On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/06.



Welcome to Wikidata, FelixReimann!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

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.

Regards, --Emijrp (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

--Emijrp (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply



Hello, FelixReimann! I am just letting you know that I have added the autopatroller flag to your account, as you are a trusted user on Wikidata. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me or leave a message at the Project chat. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 07:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re: SamoaBot Edits

Hello, FelixReimann. You have new messages at Ricordisamoa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 07:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Taxon ranks


→ moved to Wikidata talk:Taxonomy task force#Taxon ranks



El día 21 de mayo borraste injustificadamente el título y la descripción del item, según puede verse en el historial: [1]. Si no estás de acuerdo con la edición existente, entonces estás invitado a mejorarlo, pero borrarlo sin motivo es considerado un vandalismo, como en todas las wikis. --LadyInGrey (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I moved the interwiki links of the Spanish article to Q30223 as the Spanish article focuses on the tribe Vulpini (a feasible taxon) and not on the general term "fox" (not a taxon). As the labels were created on the basis of an article no longer link from this item, I thought (and still think), that the Spanish description was then wrong in the sense of not fitting to the item. As I do not speak Spanish, I chose to remove wrong content instead of leaving it to the confusion of future readers. I still think this is a feasible approach. As you speak Spanish, please correct the label of Q8331 in such a way that it is clear that the item refers to "fox" as a ambigious term for several not necessarily closely related species in the family Canidae. FelixReimann (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply



Hallo Felix, ich habe hier einen Vorschlag für eine entsprechende Eigenschaft unterbreitet. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du dort deine Meinung kundtun würdest. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, FelixReimann. You have new messages at Nikosguard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Nikosguard talk 12:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re: Bug report

Hello, FelixReimann. You have new messages at Ricordisamoa's talk page.
Message added by Ricordisamoa 08:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

incertae sedis (P678)


incertae sedis (P678) ist jetzt verwendbar! mfg. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Danke dir!  — Felix Reimann (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Gern geschehen :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

NCBI taxonomy ID (P685)


Die Eigenschaft NCBI taxonomy ID (P685) die du unterstützt hast ist jetzt verfügbar. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

BHL page ID (P687)


BHL page ID (P687) ist jetzt verwendbar! mfg. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

2x danke fürs informieren!  — Felix Reimann (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694)


Hab gerade replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694) erstellt. mfg! --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

ex taxon author (P697)


Hab gerade ex taxon author (P697) erstellt. mfg! --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply



Ist nun wieder gelöscht worden. Obwohl ich die Quelle im Bundesanzeiger nachgetragen hatte, womit WD:N (2) klar erfüllt ist. Eigentlich sollte die Bequellung im Rahmen des de:WP:WPBVK komplett auf Wikidata umgestellt werden. Wir könnten alle BVK-Träger, soweit im Bundesanzeiger veröffentlicht, einspielen. Die Scans liegen schon alle vor. Und Wikidata würde (unter anderem) zu einer ahezu vollständigen freien BVK-Datenbank, etwas was die Bundesbehörden bislang nicht hinbekommen. Aber so macht das natürlich keinen Spaß.
Auch wenn es nicht ganz Deine Baustelle ist .... kannst Du da bitte auch noch einmal nachhaken? -- Task Force BVK (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Vielen Dank! -- Task Force BVK (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

ReimannBot 2


I just approved ReimannBot 2 (Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/ReimannBot_2). --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply



ITIS TSN (P815) ist jetzt verfügbar! mfg --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply



Hello Felix,
If you are looking for authors through abbreviation (You talked about "Smith, 1994"), I recommend:

The red link is one of the problems with the fact that we don't have string authority: you will have to create hundreds of element for which there are no wikipedia articles!
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, any idea how you will display "Smith, 1994" ? Cheers Liné1 (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
First, thanks for the lists, they are valuable. Of course, only a minor percentage of scientific authors is covered in them. If I understand you correctly, your problem is: How should you identify an author Smith from the authority "Smith, 1994" if you do not have the original work? I have the same problem as I mass import taxonomic data from works which typically consider the taxonomy of many taxa and, thus, only cite "Smith" but not the corresponding original work. The answer is: We have not discussed this issue yet. However, I would propose the following workflow:
  • search for the full name of the author with a not too high effort (e.g. check, if the name is already linked in a wikipedia article of the taxon), if found, create an item for this person if not existent.
  • Else: Create a new item, with label "Smith" and description "author of Smith, 1994" or similar. Add a "not identified"-marker like for example instance of (P31) Q11651459 or instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) or something similar.
This directly works with the taxobox as implemented and allows a correct authority string in case nothing else about the author is known yet. If later someone can identify the author, it is enough to remove the "not identified" marker and add respective properties (GND-ID, VIAF,...). What do you think?  — Felix Reimann (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The creation of hundreds (or even thousands) of such items is no problem. Compared to the whole dataset, it is not important if stored as a simple string or as an extra item for each author, no matter if identified or not. The database can handle this.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
But even if someone identifies "Smith 1994" for one species, it will not solve the "Smith" of other species even if it is also a "Smith 1994" ! They could be different Smith.
You will only be able to create a new Smith item (with a description of the author), the previous Smith item will have to be kept marked as "not identified" !
Cheers I[User:Liné1|Liné1]] (talk) 17:45, 6. September 2013 (UTC)
True. If more than one taxa are described in this work, the corresponding items can be easily found with What links here. Still I think this is a senseful work Flow. What do you think?  — Felix Reimann (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re: Javascript

Hello, FelixReimann. You have new messages at Ricordisamoa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cherry and cherry tree


Why are you separated Cherry tree from Cherry? For example, in Latvian Wikipedia article "ķirši" is about both trees, and fruits. I will take out latvian interwiki from "cherry tree", and put back in "cherry". I think, in another languages are the same. --Treisijs (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cherry tree is about the taxon Cerasus, the plant group as a whole. If you have only one article in your chapter, it is likely that this article describes this. Cherry, however, is only about the fruit of the cherry tree.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply



You should go submit yourself at WD:RFA. You have a good track record and you've been around a while. --Izno (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for this mark of confidence in my work! As I have not much time currently and want to stay focused on taxonomy for now, I have no immediate need for the extended powers. But I will consider this if my real world work load reduces in half a year.  :)  — Felix Reimann (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply



Hi FelixReimann, I've deleted the item above because it only had a German label. Is there any reason why you've created this item? Best regards, Bene* talk 14:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bene*, Magnolia Press (Q15088586) is used by Zootaxa (Q220370). --Succu (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Correct; please check Help:Sources and undelete this item.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply



Hi Felix! I've requested Q4315823=Q12090995, but it's Q4315823=Q980379. Can you please fix that? Thank you! --Erud (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply



Hi Felix,

  1. with some surprise I see that your bot is adding back order where it would be better to add parent taxon (as here).
  2. for potatoes it is not helpful to add a taxonomy (they are potatoes anyway, and they are man-made, not natural). Almost invariably these are "plant varieties", although they may also be "cultivars" simultaneously. Plant variety is a strictly legal status, not a taxonomic one (and cultivar is not particularly taxonomic either). For neither plant variety nor cultivar it is a good idea to generate a taxobox (and usually it is not done, see here for an example).

- Brya (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Brya,
  1. regarding your 1st point: this is true, I currently move taxobox information to Wikidata. Let me explain the reason: I have now taxonomic information for about 80000 taxa which I can not add because the bot cannot identify the taxon in Wikidata. Have a look at these: [2] or [3]. Even if working in the team, we cannot search for each taxon by hand. However, the bots need some basic information to be sure that the item fits to the searched taxon. Thus, I extract some of the information (taxon name, rank, and genus/family/order) from the taxoboxes and add it to Wikidata. I do this only for items, which have no parent taxon set (these are counted as unidentified). As I said, I do not like the genus/family/order properties, but we need this information to get the plain items in a state where they can be identified. As many homonyms exist, only having the taxon name set is unfortunately not sufficient. And while I would love to directly add parent taxon, the taxoboxes do not provide this information. They only provide "for taxon A, the genus is B" (same for family/order). Thus, it is not part of the taxobox model if there is an additional taxon between A and B. Thus, directly adding the next higher rank given in the taxobox as parent taxon is in my opinion a false conclusion and would (according to some dry test runs I made) lead to a lot of errors/inconsistencies.
  2. regarding your 2nd point: variety (Q767728) is valid according to Property talk:P105. As it is also used in a taxobox, the bot added it. If you think this is false, please discuss it with Succu (you both are the plant experts) and change the constraints accordingly. For plant variety (Q1363241), your definitely right. It seems as there are taxoboxes for those things in some Wikipedias, thus it was added. I stopped the bot, check it and removed the claims (6 items were affected). Besides that, whenever taxon name is set to "no value" or the item has instance of (P31) set pointing to anything else than (monotypic) taxon, nothing is added, too. Thus, I add "instance of fruit/chop,..." or similar where we have items for both, the plant and the used part.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I am sure there are problems, but a lot less than you make out. If there is a two-part name (binomen, binomial) available, then it is easy. Ixodes werneri by necessity belongs to a genus named Ixodes and Rhipicephalus ramachandrai by necessity belongs to a genus named Rhipicephalus, and in this case it is easy to find that these two genera are in WikiData. This is not a coincidence, as the bots that made all these 'articles' went through these list methodically, creating as many pages as possible. It is safe to use these genera as parent taxa; it is possible that there are intergeneric classifications, but these could be added later. This is also why I think it is silly to have phrases like "Rhipicephalus ramachandrai is a species in the genus Rhipicephalus" as this is so by definition; it is a non-statement. Similarly, it is silly to add a reference to the statement that Solanaceae has the rank of family (or Solanales has the rank of order); again the ICNafp has laid down that this is so. It can not be otherwise. For generic names, there are only problems if there are more generic names available with the same spelling, but this is a limited number (circa five thousand).
So we should not add "taxon rank: species" because this is obviously the fact if the name has 2 parts-> binomen? Again, I would vote pro removing P70 (P70) and friends from all items which have at least one parent taxon (P171) defined, but currently, we have items for nearly all (!) taxa - to add sources to all of them, there are 2 possible ways: a) wait till someone (?) adds the basic information for all these 2-4 million items per hand (because such items have exactly 0 information for robots) or b) let bots add basic information from Wikipedia taxoboxes. As soon as enough basic information is there, bots can also add "real" (=no wikipedia) sources, which is of course the overall goal.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Obviously, "variety" is a rank explicitly accepted by the ICNafp, so there is nothing wrong with that, in general (in some individual cases there are problems). And "plant variety" is indeed something else entirely. There may also be instances of "convar." which is something else again, theoretically allowed under the ICNafp (I guess), but in practice just obsolete (it was used in some versions of the Code for cultivated plants some decades ago). There are also Trademarks, yet different again, and of course "Groups" (Q4150646). With the exception of variety, it is confusing to the reader to use a taxobox for these. - Brya (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was recently enforced to tag some items as cultivar (Q4886) (see Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P944). Do you think thats correct? --Succu (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, if the format is Magnolia grandiflora 'Treyviensis', it looks safe to assume it is a cultivar. If all there is, is one or two words, it is tricky. - Brya (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
In my view the cited souce (ptwiki) is not reputable... But: plant variety (Q1363241) differs from cultivar (Q4886) because of regulations called Plant breeders' rights (Q695112). Do you agree? --Succu (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would be uncomfortable calling any Wikipedia "a reliable source" (although some are better than others). But, yes, "plant varieties" are linked to Plant breeders' rights (Q695112), and all that comes with them: it is a legal status, a matter of courts of law, lawyers and treaties. The separation with cultivar is not clear-cut, as cultivar names may be used for plant varieties (and probably vice versa), although there are plant variety names that are not acceptable as cultivar names, and there are plenty of cultivars that are not plant varieties. So, to be certain a case-by-case check is necessary. - Brya (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata Taxobox


Hallo Felix! Wäre es eigentlich schwierig deine Taxobox auch für andere Themengebiete anzupassen. Ich würde gerne eine zentralisierte Infobox für Gesteinseinheiten machen, habe aber nur grundlegende Programmierkenntnisse. Vielleicht sollte ich auch frage ob der Code überhaupt verfügbar ist? --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Tobias1984! Der Code ist selbstverständlich verfügbar - wie alles außerhalb des ns0 auf Wikidata unter cc-by-sa. Die Module:Taxobox selbst sollte IMHO nicht auf andere Themengebiete erweitert werden, da sie schon komplex genug ist. Einige der Hilfsfunktionen könnte man jedoch in ein zentrales Modul ausgliedern, das alle darauf aufbauenden Infoboxen dann nutzen. Ich bin mir ehrlich gesagt aber auch nicht sicher, ob das für deinen Anwendungszweck geeignet ist: Ziel der Taxobox ist vor allem, das Nachladen der höheren Taxa zu zeigen, also Informationen, die nicht im aktuellen Item selbst hinterlegt sind. Die Client-Seite unterstützt das bisher leider noch nicht. Falls das bei den Gesteinen nicht nötig wäre, wäre diese Lösung relativ aufwendig und die aktuelle Taxobox wird später nicht ohne größere Code-Änderungen in den Wikipedias funktionieren. Alternativ könnten wir auf https://test2.wikipedia.org eine Gesteinsbox umsetzen, die dann direkt in anderen Wikipedias verwendbar wäre. Kommt also ein wenig darauf an, was du vorhast. Ggf könntest du einfach mal beispielhaft auflisten, was die Gesteinsbox zeigen soll und in welchen Properties die entsprechende Information hier hinterlegt ist.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Danke für die ausführliche Antwort. Jetzt hab ich auf jeden Fall eine bessere Vorstellung was die Schwierigkeiten sind. Für die Gesteinseinheiten wären eigentlich alle Informationen im jeweiligen Item selbst. Gibt es dafür vielleicht Anleitungen wie man auf test2-wikipedia so eine Box anlegt? Am Anfang würde ich nur gern ein Bild (image (P18)) und instance of (P31), temporal range start (P523), temporal range end (P524), underlies (P567), overlies (P568) und part of (P361) anzeigen. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Die trivialste Möglichkeit zur Einbindung ist über Templates, siehe m:Wikidata/Notes/Inclusion_syntax_v0.4. Ein (noch nicht sehr hübsches) Beispiel hab ich die unter https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_rockunit erstellt. Diese Vorlage sollte einfach erweiterbar sein. test2 verhält sich wie die englische Wikipedia: D.h. erstellst du eine Seite auf test2, die den selben Namen hat wie ein en-wp Artikel, hat die neue Seite die selbse Verknüpfung zu Wikidata. Ergo ist https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacleto_Formation mit Anacleto Formation (Q4750684) verknüpft. Sie dir den Quelltext beider test2-Seiten an. Rein per Template kannst du demnach alle Eigenschaften eines Items wirklich einfach auslesen. Was geht noch nicht? Z.B. könnte man die Flagge des Staates neben dessen Namen anzeigen. Dazu müsste man auf flag image (P41) des per country (P17) verknüpften Staates zugreifen. Das geht noch nicht (weder per Template noch per LUA), ist aber in Planung. Wenn du mehr Logik umsetzen willst, beispielsweise um File:Keuper-Lithostratigrafie.jpg automatisch zu generieren, braucht es zwingend LUA (plus Zugriff auf die indirekt verknüpften Seiten). Die Taxobox erlaubt per dreckigem Javascript-Hack den Zugriff auf indirekt verknüpfte Seiten (um die Taxo-Hierarchie anzuzeigen, für die Einzelnachweise uvm.). Kommt also weiter darauf an, was du gerne hättest. Meine Einschätzung: a) Zum Testen reicht ggf. das einfache Template, dass ich dir gebastelt habe (und ist einfach erweiterbar), b) für komplexere Dinge ist LUA zwingend (z.B. selbst so einfache Dinge wie eine Spalte nicht anzeigen, wenn die entsprechende Eigenschaft nicht gesetzt ist, würde ich direkt in einem LUA-Modul umsetzen; das wurde zwar bisher auch mit komplexer Vorlagenprogrammierung gemacht, LUA ist dafür aber viel geeigneter und wird die Vorlagenprogrammierung ablösen), c) willst du eine einfache Infobox schon heute nur in Wikidata einblenden reicht Javascript (dann aber keinerlei Wiederverwendbarkeit in den Wikipedias) und d) LUA+Javascript+meine Hacks falls du eine Wikidata-Infobox wie die Taxobox umsetzen willst, die auch Zugriff auf nicht direkt verknüpfte Objekte hat.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Vielen Dank für die Hilfe. Ich werd ein bischen daran herumbasteln. Das ist auch genau was ich ausprobieren wollte. Die Einbindung in Wikidata ist mir momentan noch nicht so wichtig und wenn es sowieso kompliziert ist warte ich lieber auf einen Baukasten. LUA kann ich auch nicht, aber ich werd einfach mal schauen was ich so aufschnappen kann. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Taxobox imports


Hi. Sorry for double import of ITIS TSN (P815), I was hoping that no one will correct statements between imports. Tomorrow I plan to import taxon rank (P105) and taxon name (P225) from the second of the two Russian Wikipedia taxoboxes. I think in the near future it will be my last taksobox import from Russian Wikipedia --putnik 02:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear putnik, please assure that you import only to items, which have instance of (P31) NOT set to anything else but taxon (Q16521) or monotypic taxon (Q310890), see Wikidata:Taxonomy_task_force. All other items are already manually fixed as not representing taxa. These are, for example fruits of plants modeled in different items or items modeling the trivial name where the taxon has an own item. Please assure that your bot respects this before (!) you import anything otherwise the guys who manually fix the constraint violations for P225 etc. will get mad. Regarding ITIS TSN (P815): It would be great if you would help fixing these errors. If all these errors are fixed, my bot adds references, P225, P104, and P171 directly based on the ITIS database, and, thus, a citable source.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Besides: It would be great if you could fix the errors your imports will create there Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P225. To be honest, the ru-wp interwiki links seem to be in not a good state when switched to Wikidata. Thus, many Russian articles on taxa have an own item while most other WPs have another one. Thus, you should expect a lot of constraint violations. To cope with this, you could perform your import step by step to check the percentage of faults you create or check first if an item with the same scientific name already exists.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Kannst du...


... Gedanken lesen? :) Nachdem du die Verbreitungskarte integriert hattest waren meine Gedanken: eigentlich könnten wir jetzt auch noch die IUCN-Bildchen mit aufnehmen. Hast du schon Pläne für die Unterstützung des Rangs der Aussagen? Das wäre noch wichtig, damit die Taxoboxen z.B. zuverfässig auf APGIII beruhen können. Ebenso die Unterstützung für incertae sedis (P678). Ich beginne jetzt etwas systematischer die Pflanzengattungen mit ihren Familien zu verbinden. Dann kann der Bot die Zuordnung Art → Gattung zuverlässig vornehmen. Aber das wird daueren. Allein bei den Orchideen fehlen ca. 200 Gattungen. Mich gruselt es schon vor den nächsten ca. 60.000 Namen die mein Bot gerade beim Wickel hat. Das Zusammenführen von hunderten von Objekten ist ziemlich zeitraubend. Gruß --Succu (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Succu, freut mich, dass es jemandem auffällt. ;) Ja, die Ränge... Punkt 1 ist, dass das noch keiner auf den Javascript-Daten umgesetzt hat und ich die Implementierung deshalb rausdebuggen muss. Punkt 2 ist, dass jetzt, wo mehr von der LUA-Anbindung der Clientseite steht ich leider feststellen musste, dass die Datenstrukturen, die der Wikibase-Client in LUA erzeugt schon deutlich anders sind, als die Datenstrukturen, die man per Javascript bekommt. Das heißt, dass eine Taxobox für Wikipedias nochmal großteils umgeschrieben werden muss. Ich hatte gehofft, mehr direkt übernehmen zu können. Das hat zwar keine Auswirkung auf die umsetzbare Funktionalität, verringert aber doch den Anreiz, dass im Detail hier für Javascript umzusetzen, insbesondere wenn ich für Ränge und Qualifier die aktuelle Implementierung ändern muss. Von daher hoffe ich zum Teil auf eine schnelle Fertigstellung des Trackings, dass die Entwickler relativ weit oben auf ihrer Todoliste zu haben scheinen. Dann könnte man die Clienttaxobox (Umsetzung hab ich hier schon begonnen) auch hier auf Wikidata nutzen und hätte eine Codebasis für alles. Für beides fehlt mir beruflich gerade leider die Zeit.
Mein Bot sammelt auch gerade hauptsächlich Daten zu den Familienrängen und wird dann (in ca. einer Woche) ~70.000 vorhandene Tiere mit parent taxon (P171) verknüpfen können. ITIS ist zwar teils veraltet aber die Taxa, die du aus den Botpedias importierst, haben größtenteils ITIS als Basis. Die ITIS-Daten umfassen dann nochmal 300.000 Tier-Taxa, die bereits vorhanden, aber noch nicht identifizierbar sind. — Felix Reimann (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
hmmm. Nachdem ich einen kleinen Bug in der Box gefunden und beseitigt habe - ist es möglich, dass Ränge oder die Reihenfolge dadurch beachtet wird? Vielleicht fällt dir ja ein Gegenbeispiel auf...  — Felix Reimann (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Falls jetzt immer der erste Eintrag verwendet werden soll ist das vmtl. ein Gegenbeispiel. --Succu (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Und noch eins: Poales (Q28502). --Succu (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

fiktive Taxonomien


Hey hallo, mir ist aufgefallen, dass du die parent taxon (P171)-Aussagen bei phoenix (Q15720813), type of spirit in the Harry Potter universe (Q15304430) und wizard in the Harry Potter universe (Q15298259) entfernt hast – ich hatte die hinzugefügt und vielleicht hab ich ja was falsch gemacht – also dachte ich, ich frag mal nach, warum du die entfernt hast? Meine Intention war es, die Taxonomie der Harry-Potter-Welt zu mappen (indem ich bei fiktiven Arten instance of (P31) auf fictional taxon (Q15720809) (als “fiktives Taxon”) gesetzt habe und mit parent taxon (P171) versucht hab, Hierarchien abzubilden). Gibt es da einen besseren Weg, von dem ich noch nichts weiß? Grüße, mxmerz talk 20:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hallo mxmerz. Zunächst bin ich darüber gestolpert, weil diese Objekte verschiedenste Bedingungen verletzen, die wir an eine korrekte Verwendung in der biologischen Taxonomie stellen und automatisch überprüfen. Siehe z.B. Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P225, ebenso für P105 und P171. Beispielsweise fehlen den Objekten aus der Harry-Potter-Welt de:Binomen, also wissenschaftliche Namen. Außerdem Ränge etc. Nun zur eigentlichen Frage: Macht es Sinn, diese Objekte mit P171 zu verbinden. Zum einen sind es natürlich fiktionale Lebewesen, die demnach auch wie reale Lebewesen klassifiziert werden könnten. Die Trennung zur Fiktion ist mit P31 ja realisiert. Dennoch denke, dass P171 hier falsch verwendet wird. Falls diese Harry-Potter-Romane tatsächlich Aussagen über die Abstammung, die Evolution (!) der einzelnen fiktiven Lebewesentaxa treffen würde, wäre die Verwendung möglicherweise zu rechtfertigen. Aber geben das die Romane her? Würde bspw. erzählt werden, dass die Phönixe von normalen Pferden abstammen, wäre P171 zu rechtfertigen - aber so ist es mMn doch nicht, oder? Das einzige, was sein könnte, ist, dass Zauberer parent taxon (P171) Muggel gilt, aber auch hierzu sollte man tatsächlich die Romane betreffs der Genese der Magie in der HP-Welt studieren. Ich würde dir die Verwendung von subclass of (P279) empfehlen (auch weil sonst öfter Leute beim Lösen von Taxa-Fehlern über diese Objekte stolpern werden). Diese bildet ganz neutral Gruppierungen ab.
Möglicherweise ist auch die Verknüpfung mit Mensch nicht sinnvoll - da bin ich mir aber nicht sicher. Es kann sein, dass Menschen hier nur "echte" Menschen sind und alles andere als Person modelliert wird. Dazu musst du aber ggf. im Forum nachfragen, da das nicht mein Spezialgebiet hier ist. James Bond und co. sind jedenfalls nicht P31 Mensch. Viele Grüße  — Felix Reimann (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Siehe auch: Istari (Q1059791). Gleiches Problem.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Wow, danke erstmal für die ausführliche Antwort.
Es gibt im Harry-Potter-Universum eine kanonische Klassifizierung, die recht flach ist und die die fiktiven Lebewesen eigentlich nur in drei Gruppen einteilt, nämlich Tierwesen, Zauberwesen und Geisterwesen – einige Daseinsformen sind auch gar nicht “offiziell” klassifiziert. Der Anspruch war auch nie das so weit zu treiben, dass es den wissenschaftlichen Ansprüchen der “realen Taxonomie” genügt (geht ja auch gar nicht, wie du richtig sagst) sondern lediglich, die (fiktive) kanonische Klassifizierung in Wikidata abzubilden. Die Verwendung von instance of (P31) “fiktives Taxon” und P171 war dann nur der Versuch, sich an die Konventionen aus der “realen Welt” zu halten und um subclass of (P279) für Beziehungen außerhalb des fiktiven Universums vorzubehalten (Phönixe in Harry Potter subclass of (P279) Phönixe).
Weißt du eine Möglichkeit, diesen Unterschied weiter zu erfassen oder wo wäre die richtige Anlaufstelle um das zu diskutieren? --mxmerz talk 22:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply



Hallo, dein Bot hat zB. bei [4] ein antikes Festival Laphria (Q2781184) statt die Gattung Laphria (Q11105137) verlinkt, siehe Special:WhatLinksHere/Q2781184. Holger1959 (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Holger, danke für die Information. In der nlwiki war tatsächlich dieses Fest als Gattung verlinkt. Das kommt leider häufiger vor und ist, da das Festival hier noch keine Claims hat auch nicht vermeidbar. Jetzt hab ich dem Ding per P31 eine Einordnung gegeben. Im nächsten Lauf wird parent taxon (P171) auf die richtige Gattung gesetzt werden. Falsche Statements kann man auch einfach löschen oder in diesem Falle ignorieren, da sobald P171 gesetzt ist, die P74 (P74) und P71 (P71) sowieso entfernt werden.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
danke für die Infos! Ich hatte gestern noch andere Fälle gesehen. Bei einem hab ich dann gut 200 Links manuell geändert, da war aber auch ein zusammengeführtes Item zu löschen. Wenn ich wieder sowas seh, soll ichs dir sagen oder ignorieren und das regelt sich automatisch? Holger1959 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
@Holger1959: Wichtig wäre in diesen Fällen die Items, die keine Taxa sind, mit P31 einzuordnen. Dann erkennt mein Bot, dass es diese ignorieren muss. Hilfe ist da sehr willkommen. Auch parent taxon (P171) oder ITIS TSN (P815) können bei den richtigen Alternativen gesetzt werden. Falls mein Bot jedoch bei P171/P815 Fehler macht (das ist deutlich besser abgesichert als bei den reinen P70/P74-Imports aber leider bei 300.000 Taxa nicht auszuschließen) würde ich mich über eine kurze Info sehr freuen. Meist liegt dann eine versteckte Mehrdeutigkeit vor oder ein Item wurde verändert (z.B. aus einer Gattung eine Art gemacht, unschön!), dann muss ich manuell korrigieren. Relevant sind letztlich immer diese beiden Properties, überflüssige P70/P74 werden demnächst automatisch gelöscht, sobald die Items per P171 eingeordnet sind, das kann aber ein Bot erledigen.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ok, das mit P31 ist wohl am einfachsten machbar und auch kurze Hinweise dann an dich. Was so Bots alles können, da kann ich nur staunen. Holger1959 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

ReimannBot has been blocked


Hello, I've just blocked your bot, because I saw it adding claims using obsolete properties. Please follow the instructions on the relevant obsolete property pages (or the discussions related to them). We do not want them populated any more than they already are. When you have fixed the bot or at least stopped it, feel free to ask me or any other admin to unblock your bot. Thanks.  Hazard SJ  06:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

See discussion at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#ReimannBot  — Felix Reimann (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply



Leider habe ich die Diskussion nicht weiter verfolgt, daher nun nachträglich hier :) Könntest Du das bitte bei dem Objekt Q2903216 einfügen? WikiData ist einfach nicht so ganz mein Ding :)) --Markus Schulenburg (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pywikibot scripts


Hi Felix, I noticed that you are well-versed in the inner workings of pywikibot, so I wanted to ask for your opinion on a few changes I've made to the harvest_template script (the original is here). The purpose of this script is to harvest claims from Wikipedia templates; I've added some features and I've used the modified version for weeks without encountering problems. I'm just learning about pwb, so I'd be grateful if you could take a look and see if it can be patched to the existing version on the Wikimedia repository. Thanks,--Underlying lk (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply



Bei Dizygostemon (Q8561284) läuft beim Autorenzitat etwas schief (Klammerung Basionymautor). Korrekt wäre: (Benth.) Radlk. ex Wettst. (1891). Vllt. kannst du ja mal bei Gelegenheit nachschaun. Gruß --Succu (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC) PS: Andersherum klapp's: Epixiphium (Q2720413) mit (Engelm. ex A.Gray) Munz (1926). --Succu (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Succu: Sollte nun funktionieren. Danke fürs melden.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ich danke dir fürs Beheben. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Consecutive bot edits


The pywikibot framework already provides convenient methods to edit multiple claims and sources at once (I'm also working on gerrit:125575). --Ricordisamoa 01:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ricordisamoa. I'll have a look at it - this could speed up the whole process tremendously. Could you add a small example to Wikidata:Creating_a_bot#Pywikibot? Moreover, for bot developers it would be most elegant, if pywikibot itself could figure out, which api call to use: for example, addClaim if only a single claim is changed, editEntity if more than one claim is changed.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I had thought of such system previously. It should be included in ItemPage.editEntity() or DataSite.editEntity() and maybe togglable by a configuration key. --Ricordisamoa 22:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am putting a sample here, since the patch is not ready yet:

# remove all aliases for a language
del item.aliases['en']
# add a new alias
# copy sources
item.claims['P123'][0].sources = item.claims['P456'][0].sources
# remove a claim
del item.claims['P456'][0]
# set a label
item.labels['it'] = 'value'
# remove a description
del item.descriptions['mt']
# in a single edit!

See also a diff. --Ricordisamoa 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ricordisamoa. Unfortunately, this means you have to completely rewrite existing code as the syntax to edit using editEntity is completely different to addQualifier/addSources/addClaim/setDescription... What I think of (read: this would be a great feature) is a simple flag (something like ItemPage.bulkEdit(true) ) which then automatically changes the behavior in site.py to gather changes before sending them with a single editentity. page.py should remain unchanged and, thus, addQualifier/addSources/addClaim/setDescription can be used as before. Just an idea but I really feel that the bot user should ideally not need to care about the different api flavors.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
IMHO giving the developer the ability to edit an item with the same syntax used for reading it would make things easier. But I can also design a system that would work like this:
  • a new wikibase_batch_edits configuration variable, which would default to False for backwards-compatibility reasons, would be created;
  • if the default setting is left unchanged by the operator, the item.freeze() (or .bulkEdit(true)) method would have to be called to prevent the framework from saving changes immediately;
  • now the operator can call item.addClaim() and other methods, while page.py (I think site.py should only wrap API calls) would 'queue' all changes;
  • item.editEntity() would be called without data to save all previous changes.
But we would still need a Claim.toJSON() method (as I added in my patch) to use wbeditentity for claims. I can also conceive my system and yours as working flawlessly together, so item.labels['it'] = 'value' and item.editLabels({'it': 'value'}) would work the same. :-) --Ricordisamoa 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
gerrit:130811 may be what you were thinking of. --Ricordisamoa 15:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
...or an alternative: bugzilla:65846. --Ricordisamoa 10:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dispatch Lag and Bots


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

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

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

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

Auslagerung aus Taxobox - ScriptError


Hallo Felix, ich bin mir nicht sicher ob deine Auslagerung evtl. für diverse ScriptError-Meldungen (z.B. Fendlerella (Q5443304)) verantwortlich ist. Ich beobachte die seit gestern, konnte aber bisher kein Muster ausmachen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Habe einen Fehler gefunden. Falls du noch irgendwo Script errors findest: Bitte melden.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply



Hello. Can you give me an example by complete Real Madrid in 2013–14 La Liga (Q6086248)? [5] Xaris333 (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Xaris333, I added some participating teams (please augment) and all other properties which are required for what you wanted to have the new property for: If you are interested in the teams of the last season, you query for "all items which are instance of (P31) sports season of a sports club (Q1539532) and part of (P361) La Liga (Q324867) and have end time (P582) in 2013 (or: prior to today)". This actually really works: here I ask WikidataQuery for the current season. As you see, this query gives you the wanted item 2013–14 La Liga (Q6086248). You list all participant (P710) of 2013–14 La Liga (Q6086248) and are done. A small note: I saw that Santiago Bernabéu Stadium (Q164027) has a maximum capacity (P1083) of 85454. This is obviously wrong. A football team has no capacity, but Santiago Bernabéu Stadium (Q164027) has. Moreover, you should think about creating different items for the first football team of Real Madrid and Real Madrid as an organisation. I saw that some B team has part of (P361) A team set. This is also wrong, both are parts of a sports club, together with, e.g., also a basketball team.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wilcoxia (Q14955045)


Hallo Felix, hätte dein Bot nicht eigentlich erkennen müssen, dass er die falsche Gattung beim Wickel hat? Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ähmm. Ja. Eigentlich schon. Interessant. Danke für den Hinweis, ich werde versuchen herauszufinden, was da schief lief.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your module Wikidata Module:Cite (Q22978091)


I just have a look at your module and I was wondering how it handles cases like book chapter or surname/given name of authors. From the cases described in Help:Sources, you have 3 levels of data for one source: the source section of the statement where you can find the Q number of the source if this one has an item on WD. But what's is no item where created for the reference and all elements of the source description is set in the source section of the statement ? Or if some information like the chapter or the pages of the cited section of the doc are defined in the source section and because no item is created for each chapter ? Then what's about the separation of the given name and the surname to provide only the first letter of the given names for example ? For this last example you have to go to the author item to obtain all the data. Snipre (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dear Snipre, I wrote the module as part of Module:Taxobox. Thus, it is not meant as being complete or even near to it. Indeed, I hoped that with moving the citation subsystem out of the taxobox to an own module more Wikidatians might be interested in this prototype and might even help completing it. Regarding your observations: You are right. The support to add the information from the source section is still missing. While this is not required to replace the citation templates at the Wikipedias, it is very well required for Wikidata's sourced statements. Also for the taxobox, this feature is very important. I plan to add it as soon as I have more spare time and filled the work queue of my bot again. If you want, your help is more than welcome. Also several properties already used by the Books & Periodicals task forces are still missing. Moreover, a flexible way to format the citation string is also lacking. Ideally, the Cite module might support different citation styles like Harvard, Q1153725, ISO 690 (Q385738), ... More ideas (and any help) is welcome.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply



You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)



Your bot has been listed at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Inactive bot accounts as being inactive for over two years. As a housekeeping measure it's proposed to remove the bot flag from inactive bot accounts, unless you expect the bot will be operated again in the near future. If you consent to the removal of the bot flag (or do not reply on the deflag page) you can rerequest the bot flag at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot should you need it again. Of course, You may request retaining your bot flag here if you need the bot flag. Regards--GZWDer (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply