Wikidata:Property proposal/Flora of Australia (new) ID
Flora of Australia (new) ID
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
| Description | identifier for a plant taxon, in an Australian Commonwealth database |
|---|---|
| Data type | External identifier |
| Template parameter | To be added to en:Template:Taxonbar (and equivalents in up to 27 Wikipedias), etc. |
| Domain | plant taxa |
| Allowed values | [a-z]20% |
| Example | |
| Source | https://profiles.ala.org.au/opus/foa/profile/ |
| 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]. |
| Number of IDs in source | currently 14884 taxa |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
| Formatter URL | https://profiles.ala.org.au/opus/foa/profile/$1 |
| See also | Property:P3130 |
Motivation
[edit]This is a different ID from the Flora of Australia online ID, and it is unclear what it should be called: all suggestions welcome Flora of Australia online continues to exist and is enormously useful. However, the new site for profiles of species under "Flora of Australia" is to be found at Boronia serrulata Note that the current flora of Australia ID site, while it continues to exist, is no longer updated.
Reputable database, published by the Australian Biological Resources Study (Q4823886). At present not widely used as a citation source on en- and other Wikipedias. However, many taxa will never go up on the old Flora of Australia site and this is the site which is now being updated with many plants/taxa which are not available on the old site. Not surprisingly, it is currently working on supplementing the old database, with an apparent priority being for descriptions of plants/taxa not described in the old database. Despite its heading which includes ALA, it should not be entitled Atlas of living australia but have the title shown when viewing a profile MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
(modified it to take advantage of User:Mr. Fulano's suggestion. MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Support This looks good. @MargaretRDonald: I hope you don't mind but I've moved this to its own subpage, and included it in the relevant proposal lists. --99of9 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)- Support. Looks good to me. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC).
- Support although for similarly-constructed identifiers, I think we store, for example, "Boronia serrulata" rather than "Boronia%20serrulata". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support After a look in the site, I think that this property could be used in botanic families and genus too, like in these examples: [1] and [2]. Mr. Fulano! Talk 18:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support David (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Done @MargaretRDonald, Tommy Kronkvist, Pigsonthewing, Mr. Fulano, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Enjoy! --99of9 (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks @99of9:, MargaretRDonald (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)