Wikidata

User:Succu/Archive/2019

< User:Succu

Amphiura stimpsonii (Q2560825) edit

  • Hello just for info, I have contacted ITIS about this taxon name, they confirm that they did a spelling mistake, the name is indeed Amphiura stimpsonii. Howether they don't plan to fix any mistakes one by one. This taxon name will be fixed in ITIS at the same time that they will check the rest of the Ophiuroidea taxonomic group, thing that should fit in their list of things to do as soon as possible, because this group has not been checked by them for a long time, promised me my interlocutor. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

WoRMS database edit

Hi Succu, I was referred to you by @Tom.Reding:. I have access to a large database of marine taxa, around 587k of them. I got approval for data extract from WoRMS. The data is in a darwin core format. What is the best way to import all of the tax into Wikidata? Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ganeshk! The only tool I use here is my bot. What data do you have in mind? Are they downloadable somewhere? My bot is able to interact with the WoRMS webservice. DwCAs are no problem. --Succu (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Succu, that will be great if you could upload it to Wikidata. I have e-mailed you a link to a copy of the extract. Ganeshk (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Downloaded it. Give me some time to look into the data. --Succu (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like you are the owner of Ganeshbot. At the moment there is a lot of activity around of World Register of Marine Species (Q604063) here and elsewhere … -Succu (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am the owner of Ganeshbot. I don't follow. What was your question? Also, did you make any progress loading WoRMS database into Wikidata? Ganeshk (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The bot (Ganeshbot) is creating articles on English Wikipedia for sea snails based on WoRMS database. That may be the reason you are seeing all the activity. Ganeshk (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Certainly I will not dump in the WoRMS database into WD. It makes no sense to have the WoRMS „alternate representation” of Conus natalaurantius (Q22286286) (as Conus (Darioconus) natalaurantius) here. Adding missing taxa like Darioconus natalaurantius (Q61221824) (the original combination) and linking it via original combination (P1403) is a very useful addition. Databases have a lot of potential pitfalls, so they need to be handled carefully. Are referring Asteromyzostomum and Asteriomyzostomum (Annelida (Q25522)) to the same genus? --Succu (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Cacochalina Schmidt, 1868 is marked as „unrecognizable“ (explained in Descriptive notes). Why should we have this genus here too? --Succu (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to intervene. I must say that WoRMS database is a very useful source, and often contains informations and latest scientific advances that have not yet been passed on in other databases. I often create new items for species, with WORMS as source, today example Ophiomusa facunda (Q61315065) synonym of Ophiomusium facundum (Q2450953), the new name will unlikely be introduced in other (at least in some others) database before several months/years. That is just an example, and a lot of accepted species names are still missing here. Sadly I fix what I can when I upload relative content into Commons, and that I create the corresponding categories + item but I create only a very few small of the missing species name. Such a database will be a good addition (at least for me) here. And it is without talking about the original combinations. Note that a list of unaccepted taxon names can be useful in order to have this "synonym list", but of course they have to be described as such. Excactly as it is done in WORMS. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Christian! I do not deny that WoRMS is a valuable database, but in my opinion the creation of based on any data source should be carefully prepared. In the past there are some attempts to complete the ids used in a data source. As result we have more and more spelling variants. Only a few users are able to fix them. I learned it on the hard way by creating missing scientific names accepted by the International Ornithologists' Union (Q1325616) or creating basionyms derived from Tropicos (Q2578548) that you always run into trouble. I know you are working here to expand an complete taxa within the phylum Echinodermata (Q44631). WoRMS has around 15,000 scientific names that are not present at WD at moment! For Mollusca (Q25326) offers more than 100,000 name we do not have, the count for Arthropoda (Q1360) is greater than 65,000, the count for Foraminifera (Q107027) is around 55,000 and so on. There was never a need to be in a hurry here. Unfortunately some part of the WD users prefer quantity and not quality. Regards --Succu (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If you filter the taxon list for the status = accepted, you should be in the clear. Ganeshk (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Though it's true that spelling variants and mispellings are problematic, furthermore not only problematic here but in the entire WEB, because some online database are sometimes copying the content from one to another, and when a mispelling is introduced, then it is copied and so on... and then, it is hard to go back... In a general way the multiplication of the contents and the media proposing these contents multiplies the opportunities of creations of errors, and of dissiminations of its errors, therefore I can easily understand Succu not to want import all that exist here. And me the first I am frustrated when I find a taxon that is mispelled and however used in many places (source in support!!). That said to filter status = accepted should be ok, I agree. And if possible follow also "Orig. name" of the taxa that are accepted, in order to import the original original combinations when they are quoted. @Succu: Note that, in the future, if you want to create a supbage of spelling variants, for the taxa that have entries in WORMS, I can help to fix them. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Christian, I started with the creation of missing accepted taxa belonging to Echinodermata (Q44631). --Succu (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes I noticed, thanks you. I also noticed that, here don't use the same form as in WoRMS, I thought first to an error and I modified Leptasterias (Q61467611), and then I understood that 1/it was not a mistake from you or from your bot and 2/I edited the wrong item... I created an item Leptasterias (Hexasterias) coei (Q61469566) and I listed Leptasterias (Hexasterias) coei (Q2057603) as a synonym, do you agree with that way? or do you want we integrate the subgenus between the existing species item here and the genus? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
We do not use the form AAA (BBB) ccc and AAA (BBB) for taxon name (P225) to indicate the placement in a subgenus. We simply add a second parent taxon (P171) statement with a reference. --Succu (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean that Ophiothrix (Acanthophiothrix) armata (Q2737101) should have two parent taxons? the subgenus Acanthophiothrix (Q61467832) and the genus Ophiothrix (Q3545503)? is it not more logic to replace the genus by the subgenus? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If the species was always treated as belonging to the subgenus then replace the parent taxon. If not keep both or add a new one. --Succu (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks you again, I will look to all the subgenus, along this week, or in the next. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know: the given taxonomic status in the WoRMS-DwCA of Ganeshk by count is:

  • accepted: 287176
  • unaccepted: 224525
  • alternate representation: 20092
  • nomen dubium: 2872
  • taxon inquirendum: 4960
  • temporary name: 710
  • uncertain: 46955
  • nomen nudum: 407
  • interim unpublished: 16

--Succu (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Next steps edit

Can you import the 287k accepted taxons? Ganeshk (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Note that in the accepted taxons are included :
The Incertae sedis ranks. That's remind me this deletion request made by me for an item created by me, this was about this WORMS rank but I discovered later that, here in Wikidata, we use a qualifier to the parent taxon, to retrieve this info. But I think that the "incertea sedis" ranks are really a minority in the count. However I don't know how we are ready to manage this here (especially in the extend that WoRMS is one of the only database to retrieve this specific taxon tree).
And a lot of subgenus, example : Ophiura caledonica (Q2698775), though it have the full name here (in the label), it's parent taxon here is directly the genus, and its taxon name don't include the subgenus, while in WoRMS the subgenus has its own item, on that last point point, I think WORMS database could be a good addition. Note that in WoRMS, the taxon name without the subgenus is very often called "alternate representation", and in a few case it's the opposite. And in case of alternate representations, there is an item for each representation.
A signifiant number of species that we don't have = a good addition.
Another good point for Worms is that it is very widely maintained in real time, whether from the point of view of the last scientific works, or for the correction of small errors in dates or quotations of authors, example I asked two days ago that they add the forgotten brackets to the author citation there, and it is now done, as usual. The other databases online don't even answer, or refuses to correct errors individually but only when they update their database (every ten years for some?!?). Another good point is that the contributors of WoRMS are the scientists specializing in the species they talk about, such as Christopher Mah, Sabine Stöhr, and many others. I consult Worms almost every day, and I will be very happy that we import the database here. If there is some manual work to do in the case of an import (total or partial), in the extend that one tell me what exactly to do, I can help. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm still evaluating the data. Assuming the AphiaId is matched to he correct scientific name we have around 80% of the accepted names here. In detail:

  • accepted: 227739
  • unaccepted: 30527
  • alternate representation: 2627
  • taxon inquirendum: 1629
  • nomen dubium: 938
  • temporary name: 58
  • nomen nudum: 52
  • uncertain: 447
  • interim unpublished: 3

--Succu (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@User:Ganeshk: Is your DwCA limited to extant taxa? --Succu (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it will have extinct taxa too. Ganeshk (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
No records with isExtinct=1 are included. --Succu (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
That is strange since the web services do return extinct species. Ganeshk (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but whoever build this DwCA (you?) made this restriction explicitly or implicitly. --Succu (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
They must have built it that way. Ganeshk (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Problems edit

Looks like my bot is creating a lot of accepted subspecies form WoRMS in the form AAA bbb bbb while no subspecies AAA bbb ccc exist. --Succu (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an example? Ganeshk (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
A lot, but this is part of a broader problem. --Succu (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
See Eteone longa (Fabricius, 1780), that is an error. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thx, Eteone longa (Q1906450) was my guess too. Should be deleted at WoRMS. --Succu (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I sent a message, I should have an answer in a few days. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thx. --Succu (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done deleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Vexillum aethiopicum (Q7923900) is a synonym of Vexillum aethiopicum (Q61637284), I fixed the Wikidata side. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The gender of Vexillum is neuter. Hence Vexillum aethiopica is simply a misspelling. --Succu (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess that Monochoerus boehmigi Brauner, 1920 was indeed the original spelling, and therefore that Convoluta bohmigi Brauner, 1920; is the accepted form. But I was not able 1/to read this publication, and 2/to find the publication of Convoluta böhmigi (Brauner, 1920) Westblad, 1948. I keep this under my elbow. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC) I will ask if my interlocutor in WORMS is able to light us. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
My interlocutor will ask to the former editors of these taxa in WoRMS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done the accepted name is Convoluta boehmigi (Brauner, 1920), fixed on WoRMS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
This is already on my TODO list, but it will take some time. --Succu (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

February and March copy edit

Hi Succu, I just sent you the 2019-02-01 version of the WoRMS database. Ganeshk (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And thank you for taking up this project!! You are awesome, it will save a bunch of time for many folks on Wikiverse. Ganeshk (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I downloaded the current version. Again no records with isExtinct=1 are included. --Succu (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I checked with WoRMS, they confirmed that the offline copy only contains marine, extant taxa. Ganeshk (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Succu, I just upload the March copy of the database. I will upload the April one in a couple of weeks. Ganeshk (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

kaliforniai királysikló = Lampropeltis getula californiae edit

Hi,

The kaliforniai királysikló = Lampropeltis getula californiae is a subspecies of the királysikló = Lampropeltis getula species, so first the Lampropeltis getula californiae belongs to Lampropeltis getula, and Lampropeltis getula belongs to Lampropeltis genus. Not Lampropeltis getula californiae belongs directly to Lampropeltis genus; also it is part of it. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

California kingsnake (Q3216841) is the item for the species and Lampropeltis getula californiae (Q2383526) the item for the subspecies. --Succu (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. DenesFeri (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Brahmaea Hearseyi edit

Hi, Why do you think the 2 items are different at [1]?--Strainu (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Brahmidia hearseyi (Q4955530) and Brahmaea hearseyi (Q34061314) are different concepts based on the same type (Q3707858). --Succu (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Q146 edit

Because you have reverted my edits, please also resolve warnings related to P1843 (An entity with taxon common name should also have a statement taxon name.) and a few other properties. --jdx Re: 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Succu (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
So what about links to articles on wikipedias which describe house cats by their scientific name Felis catus (or synonym Felis silvestris catus)? --jdx Re: 21:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you think all that references are related to a special taxon name (P225)? --Succu (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, at least some of them refer to breeds which belong to Felis catus. On the other hand, Nyan Cat isn't a cat at all. --jdx Re: 10:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Species items edit

Dear Succu, you reverted some of my changes. I would like to understand how can add the information that you reverted. I may have done it with the wrong formatting (quite possible), but could you reinstate this change please (in the correct format!). Is also possible to explain what does mean "Is country of origin (P495) appropriate on taxa?", because I create a new statement for this property, am I wrong? or "Is instance of (P31) → plant (Q756) appropriate on taxa?" is also wrong? in which way? Many thanks!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanessalozano (talk • contribs).

Please have a look at Wikidata:Project_chat#Species_items. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Difference between revisions of "Alternanthera philoxeroides edit

Vanessalozano (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Hi Succu, can you kindly tell me in which property can I add the category "Invasive species", may be as "significant event", could be? Because I've tried to add this category but each time the edition is reverted. Thanks.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanessalozano (talk • contribs).

We have invasive to (P5588) for this purpose. --Succu (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Large search for genus & species missing descriptions edit

I've used the WD Query Service with no problems to find class, order, and family items missing a description, when there were ≲ 5000 results. I tried simply counting the # of genera missing a description but run into either a server error or a timeout... How could I go about getting the full list of genera and species missing descriptions, or could you do it? —Tom.Reding (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someone active at Wikidata:Request a query can help. --Succu (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Petrophyton (alga) (Q16889694) edit

Petrophyton (alga) (Q16889694) is Petrophyton Yabe. The GRIN link just readded by your bot is for Petrophyton Rydb. Plantdrew (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

To avoid this set the property value to novalue. --Succu (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Is that fix specifically for GRIN (or other URLs)? I tried to add "no value" for ITIS TSN (P815) but I wasn't doing it right (the item previously had an ITIS TSN for the other Petrophyton). Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
You have to use the icon   (see Help:Statements#Unknown or no values). --Succu (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Aha! Thank you. Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thelxiope Simonetta & Delle Cave, 1975 (Q3990196) edit

Thelxiope Simonetta & Delle Cave, 1975 (Q3990196) has IDs corresponding to a beetle-Thomson, 1864, a crab-Rafinesque, 1814, and a Cambrian arthropod-Simonetta & Delle Cave, 1975.

What's my best approach when I find a item that needs to be split?

1. Leave on note on your page (as I'm doing now)?

2. Make a purposefully incomplete new item, knowing that they will flag errors that you will catch (e.g. an instance of taxon that missing parent and rank statements), and you will add more identifiers when you complete it?

3. Do my best to make a complete item with no errors, knowing that I will likely miss potential identifiers that should be added, and lack of outright errors may mean you don't notice it for some time?

Plantdrew (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The best approach is #3 of course. If you run into trouble simply ask here. --Succu (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What's up? edit

How does the page displayed or functioned incorrectly?--GZWDer (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

?! --Succu (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

topic's main categories edit

Hello, how to deal with such cases : Phyllacanthus (Q17484429) and Phyllacanthus (Q9059180) grouped in Q18226967? Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I created Category:Phyllacanthus (Q61740840) and moved some sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Esquirol de Colòmbia edit

Please do not link the Catalan Wikipedia article "Esquirol de Colòmbia" to Q1769574 (Sciurus pucheranii). The Catalan Wikipedia classifies it in the genus Notosciurus per Mammals of South America, Volume 2: Rodents, and it should therefore be linked to Q61053296 (Notosciurus pucheranii). Thank you.--Leptictidium (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The same principle applies to "Esquirol vermell tropical". Thanks.--Leptictidium (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to be have an isolated sitelink, I do not care. Notosciurus pucheranii (Q61053296) lacks any references. Maybe you should contribute some via Mammals of South America, Volume 2? --Succu (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I added some.--Leptictidium (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I created Mammals of South America (Q61781432). For statements like this one a page reference would be welcomed. --Succu (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Your edits at enWP are POV and are hardly related to caWP. --Succu (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The edits on enWP are based on the same reference provided above. Please check the article history next time before throwing around gratuitous POV accusations. Furthermore, as well as the Catalan-language Wikipedia, I am an editor on the English-language version and have the same right as anyone else to update articles based on the latest taxonomical findings. If you disagree with these changes, you are more than welcome to discuss them on the corresponding English Wikipedia talk page based on your own references. Finally, I've added the page reference you requested to Q61053296. Schönen Freitag.--Leptictidium (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this a taxonomic decission within the wikipedia language version that do not have an effect in interwiki? There are a lot of interwikis connected with synonyms because the species is the same - this also is true for Sciurus pucheranii vs. Notosciurus pucheranii. In Handbook of the Mammals of the World. 6. Lagomorphs and Rodents I (Q27044125) and Squirrels of the World (Q19597701) the Andean Squirrel (Andean squirrel (Q1769574)) is part of Sciurus, in Mammals of South America (Q61781432) (p. 40 ff.) it is part of Notosciurus. All articles describe the same animals but differ in scientific taxonomy so the interwiki should be there without POV linking all articles describing the animals. For the German Wikipedia I decided to follow Handbook of the Mammals of the World. 6. Lagomorphs and Rodents I (Q27044125) for some good reasons. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Achim Raschka. Correct me if I am wrong, but while the German-language Wikipedia still fills its taxoboxes manually and, therefore, this does not affect the content of your articles, the Catalan-language one and (I believe) other versions have been sourcing their taxonomic data from WikiData for a couple of years. Hence the need to have the articles listed under the right scientific name in accordance with the taxonomic sources chosen. The optimal solution would be for WikiData to develop some way of merging the interwiki links of such articles without merging their taxonomies. Something similar is also needed for those cases of monotypic genera for which some Wikipedias base the articles on the genus and others on the species. Cheers.--Leptictidium (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the implementation at your wiki is a little bit naiv if you need a 1:1 correspondence. --Succu (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

P225 taxon name edit

Hallo Succu, du hast meine Änderung zurückgesetzt. Ich fand das mit "wissenschaftlicher Name eines Lebewesens" verwirrend, das wäre ja z.B. "homo sapiens" für den Menschen. Hier geht es aber wohl um verschiedene Stufen, z.B. um "mammalia" für Säugetiere. Mammalia ist aber nicht der wissenschaftliche Name eines Lebewesens. Wäre da nicht "wissenschaftlicher Name eines Taxons" (so haben es die anderen Sprachen auch) angebrachter? Grüße --Bjs (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wie wär's mit [2]? --Succu (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 IRMNG release now available as data dump edit

Hi Succu, just letting you know that there is a new release of IRMNG (genera) now available as detailed at http://www.irmng.org/download.php (the actual data files are at http://www.irmng.org/export/) - I was not sure if you use these static "snapshots" or crawl the master version via the web (I suspect the latter, since you are getting IRMNG species as well as genus names, and species names are not included in the download). I just thought I would let you know since I am also sending out a notification to other interested parties at the same time. Best regards - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony! Thanks for your notification. I downloaded the DwCA yesterday. In fact I use both methods. Regards --Succu (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. If you would like to privately advise an email contact for yourself (you can contact me at Tony.Rees [at] marinespecies.org), I/we can add you to the list of persons we regularly advise of new IRMNG releases, if you wish (using this talk page is a bit non standard for the VLIZ folk who will ultimately take over the database curation one day...) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

P2580 (P2580) edit

Hi. It's not so simple. It needs to delete ALL changes maked today, I think Arachn0 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

?! --Succu (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Im Projekt der Wikimedia Foundation namens Wikidata wird seit 2019-03-16 auf Grundlage von BBLD IDs auf eine Piratenseite aus den USA (web.archive.org) verlinkt. Quelle: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property:P2580&diff=885049590&oldid=885049287[3] Arachn0 (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Wieso sollte das mein Problem sein? --Succu (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Es soll kein Ihr Problem sein. Ich bat einfach, zu helfen Arachn0 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge? edit

I merged them and deprecated some of the external ids. --Succu (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Q1407835 v. Q25360697 edit

Hi! I noticed you undid my reverts of a wrong merge that occurred some time ago. Ferreola Q1407835 refers to a genus of insects, whilst Ferreola Q25360697 was referring to a genus of plants. Because of the (incorrect) merge, Ferreola ebenus Q17240980 (a species of plant, synonym to the now-accepted naming Diospyros ferrea Q15245351) has as its superior taxon the genus of insects. I would appreciate it if you corrected the errors. Thanks! KlaudiuMihaila (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No, Q25360697 was created for the genus of insects. I created Ferreola (Q63144899) for the plant genus and corrected this bot edit. --Succu (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Nazi-Deutschland edit

Hi, kannst du mir diese Änderungen bitte mal erklären? Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Wer bitte sagt NS-Deutschland? Sieht verharmlosend aus. Gruß --Succu (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Nazi-Deutschland ist eindeutig wertend und nicht basierend auf wissenschaftlilcher Literatur. Wo "NS-Deutschland" verharmlosend aussieht, weiß ich echt nicht. Hier geht nur eines: die korrekte amtlich-staatliche Bezeichnung dieser Zeit. Alles andere ist wertend beziehungsweise theoriefinderisch. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Offensichtlich nicht in meinem Sprachbewusstsein angekommen. Hab's auf NS-Staat zurückgesetzt. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Property? edit

how is it appropriate to use as a direct property? The taxon (which is what the item is about) has no author citation, only the name does. If every other name-related property must be as a subproperty only, there is no excuse for treating taxon author citation (P6507) other than the fact it came along much later than the other properties and no one thought to add it to the constraint when it was created. Circeus (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is your personal interpretation. At the moment we have 6700 usages as a property, but only 7 as a qualifier. BTW do have taxa external identifiers? --Succu (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, there's a lot to unpack here for such a short answer...
Appeal to tradition is not an argument, even less so when the "tradition" starts the way it did here (people trying to not run afoul of a constraint that got forgotten when the property was created). Don't even get me started on "that's your opinion".
Please don't sidetrack us from the actual point: that taxon author citation (P6507) should be an allowed subproperty of taxon name (P225).
While I obviously believe the converse, you will note I did not make the matching change on taxon author citation (P6507) to that effect. As such, the issue of however many items are tagged one way or the other is entirely moot.
That's not covering how EASILY these items can be adjusted via a bot.
I can't even tell how the identifiers are relevant at all to this discussion.
Circeus (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but why should taxon author citation (P6507) be modeled as a subproperty of (P1647) of taxon name (P225)?
I fixed the seven constraint violations fitting into our (not perfect) model.
--Succu (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Index to Organism Names (ION) edit

I give you this link in case that you are interested, an example : Leucothoe amamiensis (Q21276570) → 4538424 Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

reversions on Q31874473 edit

Hi, I would like to understand the reasons of the reversion of my editions on Q31874473 Thanks --Hector Bottai (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The ids belong to Pachyramphus viridis griseigularis (Q27619406). I guess most of this constraint violations are caused by your additions. Please check taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It happens that this taxon and ALL the others considered Constraint violations are treated as subespecies by some classifications and as Full species by others. So they are synonyms, and, under my point of view it is correct to link ALL the different references under only one wikidata item, instead of two.--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that would lead to pure chaos. Where should the external ids of Myrmoderus squamosus (Q28864199) and Squamate Antbird (Q559139) (and references) placed? --Succu (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Same scientific text edit

Hello, if you have time could you help here pease? I think On some Remarkable Forms of Animal Life from the Great Deep off the Norwegian Coasts.—I. Partly from the Posthumous Manuscripts of the late Prof. Dr. Michael Sars. By George Ossian Sars. Christiania, 1872. 4to, pp. 82, with six copper plates (Q56107745) talk about the same thing than On some Remarkable Forms of Animal Life from the Great Deep off the Norwegian Coasts.—I. Partly from the Posthumous Manuscripts of the late Prof. Dr. Michael Sars. By George Ossian Sars. Christiania, 1872. 4to, pp. 82, with six copper plates (Q51389208). I was going to merge them, but they seems two different publications of the same thing.. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I think the relationship could be modeled that way. Not perfect. Something like review of / reviewed in would be much better. --Succu (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Christian Ferrer/Wrong taxon author citations edit

Hello, have you an idea where to find trustable sources to import/verify the values for author citation (zoology) (P835)?

Hey! I doubt there is one. Some examples from ZooBank (Q8074026): Acantholyda Costa, 1894, Arcanelater Costa, 1975 and Atlantirivulus Costa, 2008. --Succu (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks you, I see. I guess this is a bit arbitrary, not really consistent, and finally not too much important in the extand that there are no precise rules written in marble. Another example is Sidney Irving Smith (Q3483326) sometimes quoted "S. I. Smith" but almost of time simply "Smith" in our external sources. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Constraint on P5326 (P5326) edit

I removed the conflicts-with constraint because if a name is a new botanical contamination, that name itself is established in a publication from which it has priority, and that priority is separate from the basionym. this constraint would violate the definition of the basionym/combination distinction! As far as I'm aware, a new combination in zoology has no priority of its own, but the same as its original combination, so it's plainly appropriate to list the original combination's publication place (I've done so many times, usually with object named as (P1932) to indicate the original combination). Circeus (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Please discuss this at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

taxon / species edit

Hi Succu, I may be wrong here, but it reads clearly in the description that this is a species, not a taxon. I would say it is the most detailed description of this animal 'family'. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

We use taxon rank (P105) to denote this taxon (name) has the rank of a species (Q7432). --Succu (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange edits on Newton edit

Hi,

Could you explain your recent edits on Isaac Newton (Q935), all of them seems wrong and unjustified.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Q935. --Succu (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

two reasons why I specified Q5 as subclass of Primata edit

an ad-hoc one and a more generally useful one:

  1. It didn't seem right that "humans" gave an error as the value for 'target audience' due to not being a subclass of any of various entities including animals.
  2. I thought it would be good to make explicit that humans are a type of primate, and thus anthropology is in some ways a discipline of primatology.

Arlo Barnes (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This is modeled at Homo sapiens (Q15978631), but try your luck at Talk:Q5. --Succu (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Erstbeschreibungen edit

Hi Succu,
ich nutze dich mal wieder als Feedback bevor ich was falsch mache. Folegendes: Ich targe ja seit einiger Zeit händisch Erstautoren + Beschreibungsjahre bei zoologischen Taxa ein und versuche auch, etliche davon mit der jeweiligen Erstbeschreibung zu belege (Beispiel Eoglaucomys (Q18324996)) - bisher hatte ich mir dann im Umkehrschluss geholfen, die jeweiligen Taxa als Schlagwörter bei den wissenschaftlichen Artikeln einzutragen, was ich jedoch unbefriedigend / zu unkonkret finde. Ich habe nun heute mal beispielhaft den Weg über subject has role (P2868) genommen (abgeguckt von den Erstkombinationen) und definiere nun den wissenschaftlichen Artikel als first valid description (Q1361864) of (P642) dem jeweiligen Taxa - beispielhaft bei Description of a new genus and seven new races of flying squirrels (Q66444776). Ich habe keine Ahnung, ob das so passt oder ob es bessere Lösungen gibt, was meisnt du? Und direkt daran anschliessend: Wie würde das dann bei Werken aussehen, die sehr viele Taxa beschreiben, etwa die Systema Naturae. 10th edition, Volume 1 (Q21608408) - any comments, ideas? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Achim! Bitte in diesem Zusammenhang nur noch reference has role (P6184) benutzen (Beispiel). Ich denke nicht das derartige Auflistungen notwendig sind, da sie aus den bestehenden Daten abgeleitet werden können. Für Species Plantarum. 1st Edition (Q21856050) z.B. mit dieser Abfrage. Tatsächlich ist es ja so, dass nicht Description of a new genus and seven new races of flying squirrels (Q66444776) als first valid description (Q1361864) fungiert (=subject has role (P2868)) sondern nur ein Teil davon (mit Verweis auf page(s) (P304). main subject (P921) ist nicht dazu gedacht alle in Systema Naturae. 10th edition, Volume 1 (Q21608408) zu listen. --Succu (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Moin - ich sehe, ich mache mal wieder alles falsch, aber so ist das wohl in Projekten, in denen man nur sporadisch mitarbeitet und vor allem die Metadiskussionen nicht verfolgt. Die SPARQL-Abfragen und damit die theoretische Möglichkeit, alles zu extrahieren, finde ich immer extrem umständlich (zumal ich das Tool nur rudimentär bedienen kann).
Zu: reference has role (P6184) - da habe ich dann etliche Fehler hinterlassen; hast du eine Abfrage für eine Korrekturliste für instance of (P31) in reference has role (P6184)
Und wo wir dabei sind: Hast du eine Abfrage für alle Taxa innerhalb eines Taxons (bsp. squirrel (Q9482)), bei denen Erstbeschreibungen als first valid description (Q1361864) angegeben sind bzw. fehlen? Optimal fände ich eine Listerialiste mit Angabe des Taxons, des Beschreibers, des Jahres und des enntsprechend als Erstbeschreibung angegebenen Nachweises, die mir die positiven Taxa listet, die Negativliste würde als Abfrage reichen.
Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Sehe ich nicht so. Die Änderung ist vmtl. nirgendwo dokumentiert. Was dann sicher auch meine Schuld ist.
Die Gesamtliste hat etwa 60 Einträge, darunter etwa 20 Hörnchen.
Diese Hörnchen haben via reference has role (P6184) eine first valid description (Q1361864). Diese hier nicht.
Mit Listeria kenn ich mich nicht aus. Ich hoffe die Abfragen helfen weiter. Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Danke - die Arbeitsliste ist mit Ausnahme von Lophanthera lactescens (Q3259298) abgearbeitet; ich gehe davon aus, dass alle anderen Einträge von mir stammten. Die Abfrage ist sehr hilfreich, danke. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Den verbliebenen habe ich angepasst. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nochmal hierzu: Ich bin nun bei Wikispecies auf die reference pages gestossen - im Prinzip Seiten zu Reference-Templates, bei denen aber auch die neu eingeführten Taxa gelistet werden: Bsp. Kennicott 1860. Im Prinzip würde mir sowas vorschweben. ohne dafür komplexe Anfragen zu bauen. Könnte es Sinn machen, für diese reference-pages ein eigenes ID-Item für die Three New Species of Murinafrom Southern China (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) (Q67206039) anzulegen? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ich musste ein wenig suchen... Der Vorschlag für eine Eigenschaft Wikispecies template for this work ist leider gescheitert. Ich vermute mal dir geht es um eine einfache, übersichtliche Darstellung auf der Seite des wiss. Artikel. Vmtl. könnte man das recht leicht mit einer LUA basierten Infobox erreichen. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Diplura edit

Sorry, dass ich immer dich nerve, aber hier findet sich meist die schnellste Lösung.
Diesmal habe ich etwas vollkommen anderes: Ich habe gestern in der WP einen Artikel über eine Art der Diplura geschrieben und bin dann hier über Diplura (Q221563) und Diplura (Q36308478) gestolpert - imho beschreiben beide das gleiche Taxon "Diplura", könnten also zusammengeführt werden - da beide allerdings ein Set an IDs, Interwiki u.a. mitschleppen und wahrscheinlich bei beiden jeweils ein separater Baum von Taxa angehängt ist, bin ich lieber vorsichtig. Was meinst du dazu? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Nach der DDoS-Attacke der zweite Versuch: Meiner Meinung nach sollten die Sitelinks der Klasse Diplura (Q36308478) zur Ordnung Diplura (Q221563) verschoben. Das letztere taxonomische Konzept scheint verbreiteter zu sein. Die Konsenstaxonomie in A higher level classification of all living organisms (Q19858624) (siehe User:Succu/Catalogue of Life/Full) akzeptiert die Klasse und eine nichtbenannte Ordnung. Das Verschieben der Sitelinks ist in der Vergangenheit allerdings schon mehrfach rückgängig gemacht worden. Gruß --Succu (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Du meinst also, sie sollten nicht zusammengelegt werden? Taxonomisch sind doch beide dasselbe, ohne Synonyme zu sein, sondern einfach zwei items zum gleichen Taxon. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ergänzend: Das Problem zieht sich darunter ja weiter: Japygoidea (Q10539671) und der darunter hängende Ast mit Japygidae (Q2628932) und weiteren ist jetzt nur Diplura (Q221563) untergeordnet, unter Diplura (Q36308478) gibt es dagegen gar nichts. Der deutsche Interwiki hängt damit also im leeren bei Wikidata. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ich glaube, ich habe das Hintergrundproblem in´dentifiziert: Redaktion Biologie. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry ich habe dein Zusammenlegen wieder rückgängig gemacht und den de-Sitelink nach deiner Anpassung verschoben. Für Rhabdura und Dicellurata hatten wir bisher Datenobjekte mit dem Rang Ordnung. Ich habe daher Rhabdura (Q67203634) und Dicellurata (Q67203648) mit dem Rang Unterordnung angelegt und die Sitelinks verschoben. Anschließend habe ich die drei Überfamilien umgehängt. Der WD-Baum sollte damit in sich konsistent sein. --Succu (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
O.k. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Q3763279 edit

Hello Succu,
I seen you deleted my modification on the Sattar Snowtrout (Q3763279) article and... you are totally right! Thank you so much. In fact I have no idea about "my" modification, maybe it was a wrong manipulation. I never want to delete all this data. Have you an idea about the reason of that just for my own understanding and to never do this kind of error. I am really sorry. By the way you can have a look of my modifications, the most important I do is to delete an [author (chain)] to replace by an... [author] with the correct link. One more time thank you so much. Givet (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC) (french contributor)

No problem at all. If you have questions you can ask them at Wikidata:Project chat. Regards --Succu (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey edit

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Succu/Archive/2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested source for my change which you reverted edit

Hi, as requested I provided a source, please can you reply and indicate if this is satisfactory? Your prompt feedback would be greatly appreciated. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's up to you to provide a notable reference. --Succu (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Done ... and waiting for your prompt response again if you could be so kind ... Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Ist wohl wieder Saison für dich. --Succu (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions, singular and plural in German edit

Hi. About Wikidata naming conventions. Q47253 has the English label worm. I would suggest to use the German label "Wurm" (singular) instead of "Würmer" (plural) to match the English naming scheme. Same for "Gnu" instead of "Gnus" (Q7609), "Hai" instead of "Haie" (Q7372).  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWdata (talk • contribs).

Ein Anfang wäre es Help:Label und Help:Description zu lesen. --Succu (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I have. In fact, the German version of the guideline recommends using the lemma for labels, that would be singular. I think this is the clearest approach, because it emulates the English naming scheme. --JWdata 12:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Das Datenobjekt bird (Q5113) beschreibt nicht die Eigenschaften eines Vogels (Singular) sondern das Taxon mit dem deutschen Trivialnamen Vögel (Plural). Die Änderung sind daher m.E. mindestens missverständlich. --Succu (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
(Responding in English, because it might be of interest to foreign contributors.) Thanks for pointing it out. I found the corresponding rule in Wikipedia's naming conventions for Biology ([use singular, except for taxa]). So plural is in compliance with Wikipedia's rule, despite the deviation from English nomenclature. --JWdata (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi (again). You reversed my edit on "house cat" -> "cat" (Q146). I would argue that the most common designation for "house cat" is in fact just "cat". If somebody is talking about a cat, chances are very high he's talking about house cats. This would be in compliance with the official Wikidata label guidelines. Thanks.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWdata (talk • contribs).

Das Label sollte so genau wie möglich sein um falsche Verwendeungen möglichst auszuschließen. Katze hat durchaus mehrere Bedeutungem. --Succu (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This issue shines light on the lack of annotation options of Wikidata labels (e.g. trivial name, common name, scientific name). Following the "Reflect common usage" rule (Help:Label), you could argue for both "house cat" and "cat", depending on context. "Cat" is the most commonly used word for house cats, but as you rightly stated, can be ambiguous in certain situations. --JWdata (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't been aware of it before, but I'm utterly appalled by the guidance given at Help:Label#Reflect common usage, which says that "labels should use a species' common name"...and..."if a species does not have a common name, the scientific name can be used as the label". I come from an en.wiki context where (IMO) "common names" are already inappropriately used as article titles in many cases. However, at least the concept that some "common names" might not be the names MOST COMMONLY USED isn't explicitly repudiated by en.wiki's en:Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Wikidata is suggesting that scientific names should be used only in labels when no common name exists??? Never mind that many supposed common names are invented by scientists who use scientific names themselves? Help:Label#Reflect common usage doesn't reflect how Wikidata usually deals with terms for groups of organisms. common name (Q502895) exists, but isn't very widely used, and there are many Wikipedia articles in various languages that could be associated with common name (Q502895). Plantdrew (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
We have taxon common name (P1843) for taxa. Personally I would prefer the usage of taxon name (P225) as a label. This would avoid some possible confusions here. --Succu (talk)

Pepper mild tigre virus (Q7166388) and Solanum apical leaf curling virus (Q3560909) edit

Neither of these viruses are listed as accepted taxa at ICTV. They are member viruses or srains, unless you provide a source that they are described since the 2018b taxonomy release. NessieVL (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing a mandatory property isn't the solution. Virus txonomy is different from taxonomy in zoology and botany. Taxa can be renamed or deleted. We need a way to model this. --Succu (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@NessieVL: I enhanced ICTV Master Species List (Q45362532) a little bit. So let's find out how to make use of it. --Succu (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I used replaced by (P1366) to include the renaming of Orthoebolavirus zairense (Q10538943) (in part) → Ebola virus Zaire (Q69997225) → Zaire Ebola virus (Q69997384) → Zaire ebolavirus (Q8064876). Maybe there is a better solution? --Succu (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

New page for catalogues edit

Hi, I created a new page for collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to use, expand. Best, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not use Mix'n'match. --Succu (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

ZooKeys edit

Hello, it would be great if you can comment in species:User talk:Neferkheperre#Categories for Zookeys in order to say if the fact to create here manually entries for the recent ZooKeys articles that still don't have entries here will affect or not the smooth running of your BOT. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Turdoides nipalensis - Q2672958 edit

Hi, I see you canceled that change. Are you sure? In the page there is the reference to Turdoides nipalensis, it is misleading because in reality the page mentions Acanthoptila nipalensis which is a synonym, as well as Acanthoptila nipalensis.
p.s. sorry but my english is not good.
Best regards.---Balara86 (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The id belongs to Acanthoptila nipalensis (Q28922059). BirdLife International (Q210108) treats Turdoides niaplensis as a synonmy of Acanthoptila nipalensis. But there are different views. --Succu (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate IUCN Red List common names edit

Hi Succu(Bot):

Could you please remove the duplicate common names that you've added in 2016?

For examples and details, see https://github.com/globalbioticinteractions/globalbioticinteractions/issues/434 or the copied text and related images below.

GloBI sources common names from wikidata and shows the names in the https://globalbioticinteractions.org search pages.

For example, when querying interactions related to Myodes rutilus https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org/?interactionType=interactsWith&sourceTaxon=Myodes%20rutilus , the string Northern Red-backed Vole, Red Vole, RED VOLE (Myodes rutilus) is displayed (see attached screenshot).

On closer inspection, the wikipedia entry for Myodes rutilus https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q608821 contains duplicate entries "Red Vole" and "RED VOLE" (see screenshot) that are supported by the IUCN Red List on 21 October 2016 .

It appears that some bot has inserted duplicate entries for the common names. Some spot checks support that these duplicates are wide spread.

From the history page at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q608821&action=history , it shows that the bot "SuccuBot" (also see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:SuccuBot) was responsible for adding these duplicate entries. It also appears that the same behavior was present for different languages (e.g., CAMPAGNOL BORÉAL and Campagnol Boréal).

I'll attempt to contact the robot to remove the duplicates.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhpoelen (talk • contribs).

The IUCN Red List entry for Myodes rutilus (see Taxonomy in detail) lists all those spelling variants. --Succu (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I've contacted the IUCN Red List folks and hope they'll remove the duplicates. Jhpoelen (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Handelsbezeichnung edit

Hallo Succu,

ich beschäftige mich gerade mit Verzeichnissen und in diesem Zusammenhang habe ich gesehen, dass es in Deutschland umfangreiche Verzeichnisse mit Handelsbezeichnungen gibt. Hier wird festgelegt unter welcher Bezeichnung eine mit dem wissenschaftlichen Namen zugeordnete Art im Handel verkauft wird. Denkst du es ist möglich diese Zuordnung in Wikidata über eine entsprechende Eingeschaft abzubilden. Meiner Meinung nach ist diese Zuordnung interessant. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Das ist leider so gar nicht meine Baustelle. Allerdings sorgen verschiendene Bezeichnungen für Sorten häufig für Unklarheiten. Häufig geht aus den Artikeln nicht hervor, ob es sich um ein Cultivar, eine Sorte oder eine Handelsbezeichnung handelt. Gruß --Succu (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:Succu/Archive/2019&oldid=1245261237"