Wikidata-logo-en-135px.png

Welcome to Wikidata, Totodu74!

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

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

--Emijrp (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata GameEdit

I wanted to let you know that there is an issue with the Wikidata merge game that causes it not to merge the items, while listing them at RfD. Please refrain from playing the merge game until the issue is fixed. Thanks. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I got it, thanks for the information. Totodu74 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

TaxonomyEdit

Hi Totodu74,

Any taxonomic position (placement in a classification) is a (hopefully scientific) opinion adopted (and published) by a taxonomist. A taxonomic position without a (taxonomic) reference is nothing more than "somebody, somewhere, somewhen is of the opinion that this is to be placed here". It is indistinguishable from hearsay. Having no reference is OK for families and orders, as nobody takes these too seriously. But an assignment to a subfamily or tribe suggests precision and needs a taxonomic reference to indicate whose opinion (of which taxonomist) this represents. EoL itself does not have a taxonomic opinion, but just reflects a collection of opinions. - Brya (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Brya,
Well, you left aside the fact that Scrabaeus, as a nominal taxon of such a lineage that are Scarabaeidae, is very unlikely to be attributed to any other tribe than Scarabaeini, or to any other subfamily than Scarabaeinae. ;)
Anyway I don't know the reliability of EoL for Coleoptera, but at least we are relying on some "authority" for the attribution to a parent taxon, rather than on an imprecise and unsourced (worse, it looks arbitrary, given that orders and families, "nobody takes these too seriously" sounds like non-sense to me) choice you made. Anyway, I doubt my opinion or yours is interesting to anyone reusing WD information : sources should be mandatory, as there is no absolute taxonomic attribution for organisms. Totodu74 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, ideally we would have real taxonomic papers and books as references for all taxonomic positions that we list; preferably multiple references. However, the reality is that a lot of Wikidata is populated by "data" imported from Wikipedia. This may be referenced in a Wikipedia, or it may be completely unreferenced. In fact, it may be outright nonsense. So for a long time to come Wikidata will have lots of unreferenced taxonomic positions. And for a placement in a family or order, this is not so bad.
        And of course you are right that Scarabaeus, as the type genus of Scarabaeidae will belong to tribe Scarabaeini, and to subfamily Scarabaeinae if (and only if) a tribe Scarabaeini, or a subfamily Scarabaeinae is recognized by a taxonomist. This last does need a taxonomic reference.
        The "reliability of EoL for Coleoptera" is immaterial, as EoL does not really have an opinion. As I pointed out above, EoL is collecting material from other sources, and collecting this material mechanically, without any judgement being involved. For Scarabaeus, EoL claims to have twenty classifications. Obviously, EoL is not a reliable source (except for a few show pages, made by actual taxonomists). What is needed here is a real taxonomic paper or book. - Brya (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your choice to only have the lowest level "occupations"Edit

It does not work because many of the people are identified as such in Wikipedias. They are in categories and stuff and as a consequence will be imported regularly.. So on many levels your point is not really a happy one. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your remark, GerardM. Then what to do here? It seemed undesirable to me to keep multiple intricated qualifiers (e.g. chiropterist<mammalogist<zoologist<biologist<scientist). What do you think? Totodu74 (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
We are still at early days at Wikidata. We do not share with Wikipedias the content of categories.. Often they do, often we do know better ... It will sort itself out in a few years. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nouvelle erreur de Mr. IbrahemEdit

Bonjour, pour les Sphingidae le libellé de la description en français est le plus complet possible, je le fais à la main au fur et a mesure. Mais notre ami à effacer mes entrées. C'est plusieurs mois de travail, c'est usant et très démotivant. Surtout après sa première série ou il avait mis Coléoptère. Qu'il efface sa derrière série d'erreur et qu'il ne touche plus au BOT. Merci de bien vouloir m'aider. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

edit summaryEdit

You added the edit summary: with crazy arguments like "once it taxonomically become a "replaced name" it ceased existing"?? The statement "nomenclatural status: replaced synonym" is perfectly clear)

This consist of elements like

  • taxonomically : in this case there is no indication of taxonomic change, that is, a change in circumscription or taxonomic placement, so taxonomy is not involved here in any way.
  • it ceased existing : the name was formally established under the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and it is there for ever, as a formal entity (but not as anything else). It has not ceased existing. In fact there has not been any change. However, according to Article 52.2. of International Code of Zoological Nomenclature it is not a valid/correct name for a taxon, and has never been the valid/correct name for a taxon. It is what has sometimes been called a stillborn name (nom mort-né). Dead on arrival.
  • nomenclatural status: replaced synonym: there is no such thing, nor can there be any such thing. To take an analoguous example: if I take Tolstoj's War and Peace, copy the opening passage and put this into a leaflet I am writing, then the book War and Peace does not get the status "book of which the opening passage was copied into a leaflet". The book is not affected by my actions, nor by those of thousand others who also copied material from it.
So, equally when a replacement name is published this does not affect the original name. There are thousands of correct/valid names for which once upon a time a replacement name was published, and which are widely accepted as correct/valid names. It is only the replacement name for which "replaced synonym" has meaning: "this replacement name has such-and-such a replaced synonym", just like "this passage is a copy of the opening passage of Tolstoj's War and Peace.
  • crazy arguments: that is not nice, nor wise, especially when the arguments you quote were made up by yourself.

- Brya (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • taxonomically: change taxonomy for nomenlcature, if you prefer.
  • it ceased existing: you keep making nonsense arguments, your comparison is so poor I hardly understand how it makes sense in your mind.
  • nomenclatural status: replaced synonym... there is no such thing, nor can there be any such thing: you are making this up, this is your personal point of view. Or prove me wrong, with a link towards a community decision. Totodu74 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • taxonomically: change taxonomy for nomenlcature, if you prefer. -- In such matters "nomenclature" and "taxonomy" are two different disciplines which never should be confused. It's like en:Godwin's law: if anybody confuses the two, he is taken to have lost the debate, whatever it is.
  • it ceased existing: you keep making nonsense arguments, your comparison is so poor I hardly understand how it makes sense in your mind. -- it is not my mind that matters here, this is how nomenclature works, by international agreement, approved by the United Nations (through several steps of delegation)
  • nomenclatural status: replaced synonym... you are making this up, this is your personal point of view. Or prove me wrong, with a link towards a community decision. -- Again, this is not a matter of a "community decision" of any WMF project, but of "community decisions" by international communities of scientists, over a period extending over a century and a half. I already linked to these community decisions, which are here for animals and here for algae, fungi, and plants.
If you can not follow these lines of reasoning, you should not be in this debate. You don't see me arguing about the design of nuclear power plants or of airplanes. - Brya (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I will not feed a troll pretending "the United Nations" and "international communities of scientists" decided which entry should be kept on Wikidata and how it should be semantically framed. If you have these thousands people by "your side", how hard should it be to reach a consensus here? As long as we are fighting each other, 1 vs 1, we will not reach any conclusion. Totodu74 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
We have not begun to discuss "how it should be semantically framed.", you have gone to great lengths to avoid that. What "the United Nations" and "international communities of scientists" have agreed on is that this name cannot be (ever) the valid name of a taxon. Stop fighting, accept basic reality, and start discussing. - Brya (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Having a Wikidata item, stating a given author provided a diagnosis for a taxon using a given name at a given date is a fact. Accept basic reality. Having such kind of Wikidata item does not render the name "valid" whatsoever. Stop pretending such silly things. There are plenty of ways to indicate the name is invalid, starting with "nomenclatural status (P1135): replaced synonym (Q15709329)". We could additionally use "nomenclatural status (P1135): objectively invalid name (Q27955475)" or whatever big red tag that will make you sleep at night, but discarding factual information because you consider these misguided nomenclatural mistakes should be erased from the humanity memory is not a reasonnable choice. Totodu74 (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata has very few items which record that "a given author provided a diagnosis for a taxon using a given name at a given date is a fact." And only when the classification is especially prominent, and one or more Wikipedia(s) has a page on this group, as circumscribed by that author (for example Q2957606). Stop trying to find evasions and start discussing. - Brya (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Or if this was intended as "stating a given author provided a diagnosis for a taxon and gave it a name at a given date": Natural history has been around for some twentyfive centuries, and for 90% of that time Wikidata has not recorded any facts about "diagnoses provided for a taxon, with the author giving it a name". - Brya (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Even though they have been replaced, these names had existed in some scientific texts and it is valuable to keep this information, while all the potential adverse effects tht give you nightmares are easilly solved with a proper statement, such as "nomenclatural status (P1135): replaced synonym (Q15709329)". We could additionally use "nomenclatural status (P1135): objectively invalid name (Q27955475)" or whatever big red tag that will make you sleep at night. You are not entitled to decide alone the Wikidata:Notability of items. If by start discussing you mean I should stop disagreeing with you (since I have intensively "fed the troll", I kept discussing since the beginning), you are fooling yourself. Your advice is not more valuable than mine, you can keep spamming this talk page, I am not discussing alone with you any more, it is pointless. Totodu74 (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
As you say these names exist, namely as formal entities ("available names") under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and for all I know there may be some value in including them in Wikidata (although this remains dubious). However, under the same International Code of Zoological Nomenclature these never have been a correct ("valid") name of a species. They never represented a species, and have been empty names from the beginning, that is, they are names and nothing more.
        And you have never begun discussing how such empty names can be represented in Wikidata, but instead insisted in creating and maintaining fake species, degrading the value of Wikidata. You engaged in name calling almost from the first.
        Your 'solution' is like having an item saying "X is an elephant" and then adding a qualifier saying "This kind of elephant is called a crocodile". - Brya (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

ItaliquesEdit

Bonjour Toto :-) Eh oui, je suis aussi capable de t'emm... sur Wikidata (LOL). Je vois que tu as (avec raison) ajouté un format italique sur l'article Q66317273 (A New Liver Fluke of the Genus Opisthorchis). J'ai bien essayé de le faire plusieurs fois mais, comme tu pourras le constater, on a un message d'alerte avec un point d'exclamation. Du coup je ne rajoutais plus ces italiques (au risque d'être moins "propre"). Merci pour tes commentaires, peut-être que l'on peut oublier ce message. Bonne journée. Givet (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Givet, ce truc me turlupine depuis belle lurette, et j'en ai parlé à droite-à gauche, notamment (en français) sur fr:Discussion modèle:Bibliographie#Gestion des italiques qui peut servir de point de départ pour retrouver quelques morceaux de discussion épars autour de ce problème. Je t'expose brièvement l'historique et l'analyse que je fais de la situation, dont je tire une position personnelle pragmatique mais dont tu feras ce que tu veux.
J'avais d'abord parlé de ce problème sur la page Help talk:Label#HTML formatting for labels : c'était idiot de ma part, la gestion de l'italique sur les labels n'est pas le véritable nœud du problème, c'est dans le champ de la propriété title (P1476) que l'on veut que la chaîne de texte soit correctement formatée pour être réutilisée ailleurs. Peu importe, on m'a en tout cas répondu que les balises HTML étaient peut-être pas la façon la plus propre d'implémenter la mise en forme, mais où l'on ne m'a pas donné d'alternative concrète. On m'y a cependant indiqué l'existence de ce thread sur Phabricator datant de 2012, dont le statut est « Closed, Declined », et où l'on peut lire : « at the moment no wikitext or html markup, or any other kind of markup, is supported for labels, descriptions, or anywhere else in a data item. This is by design, and it's unlikely that we'll implement support for wiki markup in general ». Perdue dans la jungle wikidatienne, on peut aussi trouver la trace d'une proposition de nouvelle propriété autorisant la mise en forme des titres, qui a fini en queue de poisson puisque tout le monde était d'accord avec le fait du besoin d'une telle propriété, mais qu'en majorité les gens ont préféré une absence de solution plutôt qu'une solution imparfaite (je ne sais d'ailleurs pour quelle raison elle leur paraissait imparfaite !).
Je ne pense pas que ce problème majeur soit étranger au fait qu'on a plus de 43 % des items de Wikidata qui concernent des articles scientifiques (voir Wikidata:Statistics) mais que le taux d'utilisation de ces items est ridiculissime (en date de fin 2017 voir : commons:File:Wikidata Counts vs Usage - Natural Scale.png). Enfin, je n'ai trouvé nulle part la justification à cette format constraint.
Considérant que la contrainte de format n'est pas bloquante (ça ne fait qu'afficher un flag d'erreur) et que son viol est fonctionnel pour l'affichage des références sur WP:fr (le modèle bibliographique des anglophones ne gère pas correctement les balises, mais ils ne l'utilisent de toute façon pas vraiment), j'en ai donc pris mon parti. Il se résume par « le mieux est l'ennemi du bien », et l'avertissement je m'en tamponne vigoureusement le coquillard. :)
Je n'empêche d'ailleurs personne d'apporter une meilleure solution, pourvue qu'elle soit fonctionnelle et non théorique ou remise au calendes grecques. Na. :) Totodu74 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Tout ceci me parait être une analyse des plus convaincantes et je vais suivre ton exemple. J'avais une réticence que je viens de lever en rédigeant cette petite réponse : est-ce que le fait de mettre ces balises gênerait le passage au formatage définitif si tant est qu'il soit disponible un jour. Mais la réponse est nécessairement oui puisqu'il faudra de toute façon repasser sur ces différents titres (bien d'accord avec toi que c'est uniquement ce champ qui est important en l’occurrence). Un grand merci pour ta réponse et ta vision pragmatique des choses :-) Bonne journée. Amicalement Givet (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"instance of" "synonym"Edit

Bonjour, j'ai révoqué ceci, pour les raisons suivantes: "instance of" "synonym" a entre autre deux fonctions, la première étant de faire suivre des liens entre projets, example dans c:Category:Rhodophana nitellina si dans la barre de gauche vous cliquez sur language "Cebuano" vous tomberez sur l'article "Rhodocybe nitellina" qui n'est autre qu'un synonyme. La seconde fonction étant de trier facilement, lors de requêtes, les taxon "acceptés" des autres avec ce genre de code "filter not exists {?item wdt:P31 wd:Q1040689.}". Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Salut Christian Ferrer. Je ne compte pas livrer une bataille sur ce point, mais ça me paraît vraiment nul de faire ça. Cette information est à la fois redondante et moins précise que la déclaration "subject has role" "protonym" "of" "Macrophiothrix robillardi" (et sa réciproque "original combination" "Ophiothrix robillardi" sur l'item en vis-à-vis). À mon humble avis, la solution "intelligente" serait de corriger le code gérant les liens inter-projets, pas de dupliquer les données parce qu'il est trop mal fichu. D'ailleurs, les articles créés par bots sur les WP:ceb, :sv et :war incluent souvent des doublons, les robots ayant créés des articles sur les protonymes et leurs recombinaisons... comment sont-ils gérés ? Concernant ta dernière remarque j'ajouterais que les taxons "acceptés" ne le sont pas dans l'absolu, mais toujours subjectivement, et que la déclaration "instance of" ne me semble pas l'endroit indiqué pour traiter ce genre de subtilités. Totodu74 (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Pour les liens, "il faudrait corriger les codes" et certainement plein d'autre choses... faites le je vous en pris. Seulement pour l'instant c'est comme cela. Pour la redondance, c'est pas tout à fait vrai, exemple:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel (replace(str(?item), ".*Q", "Q") AS ?qid) WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P171 wd:Q3545503.
  filter not exists {?item wdt:P31 wd:Q1040689.}
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel (replace(str(?item), ".*Q", "Q") AS ?qid) WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P171 wd:Q3545503.
    SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

Quant à la subjectivité!?! mais bien sur on parle de taxons!!?!

"Je ne compte pas livrer une bataille sur ce point" encore heureux. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"Pour la redondance, c'est pas tout à fait vrai" --> tes exemples n'ont pas à figurer dans "instance of" mais comme des déclarations à part entière. Mieux, c'est leur place ! Les items concernent des noms, dont le statut varie selon les auteurs (la subjectivité que tu sembles comprendre). Un taxon n'est pas synonyme par défaut, ne serait-ce que pour le premier auteur qui le décrit, pardi !
Et ok, pour la dernière phrase je vais formuler plus simplement : "trier les taxon “acceptés” des autres" est une phrase sans queue ni tête, puisque "bien sur on parle de taxons" et que leur "accptation" est subjective. Je te laisse faire tes bidouillages à la noix. Totodu74 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Leur acceptation n'est pas moins subjective que leur existence en tant que concept de taxon. Tout élément de wikidata qui est "instance of " "taxon" est forcément subjectif, ni plus, ni moins que n'importe laquelle des listes que l'on peur faire avec ces "taxons". "Je te laisse faire tes bidouillages à la noix" : génial, avec un peu de chance, on termine la conversation ici. Point final? Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Oui, le ton de ton deuxième message, encore plus que ta mauvaise volonté apparente me faisait souhaiter terminer cette conversation oiseuse au plus vite. Totodu74 (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)