User:Succu/Archive/2014

Slow down

Hi Succu, your bot is going way too fast. Please slow it down. A (bit conservatice) guideline is 12 per minute, you seem to be doing about 10 times as many edits. Multichill (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Multichill. Aude says: „500 edits per minute is not a problem, maybe a bit more is also okay“. (see: #change dispatcher). I'm using my bot at this speed only for updating de labels and discriptions of taxa. --Succu (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

[1]

There're a lot of mergable items. For example, Q12835459=Q8190012, Q12835370=Q15375041, Q12840221=Q3658986, and so on.--GZWDer (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. I didn't check azwiki until now, but I will do this in the near future. --Succu (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

bot

can you sue your bot user please? you are floadding Recent changes --Rippitippi (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reversed the block, as it was inappropriate. --Rschen7754 06:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Succu (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rippitippi it would be nice to know your criteria of flooding. --Succu (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you running a bot on this account? If so, you must follow our bot policies - specifically, using a separate account with the bot flag. This is not optional. --Rschen7754 09:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As it appears that you have restarted your bot, and you continue to operate it against Wikidata:Bots on several counts, I have had to block your account indefinitely. If you 1) turn off the bot and 2) agree to follow the mandatory bot policy, you can be unblocked. --Rschen7754 09:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

? Sorry, but I'dont understand. --Succu (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not allowed to run a fully automatic bot on your main account. You must open a new account, and use the Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot process BEFORE you run a bot on Wikidata.

Or, you can read Wikidata:Bots/de. --Rschen7754 09:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So using a script with a moderate speed is no longer allowed? --Succu (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully automated scripts cannot be used on your main account. It is clear that this script was fully automated, because it kept running through your first block of 1 hour. You must open another account to use for your bot editing and follow the process at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. Is this something that you can agree to? --Rschen7754 09:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, you already have User:SuccuBot - why are you not using it? --Rschen7754 09:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to switch to my bot account, but my IP is blocked. --Succu (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I can unblock you, but please be aware that you must file a separate request at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/SuccuBot 2 for your task. Will you do this once you are unblocked? --Rschen7754 09:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I will. --Succu (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You have now been unblocked. --Rschen7754 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I filed the request. --Succu (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Überfällig :)

[2]. Gibt es noch was zu tun außer ggf. Aliase/Labels/Beschreibungen in anderen Sprachen?  — Felix Reimann (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

:) alles mit imported from Wikimedia project (P143) sollte man wohl noch mit geeignet mit stated in (P248) ersetzten. Sonst fällt mir auch nichts weiter ein. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Succu, angeregt durch Deine Liste und diverser Zustimmungen, insbesondere von Franz-Xaver in der deutschen Diskussion: „erzählt mal“ (Wikidata), habe ich für Wikispecies mal eine Datei zusammengestellt, von der ich hoffe, dass noch ein brauchbares template daraus zu erstellen ist. [3] .Mal sehen, wo ich Hilfe finde. Bis jetzt habe ich nur die Idee. Siehst Du an der Liste copyright Probleme? Grüße. Orchi (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi. Probleme sehe ich da nicht. Informiere mich doch bitte falls ihr was gebastelt habt. Vielleicht kann man das ja als Anregung benutzen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Umsetzen liese das sich meiner Meinung nach leicht per part of (P361): Viele der Einordnungen sind per part of (P361) sowieso bereits (unbequellt) in den Länderobjekten vorhanden. Da müsste man dann nur die Quelle hinzufügen: [4] [5]. Spannend ist die Frage, wie oft "Tschechien ist Teil von Tschechoslowakei" revertiert werden wird - aber ordentlich bequellt wäre es ja richtig...  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nach ersten schnellen Überlegungen würde ich das ganze System mit knapp 750 neuen Items modellieren, die alle als Instanzen zur Klasse TDGW Geo2 (oder wie auch immer die am Ende heißt) gehören. Die einzelnen Bestandteile der Level kann man durch has part(s) (P527) und part of (P361) miteinander in Beziehung setzen. Dadurch ist das System unabhänig. Bei den bestehenden Items gäbe es zwar ein Item für Asia-Tropical aber nicht für Asia-Temperate. Eine neue Eigenschaft „verbreitet in“ würde dann nur Instanzen díeser neuen Oberklasse akzeptieren, was sich durch ein Contraint einfach überprüfen lässt. Ankoppeln an die bestehenden politschen/geografischen Items könnte man das dann wie von dir vorgeschlagen. So kann man auch die zahlreichen in Table 6 (Gazetteer) aufgeführten Feinheiten modellieren. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Hallo Succu,
zuum obigen Thema einen kleinen Zwischenstand.
Hier habe ich (testweise) Platanthera unter "Native distribution" eine Aufstellung unter Referenz: Grummit eingestellt.
Die für die Verbreitung erforderlichen html-Daten habe ich mir aus dem Quelltext von eMonocot Platanthera geholt, nachdem emonocot die Daten von KEW Platanthera auf seinen Seiten auch mit botanischen Kontinenten und Regionen übernommen hat. In LibreOffice habe ich die html-codes per Makro in das Wikipediaformat gewandelt und unter dem neuen template:nadi in den Wikispecies Artkel gestellt.
Das Ganze klingt und ist wahrscheinlich etwas kompliziert, aber mir fehlt die Kenntnis, die ganze Aktion in ein eigenes template zu programmieren. Bis auf die nächsten Neuerungen. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Million edits barnstar

		The Million Edits Barnstar
		I guess this is a bit late, but here. --Jakob (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are a little bit late (see #Legendary_user_in_Wikidata), but thanks --Succu (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Eine ganz persönliche Meinung

Hallo Succu, gestatte mir bitte, eine ganz persönliche Meinung zu Wikidata zu machen. Ich finde es nicht glücklich, aus formalen Gründen die "Familie" bei Pflanzen (und Tieren?) bei den "Aussagen" als eine der aussagekräftigsten Informationen verschwinden zu lassen. Auch gefällt mir nicht die Plazierung der etwas wahllos wirkenden Gruppe "In anderen Sprachen" vor den "Aussagen". Die anderen landestypischen Namen sind gegebenfalls schon in der "Liste der Bezeichnungen" oder bei den Wikilinks vorhanden. Wie schon gesagt: keine Kritik - nur eine Meinung. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi. Die Benutzeroberfäche geht ziemlich verschwenderisch mt dem knappen Platz um. Erst das „Feature“ Inhaltsverzeichnis und nun in anderen Sprachen. Ärgerlich ist, dass letzteres wohl nicht richtig getestet wurde und sich die Sprachauswahl daher nicht beeinfussen oder gar abstellen lässt. Um zu den Aussagen zu gelangen muss ich jetzt fast schon scrollen. :(

Die Eigenschaft P71 (P71) wird irgendwann mal, genau wie die anderen Rangstufeneigenschaften, gelöscht werden. Das Problem ist die Redundanz. Du müsstest ja sonst von der Unterart/Varietät aufwärts bis zur Untergattung die Information immer wiederholen. Eine Kette von Bezügen mit parent taxon (P171) ist viel einfacher zu warten. Und ist die Kette vollständig, dann zeigte die Wikidata-Taxobox die Informationen viel übersichtlicher an. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

....ich danke Dir für die Info zu Deiner Sichtweise und die Zukunftsplanung. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

was ich mir vorstellen könnte ist, dass es irgendwann automatische Eigenschaften gibt, die diese Informationen dann per übergeordnetes Taxon berechnen und nur zur besseren Übersichtlichkeit lokal eingeblendet werden. Sowas haben wir aber noch nicht.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ich hab das hier zufälig gesehen, daher erlaube ich mir mal eine Antwort:

#toc.wb-toc {display:none;}
.wb-terms, #wb-terms {display:none;}

in der eigenen common.css entfernt sowohl das Inhaltsverzeichnis als auch die Sprachauswahl. Gruß, IW 19:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dass man die Abschnitte per CSS ausblenden kann war zu erhoffen, ändert allerdings nichts an der zugrundeliegenden Kritik. Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC) PS: Danke, dass dein Bot ein paar Gänge heruntergeschaltet hat. Das war echt etwas ätzend in den letzten Tagen. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ich musste ein bisschen auf die Tube drücken, weil ich die nächsten Wochen kaum Zeit haben werde. Am 20. Februar hatten wir auf dewiki ein Backlog von 53820 Artikeln ohne Interwikilink und Wikidata-Objekt, die seit September keiner mehr hierher importiert hat. Inzwischen dürften es weniger als 9000 sein. IW 20:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In anderen Wikipedien ist die Situation kaum anders, was ich bedenklich finde. An so etwas wie eben mal ca. 300,000 Artikel aus viwiki hier zu verorten hatte ich ursprüglich nicht gedacht, als ich meinen Bot-Account hier aufgemacht habe. Die interessante Frage an deinen Bot ist: Wie stellt er sicher, dass es hier nicht zu verlinkende Datenobjekte gibt? Nur mit dem Erstellen eines Datenobjektes für den Artikel in dewiki ist es ja eigentlich nicht getan. Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

---

....vielen Dank für den Tipp! Ich habe mir commons.css eingerichtet. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. für Succu. Zum Thema "Native distribution" (2 Abschnitte vorher) habe ich inzwischen in Wikispecies viele Artikel eingerichtet.

Das ist das Problem bei der Sache. Wenn man wie du nur in einem Bereich tätig ist (und der Lebewesenbereich ist wegen der eindeutigen wissenschaftlichen Namen für eine automatische Botzuordnung sehr gut geeignet), mag man das noch hinbekommen. Aber wenn man quer durch die Bank weg importiert, kann man nicht ohne weiteres einen sinnvollen Algorithmus entwickeln, der Personen, Sachbegriffe oder Begriffsklärungsseiten wirklich sicher so analysiert, dass per Bot schon Zuordnungen getroffen werden können. Ich nehme an, dass das schon möglich ist. Nur die Tatsache, dass ich bisher noch keinen Bot gesehen habe, der das für alle Artikel macht, zeigt mir, dass es nicht leicht hinzubekommen ist. Also bleibt die Arbeit traurigerweise wieder am Menschen hängen, wie schon nach der ersten großen Importwelle. Einige Datenobjekte wurden auch schon wieder mit anderen zusammengeführt. IW 20:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Die Frage aus meiner Botbetreiber-Newcomer-Sicht ist: Wie haben es die „alten” Interwikilink-Bots angestellt zwei Artikel miteinander zu verlinken - per Textanalyse? Bots sind ja eigentlich dazu da Menschen die Arbeit abzunehmen. Ich freue mich schon auf den Tag an dem ich die durch die Aktivität meines Bots verursachten Bedingungsverletzungen nicht mehr beheben muß. Das ist nicht sonderlich kreativ, aber wenns mehr als 10% des Wikikversums zu Gute kommt... Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Die Importbots der ersten Stunde konnten sich auf die Interwikilinks stützen, die im Artikeltext angegeben waren und so für mehrere Artikel ein Objekt finden. Per API lassen sich die Interwikis relativ schnell herausfinden. Dann musste nur noch in allen verlinkten Projekten abgeglichen werden. Wenn kein Konflikt vorlag, konnte importiert werden, ansonsten entstanden die auch heute noch nicht abgearbeiteten Fehlerlisten (dewiki hat noch rund 2900 Artikel mit Interwikilinks, die kein Wikidata-Objekt haben). Diese Links sind bei den danach neu entstandenen Artikeln nicht mehr da, und von den alten Importbots ist auch keiner mehr in diesem Gebiet aktiv, sodass sich jetzt fast überall ein Rückstau gebildet hat. Ich glaube momentan sind es noch rund fünf Bots, die importieren, die anderen haben sich den Claims oder den Beschreibungen verschrieben. Gruß, IW 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Es ging mir um die Bots, die vor der Existenz von WD Artikel miteinander verlinkt haben, z.B. Merlbot. Die damals verwendeten Verfahren sollten m.E. immer noch funktionieren um zu erkennen ob zwei Artikel zusammengehören. --Succu (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ach so, das war mE auch nur so, dass sie automatisch die Interwikilinks von miteinander verlinkten Artikeln abgeglichen haben und dort, wo etwas fehlte, ergänzten. Es gibt da auch eine dewiki-Seite, wo das erklärt wird (wurde?), finde sie aber jetzt auf die Schnelle nicht. IW 21:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Frage für Superspezialisten

Hallo Succu,
wieder mal eine Anfrage an Dich. Ich hoffe, Du bist mir nicht gram, dass ich Dich so oft als Anlaufstelle in Anspruch nehme.
In Commons hat User:Liné1 ein sehr aufwändiges tool: [6] entwickelt, das die landestypischen Namen von Pflanzen und Tieren aus den Wikilinks von Wikidata automatisch generiert. Seit einiger Zeit funktioniert das leider nicht mehr, da offensichtlich ein Problem in der Softwareverbindung zwischen Wikidata und Commons besteht. (Hier formuliert ein Laie ohne jegliche Fachkenntnis dieses Themas). Soweit ich sehe hat er hier: [7] und hier: [8] Anfragen gestartet, die aber offensichtlich ohne Klärung geblieben sind.
Kennst Du einen Ansprechpartner, der sich diesem Problem vielleicht mal annehmen könnte?
(Liné1, einer der fleißigsten Commons-worker hat sich im Moment etwas rar gemacht)
Grüße. Orchi (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi. Eigentlich hat er ja eine Anwort bekommen. Von Commons aus kann man noch nicht auf Aussagen etc. von Wikidata zugreifen. Das wird wohl noch ein wenig dauern: siehe Access for remaining sister projects. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

....danke für die Info. Das tool war schon einige Zeit erfolgreich in Funktion und ich hatte tausende landestypische Namen aus commons Artikel schon entfernt :-( In Wartestellung und viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Trivialname

[9]. Das wurde bereits gefixt. Am Besten alle Items, die P31 zu etwas haben, was nicht Taxon ist http://208.80.153.172/wdq/?q=tree[16521][][279] einfach ignorieren.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, sollte ich wohl doch mal meinen Code anpassen. Habs bisher nicht gemacht, weil mir sonst etliche falsche verlinkte BKLs u.a. anderes entgangen wären. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

fiktive Taxonomien

Hallo Succu,

ich hab gesehen, dass FelixReimann und du die von mir hingelegten parent taxon (P171)-Aussagen über type of spirit in the Harry Potter universe (Q15304430), phoenix (Q15720813), wizard in the Harry Potter universe (Q15298259) und vor allem das Label von fictional taxon (Q15720809) (erstellt als “fiktives Taxon”) wieder geändert haben (das englische Label allerdings nicht). fictional taxon (Q15720809) ist jetzt eigentlich mergebar mit fictional taxon (Q15707583) und ich bin ein bisschen verwirrt :)

Was eigentlich meine Frage ist: Habt Ihr eine bessere Idee, wie man fiktive Taxonomien (wie zB. die aus Harry Potter) mappen kann und/oder Kritik an meiner (instance of (P31) auf fictional taxon (Q15720809) (als “fiktives Taxon”) setzen und mit parent taxon (P171) Hierarchien abbilden)?

Grüße, mxmerz talk 15:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Mxmerz, bitte entschuldige die verspätete Antwort. Erst ist mir deine Frage hier irgendwie entgangen und dann hab ich vergessen dir zu antworten. Ein paar Wege hat dir ja FelixReimann schon skizziert. Auf keinen Fall sollte eine Einteilung (=Taxonomie) fiktiver Lebewesen von den Eigenschaften P225, P171 und P105 Gebrauch machen. Die Benennung als „fiktives Taxon” fand ich etwas hochtrabend und hatte daher nach einer einfachen Alternative gesucht. Inwieweit die HP-Taxonomie zu anderen „Taxonomien” fantastischer Lebewesen (SF-/Fantasie-Literatur) kompatibel ist sei mal dahin gestellt. Und ganz ehrlich: die irdische WD-Taxonomie kostet mich schon genügend Zeit. --Succu (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ReimannBot

is adding a lot of deprecated property. Please ask FelixReimann to stop the bot, in case it and your bot will make an edit war.--GZWDer (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not removing P70 (P70), P71‎ (P71‎) and P74‎ (P74‎) because his bot needs these properties to add sources. --Succu (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You're in the news!

bot reads the Mythical Man-Month

• MIT Technology Review, The Shadowy World of Wikipedia's Editing Bots: "What’s curious about the automated edits on Wikidata is that the most active bots are not on this list. For example, at the time of writing a bot called Succubot is making 5797 edits to Wikidata entries and yet appears to be unknown to Wikidata. What is this bot doing?"

Mysteriös! ;-) --Atlasowa (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Mein Bot, das unbekannte Wesen. Eigentlich sollte mein Bot jetzt beleidigt sein. :) --Succu (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Immerhin ist er da die Nummer 1! Noch. ;-) --Atlasowa (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Bin ja mal gespannt, wann sie meinen Bot zu den anderen Bots verlegen. Da ist er „bloß” sechster.;) --Succu (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cerambycidae on nlwiki

Hello, My AWB-bot has imported something like 35,000 (short) articles on Cerambycidae in the past few days. But AWB does not function here, so I can't import them botwise to wikidata. The articles can be found in this category and the vast majority has an article on svwiki and a couple other wiki's that have been imported already here on wikidata. As you are very active on taxon-pages, would your bot be able to import the links to nlwiki here? Thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria. Of course my Bot can do this. But you have to wait a little bit, because there are around 30,000 articles from svwiki left I have to create or to link. Then will follow some from cebwiki. Greetings --Succu (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Waiting is no problem, thank you. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria: all articles should now have a link to wikidata. --Succu (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I just compiled this list. These are biology articles for which an article with the same name exists at the Dutch Wikipedia. Might be useful. Multichill (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Multichill. Seems to be usefull: Oncideres cingulata (Q7092028). I and my bot have a lot things to do, so it could take a while before I can make use of your list. Is it possible do get an updated version on demand`? --Succu (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just find someone to run the query on the Toolserver. Multichill (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Multichill: your query was very useful. Could you rerun the query please? May be I overlooked some cases. --Succu (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Running, done is a couple of minutes. Multichill (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thx. --Succu (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Succy and Multichill, thanks a lot! Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Bartramidula wilsonii

Hallo Succu,

Ich hatte diese Anpassungen gebracht weil ITIS Bartramidula cernua als Synonym für Bartramidula wilsonii meldet [10] und der Name Bartramidula cernua auf die Chinesische WP benutzt wird.

Sie haben diese Anpassungen rückgängig gemacht... Können Sie mir bitten erklären wie ich denn so einen Fall behandeln müsste?

NB: Ihre nächste Änderungen, nähmlich das Entwerfen von "Datenherkunft: französischsprachige Wikipedia", verstehe ich jedoch gans gut.

Danke,

Klipe (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Klipe, eines vorweg: einen festgeschriebenen Weg mit dem ausgedrückt werden kann, dass ein Autor ein Taxon als synonym zu einem anderen behandelt haben wir leider noch nicht. Im konkreten Fall ist noch etwas verwirrender, denn der im zhwiki verwendete Name Bartramidula cernua (Q10959693) ist illegetim (siehe z.B. hier). Der korrekte Name ist Bartramidula wilsonii (Q2886158). Es müsste also eigentlich der auf dieser „Quelle” beruhende zhwiki-Artikel geändert werden. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Chupa-chupa merge

En-wiki says that Matisia cordata is a synonym for Quararibea cordata. Infovarius (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? --Succu (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Infovarius: [11] [12] - there is no merging. --Succu (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

They were separated. And I am talking about they should be merged. Infovarius (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I misunderstood. Sorry. Merging is not possible, because both have a link to viwiki. And we have to retain both items: Matisia cordata (Q15613669) is basionym (P566) of Quararibea cordata (Q2023174) --Succu (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I see vi-links. But I don't understand fully term "basyonym" and where to place ru-link - items are simply different names of one taxon? Infovarius (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply spoken the term basionym means that a new name is based on an older (the first) one. Quararibea cordata (Q2023174) seems to be the widly accepted name for this taxon. So it would be the best soulution to update the article at ruwiki and than move the interlanguage link. --Succu (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass task

Hi Succu,

I have been noticing that there is a mass task waiting to be done, and I don't feel like doing it myself. For just about every CoL-generated genus (ceb, sv, war) there are three categories (for example this). It should be possible to run by these genera, check if these three categories are there and then merge them? This would eliminate quite a lot of unnecessary items. - Brya (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brya. Most of the ceb/sv-merges are done. ReimannBot is currently running through war-wiki, but I do not expect a lot of merges. I will not tag more items with taxonname etc. in the near future, so I can help you with the genera etc. Next I will concentrate my actions to connect items via parenttaxon. The good news is: there are no constraints to fix. :) --Succu (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not particularly worried about genera, as such. There is still quite a bit of work to be done but it look doable. However, whenever I look at categories of CoL-genera there still are those three categories. This does look like a great deal of work. - Brya (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it does, but luckily it seems restricted to genera with initial letters A to D. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be good news; that should cut it down by at least 75%. Best. - Brya (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

[13]

This is NOT a correct edit.--GZWDer (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• And also this.--GZWDer (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Tacitus bellus

Hi, this situation seems to be similar to the #Chupa-chupa merge above: Tacitus bellus (Q6137888) was renamed in 1979 as Graptopetalum bellum (Q139207), so in fact both Tacitus genus and species items should have been deleted. I just couldn't delete species because of the Spanish article which has not been merged to Graptopetalum bellum as of yet. But I'll remember not to merge these conceptually different items in the future. Should I request for Tacitus bellus (Q15487294) to be undeleted? Regards, Capmo (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Capmo: I created a new item (Tacitus (Q15914680)) before I saw the merge. Tacitus bellus (Q6137888) is now used as basionym (P566) for Graptopetalum bellum (Q139207). --Succu (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ditaxis

Can you take care of Ditaxis (Animalis) for me? I have split it out of Ditaxis (Plantae)? I am sure the sitelinks are ok, but it also have need for some properties. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure I can. There are more such cases. --Succu (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

diff

P31 war bereits gesetzt.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Dann gibt es jetzt dort einen Link weniger. --Succu (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Link zu Wikispecies

Hallo Succu, ist die Verlinkung des "wissenschaftlichen Namens" mit Wikispecies gekillt oder nur ein temporärer Systemfehler? Grüße. Orchi (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, das Gadget-AuthorityControl scheint im Moment nicht zu funktionieren. Es sind noch mehr externe Verlinkungen betroffen. Das ist hoffentlich nur zeitweilig. Gruß --Succu (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

...ich danke Dir für die schnelle Info. Gruß. Orchi (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

monotypisch

Hallo Succu, ich finde Deine vor einiger Zeit benutzte Formulierung "Art der monotypischen Gattung xy" gut und werde die "Monotypischen Arten" ändern,. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Prima. Ich verbandle gerade die letzten Orchideengattungen mit dem Datenobjekt zur Familie. Dann kann meine Bot die etwa 26.000 Arten mit der zugehörigen Gattung verbinden. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Das wollte ich noch erwähnen: Die Beschreibung sollte mit einem Kleinbuchstaben beginnen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Minerals

Hello Succu

You seem to be able to import data from the world wide web. I'm wondering if you'd be interested to import some mineral data based on mineralienatlas.de (Q1936589) and The IMA List of Minerals (March 2014) (Q15978646).

Properties (Wikidata:WikiProject Mineralogy/Properties): Unit weight (u), Dana 8th edition, Space group number, Cell parameter a (Å), Cell parameter b (Å), Cell parameter c (Å), Cell parameters a/b oder c/a, Cell parameter c/b, Cell parameter α, Cell parameter β, Cell parameter γ, Repeating times of the chemical formula in the unit cell (z), Volume (ų), Hardness (Mohs), Density (g/cm³), Density (g/cm³, ρ calc. Mineralienatlas)

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris.urs-o, I see two problems:

1. my bot is really busy
2. more important, both sources are not CC0-compatible. I could not find any licence information for mineralienatlas.de (Q1936589). The IMA List of Minerals (March 2014) (Q15978646) is published under CC BY-SA 3.0.

--Succu (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thx. Well, do we need 'CC0'? Webmineral.com , Fleischer’s Glossary of Mineral Species, mindat.org, rruff.info, Handbook of Mineralogy and mineralienatlas.de, are just lists of data, which was originally published on scientific papers. These data are used on de.wikipedia, en.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia, it.wikipedia, etc. Dana 8th edition mineral identifier comes from Dana's New Mineralogy: The System of Mineralogy of James Dwight Dana and Edward Salisbury (Q13417546), for instance. I don't have access to the original publications, most of the time. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Chris.urs-o: I don't know if you noticed this discussion about modifying license. --Succu (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thx: #1-the mineral identifiers are on the infobox since Wikipedia was born #2-notable people have many identifiers #4-I tell you later. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

IDs are no problem at all. Systematic copying of data from other databases is problematic and would be a copyright violation in most cases. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

#3-The characteristics of a mineral identify a mineral, the community can't identify a mineral without them. No handbook and no Wikipedia can be written without them. Encyclopædia Britannica (1911) isn't good enough, nobody wants to read science articles from 1911. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Was this necessary?

Although I did close Wikidata:Project chat#Undeletion redux in favor of saying his item is not notable, I strongly feel like your comment "Stop it Mabbett. Flying on pigs wings and ignoring clear rules, as noted explicit above, is not helpfull." was unnecessary and only served to provoke Pigsonthewing. Regardless of whether a user is right or not, it is not OK to make personal attacks - comment on the content and not the contributor (I interpret your comment as mocking his username; also while it's not necessarily a personal attack, calling people by their last name is also not very polite).--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could reply instead of ignoring my comment here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You've made your point. There is nothing to discuss. --Succu (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I do want to know why you made that comment and if you promise to refrain from such comments in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I also desire a reply to my query here. I would not post here if I did not seek a response for you addressing what I've said.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It was impolite, but necessary. That's all I have to say. I owe you no accountability. So let me do my work. --Succu (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Tell me: how was it necessary? I really do not want you to repeat this in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should I repeat this statement in the future? And now be so polite and do not disturb me with this matter any longer. --Succu (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispatch Lag and Bots

Hello, Today Lydia and I noticed that DispatchStats have been increasing since the Wikiquote deployment. Currently the lag is at around 18 hours, which means all changes being made to Wikidata are taking more than 18 hours to be reflected on Wikimedia wikis.

Because of the high dispatch lag, we are asking if all bot operators could please stop their bots or have them tone down the number of edits for around 24 hours in order to allow Dispatch to catch up at a minimum. If possible, we would appreciate bot operators to stop bots until dispatch is down to a low level (which may be more than 24 hours), you can view the stats at Special:DispatchStats. Lydia has posted a similar message to this at Wikidata:Project Chat and the mailing list where we have asked all uses of Widar or other high editing programs to stop.

Since Dispatch is an important part of Wikidata and it is essential that changes are reflected on Wikimedia wikis as soon as, if Dispatch is still an issue tomorrow morning (around 11:00 UTC), we may choose to stop bots from editing Wikidata for a selected time of around 12 - 24 hours or until the bot has been stopped. If you have any queries, feel free to poke me or Lydia Pintscher, or post on project chat or reply to the email. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Lydia discovered the issue behind high dispatch was changes were not being dispatched at all. Unless this issue is fixed and changes begin being dispatched, Lydia has asked that bots be stopped by 17:30 UTC (in two hours) to reduce the amount of disruption to Wikimedia wikis with data dispatching in future. Please contact her if you have any queries. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@John F. Lewis: My bot is not running. --Succu (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I bulk updated the above and didn't check again. Thanks :) John F. Lewis (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Pflanzen-Properties bei Tieren

findet man mit: http://wdq.wmflabs.org/wdq/?q=claim[960,586,961,962,1070,1076]%20and%20tree[729][][171] Ein paar hab ich bereinigt, einige fehlen noch. Schöne Ostern!  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Schon bemerkt. Danke. Dir auch schöne Ostern. --Succu (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, in den beiden Gattungen Stelis gibt es mindesten neun Arten mit dem gleichen Artnamen. Die Fehler gehen auf mein Konto, da ich im Code eine alte (=falsche) Methode benutzt habe. Da ich diesen Code gerade auf mein neues Framework umstelle, wäre es mir dann dabei (hoffentlich) aufgefallen. --Succu (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

re

1. Q10908836=>Q2703183
2. Q10931380<=Q15618296
3. Q10811979: No action, see Q1769793

Why you created a duplicate item?--GZWDer (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't remember what my intention was. --Succu (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrator

Hi Succu, do you wish to become an administrator? I've seen a lot of requests from you at RfD. Being an admin you could delete those items instead of requesting deletion. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmaryllisGardener, thanks for trusting me, but I think filing a lot of RfD makes nobody ready for adminship. --Succu (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, many RfDs alone don't. But good RfDs, many edits, involvement with the community, knowledge of Wikidata, etc does. But if you don't want the tools that's fine. :) --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) But I rarely missed these advanced rights. May be this is an option for me if we need specialized admins some day. --Succu (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

NSG Pleidelsheimer Wiesental und NSG Altneckar gelöscht bzw. zusammengelegt - warum?

Hallo Succu, warum hast du Altneckar (Q16658669) und Altneckar (Q16658656) zusammengelegt und eines löschen lassen? Das sind zwei unterschiedliche Naturschutzgebiete, die zwar in einem Artikel behandelt werden, aber eben zwei unterschiedliche NSGs sind. MMn ist es gerechtfertigt dafür zwei Datenobjekte mit Links auf entsprechende Weiterleitungen bei Wikipedia im Angebot zu haben. Oder nicht? Dazu kommt noch, dass jetzt vom NSG Pleidelsheimer Wiesental auf das NSG Altneckar gelinkt wird. Wie siehst du das? Viele Grüße --Pustekuchen2014 (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Pustekuchen2014: Altneckar (Q16658669) enthielt einen unerwünschten redirect. Allerdings habe ich nicht mit Q1971484 zusammengelegt, sondern das falsche Objekt erwischt. Bitte einen Admin Altneckar (Q16658669) wiederherzustellen. Dann von Altneckar (Q16658669) und Altneckar (Q16658656) die de-redirects entfernen und beide in Q1971484 mittels has part(s) (P527) verknüpfen. --Succu (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ich habe es kurz neu erstellt. Und ich denke nicht das has part(s) (P527) dafür gedacht ist oder? Den Verweis auf den Redirect finde ich vernünftig, auch wenn das momentan noch nicht ganz problemlos möglich ist. --Pustekuchen2014 (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Die Dokumentation von has part(s) (P527) ist nicht gerade erhellend, aber die Eigenschaft ist dazu gedacht Teile mit dem Ganzen zu verbinden. Die Verknüpfung ist auch sinnvoll, da die beiden Objekte sonst mit keinem anderen Objekt oder sitelink verbunden sind und möglicherweise Gefahr laufen gelöscht zu werden. --Succu (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Clade

What is the purpose of changing clade to "none"? I suppose clade is more exact. --Infovarius (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

taxon rank (P105) = no value means „without rank”. Some explanation you'll find here. --Succu (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's go to Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy. --Infovarius (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Euonymus verrucosa vs Euonymus verrucosus

Euonymus verrucosus (Q163348). Which taxon name is correct?--GZWDer (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This depends on the gender of Euonymus. Linné treated Euonymus as masculin. Hence Scopoli published the species as Euonymus verrucosus ([14]). Later others treated Euonymus as feminine (the greek noun is feminine) and spelled the species name Euonymus verrucosa. In 1998 Jiři Paclt made a formal proposal to treat Euonymus as feminine (J. Paclt: (1351) Proposal to Amend the Gender of Euonymus, nom. cons. (Celastraceae), to Feminine. In: Taxon. Vol. 47, No. 2, 1998, pp.473-474 (doi:10.2307/1223791)). In 2000 the Committee for Spermatophyta decided not to accepted this proposal (doi:10.2307/1223840, p.270). So the correct spelling is Euonymus verrucosus. --Succu (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Pasleim/projectmerge/enwiki-cebwiki

Du magst vielleicht an dieser neuen Liste interessiert sein. Es werden alle Artikel gelistet, welche in cebwiki und enwiki das gleiche Lemma haben, aber zurzeit nicht dem gleichen Item angehören. --Pasleim (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Pasleim, solche Listen sind immer hilfreich. Nur leider muss man sie von Hand durchgehen. Im Moment bin ich noch heftig damit beschäftigt hinter dem Merge-Spielchen aufzuräumen und nutzlos erstellte Objekte zu vereinen. Übrigens, vielen Dank für deine gute Arbeit hier. Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Laufente

Hallo Succu,

die Laufente ist mit Sicherheit keine Unterart! Laufente ist eine Rasse und wenn man der Sichtweise unseres Portales Biologie folge leisten wollte ist selbst das Haustier "Hausente" kein Taxon. Anas platyrhynchos domesticus ist die Hausente. Anas platyrhynchos domesticus ist nicht die Laufente, sondern eine Laufente ist eine Hausente ...

Bitte sowas stoppen und bei allen Haustierrassen rückgängig machen. --PigeonIP (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallo PigeonIP. Da hilft wohl nur ordentliches Aufräumen bei den Interwikilinks, denn sowohl Indian Runner Duck (Q1418953) als auch domestic duck (Q742292) geben sich als Unterart Anas platyrhynchos domesticus aus. Keine Haustierrasse sollte taxon name (P225) aufweisen und alle durch eine entsprechende Zuweisung von instance of (P31) gekennzeichnet sein. Dann wird auch kein Bot falsche Angaben hinzufügen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Genau das! Ich kann aber nicht ständig hinter jedem Vieh hinterher räumen und mich dann noch ala "steht aber so in nl.wp" rumschlagen.[15] Gibt es nicht auch irgendwo eine Markierung ala "ist kein Taxon"?

Ich habe keine Zeit mich mit anderen Sprachwikis herumzuschlagen. Es frustet schon so genug hier belegte gegen "gefühlte" Informationen durchzusetzen, die einen praktischen Nutzwert von "nichts" haben. --PigeonIP (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Alles was keine Unterklasse von Taxon ist (also keines von diesen Datenobjekten) sollte passen. Allerdings hat sich da schon wieder etliches unpassendes angesammelt. --Succu (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Teilweise wird ja auch immer wieder "ist ein Taxon" eingespült. Könnte ein Property "Rasse nach" helfen? Bei Hunderassen, könnte dann "ist ein Haushund" und "Rasse nach/lt. FCI" zur Anwendung kommen. "Meine" Tauben wären dann "ist eine Unterklasse von Haustaube" und "Rasse mit Standard des EE", oder so. Das kommt dann auf die Blacklist, wie in Wikidata:Taxonomy task force#Properties each taxon should have. Für europäische Geflügelrassen gibt es eine gute Excel Tabelle des europäischen Verbandes. Für Tauben ein pdf, das ich auf einer meiner Unterseiten schon gut ausgewertet habe. Das könnte mir auch helfen diesen Konflikt zu lösen: Property talk:P303#Distinguish pigeon breed groups.

Blieben dann "nur" noch die Haushunde, Hauskatzen, Haustauben, Hauspferde, Hausrinder (alle 5), Hausgänse (2 dom. Arten), Hausenten (2 domestizierte Arten), Hauskaninchen ... Aber da sollen sich die "Biologen" drum streiten. --PigeonIP (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bei letztere vielleicht "ist ein Haustier" statt "ist ein Taxon"? --PigeonIP (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ehrlich gesagt habe ich von Nutz- und Haustierzüchtungen keinen blassen Schimmer. Ein systematischer Ansatz wäre begrüßenswert und ich denke deine Überlegungen gehen in die richtige Richtung. Es gab mal eine Dog breeds task force und eine Cat breeds task force. Da scheint aber nichts mehr zu passieren. Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nycticebus linglom (Q4646753)

What should the taxon name of this item be? So is ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus (Q4646742).--GZWDer (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rfd

please wait wile bot clean old entry before add new one thanks --Rippitippi (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you are suggesting. --Succu (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

please wait for the bot clean you old massive request on rfd before add new one thanks --Rippitippi (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The merges are done, but I can wait until tomorrow adding them. --Succu (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC) PS: Rippitippi a little bit more than 2200 merges have to be reported. --Succu (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Noblella carrascoicola (Q2239615)

which is best metod for manage sinonyms like this? --Rippitippi (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no working solution yet. But we have some open property proposals dealing with synonyms. --Succu (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks --Rippitippi (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

Dear Succu, could you explain the reason for reverts made by you on Copadichromis sp. nov. 'Virginalis Kajose' (Q5168277), Astatotilapia sp. nov. 'shovelmouth' (Q4810591) and Astatotilapia sp. nov. 'dwarf bigeye scraper' (Q4810590) -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

None of these species has a valid description. --Succu (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean, because they aren't described, taxon name is not defined yet and should be set to Unknown value? -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not known if they are described (they may well be), but they have not been named. It is wrong to set P225 to "unknown value" as the name is not unknown; it is an established fact that it has no name. - Brya (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, Brya, but I wanted to know Succu's reason -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sometime these species got a valid description later, but we (the wikipedia article) do not know about them. Hence Unknown value and not No value. --Succu (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I agree with both of you we have no known name for those species and Succu fixed my mistake. But please, on your next revert, make sure you don't lose any information such as labels, description and IUCN ID. Thanks for you help! -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I had to revert the changes because Unknown value/No value can not entered at the moment. There is an UI bug (see Wikidata:Contact the development team). IUCN taxon ID (P627) should be used as a reference for IUCN conservation status (P141). --Succu (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I see that makes sense (and I wasn't aware IUCN taxon ID (P627) is already filed). Thanks for you time and patience! -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Succu, hope you don't mind one more question. What's the reason for removing taxon name (P225) = Kali normani from Kali kerberti (Q6397786)? -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the linked articels is using Kali normani as taxon name (P225). So it's not necessary to include this scientific name. We have to wait with this until we found a possibility to link to synonyms together with a reference. ITIS TSN (P815)=171091 should removed too. There is no reference to Kali kerberti in ITIS. Regards --Succu (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FishBase states Kali kerberti is a valid name and Kali normani is a synonym. ITIS have only Kali normani. Since Wikidata is collection of facts (whether they are stated in Wikipedias or not), and different sources disagree which name is valid, I think we should include both names as taxon name as well as link to ITIS. -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That Kali normani is a synonym of Kali kerberti is a (taxonomic) opinion. It is not a fact. The "fact" is "Fishbase considers Kali normani to be a synonym of Kali kerberti". To report this in Wikidata we need some structure (property or qualifier) that expresses what name is considered to be a synonym and by whom (a reference). This does not fit in P225. - Brya (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you are right, but I'm not sure if we really need and are able to maintain such strict rules. -- Alexander Vasenin (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We have no other choice and we are able to do this. --Succu (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is going to be a database with usable data we do need to do this. As to the question if we are able to do this, well, it does not look especially complicated. From a perspective of technique, we are able to do this. The issue is to gather support for this. - Brya (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You...

You are simply the best person on Wikidata!

I love the work you are doing with merging species! Just...thank you! (t) Josve05a (c) 23:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for merging species. Can you check Q15517543 and Q5546720 please. Thanks.--Çalak _talk 11:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I merged them and created Georgeantha (Q17255408). --Succu (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

items

Neolectomycetes (Q10597373) and Neolecta vitellina (Q10510670) is the same? --Rippitippi (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No. The first is a class, the second a species. I build up the hierarchy form the second to the first. --Succu (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

and Q13436862 and Q2891884?--Çalak _talk 23:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I merged them and added some information. --Succu (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please help with Alania (Q2830631) and Q17276284. The Spanish-Wikipedia article (which is currently in Alania (Q2830631)) seems to be about bot the spiecies and genus...(t) Josve05a (c) 01:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a: The spanish site link was a redirect to Alania cunninghamii (Q5662306). So I merged Alania cunninghamii (Q5662306) with Q17276284. --Succu (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And Q4679844 and Q3320022?--Çalak _talk 18:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Calak: I moved the enwiki sitelink to the correct item. Nothing else should be done. --Succu (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oreocereus and Arequipa

Hello, I unmerged items Oreocereus (Q134007) and Arequipa (Q4068983). According to the alias at German however, it seems that these genera are synonyms? One a basionym of the other? I am not well informed about plant-taxonomy, so please could you look into it if all is correct this way? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We have six species of Arequipa (Q4068983), so the item has to be retained. Regards --Succu (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi! why did you blank this page? It means "Statistics" in Arabic, so I made it a REDIRECT to it, thanks --محمد عصام (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Great move: [16]? But maybe I missed something. --Succu (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

oh yes! It was my fault first to move the page to arabic, because I thought it will be moved in the arabic page only, not in all languages :) but I knew this proplem then, so I made it a REDIRECT, regards محمد عصام (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please

Check this [17] --Rippitippi (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fish icon image

Hi Succu, in January you manually added the image of a fish icon to this page. I have removed the image. I hope you can look into it. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Taketa, I didn't add an image. I merged to items. ;) --Succu (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikispecies

Hallo Succu,
da mittlerweise viel "Handarbeit" beim Verlinken von Daten mit Wikispecies anfällt, meine Frage:
Ist in absehbarer Zeit mit einer Verlinkung von Wikidata und Wikispecies zu rechnen? Grüße. Orchi (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Orchi, das ist zwar im Development plan vorgesehen, aber ein Termin steht wohl noch nicht fest. Ich fürchte das wird wohl noch dauern. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

...vielen Dank für die schnelle Auskunft. Gruß. Orchi (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Are Q5432900 and Q3721001 the same? They appear to be both sea snails with the same species name but they are in different families. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the same species, You can merge the items. --Succu (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, Q15862287 and Q6528458 appear the same but have different taxon name entries. How do we treat these? Thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You can use the new property original combination (P1403). You can express with that: Leptostylopsis viridicomus (Q15862287) original combination (P1403) Leptostylus viridicomus (Q6528458). --Succu (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Denebola (Q3022426)

 Restored. Please undo merge changes if you are sure there are diffrent items. Rzuwig^► 15:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Microphyes (Q14925342)

 Restored. Regards, Rzuwig^► 14:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

taxon synonym (P1420)

Succu, could you please add a German label that doesn't get confused with linguistic synonyms? Thanks!--Micru (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Succu (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

widar

[18] ich hatte ja schon die "ehre". Aber kann man dem dann nicht sein Spielzeug wegnehmen oder ganz sperren? --PigeonIP (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Tja das geht wohl nur über eine Benutzersperre. Da musst du dich wohl an die Admins wenden. :( --Succu (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Da fängt es ja schon an: wo ist die VM ;) --PigeonIP (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Gibt's zum Glück nicht, aber ein Administrators' noticeboard. --Succu (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on User talk:Tamawashi

Although he should communicate more, repeatedly adding the same messages after he has made it clear that he does not want them is rather disruptive. If you do this again, you will be blocked. Instead of reposting your comments, you may instead bring up his conduct at WD:AN if you feel like he refuses to address his behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: With whom should I communicate more? Where is that codified? Tamawashi (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tamawashi: In the diff I mentioned, you removed two or three other users' messages (not to mention that you also removed my warning and John's) without replying to them. As John just said on your talk page, this failure to communicate with other users can be rather disruptive. We cannot prevent you from removing them, but it is frankly rude to other users, including Succu, to do that without a valid reason to.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I intended to this today if necessary, but there is/was an open thread about him/her on AN. --Succu (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please

stop to add bulk deletion request until rfd are <100 thanks --Rippitippi (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I hold them back as far I think it's OK to add new ones. Don't worry, there are only three batches left. --Succu (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Schultesia (Q10663787)

 Restored. Rzuwig^► 09:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hilfe!

Kannst du den Kerl da ein wenig einbremsen? Ich glaube der hat null Ahnung, worüber wir da gerade reden... oder wir reden wunderbar aneinander vorbei.

• Wikidata talk:WikiProject Dog breeds#Properties of a dog breed

Mein schon mal angekündigter halbgarer Entwurf findet sich da --> User:PigeonIP/Properties

--PigeonIP (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Das ist schwierig, da er noch immer nicht verstanden hat, dass man Taxon nicht mit Lebewesen gleichsetzen kann. Ich bin auch nicht ganz so begeistert von dem Bestreben einiger Benutzer allem und jedem eine rdf:type/rdf:subclassof-Struktur überzustülpen (z.B. chem. Elemente/Isotope). Mit Eigenschaften/Qualifizierern kann man teilweise viel besser (genauer) modelieren, da man auch die Werte novalue und somevalue nutzen kann. Damit könnte man z.B. zum Ausdruck bringen, dass ein bestimmter Verband eine bestimmte Züchtung nicht anerkennt. Du hast ja schon viele Beispiele gebraucht. Vielleicht kannst einfach du nochmal ein möglichts komplexes Beispiel explizit so modellieren, wie du dir das vorstelltst. So weit ein paar Gedanken nach dem Überfliegen der von dir genannten Seiten. Danke übrigens, dass du dich diesem nicht einfachen Thema angenommen hast. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Danke, der Kerl unterbindet jeden konstruktiven Austausch und macht mich nur noch fertig. Auf en gibt es ein ebenso besonderes Exemplar, dessen Verschiebungswut hoffentlich nie die halbwegs verständlichen Commons-Categorien zum Opfer fallen. (Im Moment meint der zwischen "Landrassen" und "richtigen Rassen" unterscheiden zu können und zu müssen.)

Das "dort anerkannt, aber da nicht" ist für die europäischen Geflügel-Verbände schön in folgender Tabelle zu sehen: http://www.entente-ee.com/deutsch/sparten/gefluegel/dateien/2013/Verzeichnis%20R%20F%2028042013.xls

ohne die hätte ich nie verstanden, dass die amerikanische "Pekin Duck" nicht die gleiche Rasse, wie die britische "Pekin Duck" ist. Vielleicht lässt sich da auch mal was anhand der Puten aufdröseln, die beim BDRG (und EE) nur eine Rasse in verschiedenen Farben sind. Die nächsten Tage bin ich bestenfalls sporadisch online und komme zu nichts.

novalue und somevalue habe ich noch nicht verstanden (wie man die wo praktisch einsetzen kann, Beispiele hätte ich ja ;)) --PigeonIP (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Q8344707

Is it some misunderstanding? Championia is a monotypic genus with the only species Championia reticulata, that's why it was merged by me. Roughly speaking, in this case genus and species are the same thing. --Adriano Morelli (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two species of Championia (Q8344707) (see ptwiki, eswiki, Tropicos or IPNI). If ruwiki treats the genus as monotypic, then move the sitelink to the species item. Never merge different ranks, because we need both items to model things correctly. --Succu (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Look and draw conclusions: http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/browse/A/Gesneriaceae/Championia/; http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2715893.

The species are the only for genus Championia... Not a big deal though. It's better to use the single item with two statements of genus and species (if monotypic), unfortunately, the technical part of Wikidata is still not so perfect. --Adriano Morelli (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Kew lists the second species as an unresolved name. So you have to find good literature to resolve this matter. For more information have look at WikiProject Taxonomy. --Succu (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether a genus has only one species (from a particular point of view) or not is not really relevant. In the first place, it is very hard to know if a particular genus has only a single species in all circumstances: it may well have more species from a different point of view, who knows? Also, it may get more species in the future. And pragmatically, if a Wikipedia has an entry on the genus and an entry on the species, as well it might (why not), Wikidata needs to have two items anyway. And a generic name has its own history, and the species a different history. - Brya (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Administrator/ERDINC

Hello, I am new to WikiData. But I am over 10 years on the Wikipedia project. KR ERDINC (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Tja ERDINC, ich hatte bereits vor deiner Wahlwerbung hier abgestimmt. --Succu (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Paravespula

Are you sure that there exists a genus (not subgenus)? May be this is simply error of mass-creation bots in sv/ceb/war/nl wikis? --Infovarius (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ITIS treats Paravespula as a vailid genus. But there are other opinions (see here page 44). Regards --Succu (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So it is not 2 taxons, it is 2 opinions for 1 taxon. May be we should reflect this fact somehow? --Infovarius (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure we should. We have a lot of such cases. But you should have good sources to do this. It's not on my todo list at the moment :( --Succu (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Q3537778 -> Asinus (Q2305786)

Please comment, how do you consider this merge? --Infovarius (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the merge. --Succu (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothospecies (2)

Hallo Succu, warum gibt es eigentlich bei Naturhybriden unter "taxonomischer Rang" den Begriff "Nothospecies"? Ein Nothospecies ist keine Art. Viele Grüße. Orchi (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Doch das ist sie. Schau dir nochmal Bryas Antwort unter #Nothospecies an. Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

...wofür wird der Begriff Nothospecies denn noch gebraucht? Soll ich ihn löschen, um in Zukunft nicht ständig in diese Falle zu tappen? Gruß. Orchi (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Geregelt und erklärt ist das im Artikel 3.2 des ICNafp. Ist das Multiplikationszeichen vorhanden zeigt dies an das es sich um eine Nothospecies handelt. Ich habe gestern die Formatierung des wiss. Names einiger Arten vereinheitlicht (ohne Leerzeichen von dem Epithet) und dabei auch die vorhandenen restlichen Ränge von Nothospecies auf Art geändert. Offenbar sind aber noch einige übriggeblieben. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A nothospecies and a species may have the same name (and the same circumscription), and they may switch from one status to the other depending on the judgement of a taxonomist. However, there is a difference in the rules that apply to them, namely when there is a backcross with one of the parents. - Brya (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving es:Lablab purpureus from Q3712638 to Q1077410

Both es and it articles say that Lablab purpureus = Dolichos lablab but only have different title. So I suppose they should be in 1 item, and may be they are duplicates indeed? --Infovarius (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Lablab purpureus (Q1077410) is about Lablab purpureus and Dolichos lablab (Q3712638) about Dolichos lablab. itwiki has articels about both species, eswiki not. So I can't see any problem. If you has a source, than you can connect the items via taxon synonym (P1420). --Succu (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

They are homotypic. - Brya (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Listera ovata (Q157437) vs. Neottia ovata (Q15502088)

You moved some articles apart in January 2014: [19] [20], but those two items seem to be about the same species (en:Neottia ovata says that Listera ovata is a synonym for Neottia ovata). I'm not a biologist and not that familiar with taxonomy, so maybe I'm just mistaken. 85.194.253.105 17:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Both names are based on Ophrys ovata (Q15502115). They have an overlap in the sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Təşəkkür

Salam. Vikidata idarəçiliyinə namizəd olduğum səsvermədə iştirak etdiyiniz üçün Sizə təşəkkür edirəm. Hörmətlə, --►Cekli829 06:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dann bitte in einer Sprache, die ich beherrsche, Cekli829. --Succu (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Asperugo (Q14559463)

 Done. Rzuwig^► 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dupes ?

Dupes: Q2116158 and Q15275786 ?

--Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nein, Opuntia skottsbergii (Q15275786) ist das basionym (P566) für Pterocactus skottsbergii (Q15275789). Pterocactus skottsbergii (Q15275789) wird aber als taxon synonym (P1420) von Pterocactus hickenii (Q2116158) behandelt. Jetzt auch so modelliert. --Succu (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, und was ist mit Cyrtodactylus martinstolli (Q3009316) und Cyrtodactylus martinstolli (Q5078500) ? --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Für's erste sollte ein Redirect eingerichtet werden, da beide Datenobjekte zusammengeführt wurden. Später sollte der Zusammenhang mit der Eigenschaft original combination (P1403) modeliert werden. Bis wir das systematisch angehen können wird's wohl noch eine Weile dauern. Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, noch ein Fall: Malagassodynerus (Q16898898) und Malagassodynerus (Q18100005). --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ist die gleiche Gattung. Hab sie bereits zusammengeführt. --Succu (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Dupes? Q5747613 und Q17618277. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hab sie zusammengeführt. --Succu (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Dupes? Q16909118 und Q18100115? --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jetzt nicht mehr. ;) Wenn du dir die Verlinkungen ansiehst, findest du das selbst raus. Gruß --Succu (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ich hab versucht rauszufinden, ob es das selbe ist. Ich konnte es aber nicht erkennen. Gruß --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

'Bridgesia' [Backeb. (1934)] (Q15710816)

Succu, if you know more please provide some upper class of this item. This will show what is this item actually about. --Infovarius (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As you should know Infovarius, we do not model taxa with a „upper class”. Backeberg's name was illegitmate. That's all. --Succu (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Then we should mark this as like "illegitimate name" with a property. Or some deprecated rank of the property. Mostly I don't mind your work in taxonomical classification but from Wikidata point of view each item has to be included in some class hierarchy (it is entity (Q35120) anyway, isn't it?) just to show what is this item actually about. --Infovarius (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See this old discussion and offer an suggestion here. --Succu (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Chorioactis

Please stop doing this; the en.WP clearly has the genus, not the species, as its primary topic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes please stop this Mr. Mabbett. It's a monotypic genus. There were allready two attempts to merge both items. Regards. --Succu (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Bogus merges are not a reason to record incorrect data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The normal way is to link a monotypic genus together with it's only species. This is done thousand times at wikidata. --Succu (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thousands of errors! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting POV. Most wikis follow this logical approach handling monotypic taxa. But if you want keep these two articles separated: Do it. I dont't care. But I will undo any merge and support every link move to the lower taxon.--Succu (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge #3, Mr. Andy Mabbett. So the community is wrong and you are right? --Succu (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Andy Mabbett let's take us Leitneria floridana (Q1330656) as an randomly example. Should the enwik-sitelink better be placed at Leitneria (Q13070310)? What would you do with the IUCN conservation status (P141)-statement? The IUCN says nothing about genera. Only some thoughts. Regards --Succu (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the enwiki-page is mostly about the species, not the genus, but I suppose it can be argued both ways. This is not really relevant as there is a strong preference among most users to keep the iw-links together. It is quite common to have links of a species and a genus together, in spite of the fact that there are two items. And it makes great sense to have two items in such cases; often enough it is a necessity. - Brya (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As usual these situations can be solved by linking redirects. --Infovarius (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Vintana

I saw your edits to Vintana, however they don't match the articles. The 3 linked articles all 3 state that it's a mammal and not a taxon. Mbch331 (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

See Wikidata:WikiProject_Taxonomy/Tutorial. Regards --Succu (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Frage

Hallo Succu, kannst Du mir bitte helfen, die nervige Platzverschwendung in englich, plattdeutsch und fränkisch unsichtbar zu machen. Danke und Grüße. Orchi (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Orchi: Sorry. Ich hatte dein Frage gestern abend noch kurz gesehen. Ein Antwort habe ich aber nicht. Unter #Eine ganz persönliche Meinung gab es mal eine Tipp. Allerdings sind die komischen Boxen bei mir vor langer Zeit ganz von selbst (?) verschwunden. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

...dann will ich hoffen, dass die lästigen Boxen bei mir auch von selbst verschwinden. Grüße. Orchi (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ajkaceratops

In my opinion all the links in Ajkaceratops kozmai (Q516014) (except it.wiki) are to be moved into Ajkaceratops (Q3607281), aren't they? --Epìdosis 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The same thing with Arstanosaurus akkurganensis (Q2697199) and Arstanosaurus (Q3623999). --Epìdosis 12:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Another thing: is a merge similar to this correct? --Epìdosis 12:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think most articles are about the species Ajkaceratops kozmai (Q516014), not the genus. Different wikis have different rules about monotypic taxa. Dewiki places them on the lowest possible level. I would do nothing. --Succu (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Succu, Epi ask me an opinion, 3 heads is better than 2 :). I think that what Epi said is right. If you read all the incipt, they say "is a genius" (not sure about or.wiki), so is correct to move all sitelink from Q516014 to Q3607281 except for it.wiki. --ValterVB (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi ValterVB, I really do not care about moving wikilinks around, but according to this, there is only one species in the genus, so I think the links should be kept together. BTW, thats true for a lot of fossiles. Regards --Succu (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

But according to Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy all the species, also monotypic must have an item. All the page are about the genius, you can see it in the name of the page and in the text, so is necessary move to genius level. --ValterVB (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This kind of situation cannot really be resolved by logic. In practice most users like to have as much iw-links to their page as possible, so there is a good case for doing just that. But certainly the reverse can be argued.

        In these particular cases we are dealing with dinosaurs, and the people who study dinosaurs are doing everything the other way about as compared to people who study other organisms. This can be seen in the English Wikipedia where all those dinosaurs have pages under the generic name. It might have been a good idea to just leave it that way (that is not have a Wikidata item for the species), but recently there has been a surge to create separate items for the genus and the species, which then raises this issue. However this is handled, somebody will be unhappy. - Brya (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be an item about the genus as well as the species on wikidata. A lot of articles on monotypic genera at wikipedia's bear some ambiguity in it, whether they are about a genus or a species. IMHO they may be shared in either the species or the genus item. If people like as many links together as possible, that is OK with me. Lymantria (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind having both an item on the species and an item on the genus. It just hardly seems worth the effort. I have a preference for putting all the links at the species level (all other things being equal). - Brya (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on Q7253065

Hi Succu, can you explain this revert? Aren't they the same..? Southparkfan (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Southparkfan. Why do think they are the same? Did you consult a scientific source? ---Succu (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the pages, I thought they were the same, but now I see what happened. [21] [22] both the enwiki and nlwiki pages are the same(I think?), but a wrong viwiki entry was still present in the item also containing the enwiki entry. I didn't saw that a wrong page on viwiki was attached to the enwiki item (enwiki + nlwiki should be one item, viwiki needs its own item), so I merged the nlwiki item in the enwiki and viwiki one. Result: there was one item containing two different species. Is this right or not? Southparkfan (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be cynic: one of the wonders of automatic changes. A user in enwiki changed a bot generated article. Another bot suggests the articles should be merged, because the have the same title. The possibillity an user does this is very high. A look at the WoRMS-entry of Prunum avenacea (Q7253065) offers some insight, but no real explanation. Maybe taxon synonym (P1420) should be used to connect these items. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks pretty clear to me: the WoRMS-entry explains that there is no scientific name Prunum avenacea. - Brya (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Profelis aurata (Q192231)

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q192231&diff=182802642&oldid=182801989

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18306/0

eo:Kial ne?

pl:Dlaczego nie?

de:Warum nicht?

Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The red list is not a good source for taxonomic changes. The name change took place in U. Breitenmoser, C. Breitenmoser-Wursten, A. C. Kitchener: A revised felid classification. In: Cat News. Number 55, 2011, p.3 and followed the investigations in doi:10.1126/science.1122277 from 2006. Regards --Succu (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)