User:Succu/Archive/2016

Merger request

Hi Succu - I see you started a cleanup of Q754042 (Yellow Warbler); I notice it needs to be merged with Q12267348 (American Yellow Warbler) - both names refer to Setophaga aestiva (Setophaga petechia [Mangrove Warbler] needs a different Q number if it doesn't already have one). I don't know how to do this, and couldn't save the correct links to Commons and Wikispecies from Q754042 without doing this merger first. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Dendroica petechia (Q754042) is the item for the sitelinks of Motacilla/Dendroica/Setophaga petechia and American Yellow Warbler (Q12267348) is Setophaga aestiva. Sometimes Setophaga aestiva is included in Setophaga petechia. I do not understand what do you want to change. What you can do is to add taxon synonym (P1420) = American Yellow Warbler (Q12267348) to Dendroica petechia (Q754042) together with a reliable reference to indicate this taxonomic concept. --Succu (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the page name for Q754042 should be changed from Yellow Warbler, to Mangrove Warbler, as this is the IOC standard English name for S. petechia subsequent to S. aestiva being split off - MPF (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What you did, but without moving the page at enwiki. --Succu (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Homonymous taxons

Hi. In last months I noticed that (mostly) for war.wiki, ceb.wiki and more rarely sv.wiki there is some percent of cases when sitelinks to articles about different homonymous taxons (mostly from different kingdoms) are mixed in the same item. For example look here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1886599&action=history where today I moved some sitelinks to correct item. Do you have any idea how can be detected such ”conflicts” to adjust manually or automatically sitelinks in proper items? --XXN, 17:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a way to do this automatically. --Succu (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is more frequent in categories. - Brya (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

IUCN conservation status

You removed IUCN conservation status (P141) in Tropical striped triplefin (Q928477) but it is least concern --Termininja (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A misclick. I wanted to do this. --Succu (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Millers

[1] But who is going to tell all these Wikipedias that use the image as well? --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Weiß ich nicht, so jedenfalls vergrößert man das Chaos nur wieder. Ich habe vor einiger Zeit das Bild in die richtige Commonscat (c:Category:John Sebastian Miller) gesteckt und jetzt das Datenobjekt Miller, John (1715?-1790?) (DNB00) (Q19045026) damit versehen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

imported from

Hello Succu. You have mentioned imported from Wikimedia project (P143) on the Taxonomy Wikiproject, and as you've been around a while and you know the Wikidata project well I wanted to ask : there's been a lot of fuss about that property lately, is there a good reason not to delete it altogether ? Tinm (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The property is used more than 9,500,000 times. It was proposed to restrict the usage, but even that failed. One of the problems I see is, that this poperty was „misused” för „real“ references. Oherwise some references given with stated in (P248) are pointing to wikimedia projects. It's a hopeless case. --Succu (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Where do you think I can find this “restrict the usage” discussion ? Project chat ? Request for comments ? Tinm 17:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I found Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sourcing requirements for bots, but as far as I can remeber there are more discussions. --Succu (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's instructive already, thank you. —Tinm (d) 20:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI — the link you've given is probably the main one, and there are a few discussions on the Project Chat that are linked from

• Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Sourcing_requirements_for_bots

and there is also

• Wikidata:Requests for comment/References and sources (2013)
• Wikidata:Requests for comment/Source items and supporting Wikipedia sources (2013)
• and the more recent Wikidata:Requests for comment/Improve bot policy for data import and data modification (2015)

—Tinm (d) 21:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fritz Enke

Hallo Succu, kannst du feststellen, ob Fritz Encke (Q21512103) (Botaniker), von dir wegen IPNI angelegt, identisch ist mit Fritz Encke (Q100657) (Gartenbauarchitekt)? Ich kenne mich mit IPNI und Botanikern allgemein nicht so aus. Danke. Raymond (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Raymond, ich habe die beiden Datenobjekte zusammengeführt. Gruß --Succu (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Papereinträge

Hallo Succu,

du erstellst die Einträge zu taxonomischen Veröffentlichungen offenbar mit QuickStatements. Hast du dafür irgendeinen Generator? Könnte man citoidWikitext in irgendeiner Form dafür nutzen?

Außerdem: Ist es in der Biologie Usus, dass der Autor immer in Großbuchstaben angegeben wird, oder willst du damit die Darstellung in Kapitälchen nachahmen? Viele Grüße, Kopiersperre (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Es gibt ein Tool von Magnus, das sich in der Erpropbungsphase befindet (siehe hier). Für Taxa versuche ich einen halbautomatischen Workflow für Nachweise zu etablieren (siehe hier). Die ersten Ergebniss sind durchaus vorzeigbar. Die Verwendung von author name string (P2093) ist nur provisorisch. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Das funktioniert ja schon sehr gut!

Ich sehe aber als generelles Problem, dass u. A. Citoid das Veröffentlichungsdatum tagesgenau macht, obwohl bei älteren Veröffentlichungen meist nur der Monat angegeben war. Die Zeitschriftenverlagen gehen aber offenbar davon, dass alle Zeitschriften früher immer am 1. eines Monats herauskamen.--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Das kann ich so nicht bestätigen. Per CrossRef bekomme ich dann Monat und Jahr und das wird korrekt im Datenobjekt abgebildet. Da Toollabs zur Zeit wieder unzuverlässig ist, habe ich letztes Wochenende meine eigene Variante des Tools geschrieben. Die schmeißt HTML-Code im Titel weg und „normalisiert” die Autorennamen, d.h. es gibt keine Großbuchstabenautoren mehr und Initalien bekommen ihren Punkt. --Succu (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

GRIN urls changed

Hello,
GRIN website changed its website to use ASP.NET technology (.aspx extension).
The old pages (.pl for perl technology) are still available but not accessible from the GRIN main page.
Is there a way to run a bot replacing in Property:P1421:

• for species:
  • http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl? by
  • https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxonomydetail.aspx?id=
• for genus:
  • http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genus.pl? by
  • https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxonomygenus.aspx?id=
• for families:
  • http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/family.pl? by
  • https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxonomyfamily.aspx?id=

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look into it. My bot can do it. Thanks for informing me. Regards --Succu (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The bot is running. --Succu (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. I already see the changes. Thanks Liné1 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Manuelles Flicken

Hallo Succu,

ist manuelles Korrigieren von Papereinträgen (z.B. Vivipary in 𝘏𝘦𝘥𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘮 (Zingiberaceae) (Q22968152) – Das <​/em> muss weg) erwünscht? Sollen Autornamen umgewandelt werden (SREETAMA BHADRA → Sreetama Bhadra)? Gibt es außerdem irgendeine Möglichkeit kursive Artnamen innerhalb von Titeln auch in Wikidata so kenntlich zu machen?--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

a) Das Tool entfernt leider HTML-Tags nicht. Das mache ich immer manuell (Zootaxa, Phytotaxa). Manchmal übersieht man halt eins. Aber dafür habe ich eine SPARQL-Abfrage, die ich gelegentlich verwendet.

b) Sinnvoller wäre es sicher nachzusehen, ob der Autor schon ein Datenobjekt hat oder ein solches anzulegen.

c) Das ist mir nicht bekannt.

Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Danke für die Antworten. In dem obigen Beispiel habe mal einen Kursiv-Hack versucht (kann gerne rückgängig gemacht werden). Hast du die Zootaxa- und Phytotaxa-Paper eigentlich als PDFs vorliegen? Könntest du mir sie ggf. zukommen lassen?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ich kann im Moment nicht beurteilen, ob diese Form der Formatierung für ein Label nützlich ist. Ich habe keinen permanenten Zugriff auf die beiden Zeitschriften. Das ist im Fall Phytotaxa für das was ich vorhabe auch nicht wichtig, da der halbautomatische Weg immer über IPNI läuft. Zoobank ist im Fall Zootaxa leider keine große Hilfe (siehe User:Succu/ZooBankActs). --Succu (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Small Question

Hello Succu,
Q1702151 (species Carduelis uropygialis) has a Property:P815=559056 which correspond on ITIS to the taxon Carduelis uropygialis.
But on ITIS this taxon is marked as synonym of Spinus uropygialis having id 997870.
Which Property:P815 value should Q1702151 have ? (997870 for the valid name or 559056 for the invalid corresponding to wikidata preferred name) ?
Personnaly, I would prefer the valid one (997870) because:

• on wikicommons and fr.wikipedia we follow IOC as source for birds who recognizes Spinus uropygialis as valid. More generally, each wikipedia will have a diffeerent preferred scientific name.
• it would be strange if we change in the future the preferred scientific name of Q1702151 to Spinus uropygialis to have to change all the properties associated
• On the ITIS page of Spinus uropygialis you can see Carduelis uropygialis (considered as a synonym), so the final user will not be disturbed when going to ITIS page.

Best regards Liné1 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liné1. taxon name (P225) should allways correspond to the name used in the underlying database. In this case I added ITIS TSN and Avibase ID to Yellow-rumped Siskin (Q10820719). I linked Carduelis uropygialis (Q1702151) to this item via taxon synonym (P1420). Regards --Succu (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's quite complex: 4 items for one taxon!

What is more strange is that one of these is the master (preferred on wikidata?) and has all the interwiki.

So if the other wikipedias does not have the same preference (commons and fr. prefer Q10820719) then they cannot use the database ids ?

If wikidata wants to change its preference (believe me, bird classification IOC change every month, renaming the species), then wikidata has to move the properties (interwiki, IUCN...) to the new preferred item ?

Very complex indeed.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it is going to be complex no matter what policy is adopted (it is the reality that is complex).

        On the one hand it is possible to put all the possible names in the same item, add references to each name and hope that one day there will be software to pick the "right" name for each Wikipedia. However, this approach will also require that each claim in that item gets a qualifier to indicate what name it belongs to.

        On the other hand, it is possible to give each name its own item and hope that one day there will be software to pick the "right" name for each Wikipedia. As the qualifiers of the other approach are unneeded, the second approach leads to items that are much easier to edit and to read.

        It proves that the first approach (putting all the names in one item) leads to a great deal of errors, which are hard to spot and to correct as everything is piled on top of each other. If there are four names in an item, there can also be four Tropicos ID's (each with a qualifier) in that item, etc. And even if all the qualifiers have been put in, these qualifiers are hard to read and are mostly confusing to the reader.

        And we have to put all the interwiki-links (of names that have the same type) together in one item, because it is the only way to connect the wikipedia pages. And, yes, often enough the choice of item is arbitrary, leaving some users unhappy. It is an imperfect world. - Brya (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideally WD would reflect the taxonomic POV a wikipedia adopts (at least for objectiv/homotypic synonmys) and leave sitelinks alone. But unfortunately WD has no mechanism to do this. Basically we rely on scientific names, as the old bots did. But that means we are (at the moment) not good to model along different taxonomic opions. Some thoughts [2] [3]

--Succu (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Merchandise Giveaway Nomination Notification

Hi Succu/Archive/2016

You were previously nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_giveaways). Congratulations and thank you for your hard work!

Please email us at merchandise@wikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt.

Thanks! Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Tullimonstrum

Hi Succu, will you have a look at Q134944 and Q20719495? There is some mix up between genus and species. How would you sort this out? Csigabi (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Looks like Tullimonstrum (Q134944) is a monotypic genus, for which I would prefer to have the sitelinks at Tullimonstrum gregarium (Q20719495), the species. But for fossil genera it's common to have the sitelinks united at the genus item. So I do nothing in such cases. Regards --Succu (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Alkmene

Darf ich fragen, warum du den wissenschaftlichen Namen entfernt hast [4]? Ich kenn mich in Taxonomie nicht wirklich aus, mich würd's nur interessieren, weil bei anderen Apfelsorten das auch so mit dem wissenschaftlichen Namen gehandhabt ist. --Balû (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Soweit ich sehen kann handelt es sich um eine Sorte und nicht um ein formal beschriebenes cultivar (Q4886). Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

das verstehe ich jetzt nicht. Wo liegt der Unterschied zwischen Granny Smith (Q506040) der unter w:Cultivar als Beispiel für ein Cultivar beschrieben ist und Alkmene. Was bedeutet "formal beschrieben". Zumindest in Baumschulen wird auch Alkmene als "Malus domestica 'Alkmene'" vertrieben. Auch die Royal Horticulural Society, die den größten Bestand an Apfelsorten führt, führt Alkmene so [5] und auch die englische und tschechische Wikipedia w:en:Alkmene (apple). Die französische schreibt "Malus domestica Borkh alkmene". --Balû (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Der Name eines Cultivars muss gemäß den Regeln des International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Q941761) gültig veröffentlicht worden sein. Ein schnelle Suche hatte nichts erbracht. Aber der gesamte Komplex Sorte/Cultivar bedürfte wohl mal einer Analyse, so dass wir in der Zunkunft wissen, welche Eigenschaften zurtreffend sind. Ich gestehe, dass mich das Gebiet der Kulturpflanzen nicht besonders interessiert und mein Wissen daher nicht sehr tiefreichend ist. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Balû: this is very complicated: there are cultivars (according to the ICNCP), but there are also legal plant varieties (like a patent, protecting the plant breeder's rights). A legal plant variety may have the same name as the cultivar, but it may differ (a plant may be both a cultivar and a legal plant variety, but may also be a cultivar without being a legal plant variety, or a legal plant variety without being a cultivar). It may also be trademarked. Probably there are more options (Groups, anyway). The situation is not helped by the fact that if people are confused they call it a cultivar. This is not easy; there are a lot of apples (thousands, IIRC). - Brya (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

p2695

type locality (geology) (P2695) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Alles klar. Danke. Gruß --Succu (talk)

Thestor basuta

Please consider redirects Thestor basuta -> Thestor basutus, and Zeritis zaraces -> Thestor basutus. JMK (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Though the latter perhaps only a synonym of Thestor basutus basutus, see:[6] JMK (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I resolved the issues. For synonymy you need a good source. Wikispecies is often not reliable enough. Regards --Succu (talk)

Thanks! I'll only leave suggestions, as I cannot go researching every one. Another is Aphnaeus chaka -> Cigaritis ella. JMK (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Should I do that for you? What's the problem with those taxa? --Succu (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Aphnaeus chaka is a junior synonym of Cigaritis ella. Also (Q22284980) -> (Q7885209) please. JMK (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Try Help:Merge. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, will take a look. Another is Lepidochrysops ortygia (Q20863438) and Lycaena ortygia (Q6527554). JMK (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Welsh birds

Just a word of thanks for the work you did on the 10K Welsh language db of Welsh birds. It's a big step for a small wiki! Is there a way of now collecting all the new Ps and Qs in a tidy column, please, or a category? Many thanks once again - Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't created any items based on your lists. Using the Wikidata Query Service quering taxon common name (P1843) for cy should work. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That's no problem, thanks. Can you give me the code, please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You can use or modify this query. To save the results as CSV use the Download dropdown. --Succu (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely super! It worked, and it's good! Diolch! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

re:

Thanks. I'll give them a look. So.. what's the lecture here? there are people in Spanish Wikipedia's botanic-related articles who cannot be trusted because of being too much error-prone? If the batch really went South... I can revert them all, no problem with that. Regards. Strakhov (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no lecture besides use the orignial database, not a wiki. At the moment my bot is checking the rest of the import against IPNI. So there is no need to revert anything. --Succu (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know it exists a gadget/tool called "harvest templates" but not something such as "harvest original databases". Please let me know if I'm wrong. My programming skills are subpar if not non-existent, so bot work is out of reach for me. If only way contributing Wikidata consists in working with "original databases" or adding one by one the identifiers, being wiki-imported-content "not welcome" here let me know too, and I won't use these tools. Thanks anyways, good work. Strakhov (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Qualität von Wikidata

Hallo Succu,

du bist im Gegensatz zu mir ein wirklicher Qualitätsapostel. Ich bekomme jedoch gerade Angst, dass in Wikidata zuviel Mist importiert wird (z.B. das meiste von Wikispecies, Chemiedaten aus der serbokroatischen Wikipedia). Außerdem sollten aus Qualitätsgründen Bilder möglichst nur manuell und höchstens per Wikidata Game gesetzt werden, aber nicht per Import aus einzelnen Wikipedias. Wie wäre es, die ganz harte Linie durchzusetzen „Wer sich nicht Mühe gibt, den Import von Daten so fehlerarm wie möglich zu gestalten, verliert das Recht, Massenbearbeitungen durchzuführen.“ Was ist deine Meinung dazu?--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Kopiersperre, ich halte nicht viel von Aposteln. Für die „harte Linie” - wie du es nennst - ist es längst zu spät. Damit wirst du hier auf wenig Resonanz stoßen. Außerdem ist die Formulierung ziemlich schwammig. Ein Fortschritt wäre es schon, wenn Leute die massenhaft Daten aus Wikimediaprojekten importieren wenigsten die entsprechenden Contrains Reports beobachten und abarbeiten würden. Oder Widar-Benutzer wenigsten hin und wieder einen Blick auf ihre Diskussionsseite werfen würden. Für mich befindet sich Wikidata im Moment im Kindergartenalter: alles Spielzeug wird ausprobiert. So finden z.B. halt URLs ohne Titel und Abrufdatum ihren Weg hierher als „Beleg”. Wie problematisch das ist wissen wir ja beide. Aber Wikidata - im Sinne einer Knowledge Base - hat m.E. ganz andere Probleme: nur wenige Anwendungsbereiche (Domänen) bieten dokumentierte Datenmodelle für Nachnutzer an. Mal schaun wohin die Reise geht. SPARQL sollte Wikidata eigentlich die Pubertät ermöglichen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Danke für die Auskunft. Hast du irgendeine Idee, wer die Datenmodelle dokumentieren sollte, wenn die involvierten Benutzer dazu keine Zeit und Lust haben? Könnte dafür nicht eine Stelle geschaffen werden, die nicht in das Verbot der inhaltlichen Arbeit fällt?--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Der richtige Ort wären vermutlich die WikiProjekte. Aber ohne interessierte Benutzer funktioniert es halt nicht. Insbesondere gibt es auch das Wikidata:WikiProject Ontology. Dort müssten m.E. die grundlegenen Eigenschaften erläutert werden. Die Mehrsprachigkeit macht's nicht leichter. Eigenschaften wie has characteristic (P1552) sind nicht so einfach zu Übersetzen und zu Erklären. Sie ist beispielweise Teil der Basic Formal Ontology (Q4866972). --Succu (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Q18968322

Hi, Can you check dewiki link here? --Termininja (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine. --Succu (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, because there is also Q18968331. --Termininja (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Trivial names

Hi Succu, I noticed that your bot can import trivial names. I was unsuccesful in doing so using QuickStatements. Could you import Dutch trivial names for Lepidoptera from Naamlijst Nederlandse Lepidoptera 22-04-2015 (linked from [7])? Lymantria (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria, yes I can but it needs a little bit preparation. I assume Vlinderstichting vlinders (Q24053150) is the source item? --Succu (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is fine to mention Vlinderstichting vlinders (Q24053150) as source, perhaps with the link I gave as URL. Lymantria (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The bot added 2378 names. --Succu (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!! Lymantria (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

P2743

Moin Succu, meine Säugetierliste möchte, dass ich this zoological name is coordinate with (P2743) ein deutschsprachiges Label gebe - ich habe allerdings Sinn und Konzept dieser property nicht verstanden - any ideas? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Achim, vllt. hilft dir diese Diskussion dazu weiter. Für mich ist das bestenfalls eine Art Wartungseigenschaft... Gruß --Succu (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Mmh, o.k. - also Sciuridae werden Sciurinae und Sciurini zu-koordiniert (alle Fischer de Waldheim, 1817). Wäre "dieser zoologische Name ist zugeordnet" eine brauchbare deutsche Benennung? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Klingt OK für mich, aber ich bin mir nicht wirklich sicher. Wir haben übrigens Q1458490 in dem das Prinzip der Koordination erläutert wird. --Succu (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Danke, ich habe das dann mal entsprechend umgesetzt - kann ja später immer noch korrigiert werden. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

on your comment

regards to your comment, I cannot get Property:P1403 to work, will never save once I add it? Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you get an error message? Maybe this is related to this problem? --Succu (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No not the same, its only with this property when I add it into taxon name as an additional parameter it will not save the changes. It is almost like I do not have the user rights to do it, yet I can make any other changes. I do not get an error message, I can put it in, fill in the information, add refs to it, just cannot save it have to hit cancel and delete the info. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that original combination (P1403) takes an item as value? --Succu (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Offensichtliche Fehler in der Quelle

Hi Succu,
wie ist eigentlich das Vorgehen bei offensichtlichen Fehlern in Quellen? Gerade akut: Rio Grande Ground Squirrel (Q16753923) - als Autor in Thorington et al. 2012 angegeben ist (Johann Christian Polycarp Erxleben (Q60938), 1777). Diese Angabe ist falsch, wahrscheinlich ein unbeabsichtigter c&p-Fehler der Autoren vom Eintrag Mexican ground squirrel (Q912126). Korrekt ist (Edgar Alexander Mearns (Q35616), 1896) (siehe [8], [9]). Fiel mir natürlich erst heute auf, als ich den Artikel geschrieben haben ... Gibt es für einen solchen Fall ein Vorgehen (Fehlerflag, Löschung trotz Quelle ...)? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Achim. Ein etabliertes Verfahren gibt es noch nicht. Da wir Squirrels of the World (Q19597701) in systematischer Weise verwenden und der Fehler offenbar verbreiteter zu sein scheint (siehe Remarks) habe ich der Aussage den Rank "missbilligt" zugewiesen und eine neue Aussage hinzugefügt. Fehlt nur noch eine guter Beleg. Nachteil dieses Verfahrens ist, dass sich das Datenobjekt auf der Liste Wikidata talk:Database reports/Constraint violations/P225 wiederfinden wird. Zusätzlich habe ich noch Spermophilus mexicanus parvidens (Q20904119) als Erstkombination angegeben. Theoretisch hatte man darüber herausfinden können dass ein Fehler vorliegt. Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Danke, ich habe Generic revision in the Holarctic ground squirrel genus Spermophilus (Q19831713), S. 290 ([10]) als Beleg ergänzt. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Prima, Achim. Wie zu erwarten ist Brya gegen diese Lösung. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikidata user study

Dear Succu,
I am a researcher of the Web and Internet Science group of the University of Southampton.
Together with a group of other researchers from the same University, we are currently conducting a research aiming to discover how newcomers become full participants into the Wikidata community. We are interested in understanding how the usage of tools, the relationships with the community, and the knowledge and application of policy norms change from users' first approach to Wikidata to their full integration as fully active participants.
This study will take place as an interview, either by videotelephony, e.g. Skype, phone, or e-mail, according to the preference of the interviewees. The time required to answer all the questions will likely be about an hour. Further information can be found on the Research Project Page Becoming Wikidatians: evolution of participation in a collaborative structured knowledge base.
Any data collected will be treated in the strictest confidentiality, no personal information will be processed for the purpose of the research. The study, which has submission number 20117, has received ethical approval following the University of Southampton guidelines.
We aim at gathering about 20 participants, chosen among experienced Wikidata users who authored a large number of contributions.
Should you be interested in taking part or wish to receive further information, you can contact us by writing to the e-mail address ap1a14+wikidata_user_study@ecs.soton.ac.uk.
Thank you very much, your help will be much appreciated!
--Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

IUCN conservation status: text values versus codes

Hi, is there discussion anywhere about this problem? The wikidata property (P141) has allowable values only as text (e.g., "least concern"). But the Taxobox as used on wikipedia only wants the two letter codes (e.g., "LC"). Without the exact code, the Taxobox won't display the correct graphic.

I was thinking of writing some software to change Taxoboxes to use the value as found in wikidata, replacing all hardcoded entries with {{#property:P141}}. As you know, the benefit would be that when the status is updated in wikidata, any wikipedia article could then instantly also show the updated value.

Is there any workaround for doing this? I'm guessing that the wikidata values are text because that way the text can be inserted into article sentences. Is it possible to add another property for status code, to be used in Taxoboxes?

(I'm approaching this as a programmer. I'm not a taxonomist.)

-- Kenmcl2 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

IUCN conservation status (P141) takes an item as value. So you have to write some LUA code like the one used in Module:Taxobox. --Succu (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Merging of C. semiargus items

Hi Succu. I have just noticed that you reverted my merging of items Q774218 and Q17619242. I think you misunderstood the problem: both items really refer to the same species, even though this species can have different names. Having two separate items was a technical mistake that has nothing to do with taxonomy, so, they do have to be merged...--LamBoet (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, both items have to be retained. Swwiki has two articles. You removed one to merge the items. I added original combination (P1403) = Papilio semiargus (Q24648280) to both items to make the taxonomic relationship clear. --Succu (talk)

Allow me to insist. The fact that the Swedish wikipedia has 2 articles is a mistake on their part. I have just left some messages on both their discussion pages, requesting them to merge their articles (we never do separate articles for different combinations). I don't see a reason to keep the same mistake on wikidata: Q17619242 has to be removed.--LamBoet (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as there are two articles on svwiki, both should have an item here. Your action now, to repair the mistake at its source is the correct one. The follow up here to remove a valid (=existing) link is not. Lymantria (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I am a bit surprised, but thank you for the explanation. Let's wait for the Swedes to make the correction then.--LamBoet (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This will change nothing. All sitelinks are at Cyaniris semiargus (Q774218). All three items are necessary to model different taxonomic opinions. --Succu (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, then let me ask more about this. From all I have seen here, I have been assuming that such wikipedia articles and wikidata items are meant to deal with taxa rather than names. Are you saying that wikidata usually mixes both approaches? (Let me stress that Cyaniris semiargus and Polyommatus semiargus are nomenclatural (homotypic) synonyms, not taxonomic ones.)--LamBoet (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

To be correct: they are objective synonyms. Do you really think most wikimedia articles reflect a currently accepted taxonomic viewpoint? Which one in this case? References could help. Hundred thousands wikimedia articles were generated by bots from names taken from unreliable datasources. Names are one option to define a taxon. --Succu (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation about bots. I wasn't even discussing taxonomic viewpoints here (in this case I am not trying to favour either option), just trying to grasp the wikidata logic. In the meantime, thanks to this paragraph I have understood better what the status of the reflexion is.--LamBoet (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

please not

please stpo to change my work. I only give to the camel, Conservation status and you delite my. 18:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Bactrian camel (Q132922) is not listed at the IUCN red list, but wild Bactrian camel (Q3030198). Please read the taxonomic notes there. --Succu (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

and with Saunders's Gull? משתמשון (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Saundersilarus saundersi (Q22062067). --Succu (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Q574281

I fell to understand why are you reverting the edits of משתמשון in the Wikidata article in the header. He put the page from IUCN red list as reference and you are just reverting him without explanation. I put LC again with reference. Do not touch it without a good reference we made a mistake. If you answer this, please tag me. בורה בורה (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You'll find the taxon concept evaluated in the IUCN red list at Parus lugubris (Q22231640). --Succu (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It look like the Genus name was change or because new classification or because a mistake in original classification. but both item (22231640 and 574281) is the same species, you can see both name in fr and de connected wikipedia. It really strange that IUCN didn't change the name or dont have the second name in the table. - yona b (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, this isn't strange, but a conscious taxonomic decision. Please read the taxonomic notes at Parus lugubris. BTW: did anyone of you had a look which wikipeda prefers which scientific name? --Succu (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So is not strange. still almost all wikipedia (only he and pms not), decide to change the name. and it is the same species, name it how you want. - yona b (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Scleroptila gutturalis

For Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive: "Specific name often given as “levaillantoides” (e.g. in HBW), but gutturalis has priority; also, original spelling of former, levalliantoides, cannot be emended owing to lack of internal evidence". Arturo24 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't simply change taxon name (P225) of an item. Other properties and sources depend on this name. I created Scleroptila gutturalis (Q25269458). Feel free to move some sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice on User Name

Heya, wanted an opinion on something. I have been considering that it may be a good thing for me to have my user name account changed to my real name. My reasons are that I have been accused by some, in literature, of trying to hide behind an alter ego whilst editing on WM foundation projects. I am not I set this user name over 10 years ago and its the same user name I use for all my online accounts. I have made it very clear on all my user pages here, on Meta, WS and EN WP who I really am. They show my real name, my work and link to my Wikispecies author page and my Orchid ID. However, it may be desirable for credibility reasons to get rid of Faendalimas and have my real name as my account name. I am not concerned about privacy in this, I have a large online presence as my real name anyway as an author of several blogs etc. What do you think? This is not about Stho002, it is people like Ray Hoser etc who have accused me of trying to hide behind a pseudonym. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust, Scott, but I think this is a very personal decision. As I learned about the dark side of Wikipeda & Co I created a second user account with my real name to avoid abuse. I never used this seond acount. So maybe switching to your real name is a good idea in your case. Regards --Succu (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

IUCN conservation status in the context of software

You have reverted IUCN conservation status applied to a software (and here as well). This is not a mistake and has been documented by the FLOSS project. Would you be so kind as to explain why you reverted this change ? Dachary (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Mind to read the description of IUCN conservation status (P141), Dachary? --Succu (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand this is not the primary use of this property. Do you confirm that you are strongly opposed to using this property in the context of software ? Dachary (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. --Succu (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, you removed the conservation status documentation of the FLOSS project. Thank you for taking an interest in this project. Do you think a conservation status property dedicated to software should be created ? It would essentially be identical to IUCN conservation status (P141) and only exist to avoid confusion regarding the context in which it is applied. Dachary (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinus gordoniana

Hi Succu - why did you undo my revision of (Q147472)? The name Pinus gordoniana (1847) has clear priority over Pinus douglasiana (1943, 96 years later); the latter should be listed as a taxon synonym (P1420) of the former, not a taxon name. I did try to add it as a synonym, but for some reason the 'save' was greyed out so I couldn't get it to stick (see Talk:Q147472). Please restore my edits, and if you can add the synonym, please do. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You can not simply change the value of taxon name (P225). A lot of other properties are based on that name. Your change led to a constraint violation, because we have Pinus gordoniana (Q10349918). If you think one of the names is a synonym use taxon synonym (P1420) to connect them. --Succu (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Baffled - if it can't be changed, why is there an edit button that makes it possible to change it? So how does one go about merging the two under the older name? - MPF (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The sitelinks show clearly that all articles are about Pinus douglasiana (Q147472) and not Pinus gordoniana (Q10349918). We do not merge heterotypic taxa. We use taxon synonym (P1420) to denote a relationship. BTW this property takes an item as value. The Gymnosperm Database offers another taxonomic opionion and treats Pinus gordoniana (Q10349918) as a variety of Pinus montezumae (Pinus montezumae var. gordoniana (Q26269157)). --Succu (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There's only one Pinus gordoniana, described by Hartweg in 1847. Pinus montezumae var. gordoniana (Hartweg) Silba is a homotypic synonym (and a significant error by Silba, as it does not resemble Pinus montezumae very closely, and is from a different region of Mexico). Pinus douglasiana Martínez is a heterotypic synonym of Pinus gordoniana Hartweg; Martínez described it in 1943 from quite close to Hartweg's discovery, at a time when there was of course no access to libraries or herbarium material in European herbaria (W, K, BM, etc.), so he had no way of knowing if the species he found had already been described or not. So what needs to be done now? The various wikipedia articles about Pinus douglasiana need to be linked to the wikispecies and Commons Pinus gordoniana pages so as to gain access to the data and photos, but I'm not sure how to do this with the setup you have now made. - MPF (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all you'll should provide a good source for your claim „Pinus douglasiana Martínez is a heterotypic synonym of Pinus gordoniana“. --Succu (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Conifer Society of Australia Newsletter 7: 7-10 (1990); Huxley, A., et al., eds. New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening (Macmillan 1992); Grimshaw, J., & Bayton, R., New Trees: Recent Introductions to Cultivation (Int. Dendrol. Soc. / Kew 2009). - MPF (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A newsletter of a local society and two horticultural sources? None of them can be checked easily. Are they cited somewhere else? E.g. in A Handbook of the World's Conifers (2010) written by Aljos Farjon (Q2129941). --Succu (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I can send you photocopies if you like. - MPF (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And what shall I do with them? Are they cited somewhere else? You started this topic with a clear-cut taxonomic opinion. I made a cursorily survey and found (besides wikispecies and commons) no support for your opinion. But feel free to add your opinion via taxon synonym (P1420) and your sources. --Succu (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So how and where do I add P1420, and how do I add sources? - MPF (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Sources. Probably you have to create new items for the publications. Add taxon synonym (P1420) to Pinus gordoniana (Q10349918) with Pinus douglasiana (Q147472) as the value. --Succu (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bearbeitungsfehler MSW

Moin Succu,
kurze Rücksprache: Mir ist es gerade beim Tachyglossus aculeatus acanthion (Q20902412) zum dritten Mal in kurzer Folge passiert, dass mit Aktivierung der der Bearbeitung von von taxon name (P225) (wollte Erstbeschreiber hinzufügen) das MSW als Fundstelle verschwindet, ohne dass ich es bearbeitet hätte. Dadurch wird zudem der Datensatz nicht speicherbar, wenn man die nun fehlerhafte Fundstelle nicht löscht - habe ich bei Tachyglossus (Q12902259) und Tachyglossus aculeatus aculeatus (Q20902411) entsprechend gemacht, MSW bei letzterem anschliessend wieder ergänzt. Hast du eien Idee, woran das liegen könnte? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Achim, ich kann das Problem leider nicht nachvollziehn. Sollte es bestehen bleiben solltest du dich am Besten unter Angabe von Browser- und Betriebssystem-Version an Wikidata:Contact the development team wenden. Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Danke - vielleicht liegt es auch an meiner Urlaubs-Netzversion aus iPhone-HotSpot und Laptop, ich versuche es am WE zu Hause nochmals. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Haustiere mal wieder

Hallo Succu,

ich habe mir mal wieder Gedanken zu diesem leidigen Thema gemacht. Bisher war es ja irgendwie immer Streitpunkt, wie man Individuen und fiktive Tiere von Rassen/Rassegruppen etc. unterscheiden könnte. Deshalb habe ich mir mal Gedanken zum hoffentlich nützlichen Einsatz von instance of (P31) gemacht. Kannst du dazu bitte mal einen kurzen Blick auf User:PigeonIP/Projekt#Unterscheidung Individuum / Gruppe von Irgendwas (kein Taxon!) werfen und mir sagen, ob das so in etwa in die richtige Richtung gehen könnte oder wieder völlig in die Irre läuft?

Danke, --PigeonIP (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm, nach einem kurzen, nach Verständnis heischenden Blick auf deine unkommentierten Tabellen: Ein individual (Q795052) (also deine Kuh "Else", du, ich, der als "Mars" bezeichnete Planet unseres Sonnensystems) bilden stehts den Wert der Aussage instance of (P31). Anhand der Eigenschaften der Individuen kann man diese auf verschiedenste Art und Weise in eine class (Q18844919) stecken. Ihre Gemeinsamkeiten werden dann durch subclass of (P279) ausgedrückt. Kompliziert wird das Ganze dadurch, dass man die Wirklichkeit unterschiedlich detailliert abbilden (=modellieren, =abstrahieren) kann. In der Physik entspräche das in etwa grob der Aussage über ein einzelnes (individuelles) Teilchen in einer Schachtel, oder der Wirkung aller (als Gruppe) Teilchen auf die Schachtel. Vmtl. nicht hilfreich, sry --Succu (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Vielleicht doch (hilfreich meine ich ;): jetzt haben mir schon mehrere bestätigt, dass

• ist ein(e) <Irgendwas Taube> immer ein Individuum bezeichnen sollte. (auch wenn ich das jetzt zusätzlich auch immernoch mit individual animal (Q26401003) erg. habe; damit es wirklich eineindeutig wird)

Davon könnte man dann noch unterscheiden

• ist ein(e) <Gruppe>
• ist ein(e) <Rasse>
• ist ein(e) <Varietät>, <Schlag>, ...

Spezifiziert durch <anerkannt von>, weil was bei dem einen eine Rasse ist bei dem anderen (Verband, Autor) nur ein Schlag oder gar eine Gruppe mehrerer Rassen.

erg. werden <Gruppe>n, <Rasse>n, <Varietät>en dann noch mit subclass of (P279):

• zum Taxon: Haustaube
• nach (überwiegender) Nutzung: Rassetaube
• nach Rassengruppe und Autor oder Institution: z.B. Warzentaube

und so oder so ähnlich sollte das auch mit anderen Haustieren und Sorten funktionieren. Mir fehlt nur noch eine Aussage, für die Standards oder standardisierenden Verbände und eine gute Möglichkeit darzustellen, dass z.b. die Katzenrassen A und B des einen Verbandes im zweiten zusammen die Rasse A bilden. (oder auch für SBI -Standard bestimmende Instanz- und Patronat -bei Hunden-)

Aber das führt mir grad noch zu weit. Ich suche erstmal noch alle anderen Tauben, die im Wikimedia-Universe herumschwirren zusammen und hoffe dann erst einmal die ELRT vervollständigen zu können (anschließend geht es dann noch an das andere Federvieh, um z.B. auch Fotografen eine Handreichung geben zu können). --PigeonIP (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. kannst du dir mal Barbary dove (Q731131) und African Collared Dove (Q921348) anschauen?

Die erste dürfte selbst eigentlich kein Taxon sein (domestizierte Form von African Collared Dove (Q921348); der NPA führt sie als "breed" der Gruppe "Q26711767" [11]). Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher, wie hier wirklich vorgegangen werden sollte, weil in en steht die Taxobox im Artikel. Andere Sprachen scheinen mir komisch gesmischte Artikel zu haben, wo für mich nicht gleich ersichtlich ist, ob jetzt hauptsächlich die domestizierte oder die "wilde" Taube beschrieben wird. --PigeonIP (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Images and image qualifiers

I was wanting to improve the image content for various taxa, but need some guidance for what to do. On Wollemia nobilis (Q190510) I already replaced a very poor low-resolution pic with a better one (File:Wollemia nobilis full.jpg), but wanted to add a qualifier like 'young tree' or 'whole plant' (or similar), and then also to add File:Wollemia nobilis M1.JPG with the qualifier 'female part' and File:Wollemia nobilis cone.jpg with the qualifier 'male part'. How do I proceed? Or is there a limit on how many images are wanted? - MPF (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I never thought about that. I think the best place for your question is Wikidata:Project chat. --Succu (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try that - MPF (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Flexal virus

Hi. You removed a claim for the NCBI taxonomy database identifier from the Flexal virus (Q18966387) item. As far as I can see, this entry with taxonomy ID 45220 is indeed the correct entry for the Flexal virus: notice that it specifically cites "Flexal virus" as an alternative name, and links to the same EOL entry as the current Wikidata item. -- The Anome (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the id belongs to Flexal mammarenavirus (Q22108174). --Succu (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

They're the same thing. The name was changed to Flexal mammarenavirus relatively recently. -- The Anome (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I seem to be making a terrible mess of trying to merge the various Flexal virus / Flexal mammarenavirus items. Can you help, please? They are definitely the same thing. -- The Anome (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The species was renamed and moved to another genus in 2014. All should be in place now. --Succu (talk)

Yes, but what puzzles me is that we still have two items, Flexal mammarenavirus (Q22108174) and Flexal virus (Q18966387), both of which seem to me to represent the same thing. Am I failing to understand some distinction between the two? Also, one of them has the NCBI ID and the other the EOL ID -- again, surely this is the same species, and should have both. -- The Anome (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

We need the item Flexal virus (Q18966387) for structural needs, e.g. if you want to reconstruct ICTV Master Species List 2013 v2 (Q18810383) by a SPARQL query or something else. This is similar to having multiples items for names based on another (basionym (P566) etc.) The ID belongs allways to the item with a matching taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Accipiter gentilis atricapillus (Q26783716)

Can you have a look please :) . Conny (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

Hab ein bisschen was ergänzt. --Succu (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

MycoBank taxon name ID (P962)

Thanks a lot for correcting and for the notification. I will make sure not to have similar mistakes in future.Makki98 (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

One quicky about cy edit

Where did you get the translations you added here, please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

From your list. --Succu (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the first draft. Any chance you could change all species, genera, family etc to upper case please? Just the first letter. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000: Are you sure this should be done for all cases? --Succu (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes please. Just the first letter of the cy-name. Not first letter of every word. This is usual in most languages including English I understand? Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For english names I observed a tendency to correct upper case to lower case (see e.g. lion (Q140) or this query). So I'm not entirely sure. --Succu (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok Thanks; let's just do aves / birds, then please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Please explain Why did you revert my edits on plant (Q756) and fungus (Q764)? This is a perfect example of why said to be the same as (P460) exists, isn't it? Please use {{Ping}} if you reply here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Explain why this sould be „a perfect example“? Both kingdoms are different. The property is for similar concepts (a weak form of sameAs), not for people confusing things. --Succu (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Koavf: may be you meant different from (P1889)? --Infovarius (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Infovarious: This is perfect. Thanks and tahnks to Succu. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this property is often carelessly used (see proposal). And I have doubts this is useful here. --Succu (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

MPF

You may want to look at the contributions of this user. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Llywelyn2000 should have a look too. --Succu (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I can understand changing the first letter from lower to high case (e -> E) but why change every word? Is it a bot? Is there a discussion on this? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPF: No, not a bot and only en and cy, mainly. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: On the Welsh bird names, as in English, the standard in ornithological works is capitalisation of first letters (example; scroll down to 'Other names' near end of page); having lower-case Welsh names imported from Wikidata into e.g. Commons VN headers makes them look very odd and out-of-place.

@Succu: On the note on my talk page - could you expand please on what to do at Wikidata when e.g. a species is moved from one genus to another; I can't find any guidelines - example, (Q228009) was under its old scientific name Aquila clanga, I have tried to change it all to its current name Clanga clanga, but whether I've done it right or not, I don't know. One other problem I'm finding, is how to add American vernacular names; there is English (en), "British English" ("en-gb", a bit of a nonsense as it is of course the same as en), and Canadian English (en-ca), but no en-us that I can find for species where the American name differs from the English (e.g. Q18835, Grey Plover in English, Black-bellied Plover in American). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@MPF:: In the case Aquila clanga (Q228009) you can move all sitelinks to Greater Spotted Eagle (Q21090684) and adjust the labels. --Succu (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks! Is there any easy way to do this, or do I have to cut-n-paste each link, one by one? - MPF (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a gadget in your preferences called Move that gives you the ability to move sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm awaiting response from Welsh ornathologists at Llen natur. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Email from Duncan Brown, Llen Natur. In Welsh, lower case is used in the context of a sentence. However this WD entry is a title, and not context, it generates lists etc, therefore the first letter should be upper case and the rest (other than personal nouns) should be lower case eg 'Dryw morgrug gyddfsiecrog' and not 'Dryw Morgrug Gyddfsiecrog', or 'dryw morgrug gyddfsiecrog'. He also says that there is no agreement in English, no set standard. The capitalisation of the generic name / first word in Latin is standardised, so my/our suggestion here is that the Welsh follows suit, with all species of plants and animals. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: Diolch! That doesn't agree though with published usage that I checked, e.g. the annual Cambrian Bird Report, which (like the BTO's listings) capitalises except for y / yr, e.g. Gwalch y Pysgod [Pandion haliaeetus], Gwylan Gefnddu Leiaf [Larus fuscus], Gwylan yr Arctig [Larus glaucoides], etc. It may be that informal sources like newspapers and suchlike use lower case, but we should follow authoritative sources, not popular ones. - MPF (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, there is no agreement. The definative authority in Wales, my good friend, is not the annual Cambrian Bird Report, but Llen Natur, which spent the last 10 years standerdising all living birds. It receives funding from Welsh Government and it's Dictionary of Species is hosted by Terminology Portal of the University of Wales (where you will find the specific Bird Dictionary which came out two months ago. This dictionary is bringing in a live feed from Wikidata using the prefered image - which you can see here. So please refrain from using words like 'we should follow authoritative sources, not popular ones' unless you know the lay of the land, what is authorative and what is 'newspaper' stuff. At least in Welsh we have a standard, set by one body. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest you start with the English language (and the maybe move to others) as most articles on birds on en-Wikipedia use lower case eg European robin. Why not change them all, and then perhaps move on to other languages? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot request

May I therefore request, Succu:

1. Please add in the description field of all birds with a Welsh name: rhywogaeth o adar (species of bird)
2. That the first letter of every bird name be in upper case.

Many thanks for all your hard work over the years! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000: There are some items with a different description. I assume the bot should override them. Right? --Succu (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No; I'll do those by hand, as some are errors and others refer to subspecies. Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That was handy, as I have weeded out some errors! Great stuff! What remains are subspecies. Thanks Succu! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

From the Wikidata perspective all are species. I checked two itema and found no cy-sitelink. --Succu (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. But WD needs a new item... subspecies! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you've added 'rhywogaeth o adar' - great! Thank you! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

#2 is done, Llywelyn2000. --Succu (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Erstbeschreibung ohne Titel

Moin Succu,
ich arbeite in der WP gerade an der Erstbeschreibung des Variegated squirrel (Q508774) - Problem dabei: Selbige erfolgte ohne Titel in allgemeinen Teil der Proceedings der Zoological Society of London ([12]). Any ideas, wie ich das sinnvoll in wikidata einbasteln kann? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Achim! Wie wird sie denn üblicherweise zitiert? Du kannst natürlich stated in (P248)=Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (Q19622568) verwenden und das weiter durch Angabe von Band/Nummer/Jahr/Seiten ergänzen. Ein eigenes Datenobjekt ist nicht zwingend. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Die meisten Bücher geben die Erstbeschreibungen ja gar nicht als Refernzen an, Ausnahme hier [13] - dort wird es als [no title] referenziert, was ich nun auch in der WP tue. Da ich bei den Hörnchen langfristig gern eine Bibliografie aller Erstbeschreibungen haben möchte, würde ich auch gern ein item pro Erstbeschreibung nutzen und als Beleg verwenden. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dann würde ich im Datenobjekt title (P1476)=novalue angeben. Das Label müsstest du dir dann ausdenken. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Danke, ich habe es jetzt mit no title (Q26921661) probiert. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

. Ich hätte wahrscheinlich so etwas wie Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1839. T. 7: 117. für das Label gewählt, da die Kombination Label/Beschreibung eindeutig sein muß. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für das Bot

Hallo Succu,

Thank you very much for the work with your bot for TAXREF ID (P3186)!

Tubezlob (🙋) 16:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;) --Succu (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Questionable revert

Why did you make this revert? I verified the dates using a reliable source (an image of Newton's gravestone, which is already cited as a reference). The the relevant Phabricator task says to remove the markers once the questionable date has been corrected or verified. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the julian dates are correct but Phab says nothing about removing the qualifier or converting the dates into gregorian ones. --Succu (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Try using your browser search to find the question

Now that the bot has begun to mark items, what is the procedure to follow when a marked item has been reviewed by an editor and found to be correct?

and the answer

@Jc3s5h This should be as simple as removing the instance of qualifier.

We of course have the lists of all statements that will be touched in this run of the script.

If we do ever do a future run we will still have that list of guids that we can avoid!

Jc3s5h (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

So what? „This should be as simple as removing the instance of qualifier“. I don't see that the community is involed at this point in time and any action should be done. But maybe I miss an announcement... --Succu (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I will now bring your revert before a wider audience. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not astonished. --Succu (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

In as much as Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) stated "Yes please remove them where the statement was checked" I will undo the revert. However, I will refrain changing between Gregorian and Julian calendars to correct errors until I am assured that such changes won't be re-marked in a future run of the bot. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Mal wieder Bot-Dateien

Hallo Succu,
seit heute habe ich nun den Band 6 des Handbook of the Mammals of the World mit den Hasenartigen und dem ersten Teil der Nagetiere vorliegen (frisch erschienen). Für dieses Buch könnte ich theoretisch wieder eine Botdatei schreiben, allerdings mit einigen anderen Parametern als gehabt. Könnte dein Bot eine Datei entsprechend den unteren Beispiel verarbeiten?

Beispiel

• Genus Ochotona
  • Ochotona dauuria (Pallas 1776) / Duarian Pika / Daurien-Pfeifhase / Pika de Daourie / Pika de Dauria / Lepus dauurica Pallas 1776

Dabei gilt

• • Wissenschaftlicher Name Umkombination Erstbeschreiber Erstbeschreibungdatum / englischer Name / deutscher Name / französischer Name / spanischer Name / Erstkombination Gattung Art Erstbeschreiber Erstbeschreibungdatum

Ich denke, das ist die maximale Ausbeute, die ich botbar machen könnte (Zeitfenster vielleicht bis Dezember je nach Aufwand). In weiten Teilen sollte die Systematik MSW3 entsprechen. Ich würde mit den Hasenartigen dann einfach mal entsprechend deinen Vorgaben beginnen. Was meinst du? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Achim! In Handbook of the Mammals of the World (Q3043236) fehlt noch der sechste Band.. ;) Grundsätzlich komme ich damit klar und ich kann das auch jederzeit in eine andere Form konvertieren, wenn mir klar ist wie ich grundsätzlich mit den einheimischen Namen umgehen werde. Es fehlt noch eine Seitenangabe. Gruß --Succu (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

O.k., prima - ich fange dann demnächst einfach mal an und gebe dir Bescheid, wenn du eien Datei zum Probieren nutzen kannst. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Latin added

I see here that you have been recently adding the Latin name, rather than the Welsh name. The Welsh names were supplied for all living birds. The above example shows Hirundo fulva (see French name etc) which is used in addition to the one on en (Petrochelidon fulva). No request has been made by me to upload the Latin names instead of Welsh, as far as I know. Please link to the request, if it was made. Your bot uploaded around 6,500 Welsh names where the taxon name matched. I have added 3,500 by hand in Welsh and in English. The remedy here I think, is for you to add the Latin names in my db as well as the existing (older) names, and then replace Latin name with Welsh name. We have Welsh names for all living birds, and I would like to see those Welsh names, rather than the Latin name. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

PS Cave Swallow (Q1587890) and Hirundo fulva (Q14624734) are the same species. For others see bottom of this list on cywiki. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I added taxon name (P225) as a label when a Welsh decription was added (per request) and the label was empty, because otherwise it would be strange looking. Your list contains Hirundo fulva (Q14624734) not Cave Swallow (Q1587890) so the Welsh name was added to this item. original combination (P1403) of Cave Swallow (Q1587890) is Hirundo fulva (Q14624734). --Succu (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You've missed the point here. In fact several:

1. You added a note to your change here that someone had requested you to add a Latin name instead of the Welsh name. What you're now saying is that no one requested such thing, and that you decided to do that yourself ('otherwise it would be strange looking'). Am I correct? I'm asking this so that we are very clear in what's going on here.

2. @Jura1, Cell Danwydd: The Wikidata List generated by User:Cell Danwydd now contains not only species but also duplicates - the original combination (P1403) of the species. Some species will therefore be down twice. This list should call up every species once only - and the Welsh name should be visible. We do not want the Welsh species name AND the old taxon name which died out years ago. The list can also include a current Latin name in column two, as seen. In my opinion, the original taxon name is irrelevant. Maybe User:Jura1 could reword the list so that original combination (P1403) becomes an exeption (left out)?

3. This article on Black-faced Warbler (Q2084483) was published on cywiki a few minutes ago by CELL Danwydd. In the next couple of days / weeks a further 9,000+ similar articles, each with a wikidata list will be created by a bot. Please find a way so that the Welsh names appear as requested, and each species appear once only. Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It was the same dataset and I forgot to change the bot comment, that's all. The rest is taxonomy. You have to decide which of the names you are regarding as the valid (ICZN) scientific name. --Succu (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for #1. The valid scientific name used in Wales by professional ornithologists were passed on to you. However you have not addressed the problem I have with original combination (P1403) producing two examples of one species. Can you address this please? I suggested (above, top) 'to add the Latin names in my db as well as the existing (older) names, and then replace Latin name with Welsh name.' Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You say 'original combination (P1403) of Cave Swallow (Q1587890) is Hirundo fulva (Q14624734)'. The original name would be the Latin name, therefore no other languages should be on this item. The name ' Gwennol ogof (Q14624734)' should be on Cave Swallow (Q1587890). Is that right? Secondly, all items connected with original combination (P1403) should be described as 'Original Taxon name' or similar rather than 'Species of bird'; the item is for the species name and not the species. Is that not correct? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. It's not that easy. The early bots tagged an item with a scientific name, but often other names are used by different Wikipedias. Sometimes items were merged and got more than one scientific name. A fact we have to deal with. Our approach is to keep the sitelinks united under one (more or less random) scientific name and contruct relationships to other scientific names via „synonym properties“ e.g. original combination (P1403). But this is burdensome way, so the progress is slow. One example to illustrate this is IUCN conservation status (P141). A leftover from around 330 items (including birds) have no reference to the IUCN because of a name change which could not resolved by the synonymy provided by the IUCN. You (in the Wikidata reality I) have do resolve this by hand. In the case of Stachyridopsis ruficeps (Q1038415) the information about IUCN conservation status (P141) will go to the item for Stachyris ruficeps. A third name for this species is Cyanoderma ruficeps. The major bird authorities are indecisive which name to use. So all these three name are in current use and not old.

BTW: I had a quick look at the names of your first list the bot could not match (=1833). It contains names like Amblyornis macgregoriæ = MacGregor's Bowerbird (Q766708) or a lot species of a genus Necterinia a misspelling of Nectarinia (Q671699). --Succu (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Succo. You haven't understood; I think the fault is mine, as I have not made my points clear enough. I'll change the Latin words into Welsh by hand. However the problem with doubling some species in the Wikidata Lists remains unanswered. The problem is due to the use of "original combination (P1403)". Enjoy the weekend! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you try one more thing please? Can you match against the English name? Just tried Yellow-crowned canary and it found Caneri’r Penrhyn. Maching against the English name might not get them all, but I'm sure will help! Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to wait a little bit. At the moment my bot is adding references for taxon name (P225) taken from IOC World Bird List Version 6.3 (Q27042747) - a widely respected taxon authority for birds. Than I will populate NBN System Key (P3240). --Succu (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

At the feet of Gamaliel (User:Llywelyn2000) I have started to upload articles onto the Welsh Wikipedia: around 9,400. Can you please connect them to Wikidata automatically? The WD name = WP article title. Welsh of course! Thanks. PS Much of the infobox comes from WD and therefore will not appear until the connection is made (eg image!) Cell Danwydd (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd: Please check your code. cy:G?ydd wyllt is Gŵydd Wyllt. --Succu (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are 5 or 6. That one actually exists so I've asked the Community for it to be deleted. Thanks. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel! is there a tool to connect the newly created articles to WD, or can we leave it in your capable hands? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to do this with my bot. And I'm not aware of such a tool. --Succu (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Here in Wales, we can make Celtic magic by night. ;-) Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like User:EmausBot makes the magic true. ;) --Succu (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Coffee hackathon on remaining birds!

I'd like to just make sure that all birds with Welsh names are in the correct places; I fear that some have gone on to the protonym (Q14192851) or original combination (P1403). Is there any way you could give me a list of all the protonym (Q14192851) or those with original combination (P1403) of living birds (labels only), and I'll arrange a coffee group to plough through them. In other words, labels of protonym (Q14192851) and original combination (P1403) should be Latin; all those without should be in Welsh. Many thanks! User:Llywelyn2000 using BOT-Twm Crys (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

What has led you to believe that Charles Darwin never studied crustaceans? Danrok (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I know he wrote a book about Barnacle (Q220457). This led to his recognition as a taxonomist (Q1907198). But he was not spezialized on Crustacea (Q25364) as a whole. --Succu (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Is someone who wrotes his (own) autobiography (Q4184) a autobiographer (Q18814623) by profession (Q28640)? --Succu (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitary removal of claims

You should not be removing claims simply because they lack references. There are millions of claims in Wikidata which do not have references. Why not look for and add references when in doubt? That would be far more constructive. Danrok (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Linné studied nature as a whole. Saying he was a arachnologist (Q17344952) is nonsens. Seems like you lack a understanding of the two references ([14], [15]) you gave. --Succu (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Synonyms

Hi Succu,

I see you are using "taxon synonym" for names that are homotypic. Theoretically this may work (to some extent) for homotypic synonyms, although it creates a mess for the references. But it definitely won't work for heterotypic synonyms. All in all, "taxon synonym" by its nature is a one way relationship. If you feel a property "is homotypic with" is desirable, you could propose it; I don't see an immediate need for it, but I suppose it would not hurt to have it.

The "instance of synonym" may not be a thing of beauty, but it seems to me that it does work. However, a separate property "this is a synonym of" would also work, and could be proposed. - Brya (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure this is the final solution, but a big improvement, anyway. - Brya (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It took me a while to find a satisfying solution. Not perfect, but fulfills the intended purpose. I think we should delete the ugly instance of (P31)=synonym (Q1040689) statements where a matching subject has role (P2868) statement exists. --Succu (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a case of making do. I would be more comfortable with a dedicated property "basionym of". And yes, I suppose "instance of synonym" does look kind of ugly, and a dedicated property "synonym of" would look better. Still, there is a fundamental difference between "basionym of" and "synonym of". The "serves as the basionym of" does not say anything essential about the item: a name that is the basionym of another name can be a correct name of a taxon without any problem. On the other hand "is a synonym of" does say something essential about the item: if it is a synonym, it is not the correct name of a taxon: these are mutually exclusive. So, it is kind of elegant to have "instance of" pointing to two possibilities, either this, or that. - Brya (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

einheimische Namen

Moin, ich nerve mal wieder mit Unwissenheit:
Ich versuche gerade das Konzept "einheimische Namen" zu verstehen - ich gehe davon aus, dass es sich dabei jeweils um die Trivialnamen in den jeweiligen Sprachen handelt, die ich in der Regel auch als jeweiliges Lemma bei den Sprachen einsetze - heute etwa die "Kachin-Rötelmaus" bei Kachin Red-backed Vole (Q1026986). Wenn dem so ist:

1. Ich habe hier das "Dictionary of Mammal Names" als pdf, in dem zu allen Arten aus MSW3 + weiteren englische und deutsche Namen angegeben werden - einfache Listen mit Spalten wissenschaftlich|englisch|deutsch, teilweise allerdings mehr als ein Name pro Art getrennt via Komma in der Spalte. Meines Wissens ist User:Kopiersperre ziemlich gut darin, pdfs in Wikitabellen umzuwandeln - vielleicht kann man das verbinden und dann die Trivialnamen via Bot einspielen. Ich kann euch beiden das pdf zukommen lassen, wenn ihr mir ein Mail schickt.
2. für die chinesischen Arten habe ich in Mammals of China jeweils Trivialnamen in chinesischen Schriftzeichen und lateinischen Buchstaben - bsp. für die benannte Kachin Red-backed Vole (Q1026986) 克钦绒鼠 (siehe auch zh.wp und Kequin Rongshu. Ersteres könnte ich in das Konzept einarbeiten (wenn ich entsprechende zh-Artikel finde und mit MoC abgleichen kann), kann ich irgendwas mit der latinisierten Form tun?

Für das genannte Beispiel Kachin Red-backed Vole (Q1026986) habe ich beides mal umgesetzt (zwei deutsche Trivialnamen und ein chinesischer), passt das so? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Achim, ja du liegst richtig. Ich habe bisher gezögert diese Eigenschaft in größerem Umfang zu verwenden, da es oft - wie im Vorwort von Dictionary of Mammal Names erwähnt - zahlreiche Varianten gibt, die sich nur geringfügig voneinander unterscheiden und ich bisher keine richtig gute Idee hatte wie man damit am besten umgehen sollte. Durch den gerade von Magnus angestoßenen Import aus Wikispecies (siehe Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_vernacular_names_from_Wikispecies) hat sich die Lage nun grundlegend geändert. Da kommt deine Anfrage gerade recht.

zu 1) Wenn Kopiersperre das hinbekommt, würde mir das Arbeit ersparen. Ich müsste mir erst ein geeignetes Tool suchen oder etwas Code schreiben um das PDF direkt auszulesen. Mein Bot kann dann problemlos Wikidata mit diesen Daten füttern.

zu 2) Wie wir das konkret lösen (eigen Tabelle oder weitere Spalten) überlasse ich dir. Einen Sprachcode etwa zh-Latn für chinesische Namen in lateinischen Buchstaben gemäß ISO 15924 (Q16866) gibt es derzeit nicht. Das ist aber kein Gebiet mit dem ich softwareseitig jemals etwas zu tun hatte. Vllt. kann ja Lydia sagen, ob derartige Erweiterungen auf der TODO-Liste stehen und sich der Aufwand für dich lohnen würde.

Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Letzteres wäre eine Frage für das Wikimedia Language Committee. Die entscheiden welche Sprachen für monolingual text Properties auf Wikidata zugelassen werden. Ihr könntet ein Ticket auf phabricator aufmachen und ich gebe es an die passenden Leute weiter. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Succu, hat nun leider doch etwas länger gedauert - hier aber nun die fertige Date mit allen Seitenzahlen: User:Achim Raschka/Names - en passant habe ich einige Fehler korrigiert, vor allem falsche Blank in Gattungsnamen und Leerstellen hinter "-" in durchgekoppelten Namen. Ich hoffe, du kannst damit etwas anfangen und bin gespannt auf das Ergebnis. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Ich schau mir das im Laufe der nächsten Woche an. Wenn ich noch etwas finde melde ich mich bei dir. Schönen Restsonntag. --Succu (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Fast vergessen, Achim: Der Bot ist einmal durch. Knapp 300 wiss. Namen konnte er nicht finden. Uns fehlen allerdings auch noch ca. 160 bei der IUCN gelistete Säugetierarten. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Succu, danke für den Botlauf (und @Kopiersperre: danke für die Vorarbeiten mit dem Dokument) - die Ergebnisse habe ich in etlichen Artikeln bereits gesehen und sie sehen gut aus. Gibt es eine Liste der 300 nicht gefundenen Säuger, damit man damit weiterarbeiten und evtl. Fehler korrigieren oder Artikel und Systematiken aktualisieren kann (ich würde gern auch einen Blick auf die IUCN-Liste werfen)? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ich kann dir beide Listen bereitstellen. Wo sollen sie hin? --Succu (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, ich denke, die Fehlerliste am besten unter User:Achim_Raschka/Names-Fehler und die IUCN-Liste unter User:Achim_Raschka/IUCN-Fehler - ich kann dann schauen, was man damit machen kann. Gruß und Danke -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Erledigt. ;) --Succu (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Nach einem ersten Blick: Einen großen Anteil an der Differenz zum MSW3 hat offensichtlich die Umstellung der Hornträger-Systematik nach Colin Groves and Peter Grubb 2011, die auch vom HMW2 übernommen wurde. Leider habe ich beide nicht vorliegen und werde sie entsprechend nicht nachzeichnen können, in der Wikipedia hat DagdaMor die systematischen Änderungen vorgenommen. Ich überlege mal, wie ich das lösen kann. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Re iw link to WP on cy Q547159

On the Red-headed Bunting (Q547159) page, and many others, you've added an incorrect link to the Welsh WP article. The article and the name of this bird should be the same. The name of this bird is "Bras pengoch" and the iw link should be to the same name ie "Bras pengoch". However, the link is to 'Bras gyddflwyd', and was added by you on 23:08, 5 Hydref 2016. How many other birds did you change with your bot at this time? Same with ((Q|3726265)) etc. List please so that I can check them all. BOT-Twm Crys (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you refering to this addition? --Succu (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and it wasn't you! I do apologise! It's the magician! BOT-Twm Crys (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

But he did it right. Red-headed Bunting (Q547159) and cy:Bras gyddflwyd are about taxon name (P225)= Emberiza bruniceps. Looks like there are two diffentent values for taxon common name (P1843) involved: "Bras pengoch" and "Bras gyddflwyd". Maybe different versions of your working list are causing that? --Succu (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Überholte Artnamen

Hallo Succu,

ich klicke gerade den MixnMatch-Katalog für den EPPO Code (P3031) durch. Die EPPO-Datenbank benutzt offenbar nicht die neueste Taxonomie. Soll ich für überholte taxonomische Namen trotzdem Items erstellen (z.B. Hebe hectorii (Q27339762) – müsste Veronica hectori(s) sein) oder nicht? Brauche ich mehr als die EPPO-Datenbank als Beleg um neue Taxa zu erstellen?--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ich würde nie auf Grundlage einer derartigen Datenbank ein neues Datenobjekt erstellen. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit dass ein fehlerhafter Name dabei herauskommt ist ziemlich groß. So auch hier. Korrekt ist Hebe hectorii (Q10294179). Bitte die beiden Datenobjekte zusammenführen. --Succu (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC) PS: Bitte für neu erstellte Taxon-Datenbankobjekte wie Thecaphora frezii (Q27339852) die vier grundlegenden Eigenschaften hinzufügen. Sonst landet es auf Constraint violations oder ist in anderen Fällen nicht als Taxon erkennbar. --Succu (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Daher wollte ich ja fragen. Hast du irgendeinen Knopf, der dir die vier Grundeigenschaften automatisch ausfüllt? Ich habe jetzt nur noch einen alten Laptop, sodass mir das Bearbeiten im Browser einfach keinen Spaß macht. Ich kriege einfach immer einen Hals, wenn ich warten muss, bis die Bearbeitungsknöpfe und alle Sprachen endlich erscheinen.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Mit welcher Magie sollte der Knopf denn diese bei Thecaphora frezii (Q27339852) erraten? Seit einigen Tagen scheint der Wurm drin zu sein. Ich muss im IE11 ein Datenobjekt oft mehrfach neu laden bis ich eine Eigenschaft bearbeiten kann. --Succu (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Man müsste sich doch ein triviales Frontend für QuickStatements bauen können, wo man Gattungs- und Artname eingiebt und dann automatisch ein neues Datenobjekt mit vier Statements erstellt wird. Zumindest bei SPARQL kann sich man das zu einem Gattungsnamen passende Item "resolven" lassen.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ja, wenn du das Reich zu dem die Gattung gehört kennst... --Succu (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Gall

Do you agree that this is a correct way to add this kind of info? Comments welcome. Lymantria (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Same for Agromyza albitarsis (Q13486482). I am far from sure if that is the best way to add the species is a leafminer. Lymantria (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The first one looks fine to me, the second not. But I have to think about it a bit longer. --Succu (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Tried a new approach to the second one. Lymantria (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this is much better. --Succu (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

misuse?

Hi it would be very useful to see more of an explanation rather than a single word 'misuse'

for https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3005895 - it is specifically identified in the wp en article as being endemic to australia

please show where the identification of a location of endemism is misuse. thanks. JarrahTree (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Try endemic to (P183). --Succu (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not much help - a region doesnt fit in P 183 in strictest sense - it talks about a sole location - obviously there is a need for another property with a wider geographic scope JarrahTree (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Apology, I havent checked the parameters of other similar P items to see if there is a heirarchy of continent/country/region/ - and as to whether biota items are identified in such a heirarchy in relation to their habitats... JarrahTree (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We havn't a working model to describe the geographic distribution of a taxon. We talked about World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (Q8035770) earlier and there is a DwCA extension call Species Distribution. But nobody provided a concept how to implement this here. --Succu (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, as far as I can tell in wp en - some biota is identified within regional/admin/human areas, and some within ecological/biological 'regions', well beyond my scope of work at the moment. Maybe someone might lead on this at some stage JarrahTree (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata upload help

Hi Succu, I was pointed in your direction by @Llywelyn2000: who said you may be able to help me with a data upload? I am trying to add statements, labels and descriptions to about 4000 wikidata items which include the Dictionary of Welsh Biography identifier, and i have prepared the data as best i can in a spreadsheet. Normally i would use Quick Statements but in this case i do not want to over-right existing data, only use my data to fill in the gaps. Here is the data in question. I would appreciate any help you could offer on this matter. Many thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help you. My bot is aproved for working in the domain of taxa only. You should make a request at Wikidata:Bot requests. --Succu (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks very much. I will make a request as instructed. Jason.nlw (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Neuer Botauftrag

Hallo Succu,
ich hatte heute morgen eine Idee für eine weitere Aufgabe, die sich evtl. via Bot automatisieren lässt. Hintergrund: Uns fehlen sehr häufig die descriptions, vor allem bei Unterarten (bsp. Sciurus vulgaris alpinus (Q20903529)), und die händische Einfügung ist zeitaufwändig und kann Fehler beinhalten. Ich würde mir folgenden Auftragsstring vorstellen (keine Ahnung, ob der Bot so tickt):

Für alle taxon rank (P105) = subspecies (Q68947)

und de-description = leer setze de-description = Unterart von parent taxon (P171)

und en-description = leer setze en-description = subspecies of parent taxon (P171)

...

Optimal wäre es natürlich, wenn statt parent taxon (P171) grundsätzlich der wissenschaftliche Name genommen würde, da die deutschen Namen fallsensitiv sind (Unterart von Red squirrel (Q4388)). Wenn man das auf tree:Säugetiere eingrenzt, hätte man imho bereits ein gutes Testfeld (und ich weniger Arbeit). Was meinst du? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Achim, das würde sich in der Tat lohnen (etwa 55.000 Fälle je Sprache). Für die de-Beschreibung hatte ich mal die Form

Unterart der Art Nuku-Hiva-Rohrsänger (Acrocephalus percernis)

gewählt. Vllt. ein wenig gestelzt, aber m.E. problemfrei.

Für die en-Beschreibungen hat sich mehr oder minder die weniger informative Form

subspecies of mammal, subspecies of fish, subspecies of bird, ...

eingebürgert. Technisch ist die Umsetzung problemlos möglich. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Klingt sehr prima, wobei doch auch nichts gegen das bessere "subspecies of ..." sprechen sollte, oder? ;) - Wahrscheinlich kann man die description auch für weitere FRagen vordefinieren. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

... und noch mehr Arbeit

Heute habe ich User:Achim Raschka/MSW-Cetacea‎ fertig gestellt - die Gesamtliste MSW würde ich sonst in Jahren nicht abschliessen. Die Liste entspricht deiner MSW-Liste, ich habe nur die ganzen Erstbeschreiber mit Items verlinkt (was tatsächlich nicht immer einfach ist, v.a. bei den Unterarten). Vielleicht magst du übernehmen? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bei Phocoena phocoena relicta fehlt noch die Verlinkung des Autors. Ist vermutlich Othenio Abel (Q78571). Erstbeschreibung als Phocoena relicta ab Seite 388 hier. Gruß --Succu (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Eubalaena glacialis: Für Herrn Müller stehen gleich drei verschiedene zur Auswahl. Der bei uns im Artikel verlinkte scheint mir der korrekte zu sein. Der Name Balaena glacialis ist wohl vorlinnéisch ([16]). --Succu (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ist Georg Heinrich Borowski (Q27867744) identisch mit Georg Heinrich Borowski (Q845841)? Siehe Humpback Whale (Q132905). --Succu (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Succu, danke für die Kommentare und Korrekturen - sollte jetzt alles umgesetzt sein. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Und direkt noch eine Liste hinterher, damit sich die Botanpassung lohnt: User:Achim Raschka/MSW-Monotremata mit den Monotremata und den Didelphimorphia. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Die Cetacea‎ sind durch. Für monotreme (Q21790) steht in unserem Artikel die abweichende Jahreszahl "1838". Die Erstbeschreibung wurde vermutlich in seiner Iconografia della Fauna Italica vorgenommen (nicht nachgesehen). Falls das richtig ist müsste man noch On the Dates of Publication of Bonaparte's ‘Iconografia della Fauna Italica’ konsultieren. Aber vielleicht gehts auch einfacher. --Succu (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bei Gracilinanus ignitus sind die Autoren nicht verlinkt (siehe hier). --Succu (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mean size of species

Hi Succu, as you are involved in WikiProject:Taxinomy, I translate you a question asked by Tubezlob on the French project chat. Here it is, he added height (P2048) to wolf (Q18498). He want to know whether it is well done and how to specify that it is a mean value. You can reply here and I will translate to the French project chat. Pamputt (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably determination method (P459) could be used as a qualifier. --Succu (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict on wikidata chat

I had an edit conflict on wikidata chat earlier tonight, that must be the reason that I "reverted" unintendedly those hard spaces... Edoderoo (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Upper case

Hi Succu! One small request please, as a follow up to the birds project. Can you change the first letter of all species (Q7432) with Welsh (cy) names? Just the first letter. We have a new project based on the genus Hygrocybe (Q520530), but need consistency throughout. Many thanks! Eg 'cap cwyr duol' --> 'Cap cwyr duol'. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done with the help of the dump from last week. -Succu (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm very happy! A warm glow in my heart! Thank you Succu! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

SuccuBot

Are you sure that your bot is extracting data properly? I think it is mixing Russian and Slovenian. --Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC) See:

• [17]
• [18]

And I think that also other languages are mixed.

Thank you for the hint. Probably something in the source changed. I'll check this. --Succu (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Userskript gesucht

Hallo Succu,

ich habe dich schon einmal etwas ähnliches gefragt, nur finde ich das nicht mehr wieder. Gibt es eigentlich keine Möglichkeit, automatisch die taxonomischen Grundaussagen zu setzen (z.B. bei Cookeina insititia (Q27918381))? Also P31:Q16521 + P105:Q7432 und die Gattung. Mein Laptop ist extrem langsam und Wikidata sehr javaskript-intensiv. Es ist jedes Mal eine Herausforderung meiner Geduld, mehrere Angaben zu setzen. Schon über ein Eingabefeld wie früher bei Autolist würde ich mich enorm freuen. Gibt es sowas? Vg, Kopiersperre (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ich glaube nicht, dass es ein derartiges Werkzeug gibt. Es müsste u.a. den korrekten Wert für parent taxon (P171) bestimmen können, etwa durch Auslesen der Taxobox. Wenn du nur taxon name (P225) angibst landet das Datenobjekt nach spätestens zwei Tagen auf meinen täglichen TODO-Listen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Das übergeordnete Taxon könnte ich manuell eingeben. Ich würde dir gerne Arbeit abnehmen, aber es ist einfach nicht effektiv, wenn ich das mache.--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Das ist nett, aber der Aufwand dürte kaum ins Gewicht fallen. Da seit ca. einer Woche fast alle per taxon name (P225) bekannten Taxa über die vier elementaren Eigenschaften verfügen kann ich das entspannt angehen und mich um andere offene Baustellen kümmern. --Succu (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Xerocomoideae (Q27959873)

Hi Succu, is this what you meant ("add another one") in your revert note of my edit? By the way, Xerocomoideae leads to Boletaceae as it is a subfamily of it. Also, feel free to revert again, since I'm new to taxonomic editing! --Azertus (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes,that's what I meant. This new taxonomy, currently established at wikispecies, is the result of a study published two years ago: Molecular phylogenetic analyses redefine seven major clades and reveal 22 new generic clades in the fungal family Boletaceae. --Succu (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Angemessenheit"

Succu, in Bezug auf den plötzlichen Tode eines Kollegen, meinst du wirklich, dass ich das auf die leichte Schulter nehme? Ich bin wahrscheinlich genau so überrascht wie du gewesen. Seiner Familie gilt natürlich auch mein Beileid – das wurde bereits ausgesprochen. Ich weiß übrigens auch, wie es ist, einen lieben Menschen zu verlieren. Jeder reagiert (offensichtlich) anders. Jared Preston (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ja sicher. Ist bei meinem Verlust noch ziemlich frisch, aber deine Wortwahl „Fuck“ halte ich für unangemessen und deiner(!) unwürdig. --Succu (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Meine Wortwahl hat aber nichts mit dem Menschen zu tun, sondern mit meinem Gefühl (der Überraschung). Das hast du vielleicht missverstanden. Ich wünsche dir auch die Kraft, mit deiner Trauer umzugehen. Jared Preston (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Author citation

I am linking the item for the disambiguation page about author citation (biology) and author citation (zoology) to the two specific items. There is no item of an author involved. There is no reason to revert this other than the fact you may believe it is evident they are the same. However, this is a multi-lingual project and keeping these different from (P1889) statements prevents these items from ever being mistakenly merged. --Azertus (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mistakenly merging is a doubtful explanation. The items are different enough. --Succu (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Two items with the same label are exactly what different from (P1889) is meant for. The label says "but they are often confused", but this is not the main aspect of the property. The statements I added are completely unambiguous (i.e. there's no wondering "why is this property added to this item") due to the use of descriptive page and disambiguation page have to be in different items (Q24005632) in the qualifier.

There needs to be room for emergent use of properties in Wikidata. Linking items for disambiguation pages to the items mentioned in them is widespread and may enable useful features or analyses in the future, in addition to preventing bad merges. Please take this discussion to a wider venue if you still not only disagree but also oppose the very existence of these statements on these and other items. --Azertus (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm using the deUI, so it would be helpful to tell me that all Items have the same en-label Author citation. Descriptions are intended to „disambiguate items with the same or similar labels“. It's not possible to merge the items. All have an en-sitelink. So I see no need for your hardly understandable statements with qualifiers. BTW, I think the value of criterion used (P1013) is wrong. --Succu (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reversion

Okay, why do you always revert my edits? Back with the giraffes, the golden wolves and back again with the giraffes. It's like you don't believe that they are accurate.--FierceJake754 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are wrong. You can not change taxon name (P225) or labels and descriptions at will! --Succu (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I wish I could... If so, what can I do? With that giraffe article, should I make it about northern giraffes (giraffa camelopardalis), remove its sources concerning the giraffe genus, find the giraffe genus article and submit the sources to the giraffe/giraffa article? Can I do that?--FierceJake754 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What exactly to you wish to move from giraffe (Q15083) to Giraffa (Q862089)? --Succu (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So there was a separate article. I should've noticed... Well, as giraffe (Q15083) is about the northern giraffe (it will be), the Wikipedia entries which links to the giraffes should be sent to Giraffa (Q862089), and the Wikipedia entries to northern giraffes will remain in giraffe (Q15083). The Giraffa (Q862089) article will become the article as giraffe (Q15083) formerly was before and we can remake giraffe (Q15083) anew, as the article about northern giraffes respectively. There's not pretty much anything else to move, but I think it's a start.--FierceJake754 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you give examples which sitelinks should be moved from giraffe (Q15083) to Giraffa (Q862089)? I doubt there are a lot, because the genus was monotypic until recently. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I checked most of them and there are many giraffe articles that remained as Giraffa camelopardalis and not northern giraffes. However, some Wikipedia giraffe articles have moved to northern giraffe articles and kept the giraffa genus or perhaps other Wikipedia entries have created a northern giraffe of its own separate from the giraffe article and re-edit the giraffe article to its genus status. But considering that a Wikidata reacts when an article is moved and when a Wikidata article is created after a new article is created in Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia of different languages may develop the giraffe articles, making four separate giraffe species articles, as we speak... Perhaps I was wrong to act too soon, now I don't know if we should move them yet because as you said, the genus was montypic until recently... Maybe we should wait a little longer... I'm sorry for wasting your time.--FierceJake754 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Highland Barley/Orge du Tibet/青稞

Your reverted the change I made here. I created the french article fr:Orge du Tibet (and made en:Highland_barley after that, about the chinese/tibetan zh:青稞, I found in Tibetan plateau areas in China. I didn't found a specific latin name on chineses sites at this time (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum, as displayed in chinese version)., but instead found 3 names I put on the french site :

• 藏青稞 Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum ([19])
• 青稞 Hordeum vulgare var. nudum ([20])
• 青稞 Hordeum vulgare var. coeleste ([21])

I also found the name: Hordeum vulgare var. himalayense ([22], [23]).

Perhaps there are several var. of This highland barley matching this name. But that was the main subject, and didn't found this article, don't know why for ???), that's probably a vulgar name for several var.Popolon (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You merged the varieties Hordeum vulgare var. nudum or Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum (Q21578723) and Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum (Q13446495). That's not correct. Probably the taxobox in fr:Orge du Tibet should be removed (en:Highland_barley has none) and both articles should be moved to a new item without any taxon properties like taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed than on Japanese version, the crop grows mainly in japan, there are not so much highland in this country. Else could 3 taxons be added in the same wikidata item for 3 vars. associated with the same common name.The chinese version has the taxobox too, but speaks about the 3 vars. Popolon (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Popolon, Synonyms of Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare L. are (taken from GRIN):

• Hordeum vulgare var. abergii Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. abyssinicum (Ser.) Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. addisabebae Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
• Hordeum vulgare var. aethiopicum Vavilov & Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. aethiops Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. afghanicum Vavilov ex N. A. Ivanova
• Hordeum vulgare var. africanum Vavilov ex Lukyanova et al.
• Hordeum vulgare var. amaricum Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. angustispicatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. angustissimum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. ankoberense Vavilov & Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. anomalum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. asiaticoides Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. asiaticum Vavilov
• Hordeum vulgare var. asmaricum Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
• Hordeum vulgare var. atratum Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
• Hordeum vulgare var. atricornutum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. atrispicatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. atroviolaceum Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. atterbergianum R. E. Regel
• Hordeum vulgare var. atterbergii Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. axumicum Vavilov & Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. bactrianum Vavilov
• Hordeum vulgare var. brachyantherum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. braunii Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. breve Alef.
• Hordeum vulgare var. breviaristatum Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
• Hordeum vulgare var. brevisetum R. E. Regel
• Hordeum vulgare var. brevispicatum Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
• Hordeum vulgare var. brunneinudum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. chalunicum Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al., nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. chinense Vavilov & Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. chungense A. E. Aberg
• Hordeum vulgare var. coeleste L.
• Hordeum vulgare var. coerulescens Ser.
• Hordeum vulgare var. colonicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. compactum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. compositum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. contractum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. copticum Vavilov
• Hordeum vulgare var. cornutiforme A. E. Aberg
• Hordeum vulgare var. cornutum Schrad.
• Hordeum vulgare var. crispicapillum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. crispum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. cucullatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. curylepis Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. daghestanicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. decorticatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. decussatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. deficiens (Steud. ex A. Braun) Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. densum Ser.
• Hordeum vulgare var. distichon (L.) Hook. f.
• Hordeum vulgare var. djimmaicum Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. dubium Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. dundar Zhuk.
• Hordeum vulgare var. duplialbum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. dupliatrum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. duplinigrum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. erectum J. L. Rode ex Schubl.
• Hordeum vulgare var. erythreictum Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. euryhypatherum Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. freislebenii Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabriasiaticum Vavilov
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabribrevisetum Vavilov
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabricoeleste Vavilov
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabrideficiens Vavilov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabrierectum Vavilov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabrigracilius Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabriparallelum Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabripyramidatum Vavilov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabrispicatum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. glabriviride Trofim.
• Hordeum vulgare var. gobicum Vavilov & Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. gracilius Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. griseinigrum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. griseinudum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. gustafssonii Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. gymnanomalun Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. gymnocrithum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. gymnospermum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. hadaka Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. hangaicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. harlani Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. haxtoni Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. heterolepis Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. himalayense (Schult.) Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. hochstetteri Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. horsfordianum Wittm.
• Hordeum vulgare var. hybernum Viborg
• Hordeum vulgare var. hypatherum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. ibericum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. inerme Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. insularum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. janthinun Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. japonicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. kobdicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. koernickei Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. krausianum Wittm.
• Hordeum vulgare var. lamarum A. E. Aberg
• Hordeum vulgare var. latibrevisetum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. latiglumatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. latinudipyramidatum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. latirevelatum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. latispicatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. leioheterolepis Vavilov ex Lukyanova et al.
• Hordeum vulgare var. leiomacrolepis R. E. Regel
• Hordeum vulgare var. leiorrhynchum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. macrolepis (A. Br.) Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. medicum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. melanocrithum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. meneliki Vavilov ex Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. micrurum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. mongolicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. mortoni Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. multispiculum Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nanum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. neogenes Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nigricans (Ser.) Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nigrinudum Vavilov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nigripallidum R. E. Regel
• Hordeum vulgare var. nigriscens Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nigritonsum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nigrum (Willd.) Peterm.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nipponicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nudideficiens Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nudidubium Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nudifurcatum R. E. Regel
• Hordeum vulgare var. nudihaxtoni Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nudijaponicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nudinipponicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nudipyramidatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nuditonsum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nuditransiens Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nudum Spenn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nutans (Schubl.) Alef.
• Hordeum vulgare var. nutans-pallidum Trofim. & Lukyanova
• Hordeum vulgare var. palestinicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. pallidum Ser.
• Hordeum vulgare var. parallelum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. pavonicum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. persicum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. platylepis Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. pseudoabyssinicum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. pseudotrifurcatum Langst.
• Hordeum vulgare var. pyramidatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. rarum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. recens Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. rehmii Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. revelatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. rikotense R. E. Regel
• Hordeum vulgare var. rimpaui Wittm.
• Hordeum vulgare var. rosii Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. schimperianum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. seringei Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. sessilifurcatum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. sikangense Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. sinicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. sinojaponicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. solitarium Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. steudelii Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subaethiops Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subatterbergii Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subcompositum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subcornutum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subdecussatum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subduplialbum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subdupliatrum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. suberectum Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subeurylepis Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subhaxtoni Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subinerme Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. sublatiglumatum Vavilov
• Hordeum vulgare var. sublaxum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subneogenes Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subnudipyramidatum Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. subnudum Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subnutans Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subparallelum Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subpyramidatum Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subviolaceum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. subzeocrithum Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. syriacum (R. E. Regel) Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. tetrastichon Celak.
• Hordeum vulgare var. thomaei Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. tibetanoides Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. tibetanum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. tonsum Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. tortile (Robert) Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. transiens Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. triangulare Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. triceros Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. tridax Korn.
• Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum (Schltdl.) Alef.
• Hordeum vulgare var. uljassutaicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. urgaicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. violaceum Korn., nom. nud.
• Hordeum vulgare var. viridihaxtoni Mansf.
• Hordeum vulgare var. viridis Vavilov & Orlov
• Hordeum vulgare var. zeocrithideficiens Vavilov, nom. inval.
• Hordeum vulgare var. zeocrithon (L.) Alef.

--Succu (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a biologist, so does this mean that all this names are the same var. with different names given by several discovering people, or does this means, that they are all different (sub vars or something like that) ? There is an interesting picture from coeleste from Switzerland on commons File:Hordeum vulgare coeleste.jpg Popolon (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

By Germplasm Resources Information Network (Q2590088), a taxon authority, all these varieties are included in a taxon concept labeled as Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare and thus treated as taxon synonym (P1420) of Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare (Q25121844). I think it is obvious that the original authors of this varieties intended to describe varieties that are different form Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare and are varieties of their own. So the answer to your question depends on someones taxonomic viewpoint. Most of this varieties have (or should have) their own item. This makes it possible to model different taxonomic opinions. --Succu (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Birds lists

Hi Succu,

Would you check my query at c:Commons:WikiProject Birds/lists/missing images at Wikidata? Somehow the number of results increased much in July (from 4000 to 25000 now). Not sure why. In any case, I split it into 5 lists. The idea by Llywelyn2000 was to build a list for bird watchers. I filtered exstinct ones, but maybe more could be done.
--- Jura 12:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jura. I created around 20,000 items for subspecies listed in IOC World Bird List Version 6.3 (Q27042747) and some missing species. So we have now around 30,000 items for birds. --Succu (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)