Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy/Archive/2021/04

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Rethinking "publication in which this taxon name was established"

WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. One thing I'd like to see in Wikidata is a link between every taxonomic name and the publication in which that name was established. P5326 (P5326) sort of does this, but is constrained to only be for the original name. Currently taxa with basionym (P566) or original combination (P1403) can't have P5326 (P5326). This means the huge number of new combinations don't have an easy way to be linked to their original publication. Is there any reason for not dropping these constraints? For plants and fungi there are databases that store the equivalent of P5326 (P5326) for new combinations, so we could readily populate Wikidata for a significant amount of useful information by rallying these constraints. Animal names are more difficult in that zoology doesn't track name changes in the same was botanists do, but in many cases we will be able to determine the publication that first published a given combination. I know that there is a mechanism for flagging new combinations etc. using reference has role (P6184) but this adds levels of complexity that I suggest will get in the way of people adding this information. Alternatively, maybe we move everything to qualifiers of references for the taxon name. But at the moment it seems messy that we have both. Any thoughts? --Rdmpage (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Comment when I started to edit here I used P5326 (P5326), I then used reference has role (P6184), e.g. [1], specially because P5326 (P5326) is quite limited. Following the same logic I created recombination (Q76654853) to be used in that way. But I noticed that recombination (Q14594740) was already used in that way, and though I found ontologically more logic to use "reference has role" → "recombination reference", I decided to give up for the moment that choice, and decided to use the way that existed before I created this, i.e. recombination (Q14594740). Therefore there is a little mess that I contributed to make wiht some items using "recombination reference" and some other ""recombination". But I've no strong opinion and if we find a clear and uniform way to modelize that, I can fix my mess. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: My apologies for the delay in replying, I've been distracted by other things. I do quite like the reference has role (P6184) construction and it seems quite widely used query. For example we have 15,710 uses of "first description". In comparison, we have only 3788 uses of "publication in which this taxon name was established" query. So maybe the way forward is to deprecate P5326 (P5326), always use reference has role (P6184), and tidy up the roles a bit. For example, where possible, we could map them to external vocabularies, such as Reference Type GBIF Vocabulary. There seems to be some confusion between first valid description (Q1361864) protologue (Q1928959) original publication (Q55155646) (i.e., I think most people use first valid description (Q1361864) as equivalent to original publication (Q55155646)). In any event, this seems like one way forward. --Rdmpage (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Pretty much agree on everything, I just merged my "new combination reference" to "recombination", thats a begining. We should have a kind of manual on what to do and for what. In addition to the GBIF exemple, see also WoRMS, where I like the "status source" concept to e.g. indicate that a taxon has its rank changed (from species to subspecies, or conversely, from family to subfamily, ect...), or to indicate that a taxon previously considered as a synynym is here "rehabilitated ". Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Roderic: If I understand you right you want to apply P5326 (P5326) to the "original combination" and to every subsequent "new combination". But what's your prefered method to reference the "new combination" itself? --Succu (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Succu: As above, apologies for the late response. I guess what I'm really after is clarity over the best way to link names to references. We currently have more than one. Initially I thought to simply use P5326 (P5326) to link name to first publication, and whether it was the original combination or not would be inferred from properties asserting whether a name was a synonym, etc. In my reply to @Christian Ferrer: I ran some queries that show that the reference has role (P6184) is more commonly used, and perhaps that is the way to go. I presume you'd like that approach because it makes clear whether the name is the original name or not? --Rdmpage (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

order (Q36602) and order (Q10861678)

I just asked somone at lt-wiki (lv- and uk-wiki have the same issue) why they have two orders (wanted to get rid of the later one). Answer was: It is all right: 'būrys' is for animals and 'eilė' for fungi and plants. All I did now was updating the description of order (Q10861678). Any idea? --Faring (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ignore any usage of order (Q10861678) here at WD. --Succu (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It is only your opinion. Infovarius (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW: Same way we have rank in zoology (Q13578154) and rank in botany (Q3100180). :( --Succu (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Faring: So you have been answered. Some languages use different words for "zoological order" and "botanical order". Wikidata should reflect this to be neutral. --Infovarius (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I've got an answer why there are two taxa ranks. I haven't got an answer why nobody here seems to care about the fact that WD puts almost all related taxa under zoologie, knowing that most of the interwiki links of the three WPs that make the differentiation are wrong (assuming that they use WD as a source). Somwere between today and the time where we can state that we perfectly reflect the complexity of the world, a bots has to fix this.
I took the liberty to change the label names of the two ranks. --Faring (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The sitelinks connected with order (Q36602) are not restricted to botany. Please have a look. ukWP are labeled Порядок (біологія) and Ряд (біологія). --Succu (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Somtimes reading helps. I have stated the ukWP in my first sentence. We are spinning in circles and I wait for other oppinions before I use the same button than you. --Faring (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. You „converted“ the general taxonomic rank into the false taxonomic rank in zoologie. --Succu (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Faring, @Infovarius, @Succu:
I didn't know about this topic, thanks. I faced the following problem: since the CIS uses a different, separate naming system for ranks, I have separated these terms to Q10861678 and Q10861678. But Succu megred them again, which, in my opinion, is absolutely incorrect. How do we deal with this? According to my scheme, each element that contains Q36602 must also contais Q10861678 or Q10861678.
Previous discussions: Talk:Q36602#Order, order and order, ru:Википедия:Форум/Технический#Таксономия и ВД. Iniquity (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
CIS stands for..., Iniquity? --Succu (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Succu, Commonwealth of Independent States, I could not find why this is so, but most likely, this remained due to the Soviet naming practice. Iniquity (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, you are refering to Commonwealth of Independent States (Q7779). Any sources for this "praxis"? --Succu (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Succu, https://bigenc.ru/biology/text/2698893 for zoo-order and https://bigenc.ru/biology/text/3161410 for botan-order. Iniquity (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
So we have the two terms отряд and поря́док in a single web source. „the CIS uses a different, separate naming system for ranks” Are there more examples? --Succu (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Succu, Okay, it's hard for me now to find sources for the entire CIS, let's simplify only for Russia. Iniquity (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
And yes, it is not single web sourse, it is Great Russian Encyclopedia (Q1768199). Iniquity (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
You are telling me nothing I'm not aware of. So all is fine with the current solution. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Succu, So you are just saying now that all classifications in the world mean nothing? Only your faithful one? Three people in the current discussion tell you that you are wrong :) Iniquity (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
All of them have an opinion (=POV), but not convincing references („the CIS uses a different, separate naming system for ranks”). Including you. --Succu (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC) PS: Including order (Q105883353) --Succu (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Succu, your opinion the same POV, I cited an authoritative source that, at least in Russia, separate terms are used. Iniquity (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
„I cited an authoritative source” - no you didn't ([2]). --Succu (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
You understand that now you are saying that something like Encyclopædia Britannica not AS? Iniquity (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Encyclopædia Britannica (Q455) has no entry for the taxonomic rank order (Q36602). So what's your point? --Succu (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
How is this related? Iniquity (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
For different names see Help:Aliases. --Succu (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
„Returning a redirect only through a discussion, you are doing something that is completely inconsistent with the system”, You are claiming a „system”, Iniquity, but only „proved” none (other ranks). --Succu (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I say that in Russian the `отряд` identifies only a set of zoology, you say this is not true, I am citing an authoritative source, you say that it is lying. You can look at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334605417_Sovremennye_sistemy_cvetkovyh_rastenijModern_systems_of_flowering_plants for example, where everything is called "порядок". Iniquity (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Let's do it again, otherwise we probably don't understand each other. In the future, we want to make taxa templates based on wikidata. At the moment this is impossible, since in our country one word is used for zoology, and the second word is used for botany, bacteriology and virology. In all Russian encyclopedias and dict it is divided in this way - [3], [4], [5] etc. Iniquity (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Iniquity; More claims: „In all Russian encyclopedias and dict it is divided in this way”. So this should be easy to prove this. --Succu (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Succu, I have provided above three authoritative sources: the most authoritative encyclopedia in Russia [6], just an authoritative encyclopedia RedBook [7] and an authoritative biological dictionary [8]. I find it difficult to think of more suitable sources. Can you tell me what you are looking for? Iniquity (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Infovarius: Discuss first, revert later. --Succu (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I see that currently the difference is set manualy within the templates, e.g. ru:Хищные vs ru:Розоцветные. I'm not able to write it myself, but I'm pretty sure that inside a Lua module it is possible to call arbitrarely "Отряд" when the kingdom Animalia is detected, and then "Порядок" when the kingdom Plantae is detected, ect... If either there are similar potential issues in other langages, what we do? will we have to create as many as taxon trees needed? it's not realistic. The nomencaltural codes either for botany, zoology, ect... are international, I never heard about a different classification for Russia, neither for other countries, though apparentlty there are indeed subtleties of language, the classifications are international and are based on potential official nomenclatures, not on the potential subtleties of all the langages of the world, that is the advantage and the purpose of those nomenclatures. The rank of ru:Розоцветные is the same, and has the same meaning, for an English, a Russian or a French botanist, this is why they are all able to understand the publications of each other when they read them. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer, thanks for the extended answer, I also thought about such a scheme, but I need to consult with our taxonomic community. This complicates the path, but you can search by the original tree. I'll be back with questions in a couple of days. Separate opinion regarding the database: Another thing is that by leaving Wikidata and creating local formulas, we lose the possibility of analysis and easy collection of information that is unique for each language. I don't quite understand how an additional schema that does not replace the previous one can damage the database. Iniquity (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Whatever the way you want to use order (Q10861678), you will also have to use a local formula unless you replace order (Q36602) by order (Q10861678) in all the concerned items, and this is not possible. Note that you will likely not lose any data neither the possibility of analysis. I see that in Wikimedia Commons if you chose Russian as langage that produce the same thing than in GBIF: "отряд/порядок" is displayed. This is done with c:Module:Taxontree at line 129 we call the taxon rank label taxonRank = taxonRankID and mw.wikibase.label(taxonRankID), it is likely possible for someone able to understand Lua langage to bring there a condition to display the wanted value for order (Q36602) instead of the label. I see also that other langage may have similar issues. Wikimedia Commons is multilingual so it can be interesting to bring that topic to Commons too, I'm going to ask there the opinion of the creator of our local module, at least at the begining only for the case отряд/порядок. @Iniquity: can you confirm that: "порядок" is used only for algae, fungi, and plants? Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer
> you will also have to use a local formula unless you replace отряд/порядок (Q36602) by порядок (Q10861678) in all the concerned items, and this is not possible.
I thought to add a second value, not replace. I want to keep both schemas as they are independent of each other.
> can you confirm that: "порядок" is used only for algae, fungi, and plants?
Yes, I can confirm that for begining. Iniquity (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
ok, thank you, I will do soon a little rundown to someone who knows how to program to see what would be the best possible solution, local of in Wikidata, and what could it be. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Just in case, I want to clarify that the same word / rank is used for archaeas, bacterias and viruses. Thanks :) Iniquity (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Iniquity: You mean "порядок" is used for algae, fungi, plants, archaeas, bacterias and viruses? if there is others please let me know. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer, yes, you are right. I will also clarify this point. Iniquity (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Iniquity: In fact this is "порядок" every where excepted for Animalia this is "отряд"? Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I think so. --Infovarius (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that the module displays "отряд/порядок" because I've recently changed the label of order (Q36602) to more indefinite. --Infovarius (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
You will need a solution for the pair Надтип/Надотдел too. --Succu (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: I checked with knowledgeable people, this is what scheme they told me about:
Iniquity (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I will look very soon. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer, hello! :) Any news? Iniquity (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Iniquity: Hello, no sorry, not yet, I posted a message in c:Module talk:Taxontree where we can reach RexxS who is very competent but they did not edit since mid February. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer, ok, thanks :) It is pity. Iniquity (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Q1346552 and Q21368901

Hi! Not knowing anything about taxonomy, I notice those two taxons that look similar, more indeed as Q21368901 is only linked to Q5051457, which might be a duplicate of Q13458048. Could someone knowledgeable have a look and merge if necessary? Thanks ! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomist with multiple IPNI author ID (P586)

Victoria Anne Wassell Graham (Q6161515) and Victoria Anne Wassell Smith (Q21609139) are the same person with a different IPNI author ID (P586) for her birth name and her married name. Should the items be merged? Plantdrew (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy/Archive/2021/04&oldid=1478225725"