Talk:Q486672

IUCN status

Removed obviously incorrect statement (extinct). Until the systematic will be sorted out (extinct status is probably related to the formal subspecies Geochelone nigra subsp. nigra, now elevated to the full species) please do not return. --Vachovec1 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

„Obviously“ for whom? Clearly listed here in the new The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016.2 (Q26821439). --Succu (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a mess

This entity is a mess. Almost every interwiki here links to page about Galapagos tortoises as general, not to the pages about newly elevated species Geochelone nigra. The same for Commons link, distribution map, picture and so on. Compared to that, the Wikispecies link, the taxon name or the IUCN status corresponds to newly elevated species.

Proposed solutions: I am recommending establishment of a new entity corresponding to the newly elevated species (Chelonoidis nigra). This entity should point to all Galapagos tortoises as general (as in the past). Your opinions? Ping: Succu. --Vachovec1 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please give a reference for your statement „newly elevated species Geochelone nigra“. --Succu (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Succu It is true; taxonomic revision is for example there. G. nigra is extinct species of complex G. nigra, complex is vurnerable. Please stop your reverts; it is bad in most articles. --OJJ (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In Turtles of the World, 7th Edition (Q19843378) the species is treated as Chelonoidis nigra. --Succu (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

After your changes I moved the cs-acrticle to Galápagos tortoise (Q27924294). Note Chelonoidis nigra complex is not a valid name for taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Succu This is no solution. Frwiki and others are bad now. Where is there rfc? --OJJ (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)OJJ (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop your reverts and I do order. OJJ (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This item is about Chelonoidis nigra and not the Chelonoidis nigra species complex. A lot of properties are based on this name. If you think there should be an item about the Chelonoidis nigra complex use the one I've created and move sitelinks instead. --Succu (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Succu Yes, but checking articles is very difficult for me. --OJJ (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you can't handle the mess, then you should not start to act. BTW: We had allready Galápagos tortoise (Q20014035). I moved the en-sitelink there, because the article is clearly about the species complex. I check some (not all) sitelinks: all are about the species Chelonoidis nigra. --Succu (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Succu Yes, that's why I did nothing today (so far). Some sitelinks here (cs-wiki an en-wiki sitelinks included) were obviously wrong. So I started this disussion in an attempt to find a solution/sort the mess. I didn't know about Galápagos tortoise (Q20014035). So if we already have an entry about the complex, we need only to sort the links. The entry Galápagos tortoise (Q27924294) should probably be deleted or merged into Galápagos tortoise (Q20014035). --Vachovec1 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Vachovec1: I wouldn't call some misplaced sitelinks a „mess“. But your claims above are entirely wrong. That makes it hard to understand what exactly the problem is. --Succu (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Succu The picture is wrong (some other "galapagos complex" tortoise, the Geochelone nigra tortoise was extinct long before the picture was taken). The map is for all galapagos tortoises, but that would probably be accteptable (all species are mentioned and shown). The commons gallery is OK (the gallery itself, not the pictures there) , but the commons category is wrong (it's about the complex) – so the situation on the commonswiki should be sorted too. --Vachovec1 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Vachovec1: Why do you think the commons cat is about the complex? And please stop moving sitelinks around until we find an agreement. --Succu (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there are three concepts here: 1) Chelonoidis nigra in the wide sense, with a lot of subspecies, 2) Chelonoidis nigra in the narrow sense, extinct, and 3) the informal "Chelonoidis nigra complex"? There should maybe be three items? - Brya (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you give please a reference for concept 2). --Succu (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The #1 is old taxonomy - all Galapagos tortoises were classified as Geochelone nigra species with a lot of subspecies. The new taxonomy (respected by IUCN) says that the Galapagos tortoises are divided into several species (former subspecies), Geochelone nigra (in strict sense, #2) is one of them. The informal "Chelonoidis nigra complex" (#3) is the same thing as the former species Geochelone nigra (#1). --Vachovec1 (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask you, Vachovec1. And (again) please give a reference that a taxon concept called Geochelone nigra is regarded as valid. --Succu (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

IUCN - Brya (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, for clarity:

The taxonomy of the Galapagos tortoises

Former taxonomy – 1 species, a lot of subspecies:

• Geochelone nigra/Chelonoidis nigra
  • G. nigra abingdoni
  • G. nigra becki
  • G. nigra darwini
  • G. nigra ephippium
  • G. nigra galapagoensis
  • G. nigra guntheri
  • G. nigra hoodensis
  • G. nigra chathamensis
  • G. nigra micropyes
  • G. nigra nigra
  • G. nogra phantastica
  • G. nigra porteri
  • G. nigra vandenburghi

New taxonomy [1] – a lot of species:

• Ch. abingdonii (extinct)
• Ch. becki
• Ch. darwini
• Ch. duncanensis
• Ch. hoodensis
• Ch. chathamensis
• Ch. nigra (extinct)
• Ch. phantastica
• Ch. porteri
• Ch. vicina

--Vachovec1 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Succu The whole time I am trying to say this: this item was originally about the former Geochelone nigra species, which according to old taxonomy encomprised all Galapagos tortoises. But it was changed (mostly by you) that currently it only encompass the Geochelone nigra species in the "strict sense" as defined by the new taxonomy (see also above mentioned IUCN entry), originating from the Floreana Island and extinct. That's why the things need to be sorted out. --Vachovec1 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC) --Vachovec1 (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Geochelone nigra and Chelonoidis nigra are different things. - Brya (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, Chelonoidis nigra = Geochelone nigra ssp. nigra = Testudo nigra according to IUCN entry. We need to determine, what should be here (Chelonoidis nigra nigra (Q486672)) and what to make with Galápagos tortoise (Q20014035). If the consensus would be for the (now informal) Geochelone nigra (group) to be stationed here, a new item must be created for the (newly established) species Chelonoidis nigra. And Galápagos tortoise (Q20014035) should be merged here. Or the consensus could be for the (newly established) species Chelonoidis nigra to be left here, and the (now informal) Geochelone nigra (group) to be left with Galápagos tortoise (Q20014035). In both cases, the links and other stuff must be sorted out. For example es-link is about the (newly elevated) species, ru-link, de-link, ca-link and others are about the group (do not rely on infoboxes, see the article text!). --Vachovec1 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

„This Red List assessment therefore now treats C. nigra as a full species, rather than retaining its previous subspecies ranking from earlier Red List assessments.“ --Succu (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Geochelone nigra and Chelonoidis nigra are different things. - Brya (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Succu The IUCN entry is about C. nigra species, formerly C. nigra ssp. nigra (alternatively G. nigra ssp. nigra) subspecies. As you can see from the description there, it's about the extinct tortoise species (formerly subspecies) from Floreana Island. See for example the IUCN entry about Chelonoidis becki for comparison. It's about the C. becki species, formerly C. nigra ssp. becki (alternatively G. nigra ssp. nigra) subspecies. C. becki is a vulnerable tortoise species (formerly subspecies) from the north part of the Isabela Island. The taxonomic notes for both entries are almost the same. Addendum: I fixed the binomial name in my initial statement (Geochelone nigra → Chelonoidis nigra). The former was incorrect and probably contributed to confusion. --Vachovec1 (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It still looks to me that there are three different concepts, based on the same taxonomic relationships, but at different ranks. - Brya (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

How many items?

The question is whether or not it is worth to separate Chelonoidis nigra in the wide sense (with a lot of subspecies) from Chelonoidis nigra in the narrow sense (extinct). As these are two separate concepts, these could in principle each have a separate item. But no doubt this will be confusing to many readers. Do the benefits outweigh this? - Brya (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need a third item. --Succu (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I also think that two items should be enough. But we must clearly distinct between Chelonoidis nigra (actual IUCN entry = extinct species from Floreana island = former subspecies Chelonoidis nigra ssp. nigra/Geochelone nigra ssp. nigra) and Chelonoidis nigra/Geochelone nigra (former species C. nigra/G. nigra = now informal species aggregate "Geochelone nigra complex"). The things must be sorted out. Please compare for example the attached Spanish article es:Chelonoidis nigra with the German article de:Galápagos-Riesenschildkröte. The Spanish article is about the extinct tortoise from the Floreana island (first meaning of the term). The German article talks about Galapagos tortoises altogether (second meaning of the term). --Vachovec1 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The German article is about Bryas #1 and not about the species complex. --Succu (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There are more than two items total: Geochelone nigra is an item, Chelonoidis nigra is an item, Testudo nigra is an item, the informal species aggregate is an item. That is four already. - Brya (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this an addition to your own statement or a misplaced indenting, Brya? --Succu (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's the one and the same thing.

Before taxonomic changes (which are described for example in the actual IUCN entry for Chelonoidis nigra): there was only one Chelonoidis nigra/Geochelone nigra species comprising all Galapagos tortoises. Old taxonomy of Galapagos tortoises: [2], see sections „Galapagos giant tortoise description“ and „Galapagos giant tortoise status“

After taxonomic changes: The former (now invalid) species described above has becomed an informal "Chelonoidis nigra complex" comprising all Galapagos tortoises. The former subspecies are now recognized as full species. New taxonomy of Galapagos tortoises: [3], see pages 394–396 (66–68 in the list). This is in accordance with actual IUCN entries.

This version of the en-wiki article about Galapagos tortoises is from 2016/09/27. As you can see, no mention about the Geochelone nigra complex yet, the text speaks about Chelonoidis nigra species with number of subspecies. This is the actual revision as of 2016/12/01. The article text is almost the same, only one significant change was made: instead of the Chelonoidis nigra species the text speaks about Galápagos tortoise complex and former subspecies are „renamed“ to species. --Vachovec1 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

So the article at enwiki evolved from one about the species (concetpt #1) to one about a species vcomplex (concept 3). That all you are showing. That's why the article isn't linked here. This are two very different taxonomic points of view (aka taxon concepts) or „things“ as you like to call them. --Succu (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Succu Roughly yes. There are two very different taxonomic points of view (aka taxon concepts) indeed. One can be marked as "old" (one species for all Galapagos tortoises), the other one can be marked as "new" (the Galapagos tortoises are divided into several species). For more confusion, one of the "new" species has the same scientific name as the "old" encompassing species (Chelonoidis nigra). Our current problem is that this item is mixing elements from both concepts. I will try to sort it out below. --Vachovec1 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What makes one taxon concept newer then another? The publishing date? I think one taxon concept could be more accepted then another. An indicator for this could be how often it is referenced in recent publications. Anyway, as far as I can tell the elevation form subspecies to species rank took place in 2010 and was published in Turtles of the World, 2010 Update but the authors gave no reason why they changed their mind to that given in 2008. That's the viewpoint of the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group until the last checklist in 2014. That arises another (political) question: is the conservation of a species more valuable than that of a subspecies?

Please keep also in mind that almost all external ids cited below are identifiers for the scientific name within a database and not for taxon concept labeled with this scientific name. --Succu (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Time does not matter, except as extra data. What exists are different taxonomic viewpoints and treatments. Each treament has its own date of publication. This "now" is fleating, and in two years today's "now" is indistinguishable from the "now" of two years ago or from one year from now. - Brya (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This item as it stands

The main focus point is the taxonomic name – Chelonoidis nigra. This can be applied to both concepts. In the "old" concept it is (was) the valid taxonomic name for the only Galapagos tortoise species. In the "new" concept it is a valid taxonomic name for one of the Galapagos tortoise species (in the "old" concept it would be (was) a subspecies Chelonoidis nigra ssp. nigra).

We can work with the "old" concept or we can work with the "new" concept, but we can't have both.

"old" concept

• taxon rank → species; correct
• taxonomic name → Chelonoidis nigra; correct – remember, all Galapagos tortoises are included
• picture - Galapagos giant tortoise Geochelone elephantopus.jpg; correct (it's an unspecified Galapagos tortoise)
• range map – Galapagos tortoise distribution map.svg; correct (the map can be applied to both concepts)
• commons category – c:Category:Chelonoidis nigra; correct category, but the name of the category is misspelled (niger vs. nigra, note that c:Category:Chelonoidis nigra also exists)
• commons gallery – c:Chelonoidis niger; correct – the name of the gallery is correct too (note that c:Chelonoidis niger is redirecting here)
• conservation status – extinct; incorrect – the IUCN entries are in compliance with the new concept
• NCBI identifier – 66189; incorrect – the NCBI entry is about the "Charles Island giant tortoise" (Charles Island = Floreana), not about "Galapagos tortoise", see common name
• GND identifier - 4683293-2; correct (all Galapagos tortoises)
• ITIS TSN – 551778; incorrect – points to the invalid taxonomic name "Geochelone nigra"
• EOL identifier – 794300; correct – the entry is about all Galapagos tortoises
• GBIF identifier – 5220266; incorrect (Charles Island Giant Tortoise)
• CITES – 9794; hard to say, they are mixing it together (click the "Names" bookmark)
• Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID – animal/Galapagos-tortoise; no article on the topics
• ARKive ID – galapagos-giant-tortoise/chelonoidis-nigra; correct (the article is about all Galapagos tortoises)
• iNaturalist taxon ID – 57386; incorrect (Floreana Giant Tortoise) – note that in spite of the name of the page they are transcrobing the en-wiki "Chelonoidis nigra complex" article

"new" concept

• taxon rank → species; correct
• taxonomic name → Chelonoidis nigra; correct – remember, only the Floreana (= Charles Island) tortoise is included
• picture - Galapagos giant tortoise Geochelone elephantopus.jpg; incorrect (it's an unspecified Galapagos tortoise)
• range map – Galapagos tortoise distribution map.svg; usable (the map shows all Galapagos tortoise, but the can Chelonoidis nigra species can be clearly identified)
• commons category – c:Category:Chelonoidis niger; incorrect correct category would be c:Category:Chelonoidis nigra – that category is in the compliance with the "new" concept, and points to the "extinct" Floreana tortoise; the living tortoises pictured there are probably hybrids/descendants mentioned in en:Galápagos tortoise#Floreana Island
• commons gallery – c:Chelonoidis nigra; incorrect (see above)
• conservation status – extinct; correct – the IUCN entries are in compliance with the new concept
• NCBI identifier – 66189; correct
• GND identifier – 4683293-2; incorrect
• ITIS TSN – 551778; incorrect – points to the taxonomic name "Geochelone nigra", should be 949447
• GBIF identifier – 5220266; correct (Charles Island Giant Tortoise)
• EOL identifier – 794300; incorrect
• CITES – 9794; hard to say, they are mixing it together (click the "Names" bookmark)
• Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID – animal/Galapagos-tortoise; no article on the topics
• ARKive ID – galapagos-giant-tortoise/chelonoidis-nigra; incorrect (the article is about all Galapagos tortoises)
• iNaturalist taxon ID – 57386; incorrect (Floreana Giant Tortoise) – note that in spite of the name of the page they are transcrobing the en-wiki "Chelonoidis nigra complex" article

That's what I call a mess. And the interwiki links needs to be sorted too. --Vachovec1 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As you say, we work with the scientific name. If, instead, we were to work with the taxon concept, this would mean:

• checking all Wikipedia pages to see what taxon concept they are using
• putting this item on a Watchlist and commit for a long time to check each new addition
• from time to time, recheck all Wikipedia pages to see if they have changed the taxon concept they are using

And for what? The readers will be confused if they look for a scientific name and find that half of the pages using this scientific name are missing (they are elsewhere).

        Not to mention all kinds of other complications. So, from a pragmatic viewpoint, we put all iw's (sitelinks) that use one scientific name in one item. In fact, often enough, we put all iw's that use homotypic names there as well. Nothing is cast in stone, so there may be exceptions, if there is a good enough reason. But this does not seem the case here. - Brya (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You'll find my answer above. --Succu (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Brya To your points:

1. checking all Wikipedia pages to see what taxon concept they are using – I was doing exactly that (and sorting the IW links accordingly) about four days ago, but I was reverted by Succu.
2. putting this item on a Watchlist and commit for a long time to check each new addition – What is the watchlist used for?
3. from time to time, recheck all Wikipedia pages to see if they have changed the taxon concept they are using – Why? This is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors – when they change the concept they need to check the related wikidata item(s) as well.

For me, as Wikipedia reader and aditor, much more confusing than your "scientific name mess" is when de-wiki article about all Galapagos tortoises is connected with es-wiki article about extinct species/subspecies (pick your choice). Another point is that some data (for example the IUCN entry) in the infoboxes can be taken automatically from a related wikidata item. When an article is talking about all Galapagos tortoises and the infobox says that they are extinct, it's also very confusing (that was the case of rhe cs-wiki article). --Vachovec1 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

To your responses:

1. I was talking to the general principle, which means that this checking of all Wikipedia pages would have to be done for many items.
2. A "Watchlist" keeps track of changes in all pages on the "Watchlist"; placing an item on the "Watchlist" is done by clicking on the star next to the "View history" button.
3. It proves that there are very many Wikipedia editors who don't take "responsibility" very seriously.

The point that Chelonoidis nigra in the strict sense is extinct, but that Chelonoidis nigra in the wide sense is not, would indeed be an argument to split it into two items. - Brya (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Types

Yes. I was pointed to the page Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. I am not completely sure, but it looks like to me (see Item and Homotypic names#Option II), that it's supporting your initial point of view, Brya, that there should be at least three, probably even four separate items:

1. Chelonoidis nigra in the wide sense

2. Chelonoidis nigra in the strict sense

3. Chelonoidis nigra complex

and possibly

4. Chelonoidis nigra ssp. nigra

• #1 and #2 are heterotypic (different "objects"), so they need to be separated (Item).
• #1 and #3 are homotypic (same "objects"), but they shoud be separated too (according Homotypic names#Option II). The same applies to #2 and #4.

All four scientific names are still valid (or at least used) – Chelonoidis nigra in the wide sense Chelonoidis nigra ssp. nigra is one scientific viewpoint, Chelonoidis nigra complex Chelonoidis nigra ssp. nigra is the other. So there should be one item for each name. That would make sense to me. I could work with that. --Vachovec1 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Types are not scientific viewpoints. Scientific viewpoints are relative, "subjective" (but hopefully the result of rigorous science). Types are absolute, "objective" (part of nomenclature). All these names are homotypic; as Chelonoidis nigra complex" is not a (formal) name, it does not have a type.

        Chelonoidis nigra nigra (not written as "Chelonoidis nigra ssp. nigra") should have an item anyway, but there should most likely not be any sitelinks in this item (only if there is at least one Wikipedia that has separate pages for Chelonoidis nigra and Chelonoidis nigra nigra). - Brya (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate item

See Chelonoidis nigra nigra (Q107481890), which was apparently created earlier this year (by a bot, unsurprisingly). Now we essentially have two items for the same species: this one with the incorrect "nigra" feminine spelling as its English label, and the one I linked with the "niger" masculine spelling that is now considered correct as its English label. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We have Galápagos tortoise (Q20014035) too. I moved some enWP sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just merged the duplicate item with this one now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a bad idea. taxon name (P225) should be changed only in rare cases, because there are a lot of backlinks and external id relying on this match. E.g. there are several subspecies in the form Chelonoidis nigra xxx with a now wrong parent (spelling). A better way ist to move sitelinks instead. BTW: Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (8th Ed.) (Q54166072) says nothing about the change of gender. --Succu (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh didn't catch this until now, I just left a reply on your talk page about that. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Apart from that, I have learned that the 9th edition of Turtles of the World that came out this year (at least in online form) actually restores the species complex as subspecies of the original Chelonoidis niger/nigra once more. That'll probably be fun for all those Wikipedias that rewrote the relevant pages for the 8th edition I imagine. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So the winner is the 9th edition? It's a matter of changing taxonomic opinions... How do think WD should reflect this? --Succu (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wish I knew, obviously nobody figured out the problem of multiple taxon concepts sharing the same name back in 2016, judging from discussions above in this talk page. I have also experienced this same problem for myself in dealing with beetle taxa, where a group of beetles at family rank was downgraded to subfamily, and said family also had subfamilies (themselves downgraded to tribes), but both the family and subfamily forms of the group are recognised depending on the source. Wikidata's way of handling taxon names makes sense in a way, but it's a pain when ranks of taxa are changed. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)