User talk:Lavalizard101

Your revert

If you modify descriptions in German, as in Special:Diff/1413254379, please make sure that you get it done correctly. At least capitalization is wrong in this case. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sinraptoridae / Metriacanthosauridae

Hi there. I think you really make a mess of things by merging Q132562 into Q19844924. If I read the articles on several Wikipedia's, there isn't a historical agreement that Sinraptoridae and Metriacanthosauridae are the same. Beyond this they have on the Dutch Wikipedia (and other languages) different articles that explain the difference and connection between Sinraptoridae and Metriacanthosauridae. By merging you disconnect nl:Sinraptoridae from Wikidata. This can't be the intention. If you think there are the same, you better use the statement "said to be the same" on both items or start a discussion about it. Please be more carefull with your merging-actions. I will try to repair this one. GeeJee (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

While historically there wasn't an agreement, since 2012 the synonymy has been accepted by most taxonomists and palaeontologists, while you get the occasional dissenting author it is not at the same level of disagreement as say Nanotyrannus being a synonym of Tyrannosaurus or Stygimoloch and Dracorex being synonyms of Pachycephalosaurus. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Lone dissenting authors and outdated taxonomy at otherlanguage/wikiprojects should not take precedence over accuracy. Heck Wikispecies is so outdated in places that 2012 synonymisations haven't been noted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

First the policy on Wikidata is not to merge when there are sitelink-conflicts. See Help:Merge#Items_to_be_merged_with_sitelink_conflicts. But second, there are anyway historically good reasons to keep both items. The articles on otherlanguage-projects are not outdated, but written in a historical view with attention to the difference/connection. You could mark a taxon in the description or even instance as 'obsolete', see this search. GeeJee (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Policy on Wikidata is never to merge 'synonyms', and for good reason. This would lose a lot of information. It is irrelevant if (at the moment) there is a 100% agreement that one scientific name is the synonym of another scientific name. There may or not may not be agreement in the future, but anyway at some point in the past this agreement was not there. By giving each scientific name its own item, it becomes easy to add all the existing literature, and all historic viewpoints in the literature, to the relevant items.

        This is in contrast to Wikispecies, which aims to represents everything from a single point of view (SPoV), the opposite of the NPoV that Wikipedia purports to adopt. Wikidata is supposed to represent data, as found in the literature. Wikidata does not exist to represent any 'right' point of view, but to help the user find stuff. Also to support the various Wikipedias which may well represent various points of view. - Brya (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I will revert the actions on the items Q132562, Q19844924, Q140061 and Q4540162 again. As discussed here and stated in Help:Merge#Items_to_be_merged_with_sitelink_conflicts, this is not the correct solution for items that are or could be the same. GeeJee (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)