Wikidata:Property proposal/Australian Reptile Online Database ID
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Australian Reptile Online Database ID
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
| Description | identifier for a taxon in the Australian Reptile Online Database |
|---|---|
| Represents | Australian Reptile Online Database (Q108850872) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | Q16521 |
| Allowed values | (\w+)(\/\w+)* |
| Example 1 | Gekkonidae (Q15872) → Squamata/Gekkonidae |
| Example 2 | Amphibolurus muricatus (Q281038) → Squamata/Agamidae/Amphibolurus/muricatus |
| Example 3 | Crocodylus porosus (Q182599) → Crocodilia/Crocodylidae/Crocodylus/porosus |
| Source | https://www.arod.com.au/arod/index.php?q=all |
| External links | Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt]. |
| Planned use | Mix'n'match? |
| Number of IDs in source | 1067 at species level |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
| Formatter URL | https://www.arod.com.au/arod/reptilia/$1 |
| Robot and gadget jobs | yes |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
| Wikidata project | Q11036831 |
Motivation
[edit]Long-term database by a hobbyist. Looks to be well maintained and stable, and has useful information to link to from our species pages. 99of9 (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Australia --99of9 (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. Australian Biota project always needs more items like this, and benefits.JarrahTree (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Modified this support in view of Margaret's points - still support, not so strongly JarrahTree (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)- Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Thierry Caro, what's the benefit? --Succu (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Neutral This will be a great addition to Australian biota. Oronsay (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC). Changed following comments by MargaretRDonald and concern about long-term retention of online database created by "hobbyist". Oronsay (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)- disagree Website is not adequately referenced. Nor does it have institutional support and it needs more than a hobbyist for maintenance, because scientific names change constantly. Note that we do have very good coverage of Australian reptiles via the Australian Faunal database (most of which has not yet been uploaded to wikidata). However, this hobbyist site does offer unreferenced species descriptions. MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: Wrong datatype. Content of obscure nature. --Succu (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC) PS: @Oronsay: Why do you think it's a „great addition to Australian biota“?
- @Succu: Which datatype would you use? The full URL? When formatted consistently like this I think identifiers with URL-formatters are cleaner. --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- A part of an URL makes not an external id. So the datatype should be URL. --Succu (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I guess I'd like to know what you think does make something an external ID if the distinction is clear to you. Some other taxon properties are already a bit like this, e.g. NSW Flora ID (P3130) Flora of Australia ID (new) (P6756) SA Flora ID (P6933). Ultimately I have no big objection to URL, but I'm interested what distinguishes them to you. --99of9 (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- A part of an URL makes not an external id. So the datatype should be URL. --Succu (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Succu: obscure seems right up Wikidata's alley. But in contrast, I suggest an unambiguously clear usecase: the presence of this identifier would be a quick way to determine that a reptilia species is present in Australia. --99of9 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you think so? „complete“ are 45 out of 1067 taxa. So the website seems to be under constrction. It lacks references. --Succu (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- We are full of obscure facts. I'm not sure what the "complete" tag requires. Only one of the property examples is on that list, but I found useful info on all three. Both species examples had a reference, but if other references are lacking, or the information is insufficient for you, I understand your oppose. --99of9 (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you think so? „complete“ are 45 out of 1067 taxa. So the website seems to be under constrction. It lacks references. --Succu (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Succu: Which datatype would you use? The full URL? When formatted consistently like this I think identifiers with URL-formatters are cleaner. --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support — MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
