User talk:Succu

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File.svg Archive
Archive 2020
Archive 2019
Archive 2018
Archive 2017
Archive 2016
Archive 2015
Archive 2014
Archive 2013

Range map[edit]

Happy New Year!

Can you check Caspian cobra (Q2349137) with taxon range map image (P181). Do we have already some property for geographic range distribution? Is it ok to use country (P17) for this in that way? --Termininja (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't have a property to describe the geographic range distribution of taxa. In my opinion country (P17) shouldn't be used. I doubt File:South_West_Asia_location-Naja-oxiana.svg is based on the geographic range you referenced. Note the warning Distribution data is not mapped for this species. --Succu (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


Ahoj, proč jsi revertoval toto sloučení?

--Rosičák (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, we have to keep different names at different items. Your merge caused this „correction“. --Succu (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Dobrá, nechám to plavat, ale myslím, že to není dobře.- 6.1.2020 Rosičák


Hello Succu, sorry for this, I was testing out Wikidata Usefuls and forgot to check out if it actually worked. A big apologize, thank you for repairing the damage. --GeXeS (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Cattle[edit]

Hi Succu, I noticed you reverted my edit to cattle, adding that the species is a source of gelatin. Could you explain why you reverted? Thanks, I'm new to editing WikiData (but not Wikimedia project generally). Scientific29 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just pinging again here. Thank you Scientific29 (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC).
I doubt that statement is true. --Succu (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha, it is indeed, here are two sources linked in the Wikipedia article 1 ("There are a large number of unit processes used in the manufacture of gelatin and the raw materials from which it is derived are demineralised bone (called ossein), pigskin, cow hide") and 2 ("The principal raw materials used in gelatin production are cattle bones, cattle hides, and porkskins.") Cheers! Scientific29 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Succu, I saw you reverted my edits to gelatin again. Could you explain in light of these citations? Thank you Scientific29 (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Succu, checking in again here. As I said, this statement is clearly true and supported by references. If I don't hear back from you, I'll revert my edits one more time and then move further discussion to project chat to try to get some third party perspective here. Thank you. Scientific29 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear single-purpose account, would you claim Homo sapiens (Q15978631) or human (Q5) this taxon is source of (P1672) wig (Q105507)? --Succu (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll reach out over there in hopes of proceeding productively. I'm not sure if you're implying that this should be linked from Bos taurus (Q20747334) or maybe an intermediate product like cowhide (Q12492880) or something else altogether. For what it's worth, I've been editing under this username on Wikipedia for a decade, so this clearly isn't a single purpose account. Happy editing. Scientific29 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus and others[edit]

Wikidata should serve Wikipedia. Q14332 and Q13098211 they now absolutely absurdly divide interwikis. Genus Tyrannosaurus has one species: Tyrannosaurus rex. From a taxonomic point of view, calmly divide it but it is not possible to divide articles according to whether the Wikipedia chooses a generic or species name. In its current form, a Czech or German Wikipedia reader does not get an article on English or Slovak Wikipedia. Those articles are about the same thing! Dozens of Wikipedia mutations will not adapt to one project. Please add a some merge-parameter to these items, in its present form, you are harming the readers. Common sense must prevail over the machine solution. OJJ (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? I did not caused the current distribution of the sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

ex authors[edit]

Why is the labeling backwards on this property? When a source is cited as "R.M.Schust. ex T.Katag. & A.Hagborg", the "ex" applies to the authors listed after the ex. The "ex" does not mean "former", and it is not English. The Latin "ex" means "within", referring to the publication within which the attribution was made. To call the leading author an "ex author" is grammatical nonsense; the publication was not made within his work, it was made in the work identified by the authors following the Latin preposition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ask Tropicos why they handle it this way. --Succu (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
So you're happy to go against the Code (VI 46.2) as long as we're aping some other source? I suppose they're working around VI 46.7, but this is a backwards way to handle it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edition in Schiffornithinae (Q21978054)? Schiffornithinae is a junior synonym of Ptilochlorinae as stated in Polish list of birds of the world here. Pikador (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

We do not merge synonyms. If you want to model the relationship please use taxon synonym (P1420). --Succu (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi, why did you cancel It is a subfamily (the common name of Orthocoronavirinae and not a genus. Have a look at the ICTV documentation) and not a genus. Ronam20 (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus (Q290805) is about the genus Coronavirus abolished in 2009. You changed a reference property. The item for the subfamily is Orthocoronavirinae (Q57751738). Maybe you have to move sitelinks to Orthocoronavirinae (Q57751738). --Succu (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I see. thank you for the correction. Ronam20 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

World Spider Catalog ids[edit]

The World Spider Catalog ids are for taxa, not taxon names. SuccuBot has been re-adding WSC ids for Brachypelma synonyms that are now in Tliltocatl, e.g. Brachypelma kahlenbergi (Q2683958), which produces error messages, since the ids are already in use for the Tliltocatl species, e.g. Tliltocatl kahlenbergi (Q86826827). I don't care whether the same WSC ids are used for synonymous taxon names, but if so, there should not be a uniqueness requirement as there is now. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. The bot run used a slightly outdated data export from WSC dated 2020-02-26. The species was transferred to the new genus a day later (see edit history). --Succu (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


Hi Succu. So Cape short-eared gerbil (Q127360) and Hairy-footed gerbil (Q306591) are both pollinators of Massonia depressa (Q3297798) according to Rodent pollination in the African lily Massonia depressa (Hyacinthaceae). (Q42732391) ([1]). I assume it just looked odd because gerbils are not usually pollinators. Thanks, gobonobo + c 20:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gobonobo! I reverted myself already. The German label was somewhat misleading. --Succu (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Extant turtle[edit]

Chelonoidis nigra (Q486672) with IUCN conservation status (P141) = extinct species (Q237350). Please fix that. Also the source is broken --Termininja (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I saw your edition and I thought that it is your bot, but not, it was my mistake.. Thanks. --Termininja (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. And you never fixed this kind of errors. --Succu (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually not, this is correct work of my bot, im trying to find now why the status is still "extinct species" - this is actually the real problem --Termininja (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you remember this hint? A simple SPARQL query should give you the problematic edits. --Succu (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Virus strains and species[edit]

Hello Succu,

I saw that you removed many of the edits I made. I agree, they might be not strains, but species (or something else).

I changed the class name to "virus taxon", as a subclass of taxon. I am trying to enhance the data model for virus strains and species. Your contribution at Wikidata:WikiProject_COVID-19/Data_models/Virus_strains would be super valuable.

In the meantime, can I ask you to leave the items as instance of (P31) of virus taxon (Q87756246)? It seems logic and is useful for automating searches and improving the model.

virus taxon (Q87756246) is a subclass of (P279) of taxon.

Thanks; TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! We do not have "plant taxon" or "animal taxon". If you want to know to which higher taxon a taxon belogs simply follow parent taxon (P171) or use Code of nomenclature (P944). Regards --Succu (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 IRMNG release now available as data dump[edit]

Hi Succu, just letting you know that there is (again) a new release of IRMNG (genera) now available as detailed at (the actual data files are at - hoping that this is still of interest to you with regard to your wikidata activities.

BTW, the odd IRMNG ID gets deprecated as duplicates are discovered or some higher categories are decided to be redundant. The data file does not contain these although they would be discoverable via a comparison between the current data file and the previous one (and ones before that, and ones before that...). I have occasionally thought that there might be a value in a separate list of deprecated IDs and what they were used for, but only if there is need for it - any thoughts?

Cheers and best wishes - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive my mistakes. I'm learning as I go along. I uploaded some a few images and I wasn't sure how wikidata works. I'm not vandalizing anything, I'm trying to improve some of the the cobra articles. I'm especially focusing on the Naja article itself as it's fraught with inaccuracies and the list of 10 most venomous cobra species is inaccurate. Apologies if it appeared as though I was vandalizing anything. I'm still learning. Pincotti4 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Broken interwiki[edit]

Hi. With this reverting you broke interwiki between Ukrainian and Netherlands Wikipedia articles. As far as I can see from your contributions you are not going to repair what you have done, aren't you? I beleive it is not a good practice.--Brunei (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't guess. The system is somewhat lame at the moment, but fixed. Please do not merge items with different taxon name (P225). Move the sitelink instead. Thx. --Succu (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you going to save all synonims on WikiData?--Brunei (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. This is how WD works (structured data). --Succu (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For Bot: Virus Taxonomy: 2019 Release[edit]

Important news: ICTV Master Species List 2019.v1 (Q91806681). --VladXe (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@VladXe: The bot is running. --Succu (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Where are the elements of the new kingdoms, types, classes, and orders? For example: Heunggongvirae, Artverviricota, Papovaviricetes, Zurhausenvirales --VladXe (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
!!! No taxon: Amabiliviricetes, Vidaverviricetes, Resentoviricetes, Wolframvirales, Mindivirales, Mitoviridae, Mayoviridae, Sinhaliviridae; Asfuvirales, Chitovirales, Reovirales, +? --VladXe (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC) --VladXe (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, the bot is still working. --VladXe (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC) --VladXe (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry VladXe: Due to hardware issues I'm switching to a new system. And this in the middle of restructuring my bots code... -- Succu (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
RU: Это уважительная причина. Сообщите, пожалуйста, когда можно будет привязать страницы русской Википедии к указанным выше элементам Викиданных. EN, online translation: This is a good reason. Please let us know when you can link Russian Wikipedia pages to the Wikidata elements listed above. --VladXe (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
VladXe: I think all new itemd should be created by now. --Succu (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahlbergia ferrea[edit]

Hi, could you explain your reasoning behind splitting Ahlbergia ferrea and Callophrys ferrea? Most sources seem to claim that they are one and the same species. On Wikispecies, the latter redirects to the former. Ellpicre (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not merge items with different taxon name (P225). We have to keep them because of structural reasons (note Lycaena ferrea (Q25351077)). Please move sitelinks instead. --Succu (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Omma rutherfordi as basionuym for Beutelius rutherfordi[edit]

Hi @Succu: Going on the fact that the automatic description pulled in by User:99of9 for the image of Omma rutherfordi is Beutelius rutherfordi, I believe the Australian insect community (here CSIRO) has accepted the evidence given by the paper, "The extant species of the genus Omma Newman and description of Beutelius gen. nov. (Coleoptera: Archostemata: Ommatidae: Ommatinae)" (2020-01-24, Hermes E. Escalona, John F. Lawrence, Adam Slipinski), and changed the species name for Omma rutherfordi to Beutelius rutherfordi which would mean that Omma rutherfordi is the basionym of Beutelius rutherfordi (unless of course Omma rutherfordi was originally named to some other genus). It's an Australian beetle so I had been going with the Australian taxonomy. MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Margaret! It's not a plant, so please use original combination (P1403) instead of basionym (P566). Regards --Succu (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Succu: (just too hideously ignorant. Thanks for this) I'll make the change then? MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but using The extant species of the genus Omma Newman and description of Beutelius gen. nov. (Coleoptera: Archostemata: Ommatidae: Ommatinae) (Q86998140) (with a page number) would be a better source... --Succu (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Would you make the necessary changes please, and then I can see what you have done (and perhaps manage to do things better next time). Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Done. --Succu (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi, hope you're well. I've seen that you removed my edit to this genus, Sittiab (Q30034290). My understanding is that it's currently considered that its creation in 2017 was a mistake, that the species within the genus should remain within the genus they were originally in, Atinella. This is the paper cited on Wikipedia for this, and it's my understanding that this is accepted by the World Spider Catalog.

Do you know what the correct coding for this is? As you can imagine I'm keen to make sure I get this right. Blythwood (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! basionym (Q810198) is for plants only. You already established the correct relationship here. I added a reference. --Succu (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ebola virus[edit]

Ebola virus is not a specie. It is a viral strain, of the main specie Zaire ebolavirus. --Gambo7 (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Until 1995 Ebola virus was a species! It was then splitted into the three species Ebola virus Zaire (Q69997225), Ebola virus Sudan (Q69997237) and Ebola virus Reston (Q69997241) (see here). For the strain we have Ebola virus (Q22107066). --Succu (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok then Ebola virus (Q10538943) is about the old classified species? Or about the current strain (Ebola virus (Q22107066))? Because on (and other wikis) the article linked to wikidata is about the strain (see species:Ebola_virus) --Gambo7 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but you moved the Wikispecies sitelink from Ebola virus (Q22107066) (strain) to Ebola virus (Q10538943) (former species). Probably most articles belong to Ebola virus Zaire (Q69997225). Please undo your changes an move the sitelinks instead. --Succu (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Tropicos ID[edit]

Hi Succu,

please use Tropicos publication ID (P4904) for publications tracked by Tropicos and not Tropicos ID (P960), these are two different things. See . Thanks --Hannes Röst (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Hannes! Das ist mir bewusst. Solche Fehler passieren leider manchmal. Aber sie lassen sich ja relativ leicht auffinden. Danke fur's Aufpassen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
kein Problem! --Hannes Röst (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dog and Canis Lupus Familiaris[edit]

Hi, the items I merged were about the same thing. Canis Lupus Familiaris is the scientific name for dogs. The article in Spanish Wikipedia and the other articles in Q26972265 didn't have all the interwikis. ¿Why did you revert it? ¿Did I do something wrong? Kind Regards.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 17:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Zootaxa duplicates[edit]

@ succu: Hi, I think I can fix a lot of the Zootaxa stuff using some scripts I've been working on, but this requires that I know the set of duplicates before I start. How do you feel about holding off manually fixing duplicates for a few days while I see if I can automate the process? What I'm aiming to do is merge duplicates in a way that keeps only one title, one set of pages, one date, and tries to not remove author mappings that people have done already. --Rdmpage (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, if you want to fix them all manually, that's fine too. Just let me know and I can move on to other things. --Rdmpage (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey Roderic! I think you should move on to other things. :) I don't think developing algorithms to fix the issues has a potential for reuse. Sometimes manuell power is more efficient. --Succu (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Succu Sure, if you're happy to do the work manually that's fine by me. I know what you mean about sometimes doing things manually can be more efficient. The other thing that remains to be done is add all the missing Zootaxa articles. I have downloaded a complete (I think) list from CrossRef, and have cross matched that list to PubMed, so it should be straightforward to add all of those without creating additional duplicates. --Rdmpage (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Vogelnamen[edit]

Hallo Succu,
in der Redaktion ist gerade der Hinweis auf eine neue und international anerkannte Liste der deutschen Trivialnamen aller Vogelarten der Erde gepostet wurden. Die angesprochene Datei ist hier verfügbar. Siehst du eine Chance, das via skript auszulesen und hier einzuspielen? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Achim! Nicht ohne größeren Aufwand. Aber ich könnte die in der IOC World Bird List Version 10.1 (Q83589462) aufgeführten taxon common name (P1843) prüfen und ggf. hinzufügen bzw. belegen. Zuletzt habe ich das anhand der IOC World Bird List Version 6.4 (Q27907675) getan. --Succu (talk)
Moin, klingt doch schonmal nach 'nem Plan. Wenn die Gesamtliste aufwändig ist, wird sie verschoben - war auch erstmal nur ein Gedanke. Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Achim, der Bot läuft jetzt. --Succu (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
... und war dann heute endlich mit allen Sprachen durch. :( --Succu (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Achim: IOC World Bird List Version 10.2 (Q98069412) enthält jetzt wohl diese deutschen Namen. Mal schaun... Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Achim: Mit IOC World Bird List Version 10.2 (Q98069412) entsprechend belegt bzw. hinzufügt. --Succu (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


Hi, why did you change "moth"(Q1725788) to taxon rank: Order? As far as I know it's not consider a suborder but a paraphyletic group under the Lepidoptera order. Am I wrong? --Ronam20 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You removed the mandatory taxon rank property. --Succu (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I see. I don't really know how to fix it. Maybe we should change the "instance of" parameter from "taxon" to "organisms known by a particular common name" (but I'm not sure so I'll leave it as is). Thanks anyway. --Ronam20 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Taxref alignment[edit]

How is done the existing alignment between Wikidata and the TAXREF ID ? Are you the author of this ?

The number of alignments obtained by SPARQL on Wikidata is quite small; this returns a total number of 32932 URI's triples :




But, replacing wdtn:P3186 with wdt:P3186 , one gets a total number of integer ID triples of 179236 .  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmvanel (talk • contribs).

Hello Jean-Marc. What I'm doing here is to map taxon name (P225) to TAXREF ID (P3186). I started this with TAXREF v9.0 (Q26936509). TAXREF v13.0 (Q79844869) has 172564 matches. As far as I know the mapping to wdtn (= is done by formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) = "$1/13.0". So I think something is wrong and you should report this at Wikidata:Contact the development team. --Succu (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Succu. Although I'm a expert of SPARQL , what you're doing in this query is mysterious to me. Is it just for counting, or a variant of it was used for populating TAXREF ID (P3186) ? Did you load beforehand somehow the TAXREF CSV to Wikidata ? Is there a general document explaining the procedure to populate in batch a property ?
I'm the one who added formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) = "$1/13.0" , and it worked as expected , except that many URI's are missing, which I'll report .  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmvanel (talk • contribs).
The SPARQL query is looking for this kind of reference. I'm using a local copy of TAXREF to add an id with a referenece if the id is not present. I do not create new items based on TAXREF records. --Succu (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Succu, Are you using Help:QuickStatements to populate in batch the property ? Do you keep a (shell) script of the procedure ? By "local copy of TAXREF" , do you mean on your machine or inside Wikidata ? Sorry for the many questions, but I'm rather new to data import in Wikidata.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmvanel (talk • contribs).
No problem. I do not use QuickStatements (QS). In 2013 I started to devleop my own code to edit Wikidata. My bot is running on my private PC accessing data at my local harddrive. Please note: I do not add TAXREF ids which are regarded as synonyms, because they redirect to the accepted/valid name. --Succu (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Names in Coleus[edit]

Hi, Succubot has added names in Coleus resulting from the major 2019 revision, which saw this genus restored with 294 species. It has automatically repeated the IPNI ID for PoWO, which is usually correct. However, most of these names have not been added to PoWO. So if you look at Coleus argentatus (Q88985054), the PoWO link fails. My understanding is that the names will eventually be added to PoWO (Covid-19 delays?), so I myself think this is ok, but I thought I should tell you in case you didn't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Peter, thanks for reporting this. I did not simply „repeated the IPNI ID for PoWO“. The information about the PoWO ID comes from a IPNI data download for the year 2019. But I think I should better check the existenz of the PoWO page in the future. --Succu (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a special case – they have started to put the new Coleus names into PoWO if you look at [2] but only completed up to epithets A–C. I think, as I said above, it's probably because Kew is closed because of Covid-19 (as the reply I got when I e-mailed them said). Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Different Coleus issue[edit]

Initially I thought that Coleus comosus (Q16540779) was a mis-spelling of Coleus caninus, and incorrectly edited it, but then I saw de:Verpiss-dich-Pflanze (ich kann Deutsch lesen, aber nicht sehr gut schreiben). I set up Coleus caninus (Q97961770), but I'm not sure how to complete Coleus comosus (Q16540779) – or maybe it should be deleted, as "Coleus canina" is an incorrect name for Coleus comosus, syn. Plectranthus ornatus. Can you sort this please? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've made some edits. I hope they help- --Succu (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bot buthchers IUCN statuses[edit]

I have updated three times changed IUCN statuses but your bot always chages them to their outdated versions. These are Q4036982, Q526549, Q526549, and Q148829. There might be other items that other users have updated. I do not wish to have to continuously fix them. --Nitraus (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please check your wording. I forgot to change the datafile from "2020.1" to "2020.2". Sorry for that. --Succu (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: There is a problem at IUCN. E.g. id 78922619 at Quercus guyavifolia (Q15337764) should redirect to the current assessment. --Succu (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The run with the correct data file has finished. Did my bot „butchered“ any entries now, Nitraus? --Succu (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
They seem to be in order. If I was rude, I apologize. I got a bit frustrated with the situation and, in my opinion, not very intuitive and sometimes even bad usability of Wikidata. --Nitraus (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

IUCN updates[edit]

Is your bot simply replacing old statuses? Gambusia hurtadoi (Q302451) is classified in 2020.2 as critically endangered, but was classified in 1996 as Vulnerable, 1994 as Vulnerable, 1990 as Vulnerable, 1988 as Rare, and 1986 as Rare. We should store this information as well somehow (in order to see trends), with start time (P580) and end time (P582) etc. (tJosve05a (c) 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. The assessment as Vulnerable (VU) in 1996 is probably different from Vulnerable (V) in 1994 and 1990. What is the definition of „Rare” (1988, 1986)? --Succu (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Daspletosaurus torosus (Q132665) and Daspletosaurus (Q18511071) need resolution[edit]

I see that you have done some work on this item, then there is another where the species and the genus are munged to the point that we have UGH-ness.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

UGH-ness? Since 2017 the genus Daspletosaurus (Q18511071) is no longer monotypic (see: Daspletosaurus horneri (Q56316452)), so a lot of articles have to be updated. The general problem is the placement (=lemma) of monotypic genera. In my opinion they should be placed at species level, not genus level. The wikis have different rules for that. --Succu (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Slow down[edit]

Your bot has made 135,540 in the last 12 hours, 3 per second. It's causing the maxlag to stay high for everyone and tools break. Slow down. Amir (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Besides maxlag is there any parameter I should use to "slow down" my bot actions? --Succu (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
No more than 60 edits per minute Amir (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Could you please give me a link to that kind of restriction? I'm unaware of such one. --Succu (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

said to be the same as (P460)[edit]

Hello, is there another way to model this? see Newmanella spinosa (Q25353552) and Newmanella spinosa (Q63724087). Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Christian! Both items should be merged. I added some sources to Newmanella (Q15731712) and Newmanella spinosa (Q25353552). The species was published as Newmanella spinosus. But I think the gender of the genus is feminine, see ICZN article 30.2. Gender of names formed from words that are neither Latin nor Greek. But I'm not sure. --Succu (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed. In such cases, and when it ends with a -a and when the author did not specify the gender, it is considered as feminine. I merged the both items. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing PoWO links[edit]

In this edit, Succubot added a PoWO ID that doesn't currently exist: 60478400-2. I've seen several such cases lately. I know that PoWO has not been maintained because Kew staff have been furloughed. I wonder if the entry did exist and the PoWO database has been rolled back somehow, since the problem seems to affect names from 2019 onwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Peter, same answer as in #Names in Coleus. Download date was March 24, 2020. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly the same issue. We should live with these failing links for now, I think, because I believe that PoWO will be fixed again. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

instance of (P31) recombination (Q14594740)[edit]

Hi, I was thinking on hown we could make an exception from constraint for that instance of (P31) can be used as a qualifier on taxa pages, when I had an idea. If we move original combination (P1403) as a possible qualifier of taxon name (P225) we obtain the same result but in one field instead of two. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And we won't need to use instance of (P31) recombination (Q14594740) anymore as it will be implicit that the items with original combination (P1403) will be recombinations. Though it is in fact already the case now, the only potential issue is that now (with instance of (P31) recombination (Q14594740)) we don't need to have items for the original combinations to make it clear that the taxa are recombinations, however I have heard that Wikidata is about structured datas so... Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! The qualifier construct instance of (P31) = recombination (Q14594740) was introduced before we had original combination (P1403). It allows our Taxobox to show parentheses around the authorship. Today adding original combination (P1403) should have the same effect. Please note this problem. Sometimes we know that a name is a recombination (Q14594740), but don't know the real original combination (P1403). My idea was to set the propery to "unknown value", but this is not working at the moment (see Unknown value throws error). With this solution we could generate (with SPARQL) a working list of missing taxon names. --Succu (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You can use unknown (Q24238356) and set exception to constraint (P2303) for that value in the relevant properties. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the "natural" wikidata way would be to use "unknown value". I think this is only a minor bug in the Taxobox. Unfortunately the modul has no maintainer. --Succu (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Lycophyte issues[edit]

See [3]. This user has made a complete hash of high-level lycophyte taxon data items. I've cleaned up two, but there is so much damage it will take a more practiced hand to clean it all up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Changkyun Kim[edit]

Hi, it is likely that Changkyun Kim (Q47120117) is the same person than Changkyun Kim (Q33679017) and the third author in Mazus sunhangii (Mazaceae), a New Species Discovered in Central China Appears to Be Highly Endangered (Q28596909). Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is. --Succu (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


I saw you reverted my edits on Q4600603 and Q2071578. Please see the latest synonymous update on World Odonata List. Anaciaeschna donaldi is now a synonym of Anaciaeschna martini.[1][2] Hylaeothemis indica is now a synonym of Hylaeothemis apicalis.[3][2] Let me know if there a better way to handle them. Jee 02:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  2. 2.0 2.1
Your changes caused "constraint violations" you probably overlooked. Please use taxon synonym (P1420) for subjective synonyms and add a reference (stated in (P248)=World Odonata List (Q13561342)) along with retrieved (P813). --Succu (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Mexikanische Sumpfzypresse[edit]

Hallo, warum wurde das Zusammenfügen von Taxodium mucronatum (Q1429751) und Taxodium huegelii (Q17275256) rückgängig gemacht? Das ist laut es:Taxodium huegelii die selbe Pflanze. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Eine Wikipedia ist keine Quelle. Außerdem führen wir heterotypische Synonyme nicht zusammen. --Succu (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Bird names[edit]

Hi Succu - a few days ago you've added a whole lot of bird names tagged as Danish (da), but they're actually Dutch (nl); example (and my removal of this one). They are duplicates of Dutch names already in WD. I don't know if the error is at the IOC source, or in entry here. Can you sort them, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi MPF. You are right. Cause was a C&P error in my source code. Unfortunately every version of the underlying Excel spreadsheet has a different format. I will fix this within the next few days. Regards. --Succu (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi again - I fear I've discovered a similar case of Ukrainian names (in cyrillic text!) entered tagged as Indonesian. Hope it can be solved! - MPF (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed this two days ago. There is a third language issue is/se. I will fix them. --Succu (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@MPF: Should be done. --Succu (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Fungus genus Sphaerotheca[edit]

According to Index Fungorum, there are two different fungus genera: Sphaerotheca Desv. (see [4]) and Sphaerotheca Lev. (see [5]). The former is a nom. rej. against the latter. The Wikidata item Sphaerotheca (Q46109) confuses them; if I follow the database identifier links I can find both names. I think you can fix this better than I could. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. One problem was caused by User:Thierry Caro. --Succu (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

For Bot: IUCN taxon ID[edit]

{Google translate from Russian}. IUCN once again changed IUCN taxon ID (P627) some birds: Everett's White-eye (Q2225846) 22714068 → 155179593; Japanese White-eye (Q700028) 22714033 → 155158005. You need to check all the birds and update the ID. Thank you in advance. --VladXsmall (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are only some differences I think. --Succu (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Subspecies and variety[edit]

As your bot created Scrophularia nodosa var. occidentalis (Q39928313): Is it actually different from Scrophularia nodosa occidentalis (Q49413512)? Can there be varieties and subspecies with the same name? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. BTW, I didn't created the second one. I think Scrophularia nodosa occidentalis (Q49413512) is an error in iNaturalist (Q16958215).--Succu (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Anything that could be done about this error? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


I have started a discussion about our revision in P577, could you at least explain why you reverted it? It did not negatively effect anything, but was helpful and made it more consistent with the other properties relating to publications (specifically for books). Thanks. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I see from your all the other complaints above that you own WikiData, I will make sure to ask your permission before editing anything in the future. Please explain why you reverted the reasonable edit that did not negatively impact anything. I will be seeking dispute resolution shortly if I do not here back. Please, try to assume good faith next time, maybe then your talk page wouldn't be riddled with hundreds of complaints of your disruptive editing. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you know Wikidata:WikiProject Books, Footlessmouse? --Succu (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't spend all my time editing wikidata, so no. If you have something to say, say it, I asked for justification not for my intelligence to be insulted in an offhand manner. If you would be just half as rude, you would get far less complaints. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I did. Please spend some time to understand how WD works instead of reverting. --Succu (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
THIS IS A WIKI!!! HOW DARE YOU REVERT ALL MY WORK WITHOUT EXPALNATION AND CALL ME STUPID IN THE PROCESS!!! WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU???? I have opened up a discussion in the administrators noticeboard. You erased all the identifiers, the ISBNs the page numbers, what the ****???
Also, you're statement of me reading about Wiki before reverting is incoherent, all the book articles have identifiers that you erased and YOU REVERTED not me, I was trying to undo your MASSIVE VANDALISM of the page. Please stope vandalizing WikiData!!! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Mind to calm down? --Succu (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

YOU CALLED ME STUPID!!! SO NO!!! ALSO YOU BLANKED A PAGE I WOKRED ON FOR OVER AN HOUR, SO NO!!! Let me make a list of all the things that your precious WikiData WikiProject Books lists should be included with items about works, wo we can all see exactly how far your vandalism extended, these are all items you erased in bad faith:

  1. language of work or name
  2. main subject
  3. image
  4. Dewey Decimal Classification
  5. Library of Congress Classification
  6. OCLC
  7. LibraryThing work ID

That's just what I picked out from a quick survey Footlessmouse (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi Succu, Your bot created Hieracium jurassicum subsp. elegantissimum (Q92926216) which according to IPNI is isonym of Hieracium jurassicum subsp. elegantissimum (Q92926262). I think the first one does not deserve an item, do you? I'm a afraid there are a couple more of these pairs. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria! I'm aware of the problem and fixing some items from time to time. I merged the items and deprecated the "wrong" values. --Succu (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, encountering these I will do the same. Lymantria (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) (P.S. I don't see your deprecation actions...)
Here they are. BTW: Thx for merging a lot of duplicates. --Succu (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks for showing the diff that I overlooked. Lymantria (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Odontoceti - Toothed whale[edit]

This is not a subordo, but a parvordo. Nowdays the Cetacea infraordo belongs to the Artiodactyla ordo. Please look at this [6]. DenesFeri (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You changed the value of a sourced statement. Please don't do this again. If you think the statement is not correct add another sourced statement for taxon rank (P105). Thanks. BTW enWP is not a source. --Succu (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you undo the corrections? Why makes you happy doing that? I can't put sources and other stuffs in them - I already sad that on my talkpage -, I can only correct the changes made in the classifications. Some things change; that's life. DenesFeri (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Giraffina (Q102132044) is empty! If you wish to refer to an alternative taxonomy add a new statement for parent taxon (P171) with a good reference. Again: Do not change the value of existing statements at will. --Succu (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@DenesFeri: Please stop this kind of edits. They are not helpful. huWP is not a source. --Succu (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I know. It makes both our lives harder. But I will not tolerate vandalism anymore. I can't put sources/refrences here; not because I don't want to, but because I don't know how. And what I'm doing is the correct, today accepted classification. If you can't build on it than stop. What we are doing is stupid. I worked more than 3 months on this. DenesFeri (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

„today accepted classification” - I doubt that. You should be able to add statements to Giraffina (Q102132044). Please note the icon behind the statements you changed at will. --Succu (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
„I will not tolerate vandalism anymore.“ - Your edit comment is not helpful. Obviously you don't know how different taxonomic opinions are handled here. You are constantly ignoring my hints. --Succu (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Today I will try to give you some refrences/sources. So don't undo my work. Wait. DenesFeri (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Look at this 2: Talk:Q101975952 and Talk:Q102132044. If you can, than put in the articles those sources, because I can't. DenesFeri (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC) And this Talk:Q160. DenesFeri (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, User:DenesFeri, you did it again, again and again. Wikidata is not about a single taxonomic point of view or a consensus taxonomy. An example of multiple viewpoints is Q14560#P171. So please revert yourself and add a new statement. --Succu (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
As far I can tell after a cursory look, most of the references you gave link to strange websites and are outdated. --Succu (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
BTW: From a taxonomic POV your article (created 2020-11-19) on huWP about giraffe (Q862089) is pretty much out of date. --Succu (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

WOW! I really tried, but you just don't want to try. That's sad. DenesFeri (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

From WD:AN: So please revert yourself, DenesFeri, in all similar cases. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Succu, do whatever you want. I will not undo your work anymore. But be sure that deliberately I won't fuck my own work. DenesFeri (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@DenesFeri: Please, note that your are obliged to fix wrong edits yourself, which should not be seen as f*** your own work (please, mind your language), but fix your own work. It gets better. And it is not fair to request from others to fix any mess you made. Lymantria (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lymantria: Well, that's the problem; in my opinion/viewpoint I didn't made any mess. And Succu would happily undo my work. I'm done with this; don't bother me with it anymore. Cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@DenesFeri: Removing statements that have valuable sources, e.g. ITIS, is indeed something you should repair. Lymantria (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@DenesFeri: No, I'm not happy to revert your changes. I'm not happy that you don't try to understand (=learn) how different taxonomic viewpoints are modeled here at Wikidata at the moment. Especially that the value of sourced statement should not be changed or that changing the parent genus of a species to a different genus is an error. --Succu (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Marmosa paraguayana[edit]

Another bad faith edit like this one and you're getting reported for vandalism. As you well know, the rules say "The value for taxon name (P225) in this (or any) item shouldn't be changed (except for spelling corrections). If a taxonomic paper or book introduces a name change, create a new item for the new name (if needed) and add a statement with taxon synonym (P1420) to that item."

--Leptictidium (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) You created a duplicate of Marmosa paraguayana (Q20829969). --Succu (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of the rule is to create a new item for the new taxon name —of course some properties are going to be duplicates, albeit with different values and extra statements such as taxon synonym (P1420). You would've seen the differences if you hadn't pounced on the new item literally four minutes (!) after I created it and unilaterally merged it while I was still filling it in. In the future, please leave a message on my talk page before acting so brashly. Thank you.--Leptictidium (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec) So what exactly is the difference between Marmosa paraguayana (Q104248128) (P225=Marmosa paraguayana) and Marmosa paraguayana (Q20829969) (P225=Marmosa paraguayana)? --Succu (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC) PS: The mess was ceated by you in 2018. Regards --Succu (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The "mess" I created worked perfectly for almost three years, and it was your edits this evening that broke things. I've fixed a couple of statements and no longer object to the merger; if you want to redo it, go ahead. It would've helped us to approach this matter from a perspective of cooperation, not confrontation, if you had left me a message on my talk page outlining the supposed problems instead of unilaterally merging/reverting my edits four minutes (!) after I created the item. I hope next time you'll approach this differently. Have a nice evening.--Leptictidium (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
So I fixed it again. --Succu (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Q5979051 reversions[edit]

This is in reference the following edits you made:

I based my edits adding these as subclass of (P279) upon a few criteria:

  1. each has a Chinese label including "麦" or "麥", e.g.:
  2. each has a Japanese label or alias including "ムギ", e.g.:
  3. These are all listed on w:ja:ムギ

You can see from wikt:麦 and wikt:麥 that the Japanese pronounce these characters as "mugi" (which they can also write as むぎ or ムギ) or "baku" (which they can also write as ばく or バク). The English wikitionary entries also mentions wheat, barley, rye, and oats as being types of "mugi".

You are free to attempt to go around reverting all of those as well but methinks you will get major push back. In that light, I ask that you revert your own reversions. In the future, please do not revert statements about topics you clearly know nothing about. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


„Nice.” DenesFeri (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Two problems were solved:
  1. A merge of two different scientific names. We keep them on separate items to model the relatonship between them.
  2. A species AAAAA xxxxx placed in the genus AAAAA can not have genus BBBBB as a parent taxon. If BBBBB is a subgenus of AAAAA all is fine.
--Succu (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Accidental revert?[edit]

Was this a mistake? It seems to me that statement was correct. Ainali (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The IUCN statements belong to Heteromys salvini (Q27915670), not to Liomys salvini (Q115759). --Succu (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh! I corrected the enwiki sitelink then which confused me. Thanks! Ainali (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Bad merge of journal[edit]

Hi, you merged for different things ("Časopis Musea království Českého" vs "Časopis Musea Království Českého, Oddíl Přírodovědný". So i need to create again. Skim (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for that. --Succu (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Erinaceus coronavirus and Hedgehog coronavirus[edit]

As of 2020, there is only one Hedgehog coronavirus found, so Ithink these two item should be merged.--Htmlzycq (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

EriCoV is a strain, not a species. --Succu (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, how to merge Q92260642 to Q17305810, same guy.--Htmlzycq (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

See Help:Merge. I did it for you. --Succu (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Succu, Htmlzycq: I  Oppose merge both, as zhwiki article describes the Erinaceus coronavirus, not Hedgehog coronavirus 1 as enwiki, fawiki and specieswiki describe. Better to resolve issues via Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

should be merge: Q97355183 to Q67484216, same guy.--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Periparus reverted merge[edit]

Hello (and happy new year)!
The scientific names Periparus ater melanolophus and Periparus melanolophus refer to the exact same taxon (which has been treated as its own [monotypic] species in the past but is now most commonly treated as a subspecies of Periparus ater), so accordingly I merged the two Wikidata items Q4832051 (Periparus melanolophus) and Q27623432 (Periparus ater melanolophus). I noticed you recently reverted that merge, and I'm curious as to what your reasoning was for doing so (making it so there are once again two separate active Wikidata items for the same taxonomic concept under different names). Spizaetus (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We have items for different names. Please note e.g. Q22231233#P2868. --Succu (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain your edits on Q104412033[edit]

Hi, can you please explain your edits on Cluster 5 (Q104412033)? The link to SARS-CoV-2 is lost, and love to hear how you would make that link. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Egon. I fixed a constraint violation. There is no parent taxon relationship between two strains or groups of strains. A possible solution is to use the qualifier of. Regards. --Succu (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Veronia ornata[edit]

There are two taxa with this binomial: Vernonia ornata Talbot and Vernonia ornata S.Moore. I think it was SuccuBot that put some of the taxonomic database ids for Vernonia ornata S.Moore in Vernonia ornata Talbot (Q15567883). I've created a new item Vernonia ornata S.Moore (Q104703897) and moved the incorrect ids and language wikipedia links.

Vernonia ornata S.Moore appears to be a later homonym, and thus illegitimate, although PoWO states that it is an accepted species. I will query this with IPNI. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. The authorship of Vernonia ornata Talbot (Q15567883) was added by MargaretRDonald. --Succu (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Change of status[edit]

Hello, Succu. I am interested in information about change of status on taxa (which became extinct, which ceased to be unsafe and so on), but there are no such info in Wikidata. Your silent reverts don't help. What can you propose instead? --Infovarius (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Infovarius, I think you are aware of the previous discussions since the creation of this property. BTW: your query is incorrect. --Succu (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There seems multiple support at Property talk:P141 of historical data, but some "dis-help" from you. And can you comment how the query is incorrect? --Infovarius (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Your usage of start time (P580) is amibgouse. The realevant discussions started earlier at another place. I don't remember exactly where. --Succu (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

taxon rank (P105)[edit]

You reverted my changes to give a preference to a taxon rank, I respect this. Maybe I'm not aware of the fact that many queries rely on getting muliple ranks.

Anyhow: My oppinion is that of course everybody should be smart enough to write queries that return multiple ranks, and then take the lowest or highest or a random one, but: only a human beeing can decide which one is the preferred one to use (e.g. based on number of sources or reliance of the source). And I took the liberty to be this human beeing. Let me not die in ignorance.--Faring (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2021(UTC)

btw: Ich vergaß Dir ein gutes neues Jahr zu wünschen, Grüße aus Süddeutschland.

Ein Mensch - in dem Fall du - hat willkürlich eine Behauptung bevorzugt. Hätte dieser Mensch - immer noch du - gleichzeitig einen Beleg hinzugefügt, wäre diese Bevorzugung ggf. nachvollziehbar gewesen. --Succu (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, das akzeptiere ich (ich habe die de:wp und en:wp für meine Willkür herangezogen und hätte das ja niergends vermerken können).
Darf ich noch eine Frage loswerden: Ich schreibe gerade einen kleinen Taxonomy-Browser (daher meine Aktivitäten). Ein wesentliches Problem entsteht durch die Tatsache, dass wir hier ja keine eindeutige Taxonomy beschreiben sondert der Taxonomy-Baum durch mehrfache parent taxon (P171) mehrdeutig wird. Um das zu lösen, müsste mann entweder verlässliche Algorithmen beschreiben, welchen Zweig man benutzt oder eben auch bei den übergeordneten Taxa preferierte Werte erlauben (z.B. die Tatsache, dass eine Kladde angelegt ist bedeutet ja, dass man sie auch in dem Baum benutzen möchte). Gibt es dazu schon eine Diskussion. Danke --Faring (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Was soll dein „kleine[r] Taxonomy-Browser“ denn leisten? Durch den „Baum des Lebens“ navigieren? Das wird nicht funktionieren und die Eigenschaft taxon rank (P105) allein reicht dazu nicht aus. In Teilbereichen des Baumes kann man sich entlang stated in (P248) hangeln. --Succu (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Danke für Deine Antwort. Ja, eigentlich schon der "Baum des Lebens", ich habe jetzt verstanden, dass ich erst mal als Fingerübung die Taxonomien Class Mammalia Linnaeus, 1758 (Q19302303) und Mammal Species of the World (Q1538807) (die gibte es ja beide als Dumps) übereinander legen muss, um zu sehen, ob ich die beiden schneiden kann oder ob daraus eine "Super-Taxonomy" entsteht. Dann kann ich hier vielleicht auch die nächste intelligente Frage stellen.--Faring (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Eine intersection (Q185837) der beiden "Quellem" wirst du erst ab dem Rank „Familie“ finden. --Succu (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ich meinte schneiden nicht im mathematischen Sinn. Wenn wir uns die sehr überschaubaren Kloakentiere (Monotremata) anschauen:


  • Class Mammalia
    • Order Monotremata
      • Family Tachyglossidae
      • Family Ornithorhynchidae


  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family Ornithorhynchidae

Linné ∪ MSW (zusätzlich):

  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family Ornithorhynchidae

Linné ∩ MSW (entfernt):

  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family Ornithorhynchidae

wir hier (mehrfach):

  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Suborder Platypoda
          • Family Ornithorhynchidae
        • Family Ornithorhynchidae
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family ...

könnte ergeben "Baum des Lebens" (normalisiert):

  • Class Mammalia
    • Subclass Prototheria
      • Order Monotremata
        • Suborder Platypoda
          • Family Ornithorhynchidae
        • Family Tachyglossidae
        • Family ...

Es könnte also also Schnitt-, Vereingungs- und normalisiert Mengen von Taxonomien geben. Ich arbeite dran. Danke --Faring (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Mammalian Species[edit]

Hi Succu,
ich habe heute mal die Ausgaben der Mammalian Species (Q1637051) bis 23.12.2020 / No. 999 vervollständigt. Die Abfrage von dir habe ich um die beschriebene Art ergänzt (main subject (P921), [7]). Vielleicht kann man main subject (P921) für alle Ausgaben automatisiert ergänzen und im Gegenzug described by source (P1343) bei den Arten ergänzen? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Achim, ich hab deine Anfrage nicht vergessen. Nach der Korrrektur einiger Einträge habe ich für main subject (P921) einen groben Plan im Kopf. described by source (P1343) mag ich nicht :( Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Lustie Taxa zur Speicherung von Autoren[edit]

Hallo Succu, ist Deine Antwort zu unserem französische Kollegen die kurze Form von "viel Spass beim Fixen, das wird ein dickes Brett?". --Faring (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Die Frage an den Erststeller war nach Beweggrund und insbesondere Belegen. --Succu (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Participants[edit]

Hey, I was fixing the list so that it doesn't show a vertical list when someone pings the project. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It made the list unreadable. --Succu (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
It was readable on WikiProject Taxonomy; where it needs to be. But with the current setup, it is not really great when used to ping users. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert on bird[edit]

If a subclass property is not permitted on bird, then other items for types of birds are getting a constraint violation: flightless bird (Q865137), migratory bird (Q10950298), cavity-nesting bird (Q105238402), etc. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect taxon item edits[edit]

User:Albert SN has been trying to "fix" taxon items that are synonyms. See, e.g., Haworthia fasciata (Q219511). I don't know whether there is an easy way to undo these incorrect edits. It took me a long while to correct Haworthia coarctata (Q247770) and Haworthiopsis coarctata (Q58927106), where the entries in the second had been manually put into the first and then it was made a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey Peter! I usually revert to the last working revision (e.g. [8]) and undo wrong merges too. --Succu (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

taxon synonym[edit]

Hi, I saw you added a constraint to that property. Is that ok, or your goal is it to encourage citing the publication in which the synonymy was made. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I added the constraint to encourage references. Generally I would prefer a scientific publication, but a reference to a notable, curated database is fine. But maybe you should add retrieved (P813)} too. Regards. --Succu (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
ok, thanks Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, do you think that is ok, I mean "reference has role: synonym" or should we create an item "source of synonymy"? Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need a reference has role (P6184) at all. The relationship between taxon synonym (P1420) and the publication given via stated in (P248) is clear and dosn't need a further refinement. --Succu (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
ok, fine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Neottia/Listera cordata unmerge[edit]

Ho, you reverted half of my edits in Listera cordata (Q157891) and Neottia cordata (Q15502195), but not the other half. In my edits I tried to reflect what is written in en:Neottia cordata - "It was formerly placed in the genus Listera, but molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that Neottia nidus-avis, the Bird's-nest Orchid, evolved within the same group.". I don't understand what you tried to do (other than unmerge), but at this moment both of items are very inconsistent, they have mixed labels, sitelinks, external identifiers, etc. Could you do something with it? Thank you for your hard work. --Lockal (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think all is fine after your merge. Please don't cite a Wikipeda as a source. --Succu (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Type specimens and URLs[edit]

NMNZ EC.000109 (Q105585285)
NMNZ EC.001204 (Q105620032)
What do you think? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The property was created with the hint Preferably use a specialized property like P856, URL P854, or P1065. Otherwise, qualify with P642., but a mandatory usage of of (P642) was not discussed in the property proposal. Honestly: I do not understand the reason for that qualifier. I was not aware of it and will ignore it in the future. --Succu (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the answer. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Plant genera with genus names the same as those of fungi genera[edit]

This bot keeps adding Australian fungi IDs to plant genera with the same name. See e.g. Cyclotheca (Q5199064). In many cases, I have added statements indicating 1) authors are different and 20 a "different from" statement" but I think that after I have removed the Ausfungi statement it gets added again. Could you organise the bot to stop adding the fungiIDs to plant genera?

You should add a no value statement. This prevents the readding. BTW: There is only one first run by my bot to add Australian Fungi ID (P9076). Regards --Succu (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hesiocaeca methanicola (Q150296) vs. Sirsoe methanicola (Q61623669)[edit]

Hallo Succu, magst du mal schauen, ob diese beiden Items zusammengeführt werden können? Zweiteres hatte ja dein Bot angelegt. --Leyo 19:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Leyo! Beide Datenobjekte werden benötigt. Sie sind jetzt miteinander verknüpft. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Na gut, aber dann sollten wohl die Interwikilinks und das Bild ins Item mit dem aktuellen Namen verschoben werden. Bei einigen Wikipedia-Sprachversionen sollten die Artikel zudem verschoben und angepasst werden. --Leyo 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Project:Be bold (Q3916099). ;) --Succu (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Na ja, wenn ich von Anfang an mutig gewesen wäre, hätte ich die Items zusammengeführt … --Leyo 21:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hier verschoben („Name laut aktueller Literatur“) durch User:Mister Pommeroy. Ein Zusammenfügen hätte ich früher oder später revertiert. Gruß --Succu (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


Hi, can we merge neotype (Q88178912) and neotype (Q19353453)? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Succu (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


Hi, if a name (not a new name) is available in one publication but not in any database, can we create an item? e.g. Neophyllomyza lii Xi & Yang, 2014 available in Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. We have an item for this article: Three new species of the genus Neophyllomyza Melander (Diptera, Milichiidae) from China, with a revised key to the Chinese species (Q70105082). --Succu (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, will look at it. Maybe by chance you have an answer to that question too? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Tacoma-Pierce County Obituary Index ID[edit]

Darf ich fragen, was dich zu diesen Edits ohne Gegenvorschlag bewogen hat? --Emu (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Phylum Rotifera[edit]

Hi, in Wikispecies a user proposed to provide the database of the available names at species and genus level within the Phylum Rotifera before 2000, the user is very likely one of the authors, maybe you could be interested to have such name list within a format that suits you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning watchlist of your bot[edit]

Hi. Watchlist of your bot (SuccuBot) is more than 2 million rows now and on its own currently responsible for 4% of all of watchlist table. Can I clean the watchlist? Please don't do it yourself. It'll cause issues in the database. See this page for more information. Amir (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Amir. Sure you can. I changed the setting of my bot account. Regards. --Succu (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Amir (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Cleaned. Amir (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


Hi Succu, How are you doing? I saw that you reverted some of my edits where I was merging two elements together as they were taxonomic synonyms, see Q104835856 and Q2242259. I don't really see the point of keeping an element for each name a taxon has, but I am probably missing something. Could you explain it to me, please? Also, what's the best way of merging two synonyms' interwikis and key info if they are to remain separate elements? Has to be done manually? Thank you in advance, --Erfil (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

WD is about structured data. We should be able to relate different names for a taxon to each other (e.g. this one). If you think one item represents the (currently) valid/accepted taxon name you should move all sitelinks to this item. But sometimes there are different options about this. --Succu (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 IRMNG release now available as data dump[edit]

Hi Succu, just letting you know that there is (again) a new release of IRMNG (genera) now available as detailed at (the actual data files are at - hoping that this is still of interest to you with regard to your wikidata activities.

Cheers and best wishes - Tony Rees Tony 1212 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)