. It is a valuable resource. I don't really care how it is done. I must say, I don't understand the issue causing objections here when Wikidata has Flora of China ID (P1747) and Flora of North America taxon ID (P1727). As far as I can see, FoC and FNA use identical IDs when a taxon is in both sources. They're really eFlora IDs, with FNA representing one subset of the eFlora IDs and FoC representing another subset. And eFlora is a single domain. At least POWO is a different domain from IPNI. Plantdrew (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The nature of those shared IDs was not declared when the second property was proposed. We should probably combine them. A suitable formatter URL would seem to be http://www.efloras.org/browse.aspx?name_str=$1 (example: [2]) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      • No, it was noted at the time that the FNA property was proposed that eFlora IDs were reused in different floras (Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/29#Flora_of_North_America). FoC property was created subsequently, reusing the ID. Again, I don't really care how POWO gets implemented here. Due to the subset problem, regardless of whether you go with a formatter URL or a property, each taxon item will need to have a statement added. Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes; FNA was the first of these property proposed (and it was not noted until late in that proposal); I referred to the second, FoC, property proposal. But as you say, there are other - better - ways of doing this for PotW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Plantdrew's comment 'And eFlora is a single domain. At least POWO is a different domain from IPNI.' supports my point #TR3 above. All of the references I see under Veronica chamaedrys (Q157343)'s Identifiers are related real-world entities of their parent, and all of them share a name or expand the acronym of their parent. Putting POTWO under 'IPNI plant ID' breaks this logic and structure. — Tom.Reding (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: discussion spilled over to Wikidata:Project chat#Plants of the World Online database; please take the points there into account, not least the absence of the requested examples. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The discussion started over there. It was shown that
      1. The proposed formatter URL can result in HTTP 404 (Q208219) because the IPNI id is not part of POWO
      2. The domain of POWO is much broader than that of IPNI (fungi and algae are not the subject of IPNI)
    • --Succu (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

General purpose of wikidata properties[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The above discussion suggests to me that there are differing understandings of the purpose of wikidata properties. In general for structured databases it's preferable to avoid redundancy in the storage of information - we generally discourage creation of inverse properties, for example, as the information only needs to be entered once to be available for anybody to use (via SPARQL query at least). And similarly we discourage creation of properties that record the same piece of data as an existing property. The reason to avoid redundancy is that it multiplies the required effort in maintenance of data - the same data needs to be entered 2 or more times, instead of just once - and it can also lead to inconsistencies that are difficult to resolve, when for example the two different properties are maintained by separate people or groups with different standards or approaches. However, we do also want wikidata information to be useful to people accessing it via standard systems of one sort or another (particularly wikipedia templates with LUA etc). So maybe this is a case for an exception along those lines. But I think the case needs to be much more clearly made on why a separate property is needed here. Why is the third party formatter URL approach not sufficient? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Third party formatter URL doesn't really solve "same data needs to be entered 2 or more times". There are IPNI IDs that don't have records in POWO, so something has to be entered for each item with a POWO record to indicate that the POWO record exists. And like Tom.Reding says, I would find it counterintuitive to have to look for POWO under IPNI when every other botanical database has it's own section on Wikidata. Plantdrew (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: so your argument is that this property would be not so much to provide the ID, but to provide an indication that POWO has a page for it. Do we have an example of an IPNI that is not covered in POWO? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This is of no relevance (see my remark below). But: 128853-1 and urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:128853-1. --Succu (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I gave a solution for this use-case, requiring no new property, and usable today, above (timestamp: 17:49, 3 February). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
If these values are those in IPNI plant ID (P961). No, Mr. Mabbett --Succu (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Random, out of context quotes, relating to a different proposal to the one at hand. Not helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Then make it helpful Mr. Mabbett. What's you point now. --Succu (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr. Mabbett for your housekeeping --Succu (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The domain of POWO and IPNI and the range of possible values are different. If an POWO-URN is based on an IPNI id it link's not to the „same piece of data“. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, although the identifiers stored in a wikidata item can be made the same, they wouldn't necessarily be so because IPNI has more than one identifier for the same name. Thus Lotus rubriflorus H.Sharsm. is at both 144018-2 and 503872-1. However, WOFO only has an entry at 144018-2. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Biochemistry and molecular biology[edit]

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

recognition sequence / cutting site of restriction enzyme / isoschizomer / neoschizomer / isocaudomer / REBASE Enzyme Number[edit]

recognition sequence[edit]

   Under discussion
Description DNA sequence recognized by a restriction enzyme, DNA binding domain, etc.
Represents Recognition sequence (Q7302658)
Data type String
Domain restriction enzyme (Q219715), DNA-binding domain (Q13479514), etc.
Allowed values /^(5'-[ACGTRMWSYKHBDVN]+-3'|3'-[ACGTRMWSYKHBDVN]+-5')$/
Example EcoRI (Q417754) → "5'-GAATTC-3'"
Source w:List_of_restriction_enzyme_cutting_sites

cutting site of restriction enzyme[edit]

   Under discussion
Description DNA cutting site of restriction enzyme
Data type String
Domain restriction enzyme (Q219715)
Allowed values /^5'-[ACGTRMWSYKHBDVN↓↑]+-3'$/
Example EcoRI (Q417754) → "5'-G↓AATT↑C-3'"
Source w:List_of_restriction_enzyme_cutting_sites

isoschizomer[edit]

   Under discussion
Description isoschizomers of the restriction restriction enzyme, which have the same recognition sequence and the cutting site.
Represents Isoschizomer (Q644180)
Data type Item
Domain restriction enzyme (Q219715)
Allowed values restriction enzyme (Q219715)
Example MspI→HpaII, HpaII→MspI (both enzymes recognize and cut "5'-C↓CGG-3'").
Source w:List_of_restriction_enzyme_cutting_sites

neoschizomer[edit]

   Under discussion
Description neoschizomers of the restriction restriction enzyme, which have the same recognition sequence but a different cutting site.
Represents Neoschizomer (Q16945915)
Data type Item
Domain restriction enzyme (Q219715)
Allowed values restriction enzyme (Q219715)
Example SmaI (Q6130415) → XmaI, XmaI → SmaI (Q6130415) (both recognize "5'-CCCGGG-3'", but the cutting site of SmaI is "5'-CCC↓GGG-3'" and that of XmaI is "5'-C↓CCGGG-3'").

isocaudomer[edit]

   Under discussion
Description isocaudomer of the restriction restriction enzyme, which have the different recognition sequence but produces the same termini
Represents Isocaudomer (Q17000139)
Data type Item
Domain restriction enzyme (Q219715)
Allowed values restriction enzyme (Q219715)
Example MboI → BamHI, BamHI → MboI (cutting site of MboI is "5'-N↓GATCN-3'" and that of BamHI is "5'-G↓GATCC-3'", so both enzymes produce the same cohesive end "GATC".)

REBASE Enzyme Number[edit]

   Under discussion
Description ID in REBASE (Restriction Enzyme Database)
Represents Rebase (Q7301611)
Data type External identifier
Domain restriction enzyme (Q219715)
Allowed values /^[1-9]\d+$/
Example EcoRI (Q417754) → 993
Formatter URL http://rebase.neb.com/cgi-bin/reb_get.pl?enzname=$1
Motivation

There are many restriction enzymes, which have specific recognition sequences and cutting sites (see w:List_of_restriction_enzyme_cutting_sites), and some enzymes have isoschizomers, neoschizomers or isocaudomer. To introduce these data into Wikidata, new properties are needed.

Expression method for DNA sequence and cutting site is open to some debate. --Okkn (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Su
Marc Robinson-Rechavi
Pierre Lindenbaum
Michael Kuhn
Boghog
Emw
Chandres
Dan Bolser
Pradyumna
Chinmay
Timo Willemsen
Salvatore Loguercio
Tobias1984
Daniel Mietchen
Optimale
Mcnabber091
Ben Moore
Alex Bateman
Klortho
Hypothalamus
Vojtěch Dostál
Gtsulab
Andra Waagmeester
Sebotic
Mvolz
Toniher
Elvira Mitraka
David Bikard
Dan Lawson
Francesco Sirocco
Konrad U. Förstner (talk)
Chris Mungall (talk)
Kristina Hettne
Hardwigg
i9606
Putmantime
Tinm
Karima Rafes
Finn Årup Nielsen
Jasper Koehorst
Till Sauerwein
Crowegian
Nothingserious
Okkn
AlexanderPico
Amos Bairoch
Gstupp
DePiep
Was a bee
SarahKeating
Muhammad Elhossary
Ptolusque
Netha
Damian Szklarczyk
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Molecular biology

Discussion

Pictogram voting question.svg Question That looks good. Only question I have: How many know restriction enzymes are there right now, some 500? And what would be the data source for them? Sebotic (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sebotic: Thank you for making a comment. I don't know how many known restriction enzymes there are, but w:List_of_restriction_enzyme_cutting_sites contains more than 1200 enzymes. First of all, I'll introduce data from this list. And the restriction enzyme database REBASE is available. --Okkn (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Okkn, Sebotic: insufficient support and no activity for over 3 months - so marked as  Not done - if anybody wants to revive this, the discussion here was minimal so this could be reopened. Or you could start a new proposal and link to this one. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support while the discussion did stall, I see no opposition to the proposal. Before the properties get created it would however be useful to review prior art, so that we don't invent our own way of expressing those relationships. ChristianKl (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I added REBASE Enzyme Number property. --Okkn (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Gstupp
Geoide
Sintakso
علاء
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Adert
CFCF
Jtuom
Lucas559
Drchriswilliams
Okkn
CAPTAIN RAJU
LeadSongDog
Ozzie10aaaa
Sami Mlouhi
Marsupium
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
ShelleyAdams
Fractaler
Seppi333
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine ChristianKl () 02:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Su
Marc Robinson-Rechavi
Pierre Lindenbaum
Michael Kuhn
Boghog
Emw
Chandres
Dan Bolser
Pradyumna
Chinmay
Timo Willemsen
Salvatore Loguercio
Tobias1984
Daniel Mietchen
Optimale
Mcnabber091
Ben Moore
Alex Bateman
Klortho
Hypothalamus
Vojtěch Dostál
Gtsulab
Andra Waagmeester
Sebotic
Mvolz
Toniher
Elvira Mitraka
David Bikard
Dan Lawson
Francesco Sirocco
Konrad U. Förstner (talk)
Chris Mungall (talk)
Kristina Hettne
Hardwigg
i9606
Putmantime
Tinm
Karima Rafes
Finn Årup Nielsen
Jasper Koehorst
Till Sauerwein
Crowegian
Nothingserious
Okkn
AlexanderPico
Amos Bairoch
Gstupp
DePiep
Was a bee
SarahKeating
Muhammad Elhossary
Ptolusque
Netha
Damian Szklarczyk
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Molecular biology ChristianKl () 18:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @Okkn: do you still wish to create these properties? If so, it would be useful if you could invite some fellow biologists to chime in and support the proposal. If not, please use |status=withdrawn. − Pintoch (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pintoch: Yes, I do. @Sebotic: Excuse me, but would it be possible for me to receive your support? --Okkn (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Chemistry[edit]

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

safety classification and labelling[edit]

   Under discussion
Description classification and labelling data for risk identification about chemicals
Data type Item
Domain chemicals
Example see below
Source Same as for GHS system, UN regulations or NFPA 704
Planned use Same as for GHS system, UN regulations or NFPA 704
See also

Currently several classification and labelling systems are used to identify the risks associated to chemicals. The most important ones are the GHS system, NFPA 704 or the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods used for ADR/RID, IATA and IMDG transport. These systems require a complete set of data and the data set can be different depending on the sources or the evaluation date. Currently different properties already exists in WD to create the data set but no way exists to retrieve directly all relevant data of one data set from the item and some filters based on reference data need to be applied. The goal of the new property is to group all data from one source into a single structure. This property will be used for different classification and labelling systems. See examples below. Snipre (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Examples
dichlorine (Q1904422):
safety classification and labelling:Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (Q899146)
GHS hazard statement (P728): H270, H280, H330, H314, H318, H335, H400
GHS signal word (P1033): danger
GHS precautionary statements (P940): P202, P244, P260, P264, P271+P403, P273, P280+P284, P370+P376, P405, P501
icon (P2910): comburant
icon (P2910): gas under pressure
icon (P2910): corrosive
icon (P2910): toxic
icon (P2910): pollutant
safety classification and labelling:NFPA 704 (Q208273)
NFPA Health (P993): 4
NFPA Fire (P994): 0
NFPA Reactivity (P995): 0
NFPA Other (P877): OX
safety classification and labelling:UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (Q7865437)
UN number (P695): 1017
Kemler code (P700): 268
UN class (P874): 2
UN code classification (P875): 2TOC
UN packaging group (P876): novalue
icon (P2910): 2.3
icon (P2910): 5.1
icon (P2910): 8

Open questions:

  • Do we want to use icon (P2910) to define the pictograms of each system ?
  • Do we want to use an unique system for UN recommendations or do we want to split between 3 different groups for ADR/RID, IATA and IMDG ? Or even use national legislation like the one provided by USDOT ?
  • Do we want to apply the same structure for Hazardous Materials Identification System (Q9350463) or Hazchem#Emergency Action Code (Q263895) system ? If yes, we have to create the corresponding properties.
  • Do we agree to add the only qualifier constraint to all properties describing classification and labelling data ?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snipre (talk • contribs) at 00:29, 29 December 2017‎ (UTC).

Saehrimnir
Leyo
Snipre
Jasper Deng
Dcirovic
Walkerma
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Kopiersperre
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Nothingserious
Antony Williams (EPA)
TomT0m
Wostr
Devon Fyson
User:DePiep
User:DavRosen
Benjaminabel
99of9
Kubaello
Fractaler
Sebotic
Netha
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. As I wrote in Wikiproject Chemistry discussion it is very important to remember one thing about GHS data: we store only labelling in the existing properties. That should be indicated in the description of the properties. In pl.wiki there are still mistakes made by users who do not know about the difference between 'classification H-phrases' and 'labelling H-phrases', so I want to emphasise it here again.
    I don't think we should use icon (P2910) to display GHS pictograms/ADR classes – every GHS/ADR pictogram has its own number, so I think we should create 'GHS pictogram' and 'ADR class/pictogram' properties with items for each pictogram (with icon (P2910) used in those items, not in the chemical substance items).
    Also, I think applies to jurisdiction (P1001) should always be mandatory (UN GHS, US GHS and UE GHS are not the same; more in the WP discussion linked above)
    There should be constraints as mentioned above and about mandatory applies to jurisdiction (P1001).
    I don't know much about HMIS, but there is something that may be hard to implement in WD – white field about PPE (some letters are workplace-specific). Wostr (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • An addition to GHS pictograms: it is far better to represent pictogram as a unique number rather than picture – using icon (P2910) would make this data more difficult (or maybe even impossible) to use outside WMF projects. Wostr (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with not using icon to express information about data. ChristianKl❫ 22:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
      • @ChristianKl, Wostr: Creation of a dedicated property for pictogram was already proposed and rejected. See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/19#GHS_hazard_pictograms. We can start again the creation process but we have to deal with the old discussion. Snipre (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I don't think that linking to a commons file with a property like the proposed one's is a good idea either. There's probably something like a GHS category for "corrosive" and the icon that belongs to that category is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GHS-pictogram-acid.svg . We should have an item for that "GHS:corrosive" concept and then a property that links to it. ChristianKl❫ 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
          • I think that GHS pictogram should use item datatype. Every GHS pictogram has its name ([8] p. 29), also in EU ([9], annex V) codes are used (like 'GHS01' for 'exploding bomb'), so there won't be any problem with creating items for GHS pictograms. Wostr (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment one thing wasn't mentioned in this proposal: should H/EUH/P phrases stay like now (just the code) or maybe all phrases should be added as different items (then it would be possible to add the whole phrase translated into many languages, not just the code). Wostr (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems a little misleaded, as a hint : The icon is probably associated to a code. Repeating the association in all statement instead of having an item for a code is highly redundant. This is considered a bad practice in term of database normalisation (Q339072). author  TomT0m / talk page 11:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I hid the discussion about GHS classification (not labelling) as I think it is not directly related to the discussed property (GHS classification may be model using subclass of (P279), but I think that GHS labelling/NFPA 704 cannot be). Also, there is Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry/Safety classification and labelling subpage, where I placed proposed model using this property with proposed new GHS pictogram property and changes in H/P-phrases properties (string → wikibase-item datatype).
    @TomT0m: there is also GHS classification proposal based on subclass of (P279) and classes/categories items on this subpage (under option 2); I think that there are the key points of your proposals, but feel free to correct them in any way. However, I'm not sure what is your opinion about discussed property in connection with GHS labelling/NFPA 704/other labelling systems? I hope you don't mind hiding our discussion – but if you do, I'll revert this action.
    @ChristianKl: sorry for pinging, but I'm not sure whether your comments were only about using icons vs items or maybe you have some opinion about discussed property? Also, I wonder how much support have to be expressed here to be able to create property? Wostr (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Wostr: It was not only a proposal to model GHS classification, which have its interest, but also to use it to classify substances. The assumption was that it is possible it to compute automatically the messages and pictograms from the classes substances are classified into. It is way less interesting if it’s not possible to do this (I have my doubts on this, but you’re the expert and I don’t plan to really dig on the subject or code anything, so I’ll stop here :) ) author  TomT0m / talk page 08:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I wish it could be possible for European GHS to compute labelling from the classification; it would be much easier to add just classes/categories. Maybe it is somehow possible for US GHS (which I think is more similar to original UN GHS, yet I'm not familiar with US law, so that's my guess only), but in EU GHS there is too much odd rules added to GHS (e.g. recently, while I was adding GHS labelling in pl.wiki, I found chem. compound that was formally not dangerous according to GHS criteria, had no GHS classes/categories, and yet it had GHS labelling with EUH-phrases only... that's one of a few odd things that can happen with EU GHS). Wostr (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Your proposition is focused on use of instance/subclass instead of properties to describe items but this vision just leads to the creation of dozens statements "instance of". Just take methanol: you can describe it form its structure (for example chemical compound) but also by its effects (flammable compounds, toxic compound,...) or its use (drug, fuel, solvent, disinfectant). But this is not the end when speaking about compounds classification because each system has its own definition and a flammable liquid for GHS can be not flammable for NFPA 704. So in our case you should multiply the number of possible values by the number of classification systems to be sure to represent all cases. So instead of flammable liquid you should add GHS flammable liquid and NFPA 704 flammable liquid. Just do that for classification systems like GHS (fro EU, US and other countries), NFPA 704, Hazchem, HMIS, for road transportation (ADR), for rail transportation (RID),... and I think you will understand why use of instance/subclass is just a nightmare.
That's why the use of instance/subclass classification system should be limited from my point of view especially when you are working with a general ontology and not with a specialized one. So do we agree that specific properties are more valuable than instance/subclass classification ? Snipre (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Snipre: « So do we agree that specific properties are more valuable than instance/subclass classification ? » this white/black opposition does not make any sense to me, the whole point is to use both the best way possible. Especially because risk classification can be performed using « subclass of » and that will help define precisely what the risk is (for example, the risk of explosion in the different national or international scheme may be defined in a different way, it’s still possible to classify then as subclass of a generic « risk of explosion ». That said, I understand your point, and in general ontologies there is properties for potentialities of objects (for OBO http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/realizables.pdf ) and has properties such as « role » : https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ro/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FBFO_0000023 and variants : https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/search?q=role&groupField=iri&start=0&ontology=ro .
My proposition was to use the class to infer the pictograms, as to each class maps a set of pictograms, and to use the classes as a shortcut to represent a set of pictogram and warning messages. This would not be such a nightmare in the sense that if that worked, that could spare a lot of explicit statements while retaining the possibility of putting all the information in, say, an infobox. A feature that is possible with good classes, chosen such as they allow to compress a lot of information in one statement (imagine the class of substances that are considered explosive on any considered definition). author  TomT0m / talk page 17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I experimented on that idea on Template:Implied instances that currently generates a query to find instances of a class even if the instance of (P31) statement is not put, according to statements on the class item on or its parent classes, and plan to do stuffs the other way around (if an item is an instance of a class that defines statements for its instances, consider that this item has suche a statement). author  TomT0m / talk page 17:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Medicine[edit]

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

may prevent[edit]

   Ready Create
Description disease which may be prevented by this drug
Data type Item
Domain Medicine
Allowed values Wikidata items of instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) disease (Q12136)
Example aspirin (Q18216)myocardial infarction (Q12152) -->
Source http://www.fda.gov/, http://ema.europa.eu/, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/sourcereleasedocs/current/NDFRT/
Planned use several hundred preventative drug usages should be added to Wikidata
See also drug used for treatment (P2176), medical condition treated (P2175), has effect (P1542), significant drug interaction (P769)
Motivation

As listed above, Wikdata has several properties to describe drug-disease interactions (drug used for treatment (P2176), medical condition treated (P2175)), drug side effects (has effect (P1542)) and drug-drug interactions (significant drug interaction (P769)). What is still missing is a way to describe that a certain medication can prevent a disease from even occuring. This property proposal should cover these cases. Sebotic (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Gstupp
Geoide
Sintakso
علاء
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Adert
CFCF
Jtuom
Lucas559
Drchriswilliams
Okkn
CAPTAIN RAJU
LeadSongDog
Ozzie10aaaa
Sami Mlouhi
Marsupium
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
ShelleyAdams
Fractaler
Seppi333
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

Discussion
  • What exactly is meant by "may"? I think the property should likely to be worded to be more clear about the meaning. ChristianKl (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I followed the wording of NDF-RT and it makes sense, because medications in many cases do not have a 100% success rate. But certainly, I can rename it to 'used for prevention of', if you prefer that. Sebotic (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Many substances that are labeled with drug used for treatment (P2176) aren't better than placebo's. They are used by doctors to treat but there's no evidence that they are effective for that purpose. When it comes to this property it's important to be clear about whether this property indicates that there's evidence that supports this claim. I don't think it has to be made clear in the property name so "may prevent" is okay. But it should be made clear in the property description. We don't want people to make bad decisions because they think the property indicates proof for the capability of preventing a disease when it doesn't. ChristianKl (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • support the creation of this property and feel it is needed, but prefer the 'used for prevention of' label to be consistent with the way the treatment property is written. Gtsulab (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I see this is medicine-specific variant of "used to prevent"
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support both of them (specific to medicine and other) because medical relations are for specific situations (very rare on occasion) d1g (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Should not be limited to just drugs. May means it does not always prevent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Doc James: To me that clarification doesn't help much. If we have a clinical trial that shows that consuming lettuce is correlated with a lesser risk of heart disease, is that sufficient evidence for this property to be used to store the resulting information? ChristianKl (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • This sounds more like and more like an issue with data sources as opposed to an issue with the property itself. An FDA approved indication seems like a more reliable source than a clinical trial, and the issues you've raised about the 'may prevent' property apply to the 'drug used for treatment of' property (which has already been approved). Would it help if this property were reworded to 'used for the prevention of' and constrained to just drugs? But the FDA does investigate medical devices and procedures too. Gtsulab (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @Gtsulab: 'drug used for treatment of' has been approved but we had drama with it that resulted in the property getting removed from enwiki infoboxes for including data on drugs with where in clinical trial stage 1/2/3. This episode damaged the reputation of Wikidata in the EnWiki Project Medicine. It's drama I wouldn't want to repeat and the current formulation of this property appears to me to have the danger of producing problems. ChristianKl (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Okkn (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

other specialty[edit]

   Under discussion
Description non-medical specialties in which to include, for example, psychotherapy or psychology
Represents e.g. psychotherapy (Q183257)
Data type Item
Domain Psychology and psychotherapy
Example social phobia (Q281928)psychotherapy (Q183257)
or social phobia (Q281928)psychology (Q9418)
and not instead social phobia (Q281928)psychiatry (Q7867)
See also health specialty (P1995)
Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/11#Infobox_medical_condition:_medical_specialty
Motivation

This request is started from this discussion. There is confusion between these specializations in mental disorders and the solutions adopted so far have not gone well. Please read the discussion courteously. Dapifer (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is that a universal statement, that psychotherapy for instance is not a part of medical practice? Or is that distinction limited to certain countries? It seems to me if "medical specialty" is too narrow we should find a way to broaden it - perhaps "health specialty" or "treatment profession" or something like that? Otherwise if a new property is created won't we continue the confusion with "medical specialty" pointing to one thing and the new property pointing to another? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Psychotherapy (and all its various branches) is practiced by psychiatrists with specialization in psychotherapy (physician) and most of the time by clinical psychologists with specialization in psychotherapy (not a physiciannot a medical specialty). Yes, the term "health specialty" seems to me to be excellent! This should be the category health professional (Q15220429) or this for mental disorders mental health professional (Q6817473) (in Italy: health professions in Italy (Q3922583))
Perhaps replacing medical specialty with health specialty could solve any controversy. --Dapifer (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I support "other specialty". Psychology and psychotherapy are not medical specialties (See en:Specialty (medicine)). -- Лорд Алекс (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I support "other specialty".--Geoide (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that with "other specialty" they mean "health specialty", then rename it. This is definitely the best solution for all. --Dapifer (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question how would references for such statements look like? Can we have a sample for each?
    --- Jura 09:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? I did not understand the question. --Dapifer (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You added two sample statements above. Can you provide a reference for these? Please provide also a sample where the value is "psychiatry (Q7867)".
--- Jura 14:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not an expert on Wikidata and I was trying to understand what you meant.
First of all, some information are common knowledge, and it has not been disputed, with this, I mean for professionals in the sector.
Regarding the specific case of this example (social phobia (Q281928)), looking for some sources in English, I quickly found the following.
In the psychological/psychotherapeutic field, in particular CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy (Q1147152)) and in the medical area (psychiatric/psycopharmacological treatments): 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6 ... and others.
My English is not great, but as reported by these addresses, social phobia (like other mental disorders) does not turn out to be a closed illness in medical specialization. CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy (Q1147152)) deals with it extensively, but the current infobox, restricts the field to medical specialization, and as already explained, this confusion could be risky for people with mental illness who do not need medical care. --Dapifer (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You can add references in languages other than English. I don't quite get how the references support the statements.
From the proposal, the statement you'd need to source is "'social phobia' is included in non-medical specialty 'psychotherapy' by non-psychiatrists" and "'social phobia' is included in non-medical specialty 'psychology'" (maybe you can suggest a better reading of the statement).
Can you provide quotes from the sources you provided (or some other) that supports these statements.
--- Jura 10:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I must remember that that of Social Phobia is just one of the possible examples, so we must treat it as such. In the addresses, we note that the main approach to this disorder is psychological/psychotherapeutic. In fact, the CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy (Q1147152)) is conducted by psychologists/psychotherapists (non-psychiatrists). Perhaps things could be clearer for example with paraphilic area disorders (paraphilia (Q178059)), where medical treatments are rare and do not lead to satisfactory solutions such as psychological ones; but also in this case, as specialization we find only "psychiatry".
I'm Italian, for me finding sources in English is not easy, so if someone with a better English than mine, can collaborate would be a great help. --Dapifer (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The simplest solution is not to find the sources for social phobia, but to find the sources where Psychology and Psychotherapy deal with mental disorders, without being the only psychiatry's confinement. I still repeat, this confusion can be harmful. When I return, I will look for sources for this, in Italian and in English. If someone can work together, it would be great. --Dapifer (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Some sources in English that attest the specializations, Psychology and Psychotherapy in the treatment of mental disorders.
In English, for Psychotherapy specialty:
  1. Resolution psychotherapy, in particular: psychotherapy (individual, group and couple/family) is a practice designed varyingly to provide symptom relief and personality change, reduce future symptomatic episodes, enhance quality of life, promote adaptive functioning in work/school and relationships, increase the likelihood of making healthy life choices, and offer other benefits established by the collaboration between client/patient and psychologist; for most psychological disorders, the evidence from rigorous clinical research studies has shown that a variety of psychotherapies are effective with children, adults, and older adults and again...;
  2. Treatment Psychotherapy, in particultar: psychotherapy to be effective at improving symptoms in a wide array of mental illnesses, making it both a popular and versatile treatment. It can also be used for families, couples or groups;
  3. Talk therapy, in particultar: forms of psychotherapy using verbal communication for treating mental and emotional disorders, in contrast to one using drugs, physical exercise, or some other technique;
  4. Psychotherapy for mental illness in Europe, in particultar: The purpose of this report is to briefly summarize the evidence base supporting psychotherapeutic treatments for mental illness, and to explore their role in the treatment of mental illness in Europe. It is apparent that robust evidence supports the use of psychotherapy as a treatment for various common mental disorders;
  5. A guide to psychotherapy in Germany, in particultar: The most common mental illnesses and disorders that are treated with psychotherapy include anxiety disorders, depression and addiction. By the way, psychotherapy is not just used to treat mental conditions: It is also an option for people who are dealing with chronic physical illnesses.
In English, for Psychology (meaning here clinical psychology: clinical psychology (Q199906)) specialty (it must be remembered that the psychologist is often also a psychotherapist, so the above considerations can also apply to this specialization):
  1. What’s the Difference Between a Counselor and a Psychologist?, in particultar: "practice of psychology” means rendering or offering to render supervision, consultation, evaluation or therapy services to individuals, groups or organizations for the purpose of diagnosing or treating behavioral, emotional or mental disorders. “Practice of psychology” also includes delegating the administration and scoring of tests to technicians qualified by and under the direct supervision of a licensed psychologist;
  2. Clinical Psychology, in particultar: Clinical psychology is the psychological specialty that provides continuing and comprehensive mental and behavioral health care for individuals and families; consultation to agencies and communities; training, education and supervision; and research-based practice;
  3. All About Clinical Psychology, in particultar: Psychologists trained to provide clinical services work in research, education, training and health sectors. Working with numerous populations, they focus on individual differences, normal and abnormal behavior, mental and emotional health, healthy behaviors and mental disorders and their prevention;
  4. What is clinical psychology, in particultar: Some of the job roles performed by those working in clinical psychology include: Assessment and diagnosis of psychological disorders; Treatment of psychological disorders.

--Dapifer (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ChristianKl --Pasleim (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl:, can I change the declaration "other specialty" with "health specialty", as we have concluded, so as not to create confusion in the voting? --Dapifer (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Currently, it seems like nobody on the talk page of health specialty (P1995) opposes expanding the scope of it, so it at the moment I don't think there's a need to change this proposal. To move forward on changing th scope of health specialty (P1995) there's an open question on the talk page of it about the definition of "health speciality". If that question is answered we can wait a week and see whether someone brings up further objections. If nobody does, we rename health specialty (P1995) and can close this proposal as not done because it's not needed anymore. ChristianKl () 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Perfect. I had not read anymore that discussione. By today or tomorrow I hope to be able to respond to the request, at the moment I have no more time. :/ Anyway, Thank you --Dapifer (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With the proviso that I am new to Wikidata, I agree that "health specialty" would be better for the well-articulated reasons you all have given in this discussion. I also agree that clinical psychology is not a medical specialty. We (clinical psychologists) sometimes fall under a medical categorization, e.g., if I conduct a disability evaluation for PTSD with a veteran, the VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) refers to the expert opinions we are required to give as "medical opinions". I would personally prefer "psychological opinion", but it's a bureaucratic phrase, not a professional designation. We are not medical doctors, we are psychologists. :O) Markworthen (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC) (Mark D Worthen PsyD)

Mineralogy[edit]

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

Informatics[edit]

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

USB product ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description hexadecimal identifier of a product/device which has a USB interface
Represents USB product ID (Q45716753)
Data type String
Domain device (Q1183543)
Allowed values [\da-f]{4}
Example iPad 4 (Q25721) → 12ab [source: https://usb-ids.gowdy.us/read/UD/05ac/12ab]
Source Various websites, source code repositories, etc such as [10]
Planned use For USB devices with a Wikidata item, provide the relevant USB PID.
See also USB vendor ID (P1167)
Motivation

USB vendor ID (P1167) existed as a single property attempting to describe both the USB vendor and USB product IDs. It has only been used to date a limited number of times (<30) to describe vendors of USB products. Because the constraints on use of each ID are quite different, this proposal splits USB ID into USB vendor ID (existing property) and this new USB product ID proposal. Pixeldomain (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
GA candidate.svg Weak support wasn't the idea with USB ID to include the full id, with both the vendor and product ID combined? So for your example it would be 'UD:05ac:12ab'. But if they need to be separated I guess this is ok. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Changed data type to string. Pixeldomain (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

PCI device ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description hexadecimal identifier of a product/device which has a PCI interface
Represents PCI device ID (Q45718151)
Data type String
Domain computer hardware (Q3966)
Allowed values [\da-f]{4}
Example Nvidia GeForce GTX 690 (Q11992755)1188
Source Various websites, source code repositories, etc such as [11]
Planned use For PCI devices with a Wikidata item, provide the relevant PCI DID.
Formatter URL https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/PC/10de/$1
Motivation

Refer to en:PCI configuration space#Standardized registers for more information on PCI IDs--what they are, their format, how they are assigned and how they are used. Pixeldomain (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Changed data type to string. Pixeldomain (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

PCI vendor ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description hexadecimal identifier of an organisation which produces devices with PCI interfaces
Represents PCI vendor ID (Q45718332)
Data type String
Domain computer hardware (Q3966), organization (Q43229)
Allowed values [\da-f]{4}
Example Nvidia GeForce GTX 690 (Q11992755) → 10de [source: https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/PC/10de/1188], NVIDIA (Q182477) → 10de
Source Various websites, source code repositories, etc such as [12]
Planned use For PCI devices with a Wikidata item, provide the relevant PCI VID. For organisations/companies which create PCI devices, add their registered PCI VID(s).
Motivation

Refer to en:PCI_configuration_space#Standardized_registers for more information on PCI IDs--what they are, their format, how they are assigned and how they are used. Pixeldomain (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Unless I'm mistaken, the value in the example should be 10de/1188. This would allow a formatter URL of https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/PC/$1. Otherwise, PC/10de/1188 & https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/$1 respectively. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Pigsonthewing: The example of https://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/PC/$1 is just one possible source. Peripheral Component Interconnect Special Interest Group (Q3891514) is the authority who assigns and manages these identifiers/the "vendor ID namespace", but I am not aware of them publishing a public authoritative database of all registered vendor IDs (this would obviously be ideal to use as the formatter URL). This property is intended to be used with organization (Q43229) as well as on items for particular models of computer hardware. A manufacturer may have multiple vendor IDs assigned. A particular model of computer hardware will only have one vendor ID, but it could refer to any of the registered vendor IDs for a particular manufacturer. Pixeldomain (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it's intended to be used only on businesses that manufacture or sell computer hardware, then external id seems ok. If it's intended as the example illustrates and as suggested in the above comment to add this item on particular models of computer hardware, then it's not an identifier for the hardware (it's an identifier for the vendor) and in wikidata it needs to be a string type, not external id type. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Changed data type to string. Pixeldomain (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

PCI subsystem ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description unique identifier to differentiate specific models of devices with PCI interfaces
Represents PCI Subsystem ID (Q45718450)
Data type String
Domain computer hardware (Q3966)
Allowed values [\da-f]{4}
Example Linksys EtherFast 10/100 LNE100TX → 000b (see 1 for the full example)
Source Various websites, source code repositories, etc such as [13]
Planned use For PCI devices with a Wikidata item, provide the relevant PCI SSID.
Motivation

Refer to en:PCI_configuration_space#Standardized_registers for more information on PCI IDs--what they are, their format, how they are assigned and how they are used. Pixeldomain (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Changed data type to string. Pixeldomain (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

PCI subsystem vendor ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description identifier of an organisation which contributed to the development of a device with a PCI interface
Represents PCI Subsystem Vendor ID (Q45718566)
Data type String
Domain computer hardware (Q3966)
Allowed values [\da-f]{4}
Example Linksys EtherFast 10/100 LNE100TX → 2646 (see 1 for the full example)
Source Various websites, source code repositories, etc such as [14]
Planned use For PCI devices with a Wikidata item, provide the relevant PCI SVID.
Motivation

Refer to en:PCI_configuration_space#Standardized_registers for more information on PCI IDs--what they are, their format, how they are assigned and how they are used. Pixeldomain (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In your source link a lot of them are marked as "Wrong ID" - how do you propose to add those? Is this really a reliable external identifier? Also I think your domain is wrong (this is not an identifier for the hardware itself is it?). ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ArthurPSmith: This property proposal is a little different from the other three PCI ID proposals. A computer hardware (Q3966) has an associated vendor and subsystem vendor ID, which are both the same format and the same set of available values (registered by PCI-SIG). For organization (Q43229), one could provide a vendor ID and subsystem vendor ID, but they'd be the same value. It also wouldn't be enough to use has part (P527) to define a subsystem, then manufacturer (P176) with a PCI vendor ID property. The reason is due to vendors having multiple vendor IDs assigned to them, where different computer hardware (Q3966) use different vendor/subsystem vendor IDs even if the manufacturer is the same. Pixeldomain (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, but the same "subsystem vendor ID" would apply to multiple pieces of hardware then, right? So this does not qualify as an "external id" for hardware, and I don't think it's appropriate to handle it that way here. It could be a string ID. Or perhaps better would be to combine all these ID's into a single unique PCI hardware identifier? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ArthurPSmith: It's not a 1:1 mapping between hardware models and items in the PCI-SIG "vendor ID database" as multiple hardware models may reference the same item in the PCI-SIG vendor ID database. It is also not a 1:1 mapping between organisations and items in the PCI-SIG "vendor ID registration database" as an organisation can have multiple registered vendor IDs. I thought the requirement for the "external-id" data type was that the identifier is guaranteed to be unique within the external database? I'm reluctant to combine multiple identifiers together into a single property proposal for hardware devices because this could make querying the property in Wikidata difficult. For example, requiring regular expression or string manipulation in queries and possibly preventing queries from being executed due to the excessive time taken to perform the query. Further thoughts? Pixeldomain (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pixeldomain: An external identifier property within wikidata should uniquely (barring a small fraction of exceptions) relate a Wikidata entity to an external database. If multiple Wikidata entities are related to the same external database entry, then it's not an external identifier for that entity. It's fine to have string properties. Especially in cases like this where there's no formatter URL. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ArthurPSmith: Thanks, I've changed the data type to string. Pixeldomain (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, this seems fine now then. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Geology[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Geology for more information.

Geography[edit]

average and maximum depth[edit]

   Under discussion
Description Properties for average and maximum depth of a body of water
Data type Quantity
Allowed units metre (Q11573), foot (Q3710)
Example Lake Huron (Q1383)
  • average depth → 59 m
  • maximum depth → 229 m
Motivation

That'd be two properties, one for average depth and another for maximum depth, which is common data for bodies of water, mainly lakes, and which are included in e.g. Template:Infobox body of water (Q5642502) and Template:Infobox lake (Q5825790).

Lately vertical depth (P4511) was created, but this property unfortunately makes no distinction between average and maximum depth. So it's hard if not impossible to tell what its current values for lake items are really about (see Property talk:P4511#Average or maximum depth?). Easiest solution seems to be to introduce separate properties with explicit labels in order to start clearing up body of water related uses of P4511. Another option'd be to use average/maximum value qualifiers, but I suspect this'd make data entry and queries overly complicated. I also didn't find any sufficient qualifers at the moment. 90.191.81.65 19:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer the solution with qualifier criterion used (P1013), see for example on Lake Constance (Q4127) or Müggelsee (Q694789). --Pasleim (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Use criterion used (P1013) per Pasleim. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Deror avi (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Andber08 (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pasleim's example looks decent. I've used this solution to fix a few values of P4511 for now. Also in a meanwhile I've studied that quering values by qualifer value isn't as complicated as I thought, though it seems there's very little use for that sort of scheme on Wikipedia side so far. So I'm kind of less motivated to introduce these properties now. Either ways, hopefully the outcome of this proposal decides which way it should be, and then thousands of uses of P4511 that currently need fixing, can be processed accordingly. 90.191.81.65 08:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


Maths[edit]

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

All sciences[edit]

Prerequisite[edit]

   Under discussion
Description a prior event or achievement that a person or team needs to complete before joining or obtaining the item topic, for example a qualifying round of a sports event, a lower-level course in an educational program, or a lower level of a professional qualification
Represents professional qualification (Q3412758), sports qualification (Q2122052), educational qualification
Data type Item
Example
Motivation

Links to introductions of activities ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Comment: If we have such a property, it should be for general use, not just for study or sports. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as stated. Sports qualifications (eg FIFA qualifiers, national olympic games qualifiers) are subsidiary sports events that rank sportsmen or teams for participating in the big event. This is very different from obtaining qualifications or certifications to practice a profession, at least because sports qualifiers are for one event whereas professional qualifications are for life (unless you screw up). I can't say what "Qualifications for study in an educational organization" is without an example --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Educational and professional qualifications are not events but acquired achievements. If a MS program requires a previous BS degree, I could have obtained it any time ago, at any accredited institution, and in any number of related disciplines. They are more static, like competition class (P2094) (applies to sports)
Course prerequisites are firmer relations ("must take course X before taking course Y") but they always allow substitution of "equivalent" courses from this or other university, and often allow alternatives.
@Pigsonthewing: I also think genericity is desirable. Sports qualifiers could be modeled as "event X is a necessary predecessor of event Y". I think this is acceptable simplification from "winning/taking/achieving/graduating from X is a necessary prerequisite to participating in Y".
But you know what, I'd be happy to call this "prerequisite" (aliases "qualification", "qualifier") and apply it for both events and acquired achievements. @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: do you agree? I could rewrite the proposal in this way --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I edited the proposal and support it. See if you're happy with the edits --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev: Some parts of the new description are unnecessary for the proposal. So I removed them and translated the rest into Arabic.Greetings ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Why did you remove the aliases? They are important, please put them back in --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev: No need for them now.It is better to add them to the property when it is created.Greetings ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: the status of this proposal seems a little confusing to me given the various edits that have gone on here, can you state your current position on the proposal as it stands? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Someone - not me - struck my obejection, above. However, I am prepared to withdraw it, please consider me neutral. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: I understand that you are talking about the importance of qualification. If you create a proposal that has more than one status (more than one property), I am willing to withdraw my proposal and support its new version.Greetings David (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Relevant qualification[edit]

   Under discussion
Description Practitioners of this industry get this degree, licence or certification after specialist education, apprenticeship, or professional review. This includes qualifications that one needs to obtain in order to join the industry or qualifications that one obtains after a certain level of experience in the industry in order to progress further in their career.
Represents professional qualification (Q3412758), academic degree (Q189533)
Data type Item
Domain occupation (Q12737077)
Allowed values instances and subclasses of professional qualification (Q3412758) or academic degree (Q189533)
Example
Motivation

Splitting into two property proposals per discussion above. Occupations that require a licence (or which issues certifications to practitioners) are another type of logical relationship that David's original proposal would cover. Deryck Chan (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The description should make the non-mandatory nature clear. ChristianKl () 13:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Deryck Chan, ChristianKl:I do not see a difference between the two proposals David (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Re David:
    • In the first proposal ("prerequisite"), the domain of the subject (item) and the domain of the object (value) are the same. A team from Africa must first compete in CONCACAF before they can compete in FIFA World Cup. Both the subject and the object are football competitions.
    • In the second proposal ("relevant qualification"), the domain of the subject is an occupation but the domain of the object is a licence that a person can get. Civil engineering is an occupation which requires its workers to obtain a masters in engineering.
  • I think I can illustrate the difference with this pair of examples:
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2:The fact that the two proposals have different names is alone enough for them to be different. You shouldn't support proposals when the name isn't ideal but you generally want a property that works for an area. ChristianKl () 13:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per above. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)