User:Succu/Archive/2015

Type location

Hi Succu,

I see that you intend to remove locations from taxa. This would be fine if these were indeed locations of taxa, but it appears that these often are type locations of fossils. This would be sensible information, although the present formatting is not optimum. - Brya (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brya, I hadn't a look at the results. My intention was to get an overview. I think we need a new property (or new properties) for this kind of information. Regards --Succu (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks that way to me, too. - Brya (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Roxita (Q7372446)

Hallo, Modestia ist ein Synonym, siehe z. B. hier. Grüße, --Komischn (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wie schon im Bearbeitungkommentar geschrieben: Bitte benutze taxon synonym (P1420) für Synonyme und nicht taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ach um die gewählte Eigenschaft, nicht (primär) um die Quelle geht's. Aber wie verwendet man taxon synonym (P1420) richtig? Da muss man ja ein komplett neues Datenobjekt anlegen. Das auf der Diskussionsseite genannte Beispiel Guppy hilft auch nicht weiter, da ist die Eigenschaft gar nicht (mehr) zu finden. Oder ist die Angabe "Modestia" unter "Auch bekannt als" bei Roxita ausreichend? --Komischn (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Kommt darauf an, was du erreichen möchtest. Ich habe mal das Datenobjekt für die BKL Modestia (Q18707840) für dich angelegt. Der Alias (=Auch bekannt als) Modestia führt dazu, dass bei einer Suche sowohl die BKL als auch die Gattung Roxita (Q7372446) gefunden werden. Möchtest du weitergehende Aussagen über die Gattung Modestia erstellen, dann musst du ein neues Datenobjekt anlegen, das du dann u.a. mit taxon synonym (P1420) nutzen kannst. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not really meaningful to say "Modestia ist ein Synonym". It is a synonym according to that one source, but this does not mean that other sources may not have other viewpoints. Also "is a synonym" can refer to several possible relationships.

        But there is a indeed a problem in that we have only taxon synonym (P1420) and not the reciprocal property. - Brya (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Pia (Q18108165) has a label and claims, but no references at all. It's very difficult for a normal person to verify that this even exists, let alone write a description for it. Shouldn't there be references for each of these living things, especially since there are millions and the typical person has never heard of 95% of them and is not familiar with specialized search sites? --Closeapple (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Pia (Q18108165) has a backlink to Pia cyanea (Q14523067) an now parent taxon (P171). Yes there should be real references and a I'm providing a lot of them. But we have around 80,000 items without parent taxon (P171). To get rid of them is one of my priorities. Regards --Succu (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It is easy to verify that this is derived from the CoL, which has an error rate of 5%, 10%, 20 %? So, heaven only knows if this does exist. This kind of stuff is imported by bot, and cannot be stopped. It is here, and nothing is to be done about it, except trying to make sure that this stuff does not contradict each other. - Brya (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

is pollinated by (P1703) & is pollinator of (P1704)

Properties is pollinated by (P1703) & is pollinator of (P1704) are ready. Thank you for discussing them. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Schon bemerkt. ;) --Succu (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your erroneous edits to Isaac Newton

I just got another user to fix his/her erroneous edits, and you put the errors back! See Talk:Q935#Wrong birth and death dates. PLEASE FIX! Jc3s5h (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The dates given in proleptic Julian calendar (Q1985786) are correct. ---Succu (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I call your attention to the following diff which prove you have introduced incorrect data to Wikidata.

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q935&diff=next&oldid=189346608. The diff shows the birth date stamp as "ISO timestamp +00000001642-12-25T00:00:00Z". In as much as ISO 8601 dates are always Gregorian calendar (proleptic if need be), this is wrong.

This diff also shows the death birth death stamp as "ISO timestamp +00000001726-03-20T00:00:00Z". Again this is false because the Gregorian death date is 1726-03-31.

I demand that you fix this error. If you fail to do so I will raise a charge of incompetence and seek to remove your administrator privileges. Jc3s5h (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:Periglio has repaired the error. I insist that you leave the repair alone. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Be carefull with your wording, Jc3s5h. Switching the calendarmodel makes not a lot of sense, but this should be discussed elsewhere. --Succu (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Kategorien und so

Hallo Succu,

seit wann gilt das? Bisher gab es immer interwikis zw. Commonscats und WP-Artikeln.

Liebe Grüße, PigeonIP (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oder gilt das nur, wenn es eine Hauptkategorie zum Artikel gibt? Dann sollte da die Commons-cat aber auch verlinkt sein... --PigeonIP (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi!. Es wurde irgendwann mal festgelegt, dass unter Weblinks ausschließlich die sogenannten Gallerien von Commons verlinkt werden sollen. Für Kategorien gibt es Commons category (P373). Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Das ist aber für Kategorien, wie c:Category:Dresden Trumpeter wenig sinnvoll und ich dachte, das würde auch toleriert bzw. ist so gewollt (also wenn eine cat zur cat gibt, dann nur Kategorien miteinander verlinken, wenn es keine Kategorien gibt, dann auch Artikel (so kenn ich die Regel mind. von Commons her). Die Verlinkungen von Commons category (P373) funktionieren bei mir in der Anzeige des Datenobjektes z.B. auch gar nicht und werden dann noch die Interwikis gepflegt? --PigeonIP (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Das wurde Ende 2013 auf Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links diskutiert. Ich kenne mich mit den Vorgängen und Verfahren auf Commons nur wenig aus. Wenn du auf den Wert von Commons category (P373) klickst solltest du eigentlich direkt bei der Commons-Kategorie landen. Gleiches gilt für Commons gallery (P935). --Succu (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Der Wert wird mir leider häufig nicht angezeigt. Erst recht nicht, wenn ich das Item zuvor bearbeitet habe. Was mich ärgert, ist, dass ich manche Interwikis in Commonscategories gelöscht habe, weil ich die Commonscat ja über Wikidata verlinkte und die Interwikis so angezeigt wurden... Der Sinn wird mir jetzt immer rätselhafter. Gelebte Praxis war und ist jedenfalls, dass verstärkt auch CommonsCategories mit WP-Artikeln verlinkt wurden, weil es nur wenige gescheite Galeries gibt und die auch noch schlecht gepflegt sind. Bzw. was schadet es, wenn im Zweifelsfall von Categories und Galleries auf den Artikel verlinkt wird? Erst recht, wenn es nur Categories gibt? Welcher Schaden entsteht da? Oder ist das nicht ein Mehrwert?

Beispiel Domesticated guineafowl (Q12299829): Der Datensatz hinterlegt Artikel in 7 Sprachen. In c:Category:Domesticated guineafowl werden jetzt nur noch zwei angezeigt. Eine Gallery gibt es nicht. Für mich ist das ein böser Rückschritt. Ursprünglich war es mal Sinn des Projektes die Pflege der Interwikis zu erleichtern.

Aber Sinn der Beschreibung der Items war ursprünglich auch mal die Unterscheidung von gleichnamigen Datensätzen. Jetzt werden Bezeichnung, Beschreibung und Bild aus Wikidata beim Aufruf eines Artikels auf Mobilgeräten per default angezeigt. Die Entwicklung gefällt mir auch nicht. Unterscheidungsmerkmal ist nun einmal nicht die Kurzbeschreibung eines Artikels.

Du siehst, meine Motivation für das Projekt wächst unaufhörlich. Je mehr ich mitbekomme desto mehr Schwung kommt in die Sache ;(

Das soll jetzt keine Kritik an dir sein und nimm das bitte nicht als solche. Ich gewinne nur mehr und mehr den Eindruck das Projekt (Wikidata mit seinen Schwestern Wikipedia u.a.) schießt sich mit seinen gegenläufigen Hamsterrädern so langsam ins Abseits. --PigeonIP (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Seuftz, langsam verstehe ich diese Diskussion besser. Ich hatte das mit der Commons-Verlinkung nie aufmerksam verfolgt und wollte nur ein wenig im P225-Bereich Ordnung schaffen. Mein kleiner Selbsttest läßt mich nachdenklich zurück. Ganz offensitlich werden Kategorien-Verlinkunge als Interwikis interpretiert. Das in deinem Beispiel noch zwei übrig waren lliegt nur daran, dass sie noch lokal vorhanden sind. Ja du hast recht: irgendetwas läuft hier sehr unabgestimmt ab. Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Taxon revert

Hi! I noticed some reverts like this. My edit was done from itwiki, with the add interlink tab (so don't know why all those alias...). Well the problem is that "our" article has the same content of others, but the italian local taxon project decided to use the species name for title when a genere is monospecied. What can we do? --AlessioMela (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Please simply search for "monotypic" on my talk page and you'll find a lot of answers. --Succu (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

sex or gender (P21)

Am I right with this? Thank you, Conny (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

Ganz ehrlich? Ich wüßte im Augenblick nicht so richtig warum das Sinn ergeben sollte. Die Eigenschaft ist ja für Individuen gedacht. Ich glaube kaum das hier z.B. ein Kataster von männlichen und weiblichen Ginkgo biloba (Q43284) entstehen wird. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok verstanden, danke für den Hinweis bezüglich Individuen :) . Grüße, Conny (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC).

Commons categories

Succu, please don't delete categories but try to move them to category items whenever possible. You can also check if corresponding gallery exists. --Infovarius (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If not present I added Commons category (P373). So nothing is lost. --Succu (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

genuses and taxons

Hi, any genus is also a taxon. This fits the subclass of (P279) définition.

So I'll revert your revert TomT0m ^(talk) 19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, I did this because I created a class : genus (Q19354125)    which could be very useful because Wikidata is full of those items who have sometimes a Wikipedia article for the genus, sometime for the species. So it will we useful to list them and maybe find a solution for interwikis in templates. So please think twice before starting an edit war. TomT0m ^(talk) 19:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We do not model taxa this way. BTW: we had this discussion a long time before. --Succu (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes we had, this does not change the fact everything I say is true. And it is useful. TomT0m ^(talk)

edit comment That's not wrong. Take the set of all taxon. Take the set of all genuses. Clearly the second one is a subset of the first one. That we call genus a rank does not really change that. It's pretty easy to define the set of all taxons ranked genuses if it's what bothering you. And it's allowed by web standards in triple stores to do things like that. TomT0m ^(talk) 20:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not an argument about truth. Usually there are different ways to model things. And we have to implement a choosen model in a consistent way. Thats all. --Succu (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Changing a wikidata item name

Item Xanthocyparis nootkatensis (Q163811) is listed under a synonym Xanthocyparis nootkatensis, rather than the currently accepted name Cupressus nootkatensis. How can it be corrected, please? Thanks - MPF (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Accepted by which taxon authority? --Succu (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Many; e.g. Christenhusz et al. (including Farjon, who has revised his earlier placement of it in Xanthocyparis, GRIN, Cupressus Conservation Project, etc. - MPF (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Christenhusz et al. note: „Adams et al. (2009) showed that Cupressus formed two clades: the Old World clade of Cupressus was sister to Juniperus , where as the New World clade of Cupressus (Hesperocyparis) included Xanthocyparis vietnamensis and Callitropsis nootkatensis . However, Mao et al. (2010) showed that Cupressus in its broad sense including Xanthocyparis and Callitropsis is monophyletic with weak support. Until resolution of the phylogenetic position of Cupressus is achieved, we take a conservative option and maintain Cupressus in a broad sense, including Callitropsis, Hesperocyparis and Xanthocyparis.”

Different wikis have different meanings too. So what shall we do? --Succu (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The best current genetic data concludes Cupressus sensu lato (including Xanthocyparis, Callitropsis, and Hesperocyparis) is monophyletic; I am aware of further studies in progress which support this. I would suggest that Wikidata follows suit, as per Commons and Wikispecies. Also, having Xanthocyparis in Wikidata but not Callitropsis or Hesperocyparis, leaves Wikidata's treatment of Cupressus "sensu semi-lato" as paraphyletic, which is even less accurate. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Besides Xanthocyparis (Q133623) we have Callitropsis (Q17165731) and Hesperocyparis (Q16983101). But you did not answer my question. --Succu (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One empty, and the other linked just to a list of redirects at en:wiki. I did answer; you asked "So what shall we do?", my reply was "I would suggest that Wikidata follows suit, as per Commons and Wikispecies" ;-) MPF (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Why should Wikidata follow a single point of view (POV)? --Succu (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it has to follow a point of view, unless you have separate Q-numbers for each of Cupressus nootkatensis, Callitropsis nootkatensis, Xanthocyparis nootkatensis, and Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. But that would defeat the whole purpose of Wikidata in providing connectivity between different wikipedias. And once one accepts a single point of view, one has to select the one that best matches the available scientific data. To turn the question on its head, why should it be titled Xanthocyparis nootkatensis? - MPF (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason not to have three/four/five items, or to change names. What can be debated is the placing of the iw-links, and it helps to put all of them in one item. Given the confusion, there is no obvious one correct name.

        The biggest need for Wikidata is more references, documenting the various points of view. BTW: obviously there is no "best current genetic data"; what we are dealing with here are phylogenetic studies. - Brya (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@MPF:. What do you mean by "item name"? Label in some language or value of property taxon name (P225)? In latter case we can have multiple values with appropriate qualifiers. --Infovarius (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Anadia / Argalia?

Hi there, sorry to bother you, and sorry for English (I don't speak German) but I found a surprising edit and I wanted to ask if the edit is OK because I don't know much about biology. In here the name changed to Argalia, but the word "Argalia" does not appear in the linked Wikipedia pages. Maybe another page was vandalized and then the vandalism entered through a merge, but I wanted to check with you first to confirm. Thanks --Haplology (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Haplology. This was caused by the merge and not intended. I did not noticed it because I use the german interface. It's corrected now. Regards --Succu (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

subclass and parent taxon.

Hi, again about taxons. Can you explain why reading the definition shows in whatever way that parent taxon is different from a subclass relation ?

A (concrete) class has real members, a taxon has real world counterpart who are of that class, the organisms. TomT0m ^(talk) 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It will cause the same problems, as the replacement of parent taxon (P171) with subclass of (P279) would cause. Modeling biological taxa is not as straightforward as it seems. Maybe the following article gives you some insights:

• Stefan Schulz, Holger Stenzhorn, Martin Boeker: The ontology of biological taxa. Bioinformatics (2008) 24 (13): i313-i321 doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn158.

--Succu (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I can easily answer concerns about their modeling as a subclass relations. They do not use properly metaclasses, see Help:Classification for an introduction about them, and the article in english wikipedia about metaclass (Q19478619)    . They can infer

⟨ Clyde ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ Genus ⟩

 because Is_a(Genus Elephas, Genus), or

⟨ Genus Elephas ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Genus ⟩

in Wikidata. This is not a good way to model this, the proper way is to use metaclasses.

instance of (P31) is not transitive. With the proper use of metaclasses we can say instance of (P31) instead, Taxon Genus beeing the metaclass of all Genuses, with

⟨ Genus ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Taxon ⟩

.

That way it is impossible to derive that Clyde is a taxon. That's pretty much similar to their modeling of taxons as qualities, and totally similar to the classification of elements I give in Help:Classification. What do you think ? TomT0m ^(talk) 15:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Impressive TomT0m: Help:Classification created by TomT0m and Metaclass (semantic web) created by TomT0m. That's really an „easily answer“, missing real arguments. BTW: the correct plural (Q146786) of genus is genera, not „Genuses“. --Succu (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You're answering on the personal side, this is not an argument. Everything I wrote is sourced, this is not personal work. Can you be more specific on the points I miss ? Otherwise it will be hard to have a real discussion. TomT0m ^(talk) 12:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep ist simple and stupid. Sure we could „easily“ create „metaclasses“ like the proposed one. But what we gain from this? A very complex modeling nobody needs at the moment. We have nearly 60 ranks in use. To make sense to all of these metaclasses you'll have to add restrictions like owl:disjointWith, a property we do not have. The construction of top-level ontologies needs expert knowledge and is not a spontanous act. --Succu (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See this message of Markus, a well known Wikidatan here and an expert of the field https://www.mail-archive.com/wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg04572.html . This is kiss, and more, this fits Occam's razor (Q131012)    (parsimonious). We get only one help page to model taxons with the same modeling principles than we would model cars. As a results tools or constraints we would write in the car example would be the same as those we would write in the taxons case.

The fact we don't have DisjointWith (or all disjoint with, better) is only due to a misunderstanding with community who believed we would have to add statements for all disjoint classes, which is false, its use should be ... parsimonious. TomT0m ^(talk) 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I know Markus and his work. His post does not realy fit in our discussion. There are a lots of points to consider when constructing a self-consistent ontology for taxa. One is: we have five codes of nomenclature (code of nomenclature (P944)) with different sets of ranks. This alone would add a lot of more classes and restrictions. This picture gives only a whiff of the necessary classes and their relationship. Do you really think a biologist would add her/his NewNamedTaxon if s/he can't find her/his vocabulary? It's hard for them to understand wikidata at all. --Succu (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how it makes things harder to use subclass of instead of parent taxon. Wikidata supports different classifications through qualifiers, sources, ... (the nomenclatures are just different classifications, imho). Actually metaclasses are a way to handle this, in biology as elsewhere, that's why they are imho so useful : we can regroup classes of some nomenclature or classification in a metaclass class of this nomenclature, of which all the classes present in that nomenclature are instances of. Actually if the domain is complex, as it is, the more flexibility we have, the more precise we can be in expressing the complexity, by using generic concepts in this case, which is all good because it makes things clear and everybody have a common vocabulary.

Finding the proper vocabulary (for biologists) is possibly just a matter of alias ... or of example items. Besides I don't really see Wikidata as a primary database for biologists. Anyway, it is even possible to use parent taxon just as the way it is AND subclass of and metaclass in pacific coexistence without consistency problem. In languages it's even possible to express things like every instance of taxon should have a taxon rank and a parent taxon property. TomT0m ^(talk) 16:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You will end up with statements like subclass of IcbnMonotypicGenusInFamilyAAA_ByOpinionOfAuthorX, IcbnGenusInSubfamilyCCC_ByOpinionOfAuthorY, IcbnGenusInFamilyDDD_ByOpinionOfAuthorZ. With the current implementation we can create RDF exports like this one. --Succu (talk)

@Succu: Why ? the byopinionofauthorWhatever is handled by references, the IcbnGenus class seems important to have indeed, maybe just labelled Genus of course, and the inFamilyAAA is handled by

⟨ your item ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ FamilyDDD ⟩

. TomT0m ^(talk) 17:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That's the consequence of your proposal to use „metaclasses“. You will need five genra classes (IcznGenus, IcbnGenus, IcncpGenus, IcnpGenus and IctvnGenus) to model the different coverage and relationship in the five codes. Thats true for each rank governed by a special code. After declaring all these classes as owl:disjointWith to each other, you can use these ranks as classes and model the hierarchy by using subclass of. If you want to express that a taxon belongs to a „monotypic rank“, as you did, you need to have all this CodenameMonotypicRankname classes too. Thats only the beginning of a nightmare. --Succu (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No, a monotypic taxon can just be

⟨ the taxon ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ monotypic taxon ⟩

, with

⟨ monotypic taxon ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ taxon ⟩

that's enough. For the (IcznGenus, IcbnGenus, IcncpGenus, IcnpGenus and IctvnGenus), on second thought I'm not sure they are needed. To limit the number of DisjointWith statements, just use allDisjointClasses. Only the classes on the same rank would be required to be marked disjoint, as it is implied that any of their subclasses are also pairwise disjoint, of course. This means just one disjoint statement per rank, for example all the subtaxa of a taxon might be disjoint (or not :) ) This means that there is just one statement to say that all of the ranks are disjoint: AllDisjointWith(Genus, Species, Class, ...) TomT0m ^(talk) 19:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomas, please give the overall picture second thought. Start with rereading the above mentioned article. I'm not an ontologist and I have some doubts you are. Could you give some examples where the current model leds to contradictions. Regards --Succu (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The current model does not lead to contradiction, it's just that the stuffs describes in Help:modelling are enough to solve this case, as a lot of others. It's just that it would be better, I think, if one could understand the taxonomy case just by reading this page, that's all. We would have the same model for a lot of area of Wikidata, which simplifies contribution for everybody. Overall the important things is not whether or not we are ontologist, but whether your arguments are good or not.

In the end, it's as simple as that : organisms can be regrouped in classes, more or less vasts. A species regroups a set of organisms. A parent taxon of this species includes all the organisms of this species, which mean this is a case of subclassing. In the end, species is a taxon. Taxon is a metaclass. That's all, and it avoids the modelling objections of your article. TomT0m ^(talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

So prove your assumptions and present a working model for taxa, free of contradictions mentioned above and in other discussions. Help:modelling is not helpfull at all. Your formal constructed sets (aka „Regrouping”) have nothing to do with the real efforts of taxonomists to keep things in order. --Succu (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean Help:modeling ? I started this page to be a reference and a work in progress to sum up the current problem we encounter (how to model list, what are the important classes and so on ... ) Looks like it does not took up to community, I think people prefers to focus on their fields than to share their experiences beetween fields. I think it is a problem because it will lead to different solution to the same problem on different projects, and this is what I refer to when I talk of inconsistencies : some will use numbers to sort out lists, other will use follows (P155) and followed by (P156) statements, other the same as qualifiers, some specialized typing properties, some metaclasses with instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279), and overall the wikidata global scheme will be far too complex, when we will want to write queries we will nether can reuse the same subqueries for the same problems. But it is not to late to develop Help:Modeling :) If you mean Help:Classification though, this is the same, except it is far less ambitious : classification is a problem common to all projects of Wikidata, pretty much. I think it is a good idea that we get a common classification scheme for all of them. TomT0m ^(talk) 10:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The big picture

Hypothesis: The main and most modern classification unit is the clade (Q713623)   . this is a reasonable hypothesis backed by biologists like pierre kerner http://www.podcastscience.fm/dossiers/2011/08/25/dossier-larbre-du-vivant-1/ (he gave a speach in french about biological classification history in this podcast about science, if you can read or hear french it's very interesting). This also allows and easy set theory-tic representation.

1. By definition, clades comprises a set of ancesters together will all their descendants. A species is a kind of clades, generally defined by the fact that (for sexual organisms) the members can interbreed and that their children can too. This establishes
   ⟨ Species ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ clades ⟩
   , because all species are clades.
2. Vertebrae is a clade
   ⟨ Vertebrae ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ clades ⟩
   . If we take the that the fact that lead to create this groups is that all its members had a spine, their descendant can potentially lose their spine, it's not a problem because of the clade definition : any descendant of a vertebrae is also a vertebrae.
3. Clade is a metaclass. This means that its instances are not individual animals, plants or anything, but classes. Vertebrae is a class. This means that it will nether be a subclass of any metaclass, it can always be a subclass of other classes. This ensure us that we will nether get <Vertebrae> subclass of <Clade>. A class can be an instance of a metaclass, but nether an instance of a class. A metaclass is nether an instance of a class.
4. Vertebrae is a class. A class is (in our case) a set of individual. This means classes can be put on a hierarchy ordered with the usual subclass definition (all instance of any subclass of A are instances of A). As in our case any class is an instance of clade, we're sure we are in a correct subclass relation. Any taxon with a lower rank includes all descendants, and all these descendants are also members of the taxon of the higher rank.

Last I'll discuss of their notion of inherent property. Generic classification systems can define class by intension, that is not by giving explicitly the set of all of their members, but by defining their members through properties. The notion of clade make this useless for our purpose: the inheritance is guaranted by definition by the fact any vertebrae descendant is also a vertebrae ... So if we want to give a definition by intension of vertebrae, we would get An individual with a spine and all of its descendants. What gives us the abylity to regroup all clade instances into the clade metaclass is that they all share this ... and all of its descendants. This is a pattern common to all those classes, that's how we can class those classes with an intensional definitions in metaclasses.

Did I forget something to answer to on this article ?

TomT0m ^(talk) 15:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your model implies that all your classes are monophyletic. Thats not true in a lot of cases. There are a some hypotheses about the phylogenetic relationships for Vertebrata (Q25241). --Succu (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If I read fr:Vertébrés it's pretty clearly stated that it is indeed. If I understand correctly by modern taxonomy standard if a subgroups of it was found to be not a descendant of the same ascendance of the other, the group would be splitted. That's why I state that's it's a reasonable assumption. TomT0m ^(talk) 16:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

In most cases you'll need more data. Splitting is one possibility, lumping another (lumpers and splitters (Q1662868)). But this has to be done by taxonomists, not us. --Succu (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, but that does not break the hypothesis: we take the hypothesis and reflect a state of the art of taxonomy. That taxonomist make mistake is just a fact, and it's normal, but Wikidata is only suppose to reflect the best knowledge. Deprecation of claims is here to treat mistake. In the end this is their working hypothesis, so by taking it on Wikidata we only reflect that fact. Nothing fancy. TomT0m ^(talk) 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your „hypothesis” is wrong. There is no single tree of life. Maybe we can reconstruct one in the future. --Succu (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

???????????? Seriously ? This is absolutely not the hypothesis I take since the beginning, it is that the main taxonomy unit is the clade (Q713623)    (all clades are monophyletic) ! Nothing more. That the state of the art is that there is several possibility for the tree of life has nothing to do with this at all. And it's no more a problem than any other Wikidata claim.

This follows from your assumption „the main taxonomy unit is the clade (Q713623)”. Your model works only for parts of small subsets of taxa. --Succu (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Succu: What's left ? Of course if you're following me, a species is (usually) a clade. Maybe Linnanean taxonomy was not, but the evolution theory is a foundation now. TomT0m ^(talk) 19:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas you are wasting my time. There are tons of defenitions of what exactly a species is. The PhyloCode (Q1189395) is not widely accepted. We have to model the real problem, not an idealized one. -Succu (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Succu: "not widely accepted", you're kidding right ? Give me a definition of taxa that is not monophyletic, then we can talk. You keep saying that but it seems you can't really give credible examples. Is there currently scientific articles in main taxonomy journals that does not give a particular importance to monophyletic taxons ? For the other one, you can use for what I am concerned any model that fit better, I don't care, but for this one, which is really a major one, this just work. And isn't it important, eventually, to be able to distinguish between things that follow this code, who is some kind of achievement of centuries (and more) of taxonomy, genetics and so on, than others ? I'm pretty sure those are marginal. TomT0m ^(talk) 19:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See cladistics (Q192210). An interesting case is the evolution of Pereskia (Q131724). As I said: reconstructing „the tree of life”. --Succu (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll quote the french WIkipedia article :

La cladistique (ou le cladisme, du grec ancien κλάδος, klados, signifiant « branche »), aussi appelée systématique phylogénétique, est une théorie de classification phylogénétique. Elle classe les êtres vivants selon leurs relations de parenté, dans un cadre évolutionniste. Elle repose sur la construction de groupes monophylétiques dits clades

. Briefly, le keyword is construction of an evolutionnist framework of monophyletic groups. as a definition ... still meet my requirements, so I don't understand your point.

And for your example taxon : I note that atm (until I put a statement about thi) there were no way in Wikidata to know that this taxon was a paraphyletic one. It's a problem as it is a really important information isn't it ? I would even subclass all ranks to separate the paraphyletic genuses to the not paraphyletic one. But I wonder if, even in such a case, using subclass of would be really incorrect. TomT0m ^(talk) 11:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, and you revert the change. You claim I'm not of any help ? I offer a way to class taxon themselves. Replace CLAIM[31:16521] in queries with CLAIM[31:(TREE[16521][][279279])] and that's it and you don't have to revert my change. This is also valid if you make several variants like monophyletic genus and polyphyletic genus as subclass of genus. As simple as that. TomT0m ^(talk) 14:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You changed an existing statement without giving a source. You statement makes no sense without a clear cirumscription of the underlying taxon concept. --Succu (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Succu: Then you may want to edit the enwiki article, or import the source here, because I just took what is said in the enwiki article for granted. TomT0m ^(talk) 18:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

TomT0m, a wikipedia is never a reference! --Succu (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if two taxons have the same name but are of different concepts, maybe they are just ... different taxon ? In the end with different concepts one individual may be classified in one taxon with one concept, but not with the one with a different concept ... this is conceptually not really good (of course if one of them is deprecated it's not much of a problem). TomT0m ^(talk) 19:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy is not like maths. There are no axioms and definitions to build up a self contained theory. There are a lot, sometimes heated, debates about the „correct” position and circumscription of a taxon. Some of these positions are outdated, others exist side by side. Maybe the creation of a new subfamily of Cactaceae (Leuenbergerioideae) is justified. Maybe some species of Pereskia should be moved to a new genus Leuenbergeria and „change” their name. Maybe some species of Pereskia should be moved to to a new subgenus Pereskia subg. Leuenbergeria without a name change. And yes, a have a opinion which of these taxonomic changes I would prefer. --Succu (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no more no less like math than any other sciences. Yes, it's a living object, we already talked about that. But there is major school of classification isn't it ? They try to find objective and good criteria, there is some precise rules in the article I linked yesterday on the project talk page (something with child phyla always lower ranked than parent phyla). And Monophyla is an important property of a taxon, you can't deny that. TomT0m ^(talk) 06:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As to "Wikidata is only suppose to reflect the best knowledge": no this is pretty explicitly forbidden (Wikidata is NOT a soapbox). - Brya (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Brya: Sorry what ? Wikidata is supposed to put claims, some of which are preferred, backed up by source. It's supposed to show that claimed that proved to be false are deprecated. It's the same to say that's it's supposed to reflect the best of what is known according to consensus, when there is several different hypothesis of equal credibility we put all of them, to reflect several point of views. To me this means, Wikidata is supposed to reflect the state of the art. TomT0m ^(talk) 17:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is dubious if there is all that much in taxonomy that is really "false". There are various positions which have various degrees of support. Wikidata is supposed to represent structured data which reflect all these positions, the ones with the most support first (hopefully this will be borne out by the references). Certainly no "only the best knowledge". - Brya (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Brya: Of course taxonomy is an old and pretty advanced science. I did not say that there could not be several possibilities of more or less equal credibility that are not disproved yet. Those I include in "the best of knowledge" or "the state of the art". And we're somewhat going out of scope. TomT0m ^(talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that there always is such a big difference between what you intend to say and what you are actually saying? - Brya (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If I express not well I'm sorry. But this is not about me :). TomT0m ^(talk) 06:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fragen

Um mal das Forum zu entlasten und in der Ahnung, dass eh nur du meine Fragen rund um die Taxonomie-Einträge verstehst, fräge ich mal hier ein paar Punkte:

1. In Q1767101 und vielen anderen würde ich beim wissenschaftlichen Namen gern die Klammerung nutzen - Erstbeschreibung unter einem anderen Gattungsnamen - wie macht man das sinnvoll?
2. In dem Zusammenhang: Gibt es eine sinnvolle Lösung für Synonyme oder werden die einfach als weitere wissenschaftliche Namen eingetragen wie ich es in Q305289 und Q308680 gemacht habe?
3. Du hattest in Q305289 und Q308680 die Benennung auf die Gesamtebene verschoben und nicht mehr als Qualifikator des wissenschaftlichen Namens - allerdings bezieht sich die Benennung ja eigentlich nur auf den wissenschaftlichen Namen und ich konnte kein Didikations-Property finden. Passt das denn dann so, wie es jetzt ist oder sollte ich auf Dedikationen verzichten?
4. Zu Q18520741: Wie viele Ebenen übergeordneter Taxa sind erwünscht? Ich gehe von der jeweils höheren Ebene aus - falsch?
5. Ich bin immer noch unsicher bezüglich der Zeitschriftenartikel - sind Einträge wie Q19609458 tatsächlich o.k. oder bekomme ich damit irgendwann Ärger?

Und (erstmal) last:

• Wenn ich deinen Bot richtig verstehe, könnte man ihn nutzen, Belege für Taxonomien aus Büchern automatisiert anzulegen - also etwa Q19597701 in alle Hörnchen eintragen zu lassen - right? Gibt es dazu eine Vorlage / Dokumentation?

Soweit, Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Erstmal schnell zu Results of the Archbold Expeditions. No. 9. A new race of Hyosciurus (Q19609458): Hier bitte noch title (P1476) ergänzen. original language of film or TV show (P364) kann dann entfallen. Zum Rest später. --Succu (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

O.k., werde ich für alle Werke machen - Rückfrage: Der genannte Artikel wird auf Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P433 als "Results of the Archbold Expeditions. No. 9. A new race of Hyosciurus (Q19609458): article (Q191067)" gelistet, was bedeutet das? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nichts worum du dich sorgen müßtest. Erklärt ist es auf Property talk:P433. Letzendlich bedeutet es, dass die Modellierung bestimmter Datenobjekte als Klassen noch unvollständig ist. Das scheint aber niemand zu stören. Das sollte helfen. --Succu (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Zum Bot: Ja das könnte er erledigen. Dazu bräuchte ich eine Liste etwa in der Form taxon name (P225) / page(s) (P304). Noch ist da nichts standardisiert. Den Job hatte ursprünglich mal FelixReimann übernommen, der leider im Moment nicht mehr aktiv ist. --Succu (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

zu 4) parent taxon (P171) sollte immer auf das nächsthöhere Taxon verweisen. Da es darüber unterschiedliche Auffassungen geben kann sind mehrere Angaben möglich, etwa wenn ein Autor eine Unterfamilie akzeptiert, ein anderer jedoch nicht. Wichtig ist immer ein möglichst guter Beleg.

zu 3) named after (P138) passt schon und wird dafür verwendet.

zu 2) Bitte taxon name (P225) nicht benutzen um Synonyme anzugeben, dafür haben wir taxon synonym (P1420). Einfach ein neues Datenobjekt anlegen, die Taxon-Eigenschaften ausfüllen oder ein vorhandens Datenobjekt benutzen und mit taxon synonym (P1420) anbinden (Bsp: Oreocereus hempelianus (Q2029603)).

zu 1) Als Spezialfall gibt es noch original combination (P1403) (Bsp: Allobates masniger (Q4676078)). Für die Klammeranzeige hat Felix eingeführt den wiss. Name zusätzlich mit instance of (P31)=recombination (Q14594740) zu qualifizieren (Bsp: Priochilus captivum (Q18612453)). In unserer hiesigen Taxobox erschienen dann die Klammern. Funktioniert aber derzeit wohl nicht. Bei den meisten Taxa ist leider im Moment nicht ersichtlich, ob es sich um die Erst- oder eine Umkomination handelt. Da wartet noch viel Arbeit.

Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

zu 3) + 4): o.k. - bleibt die Synonymfrage. Hier habe ich soeben mal Sciurus weberi (Q19661196) angelegt und als Synonym für Weber's dwarf squirrel (Q1765926) angegeben. Mein Kopfproblem: Wenn jemand eine Abfrage der Arten der Sciurus (Q281124) macht, wird dies nun mitgelistet, obwohl es taxonomisch nicht (mehr) in diese Gattung gehört - ITIS würde es als invalid klassifizieren. Wo ist mein Denkfehler? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Es gibt keinen Denkfehler. Aber Wikidata hat halt anders als ITIS, WoRMS und andere nicht die Autorität zu sagen: dieses Taxon-Konzept ist richtig. Hier müssen z.B. APGI, APGII und APGIII nebenenander koexistieren. Das beste Mittel um Taxon-Konzepte darzustellen sind die Einzelnachweise. Du könntest z.B. Squirrels of the World (Q19597701) als Beleg für den wiss. Namen und die Synonyme angeben. Abfragen läßt sich das leider derzeit noch nicht. Im konkreten Fall wäre es übrigens besser original combination (P1403) zu verwenden. Eine Softwareanwendung wüßte dadurch sofort, dass um die Autoren des vorliegenden Datenobjektes Klammern zu setzen sind. --Succu (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mmh ... so richtig glücklich macht es mich noch nicht, aber ich suche ja eh noch nach dem Sinn vonns Ganze bei meiner Hörnchenspielerei und für die WP fallen dabei einige Korrekturen und Erstbeschreibungen als Belege ab. Squirrels of the World (Q19597701) werde ich sicher durchdeklinieren, wahrscheinlich parallel auch Relationships among the living Squirrels of the Sciurinae (Q19653626), Mammal Species of the World (Third edition) (Q1538807), The classification of the Sciuridae (Q19622527) und ein paar mehr ... ob es das irgendwie sinnvoller oder übersichtlicher macht, weiß ich cniht (zumal ich dann ja irgendwie rausfinden muss, wie ich die einzelnen taxonomischen Konzepte wieder extrahieren kann. Btw: Wenn ich nerve, gib Bescheid. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Du nervst nicht, Achim. Im Gegenteil. Ich freue mich, dass du dich jetzt intensiv mit WD auseinandersetzt. Nicht alles ist hier perfekt und widerspruchsfrei, aber durch nichts tun wird hier halt auch nichts besser. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Moin Succu, ich habe jetzt auf User:Achim Raschka/Thorington angefangen, den Squirrels of the World (Q19597701) für den Bot vorzubereiten - erstmal nur die Ratufinae. Passt das so? Theoretisch könnte ich auch die Qualifikatoren "Autor(en) des Taxons", "veröffentlicht im Jahr" sowie "ist ein(e)" = Umkombination hinzufügen und mit dem Buch belegen.

Additionally und nur mal ins Blaue gedacht: Bei facebook habe ich mit @Denis Barthel: eine kurze Diskussion über Wikidata:Article placeholder input und kamen überein, dass es eigentlich mal ein Testfeld bräuchte. Da das zugleich die effektivste Möglichkeit wäre, Botstubs zu verhindern wäre es konsequent, es in der de.wp auszutesten - hat den Vorteil, dass wir direkt auch ein Team hätten, das sich auf deutsch sbstimmen könnte. Konkret wäre die Idee, einen bislang nicht sehr ausgebauten Bereich der deutschsprachigen Lebewesen zu nehmen (Plattwürmer, Nesseltiere, Krebstiere whatever), in dem wir dann auch keinem etablierten Autoren auf die Füße treten. Die Einträge müssten dann hier gepimpt und bereinigt werden und der placeholder vom WD-Team programmiert und mit den Taxonomen abgestimmt werden. Was meinst du dazu und wärest du incl. deinem Bot dabei? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Achim, wäre schön, wenn du die Angaben folgendermaßen strukturieren könntest: Art / Ratufa affinis / ([[Q130327|Raffles]], 1821) / 23–24 - also Rang, wissenschaftlicher Name, Autorenzitat und Seitenzahlen. Die Item-Id für den wiss. Namen brauchst du nicht zu hinterlegen, die findet mein Bot heraus. Keine Chance hat er allerdings bei den Autoren, daher bitte hier mit angeben.

Ein geeignetes Beispiel für das Experiment wären evtl. die Onychophora (Q5191). Es gibt 270 Wikidata-Objekte und nur sieben de-Artikel. Vorteil ist: fast alle sind bis auf Artebenen mit A world checklist of Onychophora (velvet worms), with notes on nomenclature and status of names (Q19329389) belegt. Der Aufwand für das Ergänzen von Autoren und Jahreszahl sollte sich in Grenzen halten. Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Zu 1: O.k. - kann ich machen - legt der Bot fehlende Items auch selbst an (bei monotypischen Gattungen fehlt gelegentlich die Gattung als eigenes Item)? Ich sehe es richtig, dass eine Einrückung mit *** nicht nötig ist?

Im Moment nicht, aber falls wir später mal die Hierarchie prüfen wollen, wären sie notwendig. Items kann der Bot anlegen. Es fehlen sowieso noch etliche tausend Gattungsitems. --Succu (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Zu 2) Ich überlege noch weiter und formuliere dann mal einen Vorschlag - die Kopffüßer wären imho auch ein gut machbares Gebiet mit überschaubarer Artenzahl. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): ist auch bereits in die Diskussion verwickelt. Deiner Antwort entnehme ich, dass du ebenfalls interessiert bist, mitzutun falls es ein Pilotprojekt ergibt? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Natürlich, wenn es hilft die Akzeptanz von Wikidata zu verbessern. Ich könnte noch die Aizoaceae (Q156219) anbieten. Da haben wir in der Regel nur einen Artikel zur Gattung. Und ich bin sowieso dabei mein deLitStip zu nutzen, um die zu bequellen, zu vervollständigen und als „Showcase”-Thema zu etablieren. Eines von meinen vielen Projekten... --Succu (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Kivu climbing mouse (Dendromus nyasae,kivu, etc.)

What is the motivation for reverting the changes made to Q306814 and Q19693249? Is Dendromus kivu not synonym for Dendromus nyasae (or the reverse if disputed) as stated in the references that were provided?

Do not merge subjective synonyms. To denote this use taxon synonym (P1420). --Succu (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't find that very responsive to the question. I suppose it isn't clear to me if these two 'Q' items refer to the taxa or the animal itself, however, the wiki links split across the two items are all about the same animal (whatever you want to call it). The changes I made showed that fairly clearly. If merging them is not the answer, what then is the correct solution to combine the various wiki pages?--Percutio (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Add taxon synonym (P1420) to Kivu climbing mouse (Q306814) with the values Dendromus kivu (Q19693249), Dendromus hintoni and Dendromus lunaris. Add Mammal Species of the World (Third edition) (Q1538807) as a reference. According to MSW these taxa are regarded as subjective synoyms (see en:Synonym (taxonomy)) of Kivu climbing mouse (Q306814). --Succu (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you never looked at what was done. Except the P1420, I did all of that and more citing the same reference. The only differece is that I did it on one item instead of two. The answer doesn't respond to the question.--Percutio (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert im Project Chat

Hey Succu, ich weiß dass du mit dem "IP Benutzer" nicht konform bist und er einige kontorverse Edits macht, aber so ein Edit hier [1] sollte wirklich nicht sein. Damit machst du dich angreifbar und fütterst den Troll nur noch. Lass ihn doch am Project chat diskutieren, da gibt es genug Leute, die ihm schon sagen, was richtig ist. ;-) Ein Revert sollte nur im Falle offensichtlichen Vandalismus' nötig sein. Viele Grüße, -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bene*. Das ist mittlerweile seine Xte Inkarnation hier. Jedesmal macht er eine Riesenwelle und es passiert leider nicht viel. In einem Vierteljahr ist er oder sie dann wieder hier. Gruß --Succu (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, vielleicht hast du ja auch eine Liste der bisherigen Benutzernamen (siehe auch meine Frage hier), damit wir in Zukunft die Accounts direkt sperren können? Wahrscheinlich sehen sich Benutzername oder Bearbeitungen immer recht ähnlich. Viele Grüße, -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 11:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Multichills Liste kann ich eigentlich nichts hinzufügen. Einige Accounts agierten sehr auffällig, andere eher zurückhaltend. Die erste auffällige Inkarnation war der ungesperrte User:Tamawashi. Die Frage ist, wieviele seiner mehr als 500.000 Widar-Bearbeitung unbrauchbar sind. Wenn meine Einschätzung richtig ist, dann ist dieser Benutzer seit mindestens 2013 auch regelmäßig als IP bei seinen Lieblingsthemen unterwegs. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Servus Succu! Hast du vielleicht bei Gelegenheit einmal Lust, auf Wikispecies vorbeizuschauen?

Außerdem hab ich auch noch ein anderes Problem: Q10368882 und Q18376125 beziehen sich auf dieselbe monotypische Gattung. Als ich für das eine von beiden Objekten - wie früher schon öfter - einen Löschantrag stellen wollte, hab ich gelesen, dass das jetzt nicht mehr sein soll. Ich finde aber nicht heraus, wie so eine Weiterleitung, wie sie jetzt gewünscht ist, eingerichtet werden kann. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Franz! Ich hab das im Blick und versuche schon eine Weile herauszubekommen wie Wikispecies funktioniert. Alles etwas gewöhnungsbedüftig. Ich hab auch schon mal vor zwei oder drei Wochen geschaut wie beispielsweise der Abdeckungsgrad bei den Arten ist. Wikidata hat ca. 1,7 Mio Artnamen, Wikispecies vllt. 400,000. Und trotzdem fehlten hier ca. 75,000 Artnamen, die auf Wikispecies vorhanden sind. Da uns aber auch ca. 10,000 Arten fehlen, die eine IUCN-Einstufung haben, versuche ich zur Zeit unter den Items ohne Statement die Taxa aufzuspüren. Auch damit die Integration etwas reibungsloser funktioniert.

Danke, für's Nachschauen auf Wikispecies. Ich hab auch erst letzten Sommer begonnen, mich mit Wikispecies zu beschäftigen. Die Art, wie dort bearbeitet wird, entspricht mehr oder weniger dem, wie es auch auf Wikipedia stattfindet. Das heißt, es ist eigentlich keine Datenbank, auch wenn das schon irgendwo irgendwer behauptet hat. Ich hab mich bisher fast ausschließlich mit der Familie Ochnaceae beschäftigt und diese schon ziemlich gut abgedeckt. Wikidata gibt mir dagegen nach wie vor Rätsel auf. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hab ich schon bemerkt. Vllt. eine Template-Datenbank?! Es scheint auf Wikispecies keine externe Möglichkeit zu geben um beispielsweise herauszufinden welche Arten zu einer Gattung gehören. Interessant (und wichtig aus mein Perspektive) wäre für die dortige Gemeinschaft vllt. das Überführen der Literatur-Templates in Wikidata-Objekte. Damit könnten dann hier z.B. Erstbeschreibungen etc. belegt werden. --Succu (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Welche Arten zu einer Gattung gehören? Da versteh ich nicht wirklich, worauf deine Frage abzielt. Wenn du beispielsweise auf Ochna nachsiehst, wirst du alle Namen aufgelistet finden, die Nach IPNI in dieser Gattung existieren. Man kann aber auch (mit Whatlinksthere) schauen, welche Seiten species:Template:Ochna einbinden und erhält dann auch alle Seiten, die über die Taxonavigation in diese Gattung eingeordnet sind. Was Literatur-Templates als Wikidata-Objekte betrifft, kann ich mir schon vorstellen, dass das für alle Seiten Arbeit sparen kann, wenn ein Literatur-Datenobjekt nur einmal angelegt werden muss, aber mehrfach von Wikispecies, Wikipedias, Wikidata etc. verwendet werden kann. Wäre das so gedacht? Oder irre ich mich da? Mir sind dabei nur zwei Dinge unklar: (1) Auf welche Weise könnte dann die verschiedenen Verwender so eines Datenobjekts (i.e. Schwesterprojekte) das Erscheinungsbild eines Literaturzitats gestalten? Wäre es also möglich, dass ein Literaturzitat bei Verwendung von Wikidata dann in en.wiki, de.wiki etc. anders layoutiert wird als in Wikispecies? (2) Was müsste man dann in den Quelltext hineinschreiben? Diese Nummern in der Form von Qxxxxxxx halte ich für ungenießbar - so eine Zahl merke ich mir sicher nicht. Mit den Templates, wie es derzeit ist, muss ich mir nur Autor und Jahreszahl merken. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ja das wäre so gedacht. Die Einbindung erfolgt über ein Lua-Modul, so ählich wie in Module:Cite. Vielleicht gibt es in der Zunkunft mal ein Modul das Verweise nach verschiedenen Styleguides erzeugen kann. Wie die verbindung zum Datenobjekt hergestellt wird ist eine Frage des Templates. Am Ende benötigt man aber immer die Q-Nummer des Datenobjektes.

Meine Frage hätte ich auch anders stellen können: Ich hätte z.B. gern gewußt wieviele Pflanzenartikel es auf Wikispecies gibt und welche das sind. --Succu (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So gestellt kann ich die Frage auch nicht einfach beantworten. Eigentlich müssten alle Pflanzenartikel in irgendeiner Form species:Template:Plantae einbinden. Du kriegst sie auch mit "Whatlinkshere" unsortiert alle aufgelistet, aber das Zählen ist auf diese Weise eine mühsame Sache.

Ich hab einmal in species:User:Franz Xaver/Reference formatting eine Zusammenstellung gemacht, wie verschiedene taxonomische Zeitschriften, hauptsächlich aber nicht nur aus der Botanik, ihre Literaturzitate darstellen. In diesem Rahmen müsste sich das auch für Wikispecies bewegen. So, wie das jetzt in Module:Cite aussieht, ist es für mich und sicher auch für andere auf Wikispecie indiskutabel. Das Jahr der Veröffentlichung gehört einfach nicht ans Ende, irgendwo zwischen Seitenzahl und DOI-Link vesteckt. Historiker oder Literaturwissenschafter sollen meinetwegen ihre Zitate formatieren, wie das in diesen Disziplinen üblich ist, aber in Wikispecies müsste das schon so aussehen, wie es in taxonomischen Zeitschriften Brauch ist. Wenn man so eine Q-Nummer nur ein einziges mal braucht, um ein Literatur-Template zu erstellen, ist das eh OK. Wenn ich aber jedes mal, wenn ich Sastre (2003) als Referenz angeben will, die Q-Nummer brauche, wird es für mich uninteressant. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Interessante Zusammenstellung. Das Modul war nur als Beispiel dafür gedacht wie es funktioniert, nicht als perfekte Lösung. Es ist ein Abfallprodukt der hiesigen Taxobox. Wichtig ist eigenlich nur das Belege über WD zugänglich sind und in anderen Projekten nutzbar sind. Belege wie etwa die unter User:Achim Raschka/Thorington, die morgen „live” gehen.

Zum anderen Problem. Eigentlich versuche ich herauszufinden welche Artikel auf Wikispecies ein Taxon zum Inhalt haben und welche nicht. Bei der oben erwähnten groben Prüfung welche wiss. Namen Wikispecies kennt, Wikidata hingegen (noch) nicht, habe ich mir damit beholfen nachzusehen, ob der Wikspecies einen Abschnitt Taxonavigation enthält. Dabei fallen jedoch etliche tausend Taxa durchs Sieb. Leider hat Wikispecies kein „richtiges” Kategoriensystem wie die anderen Schwesterprojekte. Es wäre schön, wenn die Integration der Wikispecies-Artikel möglichst reibungslos vonstattengeht. Aber ich denke wir habe noch etliche Wochen Zeit um herauszufinden wie die Integration am besten gewährleistet werden kann, oder Lydia? Gruß --Succu (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ja Wikispecies ist noch eine Weile hin. Als nächstes steht Abschluss von Wikibooks an. Aber da der erste Teil da nicht so reibungslos lief lasse ich da noch etwas Zeit. Ich kündige es wie immer vorher an. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Die beiden Datenobjekte brauchst du bloss wie früher zusammenzuführen. Dabei entsteht die Weiterleitung automatisch. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Das mit dem Zusammenführen hab ich vielleicht früher auch nicht richtig gemacht. Ich hab halt immer nur geschaut, dass die Interwiki-Links in nur einem der beiden Objekte versammelt sind und dann einen Löschantrag für das andere gestellt. Ich hab inzwischen in dem einen Objekt den wissenschaftlichen Namen ergänzt und hoffe, dass es vielleicht irgendeinem Bot auffällt, dass zwei Objekte denselben wissenschaftlichen Namen haben. Beim Herumsuchen habe ich einen Hinweis darauf gefunden, dass es möglicherweise so einen Bot gibt. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Da der Artikel in der enWP auf Schuurmansiella angustifolia (Q15388083) Bezug nimmt, habe ich ihn dort hin verschoben. Leider auch ein Dauerthema wo der Artikel nun korrekt verlinkt ist. Unterschiedliche Wikipedien = unterschiedliche Ansichten. Und ich habe lernen müssen, dass in der deWP die Regel "niedrigster Rank" öfters gebrochen ist. --19:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Danke! --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Grassbase

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Q18748726) is a non-departmental public body. Kew Gardens (Q188617) is a nice place to walk in the sunshine and look at plants. The former, not the latter, operates GrassBase (Q19816560). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Have fun to sort out all the sitelinks and keep the history of this place in your mind. BTW: Grass referers to...? Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert in Acanthodes unca

Hi, why did you revert my edits here? Does it mean it is not correct to add taxon name (P225) and Encyclopedia of Life ID (P830) to items with claim instance of (P31): unavailable combination (Q17487588)? If so, I'll correct my EOL quick statements list, so you don't have to revert my edits. But even if I'm right, what about ITIS and other taxonomic systems? Why you did not remove it there? --Lockal (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I overlooked Encyclopedia of Life ID (P830). But please do not readd taxon name (P225) to such statements. BTW: Thanks for fixing the constraint violations. --Succu (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm keeping my eye on constraint violations. BTW: there are about 100000 EOL statements in my list to be added in a few days, and more violations are coming. I intentionally don't check for duplicates before adding, these duplicates should be solved manually anyway (merge items from bot-created articles, fix ITIS, or just remove wrong values, imported from Wikipedia). --Lockal (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, instance of (P31): unavailable combination (Q17487588) means that taxon name (P225) can not be used: there is no taxon by that name, and there can not be one. This is a good example of where it is detrimental to add EoL: the EoL-entry has no content whatsoever (not surprising, given that the taxon does not exist). There are lots of such EoL-entries which are pure junk. - Brya (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW: ITIS is not a "taxonomic system": it has nothing like that kind of status. ITIS is a database of a dubious nature: consulting ITIS is better than just guessing off-the-top-of-one's-head, but less useful than Googling. - Brya (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of UNII from certain plan species

Hi! Succubot removed serveral UNII IDs from plant species (e.g. Fragaria x ananassa) which have recently been added by Reinheitsgebot. Why did it do that? The UNII is an identifier by the FDA which means, that also plant species can have a UNII, the uni added for Fragaria x ananassa was correct. Thanks! Best, Sebotic (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not so clear-cut: the FDA deals with approved foods, in this case the strawberry 'fruit', not the whole plant. - Brya (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The domain of UNII (P652) is chemical substance (Q79529). Plants or parts of them are not a chemical substance (Q79529). --Succu (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! So it seems to me that the domain of the UNII should be extended to foods sooner or later, as UNIIs also represent FDA approved foods..., Best Sebotic (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Your merge of Hesperotestudo annae

Heya, wondering why you merged this? There are 12 species to go in was going to add them today, this is actually a large genus. I only had time to do one yesterday. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This strange item seems to me to be about Hesperotestudo (Q11747). That's why I merged them. BTW: Please do not change the value of referenced statements. Add a new statement if necessary. You'll find some help in this tutorial. --Succu (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok shall I add the other species then and let you decide about H. annae later? Also, get your point on referenced items, just very problematic in reptile taxonomy, number of recognised species has doubled in last 10 years to over 10000 and twice that for number of recombinations, and the references you have used in the past are over a decade old. THat would include ITIS which is 5 years out of date. However I shall add new statements. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Here it is: Hesperotestudo annae (Q19845273). We have a second species with Bermuda Tortoise (Q11709686). --Succu (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC) PS: The DOI in Turtle Extinctions Working Group (Q19845031) remains unresolved.

Ok thanks, I will sort H. bermudae Bermuda Tortoise (Q11709686) I have all the metadata for that species, I will check on the doi, I see its unresolved, its a 1 month old publication so may not have been activated yet, will ask the publisher. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ok this is a slightly different issue but will ask it here. The species Megalochelys atlas (Q2700391) is a problem. I dont know if you downloaded the Turtle Extinctions paper I have been linking but it will help on this. The name Colossochelys is a junior synonym to Megalochelys, I realise that only the enWP has this right, the rest have it variably under Colossochelys or Testudo, I edited the enWP version a while ago I am planning to sort it on Wikispecies also, currently a red link. In this one there are no refs given to justify Colossochelys so can I just change it and add refs? Or would you prefer, since it appears both ways online, that I leave both. Fossil Works does not know what to list it as, but the problem is because of its size it is a famous fossil. So would appreciate suggestions. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Makes this change sense to you? --Succu (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted merge of Chimonobambusa tumidissinoda

I'm trying to understand this merge you reverted. According to en:w:Chimonobambusa tumidissinoda, Chimonobambusa tumidissinoda (the subject of Q15512680 and Qiongzhuea tumidinoda (the subject of Q15227553) are synonyms. However, is it that the pages should not be merged unless the Chinese page adopts what is now the preferred taxon? Rigadoun (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia ist not a reference. If you want to express this use taxon synonym (P1420) and add a reliable reference. --Succu (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

subclasses not as "has part" but ...

I propose to use a property disjoint subclasses to express the relation beetween a class and its subclasses. I proposed AllDisjointWith, who has this kind of semantics, but any proton is no neutron and converse). What do you think ? TomT0m ^(talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Simply read my objections. You should know them. --Succu (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I answered, did'nt I ? If it's bla bla we would have to put it eveywhere, the answer is NO. But this matter and our mutual reverts proves that there is a hole and a need. It would help to have an alternative to propose to peoples. Maybe you had objections but ... you don't revert my revert, so it proves you did not really understood the problem ... It's pretty easier to say in those cases, use this property instead that to enter a revert war. TomT0m ^(talk) 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Astigmata and Astigmatina

I think these refer to the same taxon but the names given are slightly different. Should they be merged, or is there a more appropriate way to associate them? Astigmata (Q17505518) and Astigmatina (Q1946789). Rigadoun (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm, not easy, but after reading Q2376934 I think all sitelinks form Astigmata (Q17505518) should be moved to Astigmatina (Q1946789) (not merged!). We have to keep the item to reflect the older taxonomic viewpoint of Acariformes (Q1341457). --Succu (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I did that. They should probably have some link to each other, but I don't know what property to use. Rigadoun (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Property:P1747 and Property:P1727

Hello Succu,
Property Property:P1747 stores the database identifier of a taxon on the web site Q19810430 (Website eFloras).
So they it should be linked (via Property:P1629) to the item Q19810430 (Website eFloras).
You linked it to Q1429295 (Flora of North America) which is a set of books making the inventory of the floras of North America (There is really nothing in common with the web site).

As a second argument, you can check in Wikidata:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Databases, the properties are all linked to website items.
For exemple, Property:P962 (id on website MycoBank) is linked to web site Q2574835 (Website MycoBank) not to Q764 (Fungi).

The same way Property:P1727 should be linked to the same web site Q19810430 (Website eFloras) and not to Q5460442.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Flora of North America (Q1429295) is about the book set and the corresponding web site. (see FLORA OF NORTH AMERICA - Published Volumes). --Succu (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but Property:P1747 is about another website: Q19810430 (Website eFloras) with url http://www.efloras.org (not floranorthamerica.org at all)

Liné1 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about content, not urls. I have to state referenced in Flora of North America (Q1429295), not referenced in eFloras (Q19810430). --Succu (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you are interested by the "concept of Flora of North America"

You certainly understand that a book called "Flora of North America" is not the same as the concept.

Something very important is that if eFloras (Q19810430) website is closed, Flora of China ID (P1747) will be suppressed.

Or if Flora of China ID (P1747) database is fully updated with new data, all Flora of China ID (P1747) values will have to chenge.

This information must be enforced.

Liné1 (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not get your point. --Succu (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Succu,

From its creation in 2013, up to 14 May 2015, Q5460399 was about a botanical publication . Item's meaning is supposed to be stable. The conclusion is pretty simple, the item's meaning still be the botanical publication called Flora of China, not "plants that exist in China".

Q5460442 orginally referred to "plants that exist in China" but it was a bit messy, and it turns out that you have changed the meaning of the item and used it to refer to the botanical publication in a lot of items. Now, it may be too late to revert to the original meaning ("plants that exist in China".)

Here again, this is pretty clear: Q5460442 and Q5460399 refer to the same concept and should be merged. But we need another item to refer to "plants that exist in China", and this item Q19990202. --Zolo (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Flora of China (Q5460442) and flora of the People's Republic of China (Q5460399) both have a link to a page on enwiki and thus cannot be merged. At some point I switched them around as Succu had made a lot of links, using the "collective plants that exist in China" as a reference tot the Flora of China. Just switching the items seemed the most efficient solution.

        The general question, of whether or not the "collective plants that exist in China" deserve a separate page is one that cannot be answered here. - Brya (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Items can be merged, but item's meaning should never be switched around. Stability is important for external websites that use our ids. The link to from Q5460399 to en:Flora of China should be removed anyway, as it does not match to the item's for most of its lifetime. Once this is done Flora of China (Q5460442) and flora of the People's Republic of China (Q5460399) can be merged.

Per Wikidata policy, every Wikipedia article deserves an item, so we need an item for en:Flora of China. But it should be a different one, that's why I created Q19990202.--Zolo (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Back in March, when I started to use Flora of China ID (P1747) together with Flora of China (Q5460442) nothing was well defined. flora of the People's Republic of China (Q5460399) was erroneously marked as scientific journal (Q5633421) and Flora of China (Q5460442) had a sitelink (eswiki) to the book set. Your correction „destroyed“ the reference of more than 30,000 statements. --Succu (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

They were not perfectly clean, but one thing is clear: Q5460399 was referring to a publication, not to plants that grow in China, and there is no reason why it should have this meaning now. That is why I suggest to merge Q5460442 and Q5460399 and use a new item for "plants in China". --Zolo (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, for about a year flora of the People's Republic of China (Q5460399) just had iw-links, then for about a year it was a (non-existing) scientific journal. There is a very good reason for using Flora of China (Q5460442) as the Flora of China. Or to put it differently, we have need of two items, one for Flora of China and one for the collective plants of China. The first must be Q5460442, so why should the other not be Q5460399 (you want it to be Q19990202, which is a high number)? - Brya (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we can consider that Q5460399 was about the English-language series, which matches the original English-sitelink to en:Flora of China (series). The statement saying that it was a scientific journal was a (not-so-accurate) bot-inference using data from Flora of China (series). Ok, maybe it is better to say that the item was a hopeless mess, but in that case, the item should be deleted. "Recycling" items by changing their meaning should be avoided whenever possible. If an external website has a link to Q5460399 and sees that it is deleted, it will at least see that their was an issue here. If the item changes meaning, things are much more confusing. --Zolo (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no recycling here, but a redefinition. Happens all the time. I am regularly having to put new labels on items after Succu has split them. - Brya (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Should we really delete lion (Q140) and create two new ones, because someone in the universe thinks this item is about ce:Лом? --Succu (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes, items are messy and need rescoping. But up until 24 May 2015, nothing in Q5460399 meant "plants that grow China". In the last few days, the item has taken a meaning that is completely different from its previous one. That is recycling, that is bad practice, and that is easy to fix. --Zolo (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it. It is true that "up until 24 May 2015, nothing in Q5460399 meant "plants that grow [in] China"", but that was because it accidentally missed the eswiki-link, and the eswiki page does have material on plants that grow in China. On the whole these items were barely defined, and even now flora of the People's Republic of China (Q5460399) has just the two statements. On the other hand, I don't really care which item-number these two statements and one iw-link have. - Brya (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not really worth discussing it for hours, especially if you so totally lack good faith. Wether the meaning of an item is "accidental" or not is irrelevant, and the main topic of es:Flora of China is the botanical publication, not plants that grow in China. --Zolo (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In es:Flora of China, some 80+% of the text is about the plants that grow in China. And you are the one who rekindles the discussion. - Brya (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not intend to rekindle the discussion, I am just explaining why I did not bother to answser your post. And obviously if you really considered that es:Flora of China is primarily about plants that grow in China, your linking it to en:Flora of China (series) would make no sense. --Zolo (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Zolo, Brya: I think this needs no more discussions. --Succu (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning

If you wish to move data from properties to qualifiers, feel free: but do not simply delete valid data from the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Mabbett, this was allready done. So fee free to revert yourself. --Succu (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Eduardo H. Zarantonello (1918–2010) (Q17771330)

Please, do not remove language and additional qualifier for published in (P1433), they are specified on purpose! If you have ideas how item should look like, discuss it at talk page, do not create edit war. You position may be perfectly right, but this change was already done and reverted back twice during last 24 hours. -- Vlsergey (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is not much to discuss. All are introducing unnecessary redundancy. --Succu (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"There is not much to discuss" = "i will revert your edits without discussion" ? -- Vlsergey (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why should the redundancy be kept? --Succu (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it must be preserved. I would like you to discuss it first, because you introduced edit war and your changes were about to break some gadgets that generated automatic source descriptions. I just don't like the way you to push those changes via edit war. Give me couple of days and those "unnecessary redundancy" can be removed. -- Vlsergey (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with your wording. The only one how did multiple reverts are you, Sergey. --Succu (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

From my point of view edit war starts when someone returns the edit that was recently reverted. You made the edit, it was reverted, you returned it back. Returning back without discussion = starting of edit war. (I do not consider here edits by Pasleim, because he deleted the claim completely with qualification) -- Vlsergey (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

removed. --Succu (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fauna Europaea

Hi Succu,

This edit suggests that things are not going as well as may be: the Fauna Europaea is not accepting Buprestis gigantea as a correct name. So it looks like you are adding synonyms as if they were current names? Obviously, that is not going to help Wikidata. Also, there are two different Buprestis gigantea involved. - Brya (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Brya, this was an error in the dataset I was using. With the help of Fauna Europaea I found a lot of links to a wrong homonymus genus. --Succu (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Johann Hübner (Q89840)

why did you deleted source markers and deprecated claims? -- Vlsergey (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you reverting correct labels? Do you really think we should record every incomplete date? --Succu (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

0. I hope you will answer my question as well. 1. From my point of view correct label for Wikisource-backed encyclopedia article (AMB, ADB, EC, BEED, etc.) must have prefix, thus this article will never not popup in dropdown search list at first places, thus there will be no editor mistakes (there were some already). Topic about Wikidata-Wikisource elements was discussed at Project chat several times and noone was against such naming conventions. If you have objections now, please, discuss them first. If you have ideas how things shall be done, please, don't use multiple edits to push your point of view. Discuss it. 2. Yes, from my point of view, we need to preserve incomplete date, because it is supported by reliable sources. GND may be considered as unreliable source in some wikis (for example in ruwiki) thus leaving only incomplete date as "claim, supported by sources, thus good enough to be displayed in infobox". -- Vlsergey (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to change Help:Label make a RfC. According to Help:Sources authority control do not need a source. WD has no concept of „source markers“. I think you are misusing the rank. The date is incomplete, not deprecated. And I doubt we should record all these incomplete dates if we have better ones. --Succu (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1. I'm not here to talk more than needed. Topic were raised, noone was against, noone pointed that it is against something. So now it is included in many places of complicated JS code. You want to change it? Make a proposal. Okay, I will not care about the name of single item. But there will several thousands of those items in next couple of month. Created manually, not with bot. Not by me. 2. First of all you removed not only from authority records: [2]. And you removed not sources, but marker where information was taken from. Talking that "we don't have them" is obviously misleading. Any imported entry has them. I don't care how that thing is called but it is obviously is not a source reference and it's obviously thing that shall not be removed just because you don't like it. Okay, I got the point about authority sources. Still may be an issue about checking original WP if you changes the data, but it may be out or WD scope. Anyway, instance of (P31) is not a authority record link. 3. The problem with dates is in definition of "what is better?" Would one say "with sources is better than without them", then incomplete date is much better than completed one, but without reliable sources (GND is not reliable, too many errors). -- Vlsergey (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So what's the purpuse to keep this? --Succu (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two reasons to keep this. First of all, we know that data is from ruwiki, thus we can check ruwiki for eactual sources. (Yes, it's not a direct link, and direct reference in Wikidata is still much better). Second, if we know that data is wrong, and we are going to fix in in Wikidata, we shall (not must) go to source and fix it there as well (or at least ask for sources and make a point that data is incorrect and need to be fixed). -- Vlsergey (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ruwiki has a statment like „Johann Hübner is a human“? Really? For WD it's not important from witch wiki statements came. If they are check by a human imported from Wikimedia project (P143) could be removed. --Succu (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes, really. Via categories and infobox present. 2. Nothing is important for Wikidata, even Wikidata existence. Wikidata exists because it fulfills some goals. I provided examples of goals where presence of such markers can help. "If they are check by a human imported from Wikimedia project (P143) could be removed" -- thus removing any trace to sources of information. My opinion that it should be removed only after providing actual sources. Okay, may be it sounds stupid for "John Doe is a human", but it makes a lot of sence for dates and other non-trivial and not-self-sourced information. -- Vlsergey (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it's stupid, because the statement is about the whole item itself and has no real equivalent in the wikipedias. Back to authority control ids: If you are ignoring Help:Sources, maybe this helps? --Succu (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The point about going back to correct errors does not impress me. 1) Why assume that the error occurs only in the Wikipedia it was derived from? The same error may be duplicated anywhere. 2) Errors occurring in a Wikipedia are nothing out of the ordinary. I have probably forgotten about more errors in Wikipedia's than I could possibly correct in four lifetimes if I were inclined to go correct them.

        It is possible to add the Wikipedia something is derived from, but this is not information, but metadata. And obviously there is nothing more easy than adding more metadata, but it does not help Wikidata forward. - Brya (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Brya: References are metadata: they are datas about where we found the datas. So I really don't get your point. TomT0m ^(talk) 18:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, sources are where we found the data, references are something else. Often enough a reference is the means whereby data have been created. - Brya (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Both "source" and "reference" means where we found the data. I have found often enough that "imported from xx wikipedia" was useful, even though in simple, uncontroversial case like "instance of human", I don't think there can be much harm in removing it once we made sure it is correct. --Zolo (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe to you they are the same. However, if somebody says that to him the moon and the sun are the same (a source of light in the sky), this says more about him than anything else. - Brya (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• ping the @VIAFbot: of @Maximilianklein: who added "references" to authority records for Johann Hübner (Q89840). -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Charles Darwin (Q1035)

Please, read the description for described by source (P1343). Links to Wikisource articles entries are specified as qualifiers, not sources. If you have other opinion, please, discuss it on Property Talk:P1343 -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This one? You are misusing stated in (P248) as a qualifier! --Succu (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It was proposed as part of described by source (P1343) usage. Noone was against it. It was documented as it is now since the very existence of this property and shall be treated as instruction (rule) of "how to use P1343". You can make a proposal at Property Talk:P1343 page. One was recently made at Wikidata:Project chat#Change P1343 qualificator for Wikisource articles, but proposal receives not so many opinions. -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with accusations like this. I'm one of the authors of the german article about Darwin. That's why I spotted your change. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Johann Hübner (Q89840)? Eduardo H. Zarantonello (1918–2010) (Q17771330)? Sorry, but this is 3rd topic already. I'm not asking for explanation, this is just an illustration of strange coincidence. -- Vlsergey (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Um's mit Pippi Longstocking (Q6668) zu sagen: Du modellierst die Wikidata-Welt wie sie dir gefällt. Rund um dein WE-Framework. Und das ist schon seit Längerem problematisch. --Succu (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Framework это всего-лишь инструмент редактирования. В нём можно реализовать любой функционал. А правки мои крутятся не вокруг Framework'а, а вокруг модулей и дополнений для русских разделов Википедии и Викитеке. Разумеется, я делаю так, как удобно разделам. Как удобнее писать модули и шаблоны. Для меня Викиданные это в первую очередь инструмент структуирования информации для использования в конкретных проектах, а не абстрактные деревья классов и наборы свойств. Мне плевать какое именно свойство используется для указания ссылки на Викисловарь. Но если уже какое-то используется, если ID этого свойства уже "зашито" внутри LUA-модуля, я буду настаивать, чтобы оно в дальнейшем так и использовалось. Мне плевать, как именно хранится место рождения, до тех пор, пока есть возможность в карточке в русском разделе вывести информацию таким образом, как к этому привыкли читатели и редакторы раздела. Мне плевать, в каком формате хранится дата и время, до тех пор, пока я могу вбить дату рождения 29 февраля 1900 года и быть уверенным, что она не исправится сама собой на 1 марта 1900 года. Когда я вношу изменения, я вношу их не ради данных на Викиданных, а ради работы раздела. Вот пример: ru:s:ЭСБЕ/Гюбнер, Иоганн. Моя работа состояла в том, чтобы сделать строку "Другие источники: ПБЭ : ADB ". Где ПБЭ -- это автоматическая ссылка на статью в другой энциклопедии в русской Викитеке, а ADB -- это ссылка на статью в немецкой Викитеке. Мне плевать, как называется элемент (хотя визуально удобнее чтобы он имел префикс), так как название никто кроме редакторов не увидит. Зато все увидят эти викиссылки. И вот это моя работа. Другой пример того, что делалось не с помощью сообщества Викиданных, а вопреки. ru:Жюссеран, Жан Жюль. Полностью автоматическая карточка статьи. Однастрока -- {{универсальная карточка}}. И это тоже моя работа. И мне тоже плевать, как именно будет структуирована информация на Викиданных, пока данная карточка остаётся рабочей. -- Vlsergey (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I would like to make clear that I will leave blank I don't merge this item to another, right? for example: d:Q4456794 and d:Q1593492--Cheers! (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The items without site links are used by original combination (P1403) so do not merge item, move sitelinks instead. --Succu (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

File:NoClaimsDistribution.png

Hallo Succu,

wie hast du eigentlich dieses Diagramm generiert?--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Die Kurzantwort findest du hier. Sollte ich vllt. mal aktualisieren. Die Rohdaten dafür erzeuge ich jede Woche im Rahmen meiner Statistik. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Q1043 Linneaus

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1043&oldid=223700800&diff=prev >> I cant't understand this reversion..."L." is a correct abreviation. --CEM-air (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Covered by botanist author abbreviation (P428). --Succu (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sufficient concern for data quality?

This edit warns me about being unhappy that a bot is making edits that an engineer like me who is quite familiar with latitude and longitude can't figure out, never mind verify.

This edit favors a bot that will add external databases as a source for WikiData dates when in there is reason to believe that in some cases the source contradicts WikiData.

I am quite unhappy with these edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Was genau möchtest du mir mitteilen? --Succu (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not read German. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting... -Succu (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

LPSN URL (P1991)

LPSN URL (P1991) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Schon gesehen. Danke. --Succu (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Plazi ID (P1992)

Plazi ID (P1992) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Himalayan Cuckoo (Q1075576)

Cuculus saturatus and Cuculus optatus are recognized as two different species now. Hunu (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

We have Himalayan Cuckoo (Q1075576) and Oriental Cuckoo (Q1266506): I do not understand your question. --Succu (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

World Geodetic System 1984

Would you please explain this edit which seems to say the World Geodetic System 1984 is a subclass of itself? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is says World Geodetic System 1984 is a subclass of World Geodetic System. --Succu (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that, despite searching, I failed to find World Geodetic System (Q215848) before I created World Geodetic System 1984 (Q20665664). I will request the latter be deleted. There is a question of how much detail we wish to go into. For very precise work, one can distinguish among several updates of World Geodetic System (Q215848). If we intend to create items for each update, we would want to say that each update is an instance of World Geodetic System (Q215848) and World Geodetic System (Q215848) is a subclass of World Geodetic System, which does not seem to have an item yet. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

dewik has articles about the general and the special system. So your item has to be retained. --Succu (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Q20665664 has the title at the top of the page "World Geodetic System 1984", the label World Geodetic System 1984, no link to English Wikipedia because there is no such article (only a section within ), and a link to German Wikipedia "World Geodetic System 1984".

Q215848 is the same, except the links to both the German and English Wikipedias go to "World Geodetic System". Unfortunately this item has links to several Wikipedias, some article titles containing 1984, and some not.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs).

The sitelinks in World Geodetic System (Q215848) are mixed up. I hope you as a specialist in geocoordinates can fix them. --Succu (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not a professional with geodetic coordinates, although it is an interest of mine. I am not experienced in editing Wikidata sitelinks. My plan would be to first edit the label of Q215848 in each language that is there now; English, Spanish, Traditional Chinese, and French. I would edit to "World Geodetic System" in English and "WGS" for the rest.

Then I would click each site link and look around at the encyclopedia to see if it had an article named "World Geodetic System" or "WGS" and if so, use that article name to link to. Otherwise I would delete it (but make a note of it). Then I would go over to Q20665664 and add any articles I had deleted from Q215848, and any articles I had discovered named "World Geodetic System 1984" or some combination of "WGS" and "84". Is this a good approach? (I won't respond tonight due to a meeting.) Jc3s5h (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good. --16:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Begoniaceae (Q161189)

Can you help me with this item, how to proceed when someone merge category with article and it is not the last edit so I can't restore it? --Termininja (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did:

1. In the version with ‎Merged item from "Q9815306" use undo
2. Go To Q9815306
3. Look for ‎Merged item into "Q161189", select the next oldest version and use restore

I had a similar case today. --Succu (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but now I'll merge Q9815306 with Category:Begoniaceae (Q8295264) because it is the same (it is written in the Taxobox template here) --Termininja (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Pavo

Hi. What do you think about peafowl (Q201251) and Pavo (Q3917160)? Should these items be merged? --XXN, 21:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? It's not possible. If you think a sitelink is not well placed than move the sitelink to a propper location. --Succu (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Plazi ID

Hi Succu,

I see you are adding Plazi entries. The first entries I am seeing are of this kind, completely empty, holding just metadata. Could you be more discriminating? - Brya (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brya, yes this treatment is a stub, but it points to a treatment citation. Learining TaxonX is on my todo list. ;) --Succu (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There isn't really a treatment citation, but only the original publication. There will be some cases where this is useful information, but for plants it is very redundant (I rather hate the whole idea of "stubs", which looks like a piece of aggressive American marketing). - Brya (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Treatment provided by ZooBank?! This is very strange and the link to ZooBank (external databases) fails of course. ZooBank has provided around 67,000 treatments to Plazi. A lot of them are related to ZooBank ID for name or act (P1746) I think. I will check abd add them. But this will take a while. --Succu (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking very weird - Brya (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. See User_talk:Daniel_Mietchen#ZooBank (in German). --Succu (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Zoobank entry is linked to all the other databases reporting that some other database has this entry. In other words, we are getting very deep in the meaningless metadata. - Brya (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I found some background information: Unifying nomenclature: ZooBank and Global Names Usage Bank (2009) and ZooBank Progress Report (2010). Related is Richard Pyles BioGUID.org (CC0!). --Succu (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those have been around awhile. The GNUB has laudable goals, but it needs a lot of supporting infrastructure (perhaps even an AI) and it is entirely unclear if this going to be there (for the foreseeable future). The practical consequence will be that any import from Zoobank will have to be handled with care, so that only zoological names (and nomenclatural acts if we ever get ready for them) get imported. - Brya (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Warnowiaceae (Q19785751)

Thanks for fixing the database links I messed up in this item. I noticed though that you removed all but one of the images, and the remaining one, while probably the most recognizable, isn't necessarily the most representative. Is there a reason only one image should be associated with a whole family? Is the idea that it would make more sense to create a commons category for them (and if so, should there be an image claim at all)? Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion one picture is enough, but see this discussion. I simply used the on from enwiki. Creating (and linking to) a commons category is a good idea. --Succu (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks; commons category created. I wrote the enwiki article just recently and wasn't convinced that a single image in the infobox is the best option there either, but a collage would be too crowded. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

removal of engraved portrait ? I don't understand...

Hello Succu,

I don't understand your recent undoing of added picture https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q435674&diff=next&oldid=238455077

Could you please explain ? AFAIK, this is indeed the portrait of Antoine de Jussieu (Q435674).

--Hsarrazin (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I's most likely Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (Q223963) (my revert in dewiki). Look at the inscription. --Succu (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC) PS: It' located in c:Category:Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, Hsarrazin

oh, sorry, uncle/nephew, same name, both botanists… the image was wrongly used on eswiki :) - removed it. Thanks for your care, and explanation. --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Banane(n)

Hallo Succu, der von dir wiederhergestellte Zustand ist nicht "banane", sondern ärgerlich.

Es ist eine von jenen leider zahlreichen Wikidata-Verlinkungen, die den Eindruck machen, als wären sie von Leuten ohne Fremdsprachenkenntnis geschaltet.--Ulamm (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Ulamm, du meinst diese nicht sonderlich sinnvolle Verlinkung eines Redirectes auf de:Bananen? Unser Artikel behandelt im Wesentlichen die Gattung und eben nicht die Frucht banana (Q503). Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia ist ein internationales Projekt.

Da soll man auch darauf achten, dass einander entsprechende Inhalte in den verschiedenen Sprachen auch auseinander zu finden sind.

Das muss nicht immer mit gleichen Themenzuschnitten geschehen. Irgendwie wirft jede Sprache ein etwas anderes Koordniatensystem über die Realität.

Wenn du mit meinem Ansatz zum Themenbereich der Bananen und Bananengewächse nicht zufrieden bist oder warst, solltest du einen besseren austüfteln.

Der von dir wiederhergestellte Zustand ist jedenfalls schlecht.--Ulamm (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Schlecht für welche Wikipedia? Musa (Q8666090) (Gattung, 59 sitelinks) vs. banana (Q503) (Frucht, 132 sitelinks) Was die Musaceae (Q156525) damit zu tun haben erschließt sich mir nicht. --Succu (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

UICN

Hello,
sorry to contact you directly but I saw you asked for the IUCN-ID element, and I'm not very familiar with asking new elements (or even how to describe it).

My purpose is about UICN and CITES: they have other values that can be used on wikipedias that are not present.

• UICN : category (still present); criteria; criteria version (example: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/172876/0 → 172876 / B1ab(iii) / 3.1)
• CITES : I only found annex elements (i.e. Q2851528) but CITES also has site(s) with identifiers and informations (Species+) → annex II + date of start for this

What should be done for that? Should I ask for a new value (property? not sure of names) for UICN-ID? Should I ask for a similar stuff for CITES? It would be partly duplicated with Q2851528 and others no?

Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. You can propose a new property at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science (section Biology). At the top of this page you'll find a template which you'll have to use. A property to link Species+ would be useful. Regarding the Red List Criteria I'm not sure we can copy these values to wikidata (not CC0). --Succu (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will look at this link.

For the CC0 I didn't think about that. But I'm not sure neither that UICN category (VU, CR…) is compatible with CC0? Was it discussed before? (I just read their "Term of Use" and I can't see difference beetween category and criteria).

For CITES I will see to ask for it too. But we may have the same licence problem no? "the information, data and attribute data provided through the Species+ website and the Species+/CITES Checklist API" is called the "Materials", and → "The Materials may not be sub-licensed in whole or in part including within Derivative Works". So it seems that even using "annex I/II/III" as data CC0 is not allowed (but still done).

Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's little bit of a twilight zone. But the property is old and properly linked to the latest IUCN list. So I hope this is OK. Linking to an external ressource is never a problem. But if we want do add things like listed in Appendix I (e.g. as a value of a property CITES status) we should use the official documents as a reference. --Succu (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Can you have a look at Wikidata_talk:Property_proposal/Natural_science#Need_help? Not familiar so helping me to fill/understand these fields for this first request would help me for the future :) Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I thanked you on this page, I also do it here, for readability. The request is "requested". Hexasoft (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Very simple, generic material, like a square, a circle or a blue number on a white background are not copyrightable. I don't see how "Appendix I" can be copyrighted. - Brya (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with licence problems. Whatever here I don't think that "Appendix I" is supposed to be copyrighted. But telling "this species is classed in appendix I (of CITES classification)" is using data from CITES database/website. I'm pretty sure that CITES wants this data to be spread, but what if someone dumps all CITES statements from wikidata and sell it based on the fact it is CC0 and it is allowed? Regards, Hexasoft (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, "Appendix I" is not copyrighted and the name of the species is not copyrighted. The combination of the two won't be different, but a complete listing of all species in Appendix I may be subject to "database copyright", which no doubt is full of subtle nuances. But two obvious points: 1) this information is available in many sources from which it could be compiled and 2) the CITES website which offered these lists first has much less restrictive Terms-of-use. - Brya (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

BDPA

Hello,

I saw that your bot added BDPA's identifiant to Phyllanthus raynalii. Did it add this for all taxa ? In this case, how many taxa does it represent ? Thanks a lot. Best regards. Gtaf (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I could identify and set the id of more than 40,000 species, more than 5,000 genera and some subspecies/varieties. --Succu (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bravo and thank you for this work Gtaf (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I created Q20704246 and User:Fralambert created Q20862705. Both are the same thing. So, would you please delete mine. Thanks a lot. Cordially. Gtaf (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I merged your item with African Plant Database (Q20862705). --Succu (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hymenoscyphus fraxineus

Whoa there, why did you revert the merge-and-rename I made on Q1394863. For starters, there is no species called Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus - the new official name is Hymenoscyphus fraxineus. Secondly I want to get the Chalara fraxinea links into the same category. "Chalara fraxinea" is a synonym (or more correctly the basionym) for the same species. The fact that pages like the French Wikipedia page have yet to move their page to the newer name is surely their problem? Pasicles (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

For starters?! Regarding to Species Fungorum Chalara fraxinea (Q10448107) and Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus (Q1394863) are taxon synonym (P1420) of Hymenoscyphus fraxineus (Q20899360) ([3]). Your changes created a mess. Now most of the sitelinks are at Hymenoscyphus fraxineus (Q20899360). See also Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. --Succu (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Graph

Hi Succu, Interesting graph on your user page. Does "missing" items include redirects, or are these included in "no claims"? Lymantria (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! "Missing" includes redirs and deleted items. These are not present in the dump. --Succu (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

MSW

Hi Succu,

It cannot have escaped you that MSW is using the wrong names for cattle (and some other domesticated species). The taxon MSW calls Bos taurus can, according to the ICZN, only be called Bos primigenius, etc. Recently you put the MSW (and ITIS) ID's into the items of the wrong taxa. Then later you removed these ID's from the item that does hold the corresponding Wikipedia pages. Why? - Brya (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brya: To get rid of the constraint violations. --Succu (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC) PS: Added has part(s) (P527) to erroneous concept of Bos taurus (Q18721961)

Why not just add these exceptional cases to the exceptions for these properties? As there cannot be a taxon named Bos taurus primigenius it is not a good idea to add it, as if it were a taxon. - Brya (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The names were in use until they were rejected by the Comission. I think the best way to express this is to add a statement for taxon name (P225) at deprecated rank sourced with Opinion 2027. Don E. Wilson and DeeAnn M. Reeder do not accept this. It would be interesing how this case is handeled in Handbook of the Mammals of the World (Volume 2). --Succu (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Put something that can never be the correct name of a taxon in "taxon name"? That looks much like giving up all hope that Wikidata will ever hold usable data. Besides, the majority of readers will not notice a "deprecated status", and most databasers will ignore it.

        Theoretically it might be possible to go by the taxon described and put MSW's Bos taurus in the item Bos primigenius and load it down with qualifiers. But it seems all too likely that nobody will understand that. - Brya (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

IUCN

Hello,
Couldn't you explain the reason of removing IUCN number from Q647512? Stas (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

IUCN taxon ID (P627) is only used as part of the reference for IUCN conservation status (P141). --Succu (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If so, how can it be accessed from Wikipedia articles? I open the article, put there {{#property:P627}} and see nothing. Stas (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Todo what? The general answer is: write a Lua module. --Succu (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

To generate a link to the page in the database. Links to EOL, ITIS, NCBI and other databases can be easily generated in such way based on info from Wikidata. Why IUCN - an important and authoritative source - must be an exception? Stas (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Cat

Hi Succu.

Could you give me a bit more explanation about the revert you have just made on item Cat (diff) ?

Both Felis catus and Felis silvestris catus are commonly used for the scientific name for the domestic cat (as noted in the first ten words of ), so I would have thought that both should appear on the item house cat (Q146).

While we are on the subject, what is the best thing to do with Felis leo (Q15294488), an obsolete classification for lion (Q140) ? Should it be merged into Q140, but marked deprecated ? Jheald (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We do not merge synonyms or monotypic taxa. This would led to chaos. Please have a look at Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. --Succu (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

One concept should have one item. That is a fundamental tenet of Wikidata. If the taxo guidelines do not reflect that, then the taxo guidelines need reconsideration. Jheald (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A species and a subspecies are different concepts. Belonging to a genus Felis is different from belonging to a genus Panthera. Synonyms represent different taxonomic opinions. Etc. --Succu (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a cat. It's still a cat, whether one gives it the classification Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus. Therefore one item, two property values. Jheald (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

house cat (Q146) is a common name (Q502895). Felidae are cats too. --Succu (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

house cat (Q146) is specifically the item for the domestic housecat. It is not the item for the family Felidae. If there is a reference genome for the domestic housecat, it is house cat (Q146) that we should link it from. Since Felis catus (Q20980826) refers to exactly the same animals, it should be the same item, so that if somebody looks up "Felis catus", they will be able to find on the item all the information about its range, reference genome, etc, etc, etc. Jheald (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be interesting that according to , Felis catus is the preferred binomial name for Q146, not Felis silvestris catus which is presented as a secondary "subjective synonym". Jheald (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(more) vs have contrasting discussions as to which scientific name should be considered primary. Jheald (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedias are not a source. The article The Near Eastern Origin of Cat Domestication, cited in enwiki, frwiki and dewiki, uses the name Felis silvestris catus. --Succu (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia does not (or should not) deal in right names and wrong names, but in names having more support and names having less support. Secondly, "one concept" is relative. What is one concept to one user may be something else to another user. "Wikidata acts as central storage for the structured data of its Wikimedia sister projects ..." means that there must be a structure. In the real world, taxa are structured by a system that uses scientific names as labels. One such label to one Wikidata item gives a manageable structure: statements can be put in to reflect various points of view. The "one popular concept" does not always fit easily in this, and then it becomes necessary to have an item "cat", an item "Felis catus" and an item Felis silvestris catus. This is ugly and should be avoided as much as possible. - Brya (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Succu, Brya: Whatever.

The important thing is that if you are going to litter Wikidata with items for obsolete or duplicate names, items which are not intended to be the primary items for the animals where eg range data or genomic data are linked from, then these items for obsolete or duplicate names need to be marked as such.

At the moment there is nothing on Felis catus (Q20980826) or Felis leo (Q15294488) to indicate that these are not the primary items for a group of animals. It would be good to be able to easily exclude them from a query, to stop them from appearing on a chart like this. (Scroll down to see chart). Jheald (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

eg perhaps create a subclass of taxon (Q16521) for "synonym taxon", and shift them to there. Jheald (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jheald: And we have one item for human (Q5) human, which is supposed to be a common name, and one for the species Homo sapiens (Q15978631). I really don't get the rationale of all of this, seriously ... author  TomT0m / talk page 11:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is argument like "I want a map that clearly marks out the building I want to go to (and leaves the rest invisible)". It will vary from case to case whether or not there is something like a "primary item". But it is true that there should ideally be a whole lot more references (note that Felis catus does have two taxonomic references). - Brya (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And the rationale for two separate items is a simple one: otherwise it is a mess. "Human" has way too much baggage to be only a taxon. - Brya (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brya: No, Wikidata can perfectly handle that. Now it's a mess. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, look at it like this: if you leaf through a zoology book, it may have lots of detail on Homo sapiens, but it will do no nothing like justice to the phenomenon "human". Libraries have been written about aspects of humans that do not fit in a zoology book. - Brya (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brya: Why would that be a problem ? Any instance of the Q5 concept is a homo sapiens. If you type "être humain" (human beeing) on frwiki you are redirected to an article entitled "homo sapiens" with a taxobox. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Brya: No, it's more like "I want to be able to find a switch for such buildings so I can choose whether to turn the lights on or off".

Almost all items with instance of (P31) taxon (Q16521) are the primary items for a group of animals, where one would expect to find any additional information about that group of animals, such as range maps, or genomic links, and which serve as a common point for linking to the various language Wikipedia articles on that group of animals.

Where a taxo item does not match those expectations, it should be clearly marked as such, for example by placing it in a subclass "synonym taxon", which somebody writing a query to draw a tree would then have the freedom to include or not as they wished, depending on whether they searched for P31 Q165321 or P31/P279* Q165321.

It's also useful for constraint management. If an item is in subclass "synonym taxon", it ought to contain a pointer to the primary taxon for that group of animals; and any taxons which contain such pointers ought to be in the subclass. Plus also: range maps, genomic links, etc should not appear on items for synonym taxons. Jheald (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We do not know much about our nearly 2,000,000 taxa, if their names are correctly spelled and how they related. We do not know which taxon is a synonym (Q1040689) of other taxon and which authority states this. We are lacking authors, dates of publication and so on. A lot of work to do for only a few people. BTW: there is nothing like a primary item for a taxon. --Succu (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we know nothing.

Also: just because we don't have sources, that doesn't mean we can't make provisional data-driven assessments.

You write "there is nothing like a primary item for a taxon". But, operationally at any rate, there is.

Operationally, the primary item is the item that has all the sitelinks on it, the range data, genomic links, etc, etc -- all the non-taxonomical information.

We don't want such information to be split across multiple items -- for a particular group of animals, we want it centralised, in one place, on one item. And de facto, by people making interwiki links, and by other people then following those interwiki links to move information from infoboxes to items, that has already happened -- at least for the great majority of the most common or popular animals.

Plus, even if right now there is only a proportion of cases like Felis catus (Q20980826) or Felis leo (Q15294488) which we can identify as not being the primary items for a group of animals, that's no reason not to put the sub-class in place now, and not to start to populate it with such cases as these that we can identify (if there really do need to be items for these alternative names), rather than leaving them in the main class taxon (Q16521) to confuse and mislead. Jheald (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your item would look like this. --Succu (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, my item would look more-or-less like this, and I would designate Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115) to be a instance of (P31) of "taxon synonym" rather than "taxon", if the two items do indeed relate to the same group of animals, given that there does seem to be distinct information relating specifically to the latter item. One might also add a property "Taxon primary item" to link the latter item to the former item specifically, rather than any of its other synonyms. Jheald (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we are not God. We do not have absolute knowledge of good and and evil, nor absolute powers. Even more, so we are operating within a Wikipedia-framework, which has NPoV as its cornerstone. So it is forbidden to us to declare a "Taxon primary item". We are supposed to document different points of view.

        Following the literature, sometimes it will prove that there clearly is one name that is commonly agreed upon. However, sometimes there will be two, three, or more taxonomic points of view that have lots of taxonomic support, and each will be the synonym of one of the others, at the same time.

        (And, yes, there are lots of cases where an item marked as a taxon will only be a spelling error.) - Brya (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

With respect @Brya:, that's nonsense.

• User:Succu de facto declared a primary taxon, when he concentrated all the sitelinks on Rutilus alburnoides (Q840418) rather than Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115)
• fr-wiki de facto declared a primary taxon, when it chose Felis silvestris catus as the name to put on its taxo-box on fr:chat
• en-wiki de facto declared a primary taxon, when it chose Felis catus as the name to put on its taxo-box on en:cat.
• Wikidata de facto declared a primary taxon, when it chose Felis silvestris catus as the name to put in taxon name (P225) on house cat (Q146), which is linked to the article for cat on all major Wikipedias.

The alternative is the mentality of a donkey which starves to death because it can't make up its mind which of two equidistant carrots to eat first.

Sometimes what matters is to have a decision, more importantly than having the best decision.

But if it helps you to sleep more easily, consider the suggested property as merely proposing to indicate which item Wikidata has chosen to concentrate sitelinks and biological data on, rather than necessarily reflecting a detailed determination of which taxonomy is definitively to be preferred. (Though if such an objective determination had been made, the fact could be noted).

What is not sustainable, however, is the present muddle. Given a taxonomic string, people (and bots) need to be able which item to seek (or place) biological information on. Jheald (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Section break (cactaceae)

Another approach: I've implemented the taxonomic opion about the Cactaceae (Q14560) from two sources a while ago: Das große Kakteen-Lexikon (Q13520496) (2005) and The New Cactus Lexicon (Q10695694) (2006). Make a SPARQL query looking for all items with taxon name (P225) with stated in (P248)=Das große Kakteen-Lexikon (Q13520496) belonging to Cactaceae (Q14560) (with parent taxon (P171))) and then the same with the other source. Compare the results. Maybe you then understand our model and NPOV approach better. --Succu (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jheald: I see that you have little or no knowledge of basic Wikipedia and Wikidata policies. This trying to force reality to fit your desires and your tools is just what causes all the troubles (and all the fictional taxa) in databases. - Brya (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so the list you are suggesting is something like this: tinyurl.com/qy3vugu, showing the Wikidata label, the name in Das große Kakteen-Lexikon (Q13520496), the name in The New Cactus Lexicon (Q10695694), and the Commonscat name.

And I guess the kind of example you have in mind is something like Ariocarpus retusus subsp. trigonus (Q309981)   versus Ariocarpus trigonus (Q13218610)  , which both currently have the same Commons category.

de:Ariocarpus retusus subsp. trigonus says the two are synonyms, but doesn't give a reference. Neither of our Wikidata items mentions the other in any context, though both give an identical basionym, Anhalonium trigonum (Q14621098)   (an item which contains nothing to indicate that that name is now deprecated).

Thanks for the query, but the query includes taxa which have no reference to Das große Kakteen-Lexikon (Q13520496) or The New Cactus Lexicon (Q10695694) (e.g. Weberocereus glaber var. mirandae (Q1464108))). Seems you are guessing a lot... --Succu (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Something like this then tinyurl.com/pqbf22o. I was curious to see how the taxa in those books compared to all the taxa we had items for. Jheald (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Only accepted taxa are referenced until. There are several ten thousand objective and subjectiv synonyms. --Succu (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The page from Kew, eg this, is quite interesting, giving a "confidence" rating on a scale of one to three that different taxa are in fact synonyms.

I do take the point, that where there is not clarity that two different taxa are synonyms, then it is important to keep information about them on the item for the taxon in relation to which the data was originally published.

But where the taxa uncontroversially are synonyms, such as Felis catus / Felis silvestris catus, then it is valuable to keep the information in one place. It doesn't really matter which place, so long as that place is clearly indicated.

And where a taxon is now deprecated (eg Felis leo, Anhalonium trigonum), that too should be indicated (ideally by indicating the name is an instance of a "former taxon", or some such), and there should be a pointer to the current classification(s).

At the moment our items are too silent about all of this, and so you can't expect users not to be confused. Jheald (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome in the jungle of nomenclature and taxonomy. We should stop here. Maybe a taxon name (P225) is no longer in use, but it is never deprecated. They are treated as vaild or accepted, depending on the regulating code. --Succu (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I still say that where there are objective synonyms they should be marked as such, and we should indicate (to readers and bots) our preferred item for corresponding biological data. Jheald (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Have fun adding to or createing items for basionym (P566), original combination (P1403) and replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694). My bot has no problems to do that, but other problems are more important at the moment. --Succu (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. However, while those properties are all very well, I don't really see how they are supposed to help with items like Felis catus (Q20980826) or Felis leo (Q15294488). How should one indicate on those items what is our preferred item for corresponding biological data? Jheald (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Searching relevant taxonomic literature? You started this issue, so please provide taxonomic references. --Succu (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, simply the fact that the relevant biological material for those classifications is on house cat (Q146) and lion (Q140). How, even just in principle, can one indicate that ? Jheald (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

How are your „terms” relevant biological material or primary taxon defined in the literature? --Succu (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not so much interested in what the literature says, rather in how to indicate what is being done in practice, de facto, here on wikidata -- ie how to indicate that sitelinks, range information, genomic information, other non-taxonomic information are being concentrated on the item with the taxon Felis silvestris catus rather than Felis catus, or Rutilus alburnoides (Q840418) rather than Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115).

This is something that should be indicated on the items Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115) and Felis catus (Q20980826). What is the way to do so? Jheald (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata is all about the literature (as is Wikipedia); and "what is being done in practice," is only interesting in as far as it occurs in the literature. Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115) has a reference MSW which indicates that this is correct name, in the world as MSW sees it. More references are needed, but this is the way to go. - Brya (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. Wikipedia is not "all about the literature". There is also content organisation, presentation, editorial judgement. "We are not transcription monkeys" as Jimbo Wales put it.

What is being done on Wikidata is interesting, in so far as it tells people looking for information on Wikidata where on Wikidata to find the information they may be looking for.

Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115) may well have a reference that indicates that it is a correct name. But the sitelinks are on Rutilus alburnoides (Q840418), and a reader or a bot encountering the page Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115) should be able to find that out. Jheald (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The key information on Rutilus alburnoides (Q840418) is original combination (P1403) = Leuciscus alburnoides (Q3285528), which connects all objective synonyms. --Succu (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there is nothing on Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115) to indicate which of all these synonyms contains the sitelinks; nor that new information should be placed on another item, not that item. That makes things unnecessarily difficult. It also makes an item like Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115) appear to anyone familiar with any of the rest of Wikidata to be no more than an unmerged duplicate, like a duplicate entry for a painter having a slightly variant name. Jheald (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What about respecting the (taxonomic) POV (man-made or bot generated) of the local comunities and scatter the sitelinks to different items? This would allow them to build a fitting taxobox based on wikidata. A smarter wikibase implementation could provide virtual sitelinks based on the above mentioned properties. --Succu (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Splitting up sitelinks that we want to connect together isn't going to happen.

Moreover, splitting information between nodes in a many-to-many arrangement rather than a hub-and-spokes arrangement is a real headache -- it's harder to read, because you can't see information all in one place; it's harder to search, because you have to first discover all the relevant nodes and then look over them; it's harder to maintain, because there are so many different links that have to be kept synchronised.

As an example, this is a bit like where the "given names" items have got to at the moment -- resulting in the haphazardness that this page tries to track; and the unnecessarily expensive path searches that queries for similar first names have to perform. And in practice sitelinks are still concentrated on a single node. So as soon as a new set of hub nodes for "Name X and variants" can be brought into being, alongside the current "spokes" nodes of particular-language name variants, to move this to a move this to a much easier maintainable and searchable "hub-and-spokes" model, the better.

I doubt we will ever see "virtual sitelinks" as you suggest, because the first point of Wikidata was to bring management of all sitelinks together onto a single item, to all be dealt with in one place. And that is also the item where, at least for agreed objective synonyms, it makes sense to pool together corresponding biological and non-taxonomic data.

But we will still have an item for eg the taxo-name Felis catus (Q20980826), so even though the infobox for en-wiki's article en:cat should eventually draw on house cat (Q146) (identified with the taxonomic name Felis silvestris catus) for biological and non-taxonomic information (and sitelinks), there is no reason why the infobox template on the en-wiki article should not allow Felis catus (Q20980826) to be specified as an over-ride for the locally preferred taxonomic name (eg to match the name-text of the article) -- the template should then be able to display the name and full taxonomic tree based on the information in Felis catus (Q20980826) and its taxonomic parent-nodes, while combining it with range information, sitelinks, and other information from house cat (Q146). In that way local communities could still build the taxobox they wanted.

However, I do think, in a case like Felis catus (Q20980826) (or Squalius alburnoides (Q21030115)), that there does need to be something on that item to indicate its relationship to house cat (Q146) (resp. Rutilus alburnoides (Q840418)), and pointing to house cat (Q146) (or Rutilus alburnoides (Q840418)) as the item where all the relevant sitelinks have been concentrated. Jheald (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Which name for Rutilus alburnoides (Q840418) do you prefer? Please give a rational (and a source) where all the sitelinks should go: To Leuciscus alburnoides (Q3285528), Tropidophoxinellus alburnoides (Q2236538), Iberocypris alburnoides (Q21030195), Rutilus alburnoides (Q840418) or another combination? --Succu (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really bothered which name gets attached in the label field to the sitelinks.

If Wikidata goes with whatever name happens to be most common in the sitelinks, then fine. If we go with a name that for some reason makes most biological sense, or has slightly more recent references, I'm fine with that. If we simply go with whatever name was being used on the first wiki that happened to be extracted, I wouldn't be upset. If the taxo project wants to come up with its own house rule, simply to reduce arguments, then fine. So long as the item also lists the synonyms, then it's not something that I personally am going to lose any sleep over.

But what I do think is important is for there to be a property on the items for each of the other taxonomic synonyms, to indicate the item that has all the sitelinks.

To take a species I'm slightly more familiar with: I don't really mind which taxonomic name gets attached to house cat (Q146). If en-wiki wants to go with Felis catus because that's currently used in slightly more scientific papers, then fine. If fr-wiki wants to go with Felis silvestris catus, because it thinks that makes more biological sense, then I'm fine with that too. If wikidata happens to follow fr-wiki for whatever reason, then fine again (en-wiki can always over-ride the choice locally, if it wants to). But I do think that items for any other names, that are not the taxon on Q146, need to include some kind of property pointing to Q146, to indicate that that is where the sitelinks and the non-taxonomic biological data are. Jheald (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Succu : You might want to add your usecase to WD:XLINK. There might be a way to cumpute the interwikis in Lua using Wikidata statements (Now we can only follow the statements the subject -> object way, but who knows in the future ... author  TomT0m / talk page 15:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

TomT0m: If I understand this right the adjustment is for a local wikis only. --Succu (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (Q223963)

I informed NPG on their contact form about their wrong assocciation of the protrait [4] with Antoine de Jussieu (Q435674). Thanks for spotting this! -- Gymel (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Danke. ;) --Succu (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Today I've been informed by mail that NPG has "published" my "contribution" [5]. Seems that presenting a decent Web 2.0 experience today is more important than getting staff to the task of simply correcting errors... -- Gymel (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Attus

Hello Succu. Per your revert, what is the correct way to mark that Attus (Q4818757) is a junior synonym of Salticus (Q1720738). (In case you're wondering, it's been considered a synonym since 1955 and the synonymy is not controversial.) Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kaldari, I reverted because a junior synonym is not a replacement name (Q749462). --Succu (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that. I didn't mark it as a replacement name (Q749462), I marked it as a replaced synonym (Q15709329), which I mistook for synonym (Q1040689). It looks like Circeus has fixed it. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WDQ search

Hi. Do you know is it possible to make WDQ search by description? --Termininja (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Termininja, I don't think this is possible with WDQ. But this should work with SPARQL. --Succu (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Protista

I am putting together a new Taxobox on svwp. See sv:Användare:Innocent bystander/sandlåda. It goes well this far. I am currently struggling to add the right color-code to the box. I use kingdom (Q36732):Animalia/Fungi/Plantae/Protista or domain (Q146481):Bacteria/Prokaryota in the structure to give it the right color. But as you see in my testsamples, I fail to find someway to identify the Protista, which should have a khaki-color if it did correctly. My example did not have any kingdom (Q36732), and I find it difficult to find good examples to test on, since we do not have many such articles/objects.

Do you have any good idea of how I best identify the group of Protista? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of taxonomic concepts about Protista. Modern taxonomic concepts of Eukaryota reject a kingdom Protista. E.g. dewiki is using the taxonomic concept of Adl et al.(2012) for Eukaryota (de:Systematik der Eukaryoten). I don't know which taxonomic concept is used by sewiki. At wikidata we have only a limited count of taxa belonging to the kingdom of Protista. You get more results if you are using the definition of Cavalier-Smith (1981). By the way in the taxobox of se:Eukaryoter the color khaki is used for Rhizaria (Q855740). --Succu (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know "which taxonomic concept is used by svwiki". Most of the content is made by a robot (like it or not) and I do not know if there is any consistency in these articles. I am an uneducated fool in this subject. (I have studied Material science and Math, not Biologi.) I only try to create a new Lua/Wikidata-based template to replace the old as an option. The template is identifying every animal (with a pink template) by the help of finding animal (Q729) in the structure. This far, I have not detected any animal that do not go through that item in the hierarchy. (It is possible it only is a matter of time.) But I fail to find any such key statement for the Protista. I have detected that many Protista are below SAR (Q137323) in the hierarchy here at Wikidata. But I do not have the full picture to know if that is enough help for my template. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Recommended way to mark up taxa with multiple names?

I was wondering what the wikidata recommended way to markup species that have multiple names?

For example:

Puma concolor (Linnaeus 1771) Felis concolor Linnaeus 1771

Also the binomial e.g. Puma concolor is not "english" @en or latin - it should be the universal string for the species name.

I was thinking it should not have a language tag associated with it, or one should be minted meaning "scientific name"

While "Cougar"@en and "Mountain Lion"@en should have a language tag.

Thanks,

- Pete  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petefrog (talk • contribs).

Start with reading Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. --Succu (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Lag

FYI Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#Lag. --- Jura 15:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest SuccuBot activities

Hi!

I see that SuccuBot is adding a lot of ru labels to species which is identical to en label and also does not correspond to any actual article on ruwiki. I wonder if it is actually a good idea - this label does not add any real information since it's not actually a Russian label (technically it's closer to Latin but standard fallback to English would do fine) and it generates a lot of updates, which also loads the query service (this latest point is of less relevancy if those were necessary updates, but I'm not sure they are).

--Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Independently of the editorial choice, that type of volume shouldn't have an impact on the server. We would be glad to have your feedback on Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#Lag. --- Jura 16:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't, but it does, because the edit volume this generates is order of magnitude (or more, I didn't really do the stats) above the usual edit volume. RIght now update stream processing is not able to support it. We may want to improve it, but right now that's the fact. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I also think that language fallback would be the much better option here than duplicating labels from another language (especially from English which seems to be the "default" language anyways). Also, it is a bit suspicious to add Latin text as Russian labels. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 16:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The label reflects taxon name (P225) and has nothing to do with the english label, which could be different. I only picked up a task User:BotNinja has introduced. My bot is not running at the moment. --Succu (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It "could be" different but in this case it never is. I'm not questioning the idea of having Russian labels in general, I am questioning the idea of auto-adding so many labels marked as "Russian" which have nothing Russian in them, no ruwiki entry and seem to be complete duplicates of en labels (maybe coming not directly from en-label but from common source, but the result seems to be the same). I'm not sure this is a good idea from data-quality and efficiency standpoint. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Smalyshev (WMF): Does this "standard fallback to English" affects anything else than the interface here and the Property-parser in the Clients? (I am asking since I prefer to retrieve data by the help of Lua, and if English labels always is retrieved when local language is missing, I have to rethink the whole code.) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose this is the moment to, once again, promote the idea that, for all taxa, the P225 taxon name should be the default label for all languages. That is, the software should read the P225 taxon name as the default label. If that is realized this would save a lot of work, quite a bit of server space, and may quite possibly reduce loading times. - Brya (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a why I ask my question. The Taxobox I try to develop does not look into any other label than the local language, and if there isn't any, it looks into P225 (which it have to look into anyway). If the algorithm that looks for the local language is tricked by an English fallback label, then I have to redesign parts of the code. Again: @Smalyshev (WMF):, do you have any answer to my Q? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: I don't know if the interface and Lua actually implements the fallbacks now. Probably not, but this needs to be checked. But for something like we see in this case fallback would probably be better than copying the same exactly label into 200+ languages. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The interface have implemented the fallback since long. @Smalyshev (WMF): The problem here is that when I see European places, I prefer German fallback, when I see taxa I prefer Latin fallback, when I see Russian/Ukranian names I prefer Bokmål fallback. We can easily implement such a solution into a Lua-module, that is probably far more tricky to add directly into Wikibase. If the English fallback labels blocks the search for German/Latin/Bokmål alternative labels, we have a serious problem. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how Latin fallback would help for taxa. What is wanted is fallback to P225. This may apply not only for taxa but perhaps also for anything with a name (places, persons, books, songs, etc)? - Brya (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There are various fixes needed in order to not need Succubot's addition. It would be helpful if someone from WMF or WMFD would do a summary on this and give us a status if and what is being done about it and when this will be fixed. One of this was suggested by Denny to Lydia: strings should be searchable. Can we get a status on this? --- Jura 13:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me as a Russian-speaker to support Succu's actions. One of the primary tasks at Wikidata was to provide labels and descriptions to all items for all languages. Many taxa has no (and probably won't have ever) cyrillic names, so Latin (not English!) name is the best we can do now. --Infovarius (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to make it clear: it's the scientific name of a taxon. It's not necessarily based on Latin. --Succu (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To avoid all those labels for every item, an approach would be to have a property like "international name" ("New York", "Paul McCartney", "Yellow submarine", "Malus pumila", "Rosaceae", etc), that would be read as the default for all labels. - Brya (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is title (P1476) for it. And some new native label (P1705)). --Infovarius (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that these override anything? - Brya (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

manner of death (P1196) for Mark Twain (Q7245)

Hi Succu,

As you reverted my addition, would you add the property for the above item? --- Jura 22:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What about starting with a diff? --Succu (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you already forgot what or why you edited ? --- Jura 22:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

[6] --Succu (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to give a reason for your revert. --- Jura 23:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Claiming someone is daed because of natural causes (Q3739104)? --Succu (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What's going on here? Why are you removing authority control links and occupation statements? Oh, and please, don't ever undo someone without setting a proper edit summary, this is just rude. Multichill (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Simply readd the statements with a reference. --Succu (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Succu, Wikidata is a community project. You're a community member, but sometimes you're not acting like one. You're doing a lot of good things here on Wikidata, but removing statements and not willing to explain your actions is not the way to go. Have you ever read the mellow page on Commons? Please invest a bit more time in energy in being nice to people. You'll notice it pays of in several ways like better atmosphere and better quality. Jura1, I know you'll will be reading this too, so maybe you can try to do the same so that agreement can be reached over the best way to use cause of death (P509) and manner of death (P1196)? According to Wikidata:List of properties/Person#Generic manner of death (P1196) -> natural causes (Q3739104) is the right thing to add. Multichill (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It might be that cause of death on this items incorrect and should be removed. If not, I think this manner of death is the one to use. BTW, Q7245 is one of the top missing properties by number of sitelinks/P1196. --- Jura 17:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Most people die a natural death - so I hope. Person data are sensible. So adding such claims without a reference is not a good idea, I think. Was this discussed elsewhere? --Succu (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death for Mark Twain? P1196 or P509? --- Jura 17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

mapping from cause of death (Q21668548)? No source is given for cause of death (P509). --Succu (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct. If you think it's needed, you might want to add it at Q7245#P509. --- Jura 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Was this statement unclear? If yes, which part? --Succu (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall having edited and/or discussed Q7245#P509 before. If you have an issue with this property or value, I don't see why this should impact P1196. --- Jura 21:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So did he die of a heart attack or not? --- Jura 21:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about adding manner of death (P1196) = natural causes (Q3739104) on a larger scale. Was this discussed elsewhere? --Succu (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the property was discussed when it was created. --- Jura 21:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you supposing that manner of death (P1196) = natural causes (Q3739104) should be added, if no other value is present for manner of death (P1196)? --Succu (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I think the property should be used as defined. --- Jura 21:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the version from the archive, Jura. For me „Todesumstände“ (situation of death? now called manner of death (P1196)) is different from „Todesursache“ (cause of death, = cause of death (P509)). Maybe both properties need a clarification in all languages and actions based upon these should be reconsidered? --Succu (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is apparently a sensless discussion (@Jura [7]), Multichill. --Succu (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Dimorphotheca ecklonis (Q15629400) und Osteospermum ecklonis (Q682658)

Hallo, du kennst dich glaub ich besser bei der Systematik aus. Kann/sollte man die beiden Items zusammenführen? Holger1959 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Die Weblinks gehören zusammen, aber wir benötigen beide Datenobjekte. Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

danke für die Lösung! auch für den Hinweis, dass beide Items behalten werden. Holger1959 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Unterarten / Arten bei den Primaten

Hi Succu,
um die bei @Haplochromis: gestartete Diskussion fortzuführen: Ich fürchte, hier kommen wir tatsächlich in ein schwieriges Fahrwasser, wenn wir auf der einen Seite die KOnsistenz bei den parallelen Systematiken und auf der anderen die Nutzbarkeit für Interwikis behalten wollen - bespielhaft mal bei {{Q]11827058}}: In der polnischen Wikipedia (und auch bei wikispecies) wird der Affe als Unterart Presbytis hosei canicrus und in der deutschen als Art Presbytis canicrus mit je eigenem Artikel geführt. Nach der Systematik-Logik bräuchten wir zwei Einträge, denen wir je einen Artikel in den WPn zuordnen müssten - wodurch der Interwiki bei dem eigentlich gleichen Objekt verloren geht. Mir erscheint das nicht wirklich sinnvoll ... aber wo wären denn die Verlinkungen korrekt anzubringen? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Achim, mit den gegenwärtigen technischen Gegebenheiten sehe ich keine Möglichkeit das Problem zufriedenstellend zu lösen. Wenn du die Sitelinks zusammenhalten willst, dann musst du zwangsläufig ein Datenobjekt willküren. Das wird nicht unbedingt alle glücklich machen und führt ausserdem dazu, dass ad hoc eine falsche Taxobox erzeugt werden würde. Das würde m.E. auch nicht funktionieren, wenn man mehrere wiss. Namen zulassen würde. Das Trennen der Sitelinks torpediert natürlich einen Hauptzweck von WD, dass Verlinken von Wikipediaartikeln die ein (ähnliches) Thema behandeln. Allerdings könnte ich mir hier eine technische Hilfestellung durch die Software vorstellen, in dem anhand Basionym etc. die Sitelinks sozusagen virtuell in den Artikeln angezeigt werden. Dann gäb es auch keine grundlegenden Probleme mit einer Taxobox. Und Infoboxen sind ja ein weiterer Hauptzweck von WD. Ich vermute, dass es noch sehr viele Artikel über Taxa gibt, die inhaltlich zusammengehören. Deswegen will ich mich in der nächsten Zeit auch verstärkt den Basionymen/Erstkombinationen widmen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: Die Problematik des 1:1-Ansatzes für Sitelinks wird auch unter Wikidata:Requests for comment/Category commons P373 and "Other sites" diskutiert. --Succu (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

PPS: Willkommen im neuen Jahr, Achim ;) Hier hab ich mal skizziert, wie die „perfekte Lösung“ aussehen könnte und was sie nicht leisten kann. --Succu (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

reptiles

What is wrong with reptiles, they are only 16? --Termininja (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say. Somehow parent taxon (P171) is not working correct. E.g. Crocodilia are no longer Reptilia. --Succu (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Termininja, I've made direct links from Anapsida, Diapsida and Archosauria (see Higher Taxa in Extant Reptiles) to Reptilia (Q10811). WDQ now gives 23,912 items. But birds are included in this number. --Succu (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

According to Fossilworks, Archosauria is in -> Crurotarsi -> Archosauriformes -> Archosauromorpha -> Diapsida. --Termininja (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for updating IUCN data

Hello Succu, thank you very much for your hard work on taxonomy. I especially appreciate the continual updates made in property IUCN conservation status (P141). We have created a category to compare Czech Wikipedia IUCN data and Wikidata's IUCN data and found that several hundred taxons had outdated information, Wikidata were 100% correct on them. We first corrected the data manually and emptied the monitoring category, but new articles have since appeared there after your 30th November update. In a few days, we'll remove ALL IUCN data from Czech Wikipedia and start transcluding the data entirely from Wikidata. IUCN conservation status (P141) is a great example where Wikipedia can greatly profit from Wikidata! --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting news. Thank you. --Succu (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Matěj Suchánek: Are tracking cats part of the property documentation? Seems I missed this. --Succu (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

They are as you can see in the documentation but it's quite new. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Source

Hi Succu, Do you think this is a better way to present the original publication? Lymantria (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria, much better, but not perfect. ;) I do not like plain URLs and prefer the usage of BHL page ID (P687) when ever possible. The article of Georg Ritter von Frauenfeld (Q78681) contains a lot more descriptions, so I created Q21806330 and change your reference this way. --Succu (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Q7916600

Thanks for reverting! I must have clicked the family link in the wikidata_useful box by mistake... Jon Harald Søby (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. ;) --Succu (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)