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 2018/04.


Is capuronii (Q23931078) a taxonomic patronym?[edit]

Both items were created by Mr. Mabbett. I don't think

  1. taxonomic eponym (Q23931075) (was taxonomic patronym ) is a term really in use
  2. epithets like capuronii (Q23931078) deserve an item of its own.

Any comments? --Succu (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

taxonomic patronym is now „taxonomic eponym“... --Succu (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)any
Funny, Mr. Mabbett, „taxonomic eponym“ is not in use at all. --Succu (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Your search returns a link to https://dx.doi.org/10.3897%2Fzookeys.513.9873 from which: "Taxonomic inspirations associated with book titles, famous authors and fictional characters from literature are numerous amongst taxonomic eponyms" (emboldening mine). But if you are interested in learning what a taxonomic eponym is, you would also do better to use a better-written search, such as the one that found the citations I added yesterday. Or see wiktionary:Category:Taxonomic eponyms, which lists several hundred of them, all of which, I am pleased to say, will shortly be added to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
if you are interested in learning what a taxonomic eponym is, you would also do better to use a better-written search“. No I'm not. Adding information about scientific names based on eponyms was one of my earliest addition to deWP (de:Benutzer:Succu/Eponyme). You are reffering to a single publication which used the phrase „taxonomic eponym“ twice. So what? Wikimedia projects reflect established knowledge, and do not establish new (wrong) terms. For the Wiktionary integration please see Wikidata:Wiktionary. --Succu (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to multiple publications, including that one and, as I clearly said, "the citations [note plural] I added yesterday". And since it seems to matter to you: I was writing about taxonomic eponyms online, before Wikipedia existed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I was writing about taxonomic eponyms online, before Wikipedia existed. But Google failed to find them. Very sad. I'm interested to learn about when an eponym (Q204335) becomes taxonomic e.g. related to taxonomy (Q8269924)? --Succu (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It would be very foolish to assume that Google finds everything that is, or was, online. And please stop fucking up this page's list markup by inserting spurious blank lines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
please stop fucking up this page's list markup by inserting spurious blank lines. Sorry but what's your problem with this, Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes It would be very foolish to assume that Google finds everything that is, or was, online, Mr. Mabbett. --Succu (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As I have explained previously it's not a problem for me; it's a problem that the markup broken by you causes for people using a assistive software (screen-readers, for example) to read the page to them. You can find more information on this at en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Indentation (from which: "Blank lines must not be placed between colon-indented lines of text – especially in article content. This is interpreted by the software as marking the end of a list and the start of a new one."). Unless you wish to deliberately cause problems for such people, making it harder for them to participate here, you will stop this disruptive behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. Your enWp based housekeeping leds us to nowhere here. Hence I repeat my question: I'm interested to learn about when an eponym (Q204335) becomes taxonomic e.g. related to taxonomy (Q8269924), Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Any idea, Mr. Mabbett? --Succu (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks like you haven't, Mr. Mabbett! --Succu (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, that is at least a reason given for his intolerant behaviour, other than just knee-jerk bigotry. That is not to say it is a good reason. Why should a Talk page be ruled by a need to meet badly written software? It is a very bad idea to restrict content just to fit ephemeral software. - Brya (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Now we have more „Metadata“ about capuronii. --Succu (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose Webbii (Q22349240) and Henryi (Q16784564) (created for en.wiki disambiguation pages) might qualify. But I don't think those en.wiki pages should've been created in the first place, and I'm not sure the eponyms refer to a single individual. Plantdrew (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are discussing if the correct term is eponym or patronym then technically it is patronym, its what appears in the glossary of the ICZN for example. However, the word eponym has appeared in some texts such as Dickinson's Checklist of Birds, among others. I guess people are trying to be gender neutral. Maybe the code will update this in the next edition but at present they have not. The term has also been used to refer to the Latinization of non Latin names by some people. So the term eponym, in taxonomy, does not have a singular meaning and should possibly be avoided. We cannot be rewriting the rules for the Codes we have to wait for them to do it. Just my two cents. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I am all for following the Codes as closely as possible, but I see no use of "patronym" or "eponym" in the zoological Code, certainly not in the Glossary, but not elsewhere as well. Speaking in general, patronym is described in dictionaries as referring to surnames.
        I find it very telling that neither of the references added to this item actually supports what it is stated to support, 1) there is a reference using the name Podocarpus capuronii but if this supports the existence of an eponym, then this eponym will be Podocarpus capuronii (never heard or saw anybody calling it that, though), since capuronii by itself is in no way a name (the Code is very clear on that). 2) There is a reference using the name Stenophis capuroni which contains the specific name capuroni which obviously is different from capuronii.
        It is very much to be hoped that Wikidata will be spared items such as this. - Brya (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Unaccepted names[edit]

Should an unaccepted name be an item? I tried to merge Nectoneanthes oxypoda (Q3916093) and Nereis singularis (Q3217821) but this was reverted. --bdijkstra (overleg) 21:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We do not merge subjective synonyms. --Succu (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
OK but then shouldn't it be marked as such? --bdijkstra (overleg) 19:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
You can do this that way. --Succu (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --bdijkstra (overleg) 11:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Tetrapoda (Q19159)[edit]

Can these parents be true? (Particularly the former) --Pzgulyas (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Boxed: Could you please give a reference for your changes. --Succu (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Succu I'm just trying to make wikidata be in line with wikipedia. The references are all there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stegocephalia --Boxed (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pzgulyas I'm not sure what you're asking. What parent do you think is strange? --Boxed (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Now I have tried to make some fixes to the situation, so the current state doesn't reflect exactly your edits. But your original edit was that you added to the superclass (Q3504061) Tetrapoda (Q19159) the parent class (Q37517) Sarcopterygii (Q160830). By definition, it is illegal for a superclass (Q3504061) to have a parent class (Q37517). So while you might be right about the names (although there are some more intermediate taxa), you haven't sorted out the ranks, which was just a half-work.--Pzgulyas (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pzgulyas Thanks! I am new to Wikidata and didn't get a response in a week to why the state of the taxonomy was broken when I asked so I figured I would just go ahead and see what happens. I personally think it's futile to try to make the linnean ranks obey some strict rules because they ultimately make no sense and people use the same name for different clades in the same lineage, that's just inevitable when trying to apply a 1700s system to reality :P I think the edits I made improved the cladistic tree for Tetrapoda and the revert made it worse. So if I want to help with this, what should I do? --Boxed (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Your POV shouldn't influence the way WD works. Until today linnean ranks make a lot of sense. A higher level classification of all living organisms (Q19858624) is widely used. --Succu (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Succu If the linnean classification doesn't correspond to reality, it's by definition the linnean system that is wrong :P But ok, if we can fiddle with it and choose our definitions to make it work then that might be preferable. --Boxed (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything, just tried to find a source for your addition, which showed there are more intermediate taxa. These apparently already existed in WD, so I just modified the parental relationship to reflect the source. (Just see, stepping in the Tetrapodomorph (Q1209254) direction will lead to Sarcopterygii (Q160830) eventually. If you have a source that indicates direct parent-child relationship, don't hesitate to add that, but I failed to find such. BTW, I am not a taxonomist, and am not trying to teach you anything, I think you know more about taxonomy than me. I just tried to fix the illegal parental relationship. It might be futile to obey the ranks, but they are already in Wikidata. Thus if the cladistic hierarchy is used, it must also be explicitly indicated so, by adding a new rank statement with "no value", and adding the same reference to it, that was added to the parental relationship. Adding the same reference to both statements shows that they belong to each other.--Pzgulyas (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pzgulyas Sorry, didn't mean to imply you did anything. The revert was done by Infovarius --Boxed (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Theria (Q130942)[edit]

How the proper ascendancy tree of Theria (Q130942) would look today? What the Taxobox module shows is quite strange:

This looks really weird to me. (And then by jumping further upwards comes the problem about two classes, see the previous section.) What is the actual point of view of today science about this? --Pzgulyas (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Succu:, I see you changed the rank of Cladotheria (Q766050) to be a clade, thus resolving the 2nd illegal jump. According to the first one, I see that if Theria (Q130942) would be taken as supercohort (Q6054425) instead, then it would also resolve the conflict. So I changed the software to take into account the taxon rank (P105) references too, beyond the parent taxon (P171) references. The only piece is missing now, that for the software being able to pair together the Theria (Q130942) parent of Boreosphenida (Q2910821) with rank supercohort (Q6054425), it is necessary for both statements to have the same reference assigned. Unfortunately the parent statement has no reference assigned at all, so this "no-ref" cannot be replicated to the rank statement. Since you were the one adding the Boreosphenida (Q2910821) parent, may I ask you to add the reference to it as well, so it could be replicated to the rank too? Actually a "dummy" reference would also do, the point is only to have the same reference for both the parent and rank.--Pzgulyas (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Answering to myself: I found that this hierarchy is shown in Fossilworks database. After I have added the Fossilworks references to both parent taxon (P171) and taxon rank (P105) for the whole hierarchy, everything got shown fine. :) However I have to note that taxon rank (P105) currently has a property constraint (P2302) single value constraint (Q19474404) defined. In my opinion it should be removed. (Please note, it is not my invention to use multiple rank values, there are many of such taxons.)--Pzgulyas (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Synonym in the language[edit]

Could P1420 / P694 be used to set a synonym in the language? Or is it just for scientifial taxon name synonyms? What property than stays for synonyms in the language?--Juandev (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


Viewer of the wikidata taxonomy[edit]

I've written a webapp that can be used to look at the trees of the wikidata taxonomy: http://relatedhow.herokuapp.com The code is available on github: http://github.com/boxed/related_how Please check it out! --Boxed (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

ferns (Q80005)[edit]

Is it normal, that ferns (Q80005) has two taxon name (P225)-s?--Pzgulyas (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly not normal in Wikidata, as the "!" shows. However, in the real world of biological nomenclature, it's absolutely normal. For example, Asteraceae (Q25400) actually has two taxon names – both "Asteraceae" and "Compositae" are accepted in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, and rather than one being shown a lesser alias for the other, both should be shown as accepted taxon names. It's one of too many cases where the data model used in Wikidata to represent taxonomic information is deficient. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a data model issue, just somebody made a mistake on this particular item. Just I'm not a taxonomist, so it would be good if someone more in charge of these names could fix it instead of me. Actually (as an outsider) I find the data model fulfilling its role quite well, being able to store the so many hierarchy concepts paralelly, without major drawbacks. --Pzgulyas (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WD property (or something) for multiple taxon names?[edit]

At en.wiki, we've gotten around the '1 WD item per WP page' limitation, with regard to multiple taxons/synonyms, locally via {{Taxonbar}} & en:Category:Taxonbar templates using multiple Wikidata items: i.e. en:Acmispon procumbens (6 WD items referenced), en:Acmispon argyraeus (4 WD items). Obviously, I think it's in the spirit of WD that these associations were not manually replicated on each wiki, and to have a property (or some other attribute (I'm somewhat new here)), to store these associations across all wikis, which would be very useful. Is this currently possible, or is it something still not available to us and has to be proposed/RfC'd/etc.? — Tom.Reding (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is done here with taxon synonym (P1420) together with a good taxonomic reference. --Succu (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I changed the English description of taxon synonym (P1420), which was "(incorrect) name(s) listed as synonym(s)", and was (a) different from the descriptions in the other languages I can read (b) misleading in that although "incorrect" was in parentheses, depending on which nomenclature code applies, an "incorrect name" may or may not be regarded as a taxonomic synonym. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem with using taxon synonym (P1420) is that it's not sufficiently precise and does not allow enough grouping of taxon names. Consider the set of synonyms at Acmispon procumbens: Acmispon procumbens (Q15520441), Lotus procumbens (Q6685298), Hosackia procumbens (Q39109379), Hosackia sericea (Q39179091), Syrmatium sericeum (Q15543917) and Lotus leucophyllus (Q39179033). Acmispon procumbens (Q15520441), Lotus procumbens (Q6685298) and Hosackia procumbens (Q39109379) are homotypic synonyms [botanical code] or objective synonyms [zoological code], as are Hosackia sericea (Q39179091) and Syrmatium sericeum (Q15543917); Lotus leucophyllus (Q39179033) stands on its own. If the Wikidata items are complete, all the items for which an item is the basionym (Q810198) plus that item are homotypic/objective synonyms. Provided there's a reference to support each basionym (Q810198) relationship, no further evidence is needed. Heterotypic synonyms [botanical code] or subjective synonyms [zoological code] are another matter. For Acmispon procumbens, it would be possible for different taxonomists to regard all three sets of homotypic synonyms as synonymous (as WCSP does), or any two of the three sets, or none of them. To represent this properly requires a more complicated entity-relationship model than is currently used in Wikidata. One way of handling it would be to have items representing "sets of homotypic/objective synonyms" to which taxon name items are attached, and which can then be inter-related as "synonyms according to X", "synonyms according to Y", etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
As I see things here, references are needed to be added to (synonymy) statements to represent which concept they apply to. In your case, if there are 3 synonyms listed, you may add reference X to only 2 of them, and reference to Y to different two. --Pzgulyas (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Correct. --Succu (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
For example if one wants to configure a taxon to be the same as it is in IPNI, then he looks for the needed reference item to be added, by going to IPNI plant ID (P961), then looking at subject item of this property (P1629), that points to International Plant Names Index (Q922063). This is the item that can be added to either of the following property statements as a reference:

--Pzgulyas (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The "(incorrect) name(s) listed as synonym(s)" is quite precise, and above, all practical. Take any taxonomic paper or book, and it will state what it regards as the correct name (accepted name, valid name) of the taxon (usually in a different font) and will list incorrect names as synonyms. This is what Wikidata needs to record: the correct name (in that reference) as the "taxon name", and the incorrect names listed as synonyms as "taxon synonym" (preferably referenced). Unless a name is incorrect (in the reference), it should not be in Wikidata's "taxon synonym".
        FWIW, this is perfectly in line with the ICNafp. From the taxonomic perspective adopted by enwiki, according to the ICNafp:
- Brya (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

From a data management pov it is not really practical to represent two different properties merged into a single visible data record. I mean 1) the name of an alternative taxon and 2) a boolean flag whether a taxon name is accepted or not. If it is setup in a way you write, then it is indeed a fault in the data model used here. --Pzgulyas (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Wikidata is intended to represent an indefinite number of PoV's (each being clouds of datapoints), which makes sense since reality consists of an indefinite number of PoV's. From a data management perspective it would no doubt be simpler to represent only a single PoV, but this is not compatible with Wikipedia's NPoV policy: that would make Wikidata useless. - Brya (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, that you described one possible connection via taxon synonym (P1420), pointing from an accepted name to unaccepted names. But actually there are 3 more cases:

  • accepted name → another accepted name
  • unaccepted name → back to an accepted name
  • unaccepted name → another unaccepted name

If other attributes must be used for these latter cases, then there is a problem arises when the accepted name changes. And still, only one taxonomical pov was mentioned, because other pov-s may accept different names, which leads to unmaintainable bunch of different attribute-reference combinations. Also, the given reference for taxon synonym (P1420) only implicitly claims the unaccepted name, but not actually tells explicitly what is accepted. I would agree with Peter Coxhead, that taxon synonym (P1420) attribute would simply just store synonyms, irrespectively of whether they are accepted or not, which should be stored in a different attribute. --Pzgulyas (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is too abstract for me: I don't understand what you mean. It would help if you were more specific. But anyway, there are two mechanisms: taxon synonym (P1420), pointing from an accepted name to one or more unaccepted names. And "instance of: synonym of" which leads from an unaccepted name to an accepted name. This accords with reality where an accepted name can have an unaccepted names as a synonym: a single relationship, which can be approached from two sides. There is no ambiguity in taxon synonym (P1420) if properly used.- Brya (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just for information, that currently in the database <name1> taxon synonym (P1420) <name2> inverse is set up to one or more of the following:

It is nowhere documented that the last case would be the official, correct setup, I didn't even know about it. Btw, it may not be a good thing using a qualifier on the "instance of" statement, it is unusual a bit. Some explanation to my previous comment, but still abstract: I mean, when the accepted name changes, then all the interlink attributes with all references have to be deleted, and recreated in a new combination. None of them can remain, because the "accepted" flag is implied in them. It would be more productive, if this flag was stored as a separate attribute. But yes, they could be used unabiguously, although the current situation is far from that. We live in an imperfect world... --Pzgulyas (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

taxon synonym (P1420) is not a inverse of (P1696) --Succu (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't follow this at all. For example, "I mean, when the accepted name changes," is an impossibility: this would involve a book, or paper, being unpublished, unprinted, unwritten, etc. It would require a time machine.
        Similarly, "<name1> taxon synonym (P1420) <name2>" precludes "<name2> taxon synonym (P1420) <name1>", unless these represent different taxonomic PoV's, that is, different references.
        But it may well be that we need an (inverse) property "is a synonym of" (or maybe the properties "is a homotypic synonym of" and "is a heterotypic synonym of"). Also, a property "this name is homotypic with" would help. - Brya (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I admit, it is absolutely possibble that I misunderstand something. About the "accepted name changed", take this example: B is published, which makes A unaccepted. At this time, there must be a B taxon synonym (P1420) A statement created. By your definition, this implies that B is accepted, while A is not. Then appearently a C name is published, which gets accepted, and makes B unaccepted. This makes the previously created B taxon synonym (P1420) A statement wrong, since this points from one unaccepted name to another unaccepted name. It needs to be deleted with all references, and recreated as a new statement C taxon synonym (P1420) A with all references, to have A still in the circle. And things are getting worse, if more (inverse-)synonyms appear over time. --Pzgulyas (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not how Wikidata is supposed to work, at all (try Wikispecies instead). Wikidata does not want to be a taxonomic authority, but a database: it does not delete data.
  • If there is a REF1 which states that B is the accepted name and A is a synonym, then Wikidata wants a claim in the item on B (which has a claim that "taxon name: B"), stating that "taxon synonym: A", giving REF1 as the reference.
  • If a REF2 is published which states that C is the accepted name and B is a synonym, then Wikidata wants an additional claim in the item on C (which has a claim that "taxon name: C"), stating that "taxon synonym: B", giving REF2 as the reference. No deletions.
It is not complicated. See also this FAQ. - Brya (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A lot of times Integrated Taxonomic Information System (Q82575) is used as a reference in the database. So consider the folowing: both REF1 and REF2 is the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (Q82575). This is how I mean.--Pzgulyas (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. The references were introduced at an early stage of WD. ITIS is a lame duck: Not adopted to widely accepted taxonomic opinions in time. --Succu (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Succu, the point is not on ITIS, that was just an example. Then consider this: both REF1 and REF2 is Fossilworks (Q796451). Or you name it. --Pzgulyas (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a database with it's own kind of issues. We should not heavily trust on them. What we really need are more references to taxonomic papers. But this is a hard ride. --Succu (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? :) The point is: REF1 = REF2 = X, where X = you name it (but only in your own thoughts silently, if it help you understanding the point).--Pzgulyas (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Without wanting to try tell anyone what to do here, I agree with @Succu: by the way and what your asking is not a Wikidata issue. However, in saying that my impression is that you also have a basic misunderstanding on how names work in the life sciences. Please note that they work different for plants, animals, fungi etc, as each is governed by its own rules. For example, in Zoology a name is either availabe or unavailable, you need a ref that states this if the later, and then if available it is either valid or invalid, again you need refs for these determinations. None of this works for plants who have different meanings of all this. The way to determine which name should be used is by the synonymy which is determined by the nomenclatural acts pertaining to the names in question. Thesecan only be done in appropriately published references of which no website qualifies as they are explicitly unavailable under the publication criteria of the codes. So ITIS or any other example, is not going to be good enough. Also as mentioned sites such as ITIS are less up to date than EOL, which is in itself subject to curatorial preferences of those with the time. You need primary refs to know whether a name is to be used or not. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not a taxonomist, so what you tell me about the naming conventions, I accept. What is surprising to me in your comment, that no one without access to primary papers is intended to add or modify WD taxon synonym (P1420) statements, so everyone should just use what is already added, or ask one of the three (don't know the exact number) people to add a missing statement if it is needed. In this case, I admit, it is not my (and 99.9% of WD editors) issue how it is set up, because I will never be in a position to modify this property. A question: Is this soft-ban also applies to properties parent taxon (P171) and taxon rank (P105)?--Pzgulyas (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding me. The primary literature is publicly available to anyone. So what editors have to do is use it, and not take shortcuts by assuming the accuracy of other websites you must go to the primary lit. You must state it. That is a new name is declared in the original publication, it does not matter what EOL, ITIS or even wikispecies says about it. It matters what that primary publication says. In nomenclature you go to the source, that is what I am trying to get across. Anyone can do that. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, ITIS is not particularly suitable as a reference. If REF1 and REF2 are both ITIS, there are no two separate references, just a REF1. However, I never found ITIS contradicting itself (clearly not on any noticeable scale), so I don't understand the problem. And indeed, almost all of the taxonomic literature is publicly available, and lots of it are on the web. In this, as in so much when building the references that the WMF envisions, a user needs to know what he is doing. And again, it is not all that complicated. - Brya (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Brya, I really don't know what is so difficult in understanding this. If REF1 = REF2, that is not a contradiction, just REF1 was setup yesterday, and REF2 is today. It is not a contradiction, just the difference in time. Obviously, when REF2 is being set up, then REF1 has to be deleted, because that gets obsolete. And this is the problem I wanted to highlight. Never mind.
        Anyway, I admire the ambition in saying ITIS (Fossilworks, NCBI, etc...) is not good enough for WD, WD intends to be better than these. Just I don't see WD has the sufficient human resource (in number of editors) to cope with them, and thus in saying WD wants to be better, the goal is going to be missed. Such as the goal of supporting the Wikipedia encyclopedia with data. As the goal has been missed till now: you lifted up the entry level, enwiki people made a parallel taxonomic database (if it can be called a database...) that they can maintain more easily. Taxobox module here could be adopted easily to enwiki to be a full reaplacement for taxoboxes there, but I don't see the rationale behind it, since that would mean more editors needed to come here to edit, and they would not be welcome here, I must say.
        Final note: If ITIS is bad, then why I see a lot of references throughout the database on ITIS? You guys don't follow your own rules of using primary papers only. Which is good, there is a hope.--Pzgulyas (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
If REF1 and REF2 are both ITIS, then there are no two separate references, just a REF1. ITIS = ITIS; perhaps there are different dates of accession.
        You are right that Wikidata has nothing like the number of contributors that would be desirable. And it will take quite awhile before it really is ready to support any Wikipedia. However, a simplified database is not the answer: just a database meeting the needs of enwiki would not really help, since enwiki is not the only Wikipedia out there. - Brya (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

taxon concept (Q38202667)[edit]

The item taxon concept (Q38202667) needs a proper definition, or a request for deletion. Since this is not my specialty, I’d like to hand it over to the experts here… Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A possible useage was reverted by Mr. Mabbett multiple times. Please see Wikidata:Project chat#Xantus's Murrelet too. --Succu (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Uhm, that one. Independently from the dispute, can the item nevertheless please be equipped with a definition by statements (P31 or P279, references etc, and maybe more)? It is otherwise impossible to know what it is about for taxonomy laymen like me… Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware what you are expecting. At the moment all ideas I have feel not right enough, but the term (=concept) is notable. --Succu (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
In view of the lack of clarity, and the absence of uses, statements or references, I've nominated it for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There was never a „lack of clarity“, Mr. Mabbett!. It needed only a second thought of what could be done... --Succu (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Succu. Minor point: the German label and alias do not seem to be German, but maybe there is no official German term/translation for it as often for scientific terms. Should we keep it like that, or can it be updated to something like „Taxonkonzept“ (with English versions as aliases)? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Taxonkonzept is rarely used and feels a little bit weird. --Succu (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The "description" at Q38202667 is really weird ("circumscription of a taxonomic name"): it is utterly impossible for a name to have a circumscription. I also don't see that a taxon concept necessarily has anything to do with a synonym (or anything at all, really). Why not just merge it with circumscription? - Brya (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Plant names - adding Estonian labels based on Latin names, doable?[edit]

Hi!

I was just made aware of this huge, 20000-entry-long list of Latin plant names and their Estonian name. It sounds like something that would be nice to have in Wikidata, but I don't really know much about plants myself, and nothing about how their info is stored in Wikidata, so I thought I'd ask here: does this seem like something that would be doable? Does the data in a table like this one for the letter A seem to be on a level that maps well to Wikidata? --Reosarevok (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reosarevok, please try your luck at Wikidata:Bot requests. --Succu (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Succu, I've written bots before, that's not the problem. I just wanted an opinion from people who know more about taxon stuff whether this level of detail is a good match for the WD level of detail, or if there's little point to write a bot in the first place :) --Reosarevok (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Reosarevok: Your source is not very optimal. There is no column for taxon rank (P105), which would it make easier to extract taxon name (P225). What item should be given for stated in (P248)? --Succu (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Instead of writing a bot you might try OpenRefine for matching the table's latin names to WD items, then run back the labels with QuickStatements 2 (Q29032512) --Pzgulyas (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Errors[edit]

Hi!

We have 207 items with errors today:

SELECT ?taxon ?penLabel ?penDescr WHERE {
  ?taxon wdt:P171 wd:Q529584 .          # Q529584 Aneura "genus of PLANTS"!
  ?taxon schema:description ?penDescr.      FILTER((LANG(?penDescr)) = "en") .
  OPTIONAL { ?taxon rdfs:label ?penLabel .  FILTER((LANG(?penLabel)) = "en")  }
  FILTER((STR(?penDescr)) = "species of insect") .   # "species of INSECT"!
}

Try it!

Best regards. --Renamerr (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any problems to fix this yourself, Renamerr? --Succu (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes I do, Succu. I have a problem replacing descriptions "species of insect" with descriptions "species of plants" for many languages per page without special tool. Thanks --Renamerr (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It is more complicated than that. Some of these items marked "species of insect" do indeed refer to species of insect. The first thing to do would be to create a new item Aneura, "genus of insects" and then connect the relevant items to it with "parent taxon". It looks doable to do this manually, but anybody who wants to build a tool for it could do so. - Brya (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Aneura (Q21356369), "genus of insects" already exists. --Renamerr (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, that is good. So link the actual species of insect to it. - Brya (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

en.wiki taxa with no Wikidata statements[edit]

en:Category:Taxonbar templates on non-taxon pages is largely populated by en.wiki articles that are treated as taxa, but which lack taxon statements on Wikidata. I have no doubt there are potential problems on the en.wiki end, but I would be easier for me to find and address them if the category is drained of items lacking statements. I'm hoping Wikidata folks can add statements (as appropriate) more efficiently than me. Plantdrew (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)