Archive 2022
Archive 2021
Archive 2020
Archive 2019
Archive 2018
Archive 2017
Archive 2016
Archive 2015
Archive 2014
Archive 2013

Omma rutherfordi as basionuym for Beutelius rutherfordi Edit

Hi @Succu: Going on the fact that the automatic description pulled in by User:99of9 for the image of Omma rutherfordi is Beutelius rutherfordi, I believe the Australian insect community (here CSIRO) has accepted the evidence given by the paper, "The extant species of the genus Omma Newman and description of Beutelius gen. nov. (Coleoptera: Archostemata: Ommatidae: Ommatinae)" (2020-01-24, Hermes E. Escalona, John F. Lawrence, Adam Slipinski), and changed the species name for Omma rutherfordi to Beutelius rutherfordi which would mean that Omma rutherfordi is the basionym of Beutelius rutherfordi (unless of course Omma rutherfordi was originally named to some other genus). It's an Australian beetle so I had been going with the Australian taxonomy. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Margaret! It's not a plant, so please use original combination (P1403) instead of basionym (P566). Regards --Succu (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Succu: (just too hideously ignorant. Thanks for this) I'll make the change then? MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but using The extant species of the genus Omma Newman and description of Beutelius gen. nov. (Coleoptera: Archostemata: Ommatidae: Ommatinae) (Q86998140) (with a page number) would be a better source... --Succu (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you make the necessary changes please, and then I can see what you have done (and perhaps manage to do things better next time). Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. --Succu (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sittiab Edit

Hi, hope you're well. I've seen that you removed my edit to this genus, Sittiab (Q30034290). My understanding is that it's currently considered that its creation in 2017 was a mistake, that the species within the genus should remain within the genus they were originally in, Atinella. This is the paper cited on Wikipedia for this, and it's my understanding that this is accepted by the World Spider Catalog.

Do you know what the correct coding for this is? As you can imagine I'm keen to make sure I get this right. Blythwood (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! basionym (Q810198) is for plants only. You already established the correct relationship here. I added a reference. --Succu (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ebola virus Edit

Ebola virus is not a specie. It is a viral strain, of the main specie Zaire ebolavirus. --Gambo7 (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until 1995 Ebola virus was a species! It was then splitted into the three species Ebola virus Zaire (Q69997225), Ebola virus Sudan (Q69997237) and Ebola virus Reston (Q69997241) (see here). For the strain we have Ebola virus (Q22107066). --Succu (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok then Ebola virus (Q10538943) is about the old classified species? Or about the current strain (Ebola virus (Q22107066))? Because on (and other wikis) the article linked to wikidata is about the strain (see species:Ebola_virus) --Gambo7 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but you moved the Wikispecies sitelink from Ebola virus (Q22107066) (strain) to Ebola virus (Q10538943) (former species). Probably most articles belong to Ebola virus Zaire (Q69997225). Please undo your changes an move the sitelinks instead. --Succu (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tropicos ID Edit

Hi Succu,

please use Tropicos publication ID (P4904) for publications tracked by Tropicos and not Tropicos ID (P960), these are two different things. See . Thanks --Hannes Röst (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Hannes! Das ist mir bewusst. Solche Fehler passieren leider manchmal. Aber sie lassen sich ja relativ leicht auffinden. Danke fur's Aufpassen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
kein Problem! --Hannes Röst (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dog and Canis Lupus Familiaris Edit

Hi, the items I merged were about the same thing. Canis Lupus Familiaris is the scientific name for dogs. The article in Spanish Wikipedia and the other articles in Q26972265 didn't have all the interwikis. ¿Why did you revert it? ¿Did I do something wrong? Kind Regards.--SRuizR   17:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zootaxa duplicates Edit

@ succu: Hi, I think I can fix a lot of the Zootaxa stuff using some scripts I've been working on, but this requires that I know the set of duplicates before I start. How do you feel about holding off manually fixing duplicates for a few days while I see if I can automate the process? What I'm aiming to do is merge duplicates in a way that keeps only one title, one set of pages, one date, and tries to not remove author mappings that people have done already. --Rdmpage (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, if you want to fix them all manually, that's fine too. Just let me know and I can move on to other things. --Rdmpage (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey Roderic! I think you should move on to other things. :) I don't think developing algorithms to fix the issues has a potential for reuse. Sometimes manuell power is more efficient. --Succu (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Succu Sure, if you're happy to do the work manually that's fine by me. I know what you mean about sometimes doing things manually can be more efficient. The other thing that remains to be done is add all the missing Zootaxa articles. I have downloaded a complete (I think) list from CrossRef, and have cross matched that list to PubMed, so it should be straightforward to add all of those without creating additional duplicates. --Rdmpage (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deutsche Vogelnamen Edit

Hallo Succu,
in der Redaktion ist gerade der Hinweis auf eine neue und international anerkannte Liste der deutschen Trivialnamen aller Vogelarten der Erde gepostet wurden. Die angesprochene Datei ist hier verfügbar. Siehst du eine Chance, das via skript auszulesen und hier einzuspielen? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Achim! Nicht ohne größeren Aufwand. Aber ich könnte die in der IOC World Bird List Version 10.1 (Q83589462) aufgeführten taxon common name (P1843) prüfen und ggf. hinzufügen bzw. belegen. Zuletzt habe ich das anhand der IOC World Bird List Version 6.4 (Q27907675) getan. --Succu (talk)
Moin, klingt doch schonmal nach 'nem Plan. Wenn die Gesamtliste aufwändig ist, wird sie verschoben - war auch erstmal nur ein Gedanke. Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Achim, der Bot läuft jetzt. --Succu (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... und war dann heute endlich mit allen Sprachen durch. :( --Succu (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Achim: IOC World Bird List Version 10.2 (Q98069412) enthält jetzt wohl diese deutschen Namen. Mal schaun... Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Achim: Mit IOC World Bird List Version 10.2 (Q98069412) entsprechend belegt bzw. hinzufügt. --Succu (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moth Edit

Hi, why did you change "moth"(Q1725788) to taxon rank: Order? As far as I know it's not consider a suborder but a paraphyletic group under the Lepidoptera order. Am I wrong? --Ronam20 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You removed the mandatory taxon rank property. --Succu (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. I don't really know how to fix it. Maybe we should change the "instance of" parameter from "taxon" to "organisms known by a particular common name" (but I'm not sure so I'll leave it as is). Thanks anyway. --Ronam20 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxref alignment Edit

How is done the existing alignment between Wikidata and the TAXREF ID ? Are you the author of this ?

The number of alignments obtained by SPARQL on Wikidata is quite small; this returns a total number of 32932 URI's triples :




But, replacing wdtn:P3186 with wdt:P3186 , one gets a total number of integer ID triples of 179236 .  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmvanel (talk • contribs).

Hello Jean-Marc. What I'm doing here is to map taxon name (P225) to TAXREF ID (P3186). I started this with TAXREF v9.0 (Q26936509). TAXREF v13.0 (Q79844869) has 172564 matches. As far as I know the mapping to wdtn (= is done by formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) = "$1/13.0". So I think something is wrong and you should report this at Wikidata:Contact the development team. --Succu (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Succu. Although I'm a expert of SPARQL , what you're doing in this query is mysterious to me. Is it just for counting, or a variant of it was used for populating TAXREF ID (P3186) ? Did you load beforehand somehow the TAXREF CSV to Wikidata ? Is there a general document explaining the procedure to populate in batch a property ?
I'm the one who added formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) = "$1/13.0" , and it worked as expected , except that many URI's are missing, which I'll report .  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmvanel (talk • contribs).
The SPARQL query is looking for this kind of reference. I'm using a local copy of TAXREF to add an id with a referenece if the id is not present. I do not create new items based on TAXREF records. --Succu (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Succu, Are you using Help:QuickStatements to populate in batch the property ? Do you keep a (shell) script of the procedure ? By "local copy of TAXREF" , do you mean on your machine or inside Wikidata ? Sorry for the many questions, but I'm rather new to data import in Wikidata.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmvanel (talk • contribs).
No problem. I do not use QuickStatements (QS). In 2013 I started to devleop my own code to edit Wikidata. My bot is running on my private PC accessing data at my local harddrive. Please note: I do not add TAXREF ids which are regarded as synonyms, because they redirect to the accepted/valid name. --Succu (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names in Coleus Edit

Hi, Succubot has added names in Coleus resulting from the major 2019 revision, which saw this genus restored with 294 species. It has automatically repeated the IPNI ID for PoWO, which is usually correct. However, most of these names have not been added to PoWO. So if you look at Coleus argentatus (Q88985054), the PoWO link fails. My understanding is that the names will eventually be added to PoWO (Covid-19 delays?), so I myself think this is ok, but I thought I should tell you in case you didn't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Peter, thanks for reporting this. I did not simply „repeated the IPNI ID for PoWO“. The information about the PoWO ID comes from a IPNI data download for the year 2019. But I think I should better check the existenz of the PoWO page in the future. --Succu (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a special case – they have started to put the new Coleus names into PoWO if you look at [1] but only completed up to epithets A–C. I think, as I said above, it's probably because Kew is closed because of Covid-19 (as the reply I got when I e-mailed them said). Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Different Coleus issue Edit

Initially I thought that Coleus comosus (Q16540779) was a mis-spelling of Coleus caninus, and incorrectly edited it, but then I saw de:Verpiss-dich-Pflanze (ich kann Deutsch lesen, aber nicht sehr gut schreiben). I set up Coleus caninus (Q97961770), but I'm not sure how to complete Coleus comosus (Q16540779) – or maybe it should be deleted, as "Coleus canina" is an incorrect name for Coleus comosus, syn. Plectranthus ornatus. Can you sort this please? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I've made some edits. I hope they help- --Succu (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot buthchers IUCN statuses Edit

I have updated three times changed IUCN statuses but your bot always chages them to their outdated versions. These are Q4036982, Q526549, Q526549, and Q148829. There might be other items that other users have updated. I do not wish to have to continuously fix them. --Nitraus (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check your wording. I forgot to change the datafile from "2020.1" to "2020.2". Sorry for that. --Succu (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: There is a problem at IUCN. E.g. id 78922619 at Quercus guyavifolia (Q15337764) should redirect to the current assessment. --Succu (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The run with the correct data file has finished. Did my bot „butchered“ any entries now, Nitraus? --Succu (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They seem to be in order. If I was rude, I apologize. I got a bit frustrated with the situation and, in my opinion, not very intuitive and sometimes even bad usability of Wikidata. --Nitraus (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IUCN updates Edit

Is your bot simply replacing old statuses? Gambusia hurtadoi (Q302451) is classified in 2020.2 as critically endangered, but was classified in 1996 as Vulnerable, 1994 as Vulnerable, 1990 as Vulnerable, 1988 as Rare, and 1986 as Rare. We should store this information as well somehow (in order to see trends), with start time (P580) and end time (P582) etc. (tJosve05a (c) 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. The assessment as Vulnerable (VU) in 1996 is probably different from Vulnerable (V) in 1994 and 1990. What is the definition of „Rare” (1988, 1986)? --Succu (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daspletosaurus torosus (Q132665) and Daspletosaurus (Q18511071) need resolution Edit

I see that you have done some work on this item, then there is another where the species and the genus are munged to the point that we have UGH-ness.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UGH-ness? Since 2017 the genus Daspletosaurus (Q18511071) is no longer monotypic (see: Daspletosaurus horneri (Q56316452)), so a lot of articles have to be updated. The general problem is the placement (=lemma) of monotypic genera. In my opinion they should be placed at species level, not genus level. The wikis have different rules for that. --Succu (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slow down Edit

Your bot has made 135,540 in the last 12 hours, 3 per second. It's causing the maxlag to stay high for everyone and tools break. Slow down. Amir (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides maxlag is there any parameter I should use to "slow down" my bot actions? --Succu (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No more than 60 edits per minute Amir (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please give me a link to that kind of restriction? I'm unaware of such one. --Succu (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

said to be the same as (P460) Edit

Hello, is there another way to model this? see Newmanella spinosa (Q25353552) and Newmanella spinosa (Q63724087). Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Christian! Both items should be merged. I added some sources to Newmanella (Q15731712) and Newmanella spinosa (Q25353552). The species was published as Newmanella spinosus. But I think the gender of the genus is feminine, see ICZN article 30.2. Gender of names formed from words that are neither Latin nor Greek. But I'm not sure. --Succu (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing PoWO links Edit

In this edit, Succubot added a PoWO ID that doesn't currently exist: 60478400-2. I've seen several such cases lately. I know that PoWO has not been maintained because Kew staff have been furloughed. I wonder if the entry did exist and the PoWO database has been rolled back somehow, since the problem seems to affect names from 2019 onwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Peter, same answer as in #Names in Coleus. Download date was March 24, 2020. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, exactly the same issue. We should live with these failing links for now, I think, because I believe that PoWO will be fixed again. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

instance of (P31) recombination (Q14594740) Edit

Hi, I was thinking on hown we could make an exception from constraint for that instance of (P31) can be used as a qualifier on taxa pages, when I had an idea. If we move original combination (P1403) as a possible qualifier of taxon name (P225) we obtain the same result but in one field instead of two. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And we won't need to use instance of (P31) recombination (Q14594740) anymore as it will be implicit that the items with original combination (P1403) will be recombinations. Though it is in fact already the case now, the only potential issue is that now (with instance of (P31) recombination (Q14594740)) we don't need to have items for the original combinations to make it clear that the taxa are recombinations, however I have heard that Wikidata is about structured datas so... Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! The qualifier construct instance of (P31) = recombination (Q14594740) was introduced before we had original combination (P1403). It allows our Taxobox to show parentheses around the authorship. Today adding original combination (P1403) should have the same effect. Please note this problem. Sometimes we know that a name is a recombination (Q14594740), but don't know the real original combination (P1403). My idea was to set the propery to "unknown value", but this is not working at the moment (see Unknown value throws error). With this solution we could generate (with SPARQL) a working list of missing taxon names. --Succu (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can use unknown (Q24238356) and set exception to constraint (P2303) for that value in the relevant properties. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but the "natural" wikidata way would be to use "unknown value". I think this is only a minor bug in the Taxobox. Unfortunately the modul has no maintainer. --Succu (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lycophyte issues Edit

See [2]. This user has made a complete hash of high-level lycophyte taxon data items. I've cleaned up two, but there is so much damage it will take a more practiced hand to clean it all up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changkyun Kim Edit

Hi, it is likely that Changkyun Kim (Q47120117) is the same person than Changkyun Kim (Q33679017) and the third author in Mazus sunhangii (Mazaceae), a New Species Discovered in Central China Appears to Be Highly Endangered (Q28596909). Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is. --Succu (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reverts Edit

I saw you reverted my edits on Q4600603 and Q2071578. Please see the latest synonymous update on World Odonata List. Anaciaeschna donaldi is now a synonym of Anaciaeschna martini.[1][2] Hylaeothemis indica is now a synonym of Hylaeothemis apicalis.[3][2] Let me know if there a better way to handle them. Jee 02:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  2. 2.0 2.1
Your changes caused "constraint violations" you probably overlooked. Please use taxon synonym (P1420) for subjective synonyms and add a reference (stated in (P248)=World Odonata List (Q13561342)) along with retrieved (P813). --Succu (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mexikanische Sumpfzypresse Edit

Hallo, warum wurde das Zusammenfügen von Taxodium mucronatum (Q1429751) und Taxodium huegelii (Q17275256) rückgängig gemacht? Das ist laut es:Taxodium huegelii die selbe Pflanze. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eine Wikipedia ist keine Quelle. Außerdem führen wir heterotypische Synonyme nicht zusammen. --Succu (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bird names Edit

Hi Succu - a few days ago you've added a whole lot of bird names tagged as Danish (da), but they're actually Dutch (nl); example (and my removal of this one). They are duplicates of Dutch names already in WD. I don't know if the error is at the IOC source, or in entry here. Can you sort them, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MPF. You are right. Cause was a C&P error in my source code. Unfortunately every version of the underlying Excel spreadsheet has a different format. I will fix this within the next few days. Regards. --Succu (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again - I fear I've discovered a similar case of Ukrainian names (in cyrillic text!) entered tagged as Indonesian. Hope it can be solved! - MPF (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I noticed this two days ago. There is a third language issue is/se. I will fix them. --Succu (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: Should be done. --Succu (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fungus genus Sphaerotheca Edit

According to Index Fungorum, there are two different fungus genera: Sphaerotheca Desv. (see [3]) and Sphaerotheca Lev. (see [4]). The former is a nom. rej. against the latter. The Wikidata item Sphaerotheca (Q46109) confuses them; if I follow the database identifier links I can find both names. I think you can fix this better than I could. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. One problem was caused by User:Thierry Caro. --Succu (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Bot: IUCN taxon ID Edit

{Google translate from Russian}. IUCN once again changed IUCN taxon ID (P627) some birds: Everett's White-eye (Q2225846) 22714068 → 155179593; Japanese White-eye (Q700028) 22714033 → 155158005. You need to check all the birds and update the ID. Thank you in advance. --VladXsmall (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are only some differences I think. --Succu (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subspecies and variety Edit

As your bot created Scrophularia nodosa var. occidentalis (Q39928313): Is it actually different from Scrophularia nodosa occidentalis (Q49413512)? Can there be varieties and subspecies with the same name? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. BTW, I didn't created the second one. I think Scrophularia nodosa occidentalis (Q49413512) is an error in iNaturalist (Q16958215).--Succu (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anything that could be done about this error? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P577 Edit

I have started a discussion about our revision in P577, could you at least explain why you reverted it? It did not negatively effect anything, but was helpful and made it more consistent with the other properties relating to publications (specifically for books). Thanks. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see from your all the other complaints above that you own WikiData, I will make sure to ask your permission before editing anything in the future. Please explain why you reverted the reasonable edit that did not negatively impact anything. I will be seeking dispute resolution shortly if I do not here back. Please, try to assume good faith next time, maybe then your talk page wouldn't be riddled with hundreds of complaints of your disruptive editing. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you know Wikidata:WikiProject Books, Footlessmouse? --Succu (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't spend all my time editing wikidata, so no. If you have something to say, say it, I asked for justification not for my intelligence to be insulted in an offhand manner. If you would be just half as rude, you would get far less complaints. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did. Please spend some time to understand how WD works instead of reverting. --Succu (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THIS IS A WIKI!!! HOW DARE YOU REVERT ALL MY WORK WITHOUT EXPALNATION AND CALL ME STUPID IN THE PROCESS!!! WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU???? I have opened up a discussion in the administrators noticeboard. You erased all the identifiers, the ISBNs the page numbers, what the ****???
Also, you're statement of me reading about Wiki before reverting is incoherent, all the book articles have identifiers that you erased and YOU REVERTED not me, I was trying to undo your MASSIVE VANDALISM of the page. Please stope vandalizing WikiData!!! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mind to calm down? --Succu (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YOU CALLED ME STUPID!!! SO NO!!! ALSO YOU BLANKED A PAGE I WOKRED ON FOR OVER AN HOUR, SO NO!!! Let me make a list of all the things that your precious WikiData WikiProject Books lists should be included with items about works, wo we can all see exactly how far your vandalism extended, these are all items you erased in bad faith:

  1. language of work or name
  2. main subject
  3. image
  4. Dewey Decimal Classification
  5. Library of Congress Classification
  6. OCLC
  7. LibraryThing work ID

That's just what I picked out from a quick survey Footlessmouse (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isonym Edit

Hi Succu, Your bot created Hieracium jurassicum subsp. elegantissimum (Q92926216) which according to IPNI is isonym of Hieracium jurassicum subsp. elegantissimum (Q92926262). I think the first one does not deserve an item, do you? I'm a afraid there are a couple more of these pairs. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lymantria! I'm aware of the problem and fixing some items from time to time. I merged the items and deprecated the "wrong" values. --Succu (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, encountering these I will do the same. Lymantria (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) (P.S. I don't see your deprecation actions...)Reply[reply]
Here they are. BTW: Thx for merging a lot of duplicates. --Succu (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome and thanks for showing the diff that I overlooked. Lymantria (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odontoceti - Toothed whale Edit

This is not a subordo, but a parvordo. Nowdays the Cetacea infraordo belongs to the Artiodactyla ordo. Please look at this [5]. DenesFeri (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You changed the value of a sourced statement. Please don't do this again. If you think the statement is not correct add another sourced statement for taxon rank (P105). Thanks. BTW enWP is not a source. --Succu (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you undo the corrections? Why makes you happy doing that? I can't put sources and other stuffs in them - I already sad that on my talkpage -, I can only correct the changes made in the classifications. Some things change; that's life. DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giraffina (Q102132044) is empty! If you wish to refer to an alternative taxonomy add a new statement for parent taxon (P171) with a good reference. Again: Do not change the value of existing statements at will. --Succu (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DenesFeri: Please stop this kind of edits. They are not helpful. huWP is not a source. --Succu (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know. It makes both our lives harder. But I will not tolerate vandalism anymore. I can't put sources/refrences here; not because I don't want to, but because I don't know how. And what I'm doing is the correct, today accepted classification. If you can't build on it than stop. What we are doing is stupid. I worked more than 3 months on this. DenesFeri (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

„today accepted classification” - I doubt that. You should be able to add statements to Giraffina (Q102132044). Please note the icon behind the statements you changed at will. --Succu (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
„I will not tolerate vandalism anymore.“ - Your edit comment is not helpful. Obviously you don't know how different taxonomic opinions are handled here. You are constantly ignoring my hints. --Succu (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today I will try to give you some refrences/sources. So don't undo my work. Wait. DenesFeri (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at this 2: Talk:Q101975952 and Talk:Q102132044. If you can, than put in the articles those sources, because I can't. DenesFeri (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC) And this Talk:Q160. DenesFeri (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh, User:DenesFeri, you did it again, again and again. Wikidata is not about a single taxonomic point of view or a consensus taxonomy. An example of multiple viewpoints is Q14560#P171. So please revert yourself and add a new statement. --Succu (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far I can tell after a cursory look, most of the references you gave link to strange websites and are outdated. --Succu (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW: From a taxonomic POV your article (created 2020-11-19) on huWP about Giraffa (Q862089) is pretty much out of date. --Succu (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WOW! I really tried, but you just don't want to try. That's sad. DenesFeri (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From WD:AN: So please revert yourself, DenesFeri, in all similar cases. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Succu, do whatever you want. I will not undo your work anymore. But be sure that deliberately I won't fuck my own work. DenesFeri (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DenesFeri: Please, note that your are obliged to fix wrong edits yourself, which should not be seen as f*** your own work (please, mind your language), but fix your own work. It gets better. And it is not fair to request from others to fix any mess you made. Lymantria (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lymantria: Well, that's the problem; in my opinion/viewpoint I didn't made any mess. And Succu would happily undo my work. I'm done with this; don't bother me with it anymore. Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DenesFeri: Removing statements that have valuable sources, e.g. ITIS, is indeed something you should repair. Lymantria (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DenesFeri: No, I'm not happy to revert your changes. I'm not happy that you don't try to understand (=learn) how different taxonomic viewpoints are modeled here at Wikidata at the moment. Especially that the value of sourced statement should not be changed or that changing the parent genus of a species to a different genus is an error. --Succu (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marmosa paraguayana Edit

Another bad faith edit like this one and you're getting reported for vandalism. As you well know, the rules say "The value for taxon name (P225) in this (or any) item shouldn't be changed (except for spelling corrections). If a taxonomic paper or book introduces a name change, create a new item for the new name (if needed) and add a statement with taxon synonym (P1420) to that item."

--Leptictidium (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(ec) You created a duplicate of Marmosa paraguaya (Q20829969). --Succu (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole point of the rule is to create a new item for the new taxon name —of course some properties are going to be duplicates, albeit with different values and extra statements such as taxon synonym (P1420). You would've seen the differences if you hadn't pounced on the new item literally four minutes (!) after I created it and unilaterally merged it while I was still filling it in. In the future, please leave a message on my talk page before acting so brashly. Thank you.--Leptictidium (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) So what exactly is the difference between Marmosa paraguaya (Q104248128) (P225=Marmosa paraguayana) and Marmosa paraguaya (Q20829969) (P225=Marmosa paraguayana)? --Succu (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC) PS: The mess was ceated by you in 2018. Regards --Succu (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "mess" I created worked perfectly for almost three years, and it was your edits this evening that broke things. I've fixed a couple of statements and no longer object to the merger; if you want to redo it, go ahead. It would've helped us to approach this matter from a perspective of cooperation, not confrontation, if you had left me a message on my talk page outlining the supposed problems instead of unilaterally merging/reverting my edits four minutes (!) after I created the item. I hope next time you'll approach this differently. Have a nice evening.--Leptictidium (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I fixed it again. --Succu (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q5979051 reversions Edit

This is in reference the following edits you made:

I based my edits adding these as subclass of (P279) upon a few criteria:

  1. each has a Chinese label including "麦" or "麥", e.g.:
  2. each has a Japanese label or alias including "ムギ", e.g.:
  3. These are all listed on w:ja:ムギ

You can see from wikt:麦 and wikt:麥 that the Japanese pronounce these characters as "mugi" (which they can also write as むぎ or ムギ) or "baku" (which they can also write as ばく or バク). The English wikitionary entries also mentions wheat, barley, rye, and oats as being types of "mugi".

You are free to attempt to go around reverting all of those as well but methinks you will get major push back. In that light, I ask that you revert your own reversions. In the future, please do not revert statements about topics you clearly know nothing about. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q20747 Edit

„Nice.” DenesFeri (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two problems were solved:
  1. A merge of two different scientific names. We keep them on separate items to model the relatonship between them.
  2. A species AAAAA xxxxx placed in the genus AAAAA can not have genus BBBBB as a parent taxon. If BBBBB is a subgenus of AAAAA all is fine.
--Succu (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accidental revert? Edit

Was this a mistake? It seems to me that statement was correct. Ainali (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. The IUCN statements belong to Heteromys salvini (Q27915670), not to Liomys salvini (Q115759). --Succu (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! I corrected the enwiki sitelink then which confused me. Thanks! Ainali (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad merge of journal Edit

Hi, you merged for different things ("Časopis Musea království Českého" vs "Časopis Musea Království Českého, Oddíl Přírodovědný". So i need to create again. Skim (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for that. --Succu (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erinaceus coronavirus and Hedgehog coronavirus Edit

As of 2020, there is only one Hedgehog coronavirus found, so Ithink these two item should be merged.--Htmlzycq (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EriCoV is a strain, not a species. --Succu (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, how to merge Q92260642 to Q17305810, same guy.--Htmlzycq (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Help:Merge. I did it for you. --Succu (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Succu, Htmlzycq: I   Oppose merge both, as zhwiki article describes the Erinaceus coronavirus, not Hedgehog coronavirus 1 as enwiki, fawiki and specieswiki describe. Better to resolve issues via Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

should be merge: Q97355183 to Q67484216, same guy.--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Periparus reverted merge Edit

Hello (and happy new year)!
The scientific names Periparus ater melanolophus and Periparus melanolophus refer to the exact same taxon (which has been treated as its own [monotypic] species in the past but is now most commonly treated as a subspecies of Periparus ater), so accordingly I merged the two Wikidata items Q4832051 (Periparus melanolophus) and Q27623432 (Periparus ater melanolophus). I noticed you recently reverted that merge, and I'm curious as to what your reasoning was for doing so (making it so there are once again two separate active Wikidata items for the same taxonomic concept under different names). Spizaetus (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have items for different names. Please note e.g. Q22231233#P2868. --Succu (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain your edits on Q104412033 Edit

Hi, can you please explain your edits on Cluster 5 (Q104412033)? The link to SARS-CoV-2 is lost, and love to hear how you would make that link. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Egon. I fixed a constraint violation. There is no parent taxon relationship between two strains or groups of strains. A possible solution is to use the qualifier of. Regards. --Succu (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veronia ornata Edit

There are two taxa with this binomial: Vernonia ornata Talbot and Vernonia ornata S.Moore. I think it was SuccuBot that put some of the taxonomic database ids for Vernonia ornata S.Moore in Vernonia ornata Talbot (Q15567883). I've created a new item Vernonia ornata S.Moore (Q104703897) and moved the incorrect ids and language wikipedia links.

Vernonia ornata S.Moore appears to be a later homonym, and thus illegitimate, although PoWO states that it is an accepted species. I will query this with IPNI. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. The authorship of Vernonia ornata Talbot (Q15567883) was added by MargaretRDonald. --Succu (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change of status Edit

Hello, Succu. I am interested in information about change of status on taxa (which became extinct, which ceased to be unsafe and so on), but there are no such info in Wikidata. Your silent reverts don't help. What can you propose instead? --Infovarius (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Infovarius, I think you are aware of the previous discussions since the creation of this property. BTW: your query is incorrect. --Succu (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There seems multiple support at Property talk:P141 of historical data, but some "dis-help" from you. And can you comment how the query is incorrect? --Infovarius (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your usage of start time (P580) is amibgouse. The realevant discussions started earlier at another place. I don't remember exactly where. --Succu (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

taxon rank (P105) Edit

You reverted my changes to give a preference to a taxon rank, I respect this. Maybe I'm not aware of the fact that many queries rely on getting muliple ranks.

Anyhow: My oppinion is that of course everybody should be smart enough to write queries that return multiple ranks, and then take the lowest or highest or a random one, but: only a human beeing can decide which one is the preferred one to use (e.g. based on number of sources or reliance of the source). And I took the liberty to be this human beeing. Let me not die in ignorance.--Faring (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2021(UTC)

btw: Ich vergaß Dir ein gutes neues Jahr zu wünschen, Grüße aus Süddeutschland.

Ein Mensch - in dem Fall du - hat willkürlich eine Behauptung bevorzugt. Hätte dieser Mensch - immer noch du - gleichzeitig einen Beleg hinzugefügt, wäre diese Bevorzugung ggf. nachvollziehbar gewesen. --Succu (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, das akzeptiere ich (ich habe die de:wp und en:wp für meine Willkür herangezogen und hätte das ja niergends vermerken können).
Darf ich noch eine Frage loswerden: Ich schreibe gerade einen kleinen Taxonomy-Browser (daher meine Aktivitäten). Ein wesentliches Problem entsteht durch die Tatsache, dass wir hier ja keine eindeutige Taxonomy beschreiben sondert der Taxonomy-Baum durch mehrfache parent taxon (P171) mehrdeutig wird. Um das zu lösen, müsste mann entweder verlässliche Algorithmen beschreiben, welchen Zweig man benutzt oder eben auch bei den übergeordneten Taxa preferierte Werte erlauben (z.B. die Tatsache, dass eine Kladde angelegt ist bedeutet ja, dass man sie auch in dem Baum benutzen möchte). Gibt es dazu schon eine Diskussion. Danke --Faring (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was soll dein „kleine[r] Taxonomy-Browser“ denn leisten? Durch den „Baum des Lebens“ navigieren? Das wird nicht funktionieren und die Eigenschaft taxon rank (P105) allein reicht dazu nicht aus. In Teilbereichen des Baumes kann man sich entlang stated in (P248) hangeln. --Succu (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Danke für Deine Antwort. Ja, eigentlich schon der "Baum des Lebens", ich habe jetzt verstanden, dass ich erst mal als Fingerübung die Taxonomien Class Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 (Q19302303) und Mammal Species of the World (Third edition) (Q1538807) (die gibte es ja beide als Dumps) übereinander legen muss, um zu sehen, ob ich die beiden schneiden kann oder ob daraus eine "Super-Taxonomy" entsteht. Dann kann ich hier vielleicht auch die nächste intelligente Frage stellen.--Faring (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eine intersection (Q185837) der beiden "Quellem" wirst du erst ab dem Rank „Familie“ finden. --Succu (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich meinte schneiden nicht im mathematischen Sinn. Wenn wir uns die sehr überschaubaren Kloakentiere (Monotremata) anschauen:


  • Class Mammalia
    • Order Monotremata
      • Family Tachyglossidae
      • Family Ornithorhynchidae


  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family Ornithorhynchidae

Linné ∪ MSW (zusätzlich):

  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family Ornithorhynchidae

Linné ∩ MSW (entfernt):

  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family Ornithorhynchidae

wir hier (mehrfach):

  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Suborder Platypoda
          • Family Ornithorhynchidae
        • Family Ornithorhynchidae
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family ...

könnte ergeben "Baum des Lebens" (normalisiert):

  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Suborder Platypoda
          • Family Ornithorhynchidae
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family ...

Es könnte also also Schnitt-, Vereingungs- und normalisiert Mengen von Taxonomien geben. Ich arbeite dran. Danke --Faring (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mammalian Species Edit

Hi Succu,
ich habe heute mal die Ausgaben der Mammalian Species (Q1637051) bis 23.12.2020 / No. 999 vervollständigt. Die Abfrage von dir habe ich um die beschriebene Art ergänzt (main subject (P921), [6]). Vielleicht kann man main subject (P921) für alle Ausgaben automatisiert ergänzen und im Gegenzug described by source (P1343) bei den Arten ergänzen? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Achim, ich hab deine Anfrage nicht vergessen. Nach der Korrrektur einiger Einträge habe ich für main subject (P921) einen groben Plan im Kopf. described by source (P1343) mag ich nicht :( Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lustie Taxa zur Speicherung von Autoren Edit

Hallo Succu, ist Deine Antwort zu unserem französische Kollegen die kurze Form von "viel Spass beim Fixen, das wird ein dickes Brett?". --Faring (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Frage an den Erststeller war nach Beweggrund und insbesondere Belegen. --Succu (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Participants Edit

Hey, I was fixing the list so that it doesn't show a vertical list when someone pings the project. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It made the list unreadable. --Succu (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was readable on WikiProject Taxonomy; where it needs to be. But with the current setup, it is not really great when used to ping users. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert on bird Edit

If a subclass property is not permitted on bird, then other items for types of birds are getting a constraint violation: flightless bird (Q865137), migratory bird (Q10950298), cavity-nesting bird (Q105238402), etc. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect taxon item edits Edit

User:Albert SN has been trying to "fix" taxon items that are synonyms. See, e.g., Haworthia fasciata (Q219511). I don't know whether there is an easy way to undo these incorrect edits. It took me a long while to correct Haworthia coarctata (Q247770) and Haworthiopsis coarctata (Q58927106), where the entries in the second had been manually put into the first and then it was made a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Peter! I usually revert to the last working revision (e.g. [7]) and undo wrong merges too. --Succu (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

taxon synonym Edit

Hi, I saw you added a constraint to that property. Is that ok, or your goal is it to encourage citing the publication in which the synonymy was made. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I added the constraint to encourage references. Generally I would prefer a scientific publication, but a reference to a notable, curated database is fine. But maybe you should add retrieved (P813)} too. Regards. --Succu (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, thanks Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, do you think that is ok, I mean "reference has role: synonym" or should we create an item "source of synonymy"? Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we need a reference has role (P6184) at all. The relationship between taxon synonym (P1420) and the publication given via stated in (P248) is clear and dosn't need a further refinement. --Succu (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, fine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neottia/Listera cordata unmerge Edit

Ho, you reverted half of my edits in Listera cordata (Q157891) and Neottia cordata (Q15502195), but not the other half. In my edits I tried to reflect what is written in en:Neottia cordata - "It was formerly placed in the genus Listera, but molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that Neottia nidus-avis, the Bird's-nest Orchid, evolved within the same group.". I don't understand what you tried to do (other than unmerge), but at this moment both of items are very inconsistent, they have mixed labels, sitelinks, external identifiers, etc. Could you do something with it? Thank you for your hard work. --Lockal (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think all is fine after your merge. Please don't cite a Wikipeda as a source. --Succu (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Type specimens and URLs Edit

NMNZ EC.000109 (Q105585285)
NMNZ EC.001204 (Q105620032)
What do you think? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The property was created with the hint Preferably use a specialized property like P856, URL P854, or P1065. Otherwise, qualify with P642., but a mandatory usage of of (P642) was not discussed in the property proposal. Honestly: I do not understand the reason for that qualifier. I was not aware of it and will ignore it in the future. --Succu (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks for the answer. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plant genera with genus names the same as those of fungi genera Edit

This bot keeps adding Australian fungi IDs to plant genera with the same name. See e.g. Cyclotheca (Q5199064). In many cases, I have added statements indicating 1) authors are different and 20 a "different from" statement" but I think that after I have removed the Ausfungi statement it gets added again. Could you organise the bot to stop adding the fungiIDs to plant genera?

You should add a no value statement. This prevents the readding. BTW: There is only one first run by my bot to add Australian Fungi ID (P9076). Regards --Succu (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hesiocaeca methanicola (Q150296) vs. Sirsoe methanicola (Q61623669) Edit

Hallo Succu, magst du mal schauen, ob diese beiden Items zusammengeführt werden können? Zweiteres hatte ja dein Bot angelegt. --Leyo 19:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Leyo! Beide Datenobjekte werden benötigt. Sie sind jetzt miteinander verknüpft. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Na gut, aber dann sollten wohl die Interwikilinks und das Bild ins Item mit dem aktuellen Namen verschoben werden. Bei einigen Wikipedia-Sprachversionen sollten die Artikel zudem verschoben und angepasst werden. --Leyo 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Project:Be bold (Q3916099). ;) --Succu (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Na ja, wenn ich von Anfang an mutig gewesen wäre, hätte ich die Items zusammengeführt … --Leyo 21:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hier verschoben („Name laut aktueller Literatur“) durch User:Mister Pommeroy. Ein Zusammenfügen hätte ich früher oder später revertiert. Gruß --Succu (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

neotype Edit

Hi, can we merge neotype (Q88178912) and neotype (Q19353453)? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --Succu (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxa Edit

Hi, if a name (not a new name) is available in one publication but not in any database, can we create an item? e.g. Neophyllomyza lii Xi & Yang, 2014 available in Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. We have an item for this article: Three new species of the genus Neophyllomyza Melander (Diptera, Milichiidae) from China, with a revised key to the Chinese species (Q70105082). --Succu (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks, will look at it. Maybe by chance you have an answer to that question too? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tacoma-Pierce County Obituary Index ID Edit

Darf ich fragen, was dich zu diesen Edits ohne Gegenvorschlag bewogen hat? --Emu (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phylum Rotifera Edit

Hi, in Wikispecies a user proposed to provide the database of the available names at species and genus level within the Phylum Rotifera before 2000, the user is very likely one of the authors, maybe you could be interested to have such name list within a format that suits you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleaning watchlist of your bot Edit

Hi. Watchlist of your bot (SuccuBot) is more than 2 million rows now and on its own currently responsible for 4% of all of watchlist table. Can I clean the watchlist? Please don't do it yourself. It'll cause issues in the database. See this page for more information. Amir (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Amir. Sure you can. I changed the setting of my bot account. Regards. --Succu (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Amir (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cleaned. Amir (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synoyms Edit

Hi Succu, How are you doing? I saw that you reverted some of my edits where I was merging two elements together as they were taxonomic synonyms, see Q104835856 and Q2242259. I don't really see the point of keeping an element for each name a taxon has, but I am probably missing something. Could you explain it to me, please? Also, what's the best way of merging two synonyms' interwikis and key info if they are to remain separate elements? Has to be done manually? Thank you in advance, --Erfil (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WD is about structured data. We should be able to relate different names for a taxon to each other (e.g. this one). If you think one item represents the (currently) valid/accepted taxon name you should move all sitelinks to this item. But sometimes there are different options about this. --Succu (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Succu! I am not sure I understand the reasoning, but I'll keep it in mind next time. Cheers. --Erfil (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 IRMNG release now available as data dump Edit

Hi Succu, just letting you know that there is (again) a new release of IRMNG (genera) now available as detailed at (the actual data files are at - hoping that this is still of interest to you with regard to your wikidata activities.

Cheers and best wishes - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tony! I was looking for an update some days ago. So thank you very much for your notification. Regards --Succu (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Actually I will probably be passing on the notifications list to someone else within the next 24 months, if you have an email that would simplify things... you can let me know via Tony.Rees [at] if you would like to... Best - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Bot: Virus Taxonomy: 2020 & 2021 Release Edit

News: ICTV Master Species List 2020.v1 (Q106917282). --Qh13 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx for the notification. --Succu (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Qh13: Done. --Succu (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News of birds: IOC World Bird List Version 11.1 (Q105870418) & IOC World Bird List Version 11.2 (Q108116032). URL: --Qh13 (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qh13: Thanks for the notification. I added it to my todo list. ;) --Succu (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News: ICTV Master Species List 2021.v1 (Q111513199). --Qh13 (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patula Edit

Patula asperipunctella (Q13582489) is an insect, and can't belong to Patula (Q18523495), which is a genus of molluscs. - 4ing (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:Diff/1428054293/1428476579 Edit

Hey Succu, can you please have a look at Special:Diff/1428054293/1428476579 by Special:Contributions/ Not sure whether this is vandalism, incompetence, or—although unlikely—actually a useful contribution. Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's OK. See talk page. --Succu (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I see, thanks. As always, it's been a good idea to ask you for advice :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors Edit

Dear Succu,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at or use this form with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.



Tela Botanica ID (P3105) Edit

Hi Succu!

I asked you a few years ago to import TAXREF ID (P3186). Can you do the same with Tela Botanica ID (P3105) (Database of Tracheophytes of Metropolitan France and neighbouring regions (Q107314150)? The database is available here (sorry, everything is in French). v7.0 is available since 2020-09-15. It's possible to download the data set at the bottom of the page.

Thanks a lot!

Tubezlob (🙋) 11:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I think I can. Looks useful to me, but give me some days for the implementation. And some weeks for the run. :( --Succu (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thank you for your work! Tubezlob (🙋) 19:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tubezlob: The bot is running. --Succu (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Tubezlob (🙋) 08:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misspelling Edit

Hello, I found Aporocidaria (Q773930) but it is in fact an obvious misspelling (coming from ITIS (1996)) of another taxon and it seems that all our external identifiers for that taxon leads to records that have been created from the ITIS record. I don't know if it appears in one pubication or not, google search give nothing otherwise than database records or Wikimedia pages. Same thing for the species:
Aporocidaria (Q773930) vs Aporocidaris (Q18605968)
original publication :
Aporocidaria fragilis (Q3471670) vs Aporocidaris fragilis (Q4533401)
original publication :
I would tend to want to blank the missplelled taxa and to merge them within the good ones, maybe with a note in the "Description" / "Also known as" fields. What do you think? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not be rude Edit

Hi. When you make such an edit, for whichever reason, you should later re-introduce the correct edits (like those of mine) made in the meantime. If not, this would be taken as a rude attitude. --E4024 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Item for publication that has an IPNI name ID? Edit

Hi, I'm guessing that Die Sukkulenten (Q108172007) is unfinished? It seems to be for a publication but it has a IPNI plant ID (P961) attached to it? --Rdmpage (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Fixed it. --Succu (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata:WikiProject Biodiversity Edit

Hi, thanks for the undo. It was my mistake because of the auto translation in here. Somehow i missed it and thought it is half translated Turkish page :) Melissadilara (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. --Succu (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German label Meerestier for marine animal Edit

Why did you remove the German label Meerestier on marine animal (Q108555501)? The German National Authority File has the subject Meerestiere and it is explicitly linked to the Library of Congress Subject Heading Marine animals and the French RAMEAU heading Animaux marins. The singular form of Meerestiere is Meerestier, is it not? I removed Meerestier as the German label on marine life (Q1230015): that item is for any kind of marine organism, including plants, animals, fungi, etc. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Edit

Succu thank you very much for editing on this page. --Globalphilosophy (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, Globalphilosophy. It would be nice if you could add some statement at new created items by you, like Agrilus dis (Q108613466). --Succu (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate statements by your bot Edit

Hi, please see where there are 3 identical values with 3 different references. Could you fix your bot and clean that up?--So9q (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware of this "problem". It's on my todo list. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomie: Trigonaspis Edit

Hallo Succu, könntest Du Dir bitte mal die Taxonomie von Trigonaspis in Wikispecies, Wikidata und Commons anschauen? Auch die externen Datenbanklinks in der Commons-Kategorie sehen für mich so aus, als seien hier Dinge vermischt worden. Viele Grüße --ChristianSW (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

monocots Edit

Hi! Your feedback will be welcome at Property talk:P225#Latin vs. English and Talk:Q78961#Taxon name. Uanfala (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chelonoidis Edit

Apologies for the readding of my changes you reverted for a few items, but I've added a page number this time giving the gender of Chelonoidis as masculine, just so you know. If it helps, the relevant text (on page 228) should start with this:

"58. Chelonoidis: The gender of the tortoise genus name Chelonoidis Fitzinger (1835) has long been assumed to be feminine [...]"

Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: Guess The gender of the tortoise genus Chelonoidis Fitzinger, 1835 (Testudines: Testudinidae) (Q20054326) is the paper in question. --Succu (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q2071875 Edit

why did you cancel the IUCN taxon ID and the IUCN conservation status? 2A02:ED1:F000:279B:195B:D601:89F1:64EF 14:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seemy comment. --Succu (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a tiny question, and please forgive me for my bad English, but can you merge these two into one? (which means, to add Periparus elegans as a synonym of Pardaliparus elegans, because there is no reason to have double pages on the same species).
Thank you, 2A02:ED1:F000:279B:195B:D601:89F1:64EF 16:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, for an unknown and weird reason, the commons Category:Pardaliparus elegans is using data from Periparus elegans instead from Pardaliparus elegans.
Can you fix it? Thank you, 2A02:ED1:F000:279B:195B:D601:89F1:64EF 17:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not merge items with different taxon name (P225). Both names are based on Parus elegans (Q22231441) --Succu (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seemingly duplicate but I'm not sure any more Edit

Hello, your bot imported items such as Caiman (Q107272948) or Broad-snouted caiman (Q107333249). They seem duplicate to Caiman (Q11001288) or Broad-snouted caiman (Q644453). I've already merged a few items like this, from the same batch. Taxonomy is difficult though, so I'm reaching out to you to verify if these indeed are duplicate or I'm not seeing something important there. Thanks Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Vojtěch! This are really duplicates. Not sure why my bot created them. This should not happen. Regards. --Succu (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll keep merging them. Thanks for info. Can I have one more question please? In items such as Bostra colombiae (Q10433516), is it OK to move the P31 value : Bostra Stål. (1875) non Walker (1863) (Q10433511) to parent taxon (P171) or is there a specific use case for these instances in unavailable combinations etc? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vojtěch This improvement is wrong. Brachymyrmex 2setae probably was never described. It should be delete at ptWP, but we are damned to keep the item. --Succu (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've inserted possibly invalid entry requiring further references (Q35779580) which is the standard for such items in other areas. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

? (common name) Edit

Hi, I saw that you disagreed with my idea that the subclass claim to name (Q82799) could safely be deleted from common name (Q502895). I highly appreciate your feedback, in case this deletion was somehow undesirable.

There are plenty of direct subclasses to name (Q82799) (right now 87), and I believe many of them really belong together on a single branch. In order to more easily find the appropriate parent class for used in Swedish PM (Q110382440), I first identified and removed most of the redundant name (Q82799) subclass claims, but only after verifying that the remaining class path was correct, seemed likely to stay that way, and none of the claims were burdened by restrictive qualifiers potentially disrupting the path. In the case of common name (Q502895), the path goes via trivial name (Q913170) and noun (Q1084) to name (Q82799).

If there is a reason to keep also some redundant subclass of (P279) claims, I'd like to know about it, so that I can apply that as a guideline for my edits. By removing them, I hope to shorten the time for various SPARQL queries to traverse the class tree, but also to make the structure a bit more transparent to editors, perhaps visualizing parts of the tree graphically.

I have even been working on a plan to completely restructure the entity (Q35120) class root environment, but I have laid that to rest for the time being in order to learn a bit more about the Wikidata effort as a whole, in particular the lexicographic work. In any case, I certainly won't implement such a plan without solid support in the Ontology project for it! --SM5POR (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any idea how name (Q82799) differs form designation (Q151411) or term (Q1969448). --Succu (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the apparent side question; it made me do what I should have done earlier: Check the corresponding Wikipedia articles (another WD editor once recommended me to ignore Wikipedia while editing Wikidata items as WP articles aren't outlined with the stringency expected in Wikidata, but I must disagree with that advice). Now it appears to me that the en:Name article is more limited in scope than I thought name (Q82799) was, essentially describing proper names only, thereby invalidating noun (Q1084) being a subclass of name (Q82799) which I relied upon above as I made the deletion you reverted. So I now agree with your decision and will review the noun (Q1084) properties instead.
As to your question, I see that German Wikipedia is the only one having articles linked to all three items you mention. I studied German in school 1974-1979 and have hardly practiced it at all since then, wherefore I will have to translate the de:Bezeichnung and de:Benennung articles before I can tell with confidence that I agree with the definitions given. Fortunately for me, however, Swedish has inherited a lot of vocabulary from medieval German, resulting in beteckning and sv:benämning (of which only the latter has a Swedish WP article) being easily recognized by me. To offer an example off the top of my head, I'd say chemical element number 106 is identified by the term (Q1969448) en:seaborgium and the chemical designation (Q151411) en:Sg, while en:Seaborg is the name (Q82799) (actually family name) of the chemist it was named after (his mother was born in Sweden and his father was half-Swedish; I found out several years ago that he was 6th cousin to my grandmother on his mother's side). -- SM5POR (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heliopathes is not a cnidarian Edit

Hi, when I was adding Descrizione di una nuova sottospecie di Heliopathes avarus Mulsant & Rey, 1854 del l'isola di Gozo (Arcipelago Maltese), (Coleoptera, tenebrionidae) (Q110518650) I tried to link this article to the genus Heliopathes Opresko, 2003 (Q4012453) and was puzzled to discover that this genus and its species are treated as cnidarians by User:SuccuBot. Heliopathes is a beetle, and I suspect all the species in Wikidata are too.

What seems to have happened is that there is a homonym Heliopathes Opresko, 2003 (e.g., and that a source used by SuccuBot has used that name to infer that all Heliopathes are cnidarians.

Any thoughts on fixing this? The relevant literature is in Wikidata Revision of the Antipatharia (Cnidaria: Anthozoa). Part III. Cladopathidae (Q104094194) and Nomenclatural note: Heteropathes (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Antipatharia: Cladopathidae): A new name for Heliopathes Opresko, 2003 (Q97559835) so should be relatively easy to add the homonym and replacement names. However, I was hoping you'd be able to fix the description of the Heliopathes and its species.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdmpage (talk • contribs).

Hi, Roderic! In fact Heliopathes Opresko, 2003 (Q4012453) was created in 2013 for the later homonym (not by me) and for the three species with sitelinks to "ceb", "nl", "sv" and "war". In 2018 my bot ceated missing species listed at Fauna Europaea (Q2745977) looking for a genus Heliopathes in the animal kingdom and found only Heliopathes Opresko, 2003 (Q4012453). Normally this works fine. I created Heliopathes (Q110520514), fixed parent taxon (P171) and removed wrong descriptions. --Succu (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger of captive mammal and zoo animal Edit

I do not understand why you merged captive mammal and zoo animal. These are completely different concepts and mean different things. A captive mammal is not necessarily in a zoo. And zoo animals encompass any kind of animal living in a zoo, not just mammals. The Library of Congress Subject Headings and other controlled vocabularies have different authorized headings for these two concepts. Merging them was not correct. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My fault, UWashPrincipalCataloger. But captive animal (Q57812559) should be more specific refer to wild animal (Q16390140). I doubt pet (Q39201) fits in. --Succu (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxon name duplicates Edit

Hello, I've been going through items which have identical taxon name (P225). I have solved hundreds of them but less than 200 from my list are too difficult for me to solve. Often, it is clear these are meant to be distinct taxa, but there is no link between the two items. I think it's always best if the two items are somehow linked to prevent them from being merged carelessly. At least via different from (P1889) but something more specific is always better. If you have time, I would appreciate your help on the remaining items; I've listed them at User:Vojtěch Dostál/remaining possible taxon duplicates. Thanks, Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you did it right. Most items in your list are OK. They are homonyms with different a authorship. Constraints based only on taxon name (P225) are of no help for years now. --Succu (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope too. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are cultivars instance of (P31) : taxon (Q16521)? Or some are and some are not (if they were or weren't formally described as taxa?). I'd like to do some work with plant cultivar categories in Wikimedia Commons and give each of them a proper item.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vojtěch Dostál: - just happened in on here; cultivars are not taxa; they are more like breeds of domesticated animals, if that helps with choice of description - MPF (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF There's 5000 taxa items of cultivars... Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
cultivar (Q4886) should be used. There is a special Code for them: International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Q941761). --Succu (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should I change the instance of all the 5000 items in the query above to cultivar (Q4886), then? I'm happy to do that. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would restrict this to items where taxon name (P225) contains and . --Succu (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q1093742/Q500 Edit

Moin, dürfte ich erfahren, warum du meine Edits in Q1093742 und Q500 revertiert hast? Q500 beschreibt den Zitronenbaum, der verlinkte Wikipedia-Artikel allerdings die Frucht. Deswegen müsste der Artikel in Q1093742 verlinkt werden und "Zitronenbaum", der allerdings ein Redirect auf "Zitrone" ist, in Q500. Gtuß, Aidepikiw-nick (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citrus × limon (Q500) beschreibt die Art lemon (Q1093742) die Frucht. Ein uralte Geschichte. --Succu (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Und was beschreibt deiner Meinung nach der Wikipedia-Artikel, wenn er mit "Dieser Artikel behandelt die Frucht.[...]" überschrieben ist? --Aidepikiw-nick (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Den status quo (Q201610). --Succu (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Und warum ist bei Citrus × sinensis (Q3355098) und orange (Q13191) die Verlinkung so, wie ich sie bei Zitrone geändert hatte, also abweichend vom jetzigen Zustand bei Zitrone? --Aidepikiw-nick (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

label Edit

Hey! Can you help update headlines? I massively renamed articles. Old names remained on Vikidata. All renamed articles in this category. --Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open Tree of Life reference taxonomy version 3.3 Edit

Hi @Succu,

As you did beautiful job with Q105527638 and uploaded related IDs, are you planing to do the same with

Best, AdrianoRutz (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx. I created Open Tree of Life reference taxonomy version 3.3 (Q110646935), but I have other bot jobs to be run before this. --Succu (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tabasco pepper Edit

Can you please explain this set of reverts? They make no sense. You state "not a variety", but it was cultivar you removed. And why remove the parent taxon and name? Thanks. Huntster (t @ c) 19:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name of the cultivar is Capsicum frutescens ‘Tabasco’. A variety Capsicum frutescens var. tabasco was never described. --Succu (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why not fix the issue instead of wholesale revert? Huntster (t @ c) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically I fixed this constraint violation caused by you. Now the rest should be done. --Succu (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll take that it is a cultivar instead of a variety at face value, I accept that. Just please be more careful with what and how you revert, as some of those properties had already been changed to cultivar, with citations. Regardless, thanks for answering. I'll...fix the languages now. Huntster (t @ c) 19:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Huntster: This will cause again constraint violations. The abbreviation cv. is outdated since 1995 and should not be used. --Succu (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a freeform field, so it will not cause constraint violations, but I understand what you mean. Will take care of it. Out of curiosity, can you point to a document or something that describes how or why it became outdated? I do not disbelieve you, just interested. Huntster (t @ c) 19:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
taxon name (P225) is not a „freeform field“. Cultivars are governed by International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Q941761). --Succu (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultivar or species? Edit

What do you think of Dendranthema cultivars (Q15572340)? Seems like a weird mistake someone made. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to GCDThe Plant Listvi:Dendranthema cultivarsDendranthema cultivars (Q15572340) it's a species, but I think it's a database artefact. --Succu (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

child (P40) Edit

Hallo Succu, wie du sicher weißt, geht es dort nicht um die Anzahl der Kinder (number of children (P1971)), sondern um einzelne Kinder. Dementsprechend ist es noch irritierender als bisher schon, wenn in der Bezeichnung auch noch der Plural genannt wird. Das spiegelt sich ja auch in den singulären Bezeichnungen der anderen Sprachen wieder. Da ich es häufig erlebe, dass das Property falsch verwendet wird, stehe ich einer Umbenennung sehr skeptisch gegenüber. Grüße --Dorades (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Ich weiss nicht, was man da falsch machen kann. Die Eigenschaft kann einen (Kind) oder mehrere Werte (Kinder) haben (Einzahl/Mehrzahl). Das spiegelt das Label Kind(er) wider. Es liest sich einfach besser und wird so auch bei einigen anderen Eigenschaften gehandhabt. Übrignes hatte die Eigenschaft 2013 die Bezeichnung Kinder. Das wurde erst 2019 in Kind geändert. Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hier eine Bearbeitung, bei der das Property falsch verstanden wurde. Solchen Fehlern begegne ich immer mal wieder und denke, dass der inkludierte Plural das Verstehen kompliziert. --Dorades (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aeshna flavifrons Edit

Having seen these edits: 'Aeshna flavifrons' is not a taxon. It is a ghost name. It was still listed in the 2013 version of the World Odonata List, but was since removed (not synonymized but deleted). I took the time to research why this had been done, and found out that 'flavifrons' was a name published in a suppressed work, and has as such no standing. Based on what Lichtenstein stated about the name, we cannot even know if it was an Aeshna, because Lichtenstein stated it was similar to Aeshna minuta, a name that is now recognized as a synonym of Palpopleura sexmaculata (Fabricius, 1787). Hence it is ridiculous to mention Aeshna as a parent taxon, just because the name is 'Aeshna flavifrons'. I stated all this on the talk page of the item, and added links to the relevant publications, including the Opinion in which Lichtenstein's auction catalog was placed on the list of suppressed works. And I don't think it is very neat to refer to the 2013 version of a list as a reference for a statement, knowing that the same statement cannot be upheld by a reference to the current version of the same list. That's not to say it is cheating and misguiding your readers. I guess based on this, you will have to reconsider your edits, and undo them. Wikiklaas (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could at least react, and explain yourself, instead of just plainly undoing my motivated edit. When WikiData states that 'Aeshna flavifrons' is a taxon and a child of Aeshna, it acts as a source of disinformation, and helps proliferating a non-existing name. It's very nerdy to justify that by stating that an error is produced if these statements are omitted. Best thing to do here is to make clear that the name doesn't represent a taxon, and isn't a child of anything (other than a child of 'suppressed names'). Second best thing is to completely delete the item. Worst thing to do is to leave like you did. Wikiklaas (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WD is not about the truth. "Taxon" items are about names and their relationship to other names according to sources. I had to create several new items to model Aeshna flavifrons (Q2285582) in a more appropriate way. Hence the delayed answer. The species was first published in 1796 by Anton August Heinrich Lichtenstein (Q66051) in Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburgi d. III. Februar 1796 auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio tertia. Contines insecta (Q110975047) witch is part of Catalogus rerum naturalium rarissimarum Hamburgi (Q110975381). I added this information here. In 1995 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Q1071346) suppressed this work with publishing Opinion 1820 A. A. H. Lichtenstein's (1796, 1797) Catalogiis Miisei Zoologici … Sectio Tertia.Continens Insecta and D. H. Schneider's (1800) Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten … : suppressed, with conservation of Some Lichtenstein (1796) nam ... (Q43383055). This is modeled at the work item using instance of (P31)=opera utique oppressa (Q65589911) citing the opinion 1820 and Official lists and indexes of names and works in zoology. Supplement 1986–2000 (Q110976635). From 1995 on Aeshna flavifrons is a suppressed name, not a nomen dubium. This modeled at the species item using instance of (P31)=suppressed name (ICZN) (Q21481079). It is easy to remove unwelcomed statements, but this is not a solution. --Succu (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the talk page I explained why I used the qualifier 'nomen dubium' in stead of 'nomen suppressum': the latter was not available as a qualifier or whatever name you might give to the terms in those statements.
I did not say anywhere that I was looking for some kind of truth: I was aiming to justly list this name, which means that it should never be listed as a taxon, because it is not a taxon, and it should not be listed as a child of Aeshna, because it is no child of any genus. The thing is that you cannot find references to justify those two statements. That has nothing to do with the truth, but with verifiability. And that is what Wikipedia and WikiData is about. Wikiklaas (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aeshna flavifrons (Q2285582) represents a name. Not any kind of a taxon concept. Anton August Heinrich Lichtenstein (Q66051) refers to the genus „165. Aeshna; Fabric. loc. cit. pag. 383.“ This is a reference to Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta : Secundun classes, ordines, genera, species, adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus / Joh. Christ. Fabricii (Q54676224) Vol. 2, 1793, p. 383 see (here). Of course today it's not a zoological name at all, because the name is supressed. Both cases are modeled here. --Succu (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 IRMNG release now available as data dump Edit

Hi Succu, just letting you know that there is (again) a new release of IRMNG (genera) now available as detailed at (the actual data files are at - hoping that this is still of interest to you with regard to your wikidata activities.

I presume you update WD items using a bot, not manually... and that the "scientificName" is the primary term that you match, maybe along with authorship? In some cases I may have reason to adjust the authorship, hopefully not the scientificName although the latter is also technically possible in my system if needed (in rare cases e.g. errors in importing the data into IRMNG, or in the source Database that require correction) - although e.g. in the case of a published misspelling, normally I would keep the misspelled name as "unaccepted" and direct it to a record for the correctly spelled name.

Also the odd IRMNG record may be deprecated (not included in the download, although the IRMNG ID remains on my system as a redirect, and can be reactivated if needed) - mainly these are duplicates, or "not needed" misspellings such as database errors, etc., not found in the literature. If you ever need a list of deprecated IRMNG IDs (which of course may grow slightly with successive releases, or theoretically even shrink), I can supply them if neeeded.

Feel free to advise further if there are any other issues that may require to be addressed regarding import of my data for WD use.

Cheers and best wishes - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page request Edit

Hi Succu - wikidata currently has no page that I can find for the species Psilorhinus morio (species:Psilorhinus morio, Commons:Category:Psilorhinus morio). I don't know how to start a new page here, could you do it, please? Once completed, all the wikipedia links should be moved to it from the page of its old synonym Brown Jay (Q2667717). Oddly, wikidata already has pages for its 3 subspecies, Psilorhinus morio morio (Q27622828), Psilorhinus morio palliatus (Q27622827), Psilorhinus morio vociferus (Q27622829); these will also need connecting to the new Psilorhinus morio page. Finally, there is a mystery page Psilorhinus cyanogenys (Q41015995) listed as 'a species of insect' (!); Psilorhinus cyanogenys is a synonym of nominate Psilorhinus morio morio (Avibase). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Felis leo - bhl page id as identifier Edit

Hello, here the addition of the bhl page id as an identifier to Felis leo (Q15294488) was reverted: I think this is a really useful addition, not least as a link to the original species description then appears in the taxonbar on enwiki (amongst many other language wikis (although seemingly not yet dewiki)). What are your thoughts? thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For taxa BHL page ID (P687) should be used in the reference section only. It is there for a very long time, please see here. --Succu (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I only just spotted your comment (I have just raised a query on this on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy) — until the revert, the original description appeared amongst the sources in the taxonbar at enwiki Lion, now it doesn't; presumably the original description counts as a (taxon) identifier? Or are you saying the taxonbar templates should be amended on the various language wikipedias? I guess it relates also to the below, thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxon publication Edit

Hello again, while I'm here, is there or should there (not) be the ability to add the taxon publication in which the species/genus/family group name (?amongst others?) is first named as an additional qualifier to taxon name (P225)? For instance, on Somali Ostrich (Q1988064) I have added Immer Neues aus Afrika (Q112977835) with reference has role (P6184) first valid description (Q1361864), but this is lost among the references, to which many more are likely to be added by bots in the future. If you look at Viverridae (Q185864), there is now Gray's paper under described by source (P1343), but this is/could be lost among the entries. How can we best flag the original taxon publication? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replaced combination(s) Edit

Hello again again, also, Parus varius yakushimensis (Q112975155) has nomenclatural status (P1135) replaced synonym (Q15709329), as well as instance of (P31) synonym (Q1040689) of Parus varius sunsunpi (Q112974828) (which has taxon synonym (P1420) Parus varius yakushimensis (Q112975155)), but what should we use as the nomenclatural status (P1135) for Parus varius sunsunpi (Q112974828), protonym (Q14192851) of Sittiparus varius sunsunpi (Q27623470)? Is there or do we need "replaced combination" or some such? Presumably then we could list, among the statements for Sittiparus varius sunsunpi (Q27623470), taxon synonym (P1420) stricto sensu as well as "replaced combinations"? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS, in this instance, were there also Sittiparus varius yakushimensis as a recombination of Parus varius yakushimensis (Q112975155), where would that best be listed, among the synonyms of Sittiparus varius sunsunpi (Q27623470) or under "taxon synonym recombinations"? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot watchlist size Edit

Regarding SuccuBot: Hey there. Looks like your bot's watchlist has grown to a very large size, and our website's database administrators are interested in wiping the watchlist to save space. 1) Do they have your permission to do this? You can post a quick statement of permission in this Phabricator thread, or ping me and I'll tell them. 2) If your bot doesn't need to use its watchlist, can you look into making your bot not watchlist pages? This may involve logging into your bot's account, going to preferences, going to the watchlist sub-tab, and unticking a setting such as "Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist". Thanks. Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Novem Linguae: I cleared the watchlist and changed the preferences. --Succu (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of P642 on Q15622363 sheep breed Edit

I did this because P642 is in the process of deprecation and this information is already indicated with facet of P1269. --Middle river exports (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Generic ×specific" vs "Generic × specific" - a whitespace question Edit

Hello! A lot of your taxon and label edits have scientific names in form of "Generic ×specific", e.g. "Citrus ×aurantium". But Wikipedia has them in form of "Generic × specific" (with space after ×), e.g. Citrus × aurantium. I suspect the latter is correct and the space needs to be added. Can you either confirm or deny that suspicion? --Tengwar (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are wrong. See ICN. --Succu (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See AIUI this form is use when the hybrid has been given a formal name, as opposed to indicating a cross between two taxon. Huntster (t @ c) 20:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note en:Hybrid_name#Forms of hybrid names. At WD the space is omitted. P225 has never the form "Generic x specific" ("Generic xspecific"). --Succu (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Huntster, @Succu: Thanks for the info! I don't know much about taxonomy, I simply noticed the discrepancy between Wikipedia and Wikidata. --Tengwar (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide source for claim if you are going to change Edit

See my message: "Revert unsourced claim. Please provide source if status of taxon has changed" This dinosaur does not have a taxonomic name. Middle river exports (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What the hell is a "taxonomic name"? Looks like for Vitakridrinda sulaimani (Q205590) exists a valid description. --Succu (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
taxon name (P225). Anyway I have changed my mind about this one, as enwiki is inconsistent with what the sources actually suggest (and the other interwikis). In any case, you should explain your edits instead of just typing question marks. The claim that the name is invalid seems to be one either made by a single author (Thomas Holtz) or a single editor claiming that this author said this. Middle river exports (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I am even less sure now, disregard what I said about Thomas Holtz, it has nothing to do with him. This paper An associated partial skeleton of Jainosaurus cf. septentrionalis (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) from the Late Cretaceous of Chhota Simla, Central India (Q57377176) claims the taxon is invalid, but does not provide much about it specifically. I have used the statement item disputed by (P7378) to indicate this. What would be helpful is a source that is not from this author, and not from the author this author is claiming is wrong. --Middle river exports (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No effort in finding USSR scientists? Edit

Levan Kanchaveli (Q36614255) is a duplicate of Levan Kanchaveli (Q26255493). How does the find doesn't find this?-- Бункерный дед (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Du hast eine der zahllosen WD-Dubletten gefunden, aber was genau ist dein Problem mit diesem fünf Jahre alten Datenobjekt? --Succu (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved articles to another "Entomologische Nachrichten" Edit

Hi Succu, I've moved 44 articles from Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte (Q21386041) to Entomologische Nachrichten (Q47164143). There are so many "Entomologische Nachrichten" (or variations on that title) that my head might explode. But I think it's clear that these two journals are different. Rdmpage (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lateinfehler Edit

Hallo Succu,

warum gibt es die beiden Arten Brachyramphus hypoleucus (Q46959662) und Brachyramphus hypoleuca (Q11841811)? Wenn Wissenschaftler in der Vergangenheit Fehler gemacht, sollte es trotzdem Items dafür geben? Kışkırtıcı (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hängt von der Art des "Fehlers" ab. Unter User:Succu/Spelling (Stand 2020) gibt es zahlreiche weitere Beispiele, die einer kuratierten Bearbeitung bedürfen. --Succu (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das ist ja interessant. Geht es darum zu entscheiden, auf welche Schreibung gemergt werden soll?
Wodurch sind diese ganzen Duplikate entstanden? War das ein bestimmter User?--Lichtenthäler (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Den Quatsch Synthliboramphus hypoleucus vs. Synthliboramphus scrippsi habe ich übrigens wieder geradegebogen. Deine wenigen bisherigen Bearbeitungen auf WD waren nicht hilfreich. --Succu (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hylaeaicum species Edit

Hi, Plants of the World Online and other sources have moved some Neoregelia species to Hylaeaicum. It would be useful if the missing Wikidata taxon items could be created. See here. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q106953178 and Q3772918 Edit

Hi, could you please tell me why are they splitted? It seems that they are the same thing in the ICTV database. David Xuang (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until 2019 the family name was Leviviridae. We have to keep this. --Succu (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gesomyrmex_miegi : révocation Nomem dubium Edit

Bonjour une bonne santé et une bonne et heureuse année 2023. Vous avez révoqué mes modifications sur Gesomyrmex miegi concernant la déclaration nomen dubium : Soit pourquoi pas : Mais comment doit-on déclarer un nomen dubium... dans wikidata merci d'avance de votre retour et A+-- Philippe rogez (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statements with qualifiers without references can be problematic Edit

Hi, Thanks for identifying erratic behaviour of my bot script on the bot task approval page. I went past the affected items and reverted where necessary. I am working on a fix which I will explain at that page. However, while investigating that solution issue, I stumbled upon another issue.

Some of your edits lack references, which is usually not a problem, because when the reference is missing and the value is the same, it will just add the reference and as such improve the item/statement. However, in cases where qualifiers are added to the statement (examples: here and here), we are running into an issue. The reference is not necessarily pointing to the a source that includes both the values and qualifiers. So if I or a bot would add a reference to that statement, it would actually be inaccurate if the source is not mentioning the author name, A solution would be to add another statement using the same value, one where the original statement (without references, but with qualifiers) is kept and a second statement that only mentions the name and the it's references. BUT, this does not work if a unique value constraint violation is set.

First: Can you add references when your bot is adding those statements?

Second: Any thoughts on moving those qualifiers to proper statements? This would have simplify parsing those statements quite a lot and also would make querying for taxon name authors easier (using the "wdt:" prefix. If the qualifiers are removed from those one value statements, managing the provenance of those statements would be a lot easier. Andrawaag (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only a short remark to your exanples, they are from 2016 (!) and the source (IPNI) is given by my bot. See here and here. --Succu (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]