User talk:Termininja/Archive

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Welcome to Wikidata, Termininja!

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--Ricordisamoa 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki items

Please review our notability criteria for items. MediaWiki:Common.js, for example does not meet it per:

• It contains at least one valid sitelink to a Wikipedia page.

• To be valid a link must not be a talk page, nor a MediaWiki page, nor a special page, nor a user page, nor a subtemplate. Note that a single Wikipedia page cannot have more than one sitelink in Wikidata and that a sitelink cannot point to a redirect.

The edits for the MediaWiki pages have thus been deleted. If you have questions let me know. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for info. The reason to create this new item was that I saw the link "Add links" on the "Common.js" page. I didn't know that it is wrong. --Termininja (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge gadget

Hey Termininja, Just so you know, there is a gadget in your preferences that when activated allows you to merge items automatically. It can even send the emptied items to RfD automatically. There is more info at Help:Merge. It's such a useful feature :) Cheers

This sounds good. I hope I'll have possibility to try it. Thank you very much! :) --Termininja (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Link removal

If a page is deleted, Hoo Bot will remove the link automatically. Thanks.--GZWDer (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you :) --Termininja (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot

Hi, your bot shouldn't run without a bot flag, otherwise it may be blocked. Make a request here. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, It's done! :) --Termininja (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

more careful

Hello, i think you got some notifications about of my reverts of your edits (either done with this "Termininja" account or with your "BotNinja"). Maybe the following is helpful to understand in addition: Please do not mix up articles and disambiguation pages in one item, and please respect the general rules for disambiguation items on Wikidata (it's about same spelling, not about same or related "meaning"). Holger1959 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I know very well the difference between articles and disambiguation pages, but you are right - sometimes there is better item for some article which I just didn't see :) By the way you also have to be very careful when do such reverts, because in this case all these are disambiguation pages. An when I say "the same" I mean logically "the same disambiguation pages" - all they refer to absolutely the same pages which are linked here in the same items. For example Антоний (disambiguation page) in bgwiki refer to Гордиан I which is linked to Gordian I in enwiki to which refer Antonius (disambiguation page). Regards! --Termininja (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ok, but for the Antonius/Antonij case you linked: no, they might be all disambiguations, but Antonius and Antonij are obviously different (that's why i split this from the messed up Antonius item in 2013 when it included many different things, also eg. Antonije (Q2857102)). If you now (for whatever reason) want to merge Antonij back into something else, why to Antonius (Q959689) and not into Antonios (Q17485391), Antonio (Q599425), Antony (Q826267), Antoní (Q11906100), Anton (Q239924), Anthony (Q2519783) or such? please notice that this is not about name items and correct name translations, but about disambiguations, which could also refer to place names, album titles, companies etc. For example in Germany we have Q169654 where Antonius (not Antonij) is the name of a former coal mine.

i only did not revert your Antonius/j merge a second time because i think other users will find it sooner or later (or maybe Jura1 can have a look and comment?). Holger1959 (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so, thank you for your intervention :) --Termininja (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well. Thanks for pinging me ;)

I try to avoid editing items about disambiguation pages, but frequently salvage "given name" articles that get mixed up with them.

In this case, my main concern is that the article en:Antonius shouldn't be linked from the two items you are discussing. --- Jura 17:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, similar issue with human groups: [1]. Items with instance of (P31) not equal human (Q5) are needed to be processed very carefully. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This was surprise, thanks. I'll check for similar items... --Termininja (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

edits marking

Your bot is not marking its edits as bot edits, can you fix that please? :) George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 19:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Done! --Termininja (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Bellamya jeffreysi(i)

Hi Termininja,

you created Bellamya jeffreysi (Q20085142) as well as Bellamya jeffreysi (Q3319419) at bgwiki for this Red list species. Please check your botcode. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, IUCN information is updated and now Bellamya jeffreysii which had IUCN-ID:184654 is deleted and it is already synonym to Bellamya jeffreysi. Thanks, it's corrected. By the way, how synonyms are marked in wikidata, for example for the same species. Is this the way (by using instance of with Wikimedia duplicated page)? Is it need to mention also in Q3319419 that jeffreysii is synonym? --Termininja (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case simply merge the items. I added some information to Bellamya jeffreysi (Q3319419) and created Vivipara jeffreysii (Q20161220). Do you know Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy? --Succu (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I came there from Module:Taxobox :) --Termininja (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: If you want to source IUCN conservation status (P141) it would be better to use this pattern. But there is no real need to do this, because my bot will do this. --Succu (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Later I think to improve the botcode and to add references, instance of, parent taxon, taxon rank and taxon name (probably with taxon author and the date). Also I think to add and fossil range but I'm not sure are these the correct properties. --Termininja (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We have temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524). I think these should be used, but I'm not sure. You should discuss this at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. --Succu (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some more bgwiki-dubletts I detected by chance: Belgrandiella parreyssi(i), Helix aperta/Cantareus apertus. --Succu (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I redirected the synonym pages. --Termininja (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life ID (P830)

Hi! Please have a look at this constraint violations report. --Succu (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I see 3 problems in the items from this list. The first is wrong eol IDs for some items - some of them made by my bot (this bug was fixed 2 days ago, so the last edits has to be ok). Now, I recheck with my bot all items from the list and remove/correct the wrong eol ID from them. The second problem is that a lot of these items are synonyms (according to eol data, and not only) and has to be merged, for example Onespot barb (Q3757110) and Puntius muzaffarpurensis (Q13719742) (this is why we have the same id for 2 different items). Let the list be updated to see what will left, to can fix and the last problem - the same names for different taxons. I think they will not be much so I can periodically check this reports and will fix them. --Termininja (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

BotNinja

Hi, I've just blocked the bot for 24 hours after I was asked on IRC by developers. There is currently a high dispatch lag and it seems this bot is either adding to it or hindering its ability to go down. Feel free to request an unblock (if the lag shows 0 minutes) or wait out the 24 hours before the bot is able to edit again. Thanks for understanding this is a block with technical implications. You should look into adding a check which prevents the bot editing or decreases its edit rate if the dispatch lag is high[2]. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In future I'll check these stats. --Termininja (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've been asked to block the bot again. Thanks for understanding and hope you implement the clause soon, John F. Lewis (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

John F. Lewis: You'll have „been asked to block the bot again“? Where, when and why? --Succu (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Succu: On IRC by a Wikidata developer based on technical grounds. Fast editing bots increase dispatch lag which makes Wikidata less useful as changes to interwiki links and so on do not propagate to wikis. Most bots implement a low lag threshold and it appears BotNinja does not implement one low enough that it stops editing when the standard 'this lag is an issue' alarms fire off around 120 seconds. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

John F. Lewis: Please give us a snip of this conversation. BTW: Please document max lag warning is fired above 120 seconds lag! --Succu (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

But why?! Lag "0 minutes", I set critical lag to 300sec in my bot script and its working fine. --Termininja (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Pointed to Jan on irc. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll decrease edits per minute and will check the lag to not exceed 100 sec, and hope no more problems occur. --Termininja (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for all this. I hope future improvements will ensure Wikidata will be able to sustain greater edit rates. I checked and the dispatch lag alert gets send out when the median lag is >= 60 despite the message saying 120. But when I requested the block again it was >=4min and it recovered very quickly after the block. So maybe I was too quick and the bot would have backed off after 5 minutes. Anyway so far now everything seems fine, probably because you decreased the edits per minute. Thank you. - Jan Zerebecki 20:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jan! This should be clarified at Wikidata:Bots too. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Succu. Thank you. Clarified. A change to only warn when the median dispatch lag is >300s is pending.

topic's main category (P910)

You have added a lot of incorrect claims. The correct property is category's main topic (P301).--GZWDer (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why "a lot", I checked my history and found only 2 incorrect items for category with topic's main category (P910), all they are fixed. Thanks. --Termininja (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Parent taxon

Dear Termininja, please don't not change the value of referenced statements (example). Simply add another (referenced) taxonomic viewpoint. --Succu (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Only for referenced? I corrected it. --Termininja (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends... Often intermediate ranks are missing because parent taxon was added from svwiki, cebwiki or warwiki (and so on). It's allways worth to look to the database identifiers. Eg. sometimes there is a ITIS-TSN with refenrences to taxon name and rank but not to parent taxon. Fauna Europeana can provide a lot of subtribes, tribes and subfamilies we are stll missing. --Succu (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• We have to find better way to track the items without language links in them... Your bot was created Rhomboderella (Q18521268), my bot created Rhomboderella (Q20678664), and the main item was in Rhomboderella (Q6107797). I merged them. --Termininja (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes there is an undetected item with a sitelink and one my bot created long time ago with P225. Last week we had around 7,000 species without a matching genus. You should use WDQ to check if an item with P225 allready exists. --Succu (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good idea, I'm going to update my script. --Termininja (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope you are aware of this list too. Setting a genus to a species is not trivial. You have to know to which kingdom the species belongs. --Succu (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is why I started put descriptions on the items. --Termininja (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And then there are case like Lindsaya trapeziformis. There is no genus Lindsaya. It's an (invalid) orthografic variant of Lindsaea (Q6552633). I assume we'll find a lot of these cases in the remaining 7,000 missing genera, because almost all of them belong only to a single species. --Succu (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Why you not redirect Lindsaya trapeziformis to Lindsaea trapeziformis in viwiki, remove the link from Q18459380 and merge it with the other one. --Termininja (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Alone zhwiki has around 2,000 cases (created 7. Dec. 2013) of duplicates. The people wanted to solve this at their own, but nothing happend. It's not my business to fix all this issues in foreign wikis. --Succu (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And sometimes the local users like having all these errors, like at svwiki ("this may be completely bogus, but it is valuable information, and we are pleased to have it"). They will fight any attempt to put things in order.- Brya (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Source

If I add parent taxon (P171) for some item from ITIS can I use stated in (P248)? --Termininja (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but ITIS is not a good source for parent taxon (P171). If there is no other source, it would be OK to use ITIS for a parent taxon at the rank of family or order, but not otherwise. - Brya (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The item without parent has to be family/order, or the parent has to be family/order? --Termininja (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The parent has to be family or order. Nobody takes assignment to a family or order all that seriously, but parent taxa at other ranks suggest a precision which should be backed up by a proper taxonomic reference. - Brya (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

imported from: German Wikipedia

Hi Termininja,

Adding "imported from: German Wikipedia" is not helpful. This is not useful information and adding it has only disadvantages. - Brya (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What you suggest? --Termininja (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is generally said "Wikipedia is not a reference", so it is only in very special circumstances that it would be useful to add "imported from: German Wikipedia", or the like. A lot of standard "taxon properties" (name, rank, etc) do not need a reference, at all. What really does need references are usages of names, "taxon concepts" (of these we have far too few). - Brya (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I knew very well that "Wikipedia is not a reference" but for one month I saw this way of reference in so many items that it is already as normal thing to me. No problem, I'll not use it more. By the way stated in (P248) in reference for GbifId, EolId, etc. is also useless and unnecessary because it is obviously from the official site, so this repeated information has to be displayed automatically together with the date (taken from the current date in time when the edit is done) and this two fields has to be blocked for editing... but these things are technically oriented and has to be discussed on other place... --Termininja (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

EOL-ID, GBIF-ID (and e.g. Fossilworks-ID) reflecting the taxonomic viewpoint of their publisher at some point in time, which could change without notice. --Succu (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I know this, but what, when something is changed it will be updated as we do it now, this not change anything - you always have to add, update or delete some id. --Termininja (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's taxonomy and not create, read, update and delete (Q60500). --Succu (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but how I said - this not change anything. Taxonomy or not, the id is id in both cases mentioned above. --Termininja (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it's an opion some helds --Succu (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

For any particular taxon, at any one time, there can be any number of taxonomic opinions on how it is circumscribed and named. That is, side by side. The orientation points (offering something to hold on to) are taxonomic treatments (monographs, floras, etc), not databases. But, the really good databases will keep track of the taxonomic work done in their area. Something like ITIS will be ten years, or so, behind. - Brya (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope we talk for different things because I really can't see any connection between "taxonomic opinions" and this what I'm talking about... I'm talking for this, why always have to set "stated in: GBIF" for GBIF ID after its clear that it is stated there, and why always have to set "retrieved 23 May 2015" when it is obviously retrieved on 23 May 2015. For other statements references are needed but they can be generated automatically for publisher IDs. Of course when is need to update the info, it has to be possible to refresh it by some button, but nothing more... PS: ...and one question: if I found some items without image (P18) and the image is available in some of the site links, can I use "imported from" when I add the image in the item or it is also useless. --Termininja (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me, either. - Brya (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Put it in the comment. And please do not import autor citations for plants from any wikipedia. This should be done using „real“ sources. I was working on this, but other things (adding parent taxon (P171) and finding missing taxon name (P225)) became more important to me in the light of the pending integraion of Wikispecies. --Succu (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to know some taxon item from which kingdom is?, if somewhere in the chain some parent missing? --Termininja (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Many things are possible, but quite a few of them are hard to do. - Brya (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not quite understand your question. If a genus is missing it's parent taxon (P171) you have to consulte sitelinks or backlinks to be sure. Even querying an unbroken upwards path leads not allways (at least for now) to one of the „kingdoms“. --Succu (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, about this was my badly worded question. I was looked for how to find the kingdom of some item, but probably its not possible on the current stage. --Termininja (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of an incorrect addition. --Succu (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that all items from this list are already checked and with corrected names and parents, but maybe they are only listed. --Termininja (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your changes in Q3015242

You made a lot of changes in Myliobatis freminvillei (Q3015242)). They are based on which reference? The epithet refers to Christophe-Paulin de La Poix de Fréminville (Q2963004). WoRMS rejects the spelling Myliobatis freminvillii. --Succu (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I only removed claim: taxon name (P225): Myliobatis freminvillei because the reference on it from ITIS say: taxon invalid, Myliobatis freminvillei is synonym. I checked only the references on the page (no WoRMS). --Termininja (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You did not moved this nlwik page with a correct refenence to Fishbase? ITIS is not very reliable. Be more carefull. --Succu (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Orthography (spelling) is a very tricky and sensitive area. To have any degree of firm ground to stand on, there is no substitute for a recent work by a veteran specialist. WoRMS is a lot more solid than ITIS. - Brya (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

One month ago I asked you about reliability of the sources... you told me with sure CoL, EoL, GBIF are not reliable and PaleoBioDB and Fossilworks are reliable. About IUCN, ITIS and WoRMS you was not very clear, so when there are 4 sources in an item, and the one is not reliable (EoL) and the other 3 say that the valid name is 'freminvillii', it is normal to remove the "invalid" name; @Succu, I checked fishbase source in euwiki and nlwiki (from 1986), and the source link for cebwiki (1997) is broken, I saw also one old IUCN source and one CoL reference where "M. freminvillei" is also marked as synonym. All this told me that these are old and not updated pages (you also can see this from page history). I thought to move and warwiki and svwiki pages but I decided first to move the previous ones together with the Q3015242 item in my watched list to see what will be the reaction, how you see I put ref info to ITIS in the summary when I made the move, so my idea was they to re-check their sources and the new ones... So, put yourself on my place, how much "more careful" can I be from this?! Now you tell me that WoRMS is more reliable than ITIS, even that ITIS is not reliable..., ok, this is new for me. Thanks! --Termininja (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand its difficult to say with sure which source how much reliable is, but is good to have some approximately priority about them in my mind when I found some duplicated items with different sources, so correct me again, but it has to be something like this:

Fossilworks > PaleoBioDB > IUCN > WoRMS > Fishbase > ITIS > NCBI > CoL > GBIF > EoL

--Termininja (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Catalog of Fishes says: freminvillii, original spelling is freminvillii. --Succu (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, not quite. As I understand it, Fossilworks = PaleoBioDB and if you look at this WoRMS entry you will see that it is derived from FishBase, which in turn is likely to be copied from Catalog of Fishes (which says "freminvillei"). It is possible that, with most everybody copying somebody else, no more than two persons have actually made a decision. So, arithmatic on numbers of databases is almost meaningless.

        As I said, orthography (spelling) is a very tricky and sensitive area. Looking at databases is not useful, unless the mechanics behind it are understood ... - Brya (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I overlooked Valid as Myliobatis freminvillei :( --Succu (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sphaeropsis Meunier (1910) non Sacc. (1880) (Q20735450)

Hi Termininja,

I saw Sphaeropsis Meunier (1910) non Sacc. (1880) (Q20735450) which you made. It has no sitelinks, and no children (species). All it has is a link to ITIS, which strongly suggests you made it on the basis of ITIS. As has been pointed out a number of times, ITIS is not a reliable source. This Sphaeropsis is a fictitious taxon, and Wikidata has become less reliable by the addition. - Brya (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, It was parent for some already existed item, but I don't remember which one, maybe someone removed the link. If you want it can be deleted or merged. I think it is better to have 5% wrong information in wikidata than this to no have any one. I mean some parent links from ITIS can be wrong, but now is more easy to find them... Still many items are cut off from the rest because of missing taxon names or parents... --Termininja (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, if it was parent to something. I don't see anything like that, although there is Sphaeropsis simoni (Q2472915) ... - Brya (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Descriptions

Taxonomic descriptions

•   Insects: 912,401 species (50.1%)
•   Plants: 432,058 species (23.7%)
•   Arachnids: 74,810 species (4.1%)
•   Fungi: 64,436 species (3.5%)
•   Crustaceans: 62,661 species (3.4%)
•   Molluscs: 55,123 species (3.0%)
•   Fishes: 34,411 species (1.9%)
•   Worms: 24,269 species (1.3%)
•   Annelids: 13,957 species (0.8%)
•   Cnidarians: 12,617 species (0.7%)
•   Reptiles: 11,759 species (0.6%)
•   Birds: 11,159 species (0.6%)
•   Myriapods: 10,734 species (0.6%)
•   Sponges: 8,913 species (0.5%)
•   Amphibians: 8,157 species (0.4%)
•   Echinoderms: 7,432 species (0.4%)
•   Mammals: 6,513 species (0.4%)
•   Bryozoans: 6,305 species (0.3%)
•   Prokaryotes: 3,863 species (0.2%)
•   Viruses: 2,508 species (0.1%)
•   Algae: 1,912 species (0.1%)
•   Rotifers: 1,975 species (0.1%)
•   Sea spiders: 1,261 species (0.1%)
•   Waterbears: 1,012 species (0.1%)
•   Gastrotrichs: 720 species (0.0%)
•   Brachiopods: 410 species (0.0%)
•   Ctenophores: 195 species (0.0%)
•   Entoprocts: 171 species (0.0%)
•   Kinorhynchans: 156 species (0.0%)
•   Hemichordates: 106 species (0.0%)
•   Trilobites: 103 species (0.0%)
•   Gnathostomulids: 98 species (0.0%)
•   ...: 50,587 species (2.8%)

Plural vs. Singular

Hi Termininja,

I see you are adding "species of plants" as an English description. However, this should be singular "species of plant" (if several or more species are involved, it is plural: "genus of plants", "family of plants", etc). - Brya (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I knew it... I knew it that above species are plural but I saw descriptions with species in plural (and this is from you), so I thought that this is maybe because one species has subspecies... and I decided to use the same template... I'll correct this in future. What about fishes? "family of fish" is right, is it? --Termininja (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in this respect I slip with some frequency. I am making other slips too, the "history" will sometimes show that I make an error and then go back and correct it.

        Grammatically both "fish" and "fishes" are correct. I much prefer "fishes" as this makes it unambiguously clear that it is plural, which is especially valuable in an environment with so many users from so many languages. The most reliable database is called "Catalog of Fishes", so it is good form. - Brya (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Plants, worms, annelids and prokaryotes

Hi Termininja,

I see you are replacing "species of plant" by "species of flowering plant". This is highly undesirable: this description is considerably longer and the aim is to be as short as possible. I was just going to put in a request to have a bot replace "species of flowering plant" and "species of vascular plant" by "species of plant"- Brya (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If we do the same for the animals it will not be needed to use descriptions :D Ok, I think maybe is better to separate the plants on trees and flowers... --Termininja (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not needed to separate the plants. As soon as separation start, the question becomes how to separate them, and two effects will occur: 1) specialization until the description becomes unreadable, and 2) disagreement starts and will grow. The purpose is disambiguation, to make it clear that it is not, say, a type of sailing boat, a pop song, a celestial body, etc. Just basic groups will do best: plants, algae, fungi.

        It would also do to put in just "animals", but there are a lot more animals, and they have a lot more appeal, so just mammals, birds, reptiles, etc will be satisfactory. - Brya (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I,m agree, so, to understand that for Cephalothrix major (Q2347274) and Plagiorhynchus charadrii (Q3830515) is enough only "species of worm".--Termininja (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are all kinds of worms, but the exact details are in the statements. Just "worms" is enough (note that earthworms are annelids). - Brya (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your bot seems to be a litte bit confused? --Succu (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Brya said that "species of flowering plant" is too long, and "species of plant" is enough. --Termininja (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like "species of plant" much better than "species of flowering plant". If I may ask, what exactly are the numbers in the table on the right? - Brya (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The number of species with description (see links). --Termininja (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes (there is also "species of prokaryote"). - Brya (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You want all archaea and bacteria to go in prokaryote? --Termininja (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be nice. Although "bacteria" is a well-known word, "archaea" isn't. And officially it is the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (Q743780). - Brya (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Amphibia

Is it ok 'frog' or 'amphibian': Grass frog (Q5597483)? --Termininja (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Amphibian is specific enough. - Brya (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mollusca

Which is better - mollusk or mollusc? Google give me similar result for both of them. --Termininja (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I am using "mollusc", which anyway resembles the scientific name. Your figure is showing very impressive progress! - Brya (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Arthropoda

All of these arthropods are available as descriptions in wikidata:

• chelicerates: arachnids (spiders, scorpions, ticks), sea spiders
• insects: odonates (dragonflies, damselflies), lice, true bugs, hymenopterans, beetles, fleas, flies, lepidopterans (moths, butterflies)

Are they too detailed, can I use all of them or only arachnids, sea spiders, insects. By the way hymenopterans, flies and beetles are too big groups. --Termininja (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Termininja,

What do you mean by "are too big groups"? As to the spiders, I have been using "arachnids" which I suppose is mostly lazyness. At least "arachnids" is a well-know term, which "chelicerates" is not, really. I suppose we could use all four names (spiders, scorpions, ticks, sea spiders), but I am not really sure if this does not leave anything out.

        The same goes for "insects", which is a term that everybody knows, and is nice and vague. Obviously "beetles" is a really big group, but for the rest I dislike the more detailed terms, as not all are well-known, and completeness of any list is pretty iffy. - Brya (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean that from all species in wikidata maybe the half are insects and in this case I'm not sure is it good to use "insect" for all of them. Of course, these above are not all arthropods, only the largest and known groups. Why you think that butterflies and flies are not well-known? But yes, it will be difficult to separate them from the moths. --Termininja (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, butterflies are well-known but moths less so. Flies are by themselves well-known, but order Diptera includes the gnats, so "fly" is not all that accurate. IIRC beetles alone already run up to something like 800 000 species. And although there are very many insects, they are not very popular. The general public does not really care, is not all that interested in details, and any detail quickly runs the risk of becoming meaningless. So, I like "insects". It is a step up from "bugs", anyway (which can be found here and there). - Brya (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

The term "dinosaur" is very well-known, but as far as I can tell not very accurate. Also, not everybody in the general public realizes that dinosaurs are long extinct (plenty of movies with dinosaurs in them!), so I have been using "species of reptile (fossil)", which of course is not accurate either, but at least emphasizes that these are fossil. Once you get into creatures known only from the fossil record, classification gets very awkward, with lots of obscure terms. - Brya (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There are fossils for many taxons, but I thought to use "dinosaur" only for species from clade en:Dinosauria. --Termininja (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, "species from clade en:Dinosauria" also includes birds. - Brya (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Impressive

Hi Termininja, You are writing down some very impressive numbers! It seems to me that one of the biggest groups you are still missing are the crustaceans? - Brya (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I told you that insects are near 50%. I'll check what missing next week. Still some taxons are without parents.. --Termininja (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Bryozoa

What is the best description for this group - "bryozoans", "ectoprocts" or "moss animals"? I calculated that we have ~6k of them. --Termininja (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about this group, and the average reader may well know even less. I have been using "bryozoans" which sounds nice and mysterious. - Brya (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Descriptions on items with P31:Q4167410 and other items in P31

Hi Termininja,

Would have your bot skip items that have more than one value in P31? Sample Q16877017. Frequently there is some issue with their P31 values.

Other bots already do that. --- Jura 17:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll skip such items. --Termininja (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

10+ edits/sec

I was watching https://tools.wmflabs.org/wmcounter/ and I was sure that a bot was responsible for that speed. First I searched in English Wikipedia recent changes, but I didn't see anything strange. Then I came to Wikidata, and saw BotNinja. :-) Emijrp (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice counter, it must stand on Main Page on each Wikimedia project :) --Termininja (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

synonym

Hi Termininja,

I see that you used "Wikimedia duplicated page" here. I am still trying to feel my way into how best to handle these kinds of situations, but we are now using "Wikimedia duplicated page" only when the name is the same. For example, zhwiki has many instances of two pages for the same species (with the same name). See also Q15517116.

The kind of situation we have here has two different names, one item for each name. I am handling this by using either "instance of synonym" (plus "said to be the same") or "Taxon synonym". Both preferably referenced. If there are plenty of references these could well be in the same item (for example four references stating that A is a synonym of B, and three references stating that B is a synonym of A). - Brya (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why taxon synonym (P1420) is not used in taxon name (P225) as qualifier? --Termininja (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, properties can be used as qualifiers to P225, "taxon name", but in that case the first question is: does this say something about the name or about the taxon? So P405, the author of the name, irrelevant to the taxon, is fitting as a qualifier of P225. Probably also the gender of the name of the genus, once it is created. But "basionym" is used as a property. And P1402, "taxon synonym" does not say anything about the taxon name: it reflects a taxonomic decision, so it says something about the taxonomic relationships of the item. - Brya (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

diagram

Hi Termininja,

How would you feel having the nice diagram, above, on the Taxonomy Project page. I feel sure it would appeal to many - Brya (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW I just looked and it seems to me that crustaceans account for a significant part of the "unknowns": there are some twenty thousand "species of malacostracan" which could be migrated to "species of crustacean". - Brya (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's important to know that this diagram is not absolutelly precise, because it is very possible in some item (about some book for example), some statement or description text to inlcude "species of insect", which will increase the insects counter with 1. Also although I was careful, it is still possible some items to have wrong description because of this, but it will be cleared with the time. So the numbers are not guaranteed accurate but relatively enough correct... I know malacostracans are for migration, but they are not only... Actually these "unknowns" are not really unknown, I just don't have time to mark them, and now I prefer first to clear all items without parent because this will help later to find their description group more easily. --Termininja (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, there is no real hurry. Whenever you feel the diagram is presentable enough, we can put it up on the project page (with a short explanation). Of course it would be possible to keep adjusting it, as it gets better, so there is no need to wait till it is perfect. And yes, putting in "parent taxon" is probably more important. - Brya (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Category description

Hello Termininja! When your bot adds descriptions for items about Wikimedia category (Q4167836), please, could you change the script so it only says "Wikimedia category", not "Wikimedia category page". I'd also suggest you change "Категория на Уикимедия" to "категория на Уикимедия", because I presume, even in Bulgarian, that категория is not written with a capital letter. Many thanks! Jared Preston (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just thought to ask User:ValterVB to adds descriptions for bgwiki because I see he is already specialized in this. But I'll use the case to ask you, why all descriptions in all languages for category, template and disambiguation items are not filled in from Wikidata software automatically? Because all they are the same in all items. I think description fields can be automatically blocked and filled in with gray text when item "instance of" is selected to one of these types. And such selection can be done in beginning when the item is created. --Termininja (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

Image addition at Q7840795 by bot

Hi Termininja,

You might want to check the above edits, they showed up on the constraint violation reports. --- Jura 08:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see, but what to do? I don't know better way to add male and female images to an item. For me this is ok. --Termininja (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Malformed or non-existing images added by bot

When adding images by bot, please consider two points:

1. add only images stored on Commons to Wikidata. [3] is stored on enwiki, [4] on a external page.
2. add file names in a "normalized" pattern, i.e. witouht File: and underscores replaced by space.

Thanks. --Pasleim (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this information, I'll recheck my bot work and will correct these mistakes. --Termininja (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I use https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/wdfist/ to add images. --- Jura 07:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It might not matter that much if the images added are malformed or non-existing as KrBot normalizes or deletes the entry once found.--- Jura 07:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of a lot of links

Hi, I noticed you removed a very great numbers of links of fr.wikipedia. What's the reason ? --La femme de menage (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously confused me with someone else :) Please, give me just one example for this what you claim. --Termininja (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, forget it. It is just that when you removed homo sapiens as there [5]; I received on french wikipedia a notification for each human being linked to this element. Sorry. --La femme de menage (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"human" as description?

Do we really need this? --- Jura 19:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the answer :) --Termininja (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Has this been discussed somewhere? --- Jura 19:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I put descriptions to be clear about what are the items, because in many cases it is not clear. You know, items without English labels or items with the same names. I didn't discussed it, because I think this is not problem for anyone, and it can only helps to the project. If something bothers you, if you think that it is not right, tell me. --Termininja (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am confused about this as well and I don’t think at all that a generic description like “human” is useful (same applies to some other very generic ones your bot currently sets). Most affected items are clearly identified as humans without this tag and instance of (P31)human (Q5) already specifies this much in a much better way. The description shall be used to destinguish between items with the same label and this requires it to be much more specific (at least in the case of humans). In my opinion your bot actually generates much extra work for other Wikidatans who have to tidy that up manually later… —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, instance of (P31)human (Q5) doesn't helps when you search for some item at all, and no one item is "clearly identified as human" without description (example - Q4494534 is village of Bulgaria). "The description shall be used to destinguish between items with the same label" (and it helps also for items without label), "...and this requires it to be much more specific" - absolutely, but you will agree that item with "some" description is better than item without any one. I took this decision after a lot of similar problems... Very often when you have to connect two items, you have more than one results with same name and you don't know which one is this what you need, and often we select some from the top, and correct one can be hidden in the bottom, and you will don't know for this if description missing, in other case you will have to open and to check manually each one item without description from the list... If you need Q3734541, how you will find it by searching for Eunomia, and how many time you will lost, if the other items are without their descriptions as "asteroid", "goddess", "genus of insects", "female given name", etc. So, actually my bot saved a lot of time for users when they search for something and a lot of problems with incorrectly linked items. In all this I see only positive things and no disadvantage. Anyway, this is my opinion, but I respect also others opinion and will leave millions of items without descriptions probably for years... Regards :) --Termininja (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not oppose to equip items without description in general, I just doubt that your actual way of doing so is the best solution for these items. Therefore, I would recommend to determine more useful descriptions and add them with your bot. This might not be as fast as generic descriptions like “human”, but it significantly increases the quality of your bot’s contributions. Please aim for permanent descriptions rather than temporary stopgaps.

Besides that, I equip many items with proper labels and descriptions manually by myself, thus I know how complicated this often is and how they are dealt with. My impression is that users only touch the description if none at all is given, but barely anyone changes an already existing description even if it is unappropriate or not useful. A not-so-useful description actually comes with the risk that it will not change for very long time, which means that the suboptimal stopgap becomes permanent. Cheers, MisterSynergy (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, do you want to remove all "human" as description? --Termininja (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have now changed all occurrences of “human” that appeared on my watchlist to specific descriptions. I will also review the other contributions of your bot on my watchlist, whether I can improve them. However, since your bot is operating at an extraordinary high rate (hundreds of edits per minute), I cannot review/change all edits made by him manually and hope that someone else will improve the situation in other fields than mine. I don’t know whether you have an overview of your bot’s contributions in this issue, I think you could decide by yourself what’s the best to do with the recent edits, given the fact that here are quite some opposing comments on your talk page. Whether “human” should be removed or improved—I leave that decision up to you.

In general, I just want to emphazise once again that quality of data here at Wikidata is by far more important than its bare quantity. Wikidata is now three years old and not yet supposed to be complete. With the knowledge that is difficult to motivate users to review, improve and maintain existing data, please always only work for optimal and permanent solutions. Cheers, MisterSynergy (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding human and take a more specific description instead, i.e. country + profession. --Leyo 10:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 OK --Termininja (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

For movies you can see here what descriptions to use. "film" is too generic. Mbch331 (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Wikidata:Bot_requests#Remove_English_description_.22human.22. --- Jura 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you check my last bot contributions, are they ok? --Termininja (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see this (national and regional adjectives). --- Jura 09:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it correct English demonym for Mexico (Q96)? - "mexican (English)" --Termininja (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a list at [6], but I'm really in favor of using Autodesc .. Maybe we should make P1549 work for this. --- Jura 10:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot adding wikidata categorie Hotel Particulier

Please stop adding hotel particulier to Belgian buildings. There are issues with that wikidata item.--SvenDK (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Jou bot is leuk bezig om aan een aantal Brusselse gebouwen de wikidata categorie Hotel Particulier toe te voegen. Er is mijns inziens veel mis met die wikidata categorie ( het verwijst naar Parijs voor wiki commons, de geassocieerde Nederlandstalige pagina is stadspaleis, wat iets anders is dan de Brusselse Hotels. Ik stel voor dat je deze geautomatiseerde actie afblaast.--SvenDK (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 OK --Termininja (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

DR's

Several of your DR's you just added, were actually incorrect merges. Please check the history of an item before requesting deletion. If a link was manually removed, mostly they are incorrect merges (if the link was removed by Hoo bot, it means the article was removed and they can be nominated for deletion). The incorrect merges can be handle by yourself by merging them yourself (either via Special:MergeItem or via the Merge gadget), they shouldn't be deleted. Mbch331 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Olympic gold medalists for Mexico

I just saw Category:Olympic gold medalists for Mexico (Q21100236), which your bot had created, and was about to suggest that it also linked the Commons category Category:Olympic gold medalists for Mexico, but then I realised that there was already an item for this: Category:Olympic gold medalists for Mexico (Q7894553). Can't your bot work out that the Bulgarian link only needs to be added to the already-existing item? Or was this just a mistake? Jared Preston (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my bot makes some checks before to create new item but obviously some time miss something, so I just added still one WDQ check for string[373:"commons category name"] AND claim[31:4167836]. I hope now will work better. Thank you for this. --Termininja (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

bot

Hi. Can you help me with this request? [7] thanks Kotz (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure that I understand right the request. Is this the task? --Termininja (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian labels

Can you please explain why your bot is capitalizing first letters in Bulgarian? It seems wrong. --Infovarius (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Example, please? --Termininja (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find it, but it seems that I saw a couple of items with such edits in my watchlist. I'll write you if I see in some history. --Infovarius (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

“Swiss”

Hi there. “Swiss” is spelled with a capital letter, unlike there. --Leyo 13:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I already know, it will be corrected. Thanks. --Termininja (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Tricommatinaeincertaesedis (Tricommatinae (Q21368928))

There is no taxon with this name. (Tricommatinae incertae sedis) --Succu (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

es:Tricommatinaeincertaesedis alticola. You are right, I don't know what to do with Pseudopachylus alticola (Q6152570) --Termininja (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the only one. The source of this kind of error is usually The Biology Catalog. In this case Acari/Family/Gonyleptidae.txt (Tricommatinaeincertaesedis alticola (H. Soares, 1945c):247 [Brazil] [=Olynthus alticola H. Soares, 1945c]). Besides the deletion on eswiki an option is to treat the item as Olynthus alticola. --Succu (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC) PS: Now Pseudopachylus alticola.

topic's main category (P910)

[8], [9] and [10]. Your Bot is adding again to the wrong genus. --Succu (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sory, I didn't know for the first time. --Termininja (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life

I would recommend against linking to any pages on EoL. It is a terrible website, assembled by bots, and full of more mistakes than information. See my post on Project Chat for just a few examples of just how awful their site is. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi EncycloPetey, my opinion is that if Encyclopedia of Life ID (P830) exists it has to be used on each possible taxonomy item, because that is its purpose. And if it is not need, because the website gives wrong information about the taxon, it has to be removed/deleted as property. The bot is stopped and will not add or do some other work connected with this property until you take decision. --Termininja (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Slowing down your bot

Hi,

Can you please slow down your bot? It is editing way too fast and will cause issues again with the query service and Wikipedias. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Termininja (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientific name => common name

Termininja, simply beening curious: Why did you change enwiki labels this way? --Succu (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Because the label is multilingual, in other cases the label has to be the same for all languages. I saw it from other items, like animal (Q729). Is it wrong this? --Termininja (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What changes exactly did you saw on animal (Q729)? The label is language specific. So move related article at enwiki or let the label alone. A Scientific name choosen by a community should not be replaced with common name by an outstander. --Succu (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand you, give me example with some item which is changed in a way you mentioned above. I changed the labels like in Q729 so if Q729 is ok and the other my changes have to be ok. --Termininja (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Mind to inspect your contributions starting with this one? What did you changed here (animal (Q729))? --Succu (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't change anything in animal, I just gave you as example that my changes are like in it. In Q25326 we have label molluscs with alias Mollusca (as taxon name), which is the same as in Q729 where we have label animal with alias Animalia (again as taxon name). So explain me why animal is ok, and molluscs not. --Termininja (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't give examples where something might be wrong. Please give a reaseon for your replacement Scientific name => common name. That's all. --Succu (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I already answered you, the scientific name is not language specific. So you want to say that the label of Q729 has to be changed to Animalia? --Termininja (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Temininja here. @Succu, Brya:, when common and taxonomic entity in 1 item I'd expect to have common name labels. --Infovarius (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

See below. - Brya (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Items are used in statements, like parent taxon, basionym, taxon synonym, and this only makes sense if the label is a scientific name. On the other hand for a handful of very wellknown organisms, items are also used in statements like "depicted in painting", "used as an ingredient in soup", so in those cases there is a conflict. But this is only a handful of cases, and it is never wrong to use the scientific name. - Brya (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, I reverted my 21 edits, so now the labels are in their previous state. But for me is still unclear how is possible trilobite to be more "wellknown" than mollusc. By the way the animal, plant, trilobite, etc. are just examples, there are a lot of other items in such state... And why insects, prokaryotes, etc. are plural and mammal, bird, etc. - singular. --Termininja (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Whether or not "trilobite" is better known than "mollusc", you might be suprised: trilobites are companions of dinosaurs and enjoy some of their fame. Personally, I am rather concerned that, apparently, many feel that dinosaurs and trilobites are creatures living today. The singular in labels is caused by enwiki, where they have a believe that "bird" is the right label. So where there is a strong enwiki influence labels tend to be singular. - Brya (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The names in enwiki are singular also for the items with label insects and prokaryotes. Is that means that they have to be corrected. --Termininja (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, this is Wikidata, not enwiki. - Brya (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

back to labels

I suppose, en-labels have strong correlation with enwiki. --Infovarius (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Why assume that? It makes much more sense to use the English labels to serve the English-speaking users of Wikidata. Anyway, enwiki is not stable, and in general is migrating towards scientific names. - Brya (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit problems

Hi Termininja! Actually, NOW it's everything alright, but at the time I reverted your edit, it was clear causing a code break. Probably someone edit some template around that broke it up your edition; then reverted and everything turn ok again. Regards, Sturm (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"code break"?, the link was tested and work, I don't see any problems with it. And please, always continue the conversation on the place where it has started. --Termininja (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian labels

Hello once again. I found an example: [11]. --Infovarius (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, before I thought that only the properties have to be in lowercase and the item labels have to be as their corresponding site links. I'll correct them. What about disambiguation items? --Termininja (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, correct please. If you are saying about description "Пояснителна страница" then it should also be minusculed to "пояснителна страница". --Infovarius (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not only about item's description, I asked also for the English label in Q424995. --Termininja (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the question about English label? --Infovarius (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it ok to start with uppercase letter? --Termininja (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying about "Wikipedia disambiguation page", it starts with uppercase letter because "Wikipedia" is proper name. As for labels in disambiguation items, I have no strong opinion, but I usually tend to capitalize them. May be better not to change labels in Q424995-type items. --Infovarius (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So? --Infovarius (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is too old. My bot now start to correct taxon bg labels. --Termininja (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

България

Hi Termininja. Can you take a look at this discussion related to Bulgarian geo articles >> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Innocent_bystander&oldid=301934594#Merges.3F ? --XXN, 20:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not competent in the subject, but asked for assistance and opinion in our wiki. --Termininja (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fossil taxon

Hi Termininja,

There has been a question of how to distinguish fossil taxa, and the solution we came up with is to replace "instance of taxon" by "instance of fossil taxon". You probably know better than me how to track what taxa are fossil, but any taxon with "(fossil)" in the description or with a value for temporal range end (P524) should be a fossil taxon. Is this a job you would be interested in? - Brya (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know for fossil taxon (Q23038290), and now I see that it is already in use. I think it will be very easy to move all fossils in this new instance, but first I'll have to update my bot code because there are some changes in MediaWiki API. I'll do it in the next some days... --Termininja (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, we first tried it out in some cases to see how it would fit. It quickly became apparent that doing it by hand was going to take a long time ... So a few days would be very quick. There could easily be several tens of thousands of fossil taxa.

You may have noticed that "ichnotaxon" is a subclass of "fossil taxon"; items that use "ichnotaxon" should stay as they are (this likely will remain a matter to be dealt with by hand). - Brya (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, but if ichnotaxon (Q2568288) is subclass of fossil taxon, obviously all items that are ichnotaxon should be also and fossil taxon..., but ok, it is not problem to miss them. Is this means that all subitems of some ichnotaxon item should not be moved to fossil taxon also? --Termininja (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, any item that has a parent taxon that is an ichnotaxon should be an ichnotaxon also. All in all, ichnotaxon is a pretty weird phenomenon, not hierarchical (very shallow hierarchy). Just ignore it, and leave any problems to be sorted by hand. - Brya (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I made one replacement for test. I hope there aren't any important references or qualifiers under taxon (Q16521) because they will be lost. --Termininja (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why? Technically this is simply a replacement of the property value. --Succu (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC) PS: Ignore qualifiers (they are wrongly placed) and values referenced by stated in (P248). But give us a log for the latter. --Succu (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This "instance of taxon" should not have references or qualifiers. It just means that "taxon name" is present in the item. Here and there, there will be an "imported from ... Wikipedia" but this should not be there (holds no information). - Brya (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Instance of taxon was replaced with fossil taxon in 3190 items, and only 1 reference was removed. Also 36 monotypic fossil taxon items was found. --Termininja (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Once you started, this was quickly done! I would have expected the number to be higher, but it is hard to judge such things. A relief that it is done. - Brya (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think also that their number is higher. I didn't update the descriptions from half year so maybe later will find more. --Termininja (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, without looking hard I found a few you had missed, so there should be more. Did you see the suggestion by Succu of using Fossilworks? - Brya (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I can use Fossilworks and WoRMS to add more. ;) --Succu (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok --Termininja (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like that the use of Fossilworks is a little bit problematic. We now have more than 13.000 taxa marked as fossil. I fixed some obvious issues, but I fear there are more. --Succu (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As a first step I added fossil Foraminifera with the help of WoRMS. --Succu (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

monotypic taxon

How to proceed when the instance of is monotypic taxon - Zhuchengosaurus (Q18915680)? Maybe we need monotypic fossil taxon... or better if fossil is used as qualifier in instance of taxon and monotypic taxon? --Termininja (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Using qualifiers looks dangerous to me. Maybe a monotypic fossil taxon would work. The problem is that monotypic is dependent on taxonomic point of view (it really needs a solid reference) and thus is transient and relative. Perhaps better start by using both "fossil taxon" and "monotypic taxon", side by side: this certainly makes it easier to add separate references. - Brya (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Replacing meaningful labels by generic ones

Please stop removing meaningful labels to put generic ones, like here or here... --NicoV (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean descriptions, not labels. The item for WP Cleaner is Q4796484, not Q6420476. Sometimes it can't be avoided to repeat the label in the description, but generally it's not needed (note Help:Description#Punctuation last part).

Anyways, not sure why I comment on this. Probably because the heading worried me. Maybe Termininja wants to answer instead.
--- Jura 05:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, descriptions, not label. But what is the point of putting meaningless description when there's already one with meaning ? Is there any interest of putting the same description in thousands of items ? --NicoV (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly important that all disambiguation items have the same description. Makes it easier to ignore them.

I don't see an advantage of your description at Q6420476 over the existing one. It's potentially misleading as the relevant item is elsewhere.
--- Jura 05:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jura. Descriptions are there for the purpose of disambiguation, not for details. - Brya (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

According to me description is useful only when the labels are the same. But its not problem, I disabled the changes for English descriptions in my bot. --Termininja (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• I also disagree with you, User:NicoV. Description in Q6420476 was simply wrong. This item is template, not the tool. --Infovarius (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes User:Jura1 and Infovarius, description for Q6420476 was incorrect, but everyone here clearly avoids talking about the other one I was talking about Q6420363, where the description seemed correct... Still, if the "description is useful only when the labels are the same", in what way putting the same meaningless description in thousands of items helps in any way ? If it's only useful in a specific case, why add it automatically and in a way that's not useful at all for the specific case. --NicoV (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Putting one and the same description in thousands of items can be quite useful since Wikidata holds millions of items, and a group of thousands may be a useful unit. - Brya (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For categories I use sometimes non-standard descriptions but I feel the need very rarely. --Infovarius (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this edit ("description:species of tree" --> "description:species of plant") is a case were replacing a meaningful description with a generic one is a bad thing.

Hi, I reverted the edit above because you didn't react. Now your bot has made the same edit again. Please reply. Quercus mortus (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Once one starts by adopting more detailed descriptions, there is no end to it. One can add the size of the tree, its provenance, whether or not it is deciduous, the color of its flowers, etc, etc.
• Actually, "tree" is not all that useful a descriptor. There are many differing definitions of "tree", so that using it as a desriptor may cause confusion. Also, plants are not required to follow any definition: some species can be a liana, shrub or tree, depending on where they grow.
• The purpose of the description is not to describe the item, it is there to disambiguate the label. The aim is to put it in the right ballpark, for example making it clear the item is not a single by a popgroup. The description should be as short as possible. Generic and standardized descriptions are very useful for all kinds of purposes. - Brya (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't propose adding a 20 word description, I just wanted to use a less broad term.
• I could argue the opposite, most people think of a woodless piece of vegetation when they hear the word plant and not the taxonomic definition.
• Arguing that descriptions don't matter that much anyway right after debating a one-word-change doesn't do any good to both arguments. btw tree is sorter than plant ;) Quercus mortus (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• The reasons you give for the change you propose would (if consistently executed) automatically lead to lengthy descriptions.
• No doubt there will be people who will think of a plant firstly as being herbaceous, or who will think of a plant firstly as something in the window sill (houseplants), or, for that matter, who will think of a plant as being a factory, or an undercover agent, etc, but the general meaning is not contested. See also here.
• Trying to twist arguments is not going to make a good impression. I was perfectly clear that "descriptions" do matter, but that they serve for disambiguation. They are not there to describe anything, that is what Wikipedia pages are for. - Brya (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it is normal the bot to make the same edit, because it is a bot :) It is configured to use only descriptions from this list (without these in white color: #FFFFFF). How you see 99% of taxons already used some of these descriptions. If you want to suggest some new description, please do it on Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. You can't manually search and change description, for example for all "tree" items, because this description has to be used on each taxon where it is applicable, this means that we need some rule which says unambiguously which plants are trees, which are flowers, etc. You can check also some of the previous discussions here --Termininja (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that bots make mistakes and that that's better than having no descriptions, I just think that your bot shouldn't overwrite human input. Quercus mortus (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

fossil, the other way round

Hi Termininja,

We now have some thirty thousand items with "instance of fossil taxon", I think it would be nice if the English descriptions could follow that. Could you alter these, so that, for example, if "fossil taxon" is present, a description "genus of mammals" would become "genus of mammals (fossil)"? - Brya (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

~28,000 are done, most of the others fossil taxons are without description at all because of missing parent item's rank or description. --Termininja (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am a bit surprised to hear that there are so many items without a parent taxon. I would have expected some, but not many. - Brya (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll check it to be sure... --Termininja (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

We are now up to almost thirty-six thousand cases of "instance of fossil taxon", so that leaves some eight thousand unaccounted for ... - Brya (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this what I mean is that the description or the rank of the parents is missing. For example Clavatorella bermudezi (Q23798807) has parent Clavatorella without description because his parent Globorotaliidae is with no description, etc. to Foraminifera with description "phylum of amoeboid protists" which is unknown for my bot. So, all items which include instance of fossil taxon are 36,117. From them there are 37 without parent, 27,754 which are with "correct" description (in format: "rank of group (fossil)") and 812 with description in different format (for example: "a marginocephalian dinosaur", my bot does not change item descriptions in unknown format). Finally left 7,513 without description but all they are with parent with unknown description (as Q133276), so my bot doesn't know from what group are they (insects, mammals, birds, etc.). --Termininja (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

So you would need to do another bot run first to put in descriptions? - Brya (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I can do it but I don't know what description to put, for example to Q6412376. My bot know only for these groups of taxons. I have to add another group, for example forams, then Clavatorella will be "genus of forams (fossil)". So see this list and tell me what missing, then my bot can add it as description where is applicable... --Termininja (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are some murky groups. I would be inclined to describe Q6412376 as "genus of protists (fossil)" (although I have sometimes put in "genus of foraminifers (fossil)"). I am not sure what you mean by your list? - Brya (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

These are all names (insects, birds, fungi, reptiles, etc.) which I use as descriptions in the taxon Items, so my bot works only with them. Tell me if you want my bot to use some other name as "foraminifers", or something else for some group of taxons. --Termininja (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I like "protists" for a lot of taxa. There seems to be no close agreement on groups within the protists. I dislike "trilobites", which should rather be "arthropods (fossil)". - Brya (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add this in the next bot run. Write me if remember something else. --Termininja (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

instance of list article

It would be nice if the bot only adds this when "instance of list article" is the only statement. I daily find items with statements like that, which I have not been able to confirm as list articles. When there is more P31-statements, that may imply that statement is wrong and we should not add descriptions based on them. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My bot always checks if the instance of contains only one statement. --Termininja (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

removal of "duplicated" alias

Hi, if I underestand correctly, your bot removes aliases that are equal to the label. I don't really get the point. If anything, that makes data a bit worse, since when someone changes the label, it totally disappears instead of remaining as an alias. --Zolo (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the Label is the main (best known) name of some item, and the Aliases are how the item is also known, so, the label has to be different and not included in the aliases. If someone changes the label, there are 3 possibilities: the 1^st - the current label is wrong, then it is wrong to be in the aliases also, the 2^nd - the new label is more known, so in this case the user has to change the label to better one and also his responsibility is to move the old one as alias, and the 3^rd - vandalism, then the edit has to be reverted.

By the way you know probably how works the Merge Item Wikidata tool..., when two items are merged the tool checks their labels and if they are different, the one is moved as alias (only if it missing there), but if they are the same no one is moved as alias. --Termininja (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not often come across a wrong label that was also present in the aliases. It just sometime happens that we change a label (remove complement / parentheses) and don't want to bother about checking the aliases. Still, it may useful if the old label is not completely lost. Obviously, in most cases the label is not present in the alias, so that leaves out the vast majority of items, but still I don't think there is any issue if an alias is equal to the label. Aliases are just an unsorted pile of strings that help finding an item. -Zolo (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this kind of bot-support is good. I have myself had the ambition to remove aliases that has become the same as the label, but since I was occupied with 15 open windows at the same time, my hands was busy with other things. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of edits

Hi, please throttle your bot a little and use the API's maxlag parameter, you are causing ongoing database lag right now. If you don't adopt to this soon, your bot will probably be blocked in order to resolve the immediate issues. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, my bot always checks (on each 60 sec) median lag to be less than 1 min, now I added also maxlag=5. --Termininja (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks, that should fix the problems in question. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it didn't. I am proposing a ban right now on the link on the right. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T135471#2300359

@JCrespo (WMF), Hoo man, Termininja: I have blocked the bot. Let us know at WD:AN when you think this is resolved and the block can be revoked. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. Please Termininja, talk to me on the phab task to solve the issues. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@JCrespo (WMF): what was the problem?! --Termininja (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is an infrastructure issue, not an wiki-specific issue, please follow the link on the right where I comment the problems and the solutions. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

author standard form

Hi Termininja,

There is another job you could do. We have botanist author abbreviation (P428), but in practice this is hard to use. The literature commonly uses the standard form (say "L."), but at present one has to type in the full name in a "taxon author" field. It would be convenient if all items that hold a botanist author abbreviation (P428) could have the standard form (say "L.") as an alias ("also known as"). Then one could just copy-and-paste the standard form into the "taxon author" field and the system would make the link. It should be a simple job: 1) find all items with a botanist author abbreviation (P428) and 2) copy the contents of that field to the "also known as" field. It was already done for Linnaeus/L. but not for most of the others. - Brya (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably the same and for author citation (zoology) (P835)? --Termininja (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose, although it is hard to say, as the structure is entirely different: zoologists go by complete surnames, not by unique standard forms. - Brya (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done + "author citation (zoology)", they were less than 150. --Termininja (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried it and it works as expected. If you have time to spare, I noticed that many of the botanists do not have a description as yet, so it would help to add "botanist" there. This would be imperfect, as some of the older were both zoologists and botanists (they were "naturalists"), while for new ones they may deal with just fungi (they are "mycologists"), or algae (they are "phycologists"); and many users would like to see a nationality ("Swiss botanist"), but still a description would help. - Brya (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't "guess" taxa names

Hi Termininja, I'm trying to connect the last three thousand taxa names to their parents and find more and more odd creations by your bot. An example is Medicago denticulata (Q12371333). Your bot created the taxon name Ogaviljane lutsern and the genus Ogaviljane (=Medicago (Q21592060)), but et:Ogaviljane lutsern is about Medicago denticulata. Please check you bot code. --Succu (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Related is the creation of misspellings like Ceratitella (Q26226438) (as Ceratilella) or Dirioxa (Q26226433) (as Dirioxia). --Succu (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Invalid languages

Your bot is adding labels in invalid languages (als, no, simple etc.). Please stop it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I only test it. By the way which language is invalid - als:Alemannic (Q131339), no:Norwegian (Q9043) or simple:Simple English (Q21480034)? --Termininja (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I remember: simple → en, als → gsw, bh → bho, be-x-old → be-tarask, no → nb... but there are more. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you give me some link for these "more", or where it is discussed? Thank you. --Termininja (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Found some, I think these are all. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Labels

Labels from sitelinks

Hi Termininja.

I see your bot is taking labels from the various sitelinks. This is not a good idea. Take for example the labels your bot added to the item on Salsola stocksii. Instead of the proper Salsola stocksii the bot added Haloxylon stocksii which belong on another item. - Brya (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem comes from the "wrong" sitelink name. But actually this is not wrong because they are synonyms, and the idea is to can find some item by searching also by synonym. For this goal you know, we put the synonyms as alias in the item, and in case for warwiki were missing the both, so it is not big problem that Haloxylon stocksii is label and not alias... Anyway, thanks for this information, I'll skip such items, it will be very easy. --Termininja (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We have stopped putting in synonyms as aliases quite a while ago (it proves that many users don't understand that synonyms are 'wrong' names). In the item Salsola stocksii there should not be an alias Haloxylon stocksii and certainly not a label Haloxylon stocksii. - Brya (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know for this. As alias was easy to find the item when you search it by synonym. I'm not sure that it is good idea each synonym to has separate item page. I'm agree that "synonyms are 'wrong' names", but maybe using of "instance of synonym" is not ok. I think that it will be better if all they are only mentioned in the main item in some way. Thanks again for the info. --Termininja (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Labels from GeoNames

Borrow this thread here!

Why has BotNinja added "Abborrskaer" as an English label to an item about Abborrskär (Q21975834)? The name is Swedish, and ae is not interchangeable with ä in Swedish! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how should be the right name in English, but it came as alternative name from www.geonames.org because my bot match the names by regex [A-z]. I changed it to Abborrskär but maybe have to be Abborrskar? --Termininja (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see, that make sense! You will find many very strange names in GeoNames. Is it possible to add "source:GeoNames" to the edit-comment? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, No problem. --Termininja (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Population data from GeoNames

In Märkischer Kreis (Q5937) your bot imported population data from geonames, but as geonames is basically also a Wiki this is not a really good source - they might even simply copied values from Wikipedia, so they look like a external source but in fact aren't. Especially the qualifier were set to wrong values - the reference date was 2012 and not 2014, and the determination method was not the census (which was done in 2011) but the combination of the census number with citizen registration data. I have fixed the data for this one item and added some more up-to-date and authoritative sourced values, but worry that a mass import of these numbers from geonames will include too much bad data. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In this item for population: 419,976 is used database from 2015-05-23 with population_date: 2014-01-03. So if the data currently is changed and you updated this info in the item, it is ok. I already removed all determination method (P459) qualifiers for this claim from all bot edits. I didn't know that GeoNames is not reliable source, and actually I started to add these claims because of a lot of empty items like this, which are created with sitelinks with information from GeoNames. I think if some item is created with information from GeoNames, it is normal the item to include all possible claims with this information, in other case this item has to be deleted. The problem in items like Märkischer Kreis (Q5937) is that I didn't check for other sitelinks and sources, but I already corrected this. Thanks for the info. --Termininja (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure we are allowed to mass import data from GeoNames? GeoNames data is licensed as CC-BY which is not compatible with Wikidata's CC0. - Nikki (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This information is already in Wikipedia, so the other variant is to use imported from Wikimedia project (P143) xxwiki. --Termininja (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Units

You bot has added to a lot of items height-values (example), but without a unit this does not make sense. It could be meter, feet or anything else. Could you please add the unit to those statements? Steak (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They shouldn't be many. I remember, when I started to add these values I missed the units but quickly this was corrected. --Termininja (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably a bit less than 2000, because Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2044 lists 2086 statements without a unit, of which not all but I think most of them were created by your bot. Steak (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

They are fixed, thanks --Termininja (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates (Geonames)

Hi. FYI, these days on Project chat was raised the issue that coordinates imported from geonames are not of the best quality and another bot stopped to import them. --XXN, 20:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Transliterated labels to check

Please check if these transliterated labels [12][13] are correct in Bulgarian. I suppose instead of the combination "Иа" there should be "Я". You can search also if there are more such labels for Moldovan and Romanian toponyms, since the combination "ea"/"ia" is common in Romanian language. XXN, 20:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. I had these items in my watchlist

A related problem - Турничени for Turnicheni instead of Търничени? I'd say to skip all items where country (P17) is a Slavic country, since after a double transliteration frequently the result is wrong. --XXN, 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm agree, I'll fix them. --Termininja (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Quercus thracica Stef. & Nedjalkov

Hello Termininja,

I noticed that you added the authority to bg:Тракийски дъб. For the author Nedjalkov, there is the item Simeon Nedjalkov (Q5553230). However, in Quercus thracica (Q12296837), the author is Simeon Nedjalkov (Q30103559). The given name appears to be Simeon according to a translation, so I believe Simeon Nedjalkov (Q5553230) should be corrected? I also suspect that the dates of birth and death are wrong, as they are the same as the ones of Boris Stefanov (Q6397749). Thanks in advance, Korg (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a synonym to Quercus cerris. --Termininja (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you! After some search, the given name of the author in the Spanish article was wrong, so I've corrected it (sources: [14], [15]). I've also merged the Wikidata items. Kind regards, Korg (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Bot error 2015

Hello Termininja,

your bot added vandalism in 2015 [16]. I have removed it from the local Wikipedias.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the vandalism was in enwiki and my bot just took the image from there. But ok, thanks :) --Termininja (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

spiders vs. arachnids

I'm curious why you changed the spider labels from "genus of spider"/"species of spider" to "genus of arachnid"/"species of arachnid"? "Spider" is both more specific and easier to understand. Kaldari (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Being specific is not necessarily desirable. The purpose of a "description" is disambiguation, to make it clear in what ballpark the item should be placed, that it is not, for example, a single by a popgroup. Being specific leads not only to many different descriptions, but also to many very poorly known ones. Using only the main groups keeps it simple, which surely is desirable. - Brya (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I think "species of spider" is much better known than "species of arachnid". This is way we generally use descriptions like "species of bird" rather than "spceies of ornithurid". But of course whatever I suggest, you are going to disagree with. Kaldari (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Very likely, "spider" is better known than "arachnid", but that is not the point. It is the non-spider arachnids which are of concern here. It would be possible to split birds into who knows how many groups, some of which are well-known and some not so well-known. Being specific does not help the general reader, at all. - Brya (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Translation

Hello, for the translations of descriptions, your bot doesn't know the translation of "species of plant" in french. It's "espèce de plantes".

Thanks, I will let him know --Termininja (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove all the "fictional human" metadata descriptions, inserted by your bot, replace it by "fictional character" or manually by the "[title] character"

For example: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1245404&diff=prev&oldid=256400015 (where it's NOT EVEN A HUMAN AT ALL). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Little problem with your bot from the past

Although a mistake has been made in the past, your bot wrote about a value that is a city in Eswatini is a "river" (see here). From here to there, I think that maybe it also occurred on other values. Please check your bot that he'll never do that mistake again. Thanks, Euro know (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

extinct species (Q237350) does not imply fossil taxon (Q23038290)

Hi Termininja,

please fix your current bot errors. --Succu (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Here your bot is removing a reference. --Succu (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Termininja (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is done. --Succu (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Some example? I don't think there are some left updates with removed ref.. --Termininja (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

E.g. Jamaican monkey (Q1679834) has status extinct species (Q237350) but is not a fossil taxon (Q23038290). --Succu (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hm, I thought that fossil taxon is used for both - fossil and extinct taxons, at least this is what is written in the item aliases. Is there some other item for extinct taxon, because when I select extinct taxon it redirects me to fossil taxon? --Termininja (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

An alias is a bad guide for actions. EN description is: „taxon described on the basis of fossil material“. The proper term is extant taxon (Q310891) „organism of taxon are still living or died out in Holocene“. Please revert your changes. --Succu (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

So, to understand that for all extinct in Holocene species the correct taxon is "extant taxon"? I'll check which of them are such and ill fix them.... But why this item is not used? --Termininja (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Maxlag

Please respect Maxlag. --Succu (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Q310890

Whether a taxon is monotypic depends on the classification used. Many taxa have changed that status repeatedly as classification systems change. It is better to describe something as instance of (P31) taxon (Q16521), because that will not change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User:BotNinja blocked

Your bot doesn't seem to be respecting mw:Manual:Maxlag and is editing too fast. Your bot appears to have been blocked for this already multiple times. Please fix your code and share link to the commit where you fixed your code so we can verify it. Multichill (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Multichill Can you recheck the logs again, because I even do at least 1 sec sleep between edits (how was suggested 4 years ago) --Termininja (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If the maxlag is too high your bot shouldn't be doing any edits at all. Multichill (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Just append maxlag=5 to every API request you do. If the lag is too high, you'll get an error like this one. Wait at least for the lag field (more is better) before attempting the same edit again. Multichill (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a hint: running User:BotNinja now as Termininja is a bad idea. --Succu (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Good or bad, I have to use some account to test its work. This is the only way to prove that it is working correctly. --Termininja (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Image identification

To identify a species depicted in an image, use depicts (P180) instead of statement is subject of (P805). --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Esocidae (Q1987393)

Hi! I don't think this is correct. According to Family-group names of Recent fishes (Q29461869) p.57 the authorship is Rafinesque 1815. --Succu (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Which ID for GBIF taxon ID (P846) is correct - 7662 or 141407021? --Termininja (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The first one, but GBIF is not a good source. --Succu (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)