Wikidata:Property proposal/taxa found

taxa found at location

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

   Done: taxon found at location (P6803) (Talk and documentation)

Description	plant or animals taxon described as present in location. Requires reference.
Data type	Item
Domain	item for geographic location (<20 values) or item for biology of geographic location. Not countries or first level administrative divisions.
Allowed values	taxon if statement includes a reference. References used should cover a limited number of taxa (e.g. Flamingos) or specific locations (a bog).
Example 1	Crawford Bog (Q56693695) -> Sarcophagidae (Q978302) reference Q56695871 p. 9
Example 2	Crawford Bog (Q56693695) -> Sarracenia leucophylla (Q1752921)
Example 3	Crawford Bog (Q56693695) -> Sarracenia flava (Q1499289)
Example 4	Crawford Bog (Q56693695) -> Sarracenia psittacina (Q1624202)
Example 5	Crawford Bog (Q56693695) -> Drosera filiformis (Q366314)
Example 6	Africa (Q15) -> lion (Q140)
Source	document used as reference
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
See also	taxa protected

Motivation

Following discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Location_survey. @Brya, Succu: thanks for your input. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 12:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment. The extent of this new property should be discussed beforehand. Should species kept (P1990) keep species in protected areas or should its focus be reduced back to zoos only? Thierry Caro (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Protected areas generally don't "keep" any species, all present are protected. I think this property should work there. The sample bog above is located in a protected area. --- Jura 18:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment. I'd have slightly different use - protected areas often list the species which are specifically protected there. However, that list can become quite lengthy, e.g. the official announcement for Doi Phu Kha non-hunting area (Q28104754) lists 170 species [1]. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I see. I'm wondering if this should be handled with a qualifier, P1990, or a new location specific property. Supposedly a species could be protected without actually being present. --- Jura 17:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ahoerstemeier: given the last point, I think we should have another, separate property for these. What do you think? --- Jura 05:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I created a separate proposal for that taxa protected. --- Jura 09:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• There are plants unique to a very small region - that are not protected officially (in countries where protection is not organized). Is this the purpose of this property? Deror avi (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The idea is to collect records of occurrences of specific taxa in very small regions whether they are protected or not. --- Jura 14:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Because it is wider then taxon especially protected in area (P6569). To avoid redundancy we should make taxon especially protected in area (P6569) a subclass of this and any taxon that can be put in taxon especially protected in area (P6569) should not be stated as "taxa found". --GPSLeo (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's possible that some would be protected when present, but currently can't be found. Personally, I wouldn't mix the two approaches nor add systematically to both properties. --- Jura 16:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• A few points:
  • We still don't have a way to indicate the local population of any given species within an area, which has been requested before (1, 2). Such data would be partly redundant with this proposal, as a positive population value means that the taxon is found at this location. However, the population number is not always known.
  • Currently, some items (erroneously?) use habitat (P2974) to indicate a geographic area where a taxon is found. The boundaries between these two should be cleared up. (species kept (P1990) has also been used for this, despite being specifically prohibited by the description.)
  • I'm not sure that pointing from the location to the taxon, rather than the other way around, is the best way to do this. I imagine that the average place has more taxa located in it than the average taxa has places it's located in.
• --Yair rand (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, estimating the actual population goes much further. Incorrect uses of P2974 and P1990 could be moved. About the direction: I suppose it depends on the granularity of what you consider a "location". This approach would focus on an inventory by location. --- Jura 12:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment. Maybe it is a good idea to explicitly restrict the scope of the property by adding an adjective, like "notable taxa found at location", "rare taxa found at location", etc. - Brya (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd rather require explicitly a reference for every statement. --- Jura 12:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
• What extra value does this proposed property have over use of location (P276)? In either case, endemic to (P183) and invasive to (P5588) would be additional subclasses of this proposed property. Dhx1 (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if P276 is used on taxa for this. P183/P5588 assumes that this status is determined and probably requires more general locations than this. --- Jura 12:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Thierry Caro, Ahoerstemeier, Deror avi, GPSLeo, Yair rand, Brya: @Dhx1, Jura1: Now taxon found at location (P6803). --Lymantria (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Lymantria: I don't think this property should have been created (at least, not yet). There are several remaining questions and issues. (I'd really rather not have to start declaring "Oppose" on every property proposal with unresolved issues, just to allow the discussion to continue until resolution.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yair rand: I understand your point. As Jura reacted May 14th and no more reactions appeared, I assumed the issue sufficiently dealt with. I marked the proposal ready last sunday and thought that creation could proceed this morning. My apologies if I didn't take enough time. Lymantria (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Creating properties on demand with very low support is not helpful for our project. But you are not alone. --Succu (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Lymantria: I am looking for a property to annotate animals or fauna found in national parks in Sri Lanka. I assume this is the correct property for that, isn't it? I also looked at species kept (P1990) but looking at the discussions this property seems more approprite option, isn't it? NandanaM (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @NandanaM: For protected animals you might consider taxon especially protected in area (P6569). Lymantria (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)