Wikidata:Requests for comment/Species and genus
From Wikidata
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Species and genus" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Discussion is stale without a clear outcome. This does not preclude future discussion on the matter; however, currently there's no clear consensus in favor of anything.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a special principle for species and genus'es? It is rather common that Wikidata articles about living organisms point to both a genus and to one or more species within the genus. See for example Q20816 (Abdominea). Should these allways be resorted? --Ettrig (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current Wikidata:Notability criteria list taxonomic entries as good-to-go, meaning any taxonomic entry can have its own item. Silver hr (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case all the wikipedias cover the same subject, doesn't mater if they are under the genus name or under the species one. So, I think in these monotypic taxon cases all the interwikis should be in the same item. --Erfil (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To put the problem clearer: There are genera containing just one species. In that case, most wikipedias contain only one article. But they differ in the question where to put that article: Some choose the genus, some the species as lemma for the article. So there are articles named Abdominea (Q20816) and articles named Abdominea minimiflora (Q6721199). They're all about the same plant, but they are not linked together via wikidata.
- What can be done? If all articles are to be found under one item here in wikidata, the interwiki-links would work. But we could not have any meaningful statements about that item. Statements like "taxon name" or "taxon rank" could not be used in such a mixed item.
- So let's just stay with two items for monotypic genera / species (or other taxonomic ranks). If different wikipedias choose different lemmas, it's up to them to generate the appropriate interwiki-links in the old-fashioned way. Wikidata can't fix this - the easiest fix would be to allow interwiki-links to redirects.--Dietzel (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Allowing iw to redirects would be great. Another solution would be link all monotypic to the species (or all monotypic taxa to the smallest taxon). An iw conflict could arise if one Wikipedia has article on both genus and species (that is, in that wikipedia the genus is not treated as monotypic), but that would just mean that we need to treat as non-monotypic any genus that is treated as non-monotypic in at least one wikipedia.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Example: Q160087 a family with a single genus (with several species).--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikidata:Requests for comment/A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects has reached consensus that links to redirects should be allowed. The devs have confirmed this can be done so it is just a matter of waiting for it to be rolled out. Filceolaire (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Example: Q160087 a family with a single genus (with several species).--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Allowing iw to redirects would be great. Another solution would be link all monotypic to the species (or all monotypic taxa to the smallest taxon). An iw conflict could arise if one Wikipedia has article on both genus and species (that is, in that wikipedia the genus is not treated as monotypic), but that would just mean that we need to treat as non-monotypic any genus that is treated as non-monotypic in at least one wikipedia.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A similar problem are synonyms. See Q148224 (Poellnitzia/Poellnitzia rubriflora/Astroloba rubriflora). --Succu (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]