Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/SuccuBot
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Approved--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
SuccuBot 1[edit]
SuccuBot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: Succu (talk • contribs • logs)
Task/s:
Maintenance of property IUCN conservation status (P141) together with qualifier IUCN taxon ID (P627) based on data published by The IUCN Red List web site
Function details:
In June I checked and updated around 10.000 entries (see Flood flag request). Unfortunately shortly after this the IUCN published a new assessment list with a lot of changes. E.g. around 1200 cacti were added, for lot of species the IUCN Red List Status was changed (see Species changing IUCN Red List Status (2012-2013). A lot of species below species rank vanished from the list. Other species are now treated as a synonym. E.g. Taxus sumatrana (Q1073864) is now a synonym of Taxus wallichiana (Q186553), therefore the last one got a new Id.
I'd like to run my scripts on a more regular base. I adopted my scripts to the recent change of Help:Sources (Trusted database), replacing point in time (P585) by retrieved (P813). --Succu (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Will the bot work with time qualifiers so the history of the conservations status can be queried? --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'dont think this makes sense. You can see the assessment history at the IUCN-Webpage. Outdated Ids are not supported at the IUCN-Website and you will get a http 404 error. --Succu (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also think that we should not keep the history of taxonomic databases. Scientific articles are much more valuable for the historic point of view. Succu, you could add publication date (P577) for "year published". — Felix Reimann (talk)
- I could, but "year published" is a new data entry since the recent data version 2013.1 and am not sure what happens when version 2013.2 ist published. --Succu (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I had an idea. We should treat each version of IUCN Red List of Threatened Species with has edition or translation (P747) viz. create an item IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013.1 and use this item for stated in (P248). --Succu (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also think that we should not keep the history of taxonomic databases. Scientific articles are much more valuable for the historic point of view. Succu, you could add publication date (P577) for "year published". — Felix Reimann (talk)
- No, I'dont think this makes sense. You can see the assessment history at the IUCN-Webpage. Outdated Ids are not supported at the IUCN-Website and you will get a http 404 error. --Succu (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Support for SuccuBot - already great work done so far. Regarding IUCN: Still not sure if their terms of use (~ cc-nc) fit to CC-0. — Felix Reimann (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Ayack (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)