Wikidata:Property proposal/Washington Rare Plant Field Guide ID
Washington Rare Plant Field Guide ID
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
| Description | identifier for a rare plant in the Washington Natural Heritage Program's Rare Plant Field Guide |
|---|---|
| Represents | Online Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington (Q106146327) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | taxon (Q16521) |
| Allowed values | [a-z0-9]+ |
| Example 1 | Ammannia robusta (Q4747164) → amro3 |
| Example 2 | Lycopodiella inundata (Q899476) → lyin2 |
| Example 3 | Oxytropis borealis var. viscida (Q32365334) → oxbov |
| Example 4 | Poa nervosa (Q10807800) → pone2 |
| Example 5 | Rubus arcticus subsp. acaulis (Q24689109) → ruara2 |
| Example 6 | Utricularia gibba (Q244015) → utrgib |
| Source | https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPfieldguide |
| Planned use | will add to items as they are edited |
| Number of IDs in source | 341 vascular plants, 16 mosses and one lichen (as of March 23, 2021; see https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPfieldguide) |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
| Formatter URL | https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_$1.pdf |
| See also | CNPS ID (P4194) |
| Applicable "stated in"-value | Online Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington (Q106146327) |
Motivation
[edit]The Washington Natural Heritage Program (Q106146523)'s Online Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington (Q106146327) includes descriptions of 341 vascular plants, 16 mosses, and one lichen. Each treatment includes information on identification, phenology, range, habitat, ecology, state status, inventory needs, threats, and references. Species and habitat photos, line drawings and distribution maps are also included. This property will provide a link to authoritative information on the rare plants of Washington State. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Botany.
Notified participants of WikiProject United States.
Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose --Succu (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)- Support This property will be useful for people who create metadata about plants (I am one of those people). The rarer or lesser-known the plant, the more helpful specific identifiers such as these are. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Jala360 14:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Pteropotamus (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Emwille (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Succu: care to explain your opposition here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: Supporters usually give no reasons, why they support a new property. So I did the same. I don't think we need a new property for around 350 entries. We could use described at URL (P973) or described by source (P1343). --Succu (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- This might be a small number of entries for a world database, but it is focused on one jurisdiction in the U.S. I don't see why the number of IDs should determine whether a resource is valuable or not. In the context of Washington State, this is a very valuable resource for its subject. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: Supporters usually give no reasons, why they support a new property. So I did the same. I don't think we need a new property for around 350 entries. We could use described at URL (P973) or described by source (P1343). --Succu (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Done @UWashPrincipalCataloger, Thierry Caro, Succu, Clements.UWLib, Jala360: While I do understand Succu’s point of view, various external identifier propsals with far fewer values than this have been approved. No modeling, scope or technical concerns were raised. So I don’t think that the opposing vote doesn’t mean that there is no consensus in principle. --Emu (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)