User talk:EOLTraits

Welcome to Wikidata

Thanks for joining the Wikidata community and for working on diel cycle (P9566) and related matters. There is no dedicated space for traits here yet but if you'd like to discuss anything, the talk pages of Wikidata:WikiProject Biodiversity and Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy are probably good starting points. For more general topics, there is also Wikidata:Project chat. Hope you enjoy the ride! Daniel Mietchen (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, @Daniel Mietchen. Where to bring questions is helpful to know, and not always easy to determine! Jenniferhammock (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the links @Daniel Mietchen. It looks like the Wikidata:WikiProject Biodiversity project chat is on Telegram which is not a platform any of us are using. So I just posted a question about the representation of quantitative data on the Wikidata:Project chat. We would be grateful for your input if you have ideas for potential solutions. Sylverfysh (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jenniferhammock, Sylverfysh: I'll have to look around a bit and think about this. In the meantime, here are some trait-related properties already that we could use as starting points to figure this out, e.g. gestation period (P3063), longest observed lifespan (P4214), wingspan (P2050), egg incubation period (P7770), litter size (P7725) or bite force quotient (P3485) (check this query for more). Would probably be useful to set up a navigation template like {{Taxonomy properties}} for them and/ or to peruse toolforge:propbrowse to start diving deeper into the matter. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I finally found one example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q302215 . I had wondered about sourcing circumstances, but it doesn't sound like this is really the intent. Jenniferhammock (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like another desperate attempt to do something that cannot be done with the current toolset. It would be good to develop specific tools for the intended purpose. I think this goes beyond taxa and biology/biodiversity. I'm sure there are other classes of items whose properties need statistical qualifiers. Sylverfysh (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I started Wikidata:WikiProject Biodiversity/Traits to assist in collecting information about trait-related properties and suitable example items. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like toolforge:propbrowse is down. Will try again later. Sylverfysh (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems I gave the wrong link for Propbrowse — correct is https://hay.toolforge.org/propbrowse/. It is worth exploring with search terms like minimum/ minimal/ maximum/ maximal/ average etc. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both the property browser and the traits project will be very helpful. Sylverfysh (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect EOL traits

I'm currently working on expanding Wikipedia articles on New Zealand moths and manually curating their Wikidata items and the structured data in Wikicommons attached to their images. I've noticed that diel cycle statements have been added to Wikidata items of some New Zealand moths. Unfortunately the data contained in EOL and ingested into Wikidata appears to be incorrect for many of our New Zealand endemic day flying moths. Some of the moths I've worked on recently have had incorrect statements added to their Wikidata items that they are nocturnal. As an example see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q13536186. I note that the same incorrect statement also appears on the EOL species page. I was wondering whether your group have any plans to correct/curate the data being imported into Wikidata and also would like information on how you infer that a particular species has a particular trait. Obviously I'm keen that trait data be added to Wikidata but I am concerned that incorrect statements are being added with information having been inferred from general publications rather than obtained from more reliable sources. Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @Ambrosia10! That record was based mostly on Kawahara et al's reconstruction for Lepidoptera, though we used a few additional sources to exclude additional groups where diel cycle is not uniformly nocturnal. Evidently we didn't achieve sufficient taxonomic sampling. All similar records will be removed. If there are moth groups where you think it's practical to reach sufficient coverage, please suggest some sources, and we'll try something more modest. Jenniferhammock (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

taxon range (P9714)

Stop adding taxon range (P9714) as inferred from (P3452) from a a book without giving a page: example Succu (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It's simply wrong to use inferred from (P3452) for such kind of statement. Please rollback! --Succu (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood! We are preparing to insert pagination. Please confirm using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P304 in the reference is the accepted method? Jenniferhammock (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

For a reference you should allways use stated in (P248). See e.g. taxon name (P225) at Canna (Q161182). page(s) (P304) is OK. --Succu (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You didn't changed anything! --Succu (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hang in there, @Succu; we're still compiling pagination edits for those records. It shouldn't take much longer. The property will also be revised per your recommendation. Jenniferhammock (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Again this is wrong. Correct for this monotypic species is Chile and Argentina.

Again this is doubtfull The book series has not distribution data below the genus rank. --Succu (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that country-level range assignments would be more precise. Hopefully, in due course, someone will provide them for all plants. In the meantime, the regional assignments in your examples are still accurate (Chile and Argentina are both in South America, and South Africa is in Southern Africa), and I imagine most data users would consider regional assignments better than nothing, don't you? It's true that this source does not make species level assignments. That's why initially we used the inferred from property. It can be inferred that a species can be found in Southern Africa, for instance, if its entire genus is found there. Perhaps there's a more appropriate way to model a reference like that? Jenniferhammock (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

And I will suggest, if you're going to add the taxon range to a species, then use a source that provides a tightly focused location instead of vast regional areas that your source provides. Junglenut (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)