On 03/06/13 11:40, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: What if this interface would exist? I believe it could be made really quickly and easily.

I promise I'll get to looking at wikidata's search sometime! I sure don't know when that time will be but I'll get to it! Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2013, at 6:01 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, This is great fun ... However from the perspective of taxonomy this is not complete at all. What is lacking are the names of the authors and the date of publication. Even this can be insufficient because there are instances where a description with the same name by the same people happened in the same year and in the same publication. Really, taxonomy is tricky. FYI I have an 80 MB database with ONLY cacti and succulents. I learned a lot in the process. Thanks, GerardM On 3 June 2013 15:23, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

Hoi, Taxonomy is not the thing that occupies me. It is however something I have experience with.. Everyone who knows anything about the taxonomy of plants can confirm that a taxon without publishing details is incomplete. Thanks, Gerard On 3 June 2013 17:03, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

Ziko van Dijk, 06/06/2013 15:00: What Wikipedia are you talking of? sv.wiki, en.wiki, others or all? Nemo

Hoi, A "species" database does not contain the same information you are likely to find in an encyclopaedia. When you want to be comprehensive in a database about species, you will include many revisions of genera, of species and more. When you care about such things, have a look at IPNI. Thanks, Gerard http://ipni.org/ On 6 June 2013 15:00, Ziko van Dijk <vandijk(a)wmnederland.nl> wrote:

Disclaimer: I am writing this as a community member of the German Wikipedia, where I have been active for many years in the WikiProject:Biology. As an amateur I had to learn throughout the years, that taxonomy is pretty tricky, much more than it seems at first sight. Though it seems so easy to map taxonomical data in a database due to its seemingly strict hierarchical nature, I'm afraid it is much more tricky to implement as taxonomy is a discipline with a lot of traps to step in. That doesn't mean, that it shouldn't be tried, but when considering to do this: please get advice of professional taxonomists (not only general biologists) before planning things like that from a purely technical point of view. Be aware of heavy differences between the various, but binding codes (Zoology, Bacteriology, Botany s.l. and cultivated plants). Be aware of the necessity of concurring data trees working with the same objects. Be aware of the continous changes of taxonomy and the current tendency of dismissing defined ranks for the benefit of nodes. Such professional advice could be useful to avoid failures due to missing expertise in the very beginning. Just a hint. Best regards, Denis Barthel Am 03.06.2013 12:01, schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo): -- Projektmanager Team Communitys Fon +49 30 219 158 26 31 Mobil +49 172 23 13 811 E-Mail: denis.barthel(a)wikimedia.de -- Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.