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 2018/01.

Cyclocybe aegerita (Q27668537) and Agrocybe cylindracea (Q1784183)[edit]

Hello, it seems that Cyclocybe aegerita (Q27668537) and Agrocybe cylindracea (Q1784183) are synonym (Q1040689). I do not know how you manage this so I let you do what is needed. Pamputt (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I tried to clean it up. --Succu (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your work. Pamputt (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated status[edit]

See also Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/11#Using_ranks_for_false_statements

Shouldn't we make use of the "rank" function of statements? Even though Phalaena citrata Linnaeus, 1761 (Q43242043) may not be an accepted taxon today, it once was, and should, therefore, have "Parent taxon:Phalaena" (marked as deprecated), as well as have a taxon rank (marked as deprecated)? Simply because an item is no longer accepted today, it once was and that is what the Wikidata:Rank is for. Also, on Phalaena Linnaeus (1758) (Q11887871), the description s a place to describe the item, not a place to give editorial notes. That should be on the talk page imo. (tJosve05a (c) 07:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, "deprecated status" only works if the software recognizes this, and there is no reason to assume that software will recognize it. Secondly, Phalaena is not a good example to discuss this. Far and away most of these "objectively invalid names" (to use the terminology in the zoological Code) were never accepted taxa, and never will be. These "objectively invalid names" represent a big problem, as there are a number of databases around which carelessly assume that if there is a scientific name, there also is a good taxon, leading to massively misleading content (which then gets imported here and has to be unmasked laboriously).
        But I agree we need a better way to handle this. I once proposed a property "not-a-taxon name", which would have allowed otherwise the same structure as for "taxon name". As far as I can see this would solve all problems, probably. - Brya (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, if "other databases" carry these "invalid" taxons, then we should too, given Wikidata is not the place for original research. All statements should be accepted (and marked as deprecated if wrong). E.g. all birthdates found online for a person should, if properly cited, be mentioned on an item. Simply because the tech isn't caught up with the data, doesn't mean that the data should be limited to be suited for today's tech. (tJosve05a (c) 09:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
        So, if at least one taxon database says it is an accptable taxon, or has ever been, it should be noted, and cited, as such. We do not make research or "find the correct facts", we should, as Wikipedia, only repeat what other's has said about an item (only that we aren't limited to "due wieght, or similar equivalence, given Wikidata:Rank). (tJosve05a (c) 09:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
That sounds confused. The main page says "Wikidata acts as central storage for the structured data of its Wikimedia sister projects including Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, and others." I see no way that this should mean that anything found on the internet should automatically be imported here. Like Wikipedias, Wikidata should base itself on reliable sources. We are not attempting to become Google.
        This is not about " "invalid" taxons"; one person's invalid taxon is another person's valid taxon. Wikidata should include all taxonomic viewpoints
        Wikidata should include "objectively invalid names" when they serve a structural purpose. But it should not misrepresent them as something they are not. - Brya (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Some quotes:
Within a large knowledge base, it's still important to record the previous values of items. These records—in the form of statements with multiple values—help us to better understand the world, see patterns and relationships, and make connections and predictions based on what we already know.
A deprecated rank is used for a value that contains information that may not be considered reliable or is known to include errors. For example, an item of a city may feature an incorrect population figure that was published in a historic document. The statement is not wrong as the figure is accurate according to the (erroneous) historic document, however because it known to contain errors it should receive the deprecated rank.
The following types of information should not be added as Wikidata statements: [...] Original research. See Wikipedia:No original research for more information
It is not our job to discern between valid taxon and invalid ones. We should cite information about items in a structured way. Whether or not that information is true or not should not matter, since we aren't claiming it to be true (i.e. Y is Z), only that "source X says Y is Z". (tJosve05a (c) 09:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
To respond to "[Wikidata] should not misrepresent them as something they are not": We aren't, since we aren't claiming it to be true. We are adding it to an item as a deprecated statement, and citing that source X claims (or has claimed) it to be true. reason for deprecation (P2241) can be used to indicate weither or not that deprecated statement is historic, or statement in error on other site (if you want to do OR and determine who is right). (tJosve05a (c) 09:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding my example about birth/deathyears, please see Q4909403#P570. (tJosve05a (c) 09:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
We don't need all the GBIF garbage... --Succu (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's for the larger Wikidata comunity to decide, not you or I. If you want to "ban" a specific site as a source of information, or change how WIkidata deals with errounious data, or historic information, then take it to the Village Pump. It is "data" to see how GBIF has classifies a taxa, in event they later change it etc. (tJosve05a (c) 09:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Jonatan, one of our main goals is two fix errors we find in the Wikipeadias (like the ones Lsj did) and not to introduce new ones. There is no uniform way „Wikidata deals with errounious data, or historic information”. This should be done in a domain specific way. --Succu (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Succo, it is not out job is not to right wrongs, but describe items ina structured way, and cite sources. While I agree that there is no uniform way to do so, as long as we have eg. an identifier for a domain (e.g. GBIF), we should also include statements from those sources, if not, discussions should be held. (tJosve05a (c) 19:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We are responsable to apply a reasonable structure (mainly properties) and to decide which information is notable enough to get described at item level. We are not a mirror for other databases. Jonatan, do you really think we should include OCR errors or typos here because they can be found in a database or document? --Succu (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I firmly do. As to keep the database intact and as complete as possible. if item X was described as name Y (by mistake, or otherwise) by source Y for a time, then we should also give our "readers" (whomever they may be) that information. We are not amirror of other databases, we are the databse that collects all these data points into one database. (tJosve05a (c) 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
So you want to keep the inexistent genus Et (Q41215531) because there is a dataset who claims this? --Succu (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It's like we keep all typos and errors in sources texts in Wikisource (and probably mark them as such) just in order to keep all source intact. --Infovarius (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
We have original spelling (P1353) and aliases for this. All OCR errors should be omitted. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
What you propose is to include the Piltdown Man (Q244937) and other known "fake species" as if they represent valid taxa, adding a "deprecated status" that most software is not going to be able to recognize. This actually is Original Research: you just add a database "out there" that you propose to have do your dirty work for you. That does not change that it is Original Research. - Brya (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we are. not determine what is right or wrong. We should include them all. Your definition of OR is not the same as the rest of Wikimedia. We should cite all instances of sources that claim a species is "valid" and we should cite all sources that claim they are "invalid". Excluding statements based on other sources, or your judgment on who is correct is your original research on what is correct or not. We have ranks and citations for a reason. The fact that third-party tools do not "use our data properly" is not an excuse to not include the data, it is an argument that the tools need to be fixed. I will take this to the village pump. (tJosve05a (c) 19:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The very reason of existence of Wikidata is to separate right from wrong. If just everything is included then Wikidata would be just like Google, making stuff on the internet available. Like any WMF project, Wikidata exists to help the reader, and to keep out the junk. - Brya (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Josve05a: I see a huge truth in your opinion. Please take my support. And Brya, ranks are the very original Wikidata thing, they should be recognized by software (and all LUA and Python modules do this). So they can be used. --Infovarius (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
„a huge truth“ is POV, Infovarius. But answer my question. --Succu (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(repeating myself:) To cite you from above „These records—in the form of statements with multiple values“. Which statement at Phalaena citrata Linnaeus, 1761 (Q43242043) should have multiple values? And if applicable, which one should be given the rank deprecated, User:Josve05a? --Succu (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

One of possible solutions (which is in my opinion is better than [ current modelling]) is to have: instance of (P31)taxon (Q16521) (possibly with qualifier end time (P582)) with normal rank, keeping instance of (P31)unavailable combination (Q17487588)+homotypic synonym (Q42310380) with preferred rank (possibly with qualifier start time (P580)). In addition we can have taxon name (P225), taxon rank (P105) and parent taxon (P171) (with qualifier end time (P582)) showing the view as it was percepted by Linnaeus(is it his original taxon?). Do you agree with this model, User:Josve05a? Note that instance of (P31) Phalaena Linnaeus (1758) (Q11887871) is the wrong use of P31, showing that someone doesn't understand ontology properties of Wikidata. --Infovarius (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, totally agree! (tJosve05a (c) 14:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) shouldn't have qualifiers at all. --Succu (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: According to Property:P31#P2302 (and consensus) the folloowing ist of constraints are allowe for instance of (P31):
  • said to be the same as
  • of
  • start time
  • part of
  • end time
  • follows
  • followed by
  • series ordinal
  • valid in period
  • replaced by
  • reason for deprecation
  • criterion used
  • subject item of this property
  • end cause
(tJosve05a (c) 21:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Asuming you and I are a particular (instance) of a universal (class) human (Q5), what expresses the "qualifiers" in your list e.g. with respect to offspring (Q239526): part of, follows, followed by, series ordinal, valid in period, replaced by? Do we qualify particulars (instances) of father (P22) and mother (P25) by replaces (P1365)? --Succu (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Not all classes of items can be qualified. The item "2012 in science" is an iteem about the class "Year in science" which can be followed by "2013 in science". Same here, a taxon may be deprecated and have an "end term" as to when it was no longer considered a taxon with a "reason for deprecation". It is all dependent n the subject and situation, but outright objecting to any use on a preconseption that it should not be used since it is (no longer true) or that third party tools may or may not use our data properly, is a bad argument. (tJosve05a (c) 23:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
2012 in science (Q2032308) is simply another case of bad modeling (see Use of qualifiers in subclass relation). --Succu (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine any circumstance where it would be a good idea to use instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) with deprecated values. But not here, clearly. - Brya (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Note, that I said about normal and preferred ranks, not deprecated. Deprecated rank is for false statements, past and extinct values can be modelled by normal rank assuming that present value has preferred rank. --Infovarius (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Succu has put their latest comment at the top rather than the bottom of this section. It links to Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/11#Using_ranks_for_false_statements - but this discussion is not about merely "false" statements, but statements which were once true; as is made clear in the second sentence of the original post. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The meaning of „See also“ (aka related) is unclear to you? I marked it as a hint. --Succu (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not about "statements which were once true", it is about superfluous (duplicate) and inaccurate statements about something that once was true (more or less). - Brya (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
From the OP "Even though Phalaena citrata Linnaeus, 1761 (Q43242043) may not be an accepted taxon today, it once was". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is what he said. Merely repeating it does not make it more useful. - Brya (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So, it can be modelled! Wikidata is intended to keep historical data too! --Infovarius (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it can be modelled. Even better, it is modelled. - Brya (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

How to model ICZN opinons?[edit]

@All: So how should we model decisions like that taken in Opinion 450 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Phalaena Linnaeus, 1758, and validation as of subgeneric status (a) as from 1758, of the Terms Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, Tortrix, Pyralis, Tinea, and Alucita as used by Linnaeus ... (Q43379935)? --Succu (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Presumably there are several ways that this can be modelled. The one thing that is clear that "taxon" and "taxon name" should be avoided in this. - Brya (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It's clear to me that "taxon" or "taxon name" should be used. Don't you have imagination? Succu, imagine which P31 would you use before this article (before 1957)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not about expecting the reader to use his imagination in interpreting content: the intent should be to provide data. - Brya (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't blame the word "imagination", I am talking about data. If it was true before 1957, it can/should be represented at the item. --Infovarius (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I think for ICZN, and other codes, opinions you are going to have to look at a case by case basis. Under the Code the ICZN can set aside any part of the code in favor of whatever grounds they wish. In other words they can do anything they want, even overrule the Principal of Priority or Homonymy. If they wish. So having a model may be a little difficult. Remember also that there is no Case Law under the code, so the opinion on one case has no influence on the outcome of another. The only thing you have, is that no matter what interpretation of a given situation you may have, based on your understanding of the code, the ICZN's opinion on that situation is the only one that counts. My only suggestion is to have a parameter for names that flags the existence of an Opinion, permits the reference to it, and a brief point of its outcome. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Q2697599 complicated nomenclatural case[edit]

Chelodina oblonga (Q2697599)

2 years ago I left a note on the talk page of this one to warn people to be wary of the the nomenclature. This species has had a name swap, endorsed by the ICZN. As such it is easy to mix up.

Currently the ARKive link is referring to another species here this is actually Chelodina colliei Q305986, the EOL link here is also referring to the wrong species. The iNaturalist page here is referring to a page that has actually combined both species as one, interesting since they are in separate subgenera, not sure you want that page linked, its wildly inaccurate. I have not repaired this because I think those doing taxonomic edits should look at it and realise how easy it is to mess this up. The species Chelodina oblonga is the Northern Snake Neck Turtle the Narrow Breasted Snake Neck Turtle refers to Chelodina colliei. For the record here I am the taxonomist who sorted this mess out and made the ICZN submissions on the species.

Thomson 2000 PDF
Thomson 2005 Case 3351 PDF
Any questions please ask.
Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, this can be summed up:
  • 1841-1856 one species: C. oblonga
  • 1856-1889 two species: C. oblonga and C. collei
  • 1889-1967 one species: C. oblonga
  • 1967-1974 two species: C. siebenrockei and C. oblonga
  • 1974-2013 two species: C. rugosa and C. oblonga
  • 2013-         two species: C. oblonga and C. collei
It is not really surprising to see ARKive and EoL get something wrong. We can try to move the claims to the correct item, with a note, and see how that works out. The iNaturalist page is not really a problem, except that it uses an outdated taxon concept, but once upon a time it was right. - Brya (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Any idea how we could make use of Opinion 2315 (Case 3351) Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelodina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines): precedence not granted over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 (Q43476045) (or your paper) to clarify this case? --Succu (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
My only suggestion would be to add some notes, for sake of clarity and to ensure users and editors are careful. My 2000 paper can be used as the demonstration that the holotype of Chelodina oblonga was in fact what was known as a Chelodina rugosa at the time. As oblonga has seniority it is the valid name. However a case (my 2005 submission, Case 3351) requested a reversal of priority for rugosa and oblonga but the resurrection of the name colliei was permitted for the narrow breasted snake neck. In 2013 the Opinion handed down by the ICZN stated that Priority should be followed, and following the 2010 revision of Georges and Thomson this meant that rugosa and siebenrocki were junior synonyms of oblonga. Note that, off the record here, it is possible that rugosa and siebenrocki are valid, but the evidence is lacking at present to understand the relationships of this complex. This is because the three holotypes represent different populations of what is currently considered oblonga. That is, oblonga is Northern Territory, Australia; rugosa is Queensland coast, Australia; and siebenrocki is New Guinea. The valid name is Chelodina (Macrochelodina) oblonga under the Principal of Priority with grounds for preserving the seniority of rugosa rejected by the ICZN. Hope this helps, as I said its complicated. All I did in the past was put notes on the talk page of the main space for this taxon. Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
ok well I took it upon myself to help with some of this. I have assisted iNaturalist to update their records and bring it into line with current taxonomy. So they can be linked as appropriate now: C. oblonga and C. colliei. They have been most helpful and I will help them with other turtle issues. The case in point here though is please check these checklists etc, before you link them. If they are not showing a correct nomenclature as per the rules of nomenclature we cannot be responsible for spreading misinformation for the sake of getting supposed content. Nomenclature is a very exacting study. It has to be correct. Those of us at Wikispecies who edit in mainspace are mostly professional taxonomists, we have reputations and it is known by our peers we are doing this. If you want to call some site an authority, please make sure they have it right, or do not link them. Yes that means automating it without a safety check is impossible. I am not complaining, I am asking for due care and consideration be taken. Nomenclatural misinformation does a lot of harm. I think a good working relationship between wikispecies and wikidata is a great idea. But it has to be done the right way. For the sake of science. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
That is great! However, about linking databases, not much can be done. Often this done by bots, but there are also games and eager users who link everything in sight. For example, most of the links to EoL are pointless as most pages at EoL are effectively empty, but nothing can be done about it. It is quite impossible to exert any control. At best, the worst of the mistakes can be isolated, but in practice these have to defended with vigil, as users will turn up who want to put the error back in.
        Cooperation between Wikispecies and Wikidata is a good idea, but the competence at Wikispecies should not be overstated. Like most WMF projects the participants are a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly. In practice, Wikispecies proves to be a significant source of error to Wikidata. But there is plenty of error in Wikidata anyway: even areas that can be expected to be popular like mammals and birds still require lots and lots of work (And the situation may well be getting worse rather than better: recently there was a massive datadump from annotations on specimens at the Natural History Museum; my best guess is that at least 20% is in error). But no doubt there are very many entries in Wikispecies that hold information that would be very useful to Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
In my experience around 90% of specimens in Museums are misidentified on average, so data-dumping raw information from a museum is kind of asking for errors. No one should be using unchecked data from museums. Its not the museums fault, the specimens are labelled by the person who donates them, and they are not updated until someone actually works on them, if ever. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Taxons and synonyms for dummies[edit]

I am very new to wikidata, but a relatively experienced wikipedian. I got involved here trying to match up language links in order improve the usefulness of the English and Danish wikipedias - with a special focus on botanical articles.

I started with 3 merges - and had all 3 of them reverted or "fixed" afterwards. So now I think I'd better ask a few questions before I continue:

  • How is a taxon defined, really, in wikidata? According to Q16521 it is "[a] group of one or more organism(s), which a taxonomist adjudges to be a unit". Two things which are NOT part of the taxon, according to this definition, are the NAME of the taxon and its POSITION within any taxonomical hierarchy. It is unclear whether the adjudging taxonomist is part of the taxon definition. So if taxonomists A and B describe what is later determined to be the the same group of organisms, do we have one taxon, or two?
  • Can an item logically be both a taxon and a synonym? It seems impossible to me, since a taxon is a group of organisms, and a synonym is a name for a taxon. But it seems like this is the way it is done.
  • What is the policy regarding where wikipedia sitelinks can be placed, in cases where there are claims of synonymy? Often different languages will use different sources (or no sources) to reach different conclusions as to the correct name, and to whether these are synonyms.

NisJørgensen (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for inquiring.
  • A taxon need not have a name or a rank, although usually it will be named, and will have been assigned a rank. If two taxonomists each describe, and name a taxon, there are two taxa, in the sense that there will be two items here. These will represent two different taxonomic viewpoints. Hopefully each taxonomic viewpoint will be referenced by real taxonomic papers (still a very low percentage now) and expressed by "taxon synonym" and "instance of synonym" relationships (again hopefully referenced by real taxonomic papers).
  • An item can logically not be both a taxon and a synonym: it is either a taxon or a synonym.
  • There is no policy regarding where wikipedia sitelinks are placed, although they tend to be in an item which enjoys substantial support.
- Brya (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
PS: I undid one of your merges, and I proved to be wrong, your merge was fine, but there was an earlier merge which was wrong. - Brya (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ICZN: Opinions and declarations[edit]

In the last weeks I created items for all the opinions and declarations published by International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Q1071346) until 2017 (list). This list was originally based on the dataset Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology created by Richard L. Pyle (Q21340682) in 2015, but now contains a lot of enhancments and corrections. All items provide a link to the original publication via BHL Page ID (P687) or DOI (P356). Be aware that some titles (and hence labels) can contain OCR errors I've overlooked. --Succu (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That is pretty amazing. Very likely this will prove very useful for a long time to come. - Brya (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes this is an excellent address of the ICZN Opinion issues where it applies. For the sake of transparency (and to link to discussion further up) as I wish to avoid OR issues. I have added my revision and synonymy of Australian / New Guinea turtles to Wikidata Q45320223 (linked it to the Wikispecies template also as you can get the pdf there) as it is the original reference used by Reptile Database, the ICZN and the IUCN for nomenclature on these turtles. It can be applied across many species from this region for nomenclature and other data. I have cited it for some of the issues in Chelodina oblonga Q2697599. You already had the ICZN Opinion Q43476045 please note that there is a new 2017 edition fr the IUCN Checlklist of turtles. I can add it if people wish. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Here. - Brya (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Tax changes[edit]

I have a question on updating taxa on wikidata. I read that wikidata can only have 1 data page per taxon. I've looked at some species and see old taxonomy (see American tree sparrow in English Wikipedia). Does the taxa update automatically as updates are made, or does that need to be done manually? As an example, the genus for American tree sparrow changed from Spizella to Spizelloides in 2016. It still shows Spizella on Wikidata......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata aims to have one item ("data page") for one concept. In this case there are four concepts involved:
So that seems to be all right. - Brya (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Qualifiers for Images[edit]

Hello and Happy New Year!

Which are all possible qualifiers for image (P18):

Are there others? Thanks. --Termininja (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I never looked at this, but taxon: instance of (P31) or found in taxon (P703) seem like nonsense to me. My guess for sex: sex or gender (P21) would be that this probably is better off in the caption, but it may perhaps be useful. - Brya (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of qualifiers in use with image (P18) (see: User:Succu/Statistics/20171204#Qualifiers), but I think this should be done via Structured Data for Commons. --Succu (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not agree that media legend (P2096) is ok to be used to describe the sex or taxon, because I already saw some images with description (P2096) = taxon, or description = sex, which means that in all languages this has to be repeated, which is not ok. This is why I'm asking for some good qualifier which can be used without repetition of information. For example elephant (Q7378) with the 1st image African Bush Elephant.jpg where the description is in Arabic (فيل الأحراش الأفريقي/African Bush Elephant), but actually this is African bush elephant (Q36557) from where you can get the label in any language. So in this case, if we use only one proper qualifier for taxon, we don't need P2096 with a lot of repeated entries. Also your example with Q212398 is very good, because in the 3rd image we have again repetition of information in P2096 ("Mascle"/Male in Catalan), because P21 already give information that the sex is male and it is not necessary to be written in all possible languages. So I think in all such cases P2096 has to be deleted. What is your opinion? --Termininja (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The property media legend (P2096) was set up particularly for captions that are more complex than just the label. The label of an item is not necessarily usable as a caption, anyway. I do wonder at the efficiency of media legend (P2096): what is the point of centrally storing captions, if these are going to be different anyway for each Wikipedia? Why not store them at the Wikipedia? A hundred or two hundred captions per item are going to make items slow to load. - Brya (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

taxon is unit (Q2198779)[edit]

Taxon is unit of taxonomical classification (as meron - unit of meronomical classification). So, taxon is unit (Q2198779). What is the correct for unit (Q2198779)? --Fractaler (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reference for your guess? ---Succu (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, unit of taxonomical classification: A meronomy or partonomy is a type of hierarchy that deals with part–whole relationships, in contrast to a taxonomy whose categorisation is based on discrete sets. Accordingly, the unit of meronomical classification is meron, while the unit of taxonomical classification is taxon. These conceptual structures are used in linguistics and computer science, with applications in biology. --Fractaler (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Different concept "taxonomy". - Brya (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
w:Taxonomy (general): Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification. The word is also used as a count noun: a taxonomy, or taxonomic scheme, is a particular classification. The word finds its roots in the Greek language τάξις, taxis (meaning 'order', 'arrangement') and νόμος, nomos ('law' or 'science'). Originally, taxonomy referred only to the classification of organisms or a particular classification of organisms. In a wider, more general sense, it may refer to a classification of things or concepts, as well as to the principles underlying such a classification. Taxonomy is different from meronomy which is dealing with the classification of parts of a whole. Many taxonomies have a hierarchical structure, but this is not a requirement. Taxonomy uses taxonomic units, known as taxa (singular taxon). --Fractaler (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Aggressive marketing pitch. - Brya (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
marketing (Q39809): "part (Q15989253) of business enterprise (Q4830453)". Wikidata (Q2013) is not business enterprise (Q4830453). --Fractaler (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No, but Wikipedia can serve as a platform for businesses, ideologies, etc easily enough. And does so, in practice. - Brya (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata (Q2013) is not Wikipedia (Q52) --Fractaler (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure I get what is being asked for here. Seems a metaphysical discussion basically. But anyway, the process of taxonomy ie classification of objects in hierarchical systems and the science of taxonomy, classifying organisms by relationship, is not the same thing. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
WP said: Originally, taxonomy referred only to the classification of organisms or a particular classification of organisms. In a wider, more general sense, it may refer to a classification of things or concepts, as well as to the principles underlying such a classification. --Fractaler (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
what I do not get is your point? Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
"Taxonomy (as classification of organisms)" is "Taxonomy (general)" --Fractaler (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
How you figure that, taxonomy as a generalized methodology across many areas was developed from hierarchical classification, the same principal that was originally used to develop taxonomy biology. But Biological taxonomy is so much more then this now as it utilities complex algorithms to demonstrate evolutionary relationships. They are not the same thing. It is true originally taxonomy only referred to biological taxonomy, some parts of it were adopted as principals for other areas. But only the nomenclatural parts and the set theory. They are not related to each other. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course biological taxonomy is so much more then this now as it utilities complex algorithms to demonstrate evolutionary relationships, etc. But, about "taxon"/"meron": "unit of taxonomical classification is taxon. These conceptual structures are used in linguistics and computer science, with applications in biology". Biological taxon is "unit of taxonomical classification" or not? --Fractaler (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I would not think so, since the concept of taxon in biology refers to an observable entity in the living world and only refers to this. At the base level it is the species and species are a conceptual unit with its roots in science. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
taxon (Q16521): "group of one or more organism(s), which a taxonomist adjudges to be a unit" --Fractaler (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The „unit” of taxonomy (Q7211) (the nodes in a monohierarchical classification) is probably not taxon (Q16521). --Succu (talk)
But who said that the „unit” of taxonomy (Q7211) is taxon (Q16521)? --Fractaler (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Then make your point. --Succu (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

uBio ref[edit]

Hi was seeing some of these being added as an import from the French Wikipedia. Seriously please check what you import. (‎Added reference to claim: uBio ID (P4728): 4154855) (undo | thank) (Tag: reCh [1.1]) which I removed is a bird Elseya Mathews 1915 not the turtle Elseya Gray 1863. Also the one on Chelodina oblonga (Q2697599) is referring to Narrow-breasted snake-necked turtle (Q305986) you cannot blindly import nomenclatural data it will often be wrong and apply to the wrong taxon. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thierry Caro readded removed values of other properties too. In the future I will use their Web Services to check the names. --Succu (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
At this stage, importing stuff from Wikipedias is increasingly a bad idea, causing errors. - Brya (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A same author having different author citations in his (or typically her) life[edit]

In Miniopterus aelleni (Q1998926) (described in 2009), the author citation for Nicole Friedli-Weyeneth (Q47201020) should be "Weyeneth". In Coleura kibomalandy (Q11397030), described in 2012, it should be "Friedli-Weyeneth". On Nicole Friedli-Weyeneth (Q47201020), I used author citation (zoology) (P835) with two values: "Weyeneth" until 2011 (via latest date (P1326)), "Friedli-Weyeneth" after (via earliest date (P1319)). Is it the right way to do it? The gadget User:FelixReimann/taxobox.js (@FelixReimann:) does not render "Weyeneth" for Miniopterus aelleni (Q1998926). Totodu74 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The simple solution would be to have two items for the one person, in such cases. - Brya (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Is it really possible?? Totodu74 (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess they will be merged sooner or later. We have a similar problem with botanist author abbreviation (P428) (see Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P428#"Single_value"_violations). --Succu (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
It is possible (perhaps using permanent duplicated item (P2959)). However, these items will indeed need to be guarded, as it is likely that there will be users who will want to merge them. Just like there will be users who will want to merge Mastigophora (Q240433) and flagellate (Q30147131), although these deal with quite different concepts.
For the moment I see no real alternative. Theoretically, it may be possible to arrange a qualifier that indicates which form should be used but this seems finicky and vulnerable to error. - Brya (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll keep it this way, for now then. The precision I tried to introduce (with latest date (P1326) and earliest date (P1319)) has better chance to remain. Totodu74 (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
From what I can tell, and I do not know her, all her publications list her as Friedli-Weyeneth, N. and hence I would suspect this is the authors preferred spelling and appearance of her name. I would suggesting merging all versions to accomodate this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No, see this 2009 article where Miniopterus aelleni (Q1998926) is described. Or this other in 2010, though it contains no nomenclatural act. I presume it was before she get married. Totodu74 (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
May be so, but all her more recent material uses the hyphenated name. I would still suspect this is her preferred name now, unless she says otherwise, hence it should all be merged. People change their names for legitimate reasons we should try to accommodate this not make it harder. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The question is not about her current choice (indeed, she seems now to use her married name), the question is about zoological nomenclature. In 2009, she was publishing under the simple name, and I suspect the taxon described, Miniopterus aelleni (Q1998926), should includes the short version in zoological author citation. Taxa described by her after 2010 should use the married name under which they were published... Totodu74 (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This is not a good case to discuss this: there are only two zoological scientific names linked to her. To establish a meaningful pattern, something like twenty or thirty names would be desirable. - Brya (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Your point is: if the problem only concerns one page, it can remain as it is? Totodu74 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Rather: we need other cases in order to have a meaningful discussion. - Brya (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
After a quick look on Wikispecies, authors who changed their name during their carrier possibly include Jacqueline Heurtault (Q1677813), Sonia Fisch-Muller (Q25368065), Mónica Romo (Q40892306), Elizabeth T. Arias-Bohart (Q21387822) or Nelly Hooper Ludbrook (Q26838520)... Totodu74 (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
One I know of is France de Lapparent de Broin. cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
To clarify my last comment. I know France and she has been known as F. de Broin, F. de Lapparant, and F de Lapparant de Broin, over her career. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that Sonia Fisch-Muller (Q25368065) (co-)published Lithoxus boujardi (Q3764850), Hypostomus nudiceps (as Q5554731), Ancistrus pirareta (Q6431143), Ancistrus piriformis (Q5499290), and Ancistrus ranunculus (Q3768109) as Muller, and that these names are cited as being published by "Muller". Later names like Ancistrus tombador (Q5601402) are cited as being published by "Fisch-Muller". - Brya (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy we should group these if we can, maybe a note on the author page showing other names used or something, as for which name to use I would suspect the latest paper would be a reasonable assumption of the current name. For some authors we could ask them. If you have the paper you usually have their email address. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, reality is that the names authored by "Muller" are generally cited as being published by "Muller". Since that is the general zoological practice, Wikidata should reflect that. - Brya (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Zoobank has two entries for her. --Succu (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
So, we can have two items, as well. - Brya (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps these two items can be linked by "followed by" / "follows". - Brya (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)