Wikidata:Property proposal/distinguishing property
Distinguishing property
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Description | qualifier for property constraint. Same as separator (P4155) but for properties with distinct-values constraint (Q21502410). |
---|---|
Data type | Property |
Domain | Wikidata property (Q18616576) |
Example 1 | taxon name (P225): property constraint (P2302) distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) → <qualifier value>
|
Example 2 | MISSING |
Example 3 | MISSING |
Planned use | remove the need to list exceptions manually on taxon name (P225) |
See also | separator (P4155) |
Motivation
[edit]Currently, a property with distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) must have every single exception listed manually. With a property like taxon name (P225), this causes enough exceptions listed that trying to add one freezes the page. I'm proposing a property that would be the equivalent of separator (P4155), but for use with distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) instead of single-value constraint (Q19474404). In this case, the property would probably be different from (P1889) or a new "nomenclatural homonym" property. Circeus (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints
- Comment I'm probably missing something, but why doesn't separator (P4155) work for this too? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Let's just say explanations how to get something like that to work are pretty scarce on Wikidata (a constraint anti-violation like this, I'm given to understand, is not "programmed" within the property pages, for starters). Besides, I'm pretty sure if I went ahead and started trying to edit taxon name (P225), I'd get admin warnings, if only because I wouldn't have that much idea how to go about it. At least this actually gets eyes pointed at the issue. Circeus (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I added what I assume to be the proposed use in the template above. Maybe 1 or 2 items that currently have the same taxon name should be listed too. Supposedly a distinguishing property could be parent taxon (if both taxa are in different hierarchies). Simply "different from" and a link to the other uses might do to.
A difference to separator (P4155) could be that the value of this qualifier wouldn't actually be a qualifier of taxon name (P225), but just another property on the item.
@Ivan A. Krestinin, Lucas Werkmeister: any idea how we could make this work? --- Jura 14:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC) - Comment maybe we could call this "distinguishing statement" (or "distinct-making statement"?). For the two cases under #1 it would be parent taxon (P171). --- Jura 16:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I don’t understand that example, sorry. As far as I can tell, Solanum cardiophyllum (Q950868) and Solanum cardiophyllum Dunal (1852) (Q59424086) (currently) have the same parent taxon (P171), so how would this help to distinguish them? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. @Circeus: what property/statement/qualifier would work? --- Jura 16:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- different from (P1889) could work here. --- Jura 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that different from (P1889) requires that someone believes the two items to be the same. If that is not the case, then it is a perfectly cromulent (L40594) property for this purpose, obviously. Circeus (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not entirely clear to me what the two items are about, but didn't Dunal think so? --- Jura 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. What happens with nomenclatural homonyms is that someone mistakenly reuses a name and uses it for a different taxon. They're not (usually) confusing the two taxa (since they're likely not aware the name exists at all), just unaware that the name cannot be used for the new taxon they are assigning a name to. Circeus (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- [ETA] different from (P1889) is not meant as a subproperty, is it? Separator and this require a subproperty to check for, not a direct property of the item itself. Circeus (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Separator does indeed, but for this I think it would be interesting to use an actual statement to check (thus "distinct making-statement"). Otherwise one would just repeat content already on the item. --- Jura 12:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not entirely clear to me what the two items are about, but didn't Dunal think so? --- Jura 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that different from (P1889) requires that someone believes the two items to be the same. If that is not the case, then it is a perfectly cromulent (L40594) property for this purpose, obviously. Circeus (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I don’t understand that example, sorry. As far as I can tell, Solanum cardiophyllum (Q950868) and Solanum cardiophyllum Dunal (1852) (Q59424086) (currently) have the same parent taxon (P171), so how would this help to distinguish them? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --Succu (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- This property is not necessary for things like Solanum cardiophyllum (Q59424086). In cases like this, the first priority is to discourage very strongly that such items are created. They decrease the value of Wikidata, only causing confusion. Secondly, if such items are created, they should not have a "taxon name" as this is not the name of a taxon, but rather the opposite: a name that may not be used for a taxon. If they don't have a "taxon name", they don't need a qualifier for that property. Brya (talk)
- Solanum Cardiophyllum was necessary as the target of replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694) at Solanum boldoense (Q17400584).
- If we follow your argument, then we literally cannot use replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694) ever because its target should never be created.
- The main reason for this argument is not single-code names (though there are no doubt enough of them to justify it due to replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694)), but hemihomonyms, which are the bulk of problem-causing exceptions at taxon name. You would know this if you'd taken the time to actually read the proposal.
- You can't even use nomenclatural status (P1135) (hah. there's the distinguishing subproperty I need!) as a direct property of an item.
- "Necessary" is a big word for a replaced synonym; it is not as if it is a basionym (which is necessary; lots of basionyms still missing). There are cases where a replaced synonym is quite prominent and definitely should be included.
- I did read the proposal. It is indeed not possible to add further names to P225 (not many anyway): it was full quite awhile ago. But I am not clear how this proposal is supposed to help in this respect.
- But indeed perhaps nomenclatural status (P1135) should be used for statements rather than for qualifiers.
- - Brya (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I repeat myself: I am not super knowledgeable with the inner-working of constraint, and it is possible that separator (P4155) does the jo, but no one has explicitly confirmed that. The point is that if this can be worked directly into the constraint definition of taxon name (P225), there will be no need to manually list exceptions (and indeed the entire list could be removed from there), since merely having the appropriate subproperty on these elements will prevent them triggering the constraint in the first place. Circeus (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think the need for a feature exists independently of the optimal way of handling cases like Solanum cardiophyllum Dunal (1852) (Q59424086). Maybe we can replace the sample above and you might want to continue the discussion on the relevant wikiproject. --- Jura 09:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I repeat myself: I am not super knowledgeable with the inner-working of constraint, and it is possible that separator (P4155) does the jo, but no one has explicitly confirmed that. The point is that if this can be worked directly into the constraint definition of taxon name (P225), there will be no need to manually list exceptions (and indeed the entire list could be removed from there), since merely having the appropriate subproperty on these elements will prevent them triggering the constraint in the first place. Circeus (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have a hard time wrapping my head around this, so I will take the coward's way out: if this does what it aims to do, I am in favour. If it does not do this, I am against. - Brya (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- How does it help to reduce constraint violations? We have code of nomenclature (P944)}, so Oppose. --Succu (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's a way to define a query that would find actual distinct value violations. Maybe <qualifier value> should be P944. What query would you use to find them? --- Jura 08:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- This one (for Aa). --Succu (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)