User talk:Succu

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Filing cabinet icon.svg Archive
Archive 2018
Archive 2017
Archive 2016
Archive 2015
Archive 2014
Archive 2013

Teucrium expansum[edit]

This taxon don't exist; the true name is Teucrium expassum Pau [1] [2] [3] Teucrium expansum Pau in is a gross mistake [4].  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philmarin (talk • contribs).

The taxon Teucrium expassum (Q15370750) was established herein. According to IPNI the misspelling Teucrium expansum (Q2838443) was done in Index Kewensis Supplement 1. --Succu (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

followed by (P156) or replaced by (P1366) for journal titles ?[edit]

Re: your reverts like this [5].

followed by (P156) is appropriate for journal issues and volumes.

But when a journal title is changed and replaced with a new title, replaced by (P1366) is the property that is overwhelmingly being used. Jheald (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. --Succu (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, the pair replaces (P1365) / replaced by (P1366) looks right for this purpose, Jheald. followed by (P156) / follows (P155) should be removed / replaced. --Succu (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi Succu - you reverted my change of this from 'taxon' to 'synonym'. I may have done it with the wrong formatting (quite possible; I find wikidata formatting very impenetrable), but could you reinstate this change please (in the correct format!); both Kew and Plant List agree it is a synonym, as do virtually all other recent sources. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit caused a constraint violation. If you want to list the synonyms of a taxon according to a good reference please use taxon synonym (P1420). --Succu (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Erstbeschreibung" sowie "erstbeschrieben in"[edit]

Hallo Succu, könntest Du bitte einen Blick auf folgende Datensätze werfen: first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864), publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326). Ich habe die Befürchtung, dass da mehrere Bedeutungen ("protologue" als entsprechendes Objekt, aber verschieden von "Erstbeschreibung"?) verwechselt werden, aber mir fehlt das Hintergrundwissen. Viele Grüße --ChristianSW (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, ChristianSW! Worauf gründet sich deine Befürchtung? Ich sehe nichts arg Falsches. Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Succu! Für publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326) ist als entsprechendes Objekt "Protolog" angegeben, wobei für first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864) verschieden von "Protolog" angegeben ist. Für publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326) würde ich nun first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864) als entsprechendes Objekt eintragen, aber bin mir nicht sicher, wie das Item "Protolog" verknüpft werden sollte. --ChristianSW (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ich hab das mal zurückgesetzt. --Succu (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Wie kommst du auf diese Beschreibung?! --Succu (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Jetzt wurde Deine Änderung revertiert. Die Beschreibung habe ich eingefügt, weil publication in which this taxon name was established (P5326) die Eigenschaft zu first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864) sein soll. Dann dämmerte mir, dass da etwas nicht stimmt. Meine Beschreibung nehme ich raus. --ChristianSW (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


Hallo Succu,
ein Bot hat hier zwei Homonyme zusammengeführt. Das dürfte doch eigentlich nicht passieren. --Murma174 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Das war ein unachtsamer Mensch, kein Bot. Ich habe es revertiert. Gruß --Succu (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Danke für die schnelle Reaktion! --Murma174 (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


The entry for Lantana horrida at IRMNG is for Lantana horrida Moldenke, not Lantana horrida Kunth.[6] Q15432288 is the page for Lantana horrida Moldenke (now known as Lantana urticoides Hayek). Q15430914 refers to Lantana horrida Kunth. IRMNG does not have an entry for Lantana horrida Kunth. How do we prevent it from continually re-adding the link from IRMNG to Q15430914? Thanks! Hyperik (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. Simply set the id to novalue. --Succu (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. :) Hyperik (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

IUCN status changes[edit]

Hello Succu, do you track changes in IUCN status operated by your bot? It would be very useful for our volunteers to be able to check if we have an article on any of those, and fix the corresponding information in the article (I'm talking about non-machine readable parts of articles, not templates, where we already invoke IUCN categories automatically from Wikidata).--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi! No, I do not, but it should be possible. --Succu (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It would be really cool if you could log such edits. I tried using Wikidata Query Recent Changes but that's quite clumsy --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


You have been blocked for edit warring for 3 days. --Rschen7754 01:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@User:Rschen7754: How does this helps to resolve the issues at species nova (Q27652812). I'm missing your involvement at the talk page of this item and elsewhere. --Succu (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The real issue at hand is your user conduct (as well as that of others). That is something that only you can control. --Rschen7754 21:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The real issue at hand is, User:Rschen7754, a user who refuse to take part in meaningful discussion to resolve disagreement about what about an item is and how it should be described (=modeled). --Succu (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


Do you work for Missouri Botanical Gardens?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Why do came to this impression? --Succu (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You have an obedience to their taxonomy regardless of the rest of the interested groups. And the link to the "data pull" site was hidden during your merge. Juvenile.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I am very not fond of your merge games, either. I am not gaming. Please use your energies for this with someone else, not me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not understand what want. --Succu (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC) These changes you made. The references are all made available at tropicos, all of them use the original name. You reverted it to be a mirror (or simple dumb data pull) of the tropicos information, not something researched by a person. Hence, I ask if you are working for MOBOT because that is certainly how it looks.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
„dumb data pull”? My bot isn't using Tropicos. Tropicos has no entry for this species. --Succu (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Just like I posted at the taxonomy project. As you can see, all of the links you reverted back are there.

I used to follow miss spelled species from "botanical authority reference sites". They get pulled in from the first easily accessible online site and perpetuate like a bad retweet or share throughout the whole taxonomy field. I did this at commons before I discovered it.

Congrats on finding a couple of IPNI references on your own -- after you made the MOBOT inspired (whether you know it or not) merge.

A person performing a merge on an active project is the person who is not having a civil conversation. So, it is you who did not engage in a civil conversation. Civility occurs before changes are made to an active project.

Your interest in the Flora Antarctica is welcomed. The project has been sitting there with not much activity since 2014. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Again I can not follow you. The relationship of Leptinella plumosa (Q5175878) and Cotula plumosa (Q57051873) pretty clear, but if you need a second opinion, try INPN. --Succu (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
About your problem with the subdividing of the text: s:The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage/Part I/Pozoa reniformis is an example of a stand-alone and cited part of the publication, in all of its forms: book, series of articles, etc. If you want to have a problem, share my problem. There is no break in the text of the scan that was transcribed at wikisource where IPNI says that the different periodical versions stopped and started.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


Can you revert your changes to this? Perhaps other changes to the same? Perhaps ask how versions work at wikisource instead of making the change and then asking me.

You made the change and then asked about versions. Perhaps you ask first and then change things?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your doings in this context seem a little bit chaotic to me. Flora Antarctica (Q6435950) consists of three volumns. For details please the entry in Taxonomic literature : a selective guide to botanical publications and collections with dates, commentaries and types (Q56649865). I doubt this items are notable enough. I can't find anything at Wikidata talk:Wikibooks. --Succu (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


In the discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books#We need a clear model in WD if we want to follow a FRBR structure, WP:Books has determined that "Book" is unsuitable for use with instance of (P31) because the word "book" is polysemic, and could refer to anything from a published work in general abstraction to a particular physical printed copy. A value complying with the FRBR structure is always to be preferred. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

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

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


You were right to revert my last changes on TPDB id (like this)).
I understoud some times ago that you wanted to keep the TPDB id of the exact wikidata's scientific name, even if it was considered as a synonym by TPDB. But I could not find the synonym id on the TPDB page.
But I discovered only today that the synonym id is displayed on the page (84930 displays 122468). I think it was not displayed in the past.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey! Fossilworks made that kind of clarification some years ago. No problem at all. It's not easy to handle FW and TPDB. ;) Regards --Succu (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

For Bot: ‎Virus Taxonomy: 2018 Release[edit]

  1. Important news: Q57700017.
  2. Attention: Phylum (!) Negarnaviricota Virus Taxonomy: 2018 Release. --VladXe (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thx! I will run the updates within the next few days. --Succu (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit restrictions[edit]

Per discussion on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, you are subject to edit restrictions. Please read the exact wording at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal commentary ban and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Commenting ban. --Pasleim (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Das bedeutet jetzt was genau, Pasleim? --Succu (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • you are not permitted to make any comments about user Brya and Pigsonthewing, including but not limited to their (perceived) competence, skills, goals, or motivations. You may link to diffs and express concerns about the diffs in appropriate venues so long as you do not include personal commentary on the editor making those edits.
Deutsche Übersetzung
  • you are not permitted to use any HTML comments on discussion pages, or in messages directed to user Brya and Pigsonthewing or to modify Brya's and Pigsonthewing's comments, including, but not limited to: indentations, and hiding their comments.
Deutsche Übersetzung --Pasleim (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Happy Birthday Wikidata: „including an indefinite block from Wikidata“ - Das nennt man dann wohl vogelfrei. --Succu (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

TAXREF v12.0[edit]

Hallo Succu,

Eine neue Version von TAXREF (v12.0) ist vor einer Woche erschienen. Möchtest du den Import wie bei früheren Versionen durchführen?

Tubezlob (🙋) 08:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ja, mach ich. Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


Hi! I was just wondering if you could make SuccuBot use a maxlag of 5 for edits? Thanks

·addshore· talk to me! 09:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi,Addshore, sorry I forgot that I changed the value some time ago. Fixed now. Thx. --Succu (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! ·addshore· talk to me! 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

JSTOR articles[edit]

Thank you for creating entities like Q28954054. I see there are almost 7000 items with a JSTOR-looking DOI and a JSTOR ID, are they mostly your own doing? Nemo 20:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably, if they are related to the journal Taxon (Q2003024) (see User:Succu/SPARQL#Taxon_(Q2003024)). --Succu (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

putting ids into wikidata[edit]

Hi @Succu: I noticed you said in response to Wikidata:Property proposal/EUNIS ID "My bot can add the ids". I was hoping you might do the ids also for the Australian plant id which is currently incomplete in Wikidata: Property P5953, NT Flora ID. (Or perhaps help to learn how to do it myself?) Regards, and thanks, MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi! If "Australian plant id" refers to APNI ID (P5984) then my bot is adding this to existing items already. In the case of NT Flora ID (P5953) it looks like there is no easy way get the ids of the 4,300 species. --Succu (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Run a bot for P373 and P935[edit]

Hello Succu,
Some times ago, I asked you to help me solve a problem:

You solved the problem and gave me the following queries: P373, P935
Sadly those queries just display the problem, but do not solve it.
Could you tell me the query you ran to solve the issue?
I would like to run this query from time to time.
BR Liné1 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I was just thinking of running queries like these. I start a QS batch to resolve the first (P373). Lymantria (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Liné1: The bot is running. I can include this into my bots weekly maintenance tasks. Unfortunately you can't create new statements with the help of SPARQL only. Regards --Succu (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I stopped the QS batch then. It was not yet running anyway. Lymantria (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that. ;) Around of 10,000 taxa are effected. --Succu (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This one gave some 1000 more. It is not flawless because of wrong uses of topic's main category (P910). Lymantria (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. You both rock. Liné1 (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Succu, your bot worked well, mainly on species item.
But it did not catch them all ;-), mainly higher taxon category items.
Look at commons:Category:Pages_with_biology_property_incorrect_on_Wikidata, still 5800 categories with wikidata problem.
I think that the issue is that in your wikidata query you take only categories having taxon name (P225) and topic's main category (P910).
An example is Category:Bredia (Q18278698), it has no Commons category (P373).
BR Liné1 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think there are 3 cases:
And you should apply 2 rules:
BR Liné1 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Trissolcus halyomorphae[edit]

Hey, quick question–what was your reason for demerging the Trissolcus halyomorphae and Trissolcus japonicus entries? It's my understanding that they are accepted generally as synonyms e.g. see here. Blythwood (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to denote this please use taxon synonym (P1420) with a good reference. --Succu (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Duplicated items[edit]

Hey Succu, the items Q10932907, Q20670993, Q23070814, Q27949092, Q56257454, Q56257453, Q56273272, Q56273273, Q56273277 are instances of Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920), and somewhat related to taxonomy. Since they are all basically empty after specieswiki sitelinks have been deleted, can you please have a look whether they should be deleted as well, or merged, or expanded to a useful form? Dankeschön und Viele Grüße! —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I merged them all. Gruß --Succu (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Vachellia tortilis/ Acacia tortilis[edit]


Today, the formerly known as Acacia tortilis, is named Vachellia tortilis and belongs to the Vachellia genus. DenesFeri (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So what? The parent taxon of Acacia tortilis is Acacia not Vachellia. For Vachellia tortilis please see Vachellia tortilis (Q14933877). --Succu (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Acacia tortilis is a synonym. Not a valid name. DenesFeri (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly what Acacia tortilis (Q1337058) express. The sitelinks are united there because most Wikipedias use the name Acacia tortilis. --Succu (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
But that's wrong. The other Wikipedias will also make the corrections, if they see that the Wikidata makes the right thing. DenesFeri (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
No. It's a taxonomic opinion expressed in Phylogenetic position and revised classification of Acacia s.l. (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) in Africa, including new combinations in Vachellia and Senegalia (Q30040321). --Succu (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

P:P31 als Qualifier[edit]

Hi Succu,
ich bekomme beim Einsetzen von "Umkombination" als P:P31 als Qualifikator für wissenschaftliche Namen mittlerweile folgende Problemmeldung:

"Die Eigenschaft ist ein(e) sollte nicht an diesem Ort verwendet werden (als Qualifikatoren). Der einzig gültige Ort für diese Eigenschaft ist als Wert."

Lässt sich das irgendwie lösen? Ich ging bisher davon aus, dass die Zuordnung für die Klammerung über diesen Weg korrekt ist (ebenso wie die Kennzeichnung von Literaturquellen als "Erstbeschreibung". Any ideas? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Achim! Die Variante mit instance of (P31) war immer nur ein Notbehelf. Für die Rolle einer Literaturquellen haben wir mittlerweile reference has role (P6184). Ich hab aber da noch nichts umgestellt. Die Warnung vorerst ignorieren. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
O.k., im Ignorieren bin ich gut ;) Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)