Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy/Archive/2017/01

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Taxon list article qualifiers

Any comments on using the following qualifiers for property is a list of (P360) on taxon list articles.

Species list example:

Genus list example:

--Bamyers99 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Bamyers99, I changed your first example a little bit. Are you sure only species are included in this list? --Succu (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

species:Category:Taxon authorities and species:Category:Reference templates

Please see Wikidata_talk:Wikispecies.
--- Jura 21:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I allready informed Wikispecies about that. --Succu (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Expired taxa

It is strange to see items like Phyllonastes carrascoicola (Q27910016) marked simply as taxon (Q16521). I suppose that this is no longer used name so we should somehow mark it. I'd prefer to add qualifier with end time (P582) but there can be alternatives. P.S. I am not sure about this specific taxon, but I am talking about general attitude. --Infovarius (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There is also taxon (Q13357594) which is somehow not widely used. --Infovarius (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
As explaint to you earlier: taxa (or better taxon concepts) do not „expire“. --Succu (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
They simply become wrong and replaced by others, yes. --Infovarius (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope. That they are not accepted by other taxonomists does not mean they are „wrong“ or „replaced“ by something else. It's not uncommon earlier concepts are reinstalled, broadening or refining it. --Succu (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Category:Obsolete taxa (Q6544480) is a faux? --Infovarius (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
„This category contains taxa of organisms formerly defined within some taxonomic system, but which have since been rendered obsolete by further refinements to the classificatory system.“. --Succu (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This category contains taxa of organisms formerly defined within some taxonomic system. --Infovarius (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Is this some kind of an echo, or what are you trying to tell, Infovarius? Sorry, but I've no idea. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
If you can't see the word "taxa" even when I marked it bold, I don't know how to explain you more... --Infovarius (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not blind, Infovarius, but an explanation consists of words to express an argument. I'm missing this. --Succu (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If it is considered obsolete, then it is not considered to be a taxon. It is one or the other. - Brya (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
"Obsolete" is an adjective, "taxon" is a noun. They can perfectly be used together. --Infovarius (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
"Red" is an adjective, "taxon" is a noun. Grammatically they can perfectly be used together, but the result is not meaningful. - Brya (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, in general case it's not true. But here I still argue. --Infovarius (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
There are two positions that a taxonomist can adopt
  1. This is a taxonomic group (this is a taxon)
  2. This is not a taxonomic group (for example, this is obsolete)
These are mutually exclusive. - Brya (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll try another way. Since obsolete is an adjective it needs some noun. Obsolete what? Obviously two positions you've mentioned can be interchanged with time. And in this very case some taxon can become obsolete (obsolete taxon, of course. Which means that it was a taxon some time ago). --Infovarius (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Only the use of a taxon can expire, not the taxon itself. Taxa remain as such for ever, and cannot turn in "former taxon", no matter they are no longer used by scientists.
Anyway, and in general, I think it is a bad idea to add precision in the claim "instance of". For example, instance of "red car" seems risky and I would rather use two statements: instance of "car"; color "red". Totodu74 (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Well, it depends on viewpoint. From a perspective of logic these are mutually exclusive. From a linguistic perspective, this is more flexible; language can be very messy, depending on who uses it for for what purpose. Your position appears based on the need to use "obsolete", no matter what? - Brya (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not stuck with this specific word. See below. --Infovarius (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Totodu74: forgive me if I understand it wrong but "[t]axa remain as such for ever" sounds exactly like creationism. Scientifically a taxon is a scientific hypothesis. Organisms are absolutes. The way science regards them is not. Science is dynamic. A hypothesis about what organisms constitute a taxon is subject to change. In some areas, taxa appear to change every five years or so. - Brya (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha! No worries, there is no creationism here. If a taxon is properly described (i.e. it is valid), it will remain a taxon, even if no one use it any longer, even if (for a species-level taxon) its generic assignment changes, even if the offspring of the individuals once described by this name are diverging and become described under a new name. There is no such thing as "not being a taxon any more", that's all. Totodu74 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
From lessons in Bioinformatics for beginners: use of the word "valid" is a guarantee for miscommunication.
        If a discussion is to make progress, it is necessary to do more than repeat one's point of view. - Brya (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It is not about bioinformatics, it is about nomenclature. Taxa are either valid or not, read the ICZN. If they are no longer used, they remain valid and can be exhumed at any time. It is the point of nomenclature codes, I guess it deserves to be mentioned, no offense to your wisdom... Totodu74 (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, let me to make a summary (correct me if you don't agree with anything). Taxon is a theoretical grouping, which is published (invented, discovered) at some point of time. Such grouping under a specific name can be valid (strictly and unambiguously described, present at valid sources) forever. But it can be deleted from using when it would be recognized as wrong (by some researchers, by majority, by "official point of view") and replaced with some other taxon. If so, then please explain me how to understand Category:Obsolete taxa (Q6544480) and taxon (Q13357594)? I suspect that their names should be adjusted then. --Infovarius (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Totodu74: Oh no, if you read the zoological Code (ICZN: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/) you won't find anything about "valid taxa". What you will find are names which may be "valid" or not. If a name is not correct (not valid, not used), it will remain a name (any zoological name is an independent, formal entity) and "can be exhumed at any time". The point of nomenclature Codes is to separate nomenclature (rules for names) from taxonomy (science).
@Infovarius: Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups (Q6544480) has had its name copied from enwiki. It would not hurt to change its name, but that would not change the name of the enwiki category, so a name change might be confusing. - Brya (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I entirely agree with those who argue that "obsolete" is the wrong term. If you follow down in en:Category:Obsolete taxa you'll find that plants, by agreement among plant editors, use the more appropriate term "historically recognized". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Historically recognized plant taxa is only another construct to judge a taxonomic opinion. The case of Kumara (Q18344045) should be well known to Infovarius. --Succu (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Mycetaeinae / Mycetaeidae

I am not sure if 2 articles in Q6035087 should be together as they seem to have different rank and name. However they might be the same taxon that is being moved around Taxonomic tree. Any ideas? --Jarekt (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they should be split. As long as it is just two pages, it is not so bad, but it does not hurt to split them anyway. - Brya (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done (note the coordinate status). Brya (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Merendera candidissima

I'm not expert so I report here: Merendera candidissima (Q12837001). I read here that is « a synonym for (Merendera trigyna (Q15545008) », I have added instance of (P31) = taxon (Q16521) and taxon name (P225)= "Merendera candidissima", but probably is not correct. Someone can fix it? --ValterVB (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This is perfectly all right. There are a lot of opinions out there about names being synonyms, sometimes contradictory. It is possible to put in such relationships ("is a synonym of ...") but its value depends on the quality of the reference. What we need are scientific, taxonomic papers as references. If there is no such paper, a synonym-relationship should only be put in if it serves a structural need. - Brya (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Fitchia (Q5455439)

Fitchia (Q5455439) seem to be conglomerate of different plant and insect taxa, that need to be split somehow. Can someone help as I do not have time to untangle it at this moment, but do not want to forget. --Jarekt (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed to Fitchia (Q28343082). --Succu (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Same for Metatrichia (Q1756153) which is conglomerate of mold and insect genus. --Jarekt (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably you can fix them yourself. --Succu (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done see Metatrichia (Q28345654). I am fixing quite a lot of those and can only spend a couple hours here and there. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

FAQ

Should we build up a FAQ (Q189293) section besides our tutorial? One common problem is when a merge of two items is appropriate (raised by billinghurst). Another question I encountered yesterday was about the "suffix" -oidea by Infovarius. --Succu (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Another one is „Reclassification“ by Jarekt --Succu (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I am looking to see something in the Help: ns, not tucked away in a corner of Wikidata for topic specialists and fellow geeks. My reasoning is that 1) I have no in depth interest of the mechanics of taxonomy (I am not going to participate in discussion or have a particular opinion so running to your Project page is less likely to happen), though I do plant dabble, and there are plenty for merges. If there is a good simple clear guide about merges, ... the end target page will have (list of components); ... old synonym page will have (list of components). So it is systematic though not requiring specialist knowledge. Then a point of escalation if the item is hard, out of the ordinary. Let those who are comfortable to potter through a list to do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Fauna europaea

Migrating to new website. - Brya (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yepp. See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy/Archive/2016/02#Fauna_Europaea. --Succu (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, guess I forgot. - Brya (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Bot running addition of external identifiers?

Not sure how all the external identifiers have been added. If it bot and a now and again run, then okay. If it is manual, Cymbula safiana (Q21159628) needs a poke.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

?The item is incomplete, but it also has sitelinks to two heterotypic names: that is never a good thing. - Brya (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
and Granulifusus martinorum (Q21167514)  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Usually my bot runs once a week for most, not all, identifiers I suppport. --Succu (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Great. I am presuming that it will look for something like property for Taxon; if it is something else specific to trip your bot, please note that. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I create missing taxon items for organisms in BugsGuide database?

Hi, I was lately adding missing BugGuide taxon ID (P2464) identifiers to existing items. Out of 50k organisms in the database we already had 42k, however 8k items are missing. See mix-n-match page. Should I create those? They will look like Leiobunum euserratipalpe (Q28468733). --Jarekt (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not. The same task for Butterflies and Moths of North America ID (P3398) created a lot of misspellings. It's very time consuming to check them out. --Succu (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok --Jarekt (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Confused about Heterocheilidae McAlpine (1991) non Railliet & Henry (1915) (Q21440769)

user:Brya just undid a lot of my edits on Heterocheilidae McAlpine (1991) non Railliet & Henry (1915) (Q21440769) and I do not understand what is the issue. We have articles about those flies, like fr:Heterocheilidae, but the properties I am adding are being deleted. The explanation was "name that may not be used". Th name is used on 2 Wikipedias, wikispecies and 6 independent databases. If it is no longer used we can indicate it somehow and correct it, but at the moment it seems to be used by everybody. --Jarekt (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a later homonym, and may not be used. Scientific names are governed by a Code of nomenclature, in this case a zoological name governed by the zoological Code (ICZN). A basic aim of a Code of nomenclature is that a taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank has only one correct name, and that each name is used only once. Thus there are rules to effect that. The name HETEROCHEILIDAE McAlpine (1991) is a later homonym of HETEROCHEILIDAE Railliet & Henry (1915) and thus may not be used as the correct name of a family under the zoological name. Obviously, it could be used in another sense, for example as the name of a pop band. As the name of a family it is not all that much different from, say, the "Jarekt-family".
        We are getting lots of later homonyms, in the form of copying errors in careless database builders (almost always by those who want to build the biggest database in the world, fast). Here we must take these out of the line of taxonomic hierarchies, to prevent the error being reproduced by whoever uses Wikidata.
        Such errors must be corrected, but this must be done by a taxonomist. In fact, many of these were corrected, but the corrections were ignored by database-builders, or are happily used side by side with the disallowed name (miraculous multiplication of taxa!). In cases of family names like HETEROCHEILIDAE, the usual solution is to change the spelling of one of these names (coming up with something like HETEROCHEILAEIDAE) or to set a different name as correct, but until a taxonomist takes action, the name may not be used. - Brya (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
user:Brya, It would be great if all scientific names were unique, as that would make our lives much easier. However a lot of them are not, just look at Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P225#Unique_value where we have 3600 such conflicts and recognized exceptions. I hope scientific community will correct this name and other such names, and that we will capture those changes. In the meantime we need to store properties of this badly named family somewhere, since there are articles written about this family and Wikidata's mission is to support them. Wikipedia and wikidata should not be in the business of naming taxons, just recording the names found in literature, like the fact that both "Heterocheilidae" were used in this 2011 publication (pages 80 and 227). On the other hand, if there are copy errors or a names which was corrected decades ago but never go away because careless database builders copy bad names from one database to another, than I am all for providing the correct name for such taxa if you can provide sources. --Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Very selective reading. I pointed out "A basic aim of a Code of nomenclature is that a taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank has only one correct name, and that each name is used only once." The 3600 cases mostly are names governed by different nomenclature Codes, and coordinate zoological names (the name of a genus and the name of a subgenus, with the same spelling, author, date, and type). Then there are the cases that still need to be looked at (it is slow work).
        That the 2011 publication uses both names is sad, but I guess it just shows the dangers of aggregate works, compiling contributions of many users. Anyway, one more error does not change reality.
        I see you made a new item for Scleropogon, but then left something like 80-90% of the work undone. It is good of you to notice the problem, but it would help if you did all the work at once. - Brya (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
About Scleropogon (Q28342595), I am sorry I left some work undone. I am new to Taxonomy on Wikidata, as I am mostly contributing on Commons and Wikipedia and a lot of is new to me here. --Jarekt (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Brya, how should we fix Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2464? Shall we create a new item? Or pretend that this family does not exist because 35 years ago someone picked a bad name for it? I am very clear on why you dislike this item, but I am still very confused about how to resolve this. I think we can tag it as badly named, and then move on and start using the item. --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are the occasional constraint violations for odd cases. Can't be helped. If it really, really bothers you, you can remove the erroneous BugGuide entry. - Brya (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok I will remove BugGuide entry for now, but it bothers me that there are taxa out there we do not store information about because of their name. Maybe we should label it "Taxa known as Heterocheilidae McAlpine (1991)" and store the properties. When I am on c:Category:Heterocheilidae and I want to look up the properties of this family I want to find them, or if I do not I want to fix the issue, so I can find them in the future. With all due respect, reply that this can't be helped makes no sense to me. The current literature uses name "Heterocheilidae McAlpine (1991)" so per Wikidata:Verifiability that is the name we should use. Do you have any sources specifically saying that "Heterocheilidae McAlpine (1991)" should not be used? --Jarekt (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of things that can't be helped here (all this stuff imported from Wikipedia's and Wikispecies is hardly error free). However, if you want to fix this, it is a matter of finding a taxonomist to fix this permanently, for the whole world. - Brya (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Run a bot for P373 and P935

Hello,
Who should I ask for a bot run?
My idea:

We need this because hundreds of items are linked to wikicommons without any Commons category (P373) nor Commons gallery (P935).
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

In both cases around 2.500 statements are missing (P373, P935). I'll copy the information. --Succu (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Liné1: Done. I hope it helps. --Succu (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks a lot. It did help. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy/Archive/2017/01&oldid=469316765"