Wikidata talk:WikiProject Biology

Parasitism (non-mutual relationship between organisms of different species) and parasite (an organism that benefits from this relation) are currently linked to the same item: parasitism (Q186517). I think we need to separate those two concepts. host organism (Q221673) is already handled separately by most Wikipedias. -Tobias1984 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Another good example: Ommatokoita elongata (Q3809036) lives parasitic on Greenland sharks and Pacific sleeper sharks. How can we models that it lives on those animals' eyes? --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). It would be great if you would see room for interaction! Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, i would like to import around 551,000 items, each being a reviewed protein entry. For each item, the values of the following ten properties would be imported: accession number, protein name, gene name, organism, GO - molecular function, GO - biological function, keywords, length, mass and sequence. For these items, i would request the creation of 10 properties at Wikidata:Property_proposal: accession number, protein name, gene name, organism, Gene Ontology - molecular function, Gene Ontology - biological function, keywords, protein length, protein mass and protein sequence. Are there any objections to that? We have Uniprot's permission. Here's the analogous discussion at the Wikiproject Chemistry. Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

Hi all! I want to indicate that Triticum aestivum (Q161098) is hexaploidy (Q28758341) (ploidy (P1349)). Should I create an item for Triticum aestivum genome or can I add it to Triticum aestivum (Q161098)? (same for genome size (P2143)).

Tubezlob (🙋) 10:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Daniel Mietchen: I would say that the item Triticum aestivum (Q161098) is good until we get more statements about the Triticum aestivum (Q161098)-genome. Some genomes are very well studied and therefore deserve an own item, but creating a genome item for every species would at the moment add more items than we could probably manage. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK thank you! I added taxon (Q16521) in domain in the talk page of the property. Tubezlob (🙋) 07:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

Hi all,

I added on the item Raphus cucullatus (Q43502) a statement with mass (P2067) (10.2 kg). Is it the right way to do it? How can we say that it is a average mass? Tubezlob (🙋) 07:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tubezlob: Several different qualifiers are being used with mass (see SPARQL query). I don't know which one would be appropriate to specify average (Q202785). --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

Hello everyone. A volunteer (User:Stan3) has uploaded 1,750 audio files of animal sounds from the Natural History Museum in London. They're on Commons at Category:Files from BioAcoustica. This tool now shows where file names correspond to items on Wikidata.

The files themselves often have more information on the species in the file description. If anyone is interested in going through some of the files and adding them to Wikidata items that would greatly help with sharing the content. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi all

Over the past few months myself and others have been thinking about the best way to help people model subjects consistently on Wikidata and provide new contributors with a simple way to understand how to model content on different subjects. Our first solution is to provide some best practice examples of items for different subjects which we are calling Model items. E.g the item for William Shakespeare (Q692) is a good example to follow for creating items about playwright (Q214917). These model items are linked to from the item for the subject to make them easier to find and we have tried to make simple to understand instructions.

We would like subject matter experts to contribute their best examples of well modelled items. We are asking all the Wikiprojects to share with us the kinds of subjects you most commonly add information about and the best examples you have of this kind of item. We would like to have at least 5 model items for each subject to show the diversity of the subject e.g just having William Shakespeare (Q692) as a model item for playwright (Q214917), while helpful may not provide a good example for people trying to model modern poets from Asia.

You can add model items yourself by using the instructions at Wikidata:Model items. It may be helpful to have a discussion here to collate information first.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

For some reason Tactusa (Q7674146) spp. were given Werauhia (Q141053) as parent taxon some time ago. I have corrected the parent taxon and the descriptions that said "species of plant" or "species of the genus Werauhia" in English, Spanish, German and Dutch, but the others are are beyond my inclination or ability.

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Q7674146. William Avery (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

For a species of animal -- let's say a bird -- it seems like there should be an easy way to add a variety of images of different types/species. Is there a guide somewhere on how to do this in a thoughtful way? For example, an egg, a chick, a fledgling, first year, breeding male, nonbreeding male, female.... ? please ping — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have a similar question regarding how to indicate development stage on images (and potentially also physical properties). Insects would be the most straightforward example where I would want a qualifier to point to larva (Q129270), nymph (Q258362) or imago (Q207254). I imagine there could be use cases in other areas too, though. For example one might want to indicate spore (Q177332) on fungi. Belteshassar (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• @Rhododendrites, Belteshassar: see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Botany#Canonical_views?--- Jura 10:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Related to Wikidata:WikiProject Biology#Related items and properties 2, wouldn't it be better applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) than of (P642) as a qualifier of mass (P2067)? Thanks in advance. Paucabot (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; * *Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler Tris T7 ^{TT me} Photocyte GoEThe (talk) Egon Willighagen

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology Paucabot (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on completing some work started by User:TimK_MSI on adding the EPA Ecoregion classification system as WikiData. Having these online as a persistent, resolvable ID complete with links to other useful items and interconnections will be useful in some of the biogeography work that we do in my lab. I've added property proposals (Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#Biology) for the 5 different identifier schemes used in the EPA Ecoregion data that I would like to get reviewed and approved soon for use. I have code that will build the WikiData items from source data and will need to eventually add the source identifiers so that they can be queried from external systems. This topic likely belongs in more of an ecology category, but no one had created that yet under the property proposals Natural Science category yet. Please let me know if I'm off base with these proposals. --Skybristol (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Wikimedians,

Greetings from Wiki Loves Butterfly team. As you might know, for the last 4 years, we have been documenting butterfly taxon endemic to eastern and north-eastern part of India through the Wiki Loves Butterfly project. Our aim is to increase the amount of free license materials along with enrichment of related content on different Wikimedia sites. Our project has been previously supported by 4 Rapid Grants. Since the beginning of the project in 2016, we have gained considerable amount of expertise, maturity and confidence to successfully plan and execute field-documentations and expanded our area of activity in remote deep forests of North East India. But the range of activities in all of our previous endeavors were much restricted due to budget constraints, which has now encouraged us to apply for the Project Grants Program for the coming phase, for vaster and more extensive qualitative documentation related to the topic. The WLB team is requesting all interested Wikimedians to visit our Project Grants proposal and provide valuable feedback and suggestions here. If you feel this project proposal is eligible to get the grant, then you can endorse the proposal here.Thank you--Atudu (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Could I have assistance with Coenagrion exornatum (Q2195932), please? It is claimed to be a misspelling of another taxon. Should we merge them or preserve the reification of the misspelling? Bovlb (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The claim is made in this paper.

In 1872 Edmond de Selys Longchamps published two papers on Odonata. In both of them he published new names in Agrion. One of them was Agrion ecornutum, see here, p. 44. De Selys also gave an explanation for the name: "La tache dorsale noire du 2e segment est dépourvue des branches latérales ou cornes" (the black patch on the back of segment 2 does not show any lateral branches or thorn-shaped projections).

When Kirby created the genus Coenagrion in 1890, het took up a 'Coenagrion exornatum (Selys, 1872)', see here, where he refers to p. 44 in De Selys' paper. Agrion ecornutum was the only Agrion of De Selys on that page. Kirby or his printer must have misread the name and probably missed the explantion De Selys gave for 'ecornutum'. After publication of Kirby's paper, the misprinted 'name' started to live a life of its own.

Ten years ago, the two names (C. ecornutum and 'C. exornatum') were both listed in many online databases, and also in the more authoritative World Odonata List (see that old version here). At the latest in 2010, it was noted that the name was a mistake, when Jin Whoa Yum et al. published the paper that I referred to in the first line; see p.45 in that pdf. I don't know if they were the first to make the discovery. But since then, the name was removed from World Odonata List, see the latest version.

In World Odonata List it is customary to refer a name to the synonymy of another name if the (new) synonym is an available name. 'C. exornatum' was not referred to the synonymy of C. ecornutum because it is not an available name. It is a misspelled name that happened to be erroneously taken up by non-specialists creating lists of names, like Encyclopedia of Life, Species 2000, GBIF and many, many others, as if it were an accepted name for a good species.

It is not a good idea to merge items in a case like this. 'Coenagrion exornatum' is not a synonym of Coenagrion ecornutum. The latter one is an available name, the first one is a 'nothing' in a taxonomical sense. I think it is a good idea to let the item be, but to take away any claims that suggest this is the name of a species. So no parent taxon (the name should never pop up in a list of direct children of Coenagrion), no statements or descriptions suggesting this is a name of a taxon, but a reference to at least one paper where the situation is explained. Jin Whoa Yum et al. would be my first choice. 77.164.133.132 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi, Greetings from the Wiki Loves Butterfly team.

As you might know, for the last 6 years, we have been documenting butterfly taxons endemic to eastern and north-eastern part of India through the Wiki Loves Butterfly project. Our aim has been to increase the amount of free license materials along with enrichment of related content on different Wikimedia sites. Our project was previously supported by 4 Rapid Grants and currently the fifth phase is running under the Project Grants.

Since the beginning of the project in 2016, we have gained a considerable amount of expertise, maturity and confidence to successfully plan and execute field-documentations and expand our area of activity in remote deep forests of north-east India. We are now applying for the Wikimedia Community Fund so that we can expand our activities in our next phase to bring more quantity and quality to the topic.

You can find our fund proposal here -

Regards, Atudu (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC) , Project Lead, Wiki Loves Butterfly teamReply

As per Wikidata:Property proposal/Featherbase ID. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Done as Featherbase ID (P12589). AdamSeattle (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you please help with a couple of elements? Are these two the same? Should they be merged?

Catalase (Q424724) - CAT (Q14849060)

Thanks --Luca.favorido (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

hi Luca, no, they are different. One is the gene and the other is the protein. These different things. Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Egon! :-) I will specify it in the italian description. Luca.favorido (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology Luca.favorido (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To me it feels like the two are similar enough to merge but they have different NCI values. It seems like if we keep them we would need two different item for a rhythm like the heart rhythm (in addition to items for a heart beat and a finding of a heart beat). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I started a thread at WikiProject Molecular biology, but I haven't gotten any response; I'm wondering if this project is more active and someone with the relevant knowledge could take a look. Thanks! Swpb (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply