Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2017/09.


Some of them are tagged with P31: cultivar (Q4886), but other contains also/only P31:taxon (Q16521), plus ocasionally some other P31s, for example see Rosa 'Wife of Bath' (Q7367008). Seems that there are no clear rules regarding all allowed and unallowed claims for cultivars. --XXN, 13:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is so. It probably is not such a good idea to put cultivar names in "taxon name". - Brya (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Many articles about Rosa cultivars in eswiki are tagged here only with P31:taxon (Q16521).[1] I think we should change P31 to cultivar (Q4886). --XXN, 21:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure all of them are subject of International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (Q941761)? Why not use Rosa cultivar (Q26817508)? --Succu (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge request: Merge Q27588872(Woodhouse's scrub jay) into Q14908008('Aphelocoma woodhouseii')[edit]

I'm not sure how to do it, but these two entries need to be merged. Q27588872 is simply "Woodhouse's scrub jay" with no statements or labels. It is the "Wikidata item" for en:Woodhouse's scrub jay. If you can, please fix or let me know how. Thanks--MCEllis (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. - Brya (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@MCEllis: For future reference, see Help:Merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

apple cultivars[edit]

should we connect them to Malus sieversii (Q728769) or Malus sylvestris (Q47161) based on Chloroplast diversity in the genus Malus: new insights into the relationship between the European wild apple (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.) and the domesticated apple (Malus domestica Borkh.). (Q34539109) or The genome of the domesticated apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) (Q22122060)?

For some apples we have enough information to have separate items for plants and fruits.

They grow, tolerate diseases and rot differently. d1g (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the problem. Apple cultivars are to be connected to Malus domestica, or to be "instance of" "apple cultivar". - Brya (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It can't be cultivars aren't relevant to taxons they were derived from.
Right now all links are removed. d1g (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you intend to say? - Brya (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no links between wild plants and domesticated plants in Wikidata.
This is wrong. d1g (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The relationships between domesticated plants and their wild progenitors are, as a rule of thumb, a matter of (scientific) speculation. If there is firm (referenced) data, this can be added.
        There is plenty that is wrong in Wikidata, but something that is missing is not wrong but missing. - Brya (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
PS: What does this have to do with cultivars? - Brya (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Loose interpretation of two mentioned articles states that all or most apple cultivars were derived from one taxon (we have only 2 options here).
We can account speculation using two values. d1g (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
?? - Brya (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
ru:Яблоня_лесная states "it was considered that cultivars are derived from Malus sylvestris (Q47161), but recent DNA research found 2500 cultivars derived from Malus sieversii (Q728769)"
Is this completely wrong? d1g (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can make it out, this is research into how much of the make-up of modern apples is derived from Malus sieversii, not a proposal to reclassify modern apples. - Brya (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
"is derived from Malus sieversii" - we should indicate this, don't you think?
What about based on (P144) and proportion (P1107) qualifier (for exact info)? d1g (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but not in items on apple cultivars (unless there are really good references). - Brya (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you referring to Chloroplast diversity in the genus Malus: new insights into the relationship between the European wild apple (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.) and the domesticated apple (Malus domestica Borkh.). (Q34539109)? --Succu (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Reminder for D1gggg? --Succu (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Brya, Succu: one article prefers one taxa and other - another; I have no other insight. d1g (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g: „Are you referring to...“ is a question. Are you referring or not? --Succu (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Succu, Q22122060 - Malus sieversii (Q728769); Q34539109 - Malus pumila (Q158657)
This is stated as lead of all ruwiki articles about apple taxas. d1g (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you give a few examples? - Brya (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

About the relationship of Wikispecies and WD[edit]

An interesting discussion about the relationship of WS and WD based on a proposed round-table discussion titled Wikispecies and Wikidata - a match made in heaven, or hell? to be held at Wikimania 2017 by Mr.Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. - Brya (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete taxa[edit]

I've seen we have no label (Q13357594) but it is not used anywhere (Special:WhatLinksHere/Q13357594). I've read Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy/Archive/2017/01#Expired taxa and I'm not sure what to think. If no label (Q13357594) is not a correct term, we should delete it (or rename it). If it is correct, shouldn't we use it? Paucabot (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a weird term (in fact self-contradictory), but we have it because enwiki has a category named so. - Brya (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
May be it's needed slight change in labels, but I'm pretty sure it should be used. And there are a big category of them. --Infovarius (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Surely not. Not here. --Succu (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few people who would like to express an opinion on taxa which they don't like/recognize. This could get really badly out of hand. In its own way, this can be expressed by "taxon synonym" / "instance of:" "synonym" (preferably properly referenced). - Brya (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are couple of users which would like to rule others' opinion and to show them what they should like or not. This approach can be systematic, yes. But this is despoty and correlates badly with Wikimedia policies. --Infovarius (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I got to this item trying to make a list of deprecated/obsolete/expired/unrecognized/ancient/old/replaced/whatever taxons. Maybe there are some controversial ones, but there also are non-controversial ones like Vermes (Q7921546). If I can't use no label (Q13357594), how can I get this list? Thanks in advance. Paucabot (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Moreover Vermes (Q7921546) has now simply "taxon" showing that this is a valid scientific name which is misleading. Infovarius (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong, Infovarius. instance of (P31) is not intended to express a taxonomic opinion (valid, accepted). --Succu (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
instance of (P31) is not intended to express a taxonomic opinion (valid, accepted) - where is this rule? Who says? --Infovarius (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Best practice in ontology design? --Succu (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
P31 has recommended itself as a powerful tool of ontologies and it can serve multiple taxonomies. --Infovarius (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ontologies use subclass of (P279) to build up monohierarchical taxonomies (not applicable here). The expression of a taxonomic opinion (=POV) relies on references. No despoty included and it correlates very well with Wikimedia policies. But help me to understand you. How would you define the term obsolete taxon? --Succu (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand P279, do you? It is used to build plurihierarchical taxonomies here. It can use references, of course. As for "obsolete taxon", I understand it as some taxonomical name which was used in some systems, but was abolished in later systems and is not used now. One of the reasons for that is that it was discovered to be polyphyletic. --Infovarius (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I do. I think not a single modern taxonomist would follow the treatment of Canna (Q161182) by Carl Linnaeus (Q1043) in Species Plantarum (Q849308) as part of Monandria (Q10331781). Do you remeber the case of Kumara (Q18344045) I brought to your attention some years earlier? Once thought as „obsolete” (= not accepted) is nowadays accepted. Your „taxonomical name which was used in some systems” refers to a taxonomic concept wich was held up for some time and maybe later changed substantially (paraphyletic/polyphyletic taxa). Over time taxa can have very different circumscription and labeled with different names (=P225). That's the part that needs references. --Succu (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
1) But Canna (Q161182) has a link to it's creator Carl Linnaeus (Q1043) but not to the latest taxonomist who gave the latest description. 2) As Kumara (Q18344045) was once not accepted and nowadays accepted, we can reflect it somehow (I don't know if we should use item "obsolete taxon" for this or not, but date qualifiers for "is a taxon" is useful). 3) Let's talk about "now paraphyletic taxa". Are they taxa now/then/anywhen? --Infovarius (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Which „date qualifier“ would you apply to the assumption that our Earth revolves the Sun? How would you denote the fact that Nicolaus Copernicus (Q619) proposed a different kind of view purely based of math? --Succu (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are a few cases that should be uncontroversial (although there would be plenty of people who would find the idea of Vermes quite descriptive), but there are lots and lots of cases where people would also like to use it.
        I see no appeal in trying to use Wikidata to generate a fairly random list (that is subject to change without notice). - Brya (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
So you don't like the item and I have no way to get a wikidata-list analog to Category:Obsolete taxa (Q6544480) which is present in 22 wikipedias? It seems a lot of other people have decided it was meaningful ... Paucabot (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but these categories are a useless mingle-mangle. --Succu (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of Wikipedias which have such a category, but they all seem to have (very) different contents. Before trying to produce a list, it is necessary to decide on a criterion for what should be on the list, and what should not. - Brya (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How to link a "taxon item" to the "publication item" where it has been described?[edit]

Here, I tried to use the "described by source" property to link a "taxon item" (Q20047343) to the "publication item" (Q22692787) where it has been described, but I wonder whether it would be useful or not to have a taxonomy-orientated property instead. What do you think? Totodu74 (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "described by source" is intended for encyclopedias only, and does not fit here. Given that we have some two million items, a separate property may be warranted, like "scientific name established in" or possibly "protologue". However, note that a protologue is more limited than the publication in which it appears (a protologue is usually just one or two pages out of the whole publication), so this would require extra work in using such a property. - Brya (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to a proposal for a new property? "scientific name established in" (linking to a book or an article item) seems to be a good solution. Indeed, I cannot imagine to have an item for a "protologue" that would consist in one paragraph from an article... Totodu74 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I am fine with a new property. - Brya (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need a new property. At the moment this is done within the reference section of taxon name (P225) (see e.g. the backlinks of Species Plantarum. 1st Edition, Volume 1 (Q21856106)). It's distinguished by the line instance of (P31)=first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864) from other references. But we should change this and use the hasRole property/qualifier. --Succu (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there are three problems with this: 1) a reference could also be the reference which is the source used or which confirms that the name is in use and 2) first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864) often is misapplied: it should indicate the first description of the taxon, but often is used for when the name was established (which may well be different, especially in case of the Species Plantarum. 1st Edition, Volume 1 (Q21856106)) and 3) the more loaded "taxon name" becomes, the more likely it is that some user will have difficulty reading this out. We can afford to have a separate property, since we have so many items where this situation occurs. - Brya (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not insist on first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864), but sooner or later we have to think about the role of a reference to P225. --Succu (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I know User:Rdmpage (=Roderic D. M. Page (Q7356570)) is very interested in this matter. Maybe he has some advice. --Succu (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
An agreement about the role of a reference to P225 will work, to some extent. However, Wikidata is an open project, and it is more user-friendly to have a separate single-purpose property rather than an agreement about a special use of a property in one special kind of situation. Just see how often properties are used for other things than they are intended for, in spite of property documentation; this will be much worse when the documentation is in some special little corner off the main path. - Brya (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand your argument. But I regard the statement for P225 qualified by author(s) + year and referenced with the publication (+ page etc.) the name was formaly "correct" establish as a "natural" unit. --Succu (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Up to a point I understand that: I am still not sure I really agree with that (it would be simpler to have what now are qualifiers as statements, among others since they can then have their own references). But 1) there are further details which would belong with that "natural unit", like typification, and "named after", and 2) it may also be possible to use the new property as a qualifier. - Brya (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind the mess at Q16753923. - Brya (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not a „mess”. Regard it as an experiment about how well some mechanisms work. --Succu (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome remarks by Gregor and Daniel as well. --Succu (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case it is an experiment which is not consistent with what you wrote above about a "natural unit". - Brya (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't. It's referenced with secondary literature. --Succu (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, in that case we certainly need a new property, because I don't understand the system you are using, at all. Probably nobody does? - Brya (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It says that the taxon is treated in Mammal Species of the World (Q1538807). --Succu (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There are two references involved "Squirrels of the World" and "Generic revision in the Holarctic ground squirrel genus Spermophilus" so I don't see the connection with Mammal Species of the World (Q1538807). Anyway, adding "Mammal Species of the World" (or ITIS, etc) as a reference is of very limited utility, since the fact that this taxon is included there is is already apparent by the MSW-link (or ITIS-link). References should preferably be (considerably) more specific. - Brya (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
My fault, but the fact that taxon name (P225) has a match to an external database is only of limited value. Squirrels of the World (Q19597701) and Generic revision in the Holarctic ground squirrel genus Spermophilus (Q19831713) are much better references. --Succu (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Gregor: Thanks for inviting me. I believe we need special reference properties for several cases:
  • The original description of the name (in botany: the publication containing the protologue). Note that although we can say that we always reference this to the reference as Succu proposes, in many cases this will not be an honest or useful reference. Some original descriptions are in extremely difficult publications, and the reference that the name is correct with a given original publication may best point to another, much later publication establishing this. I am happy to cite Linneaus directly, but I would rather cite Wen-Bin Yu, Hong Wang and De-Zhu Li 2011. Names of Chinese seed plants validly published in A Catalogue of Type Specimens (Cormophyta) in the Herbaria of China and its two supplements. Taxon Vol. 60, No. 4 (August 2011), pp. 1168-1172 2011 ( than the Seed catalogues as a verifiable reference for the correctness of data entered into Wikidata.
  • Whenever the species has been placed in a new genus (comb.nov.) or the species name had to be renamed (nom.nov.), we have a second publication. Here the botanical and zoological use differs, I cite the botanical above). Thus Q148920 has a reference to Spach, the combining author, but no reference to Christian von Steven, the author who described the species (under Pinus nordmanniana Steven). In fact, it seems to me that the information in Wikidata is currently insufficient to generate a valid canonical name for the species, i.e. "Abies nordmanniana (Steven) Spach".
  • Next, an important question is the typification. Most names are only valid with reference to physical type material, but this reference can be changed by means of a publication (lectotypification, neotypification). I believe this is special case for taxonomy and warrants extra properties. A lectotypification (if possible) overrides a former neotypification, so I believe a single property "taxonomically typified in" would be sufficient.
  • Finally, the circumscription of a taxon may differ between different authors. This brings us from a name to a taxon (which is always a taxon concept with a given circumscription). To express this, I believe we need a property like "circumscription according to"
So far my first thoughts. How far are we willing to go at the moment. Do we want to model the taxon correctly in Wikidata or do it incrementally step by step? --Gregor Hagedorn (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gregor Hagedorn: thank you for the thoughtful response. Some points:
  • It may indeed be valuable to be able to a add a publication as reference, which comments in some way on the original publication. This would mean that the new property would need to be used in a statement, not as a qualifier.
  • As it is, Wikidata can generate "Abies nordmanniana (Steven) Spach" (1841)" by consulting Q17357312 together with Q148920.
  • It may indeed be useful to have a separate property "taxon name typified in" for the place of publication of the currently valid typification (or all places of publication where a typification happened, if necessary deprecated). It would help if this, also, can be referenced.
  • Although I very much agree with the importance of circumscriptions, this is directly useful especially for a taxonomic work, a checklist, etc. Since Wikidata is a general database, it needs to be able to document various circumscriptions, but it is not to pick a preferred circumscription.
Since Wikidata is a WMF project, anything can only be done incrementally, for better or worse. - Brya (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I see the case of the basionym, I did not know. I think the reverse direction might have been better (multiple names can have the basionym, but only one basionym per name) but if the basionym property can be repeated there is no principle problem. With respect to the taxon concept: I agree that Wikidata should not aim to contain the complete circumscription, but implcitly it does if we list synonyms, or any properties (average size, weight, etc.). Where this becomes relevant: Is there a mechanism that we can enter two different taxon concepts in Wikipdata, with different according-to references but the same nomenclatural name? --Gregor Hagedorn (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The "reverse direction" is done by subject has role (P2868)=basionym (Q810198)/of (P642)=taxon name (P225) (for example Isothecium trachypodium (Q17203612) or see this query). --Succu (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
We have some cases where there are two items with the same taxon name, but different circumscriptions, and in principle there is no upper limit to that (IIRC at one time we had four items for one name, with different circumscriptions). And ideally each use of "taxon synonym" should be referenced by a taxonomic publication, so that with the right search question, Wikidata should be able to output different taxonomies, in detail. Of course, in reality, not all that many good references have been put in yet. - Brya (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, can you find the item references for such a set, so I can understand how references are used to distinguish them? I believe this may be relevant to the current discussion, but of course I may be wrong. Thanks! --Gregor Hagedorn (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
We should have complete taxonomies for APG system (Q433179), APG II system (Q156518), APG III system (Q156982), APG IV system (Q24895148), and Cronquist system (Q213094) (family level and up). Also, Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, 13. Band: Gymnospermae (Q14946978), as low as it goes. - Brya (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Totodu74, your received a lot of comments. What do you think about them? --Succu (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am not so involved in scaffolding the system of "properties", nor that fluent in English... I feed/complete the database, but I think I lack the overall vision to decide what has to be done: I trust you guys to create a consistent framework that allows an intuitive use and reuse of the data. I took a look to first description (of a taxon) (Q1361864) (and its use on Hordeum vulgare (Q11577)): to me, it seems quite sophisticated to hide it in a reference section, as an "instance of (P31)", and in addition it is a "fake" reference to state this taxon was described by a given author (as it is a primary source). I kind of get it is meaningful to unite author/date of description with the publication, but I still think such an information can be typically (and more easily) managed by a true "property" within the taxon name (P225) statement (along with taxon author (P405) and date of taxon name publication (P574)).
Regarding the discussion about different definitions according to different authors of a single taxon, genus change, etc. I have no advice so far, but I think the "circumscription" question is entirely distinct from the "nomenclatural act" one. The nomenclature only judges the first valid description of a name, not its reuse by subsequent authors. I hope this input will be somewhat useful, I keep reading yours with interest. Totodu74 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible Merge Assistance for: Rallus longirostris obsoletus (Q5020320) and Rallus obsoletus (Q22003908)[edit]

When attempting to add wikispecies entry to Rallus longirostris obsoletus (Q5020320) I noticed there was a similar wikidata entry Rallus obsoletus (Q22003908) that already had the wikispecies entry linked. From there I went on a bit of a journey reading about this bird. It appears that in 2014 there was a distinction made between Clapper Rails separating them into 3 groups: Clapper Rail; Ridgway's Rail of California, Arizona, and Nevada; and Mangrove Rail of South America. The California Clapper Rail is now known as Ridgway's Rail (Rallus Obsoletus) synonyms: Rallus longirostris obsoletus and Rallus crepitans obsoletus. Ridgway's rail also has the subspecies: obsoletus, levipes, yumanesis, and beldingi. The main issue seems to be a confusion from the NL-wikipedia pages. Currently the SUBSPECIES page on the NL wiki is linked to the wikidata for the SPECIES and the SPECIES page on the NL-wikipedia has a separate wikidata entry.

In short I think that Rallus longirostris obsoletus (Q5020320) should be renamed to the proper Ridgway's rail to reduce confusion and merge with Rallus obsoletus (Q22003908).

Let me know any way I can help or clarify my thoughts here. Thanks! Jeanjung212 (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure it is all that complicated. All the sitelinks (and the database links you added) in Rallus longirostris obsoletus (Q5020320) were placed wrong. I have moved them. It would be good if you could add a few "taxon synonym" (or "instance of" : "synonym") referenced by good taxonomic papers. - Brya (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Consistent wikipedia sitelinks from taxon items[edit]

Hi, thanks to someone helping at the Wikidata "Request_a_query" page, I have this query which identifies taxa which have no (english) wikipedia sitelink, but have a similar wikidata entry under a common name. T My understanding is that taxon pages without an appropriate sitelinks may exist if the sitelinked page covers more than the simple biology of a species. For instance, most sitelinks for "dog" are linked from Q144 rather than from e.g. Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265). But my SPARQL query identifies a number of other cases which seem a little more controversial. For instance, should sitelinks to the entry for Mouflon be present in Q190294 or Q378080, or should perhaps these wikidata items be merged? Similarly, it seems a bit odd not to have any sitelinks from Palmae (Q14848242). There is also the odd case of the unnamed item Q18499918 which is supposedly a common name of Q15585877.

Is this a helpful query to identify potential problems? For my purposes it is very helpful to have wikipedia links from taxon items, so the fewer of these "common name sitelinks", the better. Better still (for my purposes) would be to be able to have the same sitelink on multiple WD items (e.g. sitelinked from Q144, Q26972265, and Q20717272), but I think there is some WD guidance against this. Alternatively, is there a property that I can set on the taxon item to point to the common name item which contains the sitelinks? Q26972265 has the use property set to Q144, which seems the wrong property to use. HYanWong (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the high-profile animals like horses, cattle, dogs, etc are problematic in nature, no matter what approach is chosen. What property would you suggest to indicate that Q26972265 is used as Q144?
        Something like en:Mouflon is a bit confused and self-contradictory (which seems not all that rare on enwiki), but they clearly include several taxa (subspecies) in their concept of mouflon, so it does not equate to a taxon (somebody included a taxobox by mistake, as seems not all that rare on enwiki).
        Reality is just not simple. People out there use all kinds of concepts, and these don't necessarily correspond to taxa, as recognized by scientists. - Brya (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for the reply. Perhaps a clearer example would be Serpentes (Q29540038) - I think most people would expect to find a set of sitelinks from that taxon to wikipedia pages about snakes, such as this one with a taxobox. Again, the property of "use" = "snake" seems not specific enough: compare e.g. to the case of Castanea saliva (Q22699) whose "use" is set to "food", "sugar" and "Coffee substitute". I'm no expert on WD properties, but surely there has got to be something more specific, such as "commonly known as", or equivalent, that could be used? HYanWong (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)