Talk:Q15651408

A duplicate of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1544892 ? --GeXeS (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi GeXeS, it seems so, but how do you fix it? I actually want to put all the languages together, but it is not working.Garnhami (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

See also my notes on this problem in Commons. There are two relevant actual species, in Commons called Leratiomyces squamosus var. thraustus (which has a slender stem and prominent scales below the ring zone) and Leratiomyces ceres, which has a thicker stem, and often grows on wood chips. L. ceres used to go under the name of Stropharia aurantiaca, but that name should be defined by this illustration of M. C. Cooke. Unfortunately the illustration actually shows L. squamosus var. thraustus, not L. ceres and so the aurantiaca name is erroneous in the way it is used here - it is not a correct synonym. But I think this name is almost never used correctly, to mean L. squamosus. I checked some of the WP entries and they all seem to mean L. ceres except that ceb and war (which are generated automatically) have entries for both items - that is a complication.

Q1544892 (taxon name = "Stropharia aurantiaca") should be merged into Q15651408 (taxon name = "Leratiomyces ceres"). I will look into doing the merge - that sort of operation was possible in the past. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Strobilomyces: we don't merge synonyms --Estopedist1 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: We should merge names which are used invalidly into the correct corresponding names. According to Species Fungorum, the current name of Leratiomyces squamosus var. thraustus is Leratiomyces squamosus, which is Q942251 and Leratiomyces ceres (which is Q15651408) is current. So there are two actual species which are represented on the one hand by Leratiomyces squamosus (Q942251) plus any synonyms and on the other hand by Leratiomyces ceres (Q15651408) plus any synonyms. Unfortunately the name "Stropharia aurantiaca" was widely used for many years to mean Q15651408, but that is not a synonym, it is an invalid use. By the way, Species Fungorum actually has a page for this wrong usage. Technically "Stropharia aurantiaca" is a valid synonym of Q942251, but it would be very perverse to actually use that name as it would cause much confusion - it would conflict with the meaning in old books. This item in its true sense is extremely non-notable and I think we would be better off without it. As far as I know we have no mechanism in Wikidata, apart from the description and aliases, to express an invalid (but widely used) synonym, though this is quite a common case. If we have to keep Leratiomyces ceres (Q1544892), I think it would be better to change it to mean the invalid use (Q15651408) and not the technically correct one (Q942251), which is really misleading. But I do not really know how to do it except to make it a synonym and explain it in the description etc. Strobilomyces (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)