User talk:Ghuron/Archives/2015

P225

Hi Ghuron,

I found a few cases where you have added multiple "taxon names". P225 should hold only the currently correct name of a taxon. In some cases there may be multiple currently correct names for a taxon, where there are multiple taxonomic points of view. In such cases, if the other name is heterotypic there should be a separate item for the heterotypic name. If there are multiple homotypic names these should be properly referenced, or there should be multiple Wikipedia's using that name. Otherwise, do not add a P225, but put them in "also known as". - Brya (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, could you walk me through Q14386622 which is [1]:

• Hypovoria discalis (Brooks, 1945)
• Catalinovoria discalis (Brooks, 1945)
• Proselenus mirificus (Reinhard, 1964)

All properties except for P225 (and corresponding qualifiers) would be the same. If we will create 3 separate items, we will have to maintain corrsponding properities 3 times (see Q277396 for more details). "AKA" schema will not allow us to store information about systematics. Please advise. --Ghuron (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That is really simple: all the Wikipedia pages are named "Hypovoria discalis" so that would go into P225 (unless there were something really horribly wrong, which is very rare). Any other name (Catalinovoria discalis, Proselenus mirificus) would go into "also known as". If all three names were in use for Wikipedia pages, we would definitely split off the heterotypic Proselenus mirificus to a separate item. The other two could go into one item.

        What you presumably are looking for is a possibility to add synonyms. I agree that we should have a property for that, and I actually proposed it, but there was no support for it. The fear was that it would open the door to too much junk, which is understandable, but overdone, as we already have plenty of junk anyway. - Brya (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, in fact there was w:nl:Proselenus mirificus, but I've changed it to redirect cited ITIS as a source. Ok, so it looks like I'll have to go through all species where I add more than one P225 and do something about it. Anyway, thanks for pointing this to me --Ghuron (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. In fact, it is possible to add a synonym but only if there is already an item for it (which usually there will not be). - Brya (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ghuron, I see that you have corrected many of the pages you had altered. Very good to see these cleared up! - Brya (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping that I've corrected all mistakes with multiple P225 If you'll notice any problems with my edit - please let me know --Ghuron (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It may indeed be that you have corrected all cases. I cannot tell, but certainly an impressive number of them! Thank you so far anyway. - Brya (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

P31 disambiguation

Which wikis were you sourcing that WIDAR run from? This is not a disambig on most wikis nor is this one. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In general, most of the edits were problematic from that run. Please review all pages you made a change to. --Izno (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Were using ar:تصنيف:صفحات_توضيح. Reverted 82 edits, if you still see any problems with this run please let me know --Ghuron (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

On the ones you reverted, could you see about identifying and moving the ar links to a more correct item? It's good to prevent things like this in the future. ;) --Izno (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)