User talk:Brya

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Brya!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--DangSunM (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Brya,

All the wikipages are linkt to this [1]; the other one is empty. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri, every "parent taxon" should be an taxon-item (an item with P225 "taxon name", P105 "taxon rank", P171 "parent taxon", and "instance of" "taxon"). But you are right that the sitelinks in Q17121454 are wrong: only the enwiki page should be there, the others should be in the other one. - Brya (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you fix it? DenesFeri (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. - Brya (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Köszönöm! DenesFeri (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! - Brya (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comments have been moved into a discussion of Geonames[edit]

Please note User_talk:Liuxinyu970226#Moving_my_comment_about_Chinese_conversion_.28Q15630179.29_into_a_thread_about_Geonames_.3F
--- Jura 16:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Name main food sources of humans[edit]


d1g (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You are doing things in the wrong order. You are supposed to make sure you understand the field of knowledge involved, get your facts straight understand the Wikidata properties before you make an edit. - Brya (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

carrot (Q81) are eaten raw fruit (Q3314483)[edit]

As top producing countries, we can "waste" them by eating raw. Usually children do this. d1g (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure carrots can be eaten raw, but that does not make them fruit. Lettuce leaves can also be eaten raw, but that does not make them fruit, either. - Brya (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

fruit (Q3314483) is a culinary item, @Brya: anyone can see it. d1g (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

fruit (Q3314483) is a subclass of fruit (Q1364), anyone can see it. - Brya (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. It isn't.
  2. it has nothing to do with culinary claims
d1g (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Brya decided to "help" with gherkin (Q1365891) too. d1g (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"fruit" fruit (Q3314483) has been a subclass of "fruit" fruit (Q1364) since 3 April. I see you have sneakily deprecated it: I will grant that rhubarb Q20767168 is sometimes regarded as a fruit, but that is the exception that confirms the rule (rhubarb is considered subclass of vegetable in Wikidata). - Brya (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
ruwiki states: "В хозяйстве съедобные растения и съедобные части растений делят на фрукты, овощи, орехи, зерновые культуры и т. д. В бытовом понимании ягода тоже сочный плод." - Brya (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
"ягода тоже сочный плод"
not a "овощ это плод"
not a "фрукт это плод" d1g (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Rumex (Q157264) is a culinary vegetable but not a botanical fruit (Q1364)[edit]

inferred from is not a reference has nothing to do with this. d1g (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"Rumex (Q157264) is a culinary vegetable but not a botanical fruit (Q1364)". That seems quite right. What is your point? - Brya (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Rumex (Q157264) is eaten faw too as sevral other vegetables it should be fruit (Q3314483)
But you made overly imprecise statements and removed previous idealization.
d1g (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, "eaten raw" is not the deciding criterium. Fish can be eaten raw, and for that matter insects. The "edible in the raw state" is there as a disambiguation, to separate it from other items labeled "fruit".
        Fruit is a pretty widely known characterization, and there appears no confusion:
  • dewiki: Obst ist ein Sammelbegriff der für den Menschen roh genießbaren meist wasserhaltigen Früchte oder Teilen davon (beispielsweise Samen), die von Bäumen, Sträuchern und mehrjährigen Stauden stammen.
  • eswiki: Se denomina fruta a aquellos frutos comestibles obtenidos de plantas cultivadas o silvestres que, por su sabor generalmente dulce-acidulado, por su aroma intenso y agradable, y por sus propiedades nutritivas, suelen consumirse mayormente en su estado fresco, como jugo o como postre (y en menor medida, en otras preparaciones), una vez alcanzada la madurez organoléptica, o luego de ser sometidos a cocción.
  • frwiki: Dans le langage courant et en cuisine, un fruit est un aliment végétal, à la saveur sucrée, généralement consommé cru.
  • ruwiki: Фру́кт (лат. fructus — плод) — сочный съедобный плод дерева или кустарника.
  • Etc
A culinary fruit is a botanical fruit, that can be eaten raw, usually is coloured (that is, not green), and tastes sweet (to a degree). There is a little fudge space at the edges, but I don't see how anybody can misunderstand it. - Brya (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
> A culinary fruit is a botanical fruit
Asparagus (Q2853420)
"растение, плоды, корнеплоды, клубнеплоды, луковицы, листья или соцветия которого употребляются в пищу"
You quote botanical articles and say "it is botanical"
Waste of time, again. d1g (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
tomato (Q20638126) typical veg and fruit d1g (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The tomato is a botanical fruit that is usually used as a vegetable, but that can be used as culinary fruits as well. I don't understand why you point to "овощ" which as the ruwiki page on fruit (quoted above) is the opposite of fruit. - Brya (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

New things about homo sapiens[edit]

Humans need carbohydrate (Q11358) and fat (Q127980) every day.

Will you remove water (Q283) too?

What is your point in this edit?

Property_talk:P618 was meant to used with organisms and any food.

Edit doesn't seem useful at all. d1g (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Property:P618 is not intended to be used with organisms, as is clear from the property creation discussion. And what a given individual of Homo sapiens derives its energy from will vary strongly depending on circumstances. And your 'reference' is intended as a guide for the food industry, to help them with what should be in the foods they produce; it says nothing whatsoever about what actually is in the food a given individual of Homo sapiens consumes.
        It is hard to imagine a more haphazard collection of stuff thrown together. You should spend a few years in a good library and gather reference material before editing, not making haphazard edits in whatever catches your eye. - Brya (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: "it says nothing whatsoever about what actually is in the food a given individual of Homo sapiens consumes"
It says nothing if humans need water. Or how much.
Mr. Brya Solution? Remove claim "humans need water"
"genius" d1g (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: I was treating you seriously so far. But comment above shows all what you "worth". Any 6 grader can do better without any sources about "fats" and "carbs" as nutrients

2 years wasted in library on H.S. nutrition facts? Is this what you capable of? d1g (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You appear very confused about Wikimedia projects. How is it supposed to work? 1) A user has knowledge in depth about a topic. 2) He carefully makes edits to share this knowledge. 3) He is legally responsible for his edits.
        What you are doing appears very much like making haphazard edits in whatever catches your eye.
        In no way is there any obligation for any user when removing errors to put anything in their place. Actually, he should not add content unless he wants to, is sure of the accuracy of the content he adds, and feels it is helpful to add that content. - Brya (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to argue about fruits and vegetables (as it's quite vague topic for me), but you are misbelieve about Wikimedia projects yourself. Wiki main principle assumes that content is improving gradually, so one user can add some information, the second is changing it with more exact, the thirs adds some references... That is how wiki (all Wikimedia projects) worked so far. And yes, there is no obligation to put anything instead of removing, but this is good style of behaving. --Infovarius (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: what you do is pathetic. Homo Sapiens need protein and fat as energy source. Vitamins are not essential or do no covert directly to energy but put part of metabolism. Without many nutrients conversion would be less efficient.

It it a competence of 6 grade.

I don't know why you are attacking me "you appear very confused". Maybe you just asocial? d1g (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi! You made some changes in 'Anisophyllum' [G.Don ex Benth. (1849)] (Q38151705), probably based on the IPNI entry, which is claiming, that Anisophyllum G.Don ex Benth. is only an orthographical variant of Anisophyllea R.Br. ex Sabine. In my opinion, this is at least questionable. My understanding of "orthographical variant" is a change of spelling by a later author, who anyways is claiming only to reuse a previously published taxon name – as an example see Ryticaryum. However, when Bentham in 1849 described Anisophyllum, he thought to describe a new genus and species and, as his addendum on page 575 is showing, he was not even aware, that Sabine had described the same genus and species already in 1824. So, Anisophyllum G.Don ex Benth. is rather a name at its own right, when we recognise the intentions of Bentham. Of course, this name is illegitimate in a double sense, first as a homonym of Anisophyllum Jacq., and morever by being a nomen superfluum, as its protologue includes the collection by Don, which later, obviously after typesetting of the main text, turned out, that it already had been the basis for the description of Anisophyllea R.Br. ex Sabine. If Anisophyllum G.Don ex Benth. merely were an orthographical variant of Anisophyllea R.Br. ex Sabine, a change of spelling from Anisophyllum grande to Anisphyllea grandis only would by an orthographical correction and not a new combination. However, in the Flora Malesiana treatment of Anisophyllea (see [2]), this matter clearly is handled as a new combination. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Franz Xaver,
I understand your line of reasoning (and thank you for documenting this so carefully!), but I can also see IPNI's line of reasoning. The fact that Bentham felt he was describing a new genus is not decisive. Imagine that instead of the spelling Anisophyllum he had used the spelling Anisophyllea, would he have published a new homonym of Anisophyllea?
      The deciding factor is the type. Art. 61.2 defines an orthographical variant: if both 'names' are based on the same type, they are orthographical variants. It is hard to tell if both authors based themselves on the exact same plant (specimen), although it seems possible since Bentham based himself on Don and Sabine apparently based himself on Brown; who knows who exactly saw what specimen. I think this is not really relevant. The type of a generic name is a specimen, but the name of a species is sufficient indication of that type (Art. 10.1). Both 'names' are based on the same species, and therefore they have the same type; that makes them orthographical variants. These are not two names, but just manifestations of the one name.
      The Flora Malesiana treatment would have been more convincing if it had explained its reasoning for its deviant approach, but I think it is just wrong.
      I hope this explains it. I am not claiming that IPNI and the like are never wrong, but good evidence is needed to override them. - Brya (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi! If Bentham had used the spelling Anisophyllea, this simply would have been an isonym – not too rare.
OK, I did not know Art. 61.2 – escaped my attention. According to this, it must really be regarded as an orthographical variant.
If there is a doubt, whether Sabine and Bentham had based their description of the genus on the same specimen, then the same doubt is valid also for their species. The description by Sabine is a descriptio generico-specifica. Bentham intended to describe a new genus with a new species. The use of the same epithet is simply caused by the fact, that both made use of the same herbarium name, pencilled somewhere on a label (or the paper) together with the specimen. (Probably Bentham did not know exactly, who had written this name. So, he ascribed it to a different person.) However, typification of the genus and species described by Benthem is less problematic. Sabine based his genus/species on a Don collection from Sierra Leone "in the possession of Mr. Brown". And Benthem cited the Don collection together with a collection by Leprieur. So, according to ICN Art. 52.1–2 and Art. 9.5, the names by Bentham are homotypic with Anisphyllea laurina R.Br. ex Sabine, as Bentham cited the entire Sierra Leone gathering by Don. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Good. To some extent an orthographical variant may be regarded as an isonym, but with a slightly different spelling. - Brya (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate of a fungus[edit]


There is two elements : Panaeolus sphinctrinus (Q14426282) and Panaeolus papilionaceus (Q2484523) a unique species of fungus but there is two items and two articles on I've asked for a merge there but it will probably take some times, so I though that adding Wikimedia permanent duplicate item (Q21286738) meanwhile. DO you have a better idea to solve this problem? PS: FYI, I'm just the messenger, this issue as raised on Wikidata:Bistro.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell these are two heterotypic names, and Panaeolus sphinctrinus can be regarded as a synonym of Panaeolus papilionaceus by some taxonomists. There will also be some taxonomists who will regard them as two separate species. There should be two separate items, and the relationship between them indicated by "taxon synonym" and "instance of" "synonym", preferably referenced by a good taxonomic paper. In no way are these two duplicates. - Brya (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, could you do check that everything is orrect right now ?
And right now, there is a Wikimedia permanent duplicated page on
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I moved pmswiki Panaeolus campanulatus to a new item. Otherwise everything looks alright. - Brya (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

cattle (Q830)[edit]

Hello Brya,

please explain me, why you reverted my recent change on cattle (Q830). Would you have expected a more general term, like leaf (Q33971) ? Would it be more appropriate to take fodder (Q211439) then main food source (P1034) Do you think, sheep (Q7368) has the right description? regards, --Scoid d (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Scoid d,
Actually I did not give any thought to the main food source of cattle, but this is likely to be a topic of some complexity (especially given how widely cattle are held). The revert was for a simple pragmatic reason, namely the item you had linked to. - Brya (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Grass or fruit[edit]

Hello, I think your edit creates confusion: an item can be a "grass of which the fruits..." or a "fruit", not both. --Horcrux92 (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That may be a nice distinction, but in practice it is used for both (more often for the fruit than for the plant). - Brya (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Synoecha marmoratat (Q13475483)[edit]

Hallo Brya, Synoecha marmoratat (Q13475483) is een onjuiste spellingsvariant van Synoecha marmorata (Q1939760). Dit is duidelijk hier te zien en ook op het kaartje hier, waar meteen de oorsprong van de onjuiste spelling is gevonden. Jij weet beter dan ik hoe dit in wikidata juist te verwerken. Kun je me daarbij helpen? Groet, Lymantria (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ik zou het zo doen. Groet, Brya (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Right. Dankjewel. Lymantria (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Euring number reverts[edit]

Why are you reverting my Euring number (P3459) additions: Catreus wallichii, Cyanocorax yncas? If it is because the URL gives a "Not Found", the URL only works if it is a UK species per Wikidata:Property proposal/Euring number. A species search is available at Euring search. It takes a couple of minutes to perform a search. --Bamyers99 (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I found them really weird. Of the seven additions on my Waychlist, five gave a "Not Found", one did link to a page but was on the wrong item, and only one gave a correct page. Why make links to non-existing pages?
        Apparently the expectancy is that there will (at some point) be pages for non-UK birds, but they will be at other sites, and will need new properties. The property we have is misnamed, and should be something like "Euring number of a UK-bird". - Brya (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the URL formatter so that just the number is displayed with no link. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, that is one possible solution. Have you checked with the proposer of the property? - Brya (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


I have blocked you 31 hours for edit warring across several items: [3],[4],[5]. Please discuss in a collaborative and civil manner after your block, rather than endlessly reverting across the entire site. Of course, you are welcome to appeal using {{Unblock}}. --Rschen7754 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you have chosen for the approach of "everybody loses" (as Ymblanter put it), or "Wikidata loses" (as I would put it). - Brya (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Adonis is feminine?[edit]

How is this possible? --Infovarius (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Because of ICNafp-Article 62.1. --Succu (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


You have been blocked 1 week for edit warring. --Rschen7754 18:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, you are still firmly committed to beating down anybody who stands up to the forces of chaos. - Brya (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Splitting an item[edit]

Hello, Brya,

I figure that you're probably the best-informed person about this. The world of zoster vaccines was previously very simple: there was only one. Q8074572 could be about the idea as well as the only actual instance of it. But now there are two completely different vaccines, so we need to split the item. The fullest form might look something like this:

  • The general idea of a vaccine against w:shingles
    • The concept of a live-attenuated-virus vaccines against shingles
      1. The only known instance of a LAV vaccine against shinges, whose brand name is Zostavax and whose manufacturer is Merck. [Note that all live-attenuated vaccines are properly known by their brand names; there's no such thing as a completely interchangeable generic vaccine.]
    • The concept of a recombinant subunit vaccine against shingles
      1. The only known instance of a recombinant subunit vaccine, whose brand name is Shingrix and whose manufacturer is GSK.

This page lists seven different types of vaccines, but so far, these are the only two kinds that exist against this disease.

All of the Wikipedia articles in the current item should end up at the "general idea of a vaccine" item.

Can you do this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing,
Thank you. I am afraid I have no special knowledge about vaccines. Very likely you are considerably better informed. As vaccines apparently go by brand names, they presumably can be treated like other commercial products (when notable). - Brya (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to do the Wikidata end. I don't know how to start with the existing item and create sub-items (is that a reasonable name?) from it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Every concept should have its own item. Both Zostavax (Q29006757) and Shingrix (Q42610038) already have an item, although that of Shingrix still is empty. Whether or not "the concept of a live-attenuated-virus vaccines against shingles" needs to have an item of its own I can't really judge. - Brya (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Shingrix (Q42610038) is no longer empty.
How does a user who starts at the Shingrix item reach the general vaccines-against-shingles Q8074572 item? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You could try "instance of" or "subclass of". - Brya (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your very helpful advice.
I went with "instance of", and it seems perfect (based on the descriptions). How does it work in the other direction? If the readers are starting at the general vaccines-against-shingles Q8074572 item, how do they find the (two) specific instances of it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Mostly, downward relations are not expressed in Wikidata (use "what links here" instead), although in some cases "has part" is used, but that is not useful here. - Brya (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi Brya, more or less by coincidence, I found today how you cleaned the mess I left behind when I linked a number of incorrectly named "Nomina"-species to the correct names already in use on the Swedish Wikipedia. I had no idea this had happened, I just created a link with these other language versions by using the link "koppeling maken" in the left margin on the Dutch pages. Only today I found that I did not make a new link but actually merged two existing items. If this is how Wikidata presents things, not showing what really happens, and not even warning that some things would happen that could be very undesirable, I cannot take responsibility for it. Anyway, when I found out, I did my best to clean up the mess myself after every time I linked a Dutch page to a Swedish one.

The reason I contact you now is Q13900509. On the Dutch Wikipedia we had a page "Nomina bimaculella". That name was of course published as Tinea bimaculella, but this name appears to be a subjective synonym for Pammene aurana, and on the Dutch Wikipedia, I changed the page into a redirect. When I edited the Wikidata item for this page, so at least every instance of "Nomina bimaculella" was cleared and changed into Tinea bimaculella, I got an error message, saying there was already another page with a Spanish description equal to the one I entered. I don't know how to handle this. It appears there is some Arabic language Wikipedia featuring a page with the name Tinea bimaculella as an accepted taxon. Moreover, I don't know how to add a statement to the effect that this name is treated as a subjective synonym of Pamene aurana. You must by now have much more experience in these matters than I do, so could you please show me the way? Cordially, Wikiklaas (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikiklaas
Thank you for inquiring! I have no experience with the tool provided on Wikipedia, as I avoided it for just the reason you indicated: I have no idea what it actually does (behind the scenes). I also think it is silly that it is impossible to access Wikidata from Wikipedia if there is only one sitelink in the Wikidata item.
        In the matter of the best way to handle synonyms and name changes, this is still developing. As it now stands, it is best to remove the nl redirect from Q13900509, as it is confusing, but there is a move under way to change the way to handle redirects, on the theory that the inclusion of redirects may help resolve the "Bonnie and Clyde issue". How that is going to work out is uncertain.
        On the other hand, there seems to be consensus that it is not a good idea to change the topic of an item. What you did on Q13900509 left labels in some languages. One way to avoid this, is to start a new item and redirect the old one to it. Since this is more or less the same topic, and there is no "Nomina bimaculella", it is also possible to keep the existing item, but it is cleaner (and probably less work) to restore a previous version, dating back from before different-language labels were added, and rebuild from there. Probably, a label and description in a single language is sufficient: there are bots running which will add labels and descriptions.
        The way to handle synonymy is also developing. There is a property "taxon synonym" where synonyms can be added, if they have an item: any such statement can be referenced (as it is, there is an uncomfortably low level of references in place). Conversely, it is possible to add "instance of: synonym" or "instance of: homotypic synonym" (that is, in addition to "instance of: taxon", which should be left in place) in the item of the synonym (with a qualifier "of: #item"), which again can be referenced.
        Once upon a time I drew up a FAQ: this may also help a little? - Brya (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I tried to do this. I restored the item to its original state, and afterwards changed the silly name "Nomina bimaculella" to the more meaningful one. Everything went right until I wanted to change the link to the Dutch page: obviously, when a Wikipedia page is a redirect, and the target page is already linked to a Wikidata item, one cannot link the redirect to a separate Wikidata item. I "solved" this by first restoring the Dutch page to the state it was in before I changed it into a redirect. Then I was able to link the Wikidata item to it. And after that I of course restored the redirect. If I left some new mess on Wikidata by acting this way, the specialists may find it and try to solve it. I'm not going to let myself get frustrated just because some folks who set up this database have no clue how to handle taxonomic data. Wikiklaas (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Not that it is of any great practical importance (unfortunately we have quite a few items with wrong labels), but I made a few edits to provide a really clean result (for demonstration purposes): I went back to the beginning (second edit) and put in just the minimum. It is to be expected that bots will, sooner or later, add more labels and descriptions.
        For the purposes of Wikidata, a synonym is an incorrect name, as cited in a synonymy [6], [7]. - Brya (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it now, the solution is to remove the link to the redirect on the Dutch Wikipedia. That was the main problem I ran into. I'm quite convinced it would be beneficial if a redirect of this kind could be linked to a Wikidata item with that label and a statement to the effect of the synonymy. For now, I'll concentrate on finding what names in "Nomina" have meaningful and accepted names in Tinea or other genera. Thanks for your help. Wikiklaas (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The link to the redirect on the Dutch Wikipedia does not make any difference in this case. Speaking in general, opinions about redirects vary. Personally, I don't like them as they make editing the database much harder: it would be different if they were at least recognizable as redirects. - Brya (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
True. One funny thing: by a lucky chance I just discovered that one can go to the Wikidata item from a page that has only one sitelink in Wikidata. When I rightclicked on "koppeling toevoegen" (add links) and then opted for "open in a new tab" (or "open in a new window"), I was brought to the Wikidata item, just like when an item already has more sitelinks, and the link would have read "koppelingen bewerken" (edit links). You complained about it in your first answer. It's still a bit weird that is was hidden this way but it is possible. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Indeed, that it is really weird. - Brya (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Same taxon, different ranks[edit]

Today, the article on Arabis hirsuta subsp. sagittata on the Dutch Wikipedia was enriched with a diagnostic description and data about habitat and distribution. I thought it was time for some pictures, which I found here. I added that sitelink to the Wikidata item. As a last action, I thought it would be good to also check if a page in Wikispecies was available, and if so, add that sitelink too. It was available but than of course it happened: error message, already linked to item Q14630174. Now we have two items, covering the same taxon, albeit in different ranks. Merging the items would yield chaos, because of different secondary authors, different parent taxa and so on. But the images in the commonscat of course apply to both items. Do you know of some 'best practice' to solve this? Sincerely, Wikiklaas (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a good solution to this, except to put in as many "taxon synonym" and "instance of: synonym of" claims as possible. This problem occurs not only with different ranks, but in fact with all homotypic names. There may be three, four, five or more items each with a homotypic name, and it happens often enough that the sitelinks are in an item of a taxon name different from the name of a Commons category (or gallery) or Wikispecies entry. The question then is whether to place the Commons category (or gallery) or Wikispecies entry in the item with the corresponding name or in the item that holds the sitelinks. - Brya (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello Brya, you undid‪ Q5466341‬. In this case wikispecies considers the Cape parrot (Poicephalus robustus robustus) (Gmelin, 1788) as a subspecies. ([8] The recent insight to consider the Cape parrot as an apart species is differently treated by different wiki's. What is the best solution to tackle this type of problems in wikispecies? Thanks for your advice. --Hwdenie (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies and Wikidata are different projects: each has its own principles. Wikispecies aims to be a directory of species, presenting a single point of view (SPoV). Wikidata aims to gather data, representing as many points of view as there are in the literature (NPoV). Wikidata has an item for each concept, so the concept as a species and the concept as a subspecies each gets its own item. The relationship(s) between these items can be represented by statements like "taxon synonym : #item" and "instance of: synonym" "of: #item", these preferably should be referenced, by real taxonomic papers, or books. - Brya (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi! I'm not sure your edits to Q20908547 were correct. If Q20908547 describes a deprecated taxon, then marking it as "instance of" Capra hircus (Q45320358) is not correct - it's not a specific goat, it should be subclass of (P279) or something like that. Also, if Q20908547 is not a species, but a name, it should not be in a species hierarchy at all, but if it is, description of "name that may not be used" (more fitting to Lord Voldemort (Q176132) :) is not right, it should be "deprecated taxon of the species" or something like that, which explains what it actually is, not just "bad name" without qualifications. Laboramus (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not a taxon at all: it is just a name (that may not be used). By contrast, the taxon that it was once applied to (by a few zoologists who did not get it) is not deprecated: the taxon is fine (has always been fine). "Instance of" is a very flexible property: it is a catch-all property, to be used when in doubt. By contrast, "subclass of" requires that the item is a class. This is in no way the case here. - Brya (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Please do not revert my wd changes for cs article. It responds to iw articles. Thank you.--RomanM82 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The purpose is to link Wikipedia pages on the same topic together. The cswiki page deals mostly with the genus Triticum, its taxonomy, synonyms, species, etc. It hardly deals with wheat, a foodstuff, with aspects like application, production figures, nutritional value, etc. Your placement does not make sense. - Brya (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


[9] What’s on there? Looks like an edit accident… Can you please fix it? Also @Succu:… Thnx, —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Same with: [10][11][12]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the result of the foibles of the merge tool: often it refuses to merge items even when there is no apparent reason. It usually helps to clear the item, as much as possible, but that did not work here, at that time. So I left them as was. Now the merge tool works again (reasons unknown), so I have merged them. - Brya (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week[edit]

You have been blocked 1 week for this. After being mentioned on WD:AN for personal attacks, it is not a good idea to keep making them. --Rschen7754 19:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, more of this facilitating aggression and then blocking anybody who tries to keep the discussion based on reality and within Wikidata procedures. - Brya (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I have disabled your talk page access in light of the above comment. Personal attacks are emphatically not "within Wikidata procedures".--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month[edit]

I have blocked you 1 month for repeated personal attacks, including [13]. The next one may be indefinite. --Rschen7754 18:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of description[edit]

What exactly does "(incorrect) name(s) listed as synonym(s) of a taxon name" used as the English description of taxon synonym (P1420) mean? Why is the qualification "(incorrect)" needed when it does not appear in the French "synonyme du nom du taxon" or the German "Synonym(e) des Taxonnamens", or indeed anywhere else, except apparently in the very recently added Ukrainian translation of the English description? I'm genuinely puzzled. It looked like a mistake to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I did my best to explain this here. The French "synonyme du nom du taxon" and the German "Synonym(e) des Taxonnamens" are quite ambiguous, which is undesirable in a disambiguation (which is what a "description" is intended to be). The multilingual nature of Wikidata is a ticking time bomb, since there may be huge differences in labels and meanings between languages; editors in other languages may well get a different impression as to the concept they are dealing with. - Brya (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Synonyms and basionyms[edit]

Hello Brya! Thanks for your edits. I have put notes on several items among Wikidata, mainly insect and fungi species, because I did not know how to deal with the items. I thought about merging thm, or simply deleting the now obsolete item while adding a Latin alias to the most up-to-date name. That would mean less entropy, wouldn't it?
I have read your older explanation above, though, and if I understand this right, my suggestion is something Wikispecies would do, right? --GeXeS (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikispecies is a Single-Point-of-View and (mildly) Original-Research project. Wikidata should be compatible with Neutral-Point-of-View and No-Original-Research projects. It seems clear that for Wikidata a one-name-one-item setup will be able to accommodate all data from all literature.
        For fungi the situation is relatively simple, since the Index Fungorum is so dominantly present. For insects it is less straightforward, but all existing literature can be incorporated, leading (hopefully) to a robust database, some (long) time in the future.
        Adding synonyms as aka's is a measure of last result, since this tends to hinder searches and cause wrong links. There is an ongoing discussion on how to include synonyms, besides adding them as "taxon synonym" (which requires this particular item to exist).- Brya (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for a fast answer. OK, then, I guess I will limit my activity to adding translations, then, not synonyms. --GeXeS (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Q1148350 vs Q10372154[edit]

Hi Brya :-)

I hope you're doing well.

It seems to me that the edits made by Oodna you reverted on Saturday were correct (actually, we talked about it together before she made them). Articles in different languages on two close yet distinct topics are currently mixed up (see for example the Polish and French articles). Would you mind if I restore her edits?

Thanks for your work and best regards — Arkanosis 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Arkanosis: I've made some adoptions. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Succu, thank you very much!
Best regards — Arkanosis 21:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two main topics here
  • rank-based taxonomy, the science, sometimes (wrongly) ascribed to Linnaeus
  • the taxonomy of Linnaeus, the classification he adopted, which can be subdivided:
  1. the classification of minerals
  2. the classification of plants (Sexual System)
  3. the classification of animals
Among these, the Sexual System is a clearly defined topic. This leaves:
  • The enwiki page covers the classification of Linnaeus for all three, with a mention of rank-based taxonomy (and also something about names). Like many enwiki pages, it is wonderfully mixed up
  • The rowiki page deals with the classification of Linnaeus for all three
  • The idwiki page more or less deals with rank-based taxonomy
  • The lfnwiki page deals with the names in rank-based taxonomy
  • The eowiki page is an overgrown disambiguation page
So there are a number of pages which don't really fit in anywhere. We might make a new item for the classification of Linnaeus for all three. - Brya (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC) [I can't actually find a plwiki page?]

Platanus x hispanica[edit]

Hi, Brya.

I see that you reverted my merging of Platanus x acerifolia (Q24853030) into Platanus x hispanica (Q161374). You seem to agree that they both refer to the same species, nevertheless, as you've made an synomym claim under Platanus x acerifolia. The way I see it, the current situation is problematic as six wikipedia articles are linking to acerifolia - the english one in particular - and 29 to hispanica, in spite of describing the very same tree. As a consequence, the interwiki links don't work. This is what I tried to address in good faith and to the best of my ability. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve on this? Trapiella (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the general rule is that each name should have its own item, and that sitelinks to heterotypic names should not be put together in one item. But you are right that this is a special case, in that this is a cultivated tree. Arguably it is a cultivar, and thus does not have a type at all. I will move the six sitelinks to Platanus ×hispanica; the enwiki page is clearly overdue for an update. - Brya (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It is much appreciated. Trapiella (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not a "general rule" that each name should have its own item. That is a convention that you and Succu enforce without community consensus. The "general rule" on Wikidata is 1 item = 1 concept. Kaldari (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
It is a general rule because it is forced upon us by the basic structure of Wikidata utilizing items containing claims, and the mission of Wikidata to record data from the literature. 1 name = 1 concept = 1 item. Anyway, there is fair support from those working in this area. - Brya (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kaldari: The scientific names Platanus ×acerifolia (Q24853030) and Platanus ×hispanica (Q161374) (applied to a taxon) do not represent the same concept (or taxonomic viewpoint). [14] --Succu (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Hello! I have seen, that you reverted my edit about Q17507129 and Q38645 with commentary "different concept". But linked articles to Watermelon (Q38645):

  • de-wiki Wassermelone (Citrullus lanatus)
  • en-wiki Citrullus lanatus
  • nl-wiki Citrullus lanatus, synoniem: Citrullus vulgaris
  • no-wiki Citrullus lanatus and Citrullus vulgaris
  • da-wiki Citrullus lanatus synonym: Citrullus vulgaris

Linked articles to Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129):

  • bg-wiki Citrullus lanatus
  • uk-wiki Citrullus vulgaris (kind of strange, but nl-wiki call it synonym)
  • ru-wiki Citrúllus lanátus
  • pl-wiki Citrullus lanatus
  • pt-wiki Citrullus lanatus

There are only 4 Wikipedias with different articles (can be simply mistakes):

  • In case of am-wiki (I'm not good at this writing system to read or understand the text) articles have different names in local language (በጢሕ and መሐሌ), but in both cases Latin name is the same: Citrullus lanatus
  • I didn't check fa-wiki and pnb-wiki in details (but in both languages in both articles the same Latin name in Templates - Citrullus lanatus)
  • Only in cs-wiki article Lubenice obecná about plant and Vodní meloun - about fruit (and in article stated, that "fruit of [Lubenice] sometimes called Vodní meloun").

So they kind of must be all together.--Divega (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what your problem is. As you point out there are two different concepts: the fruit and the species. The fruit is something that is eaten and traded, and production figures and nutritional values can be listed. The species can be described, its taxonomy treated, etc. In no way are these duplicates. Some Wikipedias have a page on the fruit, others a page on the species, and yet others a combined page dealing with both concepts together. Especially enwiki is notorious for "combining" topics, to the point where many topics cannot be treated if a plant is in any way, however remotely, involved. - Brya (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
There are only 4 wikies with different names (and I suppose, that at least 2 of them have a mistake, but I'm not good at farsi, panjabi or that 3rd one so it is just an assumption) with only 1 wikipedia, that has really different words out of 131 others (in case of farsi following things says Google Translate "Watermelon ( Scientific name : Citrullus lanatus ) is a plant and fruit" and "Tsema ( Scientific name : Citrullus lanatus ), a plant species of the Codoban Dark" with source en-wiki article "Watermelon", other languages cannot be correct translated). All others are combining plant and fruit, so it is not just a enwiki is notorious for "combining" topics, it is in this case kind of worldwide thing.--Divega (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Last time I checked through them there were lots and lots that were dealing with the fruit. If an entry mentions the name of the plant that does not mean it deals with the species. Any decent Encyclopedia of Fruits will mention the name of the plant that produces the fruit, and likely the growth form of the plant.
        But, anyway this is irrelevant to the argument at hand. - Brya (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you be more specific, in which checked wikipedias is it the case? If not look at those, connected to wikidata Citrullus lanatus (species) but only about fruit, articles mostly about (in biggest wikipedias):
  • en-wiki - description, history, taxonomy.
  • sv-wiki - plant with description of fruit
  • de-wiki - description of the plant (not fruit) with small part about fruit, spread of the plant, systematic of the plant.
  • nl-wiki - small article about plant with only several sentences about fruit
  • ja-wiki - about plant
  • zh-wiki - mostly about fruit with some information about how to plant and watch over
  • fa-wiki - as I mentioned earlier, there are 2 articles, this one is 2 sentence article with description in 1st sentence of an African fruit and second -- that is was copied from en-wiki article Watermelon.
  • sr-wiki - about plant with a lot of information how to cultivate.
In case of top 20 wikipedias most of them are about plant. And if consider other articles, like comparing mk-wiki and sr-wiki, it is not clear, why they are in different groups (text in this articles was not changed for the last 1-1,5 year)--Divega (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
In fact, cultivating this crop is yet a third concept, but there are few Wikipedia's that have real information about cultivation. Also, it is rather hard to tell what the enwiki page is about, as self-conficting as it is. But again, this is irrelevant to the argument at hand: the fruit and the species are two different topics. There is no point in my looking at these pages again. - Brya (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the articles describe the same thing, but since you put them in different groups -- they should stay there? Is it correct?--Divega (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, a change of topic. Just to clarify: there are two items on Wikidata, Q17507129 and Q38645, each on a concept of its own. There are all kinds of Wikipedia pages, almost all different, dealing with, if I count correctly, at least four different concepts. Ideally, sitelinks to each page should be placed in the item that most closely matches the topic of that page. - Brya (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
No, it was not a change of topic. You have divided abovementioned pages in two different items (mk-wiki and sr-wiki), although the text hasn't changed since that time. So you put two similar articles in different items. Based on my description of articles from biggest wikipedias now it looks like random distribution, more a non-existing concept, since there is only 1 wiki (probably 2) with differences between fruit and plant, but the same text, for example, in de, en, uk and ru wikies.--Divega (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
And yet another change of topic. Can you make up your mind about what you want, and tell me before you start with the recriminations?
        About the sr page, until recently, it proclaimed loudly that it was about something different than Citrullus lanatus, so if you have a complaint you should take it up with the sr community. - Brya (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
According to Citrullus vulgaris is synonym to Citrullus lanatus, so this has nothing to do with article content. I have mentioned that before. So it was not change of topic. And one more time -- texts are similar and about the same thing (this languages are quite similar to my native languages and I can read them with less or no need of translation. Accordingly automatic translation is also good working for this group of languages). My point -- items are identical in the content of the articles and should be merged in one.--Divega (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Brya reverted your wrong usage of Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920). I can not see this was wrong, Divega. --Succu (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Succu -- this wikidata entries are about the same thing. It seems like a duplicate for me, since according to description "this item duplicates another item, it can be merged once the necessary merges are done in other Wikimedia projects".--Divega (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The concepts are as different as can be: one is a fruit, the other a species. - Brya (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
But non of the articles are not dividing this concept, except 1 of the wikipedias. And this only article is rather a definition for wikionary, but not a separate article on its own--Divega (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
As I see now almost everything is in Watermelon instead of Citrullus lanatus. Still 4 Wikis are questionable.--Divega (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello Brya. I think that you are wrong in this case.
Taxonomy: not science of finding, describing, defining and naming groups of biological organisms
Taxonomy: but science of finding, describing, defining and naming groups of type specimes in life and earth sciences
Life sciences: botany, zoology, bacteriology, virology, etc.
Earth sciences: mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, etc.
Earth sciences imitates life sciences with taxonomy, type specimen, type locality and type description
I think taxonomy is a general term for earth and life sciences. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Chris.urs-o,
Taxonomy is a classic discipline, or group of disciplines: it deals with organisms. It has been much copied, to some degree or other: there is a general discipline of classification (not empirical), which also calls itself "taxonomy" (causing confusion), and some of its adherents feel that real taxonomy is just part of the discipline of classification. Phytosociology also copies taxonomy in some respects. Earth sciences may imitate life sciences with taxonomy, type specimen, type locality and type description, but that does not mean it is the same. They are all different. - Brya (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Spider genus Sancus[edit]

I am aware of the opinion that Sancus is unavailable for use as the name of a spider genus, e.g. as stated here. However, it's not for Wikidata to favour one opinion over another, and Sancus is currently used as a genus name in the authoritative World Spider Catalog, and in other taxonomic databases. So there is a need for a Wikidata item that reflects the actual data present in these databases and their opinions. As you have often stated, opinions are important in taxonomy.

Ideally it would be possible to say, in addition, that other sources regard the name as unavailable for a spider genus, but this does not seem possible at present. If I'm wrong, this would be the way forward.

Which direction the merge should be in is another matter, and I'm happy to accept that I got this wrong and for it to be corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've now informed the World Spider Catalog of the issue with Sancus de Niceville, 1891, so we'll see whether they have any reason to support their acceptance of the name. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Peter,
Yes, in the case of taxonomy it is important to document the several different main taxonomic viewpoints, although they are not necessarily of equal weight. However, nomenclature is different: the whole point of the international agreed-on sets of rules is to take away ambiguity and room for individual preferences. This does not work the full hundred percent, but for homonyms this does work pretty universally. Even those authors who continue to use a later homonym will admit that really somebody should take nomenclatural action (either a conservation/rejection proposal, or a replacement name). So, it is not a matter of favouring one opinion over another, but of following international agreement.
        I hope somebody at the World Spider Catalog decides to do something about it, at least if somebody has not already done something (some people like publishing replacement names, and put out lots of papers). - Brya (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, there already is an available name: Leucognatha. - Brya (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


You have been blocked for edit warring for 3 days. --Rschen7754 01:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sad to see that reverting vandalism results in a block. A sad day for Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

I have proposed a topic ban here. --Rschen7754 01:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposals have been made here. --Rschen7754 18:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Acanthosphinx guessfeldtii[edit]

Hoi Brya, Ik ben niet geheel zeker wat ik het beste met taxon name (P225) kan doen op Acanthosphinx guessfeldtii (Q5649212). Op basis van de link die ik er bij heb geplakt van de oorspronkelijke publicatie, denk ik dat dubbel i correct is. Eens? Groet, Lymantria (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bij dieren is zekerheid moeilijk te bereiken. De oorspronkelijke publicatie is wel van belang, maar niet allesbepalend. Als het gebruikelijk is, in alle literatuur, om een andere spelling te gebruiken telt dat zwaarder. Een goede monografie zou uitsluitsel horen te geven. - Brya (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, dank. Die monografie heb ik niet bij de hand. Lymantria (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Ja, dat is meestal het probleem. - Brya (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit restrictions[edit]

Per discussion on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, you are subject to edit restrictions. Please read the exact wording at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal commentary ban and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Commenting ban. --Pasleim (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversions of updates[edit]

Why do you claim this is "irrelevant"? It is very relevant; the result is now that the vernacular name of Troglodytes hiemalis is being wrongly placed on other wiki pages for Troglodytes troglodytes in numerous places, because of an outdated external website. This is very unhelpful, and extremely confusing for other users who may not necessarily be familiar with current taxonomy of the genus. Please undo your change. Oh, and you also deleted the images I'd added showing some of the subspecies diversity in the species. What are your reasons for doing that? - MPF (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason "source is out of date" is irrelevant. Wikidata gathers data, preferably sourced data. Mere disagreement with somebody's "current taxonomy" does not matter. Wikidata is not a Single-Point-of-View project. - Brya (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
But this is contrary to your expressed view of avoiding chaos. I am trying to stands up to the forces of chaos, but you are 'beating me down' with this. It is one thing to gather different viewpoints, another to add data in a manner that creates chaos on other wikis. This vernacular name needs to be tagged in some way that prevents it from being added elsewhere without any indication that it belongs to a different taxonomy to the taxonomy used in commons and the various wikipedias - MPF (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Also of this, of this particular instance US usage matches Canadian usage; it does not match usage in English English, Australian English, etc., and it is important to make this clear to avoid confusion. This one could easily be solved if en-us for American was enabled at wikidata (as it is at e.g. commons), but until it is, en-ca is an accurate match. Please respect it, and create en-us to solve this for the longer term. - MPF (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Your way of "reducing chaos" is to eliminate everything that does not conform to your Single-Point-of-View. It may be a good idea to add a system of tagging common names to make it clear that they belongs to a particular taxonomy, so feel free to come up with one.
        It may be that a particular common name is used in both the US and Canada; that does not mean that a sourced statement that a particular common name has been adopted by the US can be altered so that it says that the US have prescribed to Canada that they must use that name! - Brya (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Since Troglodytes troglodytes sensu stricto (Eurasian Wren (Q25740) excluding T. hiemalis) and T. troglodytes sensu lato (including T. hiemalis Troglodytes hiemalis (Q10828228)) are different concepts, should they not have separate Q items? Then the vernacular name Winter Wren could be included on Q10828228 (as it is already) and on the to-be-created sensu lato item QXXXXXXX, but excluded from Q25740 (which is what I did but you reverted). Q25740 and Q10828228 would then have links to Commons, as Commons uses that concept, but QXXXXXXX would not have a link to Commons (though could have, to any wikipedias which might still follow the sensu lato concept). By the way, you are being disingenuous in saying "[my] Single-Point-of-View". It is the point of view of the IOC, which is an international peer-review body comprising the bulk of the world's ornithological organisations: it represents the overwhelming scientific consensus in ornithology. - MPF (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Addenum: IUCN have updated their website and no longer have Winter Wren (nor Peaceful Dove for Geopelia striata) - MPF (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Create en-us for American, and this is easily sorted. - MPF (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
They could have separate items, but mostly this does not work out well. Wikidata almost exclusively has separate items for different circumscriptions if a Wikipedia has separate pages for them.
        And yes, there are lots of Single-Point-of-View projects out there. And often enough they disagree with each other. That is no reason to turn Wikidata into one.
        Maybe there should be an en-us, and maybe there will be one. But there is not one now. - Brya (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting turning Wikidata into a single point-of-view, just that the two points of view be given separate items, to avoid confusion. I note that e.g. Hungarian wiki hu:Ökörszem uses Troglodytes troglodytes sensu lato including T. t. hiemalis, so there you have a wikipedia with a page for this concept - MPF (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it would have been clearer if I had phrased this as "if a Wikipedia has separate pages for both of them.", that is, within one Wikipedia two, or more, pages for several circumscriptions. Users will not understand if iw's will be divided over more than one item. This is almost guaranteed not to work out. - Brya (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Vachellia tortilis/ Acacia tortilis[edit]


Today, the formerly known as Acacia tortilis, is named Vachellia tortilis and belongs to the Vachellia genus. DenesFeri (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

1) that is only the case for those who follow the split of Acacia into half a dozen genera. It is not the case for those who follow the classic, wider circumscription of Acacia.
2) Regardless of taxonomy, the name Acacia tortilis is formed by combining the epithet tortilis with the generic name Acacia. Not by combining the epithet tortilis with the generic name Vachellia. - Brya (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Russula rubra[edit]

From my discussion page:

Hello Byra, I know that. I have also correctly described R. rubra and linked with the German article. This site, however, makes the mistake and determines R. pugens as a synonym. Furthermore, the entries of the sv.Wiki and the others are incorrectly linked, because they describe R. pugens (but link to R. rubra). Well, not I made a mistake. That's why I would ask you to link the Romanian article with the German one and delete the others.-- Sacha47 (talk) 4:20, 10 December 2018 (CET)