Wikidata:Property proposal/smells of

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

‎smells of

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Withdrawn
DescriptionMISSING
Data typeItem
Domainproperty
Example 1Amorphophallus titanum (Q431224)→cadaver (Q48422)
Example 2Osmeridae (Q166316)→cucumber (Q2735883)
Example 3cyanide (Q55076544)→bitter almond (Q902704)
Example 4Lutra lutra faeces (Q124382165)→jasmine tea (Q60855)
Example 5This Smells Like My Vagina (Q124382218)→human vagina (Q4112929)
Example 6binturong (Q213141)→popcorn (Q165112)
Source
Planned useI plan to make a Mix n Match catalogue for this (my first) as I think that will support some of the scientific comparisons.

I also plan to share the property with a range of projects, inc. ones related biodiversity and chemistry.

Sensory data can be useful, as long as it is has a reference (so the context the sensory input comes from can be judged).
Number of IDs in sourcen/a
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobsI don't think so
See alsoI don't think there are similar sensory properties on Wikidata

Motivation

[edit]

Sensory data can be an important aspect for identification and analysis, and currently Wikidata does not have properties that enable this to be included. There is an item for the sense, as well as for odours e.g. body odour, but there isn't the ability for relational comparison.

  • Previous discussion:
    • There is a property for perfume note, but this is specific to parfumery as a discipline, rather than broader similarities between substances and organisms.
    • There's also been a previous discussion to include odour as part of multilingual text datatype, but it was not adopted.
  • Concerns:
    • Could be open to vandalism
      • Mitigation: set the property so it can't used for human entities e.g. you can't add Sarah Smith (Q..?) smells of body odor (Q1328199)
    • Subjectivity:
      • Set parameter that a reference should be included to show where the comparison is discussed
      • Could also have requirement to have a qualifier for information

I hope the community here will give this proposal consideration: the examples shown indicate the potential to draw comparison within the natural world, between scientific compounds, and indeed household products, to name a few.

Note: this is my first property proposal and I found the process a little challenging. Please have patience if I haven't quite filled in the fields above appropriately. We all learnt to do this once; thanks in advance for your help!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lajmmoore (talk • contribs) at 11:26, 30 January 2024‎ (UTC).[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
@Emu No, you got what I said exactly backwards. I'm saying don't delete or create any properties. Expand the existing property to what's proposed here, and withdraw this proposal once that's done. Swpb (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you for clarifying! --Emu (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Property smells of (P5872) refers to note (Q474423) (note/perfume note), which is an "subclass of" odor (Q485537) qualified only by positive connotation, which is an entirely subjective criterion, lacking any objectivity. (A perfume note/fragrance can be perceived as unpleasant depending on learned connotations and personal experiences.) If smells of (P5872) were more broadly defined based on odor (Q485537), it would be completely redundant to the proposed property.--Cartoffel (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a really good question. I couldn't decide between smells of and smells like for the proposal. I chose smells of for the proposal as it seemed to connect better to the exisiting and specific perfume note. Smell (whether of or like) seemed to be as a catch-all, which would then leave further space for classification. For example, all perfumes smell, but not all smells would be perfumes (which to me at least is associated with fragrance and is perhaps positive). Aroma or odour could work, but didn't seem to me (which I acknowledge is a personal perspective) as obvious as smell. Lajmmoore (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

/Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment A property for odor is important for fungi, since it is often given as an essential feature for identification.--Cartoffel (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cartoffel - I hadn't thought of that! Really excellent point. Perhaps @Gnangarra "has odour of" is a good phrase? Lajmmoore (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2024 (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

@Mike Peel: Did you notice the counter-proposal by User:Swpb? What do you think of it? (I tend to oppose this new property for the reason outlined above.)--Cartoffel (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to say create a new property and nominate the old one for deletion, rather than repurposing. Particularly since those involved in the creation of smells of (P5872), @Nepalicoi, Teolemon, Pigsonthewing, haven't participated in this discussion yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we then  Wait to see what those users have to say, now that you've pinged them, instead of going ahead with a property creation that is very likely to be immediately followed by a deprecation of, and migration from, the existing property? Seems like that would save effort. Swpb (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to consensus thanks so much for all the thoughtful discussion above. It seems that people are in favour of better representation of smell, and that there's more enthusiasm for remodelling smells of (P5872) than creating a new property. What are the next steps please @Swpb:, @Emu: - do I retract this suggestion? Then edit the property? Do you have thoughts to add @Nepalicoi, Teolemon, Pigsonthewing, Cartoffel, Gnangarra,? Also, I'll be at Wikimania this summer and I thought it might be fun to have a workshop on this topic (with things to smell!) to raise awareness and encourage people to add some of this data. Would anyone be interested in hosting it with me? Lajmmoore (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, set status = withdrawn at the top of this proposal, and update the labels, descriptions, and statements on smells of (P5872). I don't think it matters much which you do first. Edit: I went ahead and did the latter; I'll leave the withdrawal to you as proposer. Swpb (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @Swpb - I've really appreciated this discussion! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help! Swpb (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes a wikimania side discussion session to talk this through would be interesting, perhaps I can bring a something to enable the discussion between smell and taste, where I can have source for the various notes as provided by the source vintner Gnangarra (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra - I ended up connecting with @Onwuka Glory and we put a proposal in about smell including the work she's been doing that connects smell and medicine. Although I am in favour of a side event! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello all, just a note to say Glory and I's session on smell and Wikidata has been accepted, come listen on 8 August at 10.30 (Poland time) - I'll be mentioning this discussion @Emu, @Axel Pettersson (WMSE), @Cartoffel, @Gnangarra, @Middle river exports, @Mike Peel, @Pigsonthewing, @Swpb hope to see you there! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/smells_of&oldid=2210554520"