Wikidata:Property proposal/recombination author
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
recombination author (taxonomy)
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
Withdrawn
| Description | MISSING |
|---|---|
| Represents | human (Q5) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | qualifier of taxon name (P225) |
| Example 1 | Forsteropsalis distincta (Q21270294) → Christopher K. Taylor (Q22113842) (name taken from Wikispecies) |
| Example 2 | Banacuniculus hunteri (Q21247772) → Matthew L. Buffington (Q21339226) (name taken from Wikispecies) |
| Example 3 | Alpioniscus kuehni (Q63726251) → Stefano Taiti (Q21342019) + Roberto Argano (Q21339812), ect... (see Q60047864) |
| See also | complementary to Wikidata:Property proposal/year of recombination (taxonomy) |
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.
WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment note that this property is intended to be used exactly as taxon author (P405), I mean as a qualifier of taxon name (P225). Because we talk here about the potential recombination author(s) of one, and only one, taxon name (accepted or not and recent or not). Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)- Note that this property works toguever with Wikidata:Property proposal/year of recombination (taxonomy). Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:15, 7 December 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 publication of scientific name for taxon (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)
Info Wikidata:Property proposal/year of recombination (taxonomy), I just created the proposal. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- And yes, I should have included "recombination year", similar to year of publication of scientific name for taxon (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)
- ... 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
- ??? "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)
- Comment If this is meant to be a qualifier for taxon name (P225) could you include that in the proposal template? It currently looks like a property to be used directly on a taxon item. --- Jura 16:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn whether this property will be useful for Wikidata one day or not, it is clear that it is not now. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)