Talk:Q261459

@Succu: why did you remove all my edits? —DSGalaktos (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These properties are not for fictional taxa. --Succu (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu:

1. Do you have a source for that? Neither the talk pages of the properties nor anything on WD:WikiProject Taxonomy say something about fictional taxa. In general, there seems to be a lot of precedent for using the same properties to describe both fictional and real items, as can be seen with lots of fictional people (Luke Skywalker (Q51746)), places (Mordor (Q202886)), and organizations (Galactic Empire (Q52347)).
2. You also reverted labels, descriptions, and statements that aren’t limited to fiction. —DSGalaktos (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an older short discussion on my talk page. I readded the lost information. --Succu (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks… but that doesn’t help me much. I now know that mxmerz had the same idea for classifying fictional taxons (instance of (P31)fictional taxon (Q15707583), parent taxon (P171)), and you said that recording this with taxon name (P225), parent taxon (P171) and taxon rank (P105) is verboten, but you didn’t explain why. I’d also say that though it might be a bit „hochtrabend“ to call the HP species a tree of taxons, Rhinogradentia have been described with fullest scientific rigor, and definitely deserve the label of “fictional taxon”. (The same goes for the stone louse (Q336361), Petrophaga Lorioti, which famously made it into the Pschyrembel.) —DSGalaktos (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing real and fictional taxa makes sense to you? --Succu (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the same statements for the same relations, regardless of the “fictionalness” of the subject or object, makes sense for me. We do the same thing for fictional people, places, and organizations, which there’s a lot more of – for instance, we don’t have properties “fictional child”, “fictionally located on”, “fictionally has member”. I suppose you could make an argument for completely excluding fictional data from Wikidata, but that ship has sailed. (And after all, the statements themselves are very real, and originate in very real sources.) —DSGalaktos (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is „we“? Properties have a domain. Taxa have a well defined domain: vailid scientific taxon names. --Succu (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“we” is of course the Wikidata community, the people who added and kept these statements. Counter silly question: what are “taxa”? Individual properties can have domains (designated by {{Constraint:Type}}), and amusingly enough, taxon name (P225) doesn’t. —DSGalaktos (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was intentional, but the reason is no longer valid. --Succu (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]