Open main menu

Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2019/12.

Removal of taxon author and date informationsEdit

Hello, I think that the removal of the author and date informations made by @Totodu74: there https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q69026880&curid=68694345&action=history is fully not adequat. I have communication problems with this user, I prefer a discussion on a discussion page like this one, which is viewed by more people. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jura1: who added a constraint status on P225. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I had left a note about it on Property_talk:P225#Mandatory_qualifiers_?. I'm not quite sure what Totodu74 refers to, but the two qualifiers seem to be the structured way to add this to Wikidata (notably linking the actual item about the author). The qualifiers seem to exist for quite some time. --- Jura 05:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Johann Carl (Q22103900) (1902) did not describe a taxon named Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum (Q69026880), hence it is inapropriate to indicate this authorship. It is wiser to recover the author information from the original combination item Strongylosoma nigrovirgatum (Q6444976) through the property protonym (Q14192851).
To convince yourself, I suggest anyone involved in structuring taxonomy items to activate the tool developped by FelixReimann, as I did, and which generates an automatic taxobox on items concerning taxa. On the page Strongylosoma nigrovirgatum (Q6444976), it correctly displays the nomenclature authority "Carl, 1902". On the page Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum (Q69026880), it correctly displays the nomenclature authority "(Carl, 1902)". Best regards, Totodu74 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not redondant information for the following 3 points. 1/ The fact is that information is retrieved at least in the Commons infobox (and one imagine this in further projects), and allow navigation (structured data) with the auhtor of the taxon (example); 2/ the field/property (taxon author citation) is made to disappear when we will be abble to retrieve automatically the right author citation from the property "taxon author", but we need it in each taxon items, the consensus is therefore to add this info rather than to remove it. 3/ when removing this field from a taxon item you exclude it from all querries where the taxon author is determining (example, if you search all taxa authored by Carl within the genus Pogonosternum you will not have Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum, and that is just wrong), as well as if you search all taxa authored by Carl which we have media, you exclude c:Category:Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum, and that is also just wrong. Your point of view is just conceptual, and do not correspond to the reality of constraints of a suitable database. As evidence your removal has undesirable techniqual consequence. I'm going to reinstall the informations. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    I cannot possibly see how geting Strongylosoma nigrovirgatum, Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum, Somethingum nigrovirgatum, Anotherum nigrovirgatum, Yetanotherum nigrovirgatum when "you search all taxa authored by Carl" is more interesting than having the only one taxon actually described by Carl, 1902 (i.e. Strongylosoma nigrovirgatum)!!  
    For this reason I would argue your spurious use of the property taxon author (P405) is problematic and "has undesirable techniqual consequence".
    Btw, if you are interested in having pictures of such species, why wouldn't you duplicate the picture on both Strongylosoma nigrovirgatum (Q6444976) and Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum (Q69026880), rather than duplicating the author? Totodu74 (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I added the authorship of the new combination to Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum (Q69026880) (source). Looks like our taxobox isn't handling this well. --Succu (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC) PS: I reported this bug early this year at Module talk:Taxobox#Authorship (ICZN). --Succu (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    I missed that " taxon author" was for author of the recombination..... it is likely because the property is not for that: "Description: the author(s) of the first scientific description". Sorry, but maybe we need a way to retrieve the author of the recombination, but I'm not aware that the scope of P405 have been extended. For the reasons explained by me before, I'm reinstaiing the former infos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    As Christian Ferrer I doubt this is the right way of doing it. This would probably require another property, especially convenient for botanists, who are used to acknoledge authors of recombinaions (this is usually not the case in zoology). Totodu74 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Totodu74, Succu: As per the scope of taxon author (P405) "the author(s) that (optionally) may be cited with the scientific name; Also known as author citation/described by" the value Johann Carl (Q22103900) within this property for Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum (Q69026880)Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum (Carl, 1902) is fully in scope of the property and of Wikidata; therefore I add again the infos. If someone remove the infos once again, I will ask the help of an administrator. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The scope of taxon author (P405) is to list the person(s) who established the scientific name. In the case of Pogonosternum nigrovirgatum (Q69026880) this was C. A. W. Jeekel (Q17006565). This is the same way this poperty is used for plants etc. Doing so will allow us (or any consumer) to implement the Recommendation 51G. Citation of person making new combination: (Carl, 1902) Jeekel, 1965. Unfortantly our taxobox has several unresolved bugs. --Succu (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC) PS: I readded the removed reference. --Succu (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Succu: You did not added Jeekel (and I am pretty sure it would not be consensual anyway), but discarded the accurate information about this name being a recombination (Q14594740). What is wrong with you? Could you be consistent between what you do and what you say you do? o.O Totodu74 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure I added the reference to his paper. We do not use recombination (Q14594740) the way you proposed: 3 results. --Succu (talk)

ICZN: Recommendation 51G. Citation of person making new combinationEdit

How to citate the person(s) who is making a new combination? I think this is the core problem here within the scope of International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Q13011).

Under the ruleage of International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Q693148) this is standard practise and basionym (P566) is used here to provide the full authorship of a taxon name (P225). How do we are able to fullfill this here?

Example:

--Succu (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Succu, as from a structured data point of view, we can quote that maybe with a new property "recombination author", that will allow to have this useful info in adition of the specific name author. But both infos are useful inside each items because it is an euphemism to say that a lot of original combinations are missing in Wikidata. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

AmphibiaWeb Species ID (P5036)Edit

Does AmphibiaWeb Species ID (P5036) produce a stable link to a scientific name? Neurergus microspilotus (Q3019851) links to an AmphibiaWeb page on Neurergus derjugini. Neurergus derjugini (Q57412879) doesn't have an AmphibiaWeb ID. I've noticed several other cases where Wikidata links to an AmphibiaWeb page that doesn't match the taxon name (P225) on Wikidata. Plantdrew (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what an id is about: a scientific name or a label for a taxon concept. E.g. id 2886 gives now an Sorry - no matches. Please try again.. Im fixing some issues with my bot. --Succu (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed some of your bot edits showing up on my watchlist at en.wiki. It sure seems like the ids are labels for a taxon concept, not a scientific name. The AmphibaWeb page for Neurergus derjugini only mentions that name at the top; the main text refers to Neurergus microspilotus. It looks like the taxonomy was updated, while the main text was left unchanged.
Are taxon concept labels really compatible with Wikidata's model?Plantdrew (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Not like Wikidata knows what its model is in this regard. Circeus (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Type specimensEdit

I have some doubts, and I don't remember if we already decided something, what is prefered?

instance of (P31) syntype (Q719822), example in FOS001 (Q73376253)

or

subject has role (P2868) syntype (Q719822), example in YPM IZ 003617.CR (Q65966126)

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Pitching in to say as I am behind FOS001 (Q73376253) and might have to do about 500 more entries, so I'd like to make something correct, if anyone can answer this.--Flor WMCH (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I realize we might have pinged the project...

99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Circeus
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Enwebb
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
MPF
Manojk
MargaretRDonald
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
PEAK99
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
RaboKarbakian
Rod Page
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
TomT0m
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
Tubezlob
William Avery
大诺史   Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy: perhaps someone can help us with this? Thanks in advance!--213.55.221.22 09:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not too worried whether you use instance of (P31) or subject has role (P2868) however what is important is to identify whether it is a holotype, syntype, paratype, allotype, lectotype, paralectotype or neotype. There can be several others. It may be important to also identify which code this is done under, as the ICZN and ICBN have slightly different definitions of this. It may be best to use both as per YPM IZ 003617.CR (Q65966126) which seems to use both, one saying it is a type specimen, the other saying it has the role of a holotype. These are important distinctions, one is saying it is part of the type series, the other saying what form of type specimen it is. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok I removed "instance of" for FOS001 (Q73376253), I think too it's the best approch. When I will find time I will writte a little thing in Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

External identifiersEdit

Hi All,

I wrote a proposal about expanding the statements regarding external identifiers, please have a look and add your opinions: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#External_Identifiers_-_expanding_statements,_best_practice --Adam Harangozó (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Uniform Resource Name (Q76497) urn:Edit

Now that there is URN formatter (P7470), I added it to a few properties about taxonomy that can be used for Life Science Identifier (Q6459954) urn:lsid: or Universally Unique Identifier (Q195284) urn:uuid:.

Maybe I missed some. --- Jura 07:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Papers with pages in Wikispecies, not linked in WikidataEdit

Please see discussion here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Property:P141Edit

I was told that some IUCN conservation status (P141) we are pulling from Wikidata on cswiki (eg. Q2236564#P141 [1]) are outdated. The last update was conducted in August 2018. Is it possible to run a new round? Is there anything blocking it (change in API, copyright)? --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What properties and data should invalid taxons have?Edit

Excuse me if I don't use the correct terminology, i am far from an expert. But from my understanding, Western Jackdaw (Q25394) is the old name for Coloeus monedula (Q25345384), but the first item still have lots of properties and identifiers. Doesn't all that data correspond to the new combination? If so, shouldn't we have an instance of (P31) "obsolete taxon" or something like that for those cases?--Ninovolador (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Taxonomy".