Wikidata:Property proposal/taxon described in publication

publication in which this scientific name was established

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Done: no label (P5326) (Talk and documentation)

Description	individual publication, in which a unit of biological nomenclature was first formally established, aka protologue, aka publication in which name was made available
Represents	first valid description (Q1361864)
Data type	Item
Domain	items about works
Example	Synalpheus pinkfloydi (Q29367343) → Synalpheus pinkfloydi sp. nov., a new pistol shrimp from the tropical eastern Pacific (Decapoda: Alpheidae) (Q29390847)

Motivation

There doesn't seem to be any way to link a taxon with the publication in which it was first described. Abyssal (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

Discussion

Oppose I think the inverse would be better - "Taxa first described in this publication", or whatever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This proposed property may be a good idea. At present, it is possible to add this information (many items already have this information), but in a roundabout way. A separate property will be clearer. The "notes in which individual publication that a unit of biological nomenclature was first formally named" has the intention right, but may be better phrased as "work in which this scientific name was established" or more technically: "protologue of this scientific name".

The "taxon described in publication" is a red herring; usually it is uninteresting when a taxon was described. It is the establishment of a scientific name that Wikidata needs to track. The description of a taxon may well be a year, decade or century before the establishment of a scientific name (many of the taxa named by Linnaeus had been known centuries, or even millennia, before he formally named them). - Brya (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "description", that's what I meant. Abyssal (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Brya (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - just a 'small comment, if you want to define this more accurately, I get what you mean, the term in taxonomy is circumscription, this is the publication where the name is attached to a population, what you mean by described. Described may be a little ambiguous. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is it not enough to add the taxon as main subject (P921) or so in the publication item? − Pintoch (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be any number of publications (dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more) that have a taxon as main subject. There is only one publication in which the scientific name is formally established. - Brya (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there could be a lot of them, but you should be able to query for the earliest one, no? − Pintoch (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That may work, part of the time, but there could be five references, while the one in which the name was established is not present. This would give a false result. Also, it is possible to publish on a taxon before it is named (not common, but it happens). This would give a false result, as well. - Brya (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pintoch, Abyssal, Faendalimas, Brya, ChristianKl, Pigsonthewing: Done: P5326 (P5326). − Pintoch (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]