Talk:Q15083

Giraffe vs. Northern giraffe

Can we just stop linking this to "Northern giraffe"? Let's make this about the "giraffe", so that I can make a separate article "Northern giraffe", just as there are separate pages for "Southern giraffe", "Masai giraffe" and "Reticulated giraffe", as they are separate species of their own. Though I do recall that I've mostly been prevented from doing so these past months. How come?--FierceJake754 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@FierceJake754: what do you mean by simple "giraffe"? Species Giraffa camelopardalis or genus Giraffa? --Infovarius (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem was solved at my talk page. --Succu (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is not solved. This should link to "Giraffe". Now we have the ridiculous situation that Northern Sotho Thutlwa [[1]] which is about the Giraffe in general, or if following a 4 species taxonomy a Southern or South African Giraffe has instead inter-language links to english wikipedia's Northern Giraffe Newystats (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@FierceJake754, Infovarius, Succu, Newystats, cygnis insignis, GPHemsley: The problem is still not solved. Regardless of the label (Giraffa camelopardalis or Northern giraffe) the item is now simultaneously about the giraffe (single species concept) and the northern giraffe, two different taxon concepts. The descriptions, the also known as entries, and British English label at the top of the page suggest the item is about the northern giraffe, and many of the site links are to Northern giraffe articles in various languages. One the other hand, the IUCN status and most of the identifiers still refer to external items on the single species. Many of the subspecies items have this item as parent, which is inappropriate if this item is on the northern giraffe.

This item was created for the single species extant giraffe. The IUCN and other databases still recognise the single species, although the four species split is beginning to get wider recognition. It seems to me that giraffe (single species) and northern giraffe should have separate items to describe different taxa, one broad and one narrow, even though they share the same taxon name (Giraffa camelopardalis). I'm not sure how this should be done. Jts1882 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Jts1882, you are guessing. taxon name (P225) is not intended to label a taxon concept (Q38202667) as IUCN and other extrenal ids do. We and other Wikimedia projects do a simple taxon name (P225) mapping vs. extrenal ids. --Succu (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "guessing" but we are already discussing this in plenty of places. giraffe (Q15083) was created to represent the common name "giraffe", which is a distinct concept from the common name "Northern giraffe". See this discussion on Wikipedia for untangling the literature and this discussion here on Wikidata for Wikidata best practices. In the meantime, I've created giraffe (Q110252274) to represent the Northern giraffe. — GPHemsley (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

giraffe (Q15083) represents the species Giraffa camelopardalis not the taxon concept „Giraffa camelopardalis”. We do not create items for taxon concepts. --Succu (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Succu: You have reverted the work that I am in the process of doing without contributing to either of the substantive discussions occurring around this topic. I very much do not appreciate that. giraffe (Q15083) represents the concept of "giraffe". It has accumulated years of conflation with both the genus Giraffa (Giraffa (Q862089)) and the concept of "Northern giraffe" (giraffe (Q110252274)) that needs to be disentangled. Whether or not "we do not create items for taxon concepts" is a principle that is secondary to that concern right now. I am going to undo your merge. Please do not do it again. — GPHemsley (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@GPHemsley: Splitting or lumping a taxon is a normal taxonomic process and not restricted to the former monotypic genus Giraffa (Q862089), now consisting of three or four species. From the WD perspective you created a duplicated item (same four taxonomic basic properties) and splitted the sitelinks across two items. This is not how WD works. We keep sitelinks of nomenclatural/homotypic/objective synonyms together. Modellig taxonomic concepts is a complex task and at the moment out of the scope of WD. BTW: en:Northern giraffe is not uptodate. There are two taxon concepts for your „Northern giraffe” (= Giraffa camelopardalis). One with three and one with six subspecies. --Succu (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@GPHemsley: I merged your splitting again. --Succu (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

So Succu, if you are adamant that this Q is for the northern species - make a new Q for the single species concept, or the genus, and move all the wikipedias that don't have seperate articles for the northern giraffe and giraffe to the new Q number, not this one. Newystats (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

History of conservation statuses

Please everyone discuss at Property_talk:P141#History_of_assignments. --Infovarius (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Infovarius: I did. --Succu (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean this useless comment? How unconstructive as usual. --Infovarius (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Infovarius: YES. --Succu (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Link to Tamil Wiki

Hi, the Tamil article ta:w:ஒட்டகச்சிவிங்கி shall be linked to Giraffe not Northern Girafee. Currently it is wrongly linked to this item. Please help - how to do it.--SivakumarPP (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)