Wikidata:Property proposal/iNaturalist project ID

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

iNaturalist project ID[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Not done
RepresentsiNaturalist (Q16958215)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainexternal identifier (Q21754218)
Example 1crabs-of-the-world → crabs-of-the-world
Example 2herpetofauna-de-sumak-kawsay-in-situ-mera → herpetofauna-de-sumak-kawsay-in-situ-mera
Example 3digital-botanical-gardens-initiative → digital-botanical-gardens-initiative
Planned usefor queries
Formatter URLhttps://www.inaturalist.org/projects/$1
See alsoiNaturalist taxon ID (P3151), iNaturalist observation ID (P5683)

Motivation[edit]

To identify projects in iNaturalist GrndStt (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

To identify places and other geographical objects in iNaturalist

GrndStt (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have iNaturalist place ID (P7471) that can cover any geographic region (e.g. New Mexico), and there are dozens of other projects in or associated with New Mexico. Almost any named place or taxon is WD notable. The same can't be said for every iNaturalist project built around places or taxa. -Animalparty (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification: there are no automatic projects and the linked New Mexico one was created in 2018 by an iNat user. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Very few iNaturalist projects are likely to be notable under WD:N (but I have pinged the Wikidata project in case I'm way off). Most seem to be self-run personal projects with no secondary coverage or significance outside of iNaturalist, thus no reason to include it in a database (City Nature Challenge (Q60772523) is one notable exception). Wellington Botanic Garden BioBlitz 2019 (Q62770398) however seems to be of dubious notability: it was apparently created for or concurrent with en:Wikipedia:GLAM/BioBlitzWBG. -Animalparty (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you'd say Wellington Botanic Garden BioBlitz 2019 (Q62770398) is of dubious Wikidata notability; the event received enough media coverage that it's probably Wikipedia-notable, let alone Wikidata, and has its own Commons category. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I should mention here that I also used to be against creating items for crowd-sourced projects unaffiliated with Wikimedia projects, until I realized through my paintings work that crowd-sourced projects generally overlap with Wikimedia projects as they grow. We already have lots of properties for huge aggregators like VIAF and I see no problem with creating a few properties for smaller aggregators on request from large Wikimedia projects. This is requested by several people highly involved in various specific Wikimedia projects that would benefit greatly for the reasons mentioned. If it turns out over time to become a hub of linkrot we can always delete it again. All of that said, if there is a way to use on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) in such a way that the same queries can be run then maybe it's not needed as a separate property. Jane023 (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
user:Ainali user:Ambrosia10 user:AnBalemans user:Andrawaag user:Arlo Barnes user:Bracteantha user:ChristianSW user:Daniel Mietchen user:DarTar user:Deelthx user:Dendresen user:Denengelse user:Drechmeria-RBGV user:Faendalimas user:Friesen5000 user:Giantflightlessbirds user:GrndStt user:Hyperik user:Jane023 user:JerryL2017 user:Josve05a user:Lmalena user:Loopy30 user:Luojaluoja user:Lymantria user:Major Lyte user:Manojk user:Mcld user:Metacladistics user:Niconoe user:Peteforsyth user:Photocyte user:Pigsonthewing user:Qgroom user:Reosarevok user:Salgo60 User:Stitchbird2 user:S.v.Mering user:TiagoLubiana user:Tobias1984 user:Tommy Kronkvist user:Tris T7 user:Vikiolog user:YULdigitalpreservation

Notified participants of WikiProject iNaturalist -Animalparty (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support For the reasons expressed byJane023 and Giantflightlessbirds. In particular I'm keen to link nature reserves, botanic gardens and zoos with their corresponding iNaturalist projects. I'm of the opinion that this would be useful in enriching those items and connecting them to species lists observed and generated via iNaturalist at those locations. Take for example Otari Wilton's Bush iNaturalist project. I would very much like to link it to Ōtari-Wilton's Bush (Q7108457).-Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As previously noted Wikidata already has iNaturalist place ID (P7471) and iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151) which could link to any park, botanical garden or taxon on iNaturalist. Places and taxa are almost always notable, with or without iNaturalist presence, so it makes sense to have iNaturalist properties. A notable institution or natural place may have dozens of active or abandoned projects, so there's often not a 1:1 relationship between place and project. But out of the thousands of projects on iNaturalist, how many are likely to be independently notable? Many seem to be of the "biodiversity in my backyard or school" variety ([1][2][3]), of interest to one or a few people. Say for Crabs of the World, assuming it's notable: would Wikidata track observation numbers and taxa and leading observers and do everything already done by the project itself? Would it prompt the creation of Qids for otherwise non-notable private individuals like high school students who participate in the projects? For bioblitzes or other projects that are Wikidata notable and have an iNaturalist component, I think existing properties like described at URL (P973) or URL (P2699) or external data available at URL (P1325) can be used. If the majority are non-notable, I certainly wouldn't want the catalog of all iNaturalist projects to appear when searching for a taxon or place in Mix'n'Match. -Animalparty (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Crabs of the World is a good example of a project about a specific taxon. Equally good examples, in my opinion, are projects about special places, such as protected areas or bodies of water, which can be linked directly to the Wikidata item for the geographic entity. I also find the idea of starting projects between Wikimedia and iNaturalist exciting. For example, an iNat Bioblitz as a supplement to Wiki Loves Earth. ChristianSW (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what about, say, Crabs of Australia, Crabs of the Gulf of Mexico, or Crabs of Miss Stephens' 9th Grade Field Trip to the Beach. Such (hypothetical) projects don't graft clearly to taxon or place items, and may not be notable projects. This proposal seems vague on what kind of Wikidata items this property would be used on: would it only be used on items for projects, or would it also be used on taxa, places, and institutions? If the latter, how would we deal with the one-to-many issue (Lepidoptera or Yosemite National Park have tons of associated projects). And I think discussion of new collaborations between Wikimedia and iNaturalist is beyond the scope of this proposal. -Animalparty (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points but hope to save the idea. ChristianSW (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I love iNaturalist too, but for the same reasons/arguments as TiagoLubiana & Animalparty, I can't see iNat projects as being valuable or notable. Perhaps one could revisit this discussion in five years time, but for now, knowing what projects are actually like on iNat, it's a no from me. Metacladistics (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As an iNat user of 10 years and an involved volunteer, curator, moderator, and project creator: most iNaturalist projects are not worth linking anywhere, including many of my own. There are a lot of misconceptions about the utility of projects and whether most should exist in the first place.[4] I'm curious to better understand what the functional use cases of this would be and which existing properties could be suitable for the handful of notable ones. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Projects are ephemeral, can be created in ten seconds and mostly left uncurated just as permanent search filters. There are very few projects which are really active and deserve cross-referencing as distinct entities apart from iNaturalist. Actually, I'm curating the project with 3K members, but I do not think it's a good idea to add their IDs to wikidata.--Alliumcepa (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/iNaturalist_project_ID&oldid=2061555148"