Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy

Active discussions
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 2020/10.

On taxa and taxonomic names (again): time to reform Wikidata?Edit

99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Canley
Circeus
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Enwebb
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Hyperik (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Magnefl (talk)
MPF
Manojk
MargaretRDonald
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
Oronsay
PEAK99
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
RaboKarbakian
Rod Page
Strobilomyces (talk)
Stuchka (talk)
Succu (talk)
TiagoLubiana (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
TomT0m
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
Tubezlob
William Avery
Minorax
Culex
Koala0090
Mike Krüger
Friesen5000
Salgo60
TED
GoEThe (talk)
Estopedist1
Leptospira
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy The more I look at how biological taxonomy is handled in Wikidata the more I feel that it is fundamentally broken. I think many people here are aware that there are problems, most notably when discussing adding new properties. For my own work I'd love to make more use of Wikidata, but I keep running into the taxa versus name problem. What I'm going to suggest here is a way forward that could make Wikidata even more useful.

TL;DREdit

I suggest the following:

  • Wikidata taxon items are treated as taxa taxon (Q16521) (but we really mean it this time)
  • Taxon properties are restricted to those properties that are about a group of organisms (e.g., geographic range, body size, ecological relationships)
  • The numerous "taxon" properties that are really properties of taxonomic names are no longer linked to taxon items, but instead are treated as qualifiers of taxon name (P225)  
  • A given taxon can have more than one taxon name (P225)   (currently this is constrained to one value). Editors can flag which name is "accepted" (according to a given classification).
  • "Taxon" identifiers that are explicitly for names not taxa (e.g., IPNI plant ID (P961)  ) are linked to taxonomic names (e.g., as qualifiers)
  • Many "taxon" identifiers are ambiguous (they identify names but are also used to identify taxa), ambiguous identifiers could(should?) be linked to names. Identifiers that are explicitly for taxa are linked directly to the taxon.

AssumptionsEdit

Any model makes assumptions. In this case I'm assuming that there is a reasonable consensus on taxonomy at the level of species (or terminal taxa if you prefer), that is, for many groups we could agree on a list of species. We might disagree on their classification (e.g., what genera they belong to) but we can already handle that by using multiple values for parent taxon (P171)  . But we should, in principle, be able to list all the extant frogs species currently known, and have one item per species - unlike, for example situations like this where currently have (at least) four items for the same species:

As our taxonomic knowledge evolves we will have to curate the Wikidata taxonomy.

Note that I'm not arguing for a single taxonomy. Rather, I'm arguing for a single set of "leaves" for the tree/network of life. Above that level we can have multiple classifications (e.g., the same species can be linked to different genera) so that users (including the different language wikipedias) can still pick and choose what classification they want to follow.

I'm also aware that there are multiple models of how to represent taxonomy, and some would argue that taxa are mutable concepts that are constantly changing and those changes should be reflected in some way (e.g., by changing taxon identifiers each time something about the taxon changes). As ever there'a tradeoff between levels of complexity and usability. I try to make sense of some of this here: Taxonomic concepts for dummies.

A way forwardEdit

In practical terms, constraints for a lot of "taxon" properties would need to be changed (e.g., so that they cannot be used as taxon properties but rather as qualifiers of taxon names), and a (large?) number of items for species that are objective synonyms (e.g., same species in different genera) would have to be merged. The guides to how to add taxa to Wikidata would also need to be rewritten.

Probably we should start to think about formalising the model for taxa using a schema, see Wikidata:WikiProject Schemas.

AlternativesEdit

One alternative is to keep things as they are, which means we have considerable ambiguity. In taxa where species are regularly shuffled among different genera Wikidata will have multiple items for the same species. If a biologist, say, wants to add data for a species (e.g., how many eggs does it lay) and finds multiple items for the same taxon (each with a different taxonomic name), to which item do they add their data? How does anyone querying Wikidata using a different name recover that egg information? Many of the current properties are making assertions about taxa that make no logical sense.

Another option is to cleanly separate taxa and names by having items for both. Certainly if I was building a database this is what I would do. However in the context of Wikidata this would result in many millions of items being added, and in many cases a search for a taxon name would result in at least two items (taxon and taxon name) potentially causing confusion.

DetailsEdit

I don't claim any of this is fully worked out, but below I've created a table where I partition current "taxon" properties into properties of either taxa or names. The "TDWG" column is the beginning of an attempt to map Wikidata properties to TDWG terms (as a way of clarifying what they mean). The goal of this table is to assess where we are, and what would need to be changed if we separate taxa from names.

Notes on properties of taxa versus properties of names
Taxon Taxon name Notes TDWG
Core taxon properties
taxon name (P225)   A string that may have qualifiers, such as taxon author (P405)   year of taxon publication (P574)   nomenclatural status (P1135)   and references. Currently only one instance per taxon.
taxon rank (P105)  
parent taxon (P171)   Can have multiple parents (= multiple classifications)
taxon common name (P1843)  
taxon synonym (P1420)   Another taxon that (according to at least one source is a subjective or heterotypic synonym) of this taxon.
Core name properties Things that apply to taxonomic names NOT taxa
replaced by (P1366)  
replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694)  
basionym (P566)   tn:hasBasionym
original combination (P1403)   tn:basionymFor
publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326)  
taxon author citation (P6507)   tn:authorship
this zoological name is coordinate with (P2743)  
taxonomic type (P427)   tn:typifiedBy
gender of a scientific name of a genus (P2433)  
original spelling (P1353)  
type locality (biology) (P5304)  
Code of nomenclature (P944)   tn:nomenclaturalCode
Name qualifiers Properties used as qualifiers on taxon name (P225)  
ex taxon author (P697)  
taxon author (P405)  
year of taxon publication (P574)   tn:year
nomenclatural status (P1135)   protected name (Q68455470) Sanctioned name (Q7415672) nomen rejiciendum propositum (Q23038368) tn:NomenclaturalNoteTypeTerm
gender of a scientific name of a genus (P2433)  
original spelling (P1353)  
Reference qualifiers Properties used as qualifiers for a name reference
page(s) (P304)  
reference has role (P6184)   recombination (Q14594740) first description (Q1361864) replacement name (Q749462) emendation (Q1335348) taxon redescription (Q42696902) new combination reference (Q76654853) Try it!
stated in (P248)   A taxonomic database, a scientific publication, etc.
Taxon properties Things that only apply to taxa, not to names, such as traits, geographic and temporal range, conservation status
image (P18)  
IUCN conservation status (P141)  
taxon range map image (P181)  
endemic to (P183)  
this taxon is source of (P1672)  
temporal range start (P523)  
temporal range end (P524)  
natural product of taxon (P1582)  
found in taxon (P703)  
temporal range end (P524)  
temporal range end (P524)  
Identifiers
Names 1 id = 1 name: each name has unique id, no judgement on whether name is "accepted" or not, i.e., no taxonomy
IPNI plant ID (P961)  
Index Fungorum ID (P1391)  
ZooBank ID for name or act (P1746)  
Taxa 1 id >= 1 name: Identifiers used by taxonomic databases are typically unchanged even if name changes, so same taxon id may have multiple names.
eBird taxon ID (P3444)  
NCBI taxonomy ID (P685)  
World Spider Catalog ID (P3288)  
Avibase ID (P2026)  
Encyclopedia of Life ID (P830)  
iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151)   iNaturalist actually has a hybrid system similar to Wikidata where an ID may correspond to a taxon (with multiple names) or a taxon name. IDs for non-accepted taxon names are considered "inactive" however and not used by the project.
Ambiguous 1 id = 1 name: Identifiers that are typically unique for each name, one is "blessed" as accepted (= taxon)
WoRMS-ID for taxa (P850)   WoRMS-ID for taxa (P850)  
Plants of the World online ID (P5037)   Plants of the World online ID (P5037)  
World Flora Online ID (P7715)   World Flora Online ID (P7715)  
Global Biodiversity Information Facility ID (P846)   Global Biodiversity Information Facility ID (P846)  
ITIS TSN (P815)   ITIS TSN (P815)  
MycoBank taxon name ID (P962)   MycoBank taxon name ID (P962)  

--Rdmpage (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Oops, I left out taxon synonym (P1420)  , which is at the core of a lot of the issues. I suggest restricting this to pairs of heterotypic (= subjective) synonyms, that is, taxa whose names have different types (e.g., type specimens or type taxa), and hence whether we regard them as the same is a matter of science. Objective (= homotypic) synonyms share the same type and hence synonymy is a matter of following the relevant nomenclatural rules. This means that, to use @Kaldari: example of Phidippus johnsoni, Phidippus johnsoni (Q675345) has Phidippus bicolor (Q96739639) as a taxon synonym (P1420)  , whereas Attus johnsonii (Q96739632) and Dendryphantes johnsoni (Q96739670) are objective synonyms, their items would be merged with Phidippus johnsoni (Q675345), and the names Attus johnsonii and Dendryphantes johnsoni added to Phidippus johnsoni (Q675345) as instances of taxon name (P225)  . This means that a complete list of synonyms might still need a query (on taxon synonym (P1420)  ), but it might also be the case that Phidippus bicolor (Q96739639) is not considered sufficiently interesting to merit an item and it too gets merged with Phidippus johnsoni (Q675345). A practical consequence of going down this route is that we would have to merge a lot of putative objective synonyms, and we might not always have information on whether two names are in fact objective synonyms. But I imagine it would be doable. --Rdmpage (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The major issue having several "taxon name" values inside the same item is that we can potentially have as much as parent taxons (for that reason I think that this solution is possible only if a taxon name is an item itself with all the properties that are specific to this name (e.g. "parent of the taxon name"), and then the property "taxon name" inside the taxon item accept only item values instead of string values. That being said another issue is Wikidata may be used to generate taxon boxes in various Wiki, exemple the Wikidata infobox in Commons, then if there are several values for a taxon name (and potentially several accepted ones) what will be the parent taxon chain to be followed? Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Multiple parents are usual now and that's how it began. Anyway, Commons categories are usually linked to taxa, not names. --Infovarius (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
How other Wikimedia projects are using Wikidata shouldn't have any bearing on what Wikidata does. If something on another Wikimedia project doesn't work well with Wikidata, the onus should be on that project to figure out how to improve it's incorporation of Wikidata. For example, there is an editor (MPF) who routinely removes sourced English vernacular names from Wikidata so that (among other reasons), Commons only displays a single vernacular name. Commons needs to fix their template if they only want one vernacular name to display; removing data from Wikidata is the wrong approach. Catalan Wikipedia uses Wikidata to generate taxoboxes. ca:Tiranosaure doesn't display Dinosauria in the taxobox; while that is partly Wikidata's fault (in that Wikidata at present doesn't have Dinosauria anywhere as a parent taxon of Tyrannosaurus), Catalan needs to figure out how to resolve cases when multiple parent taxa are given. Plantdrew (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: so you want to correspond "content" of taxa (as set of living beings) to items? It is decent. But what to do with some "parent" (higher than species) taxa which have changed the content over the time? I am not aware, may be it is even the case for species. --Infovarius (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for an older diskussion, but only found this one (2014) Maybe it's worth reading. It includes an early approach to model a taxon (Kaleidoscope Jewel (Q2530145)). --Succu (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The deleted revision of the Kaleidoscope Jewel page (see screenshot) is pretty much what I am suggesting we do.
 
Kaleidoscope Jewel taxon names from old Wikidata revision
I am sure this approach has been discussed elsewhere as well. It seems that there are multiple approaches to this problem, some strongly held opinions, and some degree of confusion and/or mutual misunderstanding, which taken together seems a recipe for inertia (to be clear, I make now claims to have any more insight than anyone else). I also think it is inevitable that any solution will require significant curation, and that is sometimes raised as an obstacle. But Wikidata is perhaps uniquely placed to provide curation, it would just be helpful if we came to an agreed interpretation of just what the taxon pages represent. Thinking out loud (and given that consensus may be hard to reach), I wonder if another approach is to construct queries that take the current model and generate the output that people might want, e.g., a taxon and all its names according to a classification, the data required to populate a Wikipedia info box, etc. --Rdmpage (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Just to muddy the waters, I'm still not clear in my own mind how much of the issue is how we model taxa and names, and how much is the lack of good tools to display the current Wikidata taxonomy. --Rdmpage (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
More open points: Recurring disagreements (2019). --Succu (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-taxonomist here, but very interested in how WD uses identifiers. I'd prefer as many IDs as possible to be on the main taxon page. When a taxon has more than one associated name, and therefore more than one associated ID for some properties, I would list them all down the bottom and qualify *them* with which taxon name they apply to. We could turn off the single-value constraint for those properties. --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@99of9: What do you mean with main taxon page? --Succu (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess it is "not as a qualifier". Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal as anything is better than the current broken mess. This model seems logical and doable with our current set-up. It will just require some property constraint changes. I'm curious though how editors would flag which name is "accepted". Kaldari (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Honestly all the properties we are currently using on taxa items are inherited from a speciefic name, if we have to deal with several names inside one single items, it becomes unmanageable, unless all those properties becomes qualifiers of "taxon name". E.g. (invented names) Differ differus differante and Various variante, in ITIS you have two different accepted entries, and in WorMS the subspecies Differ differus differante is stated to be a synonym of the species Various variante. It becomes almost unmanageable in a single item, e.g. will you have Differ differus (the direct parent of Differ differus differante) listed within the parent taxas of Various variante? that is fully wrong, unless parent taxon becomes also a qualifier of taxon name. Same thing for taxon rank, the name has a taxon rank, but if you have several names you (may) have several taxon ranks. Unmanageable IMO.
I'm more for the exact opposite of the topic of this discussion, as all properties are inherited from a specific name, a taxon item here is in the facts an item about a name, therefore we should tend to avoid to use qualifiers for "taxon name", but only main values. E.g. a taxon rank is not less inherited from the name than the author, so why one is qualifier (taxon author), and the other (taxon rank) a main value? I can live with that, and in fact I live with that..., but it doesn't really make sense to me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Argh, I was going to suggest something about a “taxon synonym string” or “nomenclatural synonym string” – analogous to “author name string” – as an alternative to multiple taxon name statements. Then I saw a link in Page's blog comments for Wikidata:Property proposal/taxon synonym string. Pelagic (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support untangling nomina from taxa; and would like the freedom to deal with nomina as either strings or entities, depending on the level of detail one is trying to express. The distinction between homotypic and heterotypic synonyms could be very useful. There’s also the question of taxa that have the same name with different circumscriptions, but that’s a whole other can of Vermiformes. Pelagic (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Zoosystematics and EvolutionEdit

Zoosystematics and Evolution (Q15755646)

Hi, it seems there is an issue with the items of the articles from this journals. They are all wrongly tagged as published in the former version of the journal Mitteilungen aus dem Museum fur Naturkunde in Berlin. Zoologische Reihe (Q45114493). I fixed the ones where I have worked on (exemple), but not all. Note that this tool when used also add the wrong value. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Christian Ferrer: I think the issue here is with the source data from CrossRef, e.g. https://api.crossref.org/v1/works/10.3897/zse.94.21754 Note that CrossRef returns two ISSNs. Usually one is for print version of journal and one is for electronic version, but in this case they are for different names for the journal. Whichever one gets picked by the tool being used to populate Wikidata determines which journal the article gets linked too. CrossRef metadata is not perfect. --Rdmpage (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
species:ISSN 1435-1935 Wikispecies quote it is called Zoosystematics and Evolution since 1998, it would be great if someone with an automated or semi-automated tool can fix with the good value all the items for the publications made after 1998. Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Late, but according to the ISSN Portal website, both Zoosystematics and Evolution (Q15755646) and Mitteilungen aus dem Museum fur Naturkunde in Berlin. Zoologische Reihe (Q45114493) share the same ISSN-L (see this link). The current name is labelled as the online version, and the old name is labelled as the print version. This may explain why CrossRef is linking the two ISSNs together. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Many cebwiki article have been movedEdit

See Special:Contributions/Lsjbot - We need to move the sitelink too.--GZWDer (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: Why? --Succu (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
e.g. Q10598136 the cebwiki article moved to Pseudophasma granulosumm, which should link to Q14672856.--GZWDer (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Again @GZWDer: Why? --Succu (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
As taxon names should not be changed.--GZWDer (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This is bullshit. Sorry to be blunt. --Succu (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Note sv and war wiki article is still using the old name, so they should be left at the old item.--GZWDer (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Why? --Succu (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The approach to place sitelinks on random taxon names has always been a mystery to me. Somehow it feels like Wikidata would be editoralizing about Wikipedia editions, and Wikidata's approach of maintaining separate items isn't applied to sitelinks. --- Jura 05:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you remeber my proposal to have "virtual sitelinks" based on certain properties? People tend to keep sitelinks together, I know only one use who sperates them. BTW: Wikimedia projects often interfere with others (commonscats POV, wrongly matched external IDs). --Succu (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Commons adds (additional) sitelinks based on values of some properties to taxons. I added it some time ago.
I'm not really aware of another field that tries to "keep sitelinks together".
Maybe some items in other fields are still in the state interwikis were before Wikidata, but they tend to get sorted out. --- Jura 19:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
"Commons adds (additional) sitelinks": I remember well that in Commons and this was tested in c:Category:Rhodophana nitellina, however the site links seems to have disappear (at least for me)...?! Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like it got borked in one of the updates. I will try to fix it. --- Jura 20:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed this as well. The essential problem is that Wikipedia articles are about biological species and Wikidata items are about taxon names, so it is inevitable that they are going to drift out of sync as Wikipedia articles are moved to newer names. There have been at least a half dozen different proposals to fix this problem, including one higher up on this very page, but everyone here seems to prefer dragging their feet and keeping our broken system as it is. Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Re "everyone here seems to prefer dragging their feet and keeping our broken system as it is" I feel your pain, but I think there are at least two reasons for the current situation. Firstly, this is an, um, opinionated community, so any major change is going to require significant effort in order to reach agreement. Who has the energy and skills to undertake that task? Secondly, while the current system is a bit of a dog's breakfast, I'm not entirely sure that there's an obvious alternative. In many ways the confusion and/or ambiguity between names and taxa is present in most taxonomic databases, and given that Wikidata is essentially an identifier broker I suspect the current situation is a reflection of the state of those databases. In summary, change will be hard, and changing to "what" is harder still if "what" isn't clear. --Rdmpage (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
What we need is a different wikidata for each of us and we will do the thing in the way we want... no that's a joke. Of what we need is an unrestricted area (here on wikidata?, or in another dedicated wiki) where we could test several models for taxonomy, where we could create the properties that each we think are useful and use them in the way that each wants, and without anybody saying "I don't agree with that". Once an undiscutable (or a better) model created, if of course there is one one day, it will be more easy to modify the things here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rdmpage: The obvious alternative is to match what every single other Wikimedia project does and what Wikidata's own guidelines suggest: Have one item per biological species and manage the names and IDs within properties. If there are competing taxon concepts, choose one based on the preponderance of reliable sources (just like we do for all other items with fuzzy ontologies). Any other solution is just unmanageable unmaintainable chaos. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Spaces in hybrid nameEdit

I changed Pterostylis furcillata (Q15493043) taxon name (P225) Pterostylis ×furcillata to “Pterostylis × furcillata”, but then realised it wasn’t just an isolated typo. Brya said in 2015 that no-space is preferred, but I haven’t been able to find other discussion or guidance.

For Thelymitra truncata (Q15468730) as another example, NSW Flora has “Thelymitra truncata”, APNI “Thelymitra × truncata”, and VicFlora “Thelymitra ×truncata”.

What do you think? Is there any reason to prefer a particular format for named plant hybrids?

— Pelagic (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As Brya told you: we have no space after the multiplication sign (×). --Succu (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Why? I asked if there was a reason. Pelagic (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Because the space was useful in the typewriter age to distingushed x (the multiplication sign (×)) from the rest of the epithet (Thelymitra x truncata vs. Thelymitra xtruncata). --Succu (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Isn't the space still useful to distinguish the x from the rest of the epithet? Not sure what typewriters have to do with it. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
It's about e.g. Thelymitra × truncata vs. Thelymitra ×truncata. See: Recommendation H.3A. --Succu (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

P574 (year of taxon publication)Edit

I noticed there was a slow edit war going on over the label and description of year of taxon publication (P574) over the past several years. This is understandable since the way publication year is used is completely different between plant and animal names. I rewrote the description for year of taxon publication (P574) to try to accommodate both of these cases. The other option would be to split year of taxon publication (P574) into 2 separate properties. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Linking translations of articles to their originalsEdit

As some no doubt already know, there are journals such as Entomological Review (Q47161189) which publish English-language versions of articles that were originally published in Russian (e.g, in Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie (Q4532102)). As we see more and more taxonomic papers added by their DOIs there are going to be a growing number of articles such as Two New Species of the Weevil Genus Mecysmoderes Schoenherr, 1837 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae: Ceutorhynchinae) from Vietnam (Q99837830), which is an English version of ДВА НОВЫХ ВИДА ДОЛГОНОСИКОВ РОДА MECYSMODERES SCHOENHERR, 1837 (COLEOPTERA, CURCULIONIDAE: CEUTORHYNCHINAE) ИЗ ВЬЕТНАМА (Q99838137). I've added these two articles, and linked them via edition or translation of (P629) and its inverse has edition or translation (P747). At some point I hope to automate the linking of articles such as this pair. I'm curious as to how many cases there are of articles being published in one language then published again in a different language.

Annals and magazine of natural historyEdit

99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Canley
Circeus
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Enwebb
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Hyperik (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Magnefl (talk)
MPF
Manojk
MargaretRDonald
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
Oronsay
PEAK99
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
RaboKarbakian
Rod Page
Strobilomyces (talk)
Stuchka (talk)
Succu (talk)
TiagoLubiana (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
TomT0m
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
Tubezlob
William Avery
Minorax
Culex
Koala0090
Mike Krüger
Friesen5000
Salgo60
TED
GoEThe (talk)
Estopedist1
Leptospira
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy I have "finished" adding as many articles of Annals and Magazine of Natural History (Q19798858) for which I have DOIs and associated data. Based on some rough work I did on BioNames a few years ago http://bionames.org/labs/coverage/ (this chart is rather out of date), this journal is second only to Zootaxa (Q220370) as a source of new animal names.

Bulletin of the United States National MuseumEdit

See Wikidata talk:WikiProject Periodicals#Bulletin of the United States National Museum. I tried asking what is up with the four wikidata items I linked there last month, but got no answer at all. Maybe someone here can help make sense of them? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge Macrochloa tenacissima (Q21531076) into Stipa tenacissima (Q831011)?Edit

Should Macrochloa tenacissima (Q21531076) be merged into Stipa tenacissima (Q831011)? Thank you! (pings appreciated) --Marsupium (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Marsupium: no we don't merge the items in case of synonymy, you put taxon synonym (P1420) on the accpeted one, the value being the not accepted one (a source is welcome). And the other is "instance of" synonym. Exemple:

Anthropoides virgo (Q191683) and Grus virgo (Q23759614). Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Taxonomy".