Talk:Q132669
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — Western Cattle Egret (Q132669)
description: species of bird in the genus Bubulcus
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Western Cattle Egret” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
It's actually easier to change the taxonomy rather than to move all the references and stuff from one item to another. On English Wikipedia, en:Cattle egret was merged with en:Bubulcus rather than with en:Western cattle egret. Perhaps this item should be merged with Q947895. Grey Clownfish (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand difference. Both entries are about Bubulcus ibis. --Treisijs (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Grey Clownfish: - no, Q30324004 should be merged here, it is a duplicate. This item is about the species Western Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis; it is not the same as Q947895, which is about the genus Bubulcus (all cattle egrets, including Western Cattle Egret (Q132669) and Eastern Cattle Egret (Q966356)). The old en:Cattle egret was also about the genus as a whole, not the species. - MPF (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Wikidata seems to only be making the split now. Q132669 is one of Wikidata's items, not IOC's Bubuclus ibis. Since 2012, it has always referred to cattle egrets as a whole. Only in 2023 did people start trying to change its subject to Western cattle egret. And you (plural) haven't completed the change. I just don't understand why you aren't changing the taxonomy rather than the subject. It seems like a more reasonable approach. It's a less disruptive change. Believe me, most claims on Q132669 apply to the Cattle egret, not the Western Cattle egret. Yes, the split has lead to iNaturalist changing the subject of its Cattle Egret taxon to Western Cattle Egret, but I'd say the majority of sources either didn't do the split, or used separate identifiers for Cattle egret and Western cattle egret. Please look at all the claims on Q132669, and its history. Do you see all the claims relating to areas in which the only cattle egret is the Eastern cattle egret? These will need to be removed and added to Q947895 instead if you insist on this ill-advised merge/change-of-subject.
- @Grey Clownfish: - no, Q30324004 should be merged here, it is a duplicate. This item is about the species Western Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis; it is not the same as Q947895, which is about the genus Bubulcus (all cattle egrets, including Western Cattle Egret (Q132669) and Eastern Cattle Egret (Q966356)). The old en:Cattle egret was also about the genus as a whole, not the species. - MPF (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- There are two things we can do:
- Merge Q947895 into Q132669, changing its taxonomy from Species Bubuclus ibis to Genus Bubuclus.
- Keep Q132669 as Bubuclus ibis sensu lato. I feel this may be a sensible approach, because the truth is that many sources still use the lumper approach. Any merge will prevent certain identifiers from being listed on Wikidata.
- There are two things we can do:
- Merging Q30324004 into Q132669, changing its subject from Cattle egret to Western cattle egret, is a non-starter if you ask me. This is the approach that requires the most amount of work. And it's been 3 months and there's still claims on Q132669 that relate to the Cattle egret, not Western cattle egret.
- Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all! That some languages' wikipedias are out of date on their taxonomy is irrelevant here. The taxonomy of this item should not be changed, it is for Bubulcus ibis whatever way the name is treated. Wikispecies adopted the split back in February 2013 as soon as it was made by IOC, and has remained linked to this item since then. Nothing has changed, except that slowly, other language wikipedias are starting to notice and adopt the 2013 change. That's how it always is with species splits, a lot of wikipedias take an eternity to update. That shouldn't matter to this item. - MPF (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, the item should be for Cattle egret no matter what scientific name it's called by. It's easier that way. Less claims to be changed that way. The concept is what's important, not the scientific name. Wikipedia cares about concepts, not scientific names. That's why Cattle egret was merged with Bubuclus, not Western cattle egret, and why Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article for every synonym. For Wikidata to take a different approach would make linking to Wikipedia harder. Still I see claims that clearly apply to the Cattle egret, not the Western cattle egret. This wouldn't be an issue if we conserved the concept, rather than the scientific name. Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that when it comes to species or taxa, the concept is attached to a scientific name. I guess that the concept of Cattle egret was renamed to Western cattle egret, as long as it was about the species, not the genus. All other interwikilinks for Bubulcus ibis were allready on Q132669 anyway. Astirmays (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the concept is not the scientific name. It is the population. Bubulcus ibis sensu lato is a completely different concept from Bubulcus ibis sensu stricto. This item has always been about the former, and it should stay that way, because otherwise we are changing the subject of this item, and that will make a mess.
- Please don't tell me that since you make the item about the scientific name rather than the population, you won't change the claims that relate to Bubulcus ibis sensu lato, since they're still about Bubulcus ibis? Because that really doesn't seem like a good thing. Other sources, like iNaturalist, use Wikidata to link to other sources, and the scientific-name-centric approach can lead to the wrong page being linked. Grey Clownfish (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that when it comes to species or taxa, the concept is attached to a scientific name. I guess that the concept of Cattle egret was renamed to Western cattle egret, as long as it was about the species, not the genus. All other interwikilinks for Bubulcus ibis were allready on Q132669 anyway. Astirmays (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the item should be for Cattle egret no matter what scientific name it's called by. It's easier that way. Less claims to be changed that way. The concept is what's important, not the scientific name. Wikipedia cares about concepts, not scientific names. That's why Cattle egret was merged with Bubuclus, not Western cattle egret, and why Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article for every synonym. For Wikidata to take a different approach would make linking to Wikipedia harder. Still I see claims that clearly apply to the Cattle egret, not the Western cattle egret. This wouldn't be an issue if we conserved the concept, rather than the scientific name. Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all! That some languages' wikipedias are out of date on their taxonomy is irrelevant here. The taxonomy of this item should not be changed, it is for Bubulcus ibis whatever way the name is treated. Wikispecies adopted the split back in February 2013 as soon as it was made by IOC, and has remained linked to this item since then. Nothing has changed, except that slowly, other language wikipedias are starting to notice and adopt the 2013 change. That's how it always is with species splits, a lot of wikipedias take an eternity to update. That shouldn't matter to this item. - MPF (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)