[10:41:06] I'm about to correct some bad data, and would welcome guidance on whether I'm doing the right thing. [10:41:06] Q912336 (genus Dama) has the correct parent taxon Cervini, but also a weird second parent taxon Bovidae, which isn't cited or backed up in any sources I can find, but might be based on mixing this genus (Dama) up with the dama gazelle (Q725736). [10:41:06] My solution is to mark the Bovidae parent taxon as deprecated, with reason "uncitedness", and add a "different from" claim to the dama gazelle. Is that about right? [10:43:01] mtorpey: I would look into the history first to try to see where that statement comes from [10:43:05] in this case it seems to be a merge https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q912336&diff=prev&oldid=2439302044 [10:43:13] so you might want to check if that merge was correct or ought to be reverted [10:43:19] (I’m not gonna look into it right now, sorry) [11:33:53] I've taken a look at this. It seems like the merge between those two pages was valid, but the only referenced source on the merged item is the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan, which I can't access or read. The "parent taxon" field never had a reference, and I can't find any sources that agree with it. [11:35:23] If deprecating it seems too strong, should I perhaps mark the correct parent as preferred, with reason "best referenced value"? [12:03:37] tbh I would go the other way and say it’s fine to just remove the statement [12:03:45] given that it has no sources [12:04:09] I think the usual reason not to remove a statement would be if you expect some bot to add it back, but this doesn’t look like that kind of situation [12:13:22] Fair enough! Then I'll just delete it. [12:13:30] That's easier than learning Uzbek anyway! [12:14:17] ^^