Wikidata:Property proposal/contains functional group

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

contains functional group[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Under discussion
Descriptionthis chemical compound contains this specific functional group.
Representsfunctional group (Q170409)
Data typeItem
Domainchemical compound
Allowed valuesfunctional group, or element (only for halogen)
Example 1ibuprofen (Q186969)carboxyl (Q909913)
Example 2pyridoxine (Q423746)hydroxyl (Q104116)
Example 3sildenafil (Q191521)sulfuryl (Q3487110), ether group (does not have an item), etc.
Expected completenesseventually complete for existing item only
Robot and gadget jobsmay be imported from local categories
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/contains chemical element


This will provide a way to filter chemical compounds. GZWDer (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, a specific property does make sense over has part (P527) for this very specific relationship I think; I would prefer to reserve P527 for eg separable component parts of enzyme complexes. Could get a bit silly for big molecules if not careful, but definitely valuable and useful for smaller molecules and molecules containing less usual structures. Jheald (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Jasper Deng
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Antony Williams (EPA)
Devon Fyson
Samuel Clark
Tris T7
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry ChristianKl❫ 16:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hugo (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose at least at this moment. We already have totally invalid P5000 (P5000), we have not yet established a way to classify chemical compounds in Wikidata, this requires a long and thorough discussion, not a quick property proposal. This will be another ill-considered approach to chemical classification. There are many problems with the proposed property: the 'functional group' term is very unprecise and sometimes it can mean a hydrogen atom, sometimes even groups stated as an examples here are not considered functional groups for certain molecules; it depends on the specific molecule. This property will tend to grow significantly for bigger molecules with potential overlapping of functional groups. "may be imported from local categories" – this is totally unacceptable; the number of badly categorised articles in Wikipedias is enormous, especially in At this moment the best solution IMHO to classify chemical compounds is to use classes of compounds with P31/P279 relation. Adding specific class, like amine (Q167198), implies that any instance of such class contains an amino group. But — as I wrote — this requires thorough discussion and especially not here. Wostr (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Overall, I like the idea. But I'm leaning towards Wostr's comment. What functional groups are allowed to range? Methylene? I still don't know what to think about the statements in many chemicals that they contain a carbon, and like to know more about where this is going. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Similar to Wostr: the idea is good but only if the concept of functional group is clearly defined. Snipre (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What is the aim of this property? Having (another) classification of chemical structures (besides the already existing instance of (P31)+subclass of (P279)), looking for similar compounds, defining "active sites" of compounds+proteins (for which we could use the same property as for chemical compounds I believe)? If we have a clear(er) aim for such a proposal it would also help the discussion along I believe. I found a paper on "chemical ontology for identification of functional group" (probably there are more recent ones) which could help that discussion along (but this is not the place indeed). --DeSl (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)