###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q40985505: Cebus sp. (Q40985505) : species of mammal : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Ambiguous, not a valid taxon, and unlinked. Tommy Kronkvist ( talk ) 08:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC) @ Tommy Kronkvist : it has a valid identifier, thus I tend to keep it. If some of the statements are not correct, please use deprecated rank to remove this item from query results. Is that possible? -- MisterSynergy ( talk ) 06:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC) @ MisterSynergy : Perhaps, but I don't think so. As far as I understand it, the NCBI Taxonomy identifier regards a species of virus named Cebine betaherpesvirus 1 (Q24808723) . It has been found in two host species: humans, and in an unspecified specimen belonging to the Gracile capuchin monkey genus Cebus (Q8447051) . The Virus-Host DB page can be found here: https://www.genome.jp/virushostdb/1125844 I'm only guessing here, but it seems the scientists studying this particular strain of virus didn't bother to identify which of the fifteen or so species of the Cebus genus that particular monkey belonged to. The reason for this is of course that they were not really studying the monkey at all, but the virus using it as host. Normally within the field of taxonomy the term "species" or the abbreviation "sp." is only used when failing to pinpoint a particular species within a recognized genus. More or less, "sp." is only a placeholder for a taxon name until the specimen has been properly identified as being a member of a valid species, or described as a new species. In this case however, no one ever tried to do this. In fact, instead of (sort of...) specifying the object as " Cebus sp. " they might just as well simply have called it "monkey". In this particular case " Cebus sp. " doesn't really relate to any specific taxon at all – hence, it can never be a "deprecated" taxon either. Lastly, perhaps @ Pigsonthewing have an opinion about all this? He's familiar with most things about taxonomy, and on top of that also knows more about the Wikidata tech details than me. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist ( talk ), 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC) . Thanks for asking. I have no definitve answer. On the one hand, MisterSynergy is correct in regard the identifier making it notable. On the other, if it is valid, why not the same for every other (non-monotypic) genus? Perhaps we should keep it, but with a different value for P31? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-) The item was created by User:Magnus Manske , apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410) . If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC) @ MisterSynergy : Perhaps, but I don't think so. As far as I understand it, the NCBI Taxonomy identifier regards a species of virus named Cebine betaherpesvirus 1 (Q24808723) . It has been found in two host species: humans, and in an unspecified specimen belonging to the Gracile capuchin monkey genus Cebus (Q8447051) . The Virus-Host DB page can be found here: https://www.genome.jp/virushostdb/1125844 I'm only guessing here, but it seems the scientists studying this particular strain of virus didn't bother to identify which of the fifteen or so species of the Cebus genus that particular monkey belonged to. The reason for this is of course that they were not really studying the monkey at all, but the virus using it as host. Normally within the field of taxonomy the term "species" or the abbreviation "sp." is only used when failing to pinpoint a particular species within a recognized genus. More or less, "sp." is only a placeholder for a taxon name until the specimen has been properly identified as being a member of a valid species, or described as a new species. In this case however, no one ever tried to do this. In fact, instead of (sort of...) specifying the object as " Cebus sp. " they might just as well simply have called it "monkey". In this particular case " Cebus sp. " doesn't really relate to any specific taxon at all – hence, it can never be a "deprecated" taxon either. Lastly, perhaps @ Pigsonthewing have an opinion about all this? He's familiar with most things about taxonomy, and on top of that also knows more about the Wikidata tech details than me. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist ( talk ), 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC) . Thanks for asking. I have no definitve answer. On the one hand, MisterSynergy is correct in regard the identifier making it notable. On the other, if it is valid, why not the same for every other (non-monotypic) genus? Perhaps we should keep it, but with a different value for P31? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-) The item was created by User:Magnus Manske , apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410) . If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks for asking. I have no definitve answer. On the one hand, MisterSynergy is correct in regard the identifier making it notable. On the other, if it is valid, why not the same for every other (non-monotypic) genus? Perhaps we should keep it, but with a different value for P31? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-) The item was created by User:Magnus Manske , apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410) . If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-) The item was created by User:Magnus Manske , apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410) . If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC) @ MisterSynergy : Perhaps, but I don't think so. As far as I understand it, the NCBI Taxonomy identifier regards a species of virus named Cebine betaherpesvirus 1 (Q24808723) . It has been found in two host species: humans, and in an unspecified specimen belonging to the Gracile capuchin monkey genus Cebus (Q8447051) . The Virus-Host DB page can be found here: https://www.genome.jp/virushostdb/1125844 I'm only guessing here, but it seems the scientists studying this particular strain of virus didn't bother to identify which of the fifteen or so species of the Cebus genus that particular monkey belonged to. The reason for this is of course that they were not really studying the monkey at all, but the virus using it as host. Normally within the field of taxonomy the term "species" or the abbreviation "sp." is only used when failing to pinpoint a particular species within a recognized genus. More or less, "sp." is only a placeholder for a taxon name until the specimen has been properly identified as being a member of a valid species, or described as a new species. In this case however, no one ever tried to do this. In fact, instead of (sort of...) specifying the object as " Cebus sp. " they might just as well simply have called it "monkey". In this particular case " Cebus sp. " doesn't really relate to any specific taxon at all – hence, it can never be a "deprecated" taxon either. Lastly, perhaps @ Pigsonthewing have an opinion about all this? He's familiar with most things about taxonomy, and on top of that also knows more about the Wikidata tech details than me. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist ( talk ), 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC) . Thanks for asking. I have no definitve answer. On the one hand, MisterSynergy is correct in regard the identifier making it notable. On the other, if it is valid, why not the same for every other (non-monotypic) genus? Perhaps we should keep it, but with a different value for P31? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-) The item was created by User:Magnus Manske , apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410) . If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks for asking. I have no definitve answer. On the one hand, MisterSynergy is correct in regard the identifier making it notable. On the other, if it is valid, why not the same for every other (non-monotypic) genus? Perhaps we should keep it, but with a different value for P31? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-) The item was created by User:Magnus Manske , apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410) . If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks for asking. I have no definitve answer. On the one hand, MisterSynergy is correct in regard the identifier making it notable. On the other, if it is valid, why not the same for every other (non-monotypic) genus? Perhaps we should keep it, but with a different value for P31? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-) The item was created by User:Magnus Manske , apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410) . If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)