Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Faendalimas!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

Pamputt (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

heads up?Edit

Hi Faendalimas,

I have been trying to sort out duplicate pages, and there have been quite a few at Wikispecies. When I come across these, I redirect them (at Wikispecies). I have now been addressed at Wikispecies by PeterR, who apparently is making duplicate pages (two pages for one name) deliberately, based on a misunderstanding of the zoological Code (he feels that if a taxon is assigned to a subgenus, this creates a new combination, leaving the binomen invalid).

I see this was pointed out to him earlier but to no effect. I don't care all that much about what happens at Wikispecies, but this may well result in a flood of pages to Wikidata, which are all problems to be dealt with here. - Brya (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Testudo nigraEdit

Hi Scott,

There is some unclarity surrounding Chelonoidis nigra. One of the points raised is the question if Testudo nigra (Q27925070) is a nomen dubium ("More on the status of Testudo nigra Quoy and Gaimard and Testudo nigrita Duméril and Bibron as nomina dubia for Galapagos tortoises (Testudines: Testudinidae)". I don't have access, but I don't see that declaring Testudo nigra a nomen dubium is in any way constructive. I noticed that at Wikispecies you declared this a nomen protectum. - Brya (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

. A secound question: Is the gender adjustment in The gender of the tortoise genus Chelonoidis Fitzinger, 1835 (Testudines: Testudinidae) correct? Regards --Succu (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Brya, Succu: With such a confusing group of animals, that have many synonyms, it has generally been viewed that with turtles etc its best to follow a single nomenclatural review. Most follow the Checklist of the Turtles of the World. The current edition of this has C. nigra as referable to the extinct Charles Island form and nomen protectum. The name Testudo californiana is its senior synonym but is considered nomen oblitum as it has never been used. For this reason nigra is nomen protectum. The next edition of the checklist is in preparation now, Olsen's papers will be assessed in this for their acceptance. Hence at the present time the accepted nomenclature for Galaps is nigra as a nomen protectum and Chelonoidis as feminine. I am in a rush this morning but I can look into this further later today. However, at present I would not be changing it at Wikispecies. Reptile Database also largely follows the checklist for turtle nomenclature. So most used datasets of nomenclature for turtles are essentially identical. I would need to look at the reasoning behind Chelonoidis being masculine, Olsen may be right but this has not been accepted by review as yet. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. This is not so much a matter of taxonomy (Wikidata can accommodate any number of taxonomies), but of nomenclature. The way I read the Code, nomen protectum is a pretty closely defined term (Article 23.9.2 onwards), which requires a formal act by a taxonomist. On the other hand, nomen dubium is included in the Glossary, but I don't seem to be able to find a provision in the Code which deals with nomina dubia. - Brya (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Brya, Succu: I was discussing it from a nomenclatural point of view. Taxonomically I think all galaps are one species and the recent elevation of them to species is oversplitting. However, that is another issue. Nomina dubia are basically names of doubtful application. There will be a reference to the original declatation of a name as nomen dubium, in the case of galaps it would usually be Pritchard (1996) he reestablished nigra as the valid name over elephantopus and declared californiana as nomen oblitum. Therefore nigra is nomen protectum as it is a junior synonym. The 2014 version, the latest, of the IUCN checklist of turtles follows Pritchard largely except it has followed recent authors who have elevated the subspecies to species. Olsen's papers will be currently under review for the next version of the checklist that will come out soon, it is in prep as we speak. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I tend to think of taxonomy as being subjective and nomenclature as being fairly absolute, but this may be less so in zoology. - Brya (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)