Termininja

Archives:

Dracaena (Q158009) and taxon synonym (P1420)

Hi! Could you please add a source for this claims. My sources do not support this. --Succu (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I updated it with source. --Termininja (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Image choice

Hi Termininja - please be careful over image choice! At Rock Dove (Q42326) you had replaced an image of a Rock Dove (Q42326) with an image of a feral pigeon (Q1942487), which is not appropriate to the Rock Dove (Q42326) item. When selecting an image, it is best when available to use an image of a wild (not captive or cultivated) individual, and ideally from as close as possible to the type locality (Q2405146) to give an accurate representation of the taxon as originally described. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Merging items

Hallo Termininja,
When you (want to) merge items, you may want to use the merge.js gadget from help page about merging. It helps with merging and removes the need to file a request on Wikidata:Requests for deletions.
With regards,- сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hepatophyta

Hepatophyta is based on an illegitimate generic name. It is thus a nomen invalidum and therefore not a taxonomic synonym. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but the image (preferred or not) is a collage, so your edit is not ok. Property montage image (P2716) is created to be used... --Termininja (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The image of the male stalks of Marchantia is not a good image. Marchantia is a weird bryophyte; it is highly atypical. I have looked for a better image, but have not found one that would be usable. If you think this requires a collage image property instead, we can switch to that, but that would mean removing the Marchantia image to avoid duplicated properties. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Source for taxon authors?

Hi Termininja, your bot made this edit. What source did it use? Korg (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

For most author edits I used ITIS, but for this item I see that it is not correct so I'll check and fix it. Thanks. --Termininja (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Korg (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Monotypic taxon

An entity is a taxon by its own nature. Whether it is monotypic depends on the number of described subgroups, whether new subgroups have been published, whether subgroups have been merged, whether there are fossil taxa included, whether a subgroup is extant or extinct. But none of those things are properties of the taxon itself. They are properties of its subgroups. For these reasons (and many more) Wikispecies has chosen not to mark "monotypic" taxa. IF you think this is something that Wikidata should track, I would recommend proposing a new property for this attribute, just as we have properties for children of people, or for parent taxa. But it is not a suitable value for instance of (P31), which is a descriptor for the group itself, and not what subgroups may or may not be included. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

monotypic taxon (Q310890) - taxonomic group which contains only one immediately subordinate taxon. Calobryales (Q21344135) is exactly this case. We have thousands of such items. If you want to change something you have to do it for all of them, so please revert your edit. Such actions are vandalism, because we lose useful information about the item. When new property is introduced we will switch to it, until then we have to use the current structure. Regards. --Termininja (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

So you would favor the introduction of a property for "human with only one child", to be used in place of "human" whenever the human has only one child? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice also that the first other plant group I checked that is marked as monotypic taxon (Q310890) is Platanaceae (Q171425). That group is not monotypic because it contains the genera Sapindopsis (Q59192208), Debeya, & Dewalquea. So the fact that there are thousands of items marked with this value does not mean that there are thousands of correct usages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Non of the fossil taxa you mentioned, belongs to Platanaceae (Q171425). --Succu (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes they do. Please see The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants and the same information is provided on the English Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

enWP is not a source at all. The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants (Q98912216) (1993) is a questionable source from a modern viewpoint. --Succu (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Termininja,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Media legend

Hi Termininja - when adding a 'sex or gender' entry, please do not remove the 'media legend' entry (as you did e.g. here) when it contains important additional information like subspecies depicted. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw some of these and I usually don't remove them, I even added a lot of subspecies depicted, but for this item I missed it. So this is the correct entry. Descriptions are for some lang specific info, not for generic info. --Termininja (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That's if 'depicts' exists for all subspecies? Also what should one do for examples like Red-footed Booby (Q217122), where there is both subspecies and colour morph information to give? (As an aside on this particular one, I removed the sex / gender note as this species can't be sexed on plumage alone, the photographers' sex claims are either guesswork or based on behavioural information not shown in the photos) - MPF (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to mark colour morph. I think with description is ok for now. --Termininja (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

English names

Hi Termininja - please note English names of birds are capitalised, following the IOC World Bird List references. Please stop changing them to lowercase! Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In IOC World Bird List they can be capitalized, but in Wikidata we use Help:Label#Capitalization as the idea is the label to can be used in sentense. With what the birds are more different/special from the other organisms? (lion (Q140), leopard shark (Q1478899), adder (Q192056), tomato (Q23501), White Stork (Q25352)) --Termininja (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Termininja - from the Help:Label#Capitalization entry, "Labels begin with a lowercase letter except for when uppercase is normally required or expected" (my emphasis). For animals and plants, uppercase is expected in English (as witness the IOC reference); the formal vernacular name of a species is a proper name, so it takes upper case. A Common Tern (Sterna hirundo specifically) is not the same as a common tern (any tern that happens to be abundant); a Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava specifically) is not the same as a yellow wagtail (any wagtail that is yellow) - it is reasonable to say that a Grey Wagtail [Motacilla cinerea] is a yellow wagtail (as it has a lot of yellow in its plumage); but it is not a Yellow Wagtail. That some wikidata items for species do not have upper case is an error that should be corrected. - MPF (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for info, I'll not change EN labels.. --Termininja (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear Termininja,

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, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in mid of March 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)