Talk:Q830

There are three names that may be used:

• Bos primigenius (joint species)
• Bos primigenius taurus (a separate subspecies)
• Bos taurus (a separate species)

(not possible is Bos taurus primigenius). In principle also possible is Bos taurus taurus, although it is hard to imagine what would be in that taxon. Brya (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the importance of the subject it is not surprising that this is very confused, with a high degree of error. Wikipedia's appear to have pages on these concepts:

• cattle (as a general phenomenon)
• the joint species
• the domestic animal as a separate taxon
• the domestic animal as two separate taxa
• the cow (the female)
• the bull (the male)
• the calf (a child)
• Bos taurus taurus [???]
• the other domestic animal, the zebu
• the aurochs

Of these, the pages on cattle, cows, bulls, and calfs do not concern taxa (they do not go by a scientific name). Pages by a scientific name are (or could be):

• Bos primigenius: either the joint species, or the aurochs
• Bos primigenius taurus: this is unambiguous
• Bos primigenius indicus: this is unambiguous
• Bos primigenius taurus + Bos primigenius indicus: two taxa on one page
• Bos taurus: either the joint species (in error!), or the domesticated mammal
• Bos taurus taurus: this could be a genuine taxon (treating the domestic animal as a species, with two subspecies), but appears, in at least most cases (and likely in all cases), to be just an error for Bos primigenius taurus.
• Bos taurus primigenius: this is just in error.

It is not really possible to sort this out crisply. - Brya (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt. Possibilities for the taxonomy are:

- I. one species

- I.a. Bos primigenius : the joint species (Q168903, partially)

- I.a.1. - Bos primigenius primigenius : aurochs (Q12255446)

- I.a.2. - Bos primigenius taurus : western domesticated cattle

- I.a.3. - Bos primigenius inducus : zebu (Q46889)

- II. two separate species

- II.a. - Bos primigenius : aurochs (Q168903, partially)

- II.b. - Bos taurus : joint domesticated cattle

- II.b.1. - Bos taurus taurus : western domesticated cattle (Q20747712)

- II.b.2. - Bos taurus indicus : zebu

- III. three separate species

- III.a. - Bos primigenius : aurochs (Q168903, partially)

- III.b. - Bos taurus : western domesticated cattle

- III.c. - Bos indicus : zebu (Q20747726)

- [IV. alternate reality, disallowed by the ICZN

- IV.a. Bos taurus - for the joint species (Q18721961)

- IV.a.1. - Bos taurus primigenius : always in error

- IV.a.2. - Bos taurus taurus : in error in this sense (Q19995054), but see II.b.1.

- IV.a.3. - Bos taurus indicus : in error in this sense, but see II.b.2. ]

Making for fifteen concepts, in all. This does not take account the less usual, but allowable, outlying taxonomic viewpoints. Also leaving aside the non-taxonomic possibilities (cows, dairy cattle, cattle, etc). As best I can make out, Q830 presently deals with I.a.2, II.b, II.b.1, II.b.1 + II.b.2, III.b, IV.a, and IV.a.2 (seven concepts). - Brya (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: The current description is very confusing and excessively long (it is 22 words long, while the guidelines recommend two to twelve words). It also seems more concerned with taxonomy than disambiguation. It looks to me like there should be 4 primary Wikidata items related to cattle:

• Domesticated cattle in general (includes European/taurine cattle and zebus)
• Zebus (Brahman/Bos taurus indicus/Bos indicus/Bos primigenius indicus)
• European/taurine cattle (Bos taurus taurus/Bos taurus/Bos primigenius taurus)
• Aurochs (Bos primigenius/Bos taurus)

These can be disambiguated as follows:

• cattle - "domesticated bovine mammals (including taurine cattle and zebus)"
• zebus - "species or sub-species of domesticated cattle originating in South Asia"
• taurine cattle - "domesticated cattle excluding zebus"
• aurochs - "ancestor of domesticated cattle"

How does that sound? (There could also theoretically be a Wikidata item for the taxon of domesticated cattle + aurochs, but I'm not sure there are any Wikipedias that actually cover both in the same article.) Kaldari (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not really how to order this mess into separate items. At one point I had sorted it into reasonably clear separate items. It is just that almost everybody on the planet has an idea of what cattle are, and they all want their Wikipedia page in this item, no matter what the page is actually about. The resulting confused item is there, as a force of nature, for us to deal with, as best we can. I don't see how we can disambiguate it better than it now is. - Brya (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: Right now, the interwiki links for this item aren't equivalent to each other. Some of them are for European cattle only (German, Spanish) and some are for all domesticated cattle (English, French). A Wikidata item can't represent two different concepts. If a wiki doesn't have separate articles for these two different concepts, they are free to create them, but we can't merge them on Wikidata just to facilitate interwiki links. This is discussed in depth at Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items, in particular: "Wikidata should hold one item for each individual entity/concept, plus one item representing the combined entity (such as Bonnie Parker (Q2319886), Clyde Barrow (Q3320282) and Bonnie and Clyde (Q219937)). Sitelinks of different language wikidatas should be associated to the item matching the best concept of each article." Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the theory. However, I tried it, and it does not work in this case. There are tens of thousands of users in Wikimedia (maybe hundreds of thousands) who have a very strong idea of what cattle are, and their 'concept' can not be translated to one taxon. I see no way to convince all those tens (hundreds) of thousands users in Wikimedia that what they feel so strongly is wrong. - Brya (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: I don't understand what you mean. "Cattle" is an English word. It means domesticated bovines. It's not a taxonomic term. If a word in another language means domesticated bovines, it's the same item. If it doesn't mean domesticated bovines, it's not the same item. The taxon of European cattle ≠ domesticated bovines. Those are two different concepts. One includes zebus, the other doesn't. Having good interwiki links is always second priority to having clear item definitions. This is why we have separate items for hatter and hatmaking, grape and Vitis, etc. It's true that the "Bonnie and Clyde problem" makes interwiki links hopelessly fragmented, but the consensus on Wikidata is to use clear item definitions, not to try to merge all the definitions from the existing interwiki links. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a bit more complicated than that. There are three classes of animals involved 'European cattle', zebus and the aurochs. These three classes result in more concepts. But the real problem is not to separate out the iw-links in a consistent matter, but in the fact that tens of thousands of users in Wikimedia (maybe hundreds of thousands) have their own concept and they represent a reality. In Wikipedia's there are more errors than I can count, and which cannot be corrected. That is just the way it is. I was glad enough to be able to sort out banana (that proved to be doable, just). - Brya (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that some of the Wikipedias are hopelessly confused about the taxonomy and relationships between 'European cattle', zebus and the aurochs (many of them aren't even internally consistent between articles). If you want to see an even bigger mess, check out the zebra articles. The best we can do is provide clear item definitions and hope that they sort out their confusion. I would avoid referring to taxonomy as much as possible in this case, since taxonomy changes and is inconsistent between different sources. Just define each item as some combination of European cattle, zebus, and aurochs. At least those three concepts are fairly stable. The existing definition isn't helping anyone though, as it's completely confusing and ambiguous (and far too long). Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is bad. But you will have noticed that taxonomy is indeed kept of the "cattle" and "zebra" items. That is also the point of the description here at cattle; to warn off users from trying to put in a particular taxonomy. - Brya (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is still no clear definition of what this item is. Is this item European cattle or all domesticated cattle? We have to choose one or the other. Kaldari (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is not what the problem is. The problem is that we cannot choose, because no such choice is going to be accepted. It is a mess, and the best we can do is to minimize the mess. - Brya (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could just force a decision by creating an article on English Wikipedia for European/taurine cattle :) Kaldari (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let us know how that turns out ;) - Brya (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article for taurine cattle has been created on en.wiki and seems to be stable (it's been two weeks and no one has nominated it for deletion). The Wikidata id is Q19995054. I went ahead and updated a couple things here that overlapped with that item, but I've been extremely conservative. For example, the only interwiki link that I moved was the Spanish one. Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does not help. It is possible to recognize a Bos taurus taurus but of necessity it is a subspecies of domesticated cattle. What the other subspecies would be is open to question. It is possible (but unpopular) to have both 'European' domestic cattle and zebus in one species; of necessity such a species must exclude the aurochs. The "but are now typically grouped with zebus and aurochs into one species, Bos taurus" is a fable, as explained above. - Brya (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: There's already an item for domesticated cattle (taurine cattle + zebus): Q4767951. This item should be distinct from that one. Here are all the items we need (which conveniently all exist already):

• domesticated cattle (taurine cattle + zebus): Q4767951
• Bos taurus (taxon; taurine cattle + zebus + aurochs): Q830
• taurine cattle: Q19995054
• zebus: Q46889
• aurochs: Q168903

I think this is the cleanest organization we can hope for. Is there any reason the items above are not adequate? It's basically identical to the list you proposed above (on 4 January 2015). Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with this, the first and foremost of which is that "Bos taurus (taxon; taurine cattle + zebus + aurochs)" is impossible. There is no such joint species and it cannot ever exist.

        The joint species is called Bos primigenius. The name Bos taurus can be used for a species, but only for a species of domesticated cattle, either 'European cattle' + zebus of for 'European cattle' only. - Brya (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bos taurus and Bos primigenius are synonyms (according to most sources). Zoologists are not required to follow the recommendations of the ICZN and in this case they largely haven't. Look at Mammal Special of the World (the taxonomic standard for mammals on English Wikipedia), ITIS, the journal Science, or pretty much any recent scientific source. They all agree that taurine cattle + zebus + aurochs are one species and the name of that species is Bos taurus. If you really want to use Bos primigenius, I'm fine with that too, but just be aware that Bos taurus is still the overwhelmingly preferred name in the scientific literature (by a 7 to 1 margin since the ICZN decision according to Google Scholar). You state that there are "several problems with this", but only mentioned one. What are the other problems? Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-removed the taurine cattle subspecies aliases as these are covered by Q19995054. This item and Q19995054 cannot both represent the same subspecies. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a meaningful discussion you had better avoid phrases like "Bos taurus and Bos primigenius are synonyms" which are essentially meaningless and will be read differently by different users. I don't know what you mean by "the recommendations of the ICZN". There is no recommendation of the ICZN here, but an official ruling. This means that if anyone wants to use a Code-compliant name he knows what to do.

        You can't refer to Mammal Special of the World as evidence here, they are not an independent source but the cause of the problem (talk about circular reasoning!). It should be pretty widely known that ITIS is not particularly reliable. The quoted page of Science does not support your position at all (not a trace anywhere). The fact that Bos taurus is a common result in Google does not mean anything, as Bos taurus is a perfectly good name that may be used for a particular taxonomic concept. - Brya (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I'm fine with using Bos primigenius if that's what you prefer. Were there any other issues with my proposed organization? Kaldari (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would be so good to restate it, using Bos primigenius? - Brya (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "the taurine cattle subspecies aliases [...] are covered by Q19995054" is not relevant, as these aliases do apply to what is in Q830, and help the reader figure out the mess in Q830: they serve a useful function there. Wikidata is full of aliases that have a separate item themselves. - Brya (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya, Kaldari: I am reading the above discussion for the first time. It seems to be very academic, and I don't see any mention of the fact that the entry's description appears to Wikipedia readers in the real world, via the iOS and Android smartphone apps. The current English description "species of mammal (or half that species) or a different species (or two thirds of that species)" is rather startling in that context. Please see this thread on the English Wikipedia talk page for Cattle. To be honest, my first impression was that the description in Wikidata must have been vandalized, but apparently not. Would it not be possible to come up with something that would be more meaningful to a Wikipedia reader, while still acceptable as a disambiguator for Wikidata? – Wdchk (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this is being worked on. The "descriptions" in Wikidata are intended to disambiguate the item (in this case to make clear the difference with "cattle") and are not meant to be shown on mobile devices. Efforts are underway to find a different solution. - Brya (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions are meant to be shown on mobile devices (to assist with search disambiguation) and very soon will be shown to all Wikipedia users.[1] You are correct that descriptions are meant to disambiguate. The description of this item does a very poor job of that, mainly because this item fails to follow Wikidata guidelines by restricting its scope to a single concept. Myself and others have tried to resolve this, but Brya has fought to keep the current description intact. Kaldari (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari, spare your personal attacks. WD descriptions where never intended for this purpose. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikidata descriptions are soon going to be part of search results for all Wikipedia users,[2] I would like to try to work towards a consensus on fixing the scope and definitions of cattle-related Wikidata items. Here is my proposal for organizing them (based on the ICZN nomenclature per Brya's request). I know that these don't 100% match up to the current interwiki links, but once we decide on the scope of each item, we can clean up the interwiki links and try to keep things more organized:

Current Item	New Label	New Description
cattle (Q4767951)	cattle	domesticated cattle (taurine cattle + zebus)
cattle (Q830)	Bos primigenius	taurine cattle + zebus + aurochs
taurine cattle (Q19995054)	taurine cattle	domesticated cattle, excluding zebus
Bos primigenius indicus (Q46889)	zebus	domesticated cattle, excluding taurine cattle
Bos primigenius (Q168903)	aurochs	ancestor to modern cattle

Please let me know which of these sound reasonable and which you would like to change (or feel free to create your own proposal). Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari, Brya, Succu: If there is an interwiki mess, it may be a good usecase for WD:XLINK. Could one of you add it there and describe it a little bit ? author  TomT0m / talk page 18:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that more attention is only going to make it it more complicated. - Brya (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: Taxonomy and group of animals can be anyway challenging for interwiki-ing, so it may be worth to think of it, as it may pop over and over again, and that there is an actual community related problem here that needs to be solved. Anyway it's totally in the scope of the cross item interwiki project, so it has to be there :) You know my position on generic group of animals versus taxonomically one defined, I think it's managable with classes and typing classes. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TomT0m: Sitelinks are not usefull to model different taxonomic concepts. --Succu (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Oh no, but taxonomies concepts are useful to build sitelinks. And classes are useful to model taxonomies concepts, as they are usually used to build taxonomies (in the broad sense). author  TomT0m / talk page 19:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you're talking about, TomT0m. --Succu (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Succu: Then stop bothering me. It's a case of potential interwiki conflict which could be a good casestudy for WD:XLINK, that's all. Kaldari just tells about interwikis in its introduction. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good case, except if the purpose is to create trouble. It is to be hoped that in the long run Wikipedia's will clean up their pages, but this is unlikely to happen in the short term. - Brya (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: Can you elaborate ? This seems to me like a kind of cultural particulartly "Bonnie and Clyde" like popular denominations covers various combinations of species and where scientific taxonomy classifies organisms in a different way. As you said if there is an optimal solution then it will take time to be reached, and we still have to maintain some kind of interwikis ... author  TomT0m / talk page 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It involves three different universes, two of which are not rational. The actual problems are not here, but in the Wikipedia's. - Brya (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: If in some culture some animals are called a name, and that does not exactly match scientific classification, it has nothing to do with rationality. Rationality is in first approximation to use their way of talking to say things, it makes easier to communicate. Then you can explain that actually scientific classification explain a different history and different groups of animals ... author  TomT0m / talk page 18:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It irritated zoologists that Wilson & Reeder Mammal species of the world was dealing with the names of domesticated mammals in a manner that was internally inconsistent and in many cases contrary to established practice. These zoologists applied to the ICZN to have the name of the wild species officially given preference over the name of domesticated mammals. This was widely supported by other zoologists. In the end, the ICZN indeed ruled like that. The response by Wilson & Reeder was along the lines of "It has now officially been established that what we were doing was wrong? Well we don't care!" and they continued as they had been doing. - Brya (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brya: could you validate these edits: [3], [4]? Another way is deleting these identifiers from cattle (Q830). — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are probably OK. This item is a huge headache, no matter how it is approached. - Brya (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between Q4767951 and this item is very unclear, so I am moving most of the links from Q4767951 here, as this item has more links and more links from large wikipedias. --Jklamo (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole general area is a mess, an example of "many eyeballs make more of a mess". Just adding links, regardless of topic, makes it worse. - Brya (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the links that are already listed under that item, it appears to be mostly devoted to domesticated cattle (with more of an emphasis on agriculture than biology). Since this item (Q830) doesn't have a clear definition, it's hard to decide where any of the interlanguage links should go. Personally, I think we should define this item as the combined species Bos taurus (aurochs + taurine cattle + zebus), since everything else is already covered by different items with semi-clear definitions. Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there can not exist a Bos taurus (aurochs + taurine cattle + zebus) as a joint species. - Brya (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cs:Tur domácí at Q830, sk:Tur domáci at Q4767951; co:Vacca or gl:Vaca at Q830, lad:Vaka or gn:Vaka at Q4767951.... simply total mess. And due that mess many small wikis are without links to major wikis (Q4767951 has no links to en, es or fr). --Jklamo (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is bad. At Wikidata we have to deal with Wikipedia's, as they are. And since it is such a popular topic, the pages at Wikipedia's are a mess (starting with the enwiki page). Also, quite a few of these pages have extremely little content (co:Vacca, gn:Vaka). So, the best way to manage some order is to have all pages that claim to be dealing with the taxon that holds 'Eurasian' domesticated cattle in Q830. That are alreay five different concepts of what this taxon is, and is a headache by itself. But the basic criterium is whether a page has a taxobox or not. - Brya (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary access is coming. This should help to link no interwiki items with items with more interwikis. For example we could insrt a template which links non taxonomic animals groups with their taxonomic counterpart and show a Reasonator link to the value of this property. Would it help here ? @Brya, Jklamo: TomT0m ^(talk) 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the wikipedia:Talk:Cattle page...

When I search for "cattle" in either the iOS or Android Wikipedia app, it shows a definition under the title of the article. The definition that's currently showing doesn't seem correct. It reads :"Species of mammal (or half that species) or a different species (or two thirds of that species)". If I knew how to change that, I would. I've included a link to an image that shows what I'm talking :about. Fishnet37222 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://i.imgur.com/TTAvdlr.png

Is anyone here familiar with the iOS/Android Wikipedia app? Or why it would be returning Wikidata info? Faolin42 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has the attention of the developers. - Brya (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even change the "species of mammal (or half that species) or a different species (or two thirds of that species)" statement, which is gibberish. Montanabw (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you would have bothered to read Help:Description you would have known that the purpose of this "description" is to disambiguate.

        If you would have bothered to look through the pages of other Wikipedias linked in this item, you would have known this is entirely accurate. - Brya (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The instance of (P31) statement is a mess. How can this item beeing Is this a set of animals, a vernacular name ??

• ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ Bos primigenius indicus (Q46889)    ⟩
• ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ taurine cattle (Q20747712)    ⟩
• ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ Bos primigenius taurus (Q20747320)    ⟩
• ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ Bos taurus (Q20747334)    ⟩
• ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ common name (Q502895)    ⟩

If its a name, it should be a name in a language and have a name property. If its a set of animals regrouping, say

• ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ taurine cattle (Q20747712)    ⟩
• ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ Bos primigenius indicus (Q46889)    ⟩

then it should be that the set of animals called bos taurus is the union of (see Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic § subclass) the set of animals called zebu and so on. But as is ... wtf ? This enlights that names are not the entities to be manupulated in Wikidata author  TomT0m / talk page 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to connect foods to the type of organism that produce them, so one can tell if a food comes from a plant, animal, fungus, or bacteria. Cattle are an extremely common source of food, and I'm noticing some irregularities that got established here over time, for various reasons.

Because this 'Cattle' item is not an instance of a 'taxon', a property that is reasonably assumed to apply to 'cattle' will not validate under today's constraints. In particular, if you state that cattle produce 'cows milk', the system will throw a warning that a constraint is violated. The property P1672 and its inverse P1582 have the constraint that the item be an instance of 'taxon' or 'common name' (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1582), but this is an instance of 'group of organisms known by one particular common name' (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55983715).

From reading through the long discussion above, one proposal was that cattle be tied into a taxonomy of organisms by citing it as an instance of an umbrella ancestor species. So 'cattle' will be described as an instance of Bos primigenius (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q168903). This seems reasonable to me, and would solve my issue. Is there anyone or anything stopping us from implementing that?

Another solution that seems to be correct would be to change the properties P1672 and its inverse P1582 (those essentially mean 'this taxon is source of'), so they validate when using 'group of organisms known by one particular common name' (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55983715). That currently validates with 'common name' as well as 'taxon', so it doesn't seem like a big stretch to extend it to 'group of organisms known by one particular common name'. I've added a topic to that property to see if it can be changed.

Changing P1582 is quite logical and is already done by Steinerc1. But it is strange to say that "cattle produce cows milk" because in fact "cows produce cows milk". And of course cattle can't be an instance of Bos primigenius, it's ontological nonsense. Emily the Cow (Q17811543) is a cow, and Q830 is a class. --Infovarius (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add an article about cow from Wikipedia bahaso Minangkabau (Jawi), but the item data has been locked. Would you mind to add this one to this interwiki? Thank you Ardzun (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Brya (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ardzun (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Edit request}} Please remove the alias added when merging items: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q830&diff=1385240381&oldid=1385211422 It was added, possibly as a placeholder, when the merged item was created: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106036935&oldid=1385204593  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.161.112.107 (talk • contribs) at 7 December 2021 (UTC).

 Done Bovlb (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]