User talk:PhiLiP

Welcome to Wikidata, PhiLiP!

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!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Taxobox[edit]

Hi PhiLiP, your changes to Module:Taxobox introduced a bug. Instaed of showing taxon name (P225) in en or de I get the chinese value of taxon common name (P1843). Example: animal (Q729). Please check this. --Succu (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Ha I think this is an old bug since I didn't touch the part of the code but I do add taxon common name (P1843) value to animal (Q729) for language zh. Anyway, I'll fix it soon :) --PhiLiP (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Fixed: Special:Diff/304817505. --PhiLiP (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. --Succu (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhiLiP, I see you are working on Module:Taxobox to use it on Wikipedia's. There is something that has not been included so far, but that should be. When it comes down to italics there are two main styles that are used in the world. The first is to italicize everything from genus down (subgenus, section (botany), series, species, subspecies, variety, form, etc), the second is to italicize all scientific names (at all ranks, from kingdom down), which is used for all groups (ICNafp, BC/ICNP, ICVCN) except for animals (ICZN). Some Wikipedia's use one style, some the other. It would be nice if the module offered a choice. Is this something you could build in? - Brya (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: That's correct I am try to make this more Wikipedia-friendly. Actually I am now trying to refactor the Taxobox module so the table rendering process can be separated from data fetching, in that case other Wikipedia projects can be benefited from this design since they can customize their table renderer (and pass override parameters). I am craft the new version at Module:Sandbox/PhiLiP/taxobox and if you feel there can be more people participate the discuss we can move this discussion to there:) I would like to know more suggestions like italicize styling you mentioned. --PhiLiP (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Another point of presentation is clades. One such way of presentation is to name a clade just that, as in nlwiki, frwiki and since recently enwiki (normal clade names never in italics). For a long while enwiki used "unranked" and there are wiki's which still use that, as viwiki. Odd man out appears dewiki which leaves the area for terminology blank. Some wiki's just leave out everything connected with clades, like ruwiki which looks very incomplete to me.
Another pecularity is duplication of the name of the species, like in enwiki, which looks like silly repetition to me. Other wiki's very sensibly just give the species name just once, like frwiki and nlwiki.
Hope this helps. - Brya (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: Yeah I can see the clade display problem and I think my refactoring can address it. For the duplication of the name of the species, do you mean the "species" and "binomial name" are actually showing the same content in the infobox? I have some reservations for it since I think the existence of "species" field is to emphasize the current taxon rank of article theme, and "binomial name" field is to provide more detailed information about authority and publication date etc. But anyway, I think these variations should be treated equally so people from different Wikipedias can all be happy. :) So I'll try to take this advice too. Thanks! --PhiLiP (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, enwiki's "binomial name" (an amalgamation of zoology's "binominal name" and botany's "binomial") gives the species name, and the field below that does it again.

Another issue, although a relatively minor one, is that the majority of wiki's provide only the scientific name (like ptwiki), but nlwiki adds the Dutch name in parentheses, while dewiki starts off with the German name and adds the scientific name in parentheses ... - Brya (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya:: How about these: User:PhiLiP/species, User:PhiLiP/subgenus and User:PhiLiP/variety? Please ignore the reference errors that's just because I create same taxobox 4 times. The magic is happened in Module:I18n/taxobox. But I am not going to add any new features to the current taxobox rendering from now on, since I feel it would be better if the module can generate a template callback to local Taxonomy template and use the exist template to doing the render work. --PhiLiP (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this looks very promising, and shows that you can control the various factors involved! It would still need some refining, but if you can arrange that the module follows the locally existing taxobox(es) this may well save a lot of work. Still, it would be nice to have a short manual describing how to set the module to give a particular taxobox. - Brya (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya:: I merged back and updated the doc: Module:Taxobox. Any thoughts? --Philip Tzou (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am getting an error report, but this probably happened before what you did this morning. - Brya (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old error. Happens if the basionym has no author etc. --Succu (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But this's a great test case and just fixed it. --Philip Tzou (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it now gives

"Agave michoacana Thiede & Eggli (????)" while it should give

"Agave michoacana (????) Thiede & Eggli",

the author(s) of the basionym being unknown. - Brya (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but filling data fixed it. I'll try to look into it tomorrow :) --Philip Tzou (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The year was missing. So "Agave michoacana Thiede & Eggli (????)" was correct. But indicating missing basionym authors as "Agave michoacana (????) Thiede & Eggli (1999)" would be good. --Succu (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK: User:PhiLiP/missing-basionym-authors. --Philip Tzou (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! The reason I did not catch that the "(????)" was supposed to be the year is that in botanical names the date (year) is optional, while basionym author(s) are obligatory (if there is an author citation at all; an author citation itself is optional). In practice this is a weak point in Wikidata, not only are basionym authors often missing, but, worse, the basionym itself is often missing. - Brya (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong labels[edit]

With deUI settings I get the wrong labels (=LABEL) for authors e.g. Orthomeria kangi (Q23005630). --Succu (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Fixed. The reason is only English language label will be used (since there may be variations or even translations in other languages) if there's no statement author citation (zoology) (P835) (or botanist author abbreviation (P428), if ICNafp applies). So the solution is either filling the English label or add author citation (zoology) (P835) (or botanist author abbreviation (P428)), or you can do them both. --Philip Tzou (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should work as follows

Use author citation (zoology) (P835) if given

Use family name (P734) if given

Use label given by users UI settings

Fallback to en:Label

--Succu (talk)

Mostly good idea. But I don't think "label by users UI settings" is also good. You see in some languages like Chinese and Russian, the labels are quite different from others due the different writing systems they used. But in taxonomy it should always be Latin script. Since English is the primary language which uses Latin script it is reasonable that we use English label instead of uselang label. --Philip Tzou (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

botanist author abbreviation (P428)[edit]

Hi PhiLiP, please do not invent them. Every botanist author abbreviation (P428)should have an entry in IPNI and a reference to IPNI author ID (P586). --Succu (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also standard forms in IF, but there is not a property for that? - Brya (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was a misusing of author citation (zoology) (P835). Sebö Endrödi (Q989643) is an entomologist. The forms of "Endrödi" and "Endrodi" are used in different sources (I'd like to do some research later to provide the references). --Philip Tzou (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another error report[edit]

Lua error in Module:Taxobox at line 973[edit]

Hi PhiLiP,

I am seeing another error report, for example here. Something to look into? - Brya (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya:: I don't see the error report in the example. What the language you uses? --Philip Tzou (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am using English, but now I am no longer seeing the error. Weird. - Brya (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so next time perhaps you can take a screenshot :)--Philip Tzou (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it again later, elsewhere, and I checked the link I gave above, which was all right, so it does not depend on the servers/systems in general. Apparently I need to wait to see if an error report is permanent. - Brya (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems to be lasting awhile "Lua error in Module:Taxobox at line 973: attempt to concatenate local 'latin' (a nil value)." in Q23041454. - Brya (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same at Yandangornis (Q2492156). --Succu (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Q23041454, the problem is cultivar group (Q4150646) don't have a label in latin language. (I know this is kinda weird and I'm thinking about to create a latin name mapping for taxonomic rank (Q427626). The latin name are used to expose parameters so outside caller can override the certain rank of taxon (like they did in classic taxobox). --Philip Tzou (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lua error in Module:Taxobox at line 756[edit]

Lua error in Module:Taxobox at line 756: attempt to index local 'refs' (a boolean value). e.g. in bacteria (Q10876). --Succu (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: Zucchini tigre mosaic virus (Q23070573). --Succu (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Fixed. --Philip Tzou (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified taxobox[edit]

In some cases users have added very many ranks. This may be fun to some users, but I imagine that to a lot of users this is overdoing things. Would it be possible to have the option of putting out a simple taxobox, with just [taxon name], species, genus, family, order, [major clade], class, phylum, kingdom? No hurry. - Brya (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current Taxobox.lua has the abilitiy to hide specified taxon rank but don't come with profiles that specify what to be hidden. A way to create a profile is creating a template and define display[xxx] options. Hope this is good enough for you to customize. --Philip Tzou (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but thank you. I guess we need a manual. - Brya (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fossil taxon[edit]

There has been a question of how to distinguish fossil taxa, and the solution we came up with is to replace "instance of taxon" by "instance of fossil taxon" (example) The intent is that over the coming days this will be rolled out to all fossil taxa. This should make it easier to add a "†" (extinct taxa will have either a "instance of fossil taxon" or an IUCN Extinct status). - Brya (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the discussion. Will take action when you have a consensus. --Philip Tzou (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current implementation has a little flaw: Otohoplites (Q12265361) is a fossil genus belonging to Ammonoidea (Q228002), but this not indicated. --Succu (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean about the "current implementation"? And I can see Otohoplites (Q12265361) already marks "Otohoplites" extinct... Isn't that correct? --Philip Tzou (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a taxobox that shows the default five levels (see parameter count in User:FelixReimann/taxobox.js). --Succu (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's because that only Ammonoidea (Q228002) has temporal range end (P524). Your default 5 levels won't reach that taxon level so Taxobox never knows Otohoplites (Q12265361) is extinct or not. The solution is either completing the temporal range end (P524) for Otohoplites (Q12265361) and its superior levels, or adding extinct species (Q237350) to IUCN conservation status (P141) for Otohoplites (Q12265361) and its superior levels. --Philip Tzou (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/Baidu Baike ID[edit]

How do you think about it, this was rejected years ago but now has a lot of users who just make support votes. --117.136.54.99 02:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]