User talk:Brya

Welcome to Wikidata, Brya!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--DangSunM (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Archive 01

Pseudocolochirus

Hi Brya,

All the wikipages are linkt to this [1]; the other one is empty. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi DenesFeri, every "parent taxon" should be an taxon-item (an item with P225 "taxon name", P105 "taxon rank", P171 "parent taxon", and "instance of" "taxon"). But you are right that the sitelinks in Q17121454 are wrong: only the enwiki page should be there, the others should be in the other one. - Brya (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you fix it? DenesFeri (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. - Brya (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Köszönöm! DenesFeri (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! - Brya (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your comments have been moved into a discussion of Geonames

Please note User_talk:Liuxinyu970226#Moving_my_comment_about_Chinese_conversion_.28Q15630179.29_into_a_thread_about_Geonames_.3F
--- Jura 16:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Name main food sources of humans

edit.

d1g (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You are doing things in the wrong order. You are supposed to make sure you understand the field of knowledge involved, get your facts straight understand the Wikidata properties before you make an edit. - Brya (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

carrot (Q81) are eaten raw fruit (Q3314483)

As top producing countries, we can "waste" them by eating raw. Usually children do this. d1g (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure carrots can be eaten raw, but that does not make them fruit. Lettuce leaves can also be eaten raw, but that does not make them fruit, either. - Brya (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

fruit (Q3314483) is a culinary item, @Brya: anyone can see it. d1g (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

fruit (Q3314483) is a subclass of fruit (Q1364), anyone can see it. - Brya (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brya:

1. It isn't.
2. it has nothing to do with culinary claims

d1g (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Brya decided to "help" with pickled cucumber (Q1365891) too. d1g (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"fruit" fruit (Q3314483) has been a subclass of "fruit" fruit (Q1364) since 3 April. I see you have sneakily deprecated it: I will grant that rhubarb Q20767168 is sometimes regarded as a fruit, but that is the exception that confirms the rule (rhubarb is considered subclass of vegetable in Wikidata). - Brya (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

ruwiki states: "В хозяйстве съедобные растения и съедобные части растений делят на фрукты, овощи, орехи, зерновые культуры и т. д. В бытовом понимании ягода тоже сочный плод." - Brya (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"ягода тоже сочный плод"

not a "овощ это плод"

not a "фрукт это плод" d1g (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Rumex (Q157264) is a culinary vegetable but not a botanical fruit (Q1364)

inferred from is not a reference has nothing to do with this. d1g (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"Rumex (Q157264) is a culinary vegetable but not a botanical fruit (Q1364)". That seems quite right. What is your point? - Brya (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Rumex (Q157264) is eaten faw too as sevral other vegetables it should be fruit (Q3314483)

But you made overly imprecise statements and removed previous idealization.

d1g (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, "eaten raw" is not the deciding criterium. Fish can be eaten raw, and for that matter insects. The "edible in the raw state" is there as a disambiguation, to separate it from other items labeled "fruit".

        Fruit is a pretty widely known characterization, and there appears no confusion:

• dewiki: Obst ist ein Sammelbegriff der für den Menschen roh genießbaren meist wasserhaltigen Früchte oder Teilen davon (beispielsweise Samen), die von Bäumen, Sträuchern und mehrjährigen Stauden stammen.
• eswiki: Se denomina fruta a aquellos frutos comestibles obtenidos de plantas cultivadas o silvestres que, por su sabor generalmente dulce-acidulado, por su aroma intenso y agradable, y por sus propiedades nutritivas, suelen consumirse mayormente en su estado fresco, como jugo o como postre (y en menor medida, en otras preparaciones), una vez alcanzada la madurez organoléptica, o luego de ser sometidos a cocción.
• frwiki: Dans le langage courant et en cuisine, un fruit est un aliment végétal, à la saveur sucrée, généralement consommé cru.
• ruwiki: Фру́кт (лат. fructus — плод) — сочный съедобный плод дерева или кустарника.
• Etc

A culinary fruit is a botanical fruit, that can be eaten raw, usually is coloured (that is, not green), and tastes sweet (to a degree). There is a little fudge space at the edges, but I don't see how anybody can misunderstand it. - Brya (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

> A culinary fruit is a botanical fruit

@Brya: PROVE IT. IT IS NOT.

Asparagus (Q2853420)

"растение, плоды, корнеплоды, клубнеплоды, луковицы, листья или соцветия которого употребляются в пищу"

You quote botanical articles and say "it is botanical"

Waste of time, again. d1g (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brya:

tomato (Q20638126) typical veg and fruit d1g (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The tomato is a botanical fruit that is usually used as a vegetable, but that can be used as culinary fruits as well. I don't understand why you point to "овощ" which as the ruwiki page on fruit (quoted above) is the opposite of fruit. - Brya (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

New things about homo sapiens

Humans need carbohydrate (Q11358) and fat (Q127980) every day.

Will you remove water (Q283) too?

What is your point in this edit?

Property_talk:P618 was meant to used with organisms and any food.

Edit doesn't seem useful at all. d1g (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Property:P618 is not intended to be used with organisms, as is clear from the property creation discussion. And what a given individual of Homo sapiens derives its energy from will vary strongly depending on circumstances. And your 'reference' is intended as a guide for the food industry, to help them with what should be in the foods they produce; it says nothing whatsoever about what actually is in the food a given individual of Homo sapiens consumes.

        It is hard to imagine a more haphazard collection of stuff thrown together. You should spend a few years in a good library and gather reference material before editing, not making haphazard edits in whatever catches your eye. - Brya (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: "it says nothing whatsoever about what actually is in the food a given individual of Homo sapiens consumes"

It says nothing if humans need water. Or how much.

Mr. Brya Solution? Remove claim "humans need water"

"genius" d1g (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: I was treating you seriously so far. But comment above shows all what you "worth". Any 6 grader can do better without any sources about "fats" and "carbs" as nutrients

2 years wasted in library on H.S. nutrition facts? Is this what you capable of? d1g (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You appear very confused about Wikimedia projects. How is it supposed to work? 1) A user has knowledge in depth about a topic. 2) He carefully makes edits to share this knowledge. 3) He is legally responsible for his edits.

        What you are doing appears very much like making haphazard edits in whatever catches your eye.

        In no way is there any obligation for any user when removing errors to put anything in their place. Actually, he should not add content unless he wants to, is sure of the accuracy of the content he adds, and feels it is helpful to add that content. - Brya (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about fruits and vegetables (as it's quite vague topic for me), but you are misbelieve about Wikimedia projects yourself. Wiki main principle assumes that content is improving gradually, so one user can add some information, the second is changing it with more exact, the thirs adds some references... That is how wiki (all Wikimedia projects) worked so far. And yes, there is no obligation to put anything instead of removing, but this is good style of behaving. --Infovarius (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: what you do is pathetic. Homo Sapiens need protein and fat as energy source. Vitamins are not essential or do no covert directly to energy but put part of metabolism. Without many nutrients conversion would be less efficient.

It it a competence of 6 grade.

I don't know why you are attacking me "you appear very confused". Maybe you just asocial? d1g (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Anisophyllum

Hi! You made some changes in Anisophyllum (Q38151705), probably based on the IPNI entry, which is claiming, that Anisophyllum G.Don ex Benth. is only an orthographical variant of Anisophyllea R.Br. ex Sabine. In my opinion, this is at least questionable. My understanding of "orthographical variant" is a change of spelling by a later author, who anyways is claiming only to reuse a previously published taxon name – as an example see Ryticaryum. However, when Bentham in 1849 described Anisophyllum, he thought to describe a new genus and species and, as his addendum on page 575 is showing, he was not even aware, that Sabine had described the same genus and species already in 1824. So, Anisophyllum G.Don ex Benth. is rather a name at its own right, when we recognise the intentions of Bentham. Of course, this name is illegitimate in a double sense, first as a homonym of Anisophyllum Jacq., and morever by being a nomen superfluum, as its protologue includes the collection by Don, which later, obviously after typesetting of the main text, turned out, that it already had been the basis for the description of Anisophyllea R.Br. ex Sabine. If Anisophyllum G.Don ex Benth. merely were an orthographical variant of Anisophyllea R.Br. ex Sabine, a change of spelling from Anisophyllum grande to Anisphyllea grandis only would by an orthographical correction and not a new combination. However, in the Flora Malesiana treatment of Anisophyllea (see [2]), this matter clearly is handled as a new combination. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Franz Xaver,

I understand your line of reasoning (and thank you for documenting this so carefully!), but I can also see IPNI's line of reasoning. The fact that Bentham felt he was describing a new genus is not decisive. Imagine that instead of the spelling Anisophyllum he had used the spelling Anisophyllea, would he have published a new homonym of Anisophyllea?

      The deciding factor is the type. Art. 61.2 defines an orthographical variant: if both 'names' are based on the same type, they are orthographical variants. It is hard to tell if both authors based themselves on the exact same plant (specimen), although it seems possible since Bentham based himself on Don and Sabine apparently based himself on Brown; who knows who exactly saw what specimen. I think this is not really relevant. The type of a generic name is a specimen, but the name of a species is sufficient indication of that type (Art. 10.1). Both 'names' are based on the same species, and therefore they have the same type; that makes them orthographical variants. These are not two names, but just manifestations of the one name.

      The Flora Malesiana treatment would have been more convincing if it had explained its reasoning for its deviant approach, but I think it is just wrong.

      I hope this explains it. I am not claiming that IPNI and the like are never wrong, but good evidence is needed to override them. - Brya (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! If Bentham had used the spelling Anisophyllea, this simply would have been an isonym – not too rare.

OK, I did not know Art. 61.2 – escaped my attention. According to this, it must really be regarded as an orthographical variant.

If there is a doubt, whether Sabine and Bentham had based their description of the genus on the same specimen, then the same doubt is valid also for their species. The description by Sabine is a descriptio generico-specifica. Bentham intended to describe a new genus with a new species. The use of the same epithet is simply caused by the fact, that both made use of the same herbarium name, pencilled somewhere on a label (or the paper) together with the specimen. (Probably Bentham did not know exactly, who had written this name. So, he ascribed it to a different person.) However, typification of the genus and species described by Benthem is less problematic. Sabine based his genus/species on a Don collection from Sierra Leone "in the possession of Mr. Brown". And Benthem cited the Don collection together with a collection by Leprieur. So, according to ICN Art. 52.1–2 and Art. 9.5, the names by Bentham are homotypic with Anisphyllea laurina R.Br. ex Sabine, as Bentham cited the entire Sierra Leone gathering by Don. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Good. To some extent an orthographical variant may be regarded as an isonym, but with a slightly different spelling. - Brya (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate of a fungus

Hi,

There is two elements : Panaeolus sphinctrinus (Q14426282) and Panaeolus papilionaceus (Q2484523) a unique species of fungus but there is two items and two articles on pms.wikipedia.org. I've asked for a merge there but it will probably take some times, so I though that adding Wikimedia permanent duplicate item (Q21286738) meanwhile. DO you have a better idea to solve this problem? PS: FYI, I'm just the messenger, this issue as raised on Wikidata:Bistro.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi VIGNERON,

As far as I can tell these are two heterotypic names, and Panaeolus sphinctrinus can be regarded as a synonym of Panaeolus papilionaceus by some taxonomists. There will also be some taxonomists who will regard them as two separate species. There should be two separate items, and the relationship between them indicated by "taxon synonym" and "instance of" "synonym", preferably referenced by a good taxonomic paper. In no way are these two duplicates. - Brya (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, could you do check that everything is orrect right now ?

And right now, there is a Wikimedia permanent duplicated page on pms.wiki.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I moved pmswiki Panaeolus campanulatus to a new item. Otherwise everything looks alright. - Brya (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

cattle (Q830)

Hello Brya,

please explain me, why you reverted my recent change on cattle (Q830). Would you have expected a more general term, like leaf (Q33971) ? Would it be more appropriate to take fodder (Q211439) then main food source (P1034) Do you think, sheep (Q7368) has the right description? regards, --Scoid d (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Scoid d,

Actually I did not give any thought to the main food source of cattle, but this is likely to be a topic of some complexity (especially given how widely cattle are held). The revert was for a simple pragmatic reason, namely the item you had linked to. - Brya (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Grass or fruit

Hello, I think your edit creates confusion: an item can be a "grass of which the fruits..." or a "fruit", not both. --Horcrux92 (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That may be a nice distinction, but in practice it is used for both (more often for the fruit than for the plant). - Brya (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Synoecha marmorata (Q13475483)

Hallo Brya, Synoecha marmorata (Q13475483) is een onjuiste spellingsvariant van Synoecha marmorata (Q1939760). Dit is duidelijk hier te zien en ook op het kaartje hier, waar meteen de oorsprong van de onjuiste spelling is gevonden. Jij weet beter dan ik hoe dit in wikidata juist te verwerken. Kun je me daarbij helpen? Groet, Lymantria (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ik zou het zo doen. Groet, Brya (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Right. Dankjewel. Lymantria (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Euring number reverts

Why are you reverting my EURING number (P3459) additions: Catreus wallichii, Cyanocorax yncas? If it is because the URL gives a "Not Found", the URL only works if it is a UK species per Wikidata:Property proposal/Euring number. A species search is available at Euring search. It takes a couple of minutes to perform a search. --Bamyers99 (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I found them really weird. Of the seven additions on my Waychlist, five gave a "Not Found", one did link to a page but was on the wrong item, and only one gave a correct page. Why make links to non-existing pages?

        Apparently the expectancy is that there will (at some point) be pages for non-UK birds, but they will be at other sites, and will need new properties. The property we have is misnamed, and should be something like "Euring number of a UK-bird". - Brya (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the URL formatter so that just the number is displayed with no link. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, that is one possible solution. Have you checked with the proposer of the property? - Brya (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you 31 hours for edit warring across several items: [3],[4],[5]. Please discuss in a collaborative and civil manner after your block, rather than endlessly reverting across the entire site. Of course, you are welcome to appeal using {{Unblock}}. --Rschen7754 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you have chosen for the approach of "everybody loses" (as Ymblanter put it), or "Wikidata loses" (as I would put it). - Brya (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Adonis is feminine?

How is this possible? --Infovarius (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Because of ICNafp-Article 62.1. --Succu (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked 1 week for edit warring. --Rschen7754 18:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I see, you are still firmly committed to beating down anybody who stands up to the forces of chaos. - Brya (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Splitting an item

Hello, Brya,

I figure that you're probably the best-informed person about this. The world of zoster vaccines was previously very simple: there was only one. Q8074572 could be about the idea as well as the only actual instance of it. But now there are two completely different vaccines, so we need to split the item. The fullest form might look something like this:

• The general idea of a vaccine against w:shingles
  • The concept of a live-attenuated-virus vaccines against shingles
    1. The only known instance of a LAV vaccine against shinges, whose brand name is Zostavax and whose manufacturer is Merck. [Note that all live-attenuated vaccines are properly known by their brand names; there's no such thing as a completely interchangeable generic vaccine.]
  • The concept of a recombinant subunit vaccine against shingles
    1. The only known instance of a recombinant subunit vaccine, whose brand name is Shingrix and whose manufacturer is GSK.

This page lists seven different types of vaccines, but so far, these are the only two kinds that exist against this disease.

All of the Wikipedia articles in the current item should end up at the "general idea of a vaccine" item.

Can you do this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing,

Thank you. I am afraid I have no special knowledge about vaccines. Very likely you are considerably better informed. As vaccines apparently go by brand names, they presumably can be treated like other commercial products (when notable). - Brya (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do the Wikidata end. I don't know how to start with the existing item and create sub-items (is that a reasonable name?) from it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Every concept should have its own item. Both Zostavax (Q29006757) and Shingrix (Q42610038) already have an item, although that of Shingrix still is empty. Whether or not "the concept of a live-attenuated-virus vaccines against shingles" needs to have an item of its own I can't really judge. - Brya (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Shingrix (Q42610038) is no longer empty.

How does a user who starts at the Shingrix item reach the general vaccines-against-shingles Q8074572 item? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You could try "instance of" or "subclass of". - Brya (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful advice.

I went with "instance of", and it seems perfect (based on the descriptions). How does it work in the other direction? If the readers are starting at the general vaccines-against-shingles Q8074572 item, how do they find the (two) specific instances of it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Mostly, downward relations are not expressed in Wikidata (use "what links here" instead), although in some cases "has part" is used, but that is not useful here. - Brya (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomina

Hi Brya, more or less by coincidence, I found today how you cleaned the mess I left behind when I linked a number of incorrectly named "Nomina"-species to the correct names already in use on the Swedish Wikipedia. I had no idea this had happened, I just created a link with these other language versions by using the link "koppeling maken" in the left margin on the Dutch pages. Only today I found that I did not make a new link but actually merged two existing items. If this is how Wikidata presents things, not showing what really happens, and not even warning that some things would happen that could be very undesirable, I cannot take responsibility for it. Anyway, when I found out, I did my best to clean up the mess myself after every time I linked a Dutch page to a Swedish one.

The reason I contact you now is Q13900509. On the Dutch Wikipedia we had a page "Nomina bimaculella". That name was of course published as Tinea bimaculella, but this name appears to be a subjective synonym for Pammene aurana, and on the Dutch Wikipedia, I changed the page into a redirect. When I edited the Wikidata item for this page, so at least every instance of "Nomina bimaculella" was cleared and changed into Tinea bimaculella, I got an error message, saying there was already another page with a Spanish description equal to the one I entered. I don't know how to handle this. It appears there is some Arabic language Wikipedia featuring a page with the name Tinea bimaculella as an accepted taxon. Moreover, I don't know how to add a statement to the effect that this name is treated as a subjective synonym of Pamene aurana. You must by now have much more experience in these matters than I do, so could you please show me the way? Cordially, Wikiklaas (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikiklaas

Thank you for inquiring! I have no experience with the tool provided on Wikipedia, as I avoided it for just the reason you indicated: I have no idea what it actually does (behind the scenes). I also think it is silly that it is impossible to access Wikidata from Wikipedia if there is only one sitelink in the Wikidata item.

        In the matter of the best way to handle synonyms and name changes, this is still developing. As it now stands, it is best to remove the nl redirect from Q13900509, as it is confusing, but there is a move under way to change the way to handle redirects, on the theory that the inclusion of redirects may help resolve the "Bonnie and Clyde issue". How that is going to work out is uncertain.

        On the other hand, there seems to be consensus that it is not a good idea to change the topic of an item. What you did on Q13900509 left labels in some languages. One way to avoid this, is to start a new item and redirect the old one to it. Since this is more or less the same topic, and there is no "Nomina bimaculella", it is also possible to keep the existing item, but it is cleaner (and probably less work) to restore a previous version, dating back from before different-language labels were added, and rebuild from there. Probably, a label and description in a single language is sufficient: there are bots running which will add labels and descriptions.

        The way to handle synonymy is also developing. There is a property "taxon synonym" where synonyms can be added, if they have an item: any such statement can be referenced (as it is, there is an uncomfortably low level of references in place). Conversely, it is possible to add "instance of: synonym" or "instance of: homotypic synonym" (that is, in addition to "instance of: taxon", which should be left in place) in the item of the synonym (with a qualifier "of: #item"), which again can be referenced.

        Once upon a time I drew up a FAQ: this may also help a little? - Brya (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I tried to do this. I restored the item to its original state, and afterwards changed the silly name "Nomina bimaculella" to the more meaningful one. Everything went right until I wanted to change the link to the Dutch page: obviously, when a Wikipedia page is a redirect, and the target page is already linked to a Wikidata item, one cannot link the redirect to a separate Wikidata item. I "solved" this by first restoring the Dutch page to the state it was in before I changed it into a redirect. Then I was able to link the Wikidata item to it. And after that I of course restored the redirect. If I left some new mess on Wikidata by acting this way, the specialists may find it and try to solve it. I'm not going to let myself get frustrated just because some folks who set up this database have no clue how to handle taxonomic data. Wikiklaas (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not that it is of any great practical importance (unfortunately we have quite a few items with wrong labels), but I made a few edits to provide a really clean result (for demonstration purposes): I went back to the beginning (second edit) and put in just the minimum. It is to be expected that bots will, sooner or later, add more labels and descriptions.

        For the purposes of Wikidata, a synonym is an incorrect name, as cited in a synonymy [6], [7]. - Brya (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it now, the solution is to remove the link to the redirect on the Dutch Wikipedia. That was the main problem I ran into. I'm quite convinced it would be beneficial if a redirect of this kind could be linked to a Wikidata item with that label and a statement to the effect of the synonymy. For now, I'll concentrate on finding what names in "Nomina" have meaningful and accepted names in Tinea or other genera. Thanks for your help. Wikiklaas (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The link to the redirect on the Dutch Wikipedia does not make any difference in this case. Speaking in general, opinions about redirects vary. Personally, I don't like them as they make editing the database much harder: it would be different if they were at least recognizable as redirects. - Brya (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

True. One funny thing: by a lucky chance I just discovered that one can go to the Wikidata item from a page that has only one sitelink in Wikidata. When I rightclicked on "koppeling toevoegen" (add links) and then opted for "open in a new tab" (or "open in a new window"), I was brought to the Wikidata item, just like when an item already has more sitelinks, and the link would have read "koppelingen bewerken" (edit links). You complained about it in your first answer. It's still a bit weird that is was hidden this way but it is possible. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed, that it is really weird. - Brya (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Same taxon, different ranks

Today, the article on Arabis hirsuta subsp. sagittata on the Dutch Wikipedia was enriched with a diagnostic description and data about habitat and distribution. I thought it was time for some pictures, which I found here. I added that sitelink to the Wikidata item. As a last action, I thought it would be good to also check if a page in Wikispecies was available, and if so, add that sitelink too. It was available but than of course it happened: error message, already linked to item Q14630174. Now we have two items, covering the same taxon, albeit in different ranks. Merging the items would yield chaos, because of different secondary authors, different parent taxa and so on. But the images in the commonscat of course apply to both items. Do you know of some 'best practice' to solve this? Sincerely, Wikiklaas (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a good solution to this, except to put in as many "taxon synonym" and "instance of: synonym of" claims as possible. This problem occurs not only with different ranks, but in fact with all homotypic names. There may be three, four, five or more items each with a homotypic name, and it happens often enough that the sitelinks are in an item of a taxon name different from the name of a Commons category (or gallery) or Wikispecies entry. The question then is whether to place the Commons category (or gallery) or Wikispecies entry in the item with the corresponding name or in the item that holds the sitelinks. - Brya (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

‪Q5466341

Hello Brya, you undid‪ Q5466341‬. In this case wikispecies considers the Cape parrot (Poicephalus robustus robustus) (Gmelin, 1788) as a subspecies. ([8] The recent insight to consider the Cape parrot as an apart species is differently treated by different wiki's. What is the best solution to tackle this type of problems in wikispecies? Thanks for your advice. --Hwdenie (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies and Wikidata are different projects: each has its own principles. Wikispecies aims to be a directory of species, presenting a single point of view (SPoV). Wikidata aims to gather data, representing as many points of view as there are in the literature (NPoV). Wikidata has an item for each concept, so the concept as a species and the concept as a subspecies each gets its own item. The relationship(s) between these items can be represented by statements like "taxon synonym : #item" and "instance of: synonym" "of: #item", these preferably should be referenced, by real taxonomic papers, or books. - Brya (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Q20908547

Hi! I'm not sure your edits to Q20908547 were correct. If Q20908547 describes a deprecated taxon, then marking it as "instance of" Capra hircus (Q45320358) is not correct - it's not a specific goat, it should be subclass of (P279) or something like that. Also, if Q20908547 is not a species, but a name, it should not be in a species hierarchy at all, but if it is, description of "name that may not be used" (more fitting to Lord Voldemort (Q176132) :) is not right, it should be "deprecated taxon of the species" or something like that, which explains what it actually is, not just "bad name" without qualifications. Laboramus (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not a taxon at all: it is just a name (that may not be used). By contrast, the taxon that it was once applied to (by a few zoologists who did not get it) is not deprecated: the taxon is fine (has always been fine). "Instance of" is a very flexible property: it is a catch-all property, to be used when in doubt. By contrast, "subclass of" requires that the item is a class. This is in no way the case here. - Brya (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Q12106

Please do not revert my wd changes for cs article. It responds to iw articles. Thank you.--RomanM82 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The purpose is to link Wikipedia pages on the same topic together. The cswiki page deals mostly with the genus Triticum, its taxonomy, synonyms, species, etc. It hardly deals with wheat, a foodstuff, with aspects like application, production figures, nutritional value, etc. Your placement does not make sense. - Brya (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Q47351720

[9] What’s on there? Looks like an edit accident… Can you please fix it? Also @Succu:… Thnx, —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Same with: [10][11][12]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the result of the foibles of the merge tool: often it refuses to merge items even when there is no apparent reason. It usually helps to clear the item, as much as possible, but that did not work here, at that time. So I left them as was. Now the merge tool works again (reasons unknown), so I have merged them. - Brya (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week

You have been blocked 1 week for this. After being mentioned on WD:AN for personal attacks, it is not a good idea to keep making them. --Rschen7754 19:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, more of this facilitating aggression and then blocking anybody who tries to keep the discussion based on reality and within Wikidata procedures. - Brya (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I have disabled your talk page access in light of the above comment. Personal attacks are emphatically not "within Wikidata procedures".--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month

I have blocked you 1 month for repeated personal attacks, including [13]. The next one may be indefinite. --Rschen7754 18:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of description

What exactly does "(incorrect) name(s) listed as synonym(s) of a taxon name" used as the English description of taxon synonym (P1420) mean? Why is the qualification "(incorrect)" needed when it does not appear in the French "synonyme du nom du taxon" or the German "Synonym(e) des Taxonnamens", or indeed anywhere else, except apparently in the very recently added Ukrainian translation of the English description? I'm genuinely puzzled. It looked like a mistake to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I did my best to explain this here. The French "synonyme du nom du taxon" and the German "Synonym(e) des Taxonnamens" are quite ambiguous, which is undesirable in a disambiguation (which is what a "description" is intended to be). The multilingual nature of Wikidata is a ticking time bomb, since there may be huge differences in labels and meanings between languages; editors in other languages may well get a different impression as to the concept they are dealing with. - Brya (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Synonyms and basionyms

Hello Brya! Thanks for your edits. I have put notes on several items among Wikidata, mainly insect and fungi species, because I did not know how to deal with the items. I thought about merging thm, or simply deleting the now obsolete item while adding a Latin alias to the most up-to-date name. That would mean less entropy, wouldn't it?
I have read your older explanation above, though, and if I understand this right, my suggestion is something Wikispecies would do, right? --GeXeS (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikispecies is a Single-Point-of-View and (mildly) Original-Research project. Wikidata should be compatible with Neutral-Point-of-View and No-Original-Research projects. It seems clear that for Wikidata a one-name-one-item setup will be able to accommodate all data from all literature.

        For fungi the situation is relatively simple, since the Index Fungorum is so dominantly present. For insects it is less straightforward, but all existing literature can be incorporated, leading (hopefully) to a robust database, some (long) time in the future.

        Adding synonyms as aka's is a measure of last result, since this tends to hinder searches and cause wrong links. There is an ongoing discussion on how to include synonyms, besides adding them as "taxon synonym" (which requires this particular item to exist).- Brya (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for a fast answer. OK, then, I guess I will limit my activity to adding translations, then, not synonyms. --GeXeS (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Q1148350 vs Q10372154

Hi Brya :-)

I hope you're doing well.

It seems to me that the edits made by Oodna you reverted on Saturday were correct (actually, we talked about it together before she made them). Articles in different languages on two close yet distinct topics are currently mixed up (see for example the Polish and French articles). Would you mind if I restore her edits?

Thanks for your work and best regards — Arkanosis ^✉ 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Arkanosis: I've made some adoptions. --Succu (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Succu, thank you very much!

Best regards — Arkanosis ^✉ 21:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two main topics here

• rank-based taxonomy, the science, sometimes (wrongly) ascribed to Linnaeus
• the taxonomy of Linnaeus, the classification he adopted, which can be subdivided:

1. the classification of minerals
2. the classification of plants (Sexual System)
3. the classification of animals

Among these, the Sexual System is a clearly defined topic. This leaves:

• The enwiki page covers the classification of Linnaeus for all three, with a mention of rank-based taxonomy (and also something about names). Like many enwiki pages, it is wonderfully mixed up
• The rowiki page deals with the classification of Linnaeus for all three
• The idwiki page more or less deals with rank-based taxonomy
• The lfnwiki page deals with the names in rank-based taxonomy
• The eowiki page is an overgrown disambiguation page

So there are a number of pages which don't really fit in anywhere. We might make a new item for the classification of Linnaeus for all three. - Brya (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC) [I can't actually find a plwiki page?]

Platanus x hispanica

Hi, Brya.

I see that you reverted my merging of Platanus x acerifolia (Q24853030) into Platanus x hispanica (Q161374). You seem to agree that they both refer to the same species, nevertheless, as you've made an synomym claim under Platanus x acerifolia. The way I see it, the current situation is problematic as six wikipedia articles are linking to acerifolia - the english one in particular - and 29 to hispanica, in spite of describing the very same tree. As a consequence, the interwiki links don't work. This is what I tried to address in good faith and to the best of my ability. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve on this? Trapiella (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the general rule is that each name should have its own item, and that sitelinks to heterotypic names should not be put together in one item. But you are right that this is a special case, in that this is a cultivated tree. Arguably it is a cultivar, and thus does not have a type at all. I will move the six sitelinks to Platanus ×hispanica; the enwiki page is clearly overdue for an update. - Brya (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It is much appreciated. Trapiella (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not a "general rule" that each name should have its own item. That is a convention that you and Succu enforce without community consensus. The "general rule" on Wikidata is 1 item = 1 concept. Kaldari (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a general rule because it is forced upon us by the basic structure of Wikidata utilizing items containing claims, and the mission of Wikidata to record data from the literature. 1 name = 1 concept = 1 item. Anyway, there is fair support from those working in this area. - Brya (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kaldari: The scientific names Platanus ×acerifolia (Q24853030) and Platanus × hispanica (Q161374) (applied to a taxon) do not represent the same concept (or taxonomic viewpoint). [14] --Succu (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Watermelon

Hello! I have seen, that you reverted my edit about Q17507129 and Q38645 with commentary "different concept". But linked articles to Watermelon (Q38645):

• de-wiki Wassermelone (Citrullus lanatus)
• en-wiki Citrullus lanatus
• nl-wiki Citrullus lanatus, synoniem: Citrullus vulgaris
• no-wiki Citrullus lanatus and Citrullus vulgaris
• da-wiki Citrullus lanatus synonym: Citrullus vulgaris

Linked articles to Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129):

• bg-wiki Citrullus lanatus
• uk-wiki Citrullus vulgaris (kind of strange, but nl-wiki call it synonym)
• ru-wiki Citrúllus lanátus
• pl-wiki Citrullus lanatus
• pt-wiki Citrullus lanatus

There are only 4 Wikipedias with different articles (can be simply mistakes):

• In case of am-wiki (I'm not good at this writing system to read or understand the text) articles have different names in local language (በጢሕ and መሐሌ), but in both cases Latin name is the same: Citrullus lanatus
• I didn't check fa-wiki and pnb-wiki in details (but in both languages in both articles the same Latin name in Templates - Citrullus lanatus)
• Only in cs-wiki article Lubenice obecná about plant and Vodní meloun - about fruit (and in article stated, that "fruit of [Lubenice] sometimes called Vodní meloun").

So they kind of must be all together.--Divega (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what your problem is. As you point out there are two different concepts: the fruit and the species. The fruit is something that is eaten and traded, and production figures and nutritional values can be listed. The species can be described, its taxonomy treated, etc. In no way are these duplicates. Some Wikipedias have a page on the fruit, others a page on the species, and yet others a combined page dealing with both concepts together. Especially enwiki is notorious for "combining" topics, to the point where many topics cannot be treated if a plant is in any way, however remotely, involved. - Brya (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There are only 4 wikies with different names (and I suppose, that at least 2 of them have a mistake, but I'm not good at farsi, panjabi or that 3rd one so it is just an assumption) with only 1 wikipedia, that has really different words out of 131 others (in case of farsi following things says Google Translate "Watermelon ( Scientific name : Citrullus lanatus ) is a plant and fruit" and "Tsema ( Scientific name : Citrullus lanatus ), a plant species of the Codoban Dark" with source en-wiki article "Watermelon", other languages cannot be correct translated). All others are combining plant and fruit, so it is not just a enwiki is notorious for "combining" topics, it is in this case kind of worldwide thing.--Divega (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Last time I checked through them there were lots and lots that were dealing with the fruit. If an entry mentions the name of the plant that does not mean it deals with the species. Any decent Encyclopedia of Fruits will mention the name of the plant that produces the fruit, and likely the growth form of the plant.

        But, anyway this is irrelevant to the argument at hand. - Brya (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, in which checked wikipedias is it the case? If not look at those, connected to wikidata Citrullus lanatus (species) but only about fruit, articles mostly about (in biggest wikipedias):

• en-wiki - description, history, taxonomy.
• sv-wiki - plant with description of fruit
• de-wiki - description of the plant (not fruit) with small part about fruit, spread of the plant, systematic of the plant.
• nl-wiki - small article about plant with only several sentences about fruit
• ja-wiki - about plant
• zh-wiki - mostly about fruit with some information about how to plant and watch over
• fa-wiki - as I mentioned earlier, there are 2 articles, this one is 2 sentence article with description in 1st sentence of an African fruit and second -- that is was copied from en-wiki article Watermelon.
• sr-wiki - about plant with a lot of information how to cultivate.

In case of top 20 wikipedias most of them are about plant. And if consider other articles, like comparing mk-wiki and sr-wiki, it is not clear, why they are in different groups (text in this articles was not changed for the last 1-1,5 year)--Divega (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

In fact, cultivating this crop is yet a third concept, but there are few Wikipedia's that have real information about cultivation. Also, it is rather hard to tell what the enwiki page is about, as self-conficting as it is. But again, this is irrelevant to the argument at hand: the fruit and the species are two different topics. There is no point in my looking at these pages again. - Brya (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the articles describe the same thing, but since you put them in different groups -- they should stay there? Is it correct?--Divega (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, a change of topic. Just to clarify: there are two items on Wikidata, Q17507129 and Q38645, each on a concept of its own. There are all kinds of Wikipedia pages, almost all different, dealing with, if I count correctly, at least four different concepts. Ideally, sitelinks to each page should be placed in the item that most closely matches the topic of that page. - Brya (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it was not a change of topic. You have divided abovementioned pages in two different items (mk-wiki and sr-wiki), although the text hasn't changed since that time. So you put two similar articles in different items. Based on my description of articles from biggest wikipedias now it looks like random distribution, more a non-existing concept, since there is only 1 wiki (probably 2) with differences between fruit and plant, but the same text, for example, in de, en, uk and ru wikies.--Divega (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet another change of topic. Can you make up your mind about what you want, and tell me before you start with the recriminations?

        About the sr page, until recently, it proclaimed loudly that it was about something different than Citrullus lanatus, so if you have a complaint you should take it up with the sr community. - Brya (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

According to Uniprot.org Citrullus vulgaris is synonym to Citrullus lanatus, so this has nothing to do with article content. I have mentioned that before. So it was not change of topic. And one more time -- texts are similar and about the same thing (this languages are quite similar to my native languages and I can read them with less or no need of translation. Accordingly automatic translation is also good working for this group of languages). My point -- items are identical in the content of the articles and should be merged in one.--Divega (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Brya reverted your wrong usage of Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920). I can not see this was wrong, Divega. --Succu (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Succu -- this wikidata entries are about the same thing. It seems like a duplicate for me, since according to description "this item duplicates another item, it can be merged once the necessary merges are done in other Wikimedia projects".--Divega (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The concepts are as different as can be: one is a fruit, the other a species. - Brya (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

But non of the articles are not dividing this concept, except 1 of the wikipedias. And this only article is rather a definition for wikionary, but not a separate article on its own--Divega (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As I see now almost everything is in Watermelon instead of Citrullus lanatus. Still 4 Wikis are questionable.--Divega (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Hello Brya. I think that you are wrong in this case.

Taxonomy: not science of finding, describing, defining and naming groups of biological organisms

Taxonomy: but science of finding, describing, defining and naming groups of type specimes in life and earth sciences

Life sciences: botany, zoology, bacteriology, virology, etc.

Earth sciences: mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, etc.

Earth sciences imitates life sciences with taxonomy, type specimen, type locality and type description

I think taxonomy is a general term for earth and life sciences. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chris.urs-o,

Taxonomy is a classic discipline, or group of disciplines: it deals with organisms. It has been much copied, to some degree or other: there is a general discipline of classification (not empirical), which also calls itself "taxonomy" (causing confusion), and some of its adherents feel that real taxonomy is just part of the discipline of classification. Phytosociology also copies taxonomy in some respects. Earth sciences may imitate life sciences with taxonomy, type specimen, type locality and type description, but that does not mean it is the same. They are all different. - Brya (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Spider genus Sancus

I am aware of the opinion that Sancus is unavailable for use as the name of a spider genus, e.g. as stated here. However, it's not for Wikidata to favour one opinion over another, and Sancus is currently used as a genus name in the authoritative World Spider Catalog, and in other taxonomic databases. So there is a need for a Wikidata item that reflects the actual data present in these databases and their opinions. As you have often stated, opinions are important in taxonomy.

Ideally it would be possible to say, in addition, that other sources regard the name as unavailable for a spider genus, but this does not seem possible at present. If I'm wrong, this would be the way forward.

Which direction the merge should be in is another matter, and I'm happy to accept that I got this wrong and for it to be corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've now informed the World Spider Catalog of the issue with Sancus de Niceville, 1891, so we'll see whether they have any reason to support their acceptance of the name. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

Yes, in the case of taxonomy it is important to document the several different main taxonomic viewpoints, although they are not necessarily of equal weight. However, nomenclature is different: the whole point of the international agreed-on sets of rules is to take away ambiguity and room for individual preferences. This does not work the full hundred percent, but for homonyms this does work pretty universally. Even those authors who continue to use a later homonym will admit that really somebody should take nomenclatural action (either a conservation/rejection proposal, or a replacement name). So, it is not a matter of favouring one opinion over another, but of following international agreement.

        I hope somebody at the World Spider Catalog decides to do something about it, at least if somebody has not already done something (some people like publishing replacement names, and put out lots of papers). - Brya (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, there already is an available name: Leucognatha. - Brya (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring for 3 days. --Rschen7754 01:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sad to see that reverting vandalism results in a block. A sad day for Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I have proposed a topic ban here. --Rschen7754 01:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional proposals have been made here. --Rschen7754 18:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Acanthosphinx guessfeldtii

Hoi Brya, Ik ben niet geheel zeker wat ik het beste met taxon name (P225) kan doen op Acanthosphinx guessfeldtii (Q5649212). Op basis van de link die ik er bij heb geplakt van de oorspronkelijke publicatie, denk ik dat dubbel i correct is. Eens? Groet, Lymantria (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bij dieren is zekerheid moeilijk te bereiken. De oorspronkelijke publicatie is wel van belang, maar niet allesbepalend. Als het gebruikelijk is, in alle literatuur, om een andere spelling te gebruiken telt dat zwaarder. Een goede monografie zou uitsluitsel horen te geven. - Brya (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, dank. Die monografie heb ik niet bij de hand. Lymantria (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ja, dat is meestal het probleem. - Brya (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit restrictions

Per discussion on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard, you are subject to edit restrictions. Please read the exact wording at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal commentary ban and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Commenting ban. --Pasleim (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversions of updates

Why do you claim this is "irrelevant"? It is very relevant; the result is now that the vernacular name of Troglodytes hiemalis is being wrongly placed on other wiki pages for Troglodytes troglodytes in numerous places, because of an outdated external website. This is very unhelpful, and extremely confusing for other users who may not necessarily be familiar with current taxonomy of the genus. Please undo your change. Oh, and you also deleted the images I'd added showing some of the subspecies diversity in the species. What are your reasons for doing that? - MPF (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason "source is out of date" is irrelevant. Wikidata gathers data, preferably sourced data. Mere disagreement with somebody's "current taxonomy" does not matter. Wikidata is not a Single-Point-of-View project. - Brya (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

But this is contrary to your expressed view of avoiding chaos. I am trying to stands up to the forces of chaos, but you are 'beating me down' with this. It is one thing to gather different viewpoints, another to add data in a manner that creates chaos on other wikis. This vernacular name needs to be tagged in some way that prevents it from being added elsewhere without any indication that it belongs to a different taxonomy to the taxonomy used in commons and the various wikipedias - MPF (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also of this, of this particular instance US usage matches Canadian usage; it does not match usage in English English, Australian English, etc., and it is important to make this clear to avoid confusion. This one could easily be solved if en-us for American was enabled at wikidata (as it is at e.g. commons), but until it is, en-ca is an accurate match. Please respect it, and create en-us to solve this for the longer term. - MPF (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your way of "reducing chaos" is to eliminate everything that does not conform to your Single-Point-of-View. It may be a good idea to add a system of tagging common names to make it clear that they belongs to a particular taxonomy, so feel free to come up with one.

        It may be that a particular common name is used in both the US and Canada; that does not mean that a sourced statement that a particular common name has been adopted by the US can be altered so that it says that the US have prescribed to Canada that they must use that name! - Brya (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Since Troglodytes troglodytes sensu stricto (Eurasian Wren (Q25740) excluding T. hiemalis) and T. troglodytes sensu lato (including T. hiemalis Winter Wren (Q10828228)) are different concepts, should they not have separate Q items? Then the vernacular name Winter Wren could be included on Q10828228 (as it is already) and on the to-be-created sensu lato item QXXXXXXX, but excluded from Q25740 (which is what I did but you reverted). Q25740 and Q10828228 would then have links to Commons, as Commons uses that concept, but QXXXXXXX would not have a link to Commons (though could have, to any wikipedias which might still follow the sensu lato concept). By the way, you are being disingenuous in saying "[my] Single-Point-of-View". It is the point of view of the IOC, which is an international peer-review body comprising the bulk of the world's ornithological organisations: it represents the overwhelming scientific consensus in ornithology. - MPF (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Addenum: IUCN have updated their website and no longer have Winter Wren (nor Peaceful Dove for Geopelia striata) - MPF (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Create en-us for American, and this is easily sorted. - MPF (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

They could have separate items, but mostly this does not work out well. Wikidata almost exclusively has separate items for different circumscriptions if a Wikipedia has separate pages for them.

        And yes, there are lots of Single-Point-of-View projects out there. And often enough they disagree with each other. That is no reason to turn Wikidata into one.

        Maybe there should be an en-us, and maybe there will be one. But there is not one now. - Brya (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting turning Wikidata into a single point-of-view, just that the two points of view be given separate items, to avoid confusion. I note that e.g. Hungarian wiki hu:Ökörszem uses Troglodytes troglodytes sensu lato including T. t. hiemalis, so there you have a wikipedia with a page for this concept - MPF (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it would have been clearer if I had phrased this as "if a Wikipedia has separate pages for both of them.", that is, within one Wikipedia two, or more, pages for several circumscriptions. Users will not understand if iw's will be divided over more than one item. This is almost guaranteed not to work out. - Brya (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Vachellia tortilis/ Acacia tortilis

Hi,

Today, the formerly known as Acacia tortilis, is named Vachellia tortilis and belongs to the Vachellia genus. DenesFeri (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

1) that is only the case for those who follow the split of Acacia into half a dozen genera. It is not the case for those who follow the classic, wider circumscription of Acacia.

2) Regardless of taxonomy, the name Acacia tortilis is formed by combining the epithet tortilis with the generic name Acacia. Not by combining the epithet tortilis with the generic name Vachellia. - Brya (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Russula rubra

From my discussion page:

Hello Byra, I know that. I have also correctly described R. rubra and linked with the German article. This site, however, makes the mistake and determines R. pugens as a synonym. Furthermore, the entries of the sv.Wiki and the others are incorrectly linked, because they describe R. pugens (but link to R. rubra). Well, not I made a mistake. That's why I would ask you to link the Romanian article with the German one and delete the others.-- Sacha47 (talk) 4:20, 10 December 2018 (CET)

Original description

Hello, where can I add the original description of a taxon? I'm aware of P5326 (P5326) but in my understanding it is to retrieve the fist publication of a taxon name. Example in WoRMS, they often give the link to the description, and I think is is interesting. If the taxon have never been renamed then the question is solved by itself, as we talk about a single publication, but otherwise it is a pity not to can give the infos (and, in many cases, the BHL links). Example in Pedicellaster pourtalesi (Q2425159), if you click on the BHL link you will go to the precise page where the first name publication and the first description are available. It is a pity not to retrieve the original description (if available), when this last one is different from the firt publication of the taxon name. Maybe should I create the items for the former taxon names. Exemple if I want to retrieve in Wikidata the firt descritpion of Hydrasterias improvisus (Ludwig, 1905), then maybe I should create an item for Pedicellaster improvisus Ludwig, 1905, and then I will use P5326 (P5326) for this is last one. And a query will do the rest. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of different cases:

• the publication in which the name Hydrasterias improvisus (Ludwig, 1905) was established, which can be added to the item Hydrasterias improvisus.
• the publication in which the name Pedicellaster improvisus Ludwig, 1905 was established, which can be added to the item Pedicellaster improvisus, which apparently should be created. Then these two items should be linked, by adding "original combination: Pedicellaster improvisus" in the item Hydrasterias improvisus (for plants use "basionym: ").

There is a difference in the international rules that govern scientific names between those for animals and those for plants. The rules for plants (ICNafp) emphasize the whole taxon name, while the rules for animals (ICZN) emphasize the second (or third) part of the taxon name. This is why WoRMS provides the original publication for Pedicellaster improvisus in the entry for Hydrasterias improvisus. Wikidata does not follow this approach.

• There are also cases where there is an original description in which the organism is not named, followed later by a publication in which a name is given (there is not necessarily a description in this publication).

I hope this clarifies it? - Brya (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes a bit, thanks you. That confirm that I wrote above, if I want to retrive the infos about publications given by WorMS, I have to create the corresponding items. Because it seems that almost all original combinations, at least for the echinoderms, topic on witch I mainly work here, have not been created. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Replacing seed oil against seed in false flax oil and my given source stating it is gone.

Hello Brya,

first I would like to thank you, that you've modified my statements more precise to seed oil!

When I looked after your modifications I realized, that you trashed my source, where I have obtained the information from, which is crucial for wd. In my source was a description, that the material, the oil was gained from a seed - you did modify it into seed oil, which is fine, but my source, the book where it came from, Leinöl-Ersatzstoffe is gone! Do you understand me, what I mean?

This case is true for all modifications you did to my editions.

What should we do now? --Scoid (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Scoid,

Thank you for approving the general drift of my edits. The problem as I found it was that these oils all were depicted as "natural product of taxon: seed". And seeds are not taxa, so there was a considerable problem. In at least one case there was a pre-existing item, so that a new item was unnecessary.

        In trying to get to a satisfactory solution I did not get round to copy your reference in all cases, but they are not all gone. The item Leinöl-Ersatzstoffe has over seventy incoming links, so things are not that bad. You can re-add the reference (a few dozen edits?), or wait and see if I have opportunity to check. - Brya (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done: five edits. - Brya (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Brya,

thank you. Please excuse me asking you again for a change you conducted. I do not understand why you changed is a to sublass of of some seed oil , but sometimes you did not? Examples are safflower oil (P31)and tonka bean oil (P279) ? Why you did change most of them to a subclass, as for me each seed oil of a plant is a specific oil and cannot be divided into more unique oils. I am sorry for this interruption and maybe I have overseen an important point.

regards,--Scoid (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC) .

Hello Scoid,

Yes, I see I used "instance of: seed oil" in most cases, but where there was a pre-existing "subclass of: ..." statement, I added to that rather than putting in "instance of: seed oil". I agree that "instance of: seed oil" looks better. Having said that, I find that in most cases it can be argued both ways, and that there is little agreement among users. - Brya (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

cheers, this makes it clear to me --Scoid (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Brya, I am sorry to be a source of confusion, after this message https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Scoid#Basic_membership_properties it makes it more clear to me to define the cited seed oils as classes. --Scoid (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that this is convincing: a class should have members. But as I noted "in most cases it can be argued both ways, and [...] there is little agreement among users." - Brya (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Why wrong item?

Hi, I'm relatively new to editing wikidata. I don't understand why you reverted my edit: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5&diff=prev&oldid=843555153 Could you please clarify why you did that? It's unclear to me that human would be the wrong place for that property, especially as Wolfram Language specifically uses that entity for "Human" and the Human page contains sameas:homo sapiens. --Hebejebelus (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The item Q5 deals with human as an individual that is part of a society. An individual that has a personal name, an education, etc. The item Q15978631 deals with the taxon Homo sapiens. - Brya (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Species items

-Vanessalozano (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC) thanks for your comment and explanation. Where can I add the property "Invasive species"?

You are welcome. As Succu pointed out (also here), there is a property "invasive to" available. - Brya (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Genus lowered to subgenus

Hello, Brya. In case of a genus lowered to subgenus rank; Is a former species name, such as Dictenophiura platyacantha (Q3543343) considered as the original combination of the new name Ophiura platyacantha (Q2542426), such I indicated it in those items? Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. For a zoological author citation what matters is if there is a change of genus. Dictenophiura platyacantha and Ophiura platyacantha are placed in different genera.

This means that there is an error in WoRMS: one of these names should have the author citation "(McKnight, 2003)" and the other "McKnight, 2003". Not entirely sure which belongs to which. - Brya (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks you for your input, I'll think about that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that none of the external sources linked in the item use "(McKnight, 2003)" as author citation. That maybe because Dictenophiura is still accepted (though at another rank), and that therefore, the original combination Dictenophiura platyacantha is not entirely dead, if I can say. Although not at the same rank, that combination still exist. I will ask the question to WORMS one of these days. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess everybody just copies WoRMS. But the zoological Code is clear: the respective combinations are Dictenophiura platyacantha and Ophiura platyacantha, which are in different genera. "Ophiura (Dictenophiura) platyacantha" is just an alternate representation of "Ophiura platyacantha": it is one and the same combination.

        Wikidata does not use the format "Ophiura (Dictenophiura) platyacantha", which would mean we would need to have different items for "Ophiura (Dictenophiura) platyacantha" and, say, "Ophiura (Ophiura) platyacantha", which would be unhandy: we use "Ophiura platyacantha" with possibly multiple parent taxa. - Brya (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I just took a look at [15], you are right the subgenus in parentheses is indicative. I will ask to WoRMS, why they don't put parentheses for the author citation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I note that you say "with possibly multiple parent taxa", since a lot of missing accepted entries in WoRMS have been recently imported, included subgenus, I have intercalled some of those subgenus between the species and the genus, exemple, do you think it's inappropriate? do you think we should have two values? for this case Dictenophiura (Q61467649) and Ophiura (Q3354140). I can understand in case there is a conflict but here the two taxa are parents, therefore the hierarchy and taxonomy are still respected... is this kind of action appropriate, what do you think? Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Silene capensis

Why did you restore a old version on Q22111836. I have merged it to Q150591 because it is exactly the same specie, although the different name. You can easily check it on en:Silene undulata. We always keep the same object in only one category even when they have different names depending on the language, it's only making hard to people to find the related article in other language. They are synonyms! (see here) Rafael Kenneth (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Saying "They are synonyms!" conveys very little information. What is a synonym according to one point of view, is a different species according to another point of view. As it is, Wikidata item Q150591 has a statement that (according to some, unspecified, authorities) Silene undulata has a synonym called Silene capensis. That pretty much covers it. In addition, Q22111836 has "instance of: synonym" "of: Silene undulata", making doubly sure.

        Silene undulata and Silene capensis both are scientific names, that is both are formal entities in their own right. Each should have its own Wikidata item. In some cases, sitelinks (iw's) using different scientific names can be put in a single item. But only if it is a hundred percent guaranteed that they apply to the same taxon, no matter what taxonomic point of view is adopted. This means that this only applies if these names have the same nomenclatural type (homotypic names). Looking at the site you provided, I am finding no information that has bearing on this question.

        It can also be looked at this way: if "everybody" agrees that the proper name for Silene capensis should be Silene undulata, then all Wikipedia pages will eventually use Silene undulata, in which case the problem will be solved. - Brya (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Is a rose a meme? ... and is Aspen also a meme? ... and a lot of other stuff are also memes?

In this edit you added that a rose or that garden roses is a meme? Can you back up that claim with any sources or references? I searched the English Wikipedia article and found no mention of the word meme. I also asked the community at that article whether they think a rose is a meme, we'll also see what consensus says about a rose being a meme. Thanks for your time. Dbfyinginfo (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Now aspen (Q1087592) is also a meme? If you have a reference please add it. Dbfyinginfo (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I checked some more and discovered that you added a bunch of other items too and that you consider them as memes:

• donkey (Q3537778) - but Marfi removed that claim
• lily (Q40458125) - as of this moment the instance of a meme still stands and no references are available

There are more items but for now I'll just give this a rest. Maybe you'll add these references later, but regardless keep up the good work! Cheers!

The enwiki page "Meme" describes a meme as a "self-replicating unit of transmission [analoguous to a gene]. For Dawkins, the meme exemplified another self-replicating unit with potential significance in explaining human behavior and cultural evolution".

        These items represent "self-replicating unit[s]" of great cultural significance, that are only loosely connected to biological units, or not at all. In the public mind the unit "rose" resonates powerfully and is used in all kinds of contexts for any representation of the idea "rose", ranging from comic books, symbols to several flowers . These concepts/ideas are transferred across times and places: in science fiction books they continue on, on other planets, referring to local and totally different organisms. This is no different from what happened when new continents were discovered, and these concepts/ideas continued on, for totally unrelated organisms.

        The fact that this usage predates the invention of the word "meme" does not mean this is not the same concept. That Wikipedia pages do not mention this does not mean anything, Wikipedia pages are notoriously vague when it comes to delimiting things, indiscriminately lumping everything in sight. - Brya (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop phantasizing, Brya, and use taxonomic publications as you always require from others. --Infovarius (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a constructive comment? - Brya (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you asking me (indentation is inadequate), but I suppose. Yes, my proposal is to stop waisting your and our time with phantasies like "These concepts/ideas are transferred across times and places: in science fiction books they continue on, on other planets, referring to local and totally different organisms." Do you have examples of using term "rose" (rosa, роза...) for "not related to the genus Rosa"? --Infovarius (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever has indentation to do with who a question is addressed to? It seems to me that it is not I who is wasting time here by trying to create confusion (and worse) here.

        As to examples, en:Hibiscus rosa-sinensis seems a very well-known case. - Brya (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, indentation helps to understand this and avoid amiguity.

"Chinese rosa" is a good example, thanks. So let's be constructive and mark this relation somehow. I agree with

⟨ La rosita (Q159534)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ rose (Q102231)    ⟩

or P279, or do you have another opinion? By the way, why not to use organisms known by a particular common name (Q55983715) instead of meme (Q978)? --Infovarius (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Indentation exists first of all to aid legibility. It has no bearing on questions.

        Using organisms known by a particular common name (Q55983715) would be far more restrictive than meme (Q978), and "rose" is not easily pinned down. It is not restricted to organisms, but represents especially a flower or some symbolic representations of a flower.

        It seems to me that

⟨ La rosita (Q159534)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ rose (Q102231)    ⟩

would not be particularly helpful. Hibiscus rosa-sinensis is well characterized as a species. The relationship to "rose" is much more incidental. - Brya (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"The relationship to "rose" is much more incidental." But this relation persists. Or do you think it's heavily language-dependant? --Infovarius (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

But not every relationship should be documented in Wikidata. - Brya (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Every useful relationship can be documented. --Infovarius (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, every relationship can be documented, but that does not mean that it should be. The question is what is considered "useful". - Brya (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The general class of "rose" is no more a meme than literally any other class. Any given means of classifying anything is information in a sense, and can be transmitted to others, allowing them to use the same means of delineating things, whether that's by saying that "rational numbers" are a group that we should consider distinct in some way, or by using much fuzzier concepts like "sandwiches" or "toys" or "clubs". But the definition of "meme" isn't "any information transmitted between many people, who then transmit it further", it's much more specific. "Rose" is a folk taxon, not a meme. --Yair rand (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This assumes that "rose" is a class. It also refers to the definition of meme, stating what it is not, but not what it is. - Brya (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing restriction

You have been blocked 24 hours for violating Wikidata:Editing restrictions#Brya, Pigsonthewing, Succu: HTML comments/modifying comments here. --Rschen7754 04:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked another 24 hours for making personal commentary on Pigsonthewing that was prohibited by the community here. These comments were made here and here. --Rschen7754 04:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There is further discussion, including a subsequent proposal, at WD:AN#And again. --Rschen7754 00:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel

Hey Brya, I found by chance the global ban of User:Til Eulenspiegel. --Succu (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Succu, thank you, that is good to know. - Brya (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

meme?

I see you've reinstated Betula (Q59762749):instance of (P31):meme (Q978) - I'm not quite sure I understand what's going on here. A meme is a concept, a birch is a tree, I don't quite see how they link together (but I assume there must be some reason since you reinstated it). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "birch" / "birch tree" is a concept representing an idea of a tree. This concept is an international cultural icon. Streets are named after the birch, and it figures on paintings. - Brya (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please show some other examples of Wikidata items which are about “a concept representing an idea of something”. Your argument isn’t really very convincing. --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely, there are many Wikidata items for “a concept representing an idea of something”. For example, items for taxa are for concept representing an idea of a group of organisms which belong together. The question rather is how the idea is delimited or defined. In the case of taxa, the idea is formalized as a scientific hypothesis for a circumscription. - Brya (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Taxon (again)

I don't want to distract from what I've found to be an informative thread on the use of replaced synonym (for nom. nov.) (P694) by discussing (yet again) my concern over the use of the term "taxon" in Wikidata, so I'll do it here.

You wrote "As to what exactly the item Persicaria maculosa (Q161717) represents, in my view it represents the taxon in any (and all) circumscription(s) of the taxon that goes by that name."

• But then Polygonum persicaria (Q21876845) represents precisely the same entity, since by the nature of a nomen novum their names are homotypic synonyms. So why are there two items?
• Further, you wrote (correctly as I now see) "Polygonum persicaria is the replaced synonym of Persicaria maculosa", in line with the ICNafp (which is clear that a synonym is a name). But on your definition of Q16521, it would be wrong to write "Polygonum persicaria (Q21876845) is the replaced synonym of Persicaria maculosa (Q161717)", since Q21876845 and Q161717 are not names but taxa (which by your definition and by Art. 1.1 and Art. 2.1 are groups of organisms, not names).
• On your definition, at Polygonum persicaria (Q21876845), it's wrong to say that "subject has role replaced synonym of Persicaria maculosa (Q161717)" because "subject" is a taxon, not a taxon name, so it can't be a synonym, and neither can the object of the sentence. What should be said at Polygonum persicaria (Q21876845) is "taxon name (P225) of subject has role replaced synonym of taxon name (P225) of Persicaria maculosa (Q161717)". Any statement about synonyms, basionyms, etc. should be applied to taxon name (P225) of taxon (Q16521) not to taxon (Q16521).
• Again on your definition, IPNI plant ID (P961) is actually always the id of taxon name (P225) of taxon (Q16521), not of taxon (Q16521) itself.

I'm well aware that many wiki editors find this nit-picking tedious and annoying, but, as you've clearly demonstrated with my misunderstanding of the meaning of "replaced synonym", precise terminology firmly based on the relevant nomenclature code is very important in taxonomy. The current confusion between "taxon" and "taxon name" is unhelpful, and has repercussions beyond Wikidata (e.g. on the use of Wikidata information in other wikis). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is sloppy. Usually I avoid expressing myself in the format "Polygonum persicaria (Q21876845) is the replaced synonym of Persicaria maculosa (Q161717)", which has lots of disadvantages. For one thing, this may well be read quite differently by a user who has set his default language to a language different from English, and who may be looking at a quite different label. Also, somebody reading this in the future may also be faced with a different label, if this was changed. No idea what somebody would see if the item was merged.

        And you are also right that any relationship between names that is entered does presuppose that items represent names, either just names or names as well. So I should have included the latter.

        The point on homotypic names is a lot more slippery. The fact that two names have the same type does not guarantee anything about circumscriptions. In theory at least it is quite possible that there is no overlap (beyond the type itself) between the respective usages of two or more homotypic names: each taxonomist writing a treatment will make his own decisions on circumscription. The set of circumscriptions of the taxon that goes by the name Persicaria maculosa may be quite different from the set of circumscriptions of the taxon that goes by the name Polygonum persicaria, or they may be the same. There is no telling without looking at the literature. - Brya (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Well, as per your comment presuppose that items represent names, either just names or names as well, we could agree that taxon (Q16521) represents both the name of a taxon and whatever taxon that goes by that name. This offends me as a computer scientist: entities in a relational database should be clearly defined. On the other hand, it does seem to be how many biologists (particularly non-taxonomists) actually write, allowing the interpretation as a name or as a taxon to be made by the context, rather than made explicit. (I seem to recall that you got into some trouble in the English Wikipedia by trying to be more explicit, beginning taxon articles with "X is the name of ..." rather than "X is ...".) I hope that you and I agree that whatever Q16521 represents, it's not simply a taxon.
2. The set of circumscriptions of the taxon that goes by the name Persicaria maculosa may be quite different from the set of circumscriptions of the taxon that goes by the name Polygonum persicaria, or they may be the same. True – to represent the actual circumscriptions we would need "sensu" qualifiers. What this shows, I think, is that the subtle meaning of scientific names determined by what the ICZN calls "name-bearing types" is hard (or even impossible) to capture in traditional database analysis. The meaning of the taxon corresponding to a name is, I think, something like "any one of all the possible circumscriptions consistent with the name".

Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did start enwiki pages for higher taxa "X is a botanical name ..." rather than "X is a family ...", but this was primarily to deal with the NPoV policy. With the taxonomy at higher ranks so much in flux (then more than now) this offers a framework to include all the various taxonomic viewpoints. After all, if half the world feels that Xaceae is a family, and the other half feels that Xaceae is not a family any other start prejudices the reader, before he starts reading. And yes, refusing to violate the NPoV policy, and, especially, refusing to violate the NOR policy got me into trouble.

1. I guess that defining taxon as including the name is indeed a not uncommon compromise, although there are taxa that are not formally named. My feeling is that this in itself does not create big problems. The big problems are with names (scientific names, per Art. 12 of the ICNafp) that can never be taxon names (correct names), such as illegitimate names, combinations with illegitimate names, etc. Many users happily declare these to be an "instance of: taxon" ... (see the current thread in WikiProject Taxonomy).
2. Yes, I agree. From the name or the type itself nothing can be derived: there are lots of names (with types) which can never represent a taxon: see above.

And I would also recommend this this discussion to you. - Brya (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

On recombination (Q14594740)

While nomenclatural act (Q56027914) may not be the best option, I have a hard time believing you actually think "instance of latin phrase" is a better, or even sensible statement on this merged item. Circeus (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense to have the "instance of" reflect the topic of the corresponding Wikipedia pages, which all four are about the phrase. - Brya (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the wikidata item labels reflect the topic too? Circeus (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm starting to think Succu's merge was very ill-advised. Circeus (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am not convinced the merge was justified. - Brya (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The item is used with reference has role (P6184) denoting a comb. nov. --Succu (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not an answer. I (dunno about other) was using recombination (Q4473422), the former comb. nov. because I couldn't find the item that corresponded to the nomenclatural act itself (finding relatively obscure items without a wiki article is hard, and this one doesn't have a name I would have looked for), and comb nov was a reasonable-looking choice. I didn't realize it was a lexicological angle instead of a nomenclatural angle.

How about this: the merge has caused all misuse of recombination (Q4473422) where recombination (Q14594740) was preferable to be corrected to the latter. This means we can unmerge the items by reverting the two edits without affecting anything else (and then connect them via things like has effect (P1542)) and different from (P1889).

@Succu:, do you think such an unmerge is sensible? Circeus (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Please make your point more explicit. --Succu (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

How about if the problem was the wrong item being used for reference has role (P6184), there was no damn need to merge them instead of just frickin' correcting it to the damn correct item and we are now trying to see what can be done about what we see as an ill-advised (at best) merge.

Clear enough? Circeus (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

AND I can add that Wikidata has been pretty strict distinct between ICZN and ICBN nomenclature, and there is a world of difference between new combinations under the ICZN and the ICBN. The ICZN doesn't even consider that a new combination is a new name to begin with, much less a synonym, whereas the ICBN has it as actual nomenclatural act in its own right. So in that lense, merging what is essentially a botanical concept with one that was mostly used for zoological names was doubly dubious. Circeus (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

new combination

ICZN: „The first combination of a generic name and a previously established species-group name.“

ICBN: „A new name for a taxon below the rank of genus based on a legitimate, previously published name, which is its basionym and which provides the final epithet of the new combination.“

None of the merged items made this distinction (sitelinks included).

--Succu (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That the ICZN defines the term is entirely irrelevant in so far as it doesn't ever use it in any practical way in the code (it only ever shows up in the context of authorship). The existence of a combination is pretty much disconnected from the species-group name as far as the ICZN is concerned. Only the ICBN defines a species name as having two parts, whereas the ICZN explicitly states that the genus name of a new species does not even have to be available at all (ICBN art. 35; also compare specificlaly ICZN 11.9.3.2-3 and ICBN 35.2) Circeus (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The incoming links, as I understand it, are caused by "instance of: recombination", which is a workaround for when actually "original combination" or "basionym" should have been used (but were not). As such, the exact nature (ICNafp of ICZN) is not all that interesting. As I see it, the incoming links are for the nomenclatural concept, while all the Wikipedia pages are about the phrase. If that is right, the merge is not a good idea. - Brya (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There are more than 8,000 usages via reference has role (P6184). --Succu (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The use of "reference has role: recombination" does not apply to the Latin phrase, surely, but rather to the nomenclatural act.

        In, say, Abies jaliscana (Q42728517) this looks superfluous, since the presence of a basionym (P566)-statement already makes it clear that it is a recombination. (I am also not clear why "reference has role" is used since "recombination" does not appear to be a role of the reference itself) - Brya (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Those items are using instance of (P31) as a qualifier of taxon name (P225) but having a original combination (P1403) statement. Are they "superfluous"? --Succu (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, certainly redundant. - Brya (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect I can hardly have been the only person avoiding creating botanical names not in current uses on account that it is impossible to create these as names as opposed to taxon. In fact, I assert that not a single one of those basionym/protonym is properly or even can be properly tagged at all in the current state of affairs because of the poorly conceived constraint structure.

It's the primary reason I've used that property in that way: avoiding at all costs having to use basionym (P566). I still can have both the original reference (for zoological name, that is in fact the only one that the ICZN consider relevant at all, it should be noted) and the combiner. Although a good modern reference is admittedly just as useful for citing a name in current use, I consider that crediting the first combiner is good practice if only because of the occasional corner cases such as first reviser privilege. Circeus (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Circeus: well, I have created items for "botanical names not in current use" because they are needed for w:Template:Taxonbar to work properly, but I've done so with gritted teeth because of the confusion in Wikidata between "taxon" and "taxon name". This also currently causes constraints to be violated, as you wrote – see the synonyms at Agave amica (Q42729158) for example. I think that Brya has some ideas as to how the modeling can be improved. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Hello Brya, just want to notify you in case that you are interested, and as I already talked about that to you, that I found the code that allow us (in Wikimedia Commons) to have the interwiki links towards the taxon synonym pages in other wikis. This code is : -->{{#if:{{#invoke:wd | property | raw | P1420}} | [[Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox providing interwiki links]]{{#invoke:Interwiki from P460|InterwikiP1420}}}}<!--

This instruction is called via our local infobox and provide to us the links to the pages for the taxa items that are listed within taxon synonym (P1420) for the taxon item lniked to Wikimedia Commons. Example, the Interwiki links for Category:Macrophiothrix oliveri leads to synonym tax pages. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. This will be very useful for homotypic synonyms. However, it seems likely that if this is used for heterotypic synonyms the results will be more uneven, and may lead to nonsense. Maybe we do need a property "homotypic taxononym". - Brya (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

More puzzled than before

I had thought that, partly thanks to discussions here and at Wikidata:Property_proposal/is_a_synonym_of_taxon_name#Discussion, I had a better understanding of how items that are instances of taxon (Q16521) should be set up in Wikidata, but I find that I'm still puzzled by some cases.

Consider Agave polianthes Thiede & Eggli (2001) (Q160118).

Thiede and Eggli made a mess of transferring Polianthes tuberosa to Agave, as is explained at w:Agave amica#Taxonomy (which will soon have some more sources added). Agave polianthes is a superfluous name, since Thiede and Eggli should have used the next oldest epithet for the taxon as they understood it when they realized they could not use tuberosa. Since they consider Tuberosa amica Medik to be a (heterotypic) synonym of Polianthes tuberosa, the correct combination in Agave is Agave amica.

Now Agave polianthes Thiede & Eggli (2001) (Q160118) says that taxon name (P225) is Agave polianthes. But P225 says in English that it represents "the correct scientific name of a taxon (according to the reference given)". Since it's a superfluous name, it can't be the correct scientific name.

So how should this be set up? I'm hoping you can explain or better still set it up for me.

I also think that all the Wikipedia links should be moved from Agave polianthes Thiede & Eggli (2001) (Q160118) to Agave amica (Q42729158). If this is what should be done, is there an easy way of doing it? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, an illegitimate name cannot be a correct name (a taxon name). There still is no good way to handle this (I feel that there should be at least one new property to handle this), so the changes I made are a stop-gap, although for most purposes this should work.

        And yes, all the sitelinks should be moved, to either Polianthes tuberosa (Q17270998) or Agave amica (Q42729158); both are viable taxonomic PoVs. There is a gadget to move things, which can be optionally installed, called "Move", although I never tried it. - Brya (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. As I noticed when I tried a different way (unsuccessfully), as soon as you make something an instance of anything other than a taxon, all sorts of constraint violations are shown. Perhaps these are justified for the common names (which should be moved to a correct taxon name), but clearly are not justified for taxon identifiers, for example, because these apply to any kind of taxon name, illegitimate or not. (Indeed some are the source of the information that the name is illegitimate.) This needs to be fixed, surely? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in the long run this is unsatisfactory. In my view, an illegitimate name is not a taxon name, since it is not a name that can indicate a taxon. I also don't see that external identifiers are "taxon identifiers". For example no identifier in IPNI indicates a taxon, they all indicate names. The direction I am thinking of is to have a new property for a scientific name that cannot be used as the correct name of a taxon, and then to allow all these identifier properties to refer to either to a taxon name, or to the new property. - Brya (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Guilty: "taxon identifiers" is careless use by me of what appears to be the Wikidata terminology because in taxon items the section that contains them is just headed "Identifiers". They are, as you rightly say, taxon name identifiers and I absolutely should not have written "taxon identifiers".

If the distinction between taxon items and taxon names is made consistently, it would, in my view, be an important step forward in correctly modelling the taxonomy involved. It does need someone with a clear and consistent view to work on this.

If you look Agave amica (Q42729158), I think it is now set up as you explained before: the taxon name is accepted by one of the sources given (WCSP), and the three synonyms are all as stated in that source (WCSP) and referenced accordingly. What's odd to me (apart from the constraint violation) is that the first synonym is indeed an instance of a name, but the other two are instances of taxa, whereas logically they too should be taxon names. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Succu removed my addition of the WCSP reference (which I've undone), since without a reference showing that Agave amica is accepted by the WCSP, it surely can't be sourced that the synonyms given are synonyms in the strict (and asymmetric) sense of the term that you have described, i.e. names listed as synonyms of an accepted name. Have I correctly represented your view? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it is not wrong, but it looks redundant, as WCSPF is already present as an external identifier, with a direct link. - Brya (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Any idea, Peter, why Q64404178 is considered to be the type of Polianthes tuberosa (Q17270998) and Agave amica (Q42729158)? Am I overlooking somethin in New combinations in Agave (Asparagaceae): A. amica, A. nanchititlensis, and A. quilae (Q33105932)? --Succu (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The NHM provides "Verhoek, Regnum Veg. 127: 78, 1993" as the place of the lectotype designation (in Jarvis, C.E. et al. (1993). A list of Linnaean generic names and their types). - Brya (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please see this reference. --Succu (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I am missing the point, unless it is that the NHM appears not to have its affairs quite in order, in this case. - Brya (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I must be missing the point, too. Thiede & Govaerts (2017) say "Type (lectotype, designated by Verhoek in Jarvis et al. 1993: 78): Herb. Hermann 3: 34, No. 125 (BM-000594676, digital image seen)." It all seems consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Not quite consistent, as BM-000594676 is a different specimen of P. tuberosa, Thiede & Govaerts should have noticed that. - Brya (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

„Later, the homotypic Tuberosa amica became known, which is the oldest binomial whose epithet is not preoccupied in Agave, thus needing the above new combination.“ Why are both species homotypic? In 1790 Friedrich Kasimir Medikus (Q77464) treated Polianthes L. (1753) as a Synonym of Tuberosa Heist. ex Fabr. (1759) - see footnote for his reasoning. He created Tuberosa amica and treated Linnés older name Polianthes tuberosa as synonymus. I can not find a type for Tuberosa amica. Is there an article in the Code why both species are treated as homotypic? --Succu (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

According to Wcsp they are heterotypic Synonyms. --Succu (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Adopting Polianthes tuberosa into Tuberosa would lead to "Tuberosa tuberosa" which is not possible. Tuberosa amica is published as a replacement name, and thus a homotypic name (species cannot be homotypic; only names). - Brya (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Tuberosa itself is an illegitimate, superfluous replacement name for Polianthes. Although Tuberosa amica cannot be used as the correct name for a taxon, it is legitimate. - Brya (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Part of the confusion over whether Tuberosa amica is a homotypic or heterotypic name seems to be that Tuberosa amica was intended to be homotypic with Linnaeus's Polianthes tuberosa, but then a problem arose when it was discovered the image being used for the type of P. tuberosa was added after the original publication of Linnaeus's text, hence the designation of a lectotype for P. tuberosa. Whether there's an acceptable type for Tuberosa amica isn't clear to me.

Assuming they are actually heterotypic names, then the position would appear to be as follows. Anyone who believes that Tuberosa amica is a heterotypic synonym of Polianthes tuberosa should use Agave amica for the single species when placed in Agave. However, if there were anyone who believed that Tuberosa amica is a different taxon from Polianthes tuberosa (possible if the names are heterotypic) then they should use the replacement name Agave polianthes for Polianthes tuberosa when it is placed in Agave, and the name Agave amica for Tuberosa amica when it is placed in Agave. Whether or not a name is superfluous can depend on which "name-bearing types" (to use the zoological term) are considered to be included in the same taxon. (As ever with the ICNafp, the above comes with a disclaimer that I am not an expert.) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is not enough for Tuberosa amica to apply to a different taxon from Polianthes tuberosa (possible if the names were heterotypic) to make the replacement name Agave polianthes viable. If in the protologue of Agave polianthes there was mention of Tuberosa amica as a synonym, then Agave polianthes is illegitimate and may not be used unless conserved.
• Although here WCSPF calls these names heterotypic, elsewhere it calls them homotypic.
• It does not matter as these names are homotypic. Look at it this way: both Polianthes and Tuberosa were published for monotypic genera. Tuberosa is an illegitimate, superfluous (Art. 52.1) generic replacement name for Polianthes, and by definition (Art. 7.4) has the same type. Also by definition (Art. 10.1), the generic name Polianthes has the same type as Polianthes tuberosa and Tuberosa has the same type as Tuberosa amica. All four names have the same type. QED. - Brya (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Brya: yes, I understand (and agree) that if all four names have the same type, what you wrote above is correct. WCSP seems to be muddled. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

subheading

Going back to Agave polianthes Thiede & Eggli (2001) (Q160118), I do not understand why Succu has changed this to an instance of taxon with now no indication that the name is superfluous. @Succu: can you explain please? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The information is still there. BTW: the publication did not used the term superfluous name. --Succu (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Succu: ah, I missed that. Apologies. The designation as a "nom. superfl." is from Govaerts in WCSP. I note that a constraint error is flagged; "superfluous name" isn't, apparently, a valid value of nomenclatural status (P1135). Presumably it should be added?

I still remain unsure as to how to set up such cases in Wikidata. For example, is nomenclatural status (P1135) attached to taxon name (P225) with the value nomen illegitimum (Q1093954) the way to handle illegitimate names, or should the item be made an instance of nomen illegitimum (Q1093954)? I've seen examples of both. It would be really useful to have a clear guide, with worked examples – copying from existing examples in Wikidata doesn't work because they aren't consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The information that this is a superfluous name, and thus not a taxon and not a taxon name is still there. But to this has been added the disinformation that it is a taxon and a taxon name. It is very likely that most any user who imports data from Wikidata will look for "taxon name" and import this as a taxon: and yet another fake species will have been created to spread confusion in the world. - Brya (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I have long been arguing that Wikidata confuses "taxon" and "taxon name", although I'm still not clear how to resolve this properly. Recently, through discussions like these, I've also realized that "taxon name" isn't used consistently either. Keeping to botanical names:

1. It could be used in a strict sense to mean a name that can be used for a taxon should a taxonomist have a concept of the taxon that is consistent with the type providing the name. In which case illegitimate and/or superfluous names are not taxon names, so should not be stated to be the name of any taxon (as Brya says above).
2. It could be used less strictly to mean a name that has been validly published, whether legitimate or not. The ICNafp defines "name" in the Glossary as "A name that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate (Art. 6.3)". So in this sense, "Agave polianthes" is a taxon name – at least it's a name that is attached to a taxon.
3. It could be used in a very loose sense. When biologists give a list of "synonyms" of the name they accept, they typically include in the list all the "names" used in the literature, with an indication of their status (which includes things like "nom. nud.", "auct.", "hort.", etc. in botanical sources) – they don't separate out the legitimate and illegitimate names and they include names that have been used but not published in the sense of the ICNafp. The Glossary of the ICNafp allows "designation" to be used in this sense.

Regardless of this distinction, the status of a name should be attached to the name, not to the taxon. Cheiracanthiidae (Q60649107) is a taxon. The name accepted by the World Spider Catalog is "Cheiracanthiidae", so this is the appropriate value of taxon name (P225) for this taxon. What I want to say is that a synonym of the taxon name "Cheiracanthiidae" is "Eutichuridae". But I actually have to say that a synonym of the taxon Cheiracanthiidae is "Eutichuridae", which is simply wrong. Inversely, at Eutichuridae (Q17292584) (so long as it exists as an instance of a taxon) I want to say that the name "Eutichuridae" has the role of a synonym of the name "Cheiracanthiidae", but if this is possible, I don't know how it's done.

(A side issue but still an important one, is the status of identifiers in taxonomic databases. In the WSC, "urn:lsid:nmbe.ch:spiderfam:0116" is an identifier for the taxon, not the name. So when the WSC changed the name from ""Eutichuridae" to "Cheiracanthiidae" this identifier led to Cheiracanthiidae and should be moved to Cheiracanthiidae (Q60649107), as I have now done. On the other hand, in the IPNI, identifiers are for names (in sense (3) above), not taxa. Wikidata completely fails to capture this important distinction.)

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The confusion is not between "taxon" and "taxon name", but between "scientific name" and "taxon name". By "scientific name" (in the wide sense) I mean the superset of all names formally established under a Code of nomenclature (validly published, available, etc), so the set of zoological names, the set of 'botanical' names, the set of prokaryote names, etc. There are a lot of scientific names that cannot be taxon names (ever), and that Wikidata should exclude as much as possible, and only include if there is a structural need, or if it is very well known. And if it includes them, they should be clearly treated as separate.

        It is not the case that "[...] a synonym of the taxon name "Cheiracanthiidae" is "Eutichuridae". " Names do have properties, like author, date and type. But a synonym can only be determined after a taxon has been defined (rank, circumscription and position). It is only possible to say that Eutichuridae is a synonym of Cheiracanthiidae within a specified taxonomic Point-of-View. It is awkward to say "that Eutichuridae is a synonym of the taxon Cheiracanthiidae" but it is closer to being accurate than "is a synonym of the taxon name". The more conventional way to say this would be "Cheiracanthiidae, as thus circumscribed, has Eutichuridae as synonym".

        The problem with Wikidata is that there are lots of users who each rely on a particular database and want to copy stuff from their preferred database to Wikidata, using basically the same format. Given that many of these databases are Single-Point-of-View databases and operate within particular nomenclatural universes, these respective formats are not necessarily all that compatible with Wikidata. Often enough, some adaptation is required. - Brya (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Help in setting up taxon items

I'm still not entirely sure how to set up entries for illegitimate taxon names. The taxon of concern has the basionym Polypodium fortunei Kunze ex Mett.. The sequence is as follows (links to IPNI entries):

• Polypodium fortunei Kunze ex Mett. (1856) – [16] – basionym
• Drynaria fortunei T.Moore (1855) – [17] – different species
• Drynaria fortunei (Kunze ex Mett.) J.Sm. (1857) – [18] – attempt to transfer Polypodium fortunei Kunze ex Mett. to Drynaria but illegitimate as later homonym
• Drynaria roosii Nakaike (1992) – [19] – replacement name for Drynaria fortunei (Kunze ex Mett.) J.Sm., so the correct name in Drynaria
• Aglaomorpha fortunei (Kunze ex Mett.) Hovenkamp & S.Linds. (2017) – [20] – name in Aglaomorpha

I'd be grateful if you could ensure that these five taxon names are set up correctly. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I've now read the statement on your user page. Um... As per our previous discussions, I am very unhappy with the present data modelling, that completely muddles up taxa and taxon names. I've never quite understood your preferred solution, but it did seem self-consistent, hence my request above. Sigh...

I entirely agree that Wikidata is set to re-create chaos out of order, by failing to have a data model that reflects how biological nomenclature works. Is it really best just to give up? My problem is that the English Wikipedia is committed to the use of the taxonbar template, which picks up taxon item information from Wikidata. So as a plant editor there, I simply cannot avoid incorrect modelling here. Sigh again... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Brya,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Brya,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Q17276404

Currently, Balantiopsaceae (Q17276404) is identified as an orthographic variant. This is not entirely true; rather, Balantiopsaceae is a nom. inval.

See the Tropicos entry. The ** notation at the head of the entry indicates a nom. inval. The database for some reason does not display the key for its symbols on the pages themselves, but if you click on the "Name Search", the key will display at the bottom of the screen.

I am not certain how Wikidata codes nom. inval. items that were not validly published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No orthographical variant is a validly published name. - Brya (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Clostridium ventriculi / Sarcina ventriculi

I'm not too familiar with taxonomy items on WD. I was looking at the species Clostridium ventriculi (taxon 1267). The item, Sarcina ventriculi (Q3950456), was under its old name. However I found that P (P) shouldn't be changed, and there is an additional item Clostridium ventriculi (Goodsir 1842) Lawson and Rainey 2016 (Q62878685). I'm not sure what that items means. Would you be able to advise? T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, Q3950456 is an item dedicated to Sarcina ventriculi, so please revert your changes. Q62878685 is an item dedicated to Clostridium ventriculi (Goodsir 1842) Lawson and Rainey 2016, an illegitimate name that may not be used according to the relevant database. This would seem to be one of those cases where ncbi (which does not claim to be a taxonomic authority) is wrong. - Brya (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oxygnathus et poissons fossils

Bonjour, pourquoi ne serait-il pas possible d’indiquer que c’est un taxon utilisé ET une dénomination non-valide ? Je comprend pas l’enjeu de supprimer l’information comme vous le faites. Lucas Lévêque (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should be possible to indicate that, but the question is how. By definition a later homonym may not be used as a valid name of a taxon. So, the item "Oxygnathus" cannot be a taxon. There may be a taxon (no way to tell if it still there) that somebody once tried to give the name "Oxygnathus", and failed. The current status of that taxon may be that it is unnamed (especially if it is not currently accepted), or it may have received a new name (lots of later homonyms have been replaced by new names, and it is not always easy to tell if that happened). If it has received a new name, this should have its own item, and perhaps it should also have its own item if it has not yet received a new name. - Brya (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors

Dear Brya,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at kholoudsaa@gmail.com or kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk)

kistin

Hi,

True, the species of a tree is not the tree, so I've put the species in a separate sense for kistin (L40605) but it seems very articial (as it's almost impossible to distinguish both in a text).

A galon, VIGNERON (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

That works. Your comment on the distinction also applies to the fruit, or the wood: sometimes in a text the species name can be used for the fruit, or the wood, equally well. They are still all different concepts. - Brya (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Q28871667

Hello,

Another item for lemon wood has been merged into this one. I don't see what the problem with this item is. It has multiple links to describe objects made from the material. Please reverse your restore if there are no more concerns. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The "multiple links to describe objects made from the material" refer to something quite different from the 'content' you added, which rather belongs to Original Research. This is an item with multiple issues, which you are not close to resolving. Just using imagination is not going to do it. - Brya (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's move to the deletion request page. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Massive errors in P31

Здравствуйте. Большое количество красных ячеек в таблице Types statistics - дело ваших рук. Прошу остановиться и исправить свои ошибки: если в элементе описан биологический таксон, то свойство P31 должно быть равно taxon (Q16521) или его подклассам. Online translation: Hello. The large number of red cells in the table Types statistics is your handiwork. Please stop and correct your mistakes: if a biological taxon is described in an element, then the property instance of (P31) must be equal to the taxon (Q16521) or its subclasses. Qh13 (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The error is not on my side, but on the side of the data model. An unavailable name, a later homonym, etc are instances of scientific names, or subclasses thereof. These are not taxa, never were taxa, and never will be taxa (except by direct intervention of the ruling body, in exceptional cases).

The Codes of nomenclature were instituted, painfully, over many decades, to make it clear that such names should not be confused with taxa. Countless taxonomists have labored over many decades (more than a century) to make it as clear as possible that these scientific names are not taxa, but just names.

Making such dead names into taxa, as you are doing, is creating chaos out of order, waging war against taxonomy. This is an act of anarchy, not all that different from placing bombs. - Brya (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Asteriacites/Asteriatites

Hi! I noticed that back in 2016 you changed some labels and the taxon name property of Asteriacites (Q4810660) from "Asteriacites" to "Asteriatites", citing a PhD thesis from 2005. Unfortunately the fact this item is like this is giving me a headache at present, as Asteriacites von Schlotheim, 1820 is still used as valid in recentish publications such as Knaust & Neumann (2016), and all the identifiers and site links on this item are for "Asteriacites" spelling anyway.

So would you have any objection to this item being renamed back to Asteriacites? I know this ichnotaxon has has a messy nomenclatural history which you noted on the talk page, but I don't think naming the item for it "Asteriatites" has done anything to help (to make matters worse, Asteriacites Schlotheim (1822) non Schlotheim (1820) (Q22943214) appears to have a bunch of images attached which are actually for the ichnofossil genus, not the foraminiferan, and confusingly es.wiki has articles for both es:Asteriacites and es:Asteriacites (protista)). It seems better to me to just keep the ichnofossil item as Asteriacites since nobody is calling it "Asteriatites" at the present anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I made that change a long time ago, and several sources appear to have gone off-line since then. But I see that taxonomicon is using Asteriatites and there may be others. On the other hand Asteriacites appears to be commonly referred to as a synonym (e.g. GBIF). I guess this will be a mess no matter what it is called, so I will limit myself to saying I have stopped caring. - Brya (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see taxonomicon is using Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus as a source, which to my knowledge is where the suggestion that Asteriacites is a misspelling of Asteriatites comes from in the first place. But okay then, I'll just revert the item to Asteriacites for now, since unfortunately that seems easiest. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)