User talk:Succu

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

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


IUCN conservation status: text values versus codes[edit]

Hi, is there discussion anywhere about this problem? The wikidata property (P141) has allowable values only as text (e.g., "least concern"). But the Taxobox as used on wikipedia only wants the two letter codes (e.g., "LC"). Without the exact code, the Taxobox won't display the correct graphic.

I was thinking of writing some software to change Taxoboxes to use the value as found in wikidata, replacing all hardcoded entries with {{#property:P141}}. As you know, the benefit would be that when the status is updated in wikidata, any wikipedia article could then instantly also show the updated value.

Is there any workaround for doing this? I'm guessing that the wikidata values are text because that way the text can be inserted into article sentences. Is it possible to add another property for status code, to be used in Taxoboxes?

(I'm approaching this as a programmer. I'm not a taxonomist.)

-- Kenmcl2 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

IUCN conservation status (P141) takes an item as value. So you have to write some LUA code like the one used in Module:Taxobox. --Succu (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Merging of C. semiargus items[edit]

Hi Succu. I have just noticed that you reverted my merging of items Q774218 and Q17619242. I think you misunderstood the problem: both items really refer to the same species, even though this species can have different names. Having two separate items was a technical mistake that has nothing to do with taxonomy, so, they do have to be merged...--LamBoet (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, both items have to be retained. Swwiki has two articles. You removed one to merge the items. I added original combination (P1403) = Papilio semiargus (Q24648280) to both items to make the taxonomic relationship clear. --Succu (talk)
Allow me to insist. The fact that the Swedish wikipedia has 2 articles is a mistake on their part. I have just left some messages on both their discussion pages, requesting them to merge their articles (we never do separate articles for different combinations). I don't see a reason to keep the same mistake on wikidata: Q17619242 has to be removed.--LamBoet (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
As long as there are two articles on svwiki, both should have an item here. Your action now, to repair the mistake at its source is the correct one. The follow up here to remove a valid (=existing) link is not. Lymantria (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I am a bit surprised, but thank you for the explanation. Let's wait for the Swedes to make the correction then.--LamBoet (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This will change nothing. All sitelinks are at Mazarine Blue (Q774218). All three items are necessary to model different taxonomic opinions. --Succu (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, then let me ask more about this. From all I have seen here, I have been assuming that such wikipedia articles and wikidata items are meant to deal with taxa rather than names. Are you saying that wikidata usually mixes both approaches? (Let me stress that Cyaniris semiargus and Polyommatus semiargus are nomenclatural (homotypic) synonyms, not taxonomic ones.)--LamBoet (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
To be correct: they are objective synonyms. Do you really think most wikimedia articles reflect a currently accepted taxonomic viewpoint? Which one in this case? References could help. Hundred thousands wikimedia articles were generated by bots from names taken from unreliable datasources. Names are one option to define a taxon. --Succu (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation about bots. I wasn't even discussing taxonomic viewpoints here (in this case I am not trying to favour either option), just trying to grasp the wikidata logic. In the meantime, thanks to this paragraph I have understood better what the status of the reflexion is.--LamBoet (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

please not[edit]

please stpo to change my work. I only give to the camel, Conservation status and you delite my. 18:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Bactrian camel (Q132922) is not listed at the IUCN red list, but Wild Bactrian camel (Q3030198). Please read the taxonomic notes there. --Succu (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
and with Saunders's Gull? משתמשון (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Saundersilarus saundersi (Q22062067). --Succu (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


I fell to understand why are you reverting the edits of משתמשון in the Wikidata article in the header. He put the page from IUCN red list as reference and you are just reverting him without explanation. I put LC again with reference. Do not touch it without a good reference we made a mistake. If you answer this, please tag me. בורה בורה (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You'll find the taxon concept evaluated in the IUCN red list at Parus lugubris (Q22231640). --Succu (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It look like the Genus name was change or because new classification or because a mistake in original classification. but both item (22231640 and 574281) is the same species, you can see both name in fr and de connected wikipedia. It really strange that IUCN didn't change the name or dont have the second name in the table. - yona b (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No, this isn't strange, but a conscious taxonomic decision. Please read the taxonomic notes at Parus lugubris. BTW: did anyone of you had a look which wikipeda prefers which scientific name? --Succu (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
So is not strange. still almost all wikipedia (only he and pms not), decide to change the name. and it is the same species, name it how you want. - yona b (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Scleroptila gutturalis[edit]

For Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive: "Specific name often given as “levaillantoides” (e.g. in HBW), but gutturalis has priority; also, original spelling of former, levalliantoides, cannot be emended owing to lack of internal evidence". Arturo24 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't simply change taxon name (P225) of an item. Other properties and sources depend on this name. I created Scleroptila gutturalis (Q25269458). Feel free to move some sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice on User Name[edit]

Heya, wanted an opinion on something. I have been considering that it may be a good thing for me to have my user name account changed to my real name. My reasons are that I have been accused by some, in literature, of trying to hide behind an alter ego whilst editing on WM foundation projects. I am not I set this user name over 10 years ago and its the same user name I use for all my online accounts. I have made it very clear on all my user pages here, on Meta, WS and EN WP who I really am. They show my real name, my work and link to my Wikispecies author page and my Orchid ID. However, it may be desirable for credibility reasons to get rid of Faendalimas and have my real name as my account name. I am not concerned about privacy in this, I have a large online presence as my real name anyway as an author of several blogs etc. What do you think? This is not about Stho002, it is people like Ray Hoser etc who have accused me of trying to hide behind a pseudonym. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust, Scott, but I think this is a very personal decision. As I learned about the dark side of Wikipeda & Co I created a second user account with my real name to avoid abuse. I never used this seond acount. So maybe switching to your real name is a good idea in your case. Regards --Succu (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

IUCN conservation status in the context of software[edit]

You have reverted IUCN conservation status applied to a software (and here as well). This is not a mistake and has been documented by the FLOSS project. Would you be so kind as to explain why you reverted this change ? Dachary (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Mind to read the description of IUCN conservation status (P141), Dachary? --Succu (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand this is not the primary use of this property. Do you confirm that you are strongly opposed to using this property in the context of software ? Dachary (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure. --Succu (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
For the record, you removed the conservation status documentation of the FLOSS project. Thank you for taking an interest in this project. Do you think a conservation status property dedicated to software should be created ? It would essentially be identical to IUCN conservation status (P141) and only exist to avoid confusion regarding the context in which it is applied. Dachary (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinus gordoniana[edit]

Hi Succu - why did you undo my revision of (Q147472)? The name Pinus gordoniana (1847) has clear priority over Pinus douglasiana (1943, 96 years later); the latter should be listed as a taxon synonym (P1420) of the former, not a taxon name. I did try to add it as a synonym, but for some reason the 'save' was greyed out so I couldn't get it to stick (see Talk:Q147472). Please restore my edits, and if you can add the synonym, please do. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You can not simply change the value of taxon name (P225). A lot of other properties are based on that name. Your change led to a constraint violation, because we have Pinus gordoniana (Q10349918). If you think one of the names is a synonym use taxon synonym (P1420) to connect them. --Succu (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Baffled - if it can't be changed, why is there an edit button that makes it possible to change it? So how does one go about merging the two under the older name? - MPF (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The sitelinks show clearly that all articles are about Pinus douglasiana (Q147472) and not Pinus gordoniana (Q10349918). We do not merge heterotypic taxa. We use taxon synonym (P1420) to denote a relationship. BTW this property takes an item as value. The Gymnosperm Database offers another taxonomic opionion and treats Pinus gordoniana (Q10349918) as a variety of Pinus montezumae (Pinus montezumae var. gordoniana (Q26269157)). --Succu (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
There's only one Pinus gordoniana, described by Hartweg in 1847. Pinus montezumae var. gordoniana (Hartweg) Silba is a homotypic synonym (and a significant error by Silba, as it does not resemble Pinus montezumae very closely, and is from a different region of Mexico). Pinus douglasiana Martínez is a heterotypic synonym of Pinus gordoniana Hartweg; Martínez described it in 1943 from quite close to Hartweg's discovery, at a time when there was of course no access to libraries or herbarium material in European herbaria (W, K, BM, etc.), so he had no way of knowing if the species he found had already been described or not. So what needs to be done now? The various wikipedia articles about Pinus douglasiana need to be linked to the wikispecies and Commons Pinus gordoniana pages so as to gain access to the data and photos, but I'm not sure how to do this with the setup you have now made. - MPF (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
First of all you'll should provide a good source for your claim „Pinus douglasiana Martínez is a heterotypic synonym of Pinus gordoniana“. --Succu (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Conifer Society of Australia Newsletter 7: 7-10 (1990); Huxley, A., et al., eds. New Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening (Macmillan 1992); Grimshaw, J., & Bayton, R., New Trees: Recent Introductions to Cultivation (Int. Dendrol. Soc. / Kew 2009). - MPF (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
A newsletter of a local society and two horticultural sources? None of them can be checked easily. Are they cited somewhere else? E.g. in A Handbook of the World's Conifers (2010) written by Aljos Farjon (Q2129941). --Succu (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I can send you photocopies if you like. - MPF (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
And what shall I do with them? Are they cited somewhere else? You started this topic with a clear-cut taxonomic opinion. I made a cursorily survey and found (besides wikispecies and commons) no support for your opinion. But feel free to add your opinion via taxon synonym (P1420) and your sources. --Succu (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
So how and where do I add P1420, and how do I add sources? - MPF (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
See Help:Sources. Probably you have to create new items for the publications. Add taxon synonym (P1420) to Pinus gordoniana (Q10349918) with Pinus douglasiana (Q147472) as the value. --Succu (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bearbeitungsfehler MSW[edit]

Moin Succu,
kurze Rücksprache: Mir ist es gerade beim Tachyglossus aculeatus acanthion (Q20902412) zum dritten Mal in kurzer Folge passiert, dass mit Aktivierung der der Bearbeitung von von taxon name (P225) (wollte Erstbeschreiber hinzufügen) das MSW als Fundstelle verschwindet, ohne dass ich es bearbeitet hätte. Dadurch wird zudem der Datensatz nicht speicherbar, wenn man die nun fehlerhafte Fundstelle nicht löscht - habe ich bei Tachyglossus (Q12902259) und Tachyglossus aculeatus aculeatus (Q20902411) entsprechend gemacht, MSW bei letzterem anschliessend wieder ergänzt. Hast du eien Idee, woran das liegen könnte? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Achim, ich kann das Problem leider nicht nachvollziehn. Sollte es bestehen bleiben solltest du dich am Besten unter Angabe von Browser- und Betriebssystem-Version an Wikidata:Contact the development team wenden. Gruß --Succu (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Danke - vielleicht liegt es auch an meiner Urlaubs-Netzversion aus iPhone-HotSpot und Laptop, ich versuche es am WE zu Hause nochmals. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Haustiere mal wieder[edit]

Hallo Succu,

ich habe mir mal wieder Gedanken zu diesem leidigen Thema gemacht. Bisher war es ja irgendwie immer Streitpunkt, wie man Individuen und fiktive Tiere von Rassen/Rassegruppen etc. unterscheiden könnte. Deshalb habe ich mir mal Gedanken zum hoffentlich nützlichen Einsatz von instance of (P31) gemacht. Kannst du dazu bitte mal einen kurzen Blick auf User:PigeonIP/Projekt#Unterscheidung Individuum / Gruppe von Irgendwas (kein Taxon!) werfen und mir sagen, ob das so in etwa in die richtige Richtung gehen könnte oder wieder völlig in die Irre läuft?

Danke, --PigeonIP (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm, nach einem kurzen, nach Verständnis heischenden Blick auf deine unkommentierten Tabellen: Ein individual (Q795052) (also deine Kuh "Else", du, ich, der als "Mars" bezeichnete Planet unseres Sonnensystems) bilden stehts den Wert der Aussage instance of (P31). Anhand der Eigenschaften der Individuen kann man diese auf verschiedenste Art und Weise in eine no label (Q18844919) stecken. Ihre Gemeinsamkeiten werden dann durch subclass of (P279) ausgedrückt. Kompliziert wird das Ganze dadurch, dass man die Wirklichkeit unterschiedlich detailliert abbilden (=modellieren, =abstrahieren) kann. In der Physik entspräche das in etwa grob der Aussage über ein einzelnes (individuelles) Teilchen in einer Schachtel, oder der Wirkung aller (als Gruppe) Teilchen auf die Schachtel. Vmtl. nicht hilfreich, sry --Succu (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Vielleicht doch (hilfreich meine ich ;): jetzt haben mir schon mehrere bestätigt, dass
  • ist ein(e) <Irgendwas Taube> immer ein Individuum bezeichnen sollte. (auch wenn ich das jetzt zusätzlich auch immernoch mit individual animal (Q26401003) erg. habe; damit es wirklich eineindeutig wird)
Davon könnte man dann noch unterscheiden
  • ist ein(e) <Gruppe>
  • ist ein(e) <Rasse>
  • ist ein(e) <Varietät>, <Schlag>, ...
Spezifiziert durch <anerkannt von>, weil was bei dem einen eine Rasse ist bei dem anderen (Verband, Autor) nur ein Schlag oder gar eine Gruppe mehrerer Rassen.
erg. werden <Gruppe>n, <Rasse>n, <Varietät>en dann noch mit subclass of (P279):
  • zum Taxon: Haustaube
  • nach (überwiegender) Nutzung: Rassetaube
  • nach Rassengruppe und Autor oder Institution: z.B. Warzentaube
und so oder so ähnlich sollte das auch mit anderen Haustieren und Sorten funktionieren. Mir fehlt nur noch eine Aussage, für die Standards oder standardisierenden Verbände und eine gute Möglichkeit darzustellen, dass z.b. die Katzenrassen A und B des einen Verbandes im zweiten zusammen die Rasse A bilden. (oder auch für SBI -Standard bestimmende Instanz- und Patronat -bei Hunden-)
Aber das führt mir grad noch zu weit. Ich suche erstmal noch alle anderen Tauben, die im Wikimedia-Universe herumschwirren zusammen und hoffe dann erst einmal die ELRT vervollständigen zu können (anschließend geht es dann noch an das andere Federvieh, um z.B. auch Fotografen eine Handreichung geben zu können). --PigeonIP (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. kannst du dir mal Barbary Dove (Q731131) und African Collared Dove (Q921348) anschauen?
Die erste dürfte selbst eigentlich kein Taxon sein (domestizierte Form von African Collared Dove (Q921348); der NPA führt sie als "breed" der Gruppe "no label (Q26711767)" [1]). Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher, wie hier wirklich vorgegangen werden sollte, weil in en steht die Taxobox im Artikel. Andere Sprachen scheinen mir komisch gesmischte Artikel zu haben, wo für mich nicht gleich ersichtlich ist, ob jetzt hauptsächlich die domestizierte oder die "wilde" Taube beschrieben wird. --PigeonIP (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Images and image qualifiers[edit]

I was wanting to improve the image content for various taxa, but need some guidance for what to do. On Wollemia nobilis (Q190510) I already replaced a very poor low-resolution pic with a better one (File:Wollemia nobilis full.jpg), but wanted to add a qualifier like 'young tree' or 'whole plant' (or similar), and then also to add File:Wollemia nobilis M1.JPG with the qualifier 'female part' and File:Wollemia nobilis cone.jpg with the qualifier 'male part'. How do I proceed? Or is there a limit on how many images are wanted? - MPF (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I never thought about that. I think the best place for your question is Wikidata:Project chat. --Succu (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll try that - MPF (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Flexal virus[edit]

Hi. You removed a claim for the NCBI taxonomy database identifier from the Flexal virus (Q18966387) item. As far as I can see, this entry with taxonomy ID 45220 is indeed the correct entry for the Flexal virus: notice that it specifically cites "Flexal virus" as an alternative name, and links to the same EOL entry as the current Wikidata item. -- The Anome (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the id belongs to Flexal mammarenavirus (Q22108174). --Succu (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
They're the same thing. The name was changed to Flexal mammarenavirus relatively recently. -- The Anome (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I seem to be making a terrible mess of trying to merge the various Flexal virus / Flexal mammarenavirus items. Can you help, please? They are definitely the same thing. -- The Anome (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The species was renamed and moved to another genus in 2014. All should be in place now. --Succu (talk)
Yes, but what puzzles me is that we still have two items, Flexal mammarenavirus (Q22108174) and Flexal virus (Q18966387), both of which seem to me to represent the same thing. Am I failing to understand some distinction between the two? Also, one of them has the NCBI ID and the other the EOL ID -- again, surely this is the same species, and should have both. -- The Anome (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
We need the item Flexal virus (Q18966387) for structural needs, e.g. if you want to reconstruct ICTV Master Species List 2013 v2 (Q18810383) by a SPARQL query or something else. This is similar to having multiples items for names based on another (basionym (P566) etc.) The ID belongs allways to the item with a matching taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Accipiter gentilis atricapillus (Q26783716)[edit]

Can you have a look please :) . Conny (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

Hab ein bisschen was ergänzt. --Succu (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

MycoBank taxon name ID (P962)[edit]

Thanks a lot for correcting and for the notification. I will make sure not to have similar mistakes in future.Makki98 (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

One quicky about cy edit[edit]

Where did you get the translations you added here, please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

From your list. --Succu (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, the first draft. Any chance you could change all species, genera, family etc to upper case please? Just the first letter. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000: Are you sure this should be done for all cases? --Succu (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes please. Just the first letter of the cy-name. Not first letter of every word. This is usual in most languages including English I understand? Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
For english names I observed a tendency to correct upper case to lower case (see e.g. lion (Q140) or this query). So I'm not entirely sure. --Succu (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok Thanks; let's just do aves / birds, then please. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


Please explain Why did you revert my edits on plant (Q756) and fungus (Q764)? This is a perfect example of why said to be the same as (P460) exists, isn't it? Please use {{Ping}} if you reply here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Explain why this sould be „a perfect example“? Both kingdoms are different. The property is for similar concepts (a weak form of sameAs), not for people confusing things. --Succu (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: may be you meant different from (P1889)? --Infovarius (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Infovarious: This is perfect. Thanks and tahnks to Succu. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this property is often carelessly used (see proposal). And I have doubts this is useful here. --Succu (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


You may want to look at the contributions of this user. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Llywelyn2000 should have a look too. --Succu (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! I can understand changing the first letter from lower to high case (e -> E) but why change every word? Is it a bot? Is there a discussion on this? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@MPF: No, not a bot and only en and cy, mainly. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: On the Welsh bird names, as in English, the standard in ornithological works is capitalisation of first letters (example; scroll down to 'Other names' near end of page); having lower-case Welsh names imported from Wikidata into e.g. Commons VN headers makes them look very odd and out-of-place.
@Succu: On the note on my talk page - could you expand please on what to do at Wikidata when e.g. a species is moved from one genus to another; I can't find any guidelines - example, (Q228009) was under its old scientific name Aquila clanga, I have tried to change it all to its current name Clanga clanga, but whether I've done it right or not, I don't know. One other problem I'm finding, is how to add American vernacular names; there is English (en), "British English" ("en-gb", a bit of a nonsense as it is of course the same as en), and Canadian English (en-ca), but no en-us that I can find for species where the American name differs from the English (e.g. Q18835, Grey Plover in English, Black-bellied Plover in American). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@MPF:: In the case Aquila clanga (Q228009) you can move all sitelinks to Clanga clanga (Q21090684) and adjust the labels. --Succu (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks! Is there any easy way to do this, or do I have to cut-n-paste each link, one by one? - MPF (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a gadget in your preferences called Move that gives you the ability to move sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm awaiting response from Welsh ornathologists at Llen natur. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Email from Duncan Brown, Llen Natur. In Welsh, lower case is used in the context of a sentence. However this WD entry is a title, and not context, it generates lists etc, therefore the first letter should be upper case and the rest (other than personal nouns) should be lower case eg 'Dryw morgrug gyddfsiecrog' and not 'Dryw Morgrug Gyddfsiecrog', or 'dryw morgrug gyddfsiecrog'. He also says that there is no agreement in English, no set standard. The capitalisation of the generic name / first word in Latin is standardised, so my/our suggestion here is that the Welsh follows suit, with all species of plants and animals. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: Diolch! That doesn't agree though with published usage that I checked, e.g. the annual Cambrian Bird Report, which (like the BTO's listings) capitalises except for y / yr, e.g. Gwalch y Pysgod [Pandion haliaeetus], Gwylan Gefnddu Leiaf [Larus fuscus], Gwylan yr Arctig [Larus glaucoides], etc. It may be that informal sources like newspapers and suchlike use lower case, but we should follow authoritative sources, not popular ones. - MPF (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said, there is no agreement. The definative authority in Wales, my good friend, is not the annual Cambrian Bird Report, but Llen Natur, which spent the last 10 years standerdising all living birds. It receives funding from Welsh Government and it's Dictionary of Species is hosted by Terminology Portal of the University of Wales (where you will find the specific Bird Dictionary which came out two months ago. This dictionary is bringing in a live feed from Wikidata using the prefered image - which you can see here. So please refrain from using words like 'we should follow authoritative sources, not popular ones' unless you know the lay of the land, what is authorative and what is 'newspaper' stuff. At least in Welsh we have a standard, set by one body. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest you start with the English language (and the maybe move to others) as most articles on birds on en-Wikipedia use lower case eg European robin. Why not change them all, and then perhaps move on to other languages? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot request[edit]

May I therefore request, Succu:

  1. Please add in the description field of all birds with a Welsh name: rhywogaeth o adar (species of bird)
  2. That the first letter of every bird name be in upper case.

Many thanks for all your hard work over the years! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000: There are some items with a different description. I assume the bot should override them. Right? --Succu (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No; I'll do those by hand, as some are errors and others refer to subspecies. Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
That was handy, as I have weeded out some errors! Great stuff! What remains are subspecies. Thanks Succu! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
From the Wikidata perspective all are species. I checked two itema and found no cy-sitelink. --Succu (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. But WD needs a new item... subspecies! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you've added 'rhywogaeth o adar' - great! Thank you! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

#2 is done, Llywelyn2000. --Succu (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Erstbeschreibung ohne Titel[edit]

Moin Succu,
ich arbeite in der WP gerade an der Erstbeschreibung des Variegated squirrel (Q508774) - Problem dabei: Selbige erfolgte ohne Titel in allgemeinen Teil der Proceedings der Zoological Society of London ([2]). Any ideas, wie ich das sinnvoll in wikidata einbasteln kann? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Achim! Wie wird sie denn üblicherweise zitiert? Du kannst natürlich stated in (P248)=Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (Q19622568) verwenden und das weiter durch Angabe von Band/Nummer/Jahr/Seiten ergänzen. Ein eigenes Datenobjekt ist nicht zwingend. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Die meisten Bücher geben die Erstbeschreibungen ja gar nicht als Refernzen an, Ausnahme hier [3] - dort wird es als [no title] referenziert, was ich nun auch in der WP tue. Da ich bei den Hörnchen langfristig gern eine Bibliografie aller Erstbeschreibungen haben möchte, würde ich auch gern ein item pro Erstbeschreibung nutzen und als Beleg verwenden. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Dann würde ich im Datenobjekt title (P1476)=novalue angeben. Das Label müsstest du dir dann ausdenken. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Danke, ich habe es jetzt mit [no titlel] (Q26921661) probiert. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
. Ich hätte wahrscheinlich so etwas wie Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1839. T. 7: 117. für das Label gewählt, da die Kombination Label/Beschreibung eindeutig sein muß. Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für das Bot[edit]

Hallo Succu,

Thank you very much for the work with your bot for TAXREF ID (P3186)!

Tubezlob (🙋) 16:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;) --Succu (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Questionable revert[edit]

Why did you make this revert? I verified the dates using a reliable source (an image of Newton's gravestone, which is already cited as a reference). The the relevant Phabricator task says to remove the markers once the questionable date has been corrected or verified. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the julian dates are correct but Phab says nothing about removing the qualifier or converting the dates into gregorian ones. --Succu (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Try using your browser search to find the question
Now that the bot has begun to mark items, what is the procedure to follow when a marked item has been reviewed by an editor and found to be correct?
and the answer
@Jc3s5h This should be as simple as removing the instance of qualifier.
We of course have the lists of all statements that will be touched in this run of the script.
If we do ever do a future run we will still have that list of guids that we can avoid!
Jc3s5h (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
So what? „This should be as simple as removing the instance of qualifier“. I don't see that the community is involed at this point in time and any action should be done. But maybe I miss an announcement... --Succu (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I will now bring your revert before a wider audience. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not astonished. --Succu (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
In as much as Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) stated "Yes please remove them where the statement was checked" I will undo the revert. However, I will refrain changing between Gregorian and Julian calendars to correct errors until I am assured that such changes won't be re-marked in a future run of the bot. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Mal wieder Bot-Dateien[edit]

Hallo Succu,
seit heute habe ich nun den Band 6 des Handbook of the Mammals of the World mit den Hasenartigen und dem ersten Teil der Nagetiere vorliegen (frisch erschienen). Für dieses Buch könnte ich theoretisch wieder eine Botdatei schreiben, allerdings mit einigen anderen Parametern als gehabt. Könnte dein Bot eine Datei entsprechend den unteren Beispiel verarbeiten?

  • Genus Ochotona
    • Ochotona dauuria (Pallas 1776) / Duarian Pika / Daurien-Pfeifhase / Pika de Daourie / Pika de Dauria / Lepus dauurica Pallas 1776

Dabei gilt

    • Wissenschaftlicher Name Umkombination Erstbeschreiber Erstbeschreibungdatum / englischer Name / deutscher Name / französischer Name / spanischer Name / Erstkombination Gattung Art Erstbeschreiber Erstbeschreibungdatum

Ich denke, das ist die maximale Ausbeute, die ich botbar machen könnte (Zeitfenster vielleicht bis Dezember je nach Aufwand). In weiten Teilen sollte die Systematik MSW3 entsprechen. Ich würde mit den Hasenartigen dann einfach mal entsprechend deinen Vorgaben beginnen. Was meinst du? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Achim! In Handbook of the Mammals of the World (Q3043236) fehlt noch der sechste Band.. ;) Grundsätzlich komme ich damit klar und ich kann das auch jederzeit in eine andere Form konvertieren, wenn mir klar ist wie ich grundsätzlich mit den einheimischen Namen umgehen werde. Es fehlt noch eine Seitenangabe. Gruß --Succu (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
O.k., prima - ich fange dann demnächst einfach mal an und gebe dir Bescheid, wenn du eien Datei zum Probieren nutzen kannst. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Latin added[edit]

I see here that you have been recently adding the Latin name, rather than the Welsh name. The Welsh names were supplied for all living birds. The above example shows Hirundo fulva (see French name etc) which is used in addition to the one on en (Petrochelidon fulva). No request has been made by me to upload the Latin names instead of Welsh, as far as I know. Please link to the request, if it was made. Your bot uploaded around 6,500 Welsh names where the taxon name matched. I have added 3,500 by hand in Welsh and in English. The remedy here I think, is for you to add the Latin names in my db as well as the existing (older) names, and then replace Latin name with Welsh name. We have Welsh names for all living birds, and I would like to see those Welsh names, rather than the Latin name. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

PS Cave Swallow (Q1587890) and Hirundo fulva (Q14624734) are the same species. For others see bottom of this list on cywiki. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I added taxon name (P225) as a label when a Welsh decription was added (per request) and the label was empty, because otherwise it would be strange looking. Your list contains Hirundo fulva (Q14624734) not Cave Swallow (Q1587890) so the Welsh name was added to this item. original combination (P1403) of Cave Swallow (Q1587890) is Hirundo fulva (Q14624734). --Succu (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You've missed the point here. In fact several:
1. You added a note to your change here that someone had requested you to add a Latin name instead of the Welsh name. What you're now saying is that no one requested such thing, and that you decided to do that yourself ('otherwise it would be strange looking'). Am I correct? I'm asking this so that we are very clear in what's going on here.
2. @Jura1, Cell Danwydd: The Wikidata List generated by User:Cell Danwydd now contains not only species but also duplicates - the original combination (P1403) of the species. Some species will therefore be down twice. This list should call up every species once only - and the Welsh name should be visible. We do not want the Welsh species name AND the old taxon name which died out years ago. The list can also include a current Latin name in column two, as seen. In my opinion, the original taxon name is irrelevant. Maybe User:Jura1 could reword the list so that original combination (P1403) becomes an exeption (left out)?
3. This article on Black-faced Warbler (Q2084483) was published on cywiki a few minutes ago by CELL Danwydd. In the next couple of days / weeks a further 9,000+ similar articles, each with a wikidata list will be created by a bot. Please find a way so that the Welsh names appear as requested, and each species appear once only. Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It was the same dataset and I forgot to change the bot comment, that's all. The rest is taxonomy. You have to decide which of the names you are regarding as the valid (ICZN) scientific name. --Succu (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for #1. The valid scientific name used in Wales by professional ornithologists were passed on to you. However you have not addressed the problem I have with original combination (P1403) producing two examples of one species. Can you address this please? I suggested (above, top) 'to add the Latin names in my db as well as the existing (older) names, and then replace Latin name with Welsh name.' Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You say 'original combination (P1403) of Cave Swallow (Q1587890) is Hirundo fulva (Q14624734)'. The original name would be the Latin name, therefore no other languages should be on this item. The name ' Gwennol ogof (Q14624734)' should be on Cave Swallow (Q1587890). Is that right? Secondly, all items connected with original combination (P1403) should be described as 'Original Taxon name' or similar rather than 'Species of bird'; the item is for the species name and not the species. Is that not correct? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. It's not that easy. The early bots tagged an item with a scientific name, but often other names are used by different Wikipedias. Sometimes items were merged and got more than one scientific name. A fact we have to deal with. Our approach is to keep the sitelinks united under one (more or less random) scientific name and contruct relationships to other scientific names via „synonym properties“ e.g. original combination (P1403). But this is burdensome way, so the progress is slow. One example to illustrate this is IUCN conservation status (P141). A leftover from around 330 items (including birds) have no reference to the IUCN because of a name change which could not resolved by the synonymy provided by the IUCN. You (in the Wikidata reality I) have do resolve this by hand. In the case of Rufous-capped Babbler (Q1038415) the information about IUCN conservation status (P141) will go to the item for Stachyris ruficeps. A third name for this species is Cyanoderma ruficeps. The major bird authorities are indecisive which name to use. So all these three name are in current use and not old.
BTW: I had a quick look at the names of your first list the bot could not match (=1833). It contains names like Amblyornis macgregoriæ = MacGregor's Bowerbird (Q766708) or a lot species of a genus Necterinia a misspelling of Nectarinia (Q671699). --Succu (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Succo. You haven't understood; I think the fault is mine, as I have not made my points clear enough. I'll change the Latin words into Welsh by hand. However the problem with doubling some species in the Wikidata Lists remains unanswered. The problem is due to the use of "original combination (P1403)". Enjoy the weekend! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you try one more thing please? Can you match against the English name? Just tried Yellow-crowned canary and it found Caneri’r Penrhyn. Maching against the English name might not get them all, but I'm sure will help! Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to wait a little bit. At the moment my bot is adding references for taxon name (P225) taken from IOC World Bird List, Version 6.3 (Q27042747) - a widely respected taxon authority for birds. Than I will populate NBN System Key (P3240). --Succu (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

At the feet of Gamaliel (User:Llywelyn2000) I have started to upload articles onto the Welsh Wikipedia: around 9,400. Can you please connect them to Wikidata automatically? The WD name = WP article title. Welsh of course! Thanks. PS Much of the infobox comes from WD and therefore will not appear until the connection is made (eg image!) Cell Danwydd (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd: Please check your code. cy:G?ydd wyllt is Gŵydd Wyllt. --Succu (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are 5 or 6. That one actually exists so I've asked the Community for it to be deleted. Thanks. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel! is there a tool to connect the newly created articles to WD, or can we leave it in your capable hands? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not able to do this with my bot. And I'm not aware of such a tool. --Succu (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Here in Wales, we can make Celtic magic by night. ;-) Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks like User:EmausBot makes the magic true. ;) --Succu (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Coffee hackathon on remaining birds!

I'd like to just make sure that all birds with Welsh names are in the correct places; I fear that some have gone on to the protonym (Q14192851) or original combination (P1403). Is there any way you could give me a list of all the protonym (Q14192851) or those with original combination (P1403) of living birds (labels only), and I'll arrange a coffee group to plough through them. In other words, labels of protonym (Q14192851) and original combination (P1403) should be Latin; all those without should be in Welsh. Many thanks! User:Llywelyn2000 using BOT-Twm Crys (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Charles Darwin[edit]

What has led you to believe that Charles Darwin never studied crustaceans? Danrok (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I know he wrote a book about Barnacle (Q220457). This led to his recognition as a taxonomist (Q1907198). But he was not spezialized on Crustacea (Q25364) as a whole. --Succu (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Is someone who wrotes his (own) autobiography (Q4184) a autobiographer (Q18814623) by profession (Q28640)? --Succu (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitary removal of claims[edit]

You should not be removing claims simply because they lack references. There are millions of claims in Wikidata which do not have references. Why not look for and add references when in doubt? That would be far more constructive. Danrok (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Linné studied nature as a whole. Saying he was a arachnologist (Q17344952) is nonsens. Seems like you lack a understanding of the two references ([4], [5]) you gave. --Succu (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi Succu,

I see you are using "taxon synonym" for names that are homotypic. Theoretically this may work (to some extent) for homotypic synonyms, although it creates a mess for the references. But it definitely won't work for heterotypic synonyms. All in all, "taxon synonym" by its nature is a one way relationship. If you feel a property "is homotypic with" is desirable, you could propose it; I don't see an immediate need for it, but I suppose it would not hurt to have it.

The "instance of synonym" may not be a thing of beauty, but it seems to me that it does work. However, a separate property "this is a synonym of" would also work, and could be proposed. - Brya (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure this is the final solution, but a big improvement, anyway. - Brya (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
It took me a while to find a satisfying solution. Not perfect, but fulfills the intended purpose. I think we should delete the ugly instance of (P31)=synonym (Q1040689) statements where a matching subject has role (P2868) statement exists. --Succu (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
It is a case of making do. I would be more comfortable with a dedicated property "basionym of". And yes, I suppose "instance of synonym" does look kind of ugly, and a dedicated property "synonym of" would look better. Still, there is a fundamental difference between "basionym of" and "synonym of". The "serves as the basionym of" does not say anything essential about the item: a name that is the basionym of another name can be a correct name of a taxon without any problem. On the other hand "is a synonym of" does say something essential about the item: if it is a synonym, it is not the correct name of a taxon: these are mutually exclusive. So, it is kind of elegant to have "instance of" pointing to two possibilities, either this, or that. - Brya (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

einheimische Namen[edit]

Moin, ich nerve mal wieder mit Unwissenheit:
Ich versuche gerade das Konzept "einheimische Namen" zu verstehen - ich gehe davon aus, dass es sich dabei jeweils um die Trivialnamen in den jeweiligen Sprachen handelt, die ich in der Regel auch als jeweiliges Lemma bei den Sprachen einsetze - heute etwa die "Kachin-Rötelmaus" bei Kachin Red-backed Vole (Q1026986). Wenn dem so ist:

  1. Ich habe hier das "Dictionary of Mammal Names" als pdf, in dem zu allen Arten aus MSW3 + weiteren englische und deutsche Namen angegeben werden - einfache Listen mit Spalten wissenschaftlich|englisch|deutsch, teilweise allerdings mehr als ein Name pro Art getrennt via Komma in der Spalte. Meines Wissens ist User:Kopiersperre ziemlich gut darin, pdfs in Wikitabellen umzuwandeln - vielleicht kann man das verbinden und dann die Trivialnamen via Bot einspielen. Ich kann euch beiden das pdf zukommen lassen, wenn ihr mir ein Mail schickt.
  2. für die chinesischen Arten habe ich in Mammals of China jeweils Trivialnamen in chinesischen Schriftzeichen und lateinischen Buchstaben - bsp. für die benannte Kachin Red-backed Vole (Q1026986) 克钦绒鼠 (siehe auch zh.wp und Kequin Rongshu. Ersteres könnte ich in das Konzept einarbeiten (wenn ich entsprechende zh-Artikel finde und mit MoC abgleichen kann), kann ich irgendwas mit der latinisierten Form tun?

Für das genannte Beispiel Kachin Red-backed Vole (Q1026986) habe ich beides mal umgesetzt (zwei deutsche Trivialnamen und ein chinesischer), passt das so? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Achim, ja du liegst richtig. Ich habe bisher gezögert diese Eigenschaft in größerem Umfang zu verwenden, da es oft - wie im Vorwort von Dictionary of Mammal Names erwähnt - zahlreiche Varianten gibt, die sich nur geringfügig voneinander unterscheiden und ich bisher keine richtig gute Idee hatte wie man damit am besten umgehen sollte. Durch den gerade von Magnus angestoßenen Import aus Wikispecies (siehe Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_vernacular_names_from_Wikispecies) hat sich die Lage nun grundlegend geändert. Da kommt deine Anfrage gerade recht.
zu 1) Wenn Kopiersperre das hinbekommt, würde mir das Arbeit ersparen. Ich müsste mir erst ein geeignetes Tool suchen oder etwas Code schreiben um das PDF direkt auszulesen. Mein Bot kann dann problemlos Wikidata mit diesen Daten füttern.
zu 2) Wie wir das konkret lösen (eigen Tabelle oder weitere Spalten) überlasse ich dir. Einen Sprachcode etwa zh-Latn für chinesische Namen in lateinischen Buchstaben gemäß ISO 15924 (Q16866) gibt es derzeit nicht. Das ist aber kein Gebiet mit dem ich softwareseitig jemals etwas zu tun hatte. Vllt. kann ja Lydia sagen, ob derartige Erweiterungen auf der TODO-Liste stehen und sich der Aufwand für dich lohnen würde.
Gruß --Succu (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Letzteres wäre eine Frage für das Wikimedia Language Committee. Die entscheiden welche Sprachen für monolingual text Properties auf Wikidata zugelassen werden. Ihr könntet ein Ticket auf phabricator aufmachen und ich gebe es an die passenden Leute weiter. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Succu, hat nun leider doch etwas länger gedauert - hier aber nun die fertige Date mit allen Seitenzahlen: User:Achim Raschka/Names - en passant habe ich einige Fehler korrigiert, vor allem falsche Blank in Gattungsnamen und Leerstellen hinter "-" in durchgekoppelten Namen. Ich hoffe, du kannst damit etwas anfangen und bin gespannt auf das Ergebnis. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Ich schau mir das im Laufe der nächsten Woche an. Wenn ich noch etwas finde melde ich mich bei dir. Schönen Restsonntag. --Succu (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Fast vergessen, Achim: Der Bot ist einmal durch. Knapp 300 wiss. Namen konnte er nicht finden. Uns fehlen allerdings auch noch ca. 160 bei der IUCN gelistete Säugetierarten. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Succu, danke für den Botlauf (und @Kopiersperre: danke für die Vorarbeiten mit dem Dokument) - die Ergebnisse habe ich in etlichen Artikeln bereits gesehen und sie sehen gut aus. Gibt es eine Liste der 300 nicht gefundenen Säuger, damit man damit weiterarbeiten und evtl. Fehler korrigieren oder Artikel und Systematiken aktualisieren kann (ich würde gern auch einen Blick auf die IUCN-Liste werfen)? Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ich kann dir beide Listen bereitstellen. Wo sollen sie hin? --Succu (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, ich denke, die Fehlerliste am besten unter User:Achim_Raschka/Names-Fehler und die IUCN-Liste unter User:Achim_Raschka/IUCN-Fehler - ich kann dann schauen, was man damit machen kann. Gruß und Danke -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Erledigt. ;) --Succu (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Nach einem ersten Blick: Einen großen Anteil an der Differenz zum MSW3 hat offensichtlich die Umstellung der Hornträger-Systematik nach Colin Groves and Peter Grubb 2011, die auch vom HMW2 übernommen wurde. Leider habe ich beide nicht vorliegen und werde sie entsprechend nicht nachzeichnen können, in der Wikipedia hat DagdaMor die systematischen Änderungen vorgenommen. Ich überlege mal, wie ich das lösen kann. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Re iw link to WP on cy Q547159[edit]

On the Red-headed Bunting (Q547159) page, and many others, you've added an incorrect link to the Welsh WP article. The article and the name of this bird should be the same. The name of this bird is "Bras pengoch" and the iw link should be to the same name ie "Bras pengoch". However, the link is to 'Bras gyddflwyd', and was added by you on 23:08, 5 Hydref 2016. How many other birds did you change with your bot at this time? Same with ((Q|3726265)) etc. List please so that I can check them all. BOT-Twm Crys (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you refering to this addition? --Succu (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and it wasn't you! I do apologise! It's the magician! BOT-Twm Crys (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
But he did it right. Red-headed Bunting (Q547159) and cy:Bras gyddflwyd are about taxon name (P225)= Emberiza bruniceps. Looks like there are two diffentent values for taxon common name (P1843) involved: "Bras pengoch" and "Bras gyddflwyd". Maybe different versions of your working list are causing that? --Succu (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Überholte Artnamen[edit]

Hallo Succu,

ich klicke gerade den MixnMatch-Katalog für den EPPO Code (P3031) durch. Die EPPO-Datenbank benutzt offenbar nicht die neueste Taxonomie. Soll ich für überholte taxonomische Namen trotzdem Items erstellen (z.B. no label (Q27339762) – müsste Veronica hectori(s) sein) oder nicht? Brauche ich mehr als die EPPO-Datenbank als Beleg um neue Taxa zu erstellen?--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ich würde nie auf Grundlage einer derartigen Datenbank ein neues Datenobjekt erstellen. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit dass ein fehlerhafter Name dabei herauskommt ist ziemlich groß. So auch hier. Korrekt ist Hebe hectorii (Q10294179). Bitte die beiden Datenobjekte zusammenführen. --Succu (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC) PS: Bitte für neu erstellte Taxon-Datenbankobjekte wie Thecaphora frezii (Q27339852) die vier grundlegenden Eigenschaften hinzufügen. Sonst landet es auf Constraint violations oder ist in anderen Fällen nicht als Taxon erkennbar. --Succu (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Daher wollte ich ja fragen. Hast du irgendeinen Knopf, der dir die vier Grundeigenschaften automatisch ausfüllt? Ich habe jetzt nur noch einen alten Laptop, sodass mir das Bearbeiten im Browser einfach keinen Spaß macht. Ich kriege einfach immer einen Hals, wenn ich warten muss, bis die Bearbeitungsknöpfe und alle Sprachen endlich erscheinen.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Mit welcher Magie sollte der Knopf denn diese bei Thecaphora frezii (Q27339852) erraten? Seit einigen Tagen scheint der Wurm drin zu sein. Ich muss im IE11 ein Datenobjekt oft mehrfach neu laden bis ich eine Eigenschaft bearbeiten kann. --Succu (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Man müsste sich doch ein triviales Frontend für QuickStatements bauen können, wo man Gattungs- und Artname eingiebt und dann automatisch ein neues Datenobjekt mit vier Statements erstellt wird. Zumindest bei SPARQL kann sich man das zu einem Gattungsnamen passende Item "resolven" lassen.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Ja, wenn du das Reich zu dem die Gattung gehört kennst... --Succu (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


Do you agree that this is a correct way to add this kind of info? Comments welcome. Lymantria (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Same for Agromyza albitarsis (Q13486482). I am far from sure if that is the best way to add the species is a leafminer. Lymantria (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The first one looks fine to me, the second not. But I have to think about it a bit longer. --Succu (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Tried a new approach to the second one. Lymantria (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this is much better. --Succu (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi it would be very useful to see more of an explanation rather than a single word 'misuse'

for - it is specifically identified in the wp en article as being endemic to australia

please show where the identification of a location of endemism is misuse. thanks. JarrahTree (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Try endemic to (P183). --Succu (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Not much help - a region doesnt fit in P 183 in strictest sense - it talks about a sole location - obviously there is a need for another property with a wider geographic scope JarrahTree (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Apology, I havent checked the parameters of other similar P items to see if there is a heirarchy of continent/country/region/ - and as to whether biota items are identified in such a heirarchy in relation to their habitats... JarrahTree (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
We havn't a working model to describe the geographic distribution of a taxon. We talked about World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (Q8035770) earlier and there is a DwCA extension call Species Distribution. But nobody provided a concept how to implement this here. --Succu (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, as far as I can tell in wp en - some biota is identified within regional/admin/human areas, and some within ecological/biological 'regions', well beyond my scope of work at the moment. Maybe someone might lead on this at some stage JarrahTree (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata upload help[edit]

Hi Succu, I was pointed in your direction by @Llywelyn2000: who said you may be able to help me with a data upload? I am trying to add statements, labels and descriptions to about 4000 wikidata items which include the Dictionary of Welsh Biography identifier, and i have prepared the data as best i can in a spreadsheet. Normally i would use Quick Statements but in this case i do not want to over-right existing data, only use my data to fill in the gaps. Here is the data in question. I would appreciate any help you could offer on this matter. Many thanks Jason.nlw (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help you. My bot is aproved for working in the domain of taxa only. You should make a request at Wikidata:Bot requests. --Succu (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks very much. I will make a request as instructed. Jason.nlw (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Neuer Botauftrag[edit]

Hallo Succu,
ich hatte heute morgen eine Idee für eine weitere Aufgabe, die sich evtl. via Bot automatisieren lässt. Hintergrund: Uns fehlen sehr häufig die descriptions, vor allem bei Unterarten (bsp. Sciurus vulgaris alpinus (Q20903529)), und die händische Einfügung ist zeitaufwändig und kann Fehler beinhalten. Ich würde mir folgenden Auftragsstring vorstellen (keine Ahnung, ob der Bot so tickt):

Für alle taxon rank (P105) = subspecies (Q68947)

und de-description = leer setze de-description = Unterart von parent taxon (P171)
und en-description = leer setze en-description = subspecies of parent taxon (P171)

Optimal wäre es natürlich, wenn statt parent taxon (P171) grundsätzlich der wissenschaftliche Name genommen würde, da die deutschen Namen fallsensitiv sind (Unterart von red squirrel (Q4388)). Wenn man das auf tree:Säugetiere eingrenzt, hätte man imho bereits ein gutes Testfeld (und ich weniger Arbeit). Was meinst du? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Achim, das würde sich in der Tat lohnen (etwa 55.000 Fälle je Sprache). Für die de-Beschreibung hatte ich mal die Form
Unterart der Art Nuku-Hiva-Rohrsänger (Acrocephalus percernis)
gewählt. Vllt. ein wenig gestelzt, aber m.E. problemfrei.
Für die en-Beschreibungen hat sich mehr oder minder die weniger informative Form
subspecies of mammal, subspecies of fish, subspecies of bird, ...
eingebürgert. Technisch ist die Umsetzung problemlos möglich. Gruß --Succu (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Klingt sehr prima, wobei doch auch nichts gegen das bessere "subspecies of ..." sprechen sollte, oder? ;) - Wahrscheinlich kann man die description auch für weitere FRagen vordefinieren. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

... und noch mehr Arbeit[edit]

Heute habe ich User:Achim Raschka/MSW-Cetacea‎ fertig gestellt - die Gesamtliste MSW würde ich sonst in Jahren nicht abschliessen. Die Liste entspricht deiner MSW-Liste, ich habe nur die ganzen Erstbeschreiber mit Items verlinkt (was tatsächlich nicht immer einfach ist, v.a. bei den Unterarten). Vielleicht magst du übernehmen? Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bei Phocoena phocoena relicta fehlt noch die Verlinkung des Autors. Ist vermutlich Othenio Abel (Q78571). Erstbeschreibung als Phocoena relicta ab Seite 388 hier. Gruß --Succu (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Eubalaena glacialis: Für Herrn Müller stehen gleich drei verschiedene zur Auswahl. Der bei uns im Artikel verlinkte scheint mir der korrekte zu sein. Der Name Balaena glacialis ist wohl vorlinnéisch ([6]). --Succu (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Ist no label (Q27867744) identisch mit Georg Heinrich Borowski (Q845841)? Siehe humpback whale (Q132905). --Succu (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Succu, danke für die Kommentare und Korrekturen - sollte jetzt alles umgesetzt sein. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Und direkt noch eine Liste hinterher, damit sich die Botanpassung lohnt: User:Achim Raschka/MSW-Monotremata mit den Monotremata und den Didelphimorphia. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Die Cetacea‎ sind durch. Für monotreme (Q21790) steht in unserem Artikel die abweichende Jahreszahl "1838". Die Erstbeschreibung wurde vermutlich in seiner Iconografia della Fauna Italica vorgenommen (nicht nachgesehen). Falls das richtig ist müsste man noch On the Dates of Publication of Bonaparte's ‘Iconografia della Fauna Italica’ konsultieren. Aber vielleicht gehts auch einfacher. --Succu (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Bei Gracilinanus ignitus sind die Autoren nicht verlinkt (siehe hier). --Succu (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mean size of species[edit]

Hi Succu, as you are involved in WikiProject:Taxinomy, I translate you a question asked by Tubezlob on the French project chat. Here it is, he added height (P2048) to Canis lupus (Q18498). He want to know whether it is well done and how to specify that it is a mean value. You can reply here and I will translate to the French project chat. Pamputt (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably determination method (P459) could be used as a qualifier. --Succu (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict on wikidata chat[edit]

I had an edit conflict on wikidata chat earlier tonight, that must be the reason that I "reverted" unintendedly those hard spaces... Edoderoo (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Upper case[edit]

Hi Succu! One small request please, as a follow up to the birds project. Can you change the first letter of all species (Q7432) with Welsh (cy) names? Just the first letter. We have a new project based on the genus Hygrocybe (Q520530), but need consistency throughout. Many thanks! Eg 'cap cwyr duol' --> 'Cap cwyr duol'. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done with the help of the dump from last week. -Succu (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Now I'm very happy! A warm glow in my heart! Thank you Succu! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Are you sure that your bot is extracting data properly? I think it is mixing Russian and Slovenian. --Милан Јелисавчић (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC) See:

And I think that also other languages are mixed.
Thank you for the hint. Probably something in the source changed. I'll check this. --Succu (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Userskript gesucht[edit]

Hallo Succu,

ich habe dich schon einmal etwas ähnliches gefragt, nur finde ich das nicht mehr wieder. Gibt es eigentlich keine Möglichkeit, automatisch die taxonomischen Grundaussagen zu setzen (z.B. bei Cookeina insititia (Q27918381))? Also P31:Q16521 + P105:Q7432 und die Gattung. Mein Laptop ist extrem langsam und Wikidata sehr javaskript-intensiv. Es ist jedes Mal eine Herausforderung meiner Geduld, mehrere Angaben zu setzen. Schon über ein Eingabefeld wie früher bei Autolist würde ich mich enorm freuen. Gibt es sowas? Vg, Kopiersperre (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ich glaube nicht, dass es ein derartiges Werkzeug gibt. Es müsste u.a. den korrekten Wert für parent taxon (P171) bestimmen können, etwa durch Auslesen der Taxobox. Wenn du nur taxon name (P225) angibst landet das Datenobjekt nach spätestens zwei Tagen auf meinen täglichen TODO-Listen. Gruß --Succu (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Das übergeordnete Taxon könnte ich manuell eingeben. Ich würde dir gerne Arbeit abnehmen, aber es ist einfach nicht effektiv, wenn ich das mache.--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Das ist nett, aber der Aufwand dürte kaum ins Gewicht fallen. Da seit ca. einer Woche fast alle per taxon name (P225) bekannten Taxa über die vier elementaren Eigenschaften verfügen kann ich das entspannt angehen und mich um andere offene Baustellen kümmern. --Succu (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Xerocomoideae (Q27959873)[edit]

Hi Succu, is this what you meant ("add another one") in your revert note of my edit? By the way, Xerocomoideae leads to Boletaceae as it is a subfamily of it. Also, feel free to revert again, since I'm new to taxonomic editing! --Azertus (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes,that's what I meant. This new taxonomy, currently established at wikispecies, is the result of a study published two years ago: Molecular phylogenetic analyses redefine seven major clades and reveal 22 new generic clades in the fungal family Boletaceae. --Succu (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


Succu, in Bezug auf den plötzlichen Tode eines Kollegen, meinst du wirklich, dass ich das auf die leichte Schulter nehme? Ich bin wahrscheinlich genau so überrascht wie du gewesen. Seiner Familie gilt natürlich auch mein Beileid – das wurde bereits ausgesprochen. Ich weiß übrigens auch, wie es ist, einen lieben Menschen zu verlieren. Jeder reagiert (offensichtlich) anders. Jared Preston (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ja sicher. Ist bei meinem Verlust noch ziemlich frisch, aber deine Wortwahl „Fuck“ halte ich für unangemessen und deiner(!) unwürdig. --Succu (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Meine Wortwahl hat aber nichts mit dem Menschen zu tun, sondern mit meinem Gefühl (der Überraschung). Das hast du vielleicht missverstanden. Ich wünsche dir auch die Kraft, mit deiner Trauer umzugehen. Jared Preston (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Author citation[edit]

I am linking the item for the disambiguation page about author citation (biology) and author citation (zoology) to the two specific items. There is no item of an author involved. There is no reason to revert this other than the fact you may believe it is evident they are the same. However, this is a multi-lingual project and keeping these different from (P1889) statements prevents these items from ever being mistakenly merged. --Azertus (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mistakenly merging is a doubtful explanation. The items are different enough. --Succu (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not convinced. Two items with the same label are exactly what different from (P1889) is meant for. The label says "but they are often confused", but this is not the main aspect of the property. The statements I added are completely unambiguous (i.e. there's no wondering "why is this property added to this item") due to the use of descriptive page and disambiguation page have to be in different items (Q24005632) in the qualifier.
There needs to be room for emergent use of properties in Wikidata. Linking items for disambiguation pages to the items mentioned in them is widespread and may enable useful features or analyses in the future, in addition to preventing bad merges. Please take this discussion to a wider venue if you still not only disagree but also oppose the very existence of these statements on these and other items. --Azertus (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm using the deUI, so it would be helpful to tell me that all Items have the same en-label Author citation. Descriptions are intended to „disambiguate items with the same or similar labels“. It's not possible to merge the items. All have an en-sitelink. So I see no need for your hardly understandable statements with qualifiers. BTW, I think the value of criterion used (P1013) is wrong. --Succu (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Okay, why do you always revert my edits? Back with the giraffes, the golden wolves and back again with the giraffes. It's like you don't believe that they are accurate.--FierceJake754 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are wrong. You can not change taxon name (P225) or labels and descriptions at will! --Succu (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
At this point, I wish I could... If so, what can I do? With that giraffe article, should I make it about northern giraffes (giraffa camelopardalis), remove its sources concerning the giraffe genus, find the giraffe genus article and submit the sources to the giraffe/giraffa article? Can I do that?--FierceJake754 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
What exactly to you wish to move from Northern giraffe (Q15083) to Giraffe (Q862089)? --Succu (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
So there was a separate article. I should've noticed... Well, as Northern giraffe (Q15083) is about the northern giraffe (it will be), the Wikipedia entries which links to the giraffes should be sent to Giraffe (Q862089), and the Wikipedia entries to northern giraffes will remain in Northern giraffe (Q15083). The Giraffe (Q862089) article will become the article as Northern giraffe (Q15083) formerly was before and we can remake Northern giraffe (Q15083) anew, as the article about northern giraffes respectively. There's not pretty much anything else to move, but I think it's a start.--FierceJake754 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you give examples which sitelinks should be moved from Northern giraffe (Q15083) to Giraffe (Q862089)? I doubt there are a lot, because the genus was monotypic until recently. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I checked most of them and there are many giraffe articles that remained as Giraffa camelopardalis and not northern giraffes. However, some Wikipedia giraffe articles have moved to northern giraffe articles and kept the giraffa genus or perhaps other Wikipedia entries have created a northern giraffe of its own separate from the giraffe article and re-edit the giraffe article to its genus status. But considering that a Wikidata reacts when an article is moved and when a Wikidata article is created after a new article is created in Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia of different languages may develop the giraffe articles, making four separate giraffe species articles, as we speak... Perhaps I was wrong to act too soon, now I don't know if we should move them yet because as you said, the genus was montypic until recently... Maybe we should wait a little longer... I'm sorry for wasting your time.--FierceJake754 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Highland Barley/Orge du Tibet/青稞[edit]

Your reverted the change I made here. I created the french article fr:Orge du Tibet (and made en:Highland_barley after that, about the chinese/tibetan zh:青稞, I found in Tibetan plateau areas in China. I didn't found a specific latin name on chineses sites at this time (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum, as displayed in chinese version)., but instead found 3 names I put on the french site :

  • 藏青稞 Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum ([9])
  • 青稞 Hordeum vulgare var. nudum ([10])
  • 青稞 Hordeum vulgare var. coeleste ([11])

I also found the name: Hordeum vulgare var. himalayense ([12], [13]).

Perhaps there are several var. of This highland barley matching this name. But that was the main subject, and didn't found this article, don't know why for ???), that's probably a vulgar name for several var.Popolon (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You merged the varieties Hordeum vulgare var. nudum or Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum (Q21578723) and Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum (Q13446495). That's not correct. Probably the taxobox in fr:Orge du Tibet should be removed (en:Highland_barley has none) and both articles should be moved to a new item without any taxon properties like taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed than on Japanese version, the crop grows mainly in japan, there are not so much highland in this country. Else could 3 taxons be added in the same wikidata item for 3 vars. associated with the same common name.The chinese version has the taxobox too, but speaks about the 3 vars. Popolon (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Popolon, Synonyms of Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare L. are (taken from GRIN):

  • Hordeum vulgare var. abergii Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. abyssinicum (Ser.) Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. addisabebae Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. aethiopicum Vavilov & Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. aethiops Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. afghanicum Vavilov ex N. A. Ivanova
  • Hordeum vulgare var. africanum Vavilov ex Lukyanova et al.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. amaricum Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. angustispicatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. angustissimum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. ankoberense Vavilov & Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. anomalum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. asiaticoides Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. asiaticum Vavilov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. asmaricum Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. atratum Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. atricornutum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. atrispicatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. atroviolaceum Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. atterbergianum R. E. Regel
  • Hordeum vulgare var. atterbergii Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. axumicum Vavilov & Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. bactrianum Vavilov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. brachyantherum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. braunii Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. breve Alef.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. breviaristatum Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. brevisetum R. E. Regel
  • Hordeum vulgare var. brevispicatum Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. brunneinudum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. chalunicum Vavilov & Orlov ex Lukyanova et al., nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. chinense Vavilov & Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. chungense A. E. Aberg
  • Hordeum vulgare var. coeleste L.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. coerulescens Ser.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. colonicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. compactum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. compositum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. contractum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. copticum Vavilov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. cornutiforme A. E. Aberg
  • Hordeum vulgare var. cornutum Schrad.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. crispicapillum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. crispum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. cucullatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. curylepis Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. daghestanicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. decorticatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. decussatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. deficiens (Steud. ex A. Braun) Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. densum Ser.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. distichon (L.) Hook. f.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. djimmaicum Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. dubium Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. dundar Zhuk.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. duplialbum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. dupliatrum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. duplinigrum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. erectum J. L. Rode ex Schubl.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. erythreictum Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. euryhypatherum Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. freislebenii Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabriasiaticum Vavilov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabribrevisetum Vavilov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabricoeleste Vavilov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabrideficiens Vavilov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabrierectum Vavilov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabrigracilius Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabriparallelum Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabripyramidatum Vavilov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabrispicatum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. glabriviride Trofim.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. gobicum Vavilov & Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. gracilius Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. griseinigrum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. griseinudum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. gustafssonii Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. gymnanomalun Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. gymnocrithum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. gymnospermum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. hadaka Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. hangaicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. harlani Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. haxtoni Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. heterolepis Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. himalayense (Schult.) Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. hochstetteri Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. horsfordianum Wittm.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. hybernum Viborg
  • Hordeum vulgare var. hypatherum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. ibericum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. inerme Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. insularum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. janthinun Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. japonicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. kobdicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. koernickei Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. krausianum Wittm.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. lamarum A. E. Aberg
  • Hordeum vulgare var. latibrevisetum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. latiglumatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. latinudipyramidatum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. latirevelatum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. latispicatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. leioheterolepis Vavilov ex Lukyanova et al.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. leiomacrolepis R. E. Regel
  • Hordeum vulgare var. leiorrhynchum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. macrolepis (A. Br.) Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. medicum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. melanocrithum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. meneliki Vavilov ex Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. micrurum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. mongolicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. mortoni Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. multispiculum Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nanum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. neogenes Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nigricans (Ser.) Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nigrinudum Vavilov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nigripallidum R. E. Regel
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nigriscens Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nigritonsum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nigrum (Willd.) Peterm.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nipponicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nudideficiens Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nudidubium Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nudifurcatum R. E. Regel
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nudihaxtoni Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nudijaponicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nudinipponicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nudipyramidatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nuditonsum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nuditransiens Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nudum Spenn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nutans (Schubl.) Alef.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. nutans-pallidum Trofim. & Lukyanova
  • Hordeum vulgare var. palestinicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. pallidum Ser.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. parallelum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. pavonicum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. persicum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. platylepis Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. pseudoabyssinicum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. pseudotrifurcatum Langst.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. pyramidatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. rarum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. recens Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. rehmii Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. revelatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. rikotense R. E. Regel
  • Hordeum vulgare var. rimpaui Wittm.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. rosii Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. schimperianum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. seringei Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. sessilifurcatum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. sikangense Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. sinicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. sinojaponicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. solitarium Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. steudelii Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subaethiops Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subatterbergii Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subcompositum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subcornutum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subdecussatum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subduplialbum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subdupliatrum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. suberectum Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subeurylepis Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subhaxtoni Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subinerme Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. sublatiglumatum Vavilov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. sublaxum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subneogenes Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subnudipyramidatum Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subnudum Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subnutans Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subparallelum Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subpyramidatum Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subviolaceum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. subzeocrithum Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. syriacum (R. E. Regel) Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. tetrastichon Celak.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. thomaei Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. tibetanoides Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. tibetanum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. tonsum Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. tortile (Robert) Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. transiens Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. triangulare Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. triceros Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. tridax Korn.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum (Schltdl.) Alef.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. uljassutaicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. urgaicum Vavilov & Orlov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. violaceum Korn., nom. nud.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. viridihaxtoni Mansf.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. viridis Vavilov & Orlov
  • Hordeum vulgare var. zeocrithideficiens Vavilov, nom. inval.
  • Hordeum vulgare var. zeocrithon (L.) Alef.

--Succu (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a biologist, so does this mean that all this names are the same var. with different names given by several discovering people, or does this means, that they are all different (sub vars or something like that) ? There is an interesting picture from coeleste from Switzerland on commons File:Hordeum vulgare coeleste.jpg Popolon (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
By Germplasm Resources Information Network (Q2590088), a taxon authority, all these varieties are included in a taxon concept labeled as Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare and thus treated as taxon synonym (P1420) of Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare (Q25121844). I think it is obvious that the original authors of this varieties intended to describe varieties that are different form Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare and are varieties of their own. So the answer to your question depends on someones taxonomic viewpoint. Most of this varieties have (or should have) their own item. This makes it possible to model different taxonomic opinions. --Succu (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Birds lists[edit]

Hi Succu,

Would you check my query at c:Commons:WikiProject Birds/lists/missing images at Wikidata? Somehow the number of results increased much in July (from 4000 to 25000 now). Not sure why. In any case, I split it into 5 lists. The idea by Llywelyn2000 was to build a list for bird watchers. I filtered exstinct ones, but maybe more could be done.
--- Jura 12:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jura. I created around 20,000 items for subspecies listed in IOC World Bird List, Version 6.3 (Q27042747) and some missing species. So we have now around 30,000 items for birds. --Succu (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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?

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? --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)


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)


Hello! For the OpenStreetMap key "dog" see: It is used 7269 times in the OSM database by 1089 users: --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)
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]

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)


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]


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]


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)


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)


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 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 ∉ Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (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)


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):

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]


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)


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)