User talk:Succu

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Filing cabinet icon.svg Archive
Archive 2016
Archive 2015
Archive 2014
Archive 2013

Contents

FAO Breeds ID[edit]

Hallo Succu,

ich habe deinen Ping leider erst jetzt erhalten...

Ich verstehe den Antrag nicht ganz. Sind die ID-Nummern privat generiert, oder sind die irgendwo wirklich bei der FAO hinterlegt?

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/FAO_2007_genetic_resource_ID

Das Problem mit der FAO-Datenbank ist, dass sie halt einfach nur das wiedergibt, was die Länder melden und selbst keine "eigene" Statistik führen. Um nachzuschauen, ob es eine "Rasse" gibt, dafür scheint sie mir geeignet, allerdings nicht zur Abgrenzung verschiedener "Rassen" voneinander. Es gibt halt Länder, die fassen mehrere in einer Statistik zusammen oder verstehen etwas anderes unter dem gleichen Namen. Da ist immer auch ein wenig mehr Recherche gefragt...

Das beste Werk, dass ich international für Rinder/Esel/Schweine/Ziegen/Schafe kenne, ist Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types and Varieties, das zuletzt von Valerie Porter überarbeitet wurde und nun als The Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding von Valerie Porter und Lawrence Alderson herausgegeben wurde. Die Google-Vorschauen sind recht vielversprechend.

Das habe ich gerade gestern auch noch als LitStip beantragt und wurde auch gleich genehmigt. Wenn es zuerst zu dir dir gehen sollte, um zu schauen, wie man die Einträge am Besten in Wikidata einpflegen kann, habe ich auch nix dagegen. Herkunft und Ursprungsrassen (wenn aus Kreuzungen hervorgegangen) sollten jedenfalls auch immer angegeben sein. Auch alternative Namen.

Liebe Grüße
PigeonIP (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Leider kann ich nichts weiter dazu sagen. Ich hatte dich damals angepingt, da ich weiß, dass du dich dafür interessierst. Das Angebot mit dem Buch ist nett gemeint, aber es würde mir nichts nützen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Bin im Moment halt leider nur sehr sporadisch in den Projekten unterwegs und die pings verlieren sich dann leider...
Die ID schein jedenfalls nicht wirklich sinnvoll.
Was anderes: das Australische (verwilderte) Kamel ist ein Taxon? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1568770 --PigeonIP (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Wurde korrigiert. --PigeonIP (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ping: Wikidata:Forum#Schweinedurcheinander

schau bitte auch da mal kurz vorbei ;) --PigeonIP (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Tygr[edit]

Why? It's antivandal syndrome? Tiger is engandered, critical engandered two subspecies! OJJ (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Be more carefull when editing Wikidata. Ohrožený druh (Q3504152) is an album. --Succu (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. OK?--OJJ (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the value you changed. BTW: note the reference. --Succu (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Mistake was there. I wrote message for user on cswiki. --OJJ (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Question mark[edit]

Your question mark is reasonable, but the en / ru and be articles were about a person in ancient Greek mythology. Thank you, I am now putting them in a separate object, as it should have been. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Succu (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Agalinis acuta[edit]

Hi, Succu. I note that while most other databases list Agalinis acuta as the accepted name for this species, ITIS lists Agalinis acuta as a non-accepted synonym for Agalinis decemloba. However, the USDA Plants Database in turn lists Agalinis decemloba as a synonym for Agalinis obtusifolia. Do you have an opinion on which is more recent and more authoritative? --Rrburke (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that in the paper A sequential approach using genetic and morphological analyses to test species status: The case of United States federally endangered Agalinis acuta (Orobanchaceae) from 2011 it was proposed to include Agalinis acuta under Agalinis decemloba. Probably this is the source for the taxonomic opinion given in ITIS. Unfortunately USDA offers no sources at all. So I can'n offer an opinon. Why do you ask? --Succu (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the threshold at which it is appropriate to merge items when one is listed as a synonym? --Rrburke (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Items with different taxon names (besides misspellings) shouldn't be merged. We need them to express that they are synonyms. Move the sitelinks instead. --Succu (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Why didn't you ping me to say there was a better way?[edit]

For species there is clearly a need for better explanation about merging, and about retention. It would have been good if you could have pinged me and educated me of the better way, rather than to find them reverted (weirdly, I didn't get a notification just tripped over the fact of the reverts). I could have kept going that way for a while! So I am noting that we keep the old names even though there are not wikilinks.

Also how far does this sort of methodology extend? People and places don't get this treatment, so the logic is not clear. Some clear examples would also be useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. It might also be useful to give "merge guidance" at User:Pasleim/projectmerge about this and about other specific points of difference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Usually I clean up the mess and then tell a user that something is wrong. Brya gave you the short information different names: keep them separate so I did not repeated this. Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial is not about merging, but maybe it helps to understand. --Succu (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That was where I mucked up an genus/species, and wasn't more informative from my perspective. I have always found that pointing to the right way, rather than saying that you are wrong is generally more beneficial. The tutorial is a first principles and technical approach, and it would be improved with a section like "I found two I think are the same, what do I do?"  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(ec)I didn't see Brya's revert nor the reason (not appearing in my notifications (still)). Can I say that from my perspective that the label "keep them separate" is not particularly helpful nor informative, maybe a variation like "different names: synonyms maintained" is more informative. My reasoning is do we keep each common name for a tree too? Each variation separately?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes merges are correct, because the species was misspelled in enwiki. --Succu (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is just hard to tell from diffs <shrug>, so just easier to revert and redo. I also had a series of new ones from enWP that could have been better matched prior to creation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Merging Giardia intestinalis and Giardia lamblia[edit]

Hello, I am quite new to Wikipedia. Giardia intestinalis and Giardia lamblia are the same species and I am to trying to link Giardia intestinalis pages available in {fr, de, gal, slo} to the Giardia lamblia pages available in {en, es, it...} by using the Special:MergeItems tool. Looks like you are reverting my changes for some reasons: may I ask you what is the best way to proceed? Thanks!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎Gruxgrux (talk • contribs).

According to NCBI Giardia lamblia (Q155630) is treated as a synonym of Giardia intestinalis (Q10289451). We do not merge subjective synonyms. I added taxon synonym (P1420) to Giardia intestinalis. --Succu (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Tylecodon hirtifolius[edit]

Hallo Succu,

alles Gute noch im neuen Jahr. Könntest Du bitte den Schreibfehler fixen. Der Eintrag hier zu Tylecodon hirtifolium ist falsch. --Michael w (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Michael, dir natürlich auch. Ist erledigt. Siehe Tylecodon hirtifolius (Q17759692). Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Danke Dir. --Michael w (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Synonym is sub-species of another[edit]

Firstly, if you would prefer these conflicts put somewhere else, then please let me know where to put the harder cases.

None of the Wikipedia articles refer to sub-species names.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The natural place for such questions is Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy. So others could participate. BTW: GBIF is a data aggregator and not a taxonomic resource. For plants a better source is GRIN. Rhamnus californica (Q9068689) is the basionym of Frangula californica (Q15539781). I moved all the sitelinks to the latter item. --Succu (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dogs[edit]

Hello! For the OpenStreetMap key "dog" see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Dog It is used 7269 times in the OSM database by 1089 users: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dog --Reclus (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Reclus: A sign depicting a creature is a different concept than the creature itself. So I think this addition is not correct. Probably you have to create new items for this. But I'm not familar with OSM. --Succu (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The OSM key "dog" is not for a sign. It is for information regarding dogs at a place. Examples: a bookshop, dogs alloweddog parka butcher, dogs not allowed --Reclus (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
A sign may give the same information, but a sign is an object and the OSM key "dog" is not for signs but for dogs at a place. --Reclus (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, it's a tag and as that something like our properties. I think this general intergration needs broader discussion at least at Wikidata:OpenStreetMap. --Succu (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Run a bot for P373 and P935[edit]

Hello Succu,
Who could I ask for a bot run?
My idea:

We need this because hundreds of items are linked to wikicommons without any Commons category (P373) nor Commons gallery (P935).
Best cLiné1 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Run_a_bot_for_P373_and_P935. --Succu (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello
Strangely your bot missed some entries: Category:Capuloidea, Category:Lycaena candens, Category:Manicina, Category:Muschampia proteides, Category:Phallomycetidae, Category:Polyceroidea
I can't see the pattern
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The bot run was restricted to items with taxon name (P225). Some of your examples are tagged as instance of (P31)=taxon (Q16521). I've made a query where I got five or six more items, which I fixed manually. Items tagged with instance of (P31)=Wikimedia category (Q4167836) have a lot hits, but I don't know which of them are related to taxa. Regards --Succu (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for investigating.
Naively, I would say that any item with a link to a wikicommons category can have a Commons category (P373) + any item with a link to a wikicommons gallery can have a Commons gallery (P935).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories for species[edit]

Hello,
You are aware of the problem in wikicommons about species and wikidata: wikicommons has species categories and species gallery. But wikipedias have no species categories. So currently there is only one taxon item per species. Conclusion: most wikicommons species category have no wikidata items!
Someone told me that we needed to create category item for all species.
Is that true ? I seems a lot of work.
I was waiting/hoping for another technical solution.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Essentially I do not work with categories here, so I don't know exactly how the interconnection between Commons and Wikidata works and if all the problems from the past are resolved. Sorry. --Succu (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like some people do so: no label (Q28530012). --Succu (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the current convention is to have 2 items: one for species and one for category. --Infovarius (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Hi Succu, I see that you have merged no label (Q28530156) (oxygen atom) into oxygen (Q629) (oxygen). I think these two items are different, as the former described an atom of the element oxygen while the latter describes the element itself. We also have this separation with hydrogen atom (Q6643508) and hydrogen (Q556). —Wylve (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean no label (Q28530156) is intended to denote every single oxygen atom in our universe (hence P31)? --Succu (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. —Wylve (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This is new to me. So we can call every single oxygen atom in our universe by name? --Succu (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure where you are getting at, but whether we have the ability to name every single oxygen atom is irrelevant to whether it can be represented in a schema. —Wylve (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
So how water (Q283) should be modeled? --Succu (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any problem with water (Q283) except that has part (P527) in there should refer to having one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atom (Q6643508). It does not make sense to claim that a water molecule consists of two hydrogen elements. —Wylve (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Is it fine with you that I revert the merge? —Wylve (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No. --Succu (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
May I know the reason why an oxygen atom is deemed to be the same entity as oxygen the element? —Wylve (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Water constists of water molecules. A water molecule in turn consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. I don't think we should mix the macroscopic with the microscopic view. --Succu (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that "macroscopic" water is "microscopic" water. Such differentiation does not exist. Water does not consist of water molecules, water is nothing but water molecules. And returning to the merge, how is this relevant to the element-atom distinction regarding oxygen? —Wylve (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't want to distinguish the macroscopic from the microscopic view than there is no need for this item. --Succu (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The difference between an element and an atom is not the same as the macroscopic-microscopic distinction you proposed. An atom is, to IUPAC, a particle characterising an element. In other words, it is not identical to an element. According to IUPAC again, element has two definitions. The element I am describing here is definition 1. "Element" is in the sense of definition 2 is already represented by simple substance (Q2512777). So it is only logical to say that chemical element (Q11344) must represent IUPAC definition 1 of element. —Wylve (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware that a chemical element (Q11344) represents all nuclide (Q108149) with the same number of proton (Q2294). --Succu (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

If you have that understanding, then the corollary would be that oxygen (Q629) is a species of oxygen atoms (no label (Q28530156) before merge), not the species itself. Therefore elemental oxygen and individual oxygen atoms are not the same entity and warrant two items. —Wylve (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I claimed nowhere that the element oxygen the same as an individual oxygen atom. Buit I doubt the construct is usful. Your "oxygen atom" class could be described as a collection of all (3-4) nuclids with Z=8. What properties should it have (weight, radius, ...) and how would you model the the relationship to the element? --Succu (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

SuccuBot creating duplicate species items[edit]

It looks like SuccuBot is creating duplicate species items due to synonyms. For example, it created Colonus puerperus (Q27504517) even though Thiodina puerpera (Q2713802) already existed (under the species' old name Thiodina puerpera). This can be avoided by looking up a unique ID beforehand (such as ITIS, EoL, or Freebase) and searching Wikidata for items that already have the same ID. Note that the Global Biodiversity Information Facility provides separate IDs for every name, so it is not a reliable source for preventing duplicate species items. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for yor advice, but your suggestions are not helpful. I cleared up the mess you created and added Attus puerperus (Q28659948) as original combination (P1403). --Succu (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a good solution. If we put en:Colonus puerperus under Colonus puerperus (Q27504517) and fr:Thiodina puerpera under Thiodina puerpera (Q2713802), they will no longer be interwiki linked even though they are the same species. How do you suggest we address that? Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You removed sitelink. We keep the sitelinks of objective synonyms together. --Succu (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I will move them all to the currently accepted name (even though all but one of them use the older name). Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A last one?[edit]

Hello

There is also Q21371236. Will you also change it to Aphodius charmonius?

Regards Chaoborus (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Succu (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

has role[edit]

Not one comment on the property proposal you pointed to mentions the matter of verb conjugation at all. Come back with a real reason why the justification in my edit summary is flawed, instead of edit warring. --Swpb (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Nonsens. It's a naming convention (has ABC). If you want to change the english label discuss this at project chat. --Succu (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've never seen such a consensus on this project (I know of dozens of properties that don't follow it, in any case), and I have started a discussion. Between edit warring and using words like "nonsens" (sic), you're not going to have a good time. Act like an adult, please - some of us know the standards of behavior here and don't mess around with folks who ignore them. --Swpb (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a naming convention widly used in ontology design. See has part (P527), has quality (P1552), has cause (P828) and a lot more. --Succu (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
There is, again, no consensus to that effect on this project, and as many properties that don't adhere as those that do, as you must be aware. --Swpb (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nouns in German[edit]

edit.

English and Russian labels are only capitalize proper nouns (Homo sapiens, Лондон, Массачусетс), but not classes (human, rabbit, русский язык, штат).

Help:Label/de - is different from other agreements (Help:Label/ru); I'm not able to read German without a dictionary. d1g (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Then do not edit german labels! --Succu (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile I added a paragraph about labels in German at Help:Label. d1g (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Wikidata:Project chat#‎Agreement to add scientific names of taxons as labels. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Q262560[edit]

What is there?! Phataginus tetradactyla = Manis tetradactyla = vulnerable!!! OJJ (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, since the IUCN evaluates taxon concepts. In this case one labled as Phataginus tetradactyla (Q28173098). Under this name the taxon is regarded as vailid for some years now. We map ids to the item that contains the corresponding taxon name (P225). Then there is a constraint that links IUCN conservation status (P141) and IUCN ID (P627) together. Your addition violated that constraint, so I removed it. To fix the issue I moved all sitelinks from Manis tetradactyla (Q262560) to Phataginus tetradactyla (Q28173098). --Succu (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not saying[edit]

Hi. I was definitely not saying that you had any sort of disorder, and I definitely did not believe that I worded it in any such way to make that accusation. I do see that there are local uses and expressions that take a different emphasis, and sometimes it is hard to predict that difference from one's everyday conversational language across the globe. If it was taken that way then my apologies. I don't go out of my way to upset people in an attempt to win an argument :-/ I much prefer to try to utilise reason.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Item to be delete[edit]

In RFD there are one or more item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate --ValterVB (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

My first take was Acroscyphus N.Kitag. (1984) non Lév. (1846) (Q17298430). So why should this be deleted ValterVB? --Succu (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Because the sitelink was deleted and no source in item say that Q17298430 is the same of Q17298425. But the discussion must keep in RFD not in your talk. --ValterVB (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please explain your algorithm ValterVB, especially when a taxon name is missing WD:N. --Succu (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
No algorithm, but when I don't find source that say the Q17298430 is a taxon, I don't see reson to keep the item. But please talk about this in RFD, is useful for all and admin that will delete item can know all the fact about these item. --ValterVB (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I doubt your massive bulk deletions at Wd:RFD are hand made... --Succu (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I use SPARQL and API to generate the list, then I add the item in RFD and in user talk "by hand" (copy and past) or you mean something of different? --ValterVB (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

About Hylotelephium telephium[edit]

You are right. Now I see that there are Q1327535 (Hylotelephium telephium) and Q13390371 (Sedum telephium). I think this items should be merged. --Bff (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved all sitelinks to Hylotelephium telephium (Q1327535). --Succu (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
But in http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2488984 Sedum telephium L. is an accepted name, and Hylotelephium telephium (L.) H.Ohba is a synonym of Sedum telephium L. --Bff (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The Plant List (Q625817) is not a reliable source. According to Sukkulenten-Lexikon. Crassulaceae (Dickblattgewächse) (Q13427103) p.143 the species belongs to Hylotelephium. --Succu (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

For Bot: ‎Virus Taxonomy: 2016 Release[edit]

  1. Important news: ICTV Master Species List 2016 v1 (Q29000566) & Bunyavirales (Q29000551).
  2. Update NCBI Taxonomy ID (P685): id=11593 ∈ Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever nairovirus (Q24757193), id=11593 ∉ no label (Q4112119). --VladXe (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will have a look. --Succu (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, VladXe. An open task is to connect renamed taxa to their earlier name via replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694). --Succu (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wildflowers of Israel ID (P3746)[edit]

Hey. How did you create a new catalog in Mix'n'match? Thanks--Mikey641 (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No idea, never did it. --Succu (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh. I thought it was you because you added the statement about mixnmatch.Thanks anyways.--Mikey641 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

About Sedum spurium[edit]

I see that there are Q13377730 (Sedum spurium) and Q780123 (Phedimus spurius). I think this items should be merged. --Bff (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not merged, Bff, sitelinks have to be moved. In this case from Sedum spurium (Q13377730) to Phedimus spurius (Q780123) - at least according to my opinion. --Succu (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your revert[edit]

care to explain why that is appropriate?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by MechQuester (talk • contribs).

Mind to explain your edit war? --Succu (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Curious[edit]

How is this a banned user? MechQuester (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This one, globally banned user under his real name and... --Succu (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ichthyosporea und Mesomycetozoea[edit]

Diese beiden Namen beschreiben das gleiche Taxon. Siehe hierzu auch Adl et al.: The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes, 2012, Seite 437. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Mesomycetozoea wird dort als Synonym zu Ichthyosporea aufgefasst. In der Orignalpublikation sind es zwei voneinander verschiedene Klassen. --Succu (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Ich kann nur das Abstract der Originalpublikation lesen. Aber dort wird von einer neuen Gruppe gesprochen, die als DRIP Klade, Ichthyosporea und Mesomycetozoea bezeichnet wird. Das heißt, auch bei Mendoza gibt es nur eine Gruppe, die unterschiedliche Namen hat. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Das ist der richtige Weg die beiden unterschiedlichen taxonomischen Konzepte zu verbinden. Hierin sind entliche Fehler enthalten. Vllt. schaust du dich erst einmal ein wenig um, wie wir die Dinge hier modellieren. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging of kingdom and realm[edit]

Why did you merge kingdom (Q28050776) with realm (Q1250464)? Realm is a wider concept, that includes kingdoms, sultanates, tsardoms, emarates, etc.. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The en-label was "kingdom". If this was a mistake then please revert. --Succu (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Same taxon[edit]

Hello Succu, Taxa Wallowaconchidae (Q18708805) and no label (Q29413913) have a slightly different spelling. Might the first be a misspelling? It is lacking any refs and the incoming link suggests the spelling of the second. Could you have a look? Best regards, Lymantria (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I corrected the typo at dewiki and merged the items. Regards --Succu (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

TAXREF v10.0[edit]

Hi Succu,

There is a new version of TAXREF (Q26924544): https://inpn.mnhn.fr/telechargement/referentielEspece/taxref/10.0/menu

I don't know how much it's different from TAXREF v9.0 (Q26936509) (that you done with your bot) but there is a file named "TAXREF_CHANGES.txt".

TAXREF is updated every year. Should we update in Wikidata every year too?

Tubezlob (🙋) 19:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Tubezlob. Yes I know, they informed me a while ago, but I really forgot it. To much to sort out here. I will have a closer look... --Succu (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Tubezlob (🙋) 18:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Q132487 and Q29574600[edit]

Hi,

There seems to be quite a mix between Eocarcharia dinops (Q132487) and Eocarcharia (Q29574600). Could you check the interwikilinks, base on the title, I guess that most of them need to be moved from Eocarcharia dinops (Q132487) to Eocarcharia (Q29574600). The labels on Eocarcharia dinops (Q132487) should be corrected too. Could you take a look?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a monotypic taxon. In my opinion the sitelinks should then allways placed at the species item. --Succu (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a question[edit]

Where should it be archived to? MechQuester (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/RfA/2017. --Succu (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

P585[edit]

Hi, point in time (P585) verfolgt derzeit parallel zwei Zwecke: Zum einen gibt sie an, wann ein Ereignis stattgefunden hat, dann ist "Zeitpunkt" ein sinnvolles Label. Sie wird aber auch genutzt, um den Stand einer Aussage zu definieren, zum Beispiel bei Leistungsdaten von Sportlern oder bei der Einwoherzahl einer Stadt etc. pp. Daher ist der Zusatz "Stand" im Label wichtig, sonst führt die Anwendung zu Missverständnissen. Die Ursache des Problems liegt IMO darin, dass diese Eigenschaft parallel für zwei Zwecke genutzt wird, wo zwei parallele Properties von Beginn an sinnvoller gewesen wären. Ich habe hier eine Diskussion dazu gestartet, um das Problem hoffentlich bei der Wurzel packen zu könenn: point in time vs. last update. Grüße, Yellowcard (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! War mir nicht wirklich bewußt, dass die Eigenschaft ursprünglich als as of erstellt wurde. Solche Umwidmungen sind höchst ärgerlich. Mal schaun was im Project chat rauskommt. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Empty value for taxon rank (P105)[edit]

Re your revert, forgive me if I'm being a newbie, but what's the purpose in having a third taxon rank (P105) that's empty? Thanks – McDutchie (talk)

It denotes that the taxon is treated as a rankless clade. --Succu (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
How is it rankless when it's got two ranks actually defined? Note that it's the third one that's got an empty value.
This also causes a Lua error in ia:Module:Wikidata which was copied from en:Module:Wikidata (see the infobox in ia:Placentarios for the effect). – McDutchie (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
For some background information please have a look at Nomenclature and placental mammal phylogeny (Q21093631). If your LUA module produces an uncatched error, than this should be fixed. Setting "no value" for taxon rank (P105) means "no rank" in our data model. --Succu (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Once again, it is taxon rank (P105) that has the empty value, not parent taxon (P171). It would make complete sense if parent taxon (P171) had one empty value as you specify, but that is not the case here. It is taxon rank (P105) that has three values, the third of which is empty. Please examine Placentalia (Q25833) to verify this. Neither your responses nor the reference you provided make any sense of this. – McDutchie (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed P171 → P105 in my answer. --Succu (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I never understood this, either. We could have "clade" as rank, and as clades are rankless, this should be clear enough? - Brya (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
You can not state clade (Q713623) instance of (P31) taxonomic rank (Q427626). --Succu (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems that pretty much anything can be filled in in taxon rank (P105). Taxoboxes in many Wikipedias use "clade" as a rank. - Brya (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but this makes the statement not true. Enwiki uses e.g. node in taxoboxes too. --Succu (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
"True" or "no true" depends on how things are set up. - Brya (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a philosophical question, but a matter of our data model. PhyloCode (Q1189395) is not rank based. --Succu (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
How does that matter? The PhyloCode is not in effect, and the clades in Wikidata are not named according to it. - Brya (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of the consistency of our data model (forgot consistency above). Nodes (and clades of course) are part of the PhyloCode that's all. And please do not "twist" this part of this thread. It's about understanding taxon rank (P105) = novalue. --Succu (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
There were clades long before a PhyloCode was being considered. The draft-PhyloCode is just that: a draft. Most likely, there will still be clades long after the PhyloCode is forgotten. And indeed, I don't understanding "taxon rank (P105) = novalue". - Brya (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The range of taxon rank (P105) is defined by this result set. If it's not in it use no value. If the rank is unknown use unknown value. --Succu (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Empty items by you or your bot[edit]

Hey Succu, there are occasionally “empty” items which have been created by you or your bot (such as Q24796908, but there are some more). Did they somehow got lost, or can they be deleted? Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Sometimes I forget to check my error logs. Probably they should be merged or enhanced. Do you have a list? --Succu (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Not a list, but I stumbled upon a couple of them while browsing through empty items. Until now I just proceeded to the next item without deletion of your items, but I will just report them here in future (I am not familiar with your field of work, thus I don’t dare to merge by myself). Schönes Wochenende! —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Q28792231, Q25185408, Q28806333; likely some more to follow. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done --Succu (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Q22692859, Q23773345, Q23833532, Q23879930MisterSynergy (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done --Succu (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Two more: Q18337986, Q27043896. Could you also please decide whether Q2214778 should be merged into Q6431230 (or another item)? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done an please delete no label (Q2214778) --Succu (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Q28061220. I meanwhile got most items, I guess. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done and Thx. --Succu (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Q27665136MisterSynergy (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done --Succu (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Q33135279MisterSynergy (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done --Succu (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. acuta (Q7225623)[edit]

About your reverts on Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. acuta (Q7225623).
You want to split taxon (Q16521) and vegetable (Q11004) ?
Have 2 items ?
Because currently Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. acuta (Q7225623) is both (a vegetable (Q11004) and a taxon (Q16521) of rank form (Q279749)).
Regards Liné1 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Do you have any evidence the form Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. acuta was ever formally published? --Succu (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
No more than some hits on google.But sources for forma are rare. Liné1 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Die Brassica oleracea-Gruppe does not mentions this form. --Succu (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Distictis ‘Rivers’ (Q19277201)[edit]

Hello,
About your revert on Distictis ‘Rivers’ (Q19277201) (your revert).
What is the issue with my taxon name (P225)?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Liné1. The taxon name Amphilophium x 'Rivers' is not valid. First of all we use the multiplication sign (×) for hybrids. If this taxon is a cultivar then the multiplication sign has to be omitted (see International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Q941761)). The taxon in question is probably the cultivar Distictis ‘Mrs Rivers’ (=Distictis laxiflora × Distictis buccinatoria, syn: Distictis ‘Rivers’). BTW: hybrid (Q42621) is not a taxon rank. Regards --Succu (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand that the name is not correct.
Maybee taxon name (P225)="Distictis 'Rivers'" with taxon rank (P105)=cultivar (Q4886).
Or taxon name (P225)="Distictis buccinatoria x D. laxiflora" with taxon rank (P105)=nothospecies (Q1306176).
What do you prefer ?
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The first virsion. BTW: we have parent(s) of this hybrid (P1531) to express Distictis laxiflora × Distictis buccinatoria. --Succu (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Typha (Q145707)[edit]

are located in/near swamps

commons:File:Typha-cattails-in-indiana.jpg

They also grow in highland areas which is flooded during rain.

Why not to use location (P276) here? d1g (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Because we have habitat (P2974). location (P276) would cause constraint violations. --Succu (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Block[edit]

You were asked to stop commenting on that discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard with a warning that you would be blocked otherwise. You continued commenting there anyway, the comments were not helpful and seemed designed to be awkward and provoke people, therefore I've blocked you for a day. Also, I expect you already know, but deliberately switching to a language the other person does not speak is not something that someone does when they are trying to be cooperative or helpful. - Nikki (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please give a diff Nikki! --Succu (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Special:Diff/504360577 for example. - Nikki (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Relates to „deliberately switching to a language the other person does not speak is not something that someone does when they are trying to be cooperative or helpful“, Nikki: Did I? --Succu (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You switched to writing in German when I warned you. That seemed quite deliberate. You need to realize that although your words might seem perfectly fine to you, they're having the effect of aggravating the situation in question, and that is not helpful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Du warst nicht gefragt! --Succu (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let me be a bit more explicit. You can either request an unblock with {{unblock}}, or you can wait for the block to expire. Anything else is grounds for revoking your talk page access or extending your block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Und noch eine Drohung auf Grundlage einer Regel die es hier nicht gibt. Die Gepflogenheiten der englischsprachigen Wikipedia sind hier nicht anwendbar. --Succu (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
by Jasper Deng: I ask you to not comment here anymore. (at AN) --Succu (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Nikki: "but deliberately switching to a language the other person does not speak is not something that someone does when they are trying to be cooperative or helpful" Wikimedia:Assume good faith (Q4663356) Succu had his/her DE-N badge since 2013. We don't have that many rules as English Wikipedia nor we really should accept every esse. d1g (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@D1gggg: To be clear: The block was not about which language Succu was writing in and I'm sorry if what I wrote gave the wrong impression. People can write in whichever language they want to. However, the language someone chooses to write in can send its own message, whether the person intends it to or not. That's especially true when suddenly switching languages. That's why I wrote what I did. - Nikki (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikki, dein Sperrgrund war „continuing unhelpful discussion on AN despite being warned”. Seit wann ist die Begründung nicht hilfreich hier Sperrgrund? --Succu (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Man bekommt eine Warnung, weil ein Administrator das Verhalten als störend empfindet. Wenn man trotzdem weiter macht, ist es normal eine kurzzeitige Sperrung zu benutzen, um das störende Verhalten zu unterbrechen. Es gibt ja natürlich keine Regel "man darf keine unhilfreichen Kommentare schreiben", es hängt von der Situation ab. Die Kommentare in diesem Fall würden die Situation (bzw. den Streit) schlimmer machen, statt die Diskussion zum Thema weiter zu bringen. Ich hätte mich vielleicht beim Sperrgrund besser ausdrücken können aber das kann ich jetzt nicht ändern. (Entschuldigung, ich hatte in den letzten Tagen keine Zeit, vorher zu antworten) - Nikki (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
„weil ein Administrator das Verhalten als störend empfindet“. Du warst als sperrender Admin Nr. zwei. Der mich verwarnende Admin hat m.E. nicht deeskalierend eingegriffen, eher im Gegenteil. Und ein Tag ist in diesem Fall nicht gerade eine Kurzzeitsperre. Welche meiner Äußerungen empfandest du als sperrwürdig? Danke und Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

constraint on P225[edit]

How do you intended to edit?--GZWDer (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed a wrong qualifier value (Come On Over (Q522293)) and got an edit conflict. The result looks strange. --Succu (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
GZWDer, please check that all added values have at least taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Chřástal[edit]

Nonsens, read it. --OJJ (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see Hypotaenidia wakensis (Q28065127). --Succu (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
But there isn't status neither interwiki and other! On cs article status is missing. OJJ (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not unusual that an item which bears the information about IUCN conservation status (P141) has no sitelinks. The IUCN evaluates taxon concepts and labels them with a prefered taxon name (P225). Other taxonomic authorities (like IOC or Clements ) can disagree (or disagreed in the past). Probably the way cswiki makes use of this property should be improved by using original combination (P1403) and taxon synonym (P1420). --Succu (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Succu, we employed arbitrary access with original combination (P1403) and taxon synonym (P1420) and it works fine. One of the exceptions is Q182761 where IUCN was removed but was not added to any other taxon. What is the preferred action for that taxon? --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
That's great news. Thanks. I created the missing item Bonasa bonasia (Q37312414). So I hope it should work now. BTW: for plants you have to use basionym (P566) instead of original combination (P1403). --Succu (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Can you think of a way of tracking Wikipedia articles which fail to display IUCN status although they are in fact listed by IUCN yet under a different name? To me this is a big challenge. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we work together on a Botanical project?[edit]

It is much easier when we do work together and see how to ensure that it will work well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are talking in riddles, GerardM. --Succu (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I send you an email. I did not get a response. I am involved in a project with huge botanical resources. Having this work well without too much upset will help us all. It is why I aske(ed) for a quiet talk first. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I didn't got an email. --Succu (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Today I got a notification GerardM‬ hat dir eine E-Mail gesendet, but received no email. Not sure why. --Succu (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Same taxon?[edit]

Hi Succu, merging Ovia procurva (Q33126512) (linked to w:it:Ovia procurva) and Pardosa procurva (Q2462229) (w:fr:Ovia procurva) is not possible since they refer to each other via original combination (P1403) and subject has role (P2868)=protonym (Q14192851) (relation which I fail to understand...) Could you please take care of figuring if the French article should rather be moved along with the Italian one? Thanks -- LaddΩ chat ;) 23:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Laddo. I moved w:it:Ovia procurva to Pardosa procurva (Q2462229). Ovia procurva (Q33126512) was established in 2017 and needs as a very young name some more acceptance. --Succu (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks, I had no clue on that one! -- LaddΩ chat ;) 12:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Labels[edit]

Hi. Can you add all these labels in a single edit? Additionally, when taxon rank (P105) is tribe (Q227936) add please Romanian (ro) label the same as scientific taxon name used for other labels (tribe names usually are not translated in Romanian). --XXN, 11:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be possible. I'll have a look. --Succu (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@XXN: My two cents: to copy the same label to multiple languages, the best is adding the Label Collector to your common.js page: it adds the tool "VIP's labels" at the end of the left panel and allows changes like this one; less efficient but more flexible, you may activate gadget labelLister (beta version) in your Preferences (an example). -- LaddΩ chat ;) 18:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Celtis ehrenbergiana[edit]

Clean-up needed, thanks to User:Pasleim/projectmerge/frwiki-eswiki: Celtis tala (Q15742470) (es:Celtis ehrenbergiana) and Celtis ehrenbergiana (Q2727396) (fr:Celtis ehrenbergiana). French & Spanish obviously refer to the same taxon, but with different Orders! Only English has two articles for these. Good luck! -- LaddΩ chat ;) 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see Q156338#P171. ;) --Succu (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Weird! Thanks for taking over. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 16:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Coriobacteridae (Q21447193) and Chroobacteria (Q21213976)[edit]

Hey Succu, are Coriobacteridae (Q21447193) and Chroobacteria (Q21213976) valid items? Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

They are. I added links to List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (Q6595107). --Succu (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Two more: no label (Q21440679) and Garuda Yakovlev (2004) non Scherer (1969) (Q21439604). —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Merged them. --Succu (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

no label (Q21238185), no label (Q21325402), and no label (Q21299332)? (That’s it for today). Thanks and regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

All were deleted at Wikispecies. We should do the same. --Succu (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I can’t find a deletion discussion for any of the three. Do you know about the reasons? I am not at all used to Wikispecies… —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
species:Allohermenias metacritica, species:Sparganopseustis unthicta, species:Promalactis biaenia are probably misspellings. --Succu (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Now done. Thanks for your input. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Q1378754 (es:Eustigmatophyceae) and Q21286593 (fr:Eustigmatophyceae)[edit]

There is a mix-up of "Eustigmatales" and "Eustigmatophyceae" in Eustigmatales (Q1378754) and Eustigmatophyceae (Q21286593) that I do not have the knowledge to settle. Maybe you can give a hand? Thanks -- LaddΩ chat ;) 00:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Done, but not satisfied. --Succu (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair; dissatisfied before or after User:PieterJanR worked on these same items? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 20:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Before. For me User:PieterJanR is working along is own „rules“. --Succu (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Parnara guttatus/Parnara guttata[edit]

Hi Succu,

I saw your edits to Parnara guttatus (Q14042354) and Parnara guttata (Q1314537). A discussion about the spelling recently took place at species:Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Parnara_guttatus_or_Parnara_guttata.3F. Could you please voice your opinion there? Thanks! Korg (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Korg, I noticed the discussion afterwards. I don't think WD should share this kind of practice. We have a lot of similar unresolved cases here (see: User:Succu/Spelling/-a, -us). --Succu (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer! Shouldn't a link in Parnara guttata (Q1314537) be also made to Parnara guttatus (Q14042354)? Korg (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
What kind of link do you have in mind? --Succu (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I have the impression that the information that Parnara guttata (Q1314537) is also known under the name Parnara guttatus is missing. Of course it could be added as an alias, but since there is the item Parnara guttatus (Q14042354), maybe a link to it should be added (through taxon synonym (P1420)?). I can understand why you added Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920), but in the meantime why not keeping the information about the synonymy? Thanks, Korg (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
What apparently is needed is a new property for (deviant) spellings as used by (some) Lepidopterists. - Brya (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Swallowtail butterfly[edit]

The type species is stated in en:Swallowtail butterfly's infobox. Isn't it correct? Paucabot (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The type genus (Q842832) is Papilio (Q311221). See my edit. --Succu (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

subclasses of natural physical object (Q16686022)[edit]

Can I ask you to stop removing correct top-level P279 claims that affect nearly every object?

1 2

Each fruit is physical object. This is so trivial that nobody need to source this. d1g (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your subclassing is not very usefull... --Succu (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: what is your suggestion then?
You think that fruits aren't physical objects? Why would you remove from them?
Fruits (and other objects) are used in gathering (Q2991771). d1g (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
So what? gathering (Q2991771) is very strange item. --Succu (

talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: I don't have time to repeat my questions to you: "Why would you remove

subject > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < physical object (Q223557) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

from them?"

Why you removed indication about physical objects from organism (Q7239) and similar items? d1g (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason because no label (Q29102255) is not very useful in modeling a taxonomy. --Succu (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you realize that physical object (Q223557) or sub-classes of it has nothing to do about taxonomy?
Your duty now is to explain how an organism isn't physical object. At least this is what you did with your edits.
Maybe it was a mistake, I don't know. d1g (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
taxonomy (Q7211) is one of the backbones of this project. Do you really want to make all instances/subclasses of organism (Q7239), organism (Q29102814) and biota (Q845214) (..., paintings, countries, stars, buildings) become a subclass of natural physical object (Q16686022)? --Succu (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about what I think or you think is useless.
Do you have a better suggestion than:
  1. and
  2. < organism (Q7239) View with Reasonator View with SQID > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < ... >
    and ?
It is evident to me that organism (Q7239) can be though as individual objects. d1g (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure a particular organism (Q7239) is an individual object (=instance of (P31)) and should be linked that way as done by human (Q5). --Succu (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Current P279 claims at human (Q5) are not about physical objects.
So it wouldn't follow that she was "physical object" (e.g. real).
Q5 is about social aspects (biographies) right now.
With organism (Q7239) you're right because there is claim
But I prefer direct
+ manifestation of (P1557)
over
d1g (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Mind to use sentences, D1gggg and not templates. Thank you very much. --Succu (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: look at Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Taxonomical_mafia. Succu believes that all taxon items at Wikidata is their property and don't like any other statements except their own. In this question I support adding these P279. --Infovarius (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I don't! --Succu (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
But your deeds say the opposite. Again: I appreciate your taxonomical job in Wikidata very much, but you have no right to guard these items from improvement tries. You are acting against progress here. --Infovarius (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I think we should be able to avoid complexity of (exact muscle or exact rock or exact mineral) by using "natural physical objects".
Yes, these edits are very new and need improvement and further clarification, but all removals should be replaced with equal or better suggestions.
In this case I see strong urgency to prune all inaccuracies, but not strong suggestions or normal edits. d1g (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

STOP[edit]

edit d1g (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not shout here. This belongs in the upper part´of the taxonomy. --Succu (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: fruits are physical objects and natural.
Taxonomy has nothing to do about it. d1g (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Sigh, it has to do wth taxonomy (Q7211). --Succu (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
To recap how outrageous your nonsense: you were editing culinary item Q 3 3 1 4 4 8 3. d1g (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Another try[edit]

2 days ago you were asked question, maybe you forgot to answer or overlooked it. I will repeat:

Why you removed indication about physical objects from organism (Q7239) and similar items?

d1g (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

See above. --Succu (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: "See above" is not appropriate reply. d1g (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Euthemis multivenosa[edit]

Servus! Ich bin gerade über Euthemis multivenosa gestolpert, die laut Wikidata zur Gattung Euthemis in den Ochnaceae gehören soll. Allerdings geht aus dem bei der Art verlinkten Eintrag auf Fossilworks hervor, dass es sich um eine Libelle handelt. Da müsste dann wohl ein neues Datenobjekt für eine fossile Libellengattung Euthemis erstellt werden. Oder? Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Weil's eh hier auch irgendwie dazupasst: Ich hab aus der Gattung Lacunaria den Fossilworks-Eintrag wieder entfernt. Es gibt offenbar auch eine fossile Schneckengattung gleichen Namens. In beiden Fällen war es offenbar so, dass beim Einsatz von SuccuBot (3. Apr 2017) nicht darauf geachtet wurde, dass es möglicherweise gleichlautende Gattungsnamen gibt. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Die fossile Libellengattung Euthemis hab ich inzwischen angelegt und bei Euthemis multivenosa das übergeordnete Taxon dementsprechend angepasst. Am liebsten würde ich dort den Eintrag von iNaturalist einfach entfernen - der ist irreführend. Die sind dort wohl genau so auf das "Homonym" hereingefallen. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Franz! Danke fürs finden und fixen. Die Bot-Bearbeitungen sind allerdings über zwei Jahre alt. Damals gab es den Wikidata:SPARQL query service noch nicht und damit war vieles schwieriger handhabbar. Ich kann leider heute nicht mehr nachvollziehen worin damals der Fehler bestand. Fossilworks bietet im Gegensatz zu anderen Datenbanken keine einfache Möglichkeit zu überprüfen, ob ein wissenschaftlicher Name zu den Pflanzen gehört. Ich bin allerdings dabei mich mit dem Thema Fossilworks wieder etwas intensiver zu beschäften, da wir im Bereich der fossilen Taxa erhebliche Lücken habe. In einem ersten Schritt habe ich vor einer Weile geprüft, ab der angegebenen wiss. Name überhaupt zur ID passt.
Das mit den Eintrag von iNaturalist sehe ich leidenschaftslos. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ich finde, nachdem ich es bisher nicht gekannt habe, Fossilworks recht informativ. Ich sehe aber natürlich schon ein, dass sich ein Bot-Einsatz ad absurdum führt, wenn man die Information dort nicht automatisiert verarbeiten kann. Stimmt, das eigentliche Problem ist schon 2015 entstanden. Das am 3. Apr 2017 war ja nur ein Folgeedit. Ich hab nicht genau hingeschaut und das dann verwechselt. Ich fürchte nur, dass die zwei Fälle, die irrtümlich bei den Ochnaceae gelandet sind, nur die Spitze eines Eisbergs sind. Vielleicht kann man einen Teil der Fälle ausfindig machen, indem man (per Bot?) nach Gattungs-Datenobjekten sucht, die sowohl von Fossilworks als auch von IPNI einen Eintrag haben. Taxa, von denen es keine rezenten Vertreter gibt, sind ja in IPNI nicht enthalten. Es kann natürlich bei rezenten Gattungen auch fossile Vertreter geben, aber dann sollte die Gattung zumindest nicht als fossil taxon (Q23038290) markiert sein. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Deine Idee lässt sich mit dem oben erwähnten SPARQL query service einfach umsetzen. Allerdings ergibt diese Suche über 300 Gattungen. Wie gesagt, ich bin drann an dem Thema, aber es ist nur eines auf einer langen Liste. Gruß --Succu (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ja, alle einzeln durchzusehen ist natürlich viel Arbeit, aber Australina (Q8209401), Clarkella (Q5854728), Clypeola (Q2918873), Robinia (Q472943) und Camelina (Q163520) sind jedenfalls auch solche Fälle. Die vier Fälle sind Stichprobenkontrollen auf Verdacht. (Die beiden Brassicaceae-Gattungen kenn ich, da kann ich mir nicht vorstellen, dass es davon Fosssilien gibt.) --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Die ersten beiden Fehler habe ich behoben. Die anderen kommen später dran. --Succu (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Gefixt. --Succu (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Danke! Ich mach einmal eine Liste der weiteren Problembären, von vorne beginnend: Acanthonema (Q4059309), Adriana (Q2713431), Aegilops (Q1764888), Agnesia (Q771221), Allophyllum (Q2892914), Aluta (Q4737574), Aurinia (Q3273285) - mit dem Buchstaben A bin ich somit durch. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Erledigt. Danke für deine Mithilfe. --Succu (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"Z" ist durchgesehen. Die Fehlzuweisungen scheinen nur aus einem Botlauf von Mitte Mai 2015 zu stammen. --Succu (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Abfrage mit Datum. --Succu (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Mit Datum ergibt die Abfrage gleich viele Ergebnisse. Buchstabe B: Beaumontia (Q3311674), Beckmannia (Q159068), Becquerelia (Q8245556), Belmontia (Q5725297), Benoistia (Q4890094), Boltonia (Q4940265). Ich hab bei einigen der von dir neu angelegten gleichnamigen Taxa jetzt noch die Fossilworks-IDs nachgetragen. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ach so, nein, man muss da das Datum wohl vorher noch selbst eintippen, dass nicht dasselbe herauskommt. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Bei Agnesia (Q38117103) gibt's immer noch ein Problem. Beim Fossil handelt es sich um eine Schnecke, aber die Viecher in sv (ceb, war) sind offenbar rezente Ascidiacea (Q190090). Da besteht wohl ein echtes Homonymen-Problem, wo zuerst einmal geklärt werden muss, welcher von beiden Namen der ältere ist. Laut WoRMS haben wir es bei der Seescheiden-Gattung mit einer orthographische Variante von Agnezia (Q6458288) zu tun und in seiner unübertroffenen Weisheit hat Lsjbot natürlich beide Varianten angelegt. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Für "B" habe ich neue Datenobjekte angelegt. Die Fossilworks-IDs hätte mein Bot heute oder morgen nachgetragen. Aber Danke fürs Hinzufügen. Die geänderte Abfrage listet lediglich das Datum mit auf, wann der Bot die Fossilworks-ID ergänzt hat. Ich wollte nur sehen, ob meine Vermutung richtig ist. Wg. "Agnesia" habe ich formal, d.h. ohne weiter nachzugraben, Agnesia (Q38140805) angelegt und die Sitelinks dorthin verschoben. Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Danke! Bezüglich Agnesia ist es wohl so zu gelöst worden, dass Agnezia (Q6458288) ein neuer Name (replacement name) von Agnesia (Q38140805) für die Seescheide ist. In der Botanik käme man allerdings niemals um das Homonymieproblem herum, indem man ein s durch ein z ersetzt. Aber nach dem zoologischen Code mag das gehen – da kann ich mich mit den Gebräuchen nicht gut genug aus. Da muss man vermutlich replaced by (P1366) in die Schlacht werfen, so ähnlich, wie es Brya gerade bei Ouratea densiflora Pilg. (1901) (Q17556455) durchgeführt hat. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Die Probleme aus dem Botlauf von Mitte Mai 2015, die in der obigen Liste auftauchen, sollten gefixt sein. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunella[edit]

Hi, something's wrong here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106090&diff=472099749&oldid=455018068 --Termininja (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Termininja! The edit was based on a wrong Fossilworks ID. I created Fortunella (Q38096898) for this. --Succu (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, in this case it is genus of brachiopods. --Termininja (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Anisophyllum[edit]

Hier noch ein Nachtrag zum Buchstaben A: Anisophyllum (Q15711327) Der Fall wird richtig kompliziert - siehe species:Anisophyllum. Es gibt drei botanische Homonyme, nämlich ein Synonym von Euphorbia (Q146567), eins von Anisophyllea (Q1626224), und den ältesten Gattungsnamen von Jacq., der im Wesentlichen rätselhaft bleibt. Auf Tropicos hat diese Gattung offenbar irgendwer bei den Anacardiaceae eingeordnet, was mir plausibel erscheint. Und dann gibt's noch diese fossile Koralle als vierten gleichlautenden Namen. Das derzeit existierende Datenobjekt ist ein Verschnitt aus drei der vier Namen. Den vierten, nämlich Anisophyllum G.Don ex Benth., hätte ich aber jetzt gerade auch noch gebraucht. Ich wollte nämlich bei Anisophyllea grandis (Q4765389) das Basionym ergänzen - siehe species:Anisophyllea grandis. Grüße --Franz Xaver (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Das Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG) bietet:
  • Anisophyllum A.H. Haworth, 1812 accepted as Euphorbia Linnaeus, 1753
  • Anisophyllum G. Don ex G. Bentham, 1949 accepted as Anisophyllea R. Brown ex Sabine, 1824
  • Anisophyllum Boivin ex Baillon, 1858 accepted as Croton Linnaeus, 1753
  • Anisophyllum N.J. Jacquin, 1763
  • Anisophyllum Lesquereux, 1874 †
  • Anisophyllum Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1850 †
Bei Homonymen innerhalb eines Reichs hat der Bot keine Chance das aufzudröseln. Selbst wenn er die jeweiligen Autorenangaben verwenden würde. Tropicos schert sich leider nicht darum, wie die Namen gemäß IPNI formatiert sein sollten. IPNI selbst hat zahlreich unaufgelöste botanist author abbreviation (P428). Aber das weist du ja selbst. Falls du Muße leg einfach neue Datenobjekte für die Anisophyllum-Varianten an und schau was passiert.
BTW, vllt. kannst du ja mal bei How to link a "taxon item" to the "publication item" where it has been described? vorbeischauen?! Ich hoffe ich komme morgen dazu dort zu antworten. Gruß --Succu (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, Anisophyllum Haw. (1812) (Q38150618) und Anisophyllum (Q38150162) hab ich jetzt angelegt und die diversen Inhalte entflochten. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect edit[edit]

Hi, this edit is incorrect. A.lanceolata is not the basionym of A. barteri var. angustifolia. The correct basionym is A. lanceolata f. angustifolia, but for some reason I cannot make this change by hand. --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

An error in Tropicos. I created Anubias lanceolata f. angustifolia (Q38570826) and changed the basionym. Thx. --Succu (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please[edit]

About this revert: go to either http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=227616 or http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=175533.
Search for "PaleoDB taxon number: ".
You will find 227616.
So there is a bug in SuccuBot.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see 227616: Synonym: Polyphagidae Walker 1868 (taxon 175533) The correct ID is 175533. Synonym IDs are redirected at FW to the "valid" (aka accepted) taxon name. --Succu (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
You are badly interpreting the page
Corydiidae has a (not accepted) synonym: Polyphagidae which has the id 175533
To proove that:
Regards Liné1 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
We have both Corydiidae (Q21069166) (=227616) and Polyphagidae (Q736346) (=175533). I do not use the UI. I'm using the API. Fw treats Polyphagidae (Q736346) (=175533) as a synonym of Corydiidae (Q21069166) (=227616). --Succu (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Alright, perfect. Thnks Liné1 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The Cactaceae by Britton and Rose[edit]

Hoi, as you (may) know this book has been rather relevant in the history of the botany of cacti. With the Library of the Botanical Garden of New York we are planning a Wiki project that includes Wikidata Commons Wikipedia maybe Wikisource. The idea is to see how the botanical information that led to this book can be opened to a wider public. So it will include the types, the fieldbooks etc.

For all the species mentioned in the book we want an item, all kinds of associated information is of interest and relevant as well.

In addition to this I have a database I created in Access that I have available again to myself. When you are interested I can see to it that you get it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the German article about The Cactaceae, so yes I know. I good starting point would be to check if we have an item for the 420 295 taxa illustrated on the 107 color plates. I don't think I need your database. It would give me the oportunity to implement and test some other ways of referencing the occurence of taxon names in taxonomic literature. Is there any time frame involved? --Succu (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no "need" for you having the database. What it does is show you that I have experience in the subject of taxonomy and it provides a starting point for a conversation on taxonomy and missing properties. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
As a starting point I created User:Succu/Cactaceae sec. Britton & Rose, 1919–1923, GerardM. It's a draft and needs some proofreading. We are missing around one third of the taxa accepted by them. --Succu (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM:Are there any plans from your side, how to proceed? --Succu (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
So far you have shown no interest.. For what it is worth, the book and the cacti are to be the leverage to achieve things. So far you failed to have an interest.. The idea is to get as much material used in the book in the Wikimedia projects, not just Wikidata, including photos of isotypes and references of the isotype to taxon descriptions. The idea is to have better links to the botanical taxonomy world. In my database I have all the publications for them, there is basionym information, there are the author names with references to the individuals.. But hey. you do not need my database. No need to know where I am coming from and no need to establish a mutual vocabulary. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
So this thread is basicly about your database I'm not interested in and not their work? What a pitty... --Succu (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Tropicos[edit]

Hi Succu,

I see you have managed to import basionym-relationships from Tropicos, which is very welcome, and adds much-wanted depth to Wikidata. However, I see you are also importing things like Arum syriacum Blume (1836) (Q38470108) and Arum syriacum (Q38470252) which look basically like nomenclatural junk (this is where The Plant List went wrong). There may come a time when it becomes desirable to have such items, just for the sake of trying to be complete, but for the moment these seem more of a hindrance than anything else.

It would be useful to create items based on import from Tropicos, if these are for basionyms of names that we already have an item for. - Brya (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brya, yes I want to move on. Normally I do not create a new item if I can sparql an item with taxon name (P225) or Tropicos ID (P960). In this case the second item was created two minutes after the first. So probably ths system was not fast enough for the second SPARQL call. BTW: I fixed two minor issues I found in my code. After the whole run I will do some more sanity checks. --Succu (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
These two items may well be on separate taxa, although it is equally possible that they are not. Since they are isolated names in Tropicos we don't know anything: these may well be names that at some point were published but that everybody ignored. It may also be the same name. They may be nomina nuda. We just don't know: these are pieces of junk in the attic of Tropicos, that at some point in the future may become useful. Or just thrown out, once somebody takes a close look. For the moment Wikidata has no use for them. Only when somebody refers to them in a taxonomic paper will these become "real". - Brya (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see you have already been creating items for basionyms, so I assume this is all done? What would be really nice is to import authorships from Tropicos, but I guess this is still not possible? - Brya (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I will do this later from IPNI. But I have to refine the process a little bit. But I think it's hard to avoid errors. :( --Succu (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
IPNI is pretty much the same; it is a nomenclatural database that has lots and lots of stuff that is taxonomically irrelevant. - Brya (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sikkim pika (Q28185220)[edit]

Hi there, I'm wondering why my edits on Sikkim pika (Q28185220) were reverted? Just trying to learn what I did wrong so I can avoid making mistakes in the future when I add data. Thanks! Jeanjung212 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The ids you added belong to Ochotona thibetana sikimaria (Q20905131) --Succu (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
After more research I see that the information I was looking at before was out-of-date and that Ochotona sikimaria is recognized as different species from Ochotona thibetana and subspecies sikimaria. My bad, I'll be more thorough in the future, thanks for taking the time to respond! Jeanjung212 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of valid label and statemens from Italian penal code (Q15849378)[edit]

Why are you removing valid statements from this element? They are referenced. Ogoorcs (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Referenced or not, I doubt the statements are correct. And your edits show you are not confident too. --Succu (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate IUCN IDs[edit]

Hi,

I am the operator of JoRobot (talkcontribslogs). First of all, sorry for the misunderstanding. It was a shared robot, the other owner is inactive, and I didn't redirect the talk page. I wasn't aware either of the procedures to set up a bot in Wikidata. When I got the credentials for the bot, I mentioned I planned to do stuff on Wikidata, and assumed that this was enough.

It seems one of my tasks has created some duplication problems, so let me tell you about it. I'm in a project to migrate the taxonomy templates in the Catalan wikipedia to a new one which makes heavy use of Wikidata. So the plan is to load images and audios into Wikidata, and then have the template grab it from there. In the meantime, we help the community by enriching Wikidata. As for the IUCN information, this is not automated. The bot reads the info in the template and Wikidata, deletes the info from the template, and flags a message if the info is in the template and not in Wikidata. In such a case, I search manually for the species in the Redlist website. If it's got status information, I update wikidata so our template can read it. If not, I leave it alone.

I did that manually for a while, and then I got tired, so I wrote a small script to do the updates for me. I give it the article name, the status according to the website, and the ID. The script then creates the IUCN conservation status (P141) and IUCN ID (P627) properties. Because it's done on a per article basis, and I check them personally, the margin for error is small.

I have checked the duplicate IUCN IDs you flagged, and it seems to me that the problem existed previously. They are all duplicates, and the Q's should be merged. The conflicting Q's seem to come from a list of species and don't have a wikipedia article associated. Since many species have lots of synonyms, this is a normal problem. If anything, my bot-assisted edits (or the manual ones, since they are equivalent) are helping find an existing problem of Q duplication.

It's true that I didn't check that IUCN ID (P627) existed before adding it again, I only checked IUCN conservation status (P141). I'm going to add code to do that. Apart from that, do you think there is something else that I could do to detect duplication? --Joutbis (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They are all duplicates, and the Q's should be merged“ - No. For a start search my user talk for answers. --Succu (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC) PS: #Chřástal --Succu (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting. Let me see if I get. Forgive my ignorance, I'm a computer scientist, and biology is not my thing at all. What you suggest (and has been shown to work in cs) is that if the UICN status is missing, the template should search for the Q in original combination (P1403), and if not, for taxon synonym (P1420)? From what I've seen, those cases are pretty complete, so we are likely to find the status eventually. If this is it, then I understand why my script is irrelevant.--Joutbis (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you already undid all the duplicates. Thank you, and sorry for the delay, the main template hasn't been fixed yet. But I have copied the list for testing purposes. --Joutbis (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you 31 hours for edit warring across several items: [1],[2],[3]. 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)

Approve icon.svg Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Succu
block logipblocklistcrossblockluxo'sunblockremove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:
(see below)
Unblock reason:
Subject to the discussion/conditions at [4] - while edit warring should not occur on Wikidata, it is a fair point that the last reverts were old and before a previous warning [5] for similar behavior. Rschen7754 18:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


This template should be archived normally.

Deutsch | English | español | français | Nederlands | português | +/−

Sorry but I don't see where I discussed not in a "collaborative and civil manner"--Succu (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not what you were blocked for. --Rschen7754 17:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The matter of date (Q1652093) was discussed at AN and I tried (again) to settle the matter and did not a single revert since your warning. So it feels to me as I was blocked for discussion the matter further. --Succu (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The warning was for edit warring at WD:AN. --Rschen7754 17:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
My last revert in this matter was more than 24 hours ago. As far as I know at dewiki such belated blocks are not appied. --Succu (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to unblock you, however you must not continue the edit war or any edit war while the other two users are blocked. (Or even after that, but: any reverting related to the dispute while the other two users are blocked will result in this block being reinstated). Can you agree to this? --Rschen7754 18:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure. --Succu (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thx. BTW: your block affected my current bot run as well, and I had to switch my IP address to continue the run. --Succu (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, if you are blocked again, you are not supposed to keep running your bot. This is by design. --Rschen7754 18:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
If FWIW means For whatever it’s worth I disagree. If my bot would operate via Tool Labs it wouldn't be affected. I doubt that in case of a short time block, I'm disallowed to end an earlier started job. Do you have a hint to such a policy? --Succu (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
See WD:SOCK. --Rschen7754 22:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you please cite the relevant part for me. Thank you. --Succu (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
"Alternate accounts, even legitimate alternate accounts, may not be used to circumvent a block or editing restriction. Unless otherwise stated by the admin placing the block or restriction, a block or editing restriction placed on the main account applies to the person behind the account, regardless of which account they use" --Rschen7754 23:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Was Wikidata:Alternate accounts ever formally accepted as an „official guideline”? I'm not aware of a community discussion about that. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: The page started with that exception: „Bots are excluded from this policy because they are used to mark automatically made edits.
PPS: The "rule" your are citing was introduced here by User:Jasper Deng. --Succu (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
PPPS: "Justified"? by Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sockpuppetry guidelines. --Succu (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing was ever official about this version. The RFC you linked to clearly shows support for what I have stated as follows:

Under "Legitimate uses":

  • Bots: Users that operate bots, or automatic edit scripts, are required to run their bots off of alternate accounts.

Under "Illegitimate uses":

  • Circumventing sanctions or blocks: Alternate accounts, even legitimate alternate accounts, may not be used to circumvent a block or editing restriction.

Both sections passed at the RFC with nearly unanimous support. I do not see any ambiguity here. If you disagree, you are welcome to start your own community discussion about this. --Rschen7754 00:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)