Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

• subject type constraint (Q21503250)
  • class (P2308) taxon (Q16521)
  • class (P2308) organisms known by a particular common name (Q55983715)
  • relation (P2309) instance or subclass of (Q30208840) (instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279))
• value-type constraint (Q21510865)
  • class (P2308) mode of biological reproduction (Q130077803)
  • relation (P2309) subclass of (Q21514624) (or the equivalent of recursively applied subclass of (P279), when applicable)

Currently, for the hundreds of thousands of Wikidata records related to taxa or organisms, there is no easy way to specify the mode of reproduction. This proposed property is intended to fill a gap. --Zhenqinli (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Biology. –Samoasambia ✎ 09:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be unnecessarily repetitive. All mammals (all vertebrates, even) reproduce by sexual means; all bacteria by cell division. We don't need to record this for every species of mammal, nor all species of bacteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there is no need to specify this property for every species. For some, specification at the highest level of taxons would suffice. However, there is a great deal of diversity and variability in the biological world. Even just for vertebrates, the mode of reproduction could be: oviparity (Q212306), viviparity (Q120446), and ovoviviparity (Q192805). In short, this property would provide an option for clarifications when more explicit explanation(s) are needed. --Zhenqinli (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose Taking into account the Pigsonthewing's comment, I think has characteristic (P1552) with any subclass of mode of biological reproduction (Q130077803) is sufficient. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 21:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedbacks. Indeed, having has characteristic (P1552) with any subclass of mode of biological reproduction (Q130077803) is better than having no information regarding an organism's mode(s) of reproduction in Wikidata. Currently they are almost 300 taxon-related properties. Many of them could have been implemented in similar ways as suggested. In my personal opinion though, having a roundabout way to state a key feature of an organism, is not ideal. --Zhenqinli (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The description of has characteristic (P1552) does mention: "Use a more specific property when possible". This property is currently used in more than 200,000 statements, without constraints on subject (organism or taxon) or value (mode of reproduction) as this proposal would prefer. These facts will likely discourage systematic input of useful data and eventual WDQS query of mode of reproduction information using this property in Wikidata. --Zhenqinli (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support; Zhenqinli makes a strong case against using has characteristic (P1552). However, the proposal should be revised to reflect Andy's note – it's standard practice to apply statements only at the highest class (or taxon) at which they are universally true (and sometimes even higher, with qualification like nature of statement (P5102)=often (Q28962312)), a principle that Example 1 (at least) violates. [Edit: fixed 18:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)] It doesn't seem like this property carries any special encouragement to violate that principle, but if it does, that could be addressed in a property usage note. Swpb (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that in the first example, Homo sapiens (Q15978631) should probably be replaced by mammal (Q7377). As parent taxon (P171) is a subproperty of subclass of (P279), statements describing organisms at higher taxon ranks do not need to be re-stated at lower ranks of the class, so there will be no redundancy issue. --Zhenqinli (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope anyone who still has reservation about this proposal could help clarify if there are remaining open issues or alternatives to be discussed further. While diel cycle (P9566) does have more than 284,000 statements for animals, I believe this proposed property for all living organisms should require far less statements, since mode of reproduction is typically more well-defined biologically and commonly stated at higher taxon ranks than diel cycle (diel cycle could also be modified due to domestication). --Zhenqinli (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Weak support Infoboxes on Wikipedia might want to include the mode of reproduction and thus it's good to have it one it's own property that's separate from has characteristic (P1552).

Currently, the problem is that the examples of the property are bad. It's not true that all plants have both sexual and asexual reproduction and thus it would be bad to make the statement for plants. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such a statement for plants could be qualified by nature of statement (P5102)=often (Q28962312), but I agree that an unqualified always-true statement would make a better example. Anything wrong with examples 1 and 2? Swpb (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting the proposal. I, too, would like to see better examples. But I also think more examples could be introduced, improved or updated later. I believe the mode of reproduction is well-documented scientifically and systematically. Once introduced to Wikidata, this property can have comparable or better data quality and utilization compared with similar taxon-related properties such as is pollinated by (P1703), seed dispersal (P3741), longest observed lifespan (P4214), and diel cycle (P9566). --Zhenqinli (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relatively complex field. Human (and mouse) parthenogenesis has been achieved, on an embryonic level. Gynogenesis is present in vertebrates, as is hybridogenesis. I imagine the viral reproduction we are familiar with is called lysogenesis, but I also imagine that there's more to viruses than they are letting on, and certainly there can be gene mixing (indeed there can be inter-species and even inter-kingdom gene mixing). So I suppose we would want a list with custom allowed. Would we also allow the use of this property on things that reproduce but normally considered living? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for the informative comments. Indeed, this is an important and broad concept that is currently missing among existing Wikidata properties. Personally, I hope to see a new simple property to serve as a common denominator applicable to all taxa and organisms. The complexity of reproduction in the biological world could still be captured within combinations of value items and qualifiers, on an as-needed basis. For an example, the fact that sheeps could be reproduced via cloning can be expressed in the following statement: sheep (Q7368)→cloning (Q120877), with qualifiers observed in (P6531)=cloned mammal (Q57813806) and model item (P5869)=Dolly the Sheep (Q171433). --Zhenqinli (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]