User talk:Wikiklaas

Welcome to Wikidata, Wikiklaas!

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!

descriptions

Hi, when you add descriptions in the future, can you please use lower case? This edit would change to "fish species" for example. --Izno (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for pointing this out but why? Isn't it normal to start a descriptive sentence with a capital? Wikiklaas (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And since you seem to be the expert: I encounter multiple cases where two items exist for what is in fact one entity (a fish species for example; I'm not referring to monotypic genera or families, where every layer - family, genus, species - deserves its proper item although in fact only one entity is addressed). One axample is Ancistrus bodenhami, that had Q2845975 and Q5840911 occupied. When I combine these items, one is left empty. What to best in order to free up the number and detach that history? Wikiklaas (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Help:Description to the first question.

When you need to merge items (see Help:Merge), nominate the empty one at WD:RFD saying that you've merged the empty one and to which item you've merged it to. Alternatively, a bot catches the empty ones every half a day (or something to that tune), so don't worry too much. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, be careful. (I fixed it.) :) --Izno (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You might consider installing the labellister, autoedit, and RequestDeletion gadgets. The first is convenience. The second can be used to autofill labels, and the third makes deletion submission trivial. --Izno (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind and clear answers! I'll leave the empty articles to the bot then. Cheers! Wikiklaas (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And that capitalized "species" was the only location where I added that property, so don't worry you missed a few ones. I get quite fed up with the autofill properties of most boxes but wondered why in heaven species would have to be with a capital S when I typed a lower case. It appears I just didn't look very well (tried another instance now) but what on earth does the name of a movie have to do in a field that's already marked as "taxon property"? You wouldn't expect a movie there, would you? Wikiklaas (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I figured it was a chance mistake. The problem you're identifying is that the list of possible values for "taxon rank" isn't tied to the property; they kind of just "exist in space" and uncorrelated (until we correlate them). The way to fix this would be to change the software to allow us to restrict appropriate claims to items, but that is something the Wikidata devs have said explicitly that they will not implement (much to many people's chagrine). --Izno (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And to mine as well. But don't wory. As long as I have the idea that I can do useful work here (and I think I can), It'll be fun to do it. At least this system of organizing interwiki's is so much better than the old one was, so it will pay off to spend some time on it now. Don't know where you live but from your user page I get the impression it's somewhere in Europe. For me it's getting late, so I wish you good night. Wikiklaas (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You definitely can! :) No, I'm actually on the east coast of the US. Have a good night. --Izno (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Feedabck

WD:Contact the development team is a slightly better place to leave that. --Izno (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy-past it. I had you in my watchlist, so you could have answered where I left the question. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing sources

Any explanation for this removal? --Succu (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I answered at my discussion page. --Succu (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was still in the process of correcting sources there, and wanted to add Wikispecies but firstly I noticed the technique of doing this had changed since I last edited statements, and I had a problem with making the correct edits, and secondly you interrupted it. See what I posted on your talk page. By the way, the taxon authors as mentioned there suggested two different taxa, very strange as both names are based upon Epiphyllum russellianum var. gaertneri Regel (1884), and if only one author is mentioned, I think it will have to be the basionym author, not the one who did the last transfer. It is clear that both Schlumbergera gaertneri and Hatiora gaertneri represent the same taxon and should be joined in the same Wikidata item. I'm curious for the solution you will come up with for this "problem". Wikiklaas (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The items schould linked together. The solution is simple: Wikidata should allow interwikis to redirects and/or implement merge of items. Both were proposed elsewhere, but are not implemented yet. You got the correct author citation when you combine the author of the basionym name with author auf the actual taxon name. In the case of Schlumbergera gaertneri you get (Regel) Britton & Rose. BTW: there is a Taxonomy task force. Greetings. --Succu (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Willekeurige pagina

Via Random item kwam ik op Q15395573. Kun je daar een artikel van fabriceren? 151.40.186.86 22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC) (Klaas)

I could probably do this, if I would take the time to gather information. There is however quite a number of genera, let alone species, in the Myrtaceae that still lack an article on the Dutch Wikipedia. It's not up to me to create articles just because no page has yet been written on the subject. I would have to write tens of thousands of articles then, and not know where to start. I'd rather write about subjects that I already know about. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Ed Gilbert

I noticed your diff on Ed Gilbert, and wanted to refer you to this writedown, plainly for your information if you like. Cheers, --Denny (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Denny. What a lucky coincidence that you stumbled upon it, and even more that you read my summary. These days, most edits go without summary on this project, even although I would sometimes very much like to give my reasons bu do nit find a place to type an edit summary. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please...

... be more carefull with your edits. --Succu (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I was already busy writing to you when I found you placed a message here. Please give your answer on your talk page, end please be more precise than "be more carefull with your edits" because that gives exactly zero explanation. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Succu, what on earth are you doing? I found a vast number of items linked to articles in the Swedish and Dutch Wikipedia based upon names from LepIndex, to be precise species listed as belonging to Limenitis while they ar in fact placed in Adelpha by every expert on the planet. These names are not accepted ones, the items should not list the names as "children of": they are no more than erroneous names. LepIndex is infamous for it. By restoring statements like "parent" and "rank", you give the impression these are accepted names in accepted ranks. They are not. They are database anomalies. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You removed most of our basic properties. "not accepted" (aka not valid) is different from "database anomalies". --Succu (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And where is the clear explanation of what is wanted as far as you are concerned, and where is the link to the manual where all of this is elaborated?

Look, on the one hand there is this small army of contributors to Wikipedia saying that if one moves a page, one should also edit the connected Wikidata item. On many Wikipedia's it's even on the page that is displayed after one moved an item. On the other hand there's users like you on Wikidata itself, showing they'd rather have other users didn't touch anything, meanwhile not capable or willing to give any meaningfull explanation, just reverting edits. This is not an environment I feel happy in. I'm trained as a taxonomist. I'm not trained to work in an environment dominated by people who's categorizing skills are no more than an extension of their autism. So I suggest you check the page moves I make on a daily basis, and take it upon yourself to make the necesaary changes in Wikidata. That would take a real burdon off my shoulders: first the extra work, and second the "company" of people who are not capable of offering any real help. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Cute: „dominated by people who's categorizing skills are no more than an extension of their autism”. But try Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. --Succu (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as you're not willing to give any help yourself, I'd stick to the "take it upon you to do the work yourself". Wikiklaas (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware that someone trained as a taxonomist gave me a „fuck off“. Maybe you should calm down and give it a second try? --Succu (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I really think you should have started off with a very friendly explanation of what was required here as far as you were concerned. But you left me the opportunity to say: "well, if you don't want to explain anything to me, then take it upon yourself to do all the work", and that's really fine as far as I'm concerned. So if you want to have everything done the right way without explaining what the right way is, than indeed do it yourself. I'm glad you took that burden off me. Wikiklaas (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Mind to go back to arguments for someone is trained as a taxonomist? Where do we fail? --Succu (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I fail to see the friendly explanation of what you'd rather have wanted me to do. Wikiklaas (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, let's give this another try. Last month I had some problems convincing you that Anser fabalis sensu lato and Anser fabalis sensu stricto are NOT the same taxon. They share the same type and even the same name, but not the same circumscription. Where Anser fabalis sensu lato includes Anser serrirostris, Anser fabalis sensu stricto does not. Any Wikipedia that is willing to, can have three (or more) different pages on this subject without penalty: Anser fabalis s.l., Anser fabalis s.s. and Anser serrirostris (the "more" depends on other 'species' included in s.l. by modern taxonomists). You tried twice to label the Anser fabalis items as duplicates while they clearly are not. If this shows one thing, it is that you're not a taxonomist. You do not have the expert knowledge. Meanwhile you're making a lot of decissions on taxonomic subjects in Wikidata. That poses a real problem. It made me wish for you to "fuck off" but there may be another solution.

Now bacause you're not an expert, I'll try to be as clear as possible, so please read this very carefully. Let's take as an example the taxon that is represented by item Q4682048. It's a taxon at the rank of species. Its name was first published in 1777 as Papilio mesentina by Pieter Cramer. For some reason it got stuck in LepIndex as Limenitis mesentina. Every modern expert places it in the genus Adelpha as Adelpha mesentina. It's the type species of that genus. These three names represent one and the same taxon. They share the same type, the same description and the same circumscription. What they do not share is the taxonomic position, but that doesn't make the names represent different taxa. Any Wikipedia can have only one page on this taxon. If in any one Wikipedia pages would exist for two of those names, they would have to be merged because they would be duplicates. The articles on this taxon in different Wikipedia's should all be linked to only one Wikidata item, no matter what name they are represented by in a particular Wikipedia.

Right now, in Wikidata we have two items representing this taxon. Apart from Q4682048 (Adelpha mesentina) there is also Q13575930 (Limenitis mesentina). As far as I know, there is no separate item for the name Papilio mesentina, but that would be a third option. So by the way Wikidata is organized, we give the impression there are two different taxa. That's an error. One solution to this is to merge the items, but that would leave the possibility for some ill-informed wikipedian to create a new item for the outdated synonym (all but four Wikipedia's still do not have the subject, so plenty of chances someone will want to make that link to Wikidata in the near future). For that reason it has been customary for some time allready to not merge such items, but to move the sitelinks, and to leave behind an empty item, clearly marked as not a valid item, a duplicate, a synonym, whatever. As long as it is clear that no sitelinks should be attached to it. What you did, after undoing my edits on similar items, was to create a perfect feeding ground or trap for the next error waiting to be made. And those traps are still out there right now.

So instead of boldly undoing my edits, asking me to be 'more carefull' but being very uncarefull yourself, leaving behind all those traps, and without giving any rationale for what you did or what you expected me to do, please come up with a real solution, and I'd be glad to go with you on that one. What I certainly not want to happen is that my carefull work to solve these nomenclatural issues is frustrated by someone who has no expert knowledge on the subject, and puts everything in place for the next layman to create a duplicate item. Wikiklaas (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of assumptions about me and my knowledge. Your clearly did not read Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. BTW: I created the missing item for Papilio mesentina (Q47290229). --Succu (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There is only one paragraph in the tutorial that's applicable here, and that's homotypic names. The current treatment there is incompatible with one of the main goals of Wikidata and the reason it was set up in the first place: link homotypic names (or in general: pages on the same subject) in different Wikipedia's to one item. I have seen work of some of your colleagues on Wikidata, reflecting the non-acceptance of that particular paragraph on homotypic names: it leads to pages on the same taxon in different Wikipedia's not being linked through Wikidata.

The only assumption on you that I made is that you're not a taxonomist. It shows. The other remarks I made are that you're not helpful in any way (that's a fact) and that you do not state what is desired in cases like these (another fact), when there are clear problems with the main goal of Wikidata. The only thing you do is pointing at someone else (in this case me) saying a person does something wrong (or even more cryptic: please be carefull). I'm not going to try every different way to do something wrong but would like to hear from you what would be right in your opinion. And then we have a basis to talk. Wikiklaas (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The warning was about removing basic properties. This produces constraint violations that have to be fixed. Wikidata is about concepts not subjects (themes). It's a knowledgebase, not a taxonomic database that reflects a single taxonomic opinion. --Succu (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about "single taxonomic opinions", it is about linking pages on the same subject in different Wikipedia's to one item in Wikidata, the reason why we had this project in the first place. It is also not very neat to point someone with whom you have an exchange of opinions to a "tutorial" that is not an accepted policy but a work in progress, and moreover almost entirely written by one of the participants to the discussion, i.c. yourself. Wikiklaas (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Claiming things that are incorrect is not very polite. I did not wrote most parts of this tutorial. Linking Wikmedia pages is only a minor part of Wikidata. What's your solution to whatever your problem is? We need different items for different scientific names for structural reasons. --Succu (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A project that was set up to link items in different Wikipedia's, cannot suddenly have "structural reasons" to stop doing that. If there were some major decission, the outcome of a voting, to change Wikidata policy on this, then you would have a point. So far however, there is only this one paragraph in a working document, stating we should handle data in a way that is incompatible with Wikidata's goals. And you are one of the main contributors to the current state of that document.

Look, I can very well see what the problem is. One wants to links pages on the same subject in different Wikipedia's. That goal set, one also starts to add statements to the items thus created in Wikidata. And one of the statements in an item on a taxon is "parent". That poses a real problem, as this reflects a taxonomists point of view. But your solution is to give up linking pages on the same taxon in the same item. To do that, you need more than a tutorial being a work in progress, because it violates the first goal of Wikidata. You're busy here for some time now, and you must have realised this problem. So far you have, in the above, not been able or willing to shed some light on this problem, while you must have your thoughts on how to keep up with Wikidata's goals. Wikiklaas (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you know not a lot about Wikidata and how it works. There is no „first goal of Wikidata“ you are postulating (Wikidata:Introduction). What do you understand by „same taxon“? A taxon can have different cirumscriptions. How should we integrate different taxonomic viewpoints (starting with the given ones by Linné) consistently in a single item? Do you really think nobody here thought about this? --Succu (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Kolibries ook bekend als Trochilidae

Beste Wikiklaas,

Ik raakte verward door tweemaal een Wikimedia-categoriebeschrijving en heb dat op mijn manier (vast verkeerd?) getracht te verhelpen door het ene label te verplaatsen naar de andere. Beide kan niet, maar of het andersom zou moeten zijn weet ik niet. Ik ben vast niet de eerste en zal ook niet de laatste zijn die twijfelt hoe dit voor eens en altijd op te lossen. Weet jij als deskundige raad? Alvast dank en plezierige jaarwisseling. Collegiale groeten van Klaas `Z4␟` V:  13:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Zie kolibrie in tientallen talen.