Wikidata:Property proposal/recombination author

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

recombination author (taxonomy)[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Under discussion

Motivation[edit]

As per the ICZN recommandation 51G, this property is intended to store as a structured data the author(s) of a recombination (Q14594740), and to make clear the distinction (when necessary) between the author who firstly described the epithet and the one who placed the current generic position of the taxon name that is quoted in a specific item.

99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Circeus
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Enwebb
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
MPF
Manojk
MargaretRDonald
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
PEAK99
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
RaboKarbakian
Rod Page
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
TomT0m
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
Tubezlob
William Avery
大诺史
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy

Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • This is of course standard in botanical author citation; it is just rarely stated in zoology. But the system of citation used here for botanical new combination authors could perhaps be used for this purpose too? - MPF (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There is a system for botanical combination?! I mean, aside from creating two different items for the name and the basionym? Circeus (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
      • No! Just that a recombined plant name e.g. Sequoia sempervirens (D.Don) Endl. has (I presume?) spaces for both the basionym author D.Don and the recombining author Endl. to be cited on its wikidata item - MPF (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you please specify "taxonomic" somewhere in the name? I really thought first this is about genetic recombination. --SCIdude (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I can see this as being useful information, there can of course be many authors involved in a name, the genus will have authors, which is often different to the species, and the currently accepted combination may be another set. This information in zoology is stored in correctly done synonymies, however these are not always done and often not cited. I am curious will you store every recombination here? or jjust the most recent and currently accepted one? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This is not for the genus name, this autorship is stored in the genus item. And not at all for "just the most recent and currently accepted one", a specific combination, when it's not the original combination (weither accepted or not, and weither the most rescent or not) have been made by someone. This property is for this author. As it is written in the ICZN recomandation, it is for the author of a specific combination, not more, not less. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If we follow this proposal we need a qualifer like "recombination author" "recombination year" too. But I think we have all qualifiers (and original combination (P1403)) to implement the ICZN recommandation 51G. --Succu (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
??? "If we follow this proposal we need a qualifer like "recombination author" too". This is exactly the meaning of this proposal proposal... : a property "recombination author" that will be used as a qualifier. Was I not clear in the proposal?, if so, then sorry. This proposal is for that, in case of a recombination, you can use taxon author (P405) to quote the author of the first description (the exact formal purpose of this property), and in addition you can use this new property to quote (in the same item) the author of the recombination (as per the ICZN recomandation), especially useful if we don't have the item of the original combination. But I understand what you mean, you want to use taxon author (P405) to quote the author of the recombination, and to quote the first author of the epiteth within the item of the original combination... it's defensible.. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
... it's defensible.. but it's not how I understand the ICZN recomandation, good examples may be Panthera leo (Linnaeus, 1758) and Panthera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758), nobody have suggested, recommanded to avoid Linnaeus as author; or omitted to quote Linnaeus as author (it is even rightly quoted here leopard (Q34706)), and almost everywhere else too...), the ICZN recommandation recommand to quote (in addition to the former taxon author) the author of the recombination; example Panthera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) Oken, 1816. Never it has been recommanded to quote "Panthera pardus Oken, 1816" instead, thing that you indirectly suggest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
And yes, I should have included "recombination year", similar to year of taxon name publication (P574) but about the recombination. Is it too late? is it possible, in the case that this proposal is succesful to create the both? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Info Wikidata:Property proposal/year of recombination (taxonomy), I just created the proposal. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)