Archive1 to Jan 2013
Archive2 to Mar 2017

Oversight nomination


Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pallas volumes


Hello! What's up with the "4 to 3 volumes" in the {{Pallas,PS, 1771}} template you created a few years back? (Also, you might want to see the diff. with my changes.) Is that a typo? It should say "3 volumes", right? Or have I totally misunderstood it? That wouldn't be the first time, so please excuse me if that's the case... :-) All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC).Reply

The "4to" as originally written without a space is a publishers shorthand for stating that the size of the pages is "quarto", part of a measurement system that predates modern digital civilisation. I have reinstated the abbreviation but separated it from the "3" so that the two numbers are more separated and this may avoid further confusion. Accassidy (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for correcting the template, and for the explanation. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC).Reply



Hi Alan! Please take a look at the edit history of Anadara. I haven't got a clue about the vast complexity of the synonymy going on there (in Euploea, that is) but thought I should make you aware of the edits. Hopefully everything is fine, but contrary to you I can't really say. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC).Reply

Anadara is a valid genus name in mollusca, authored by Gray, 1847. Frederic Moore appears to have made a synonym in 1884 by creating an insect genus of the same name, and which was in any case synonymous with Euploea Fabricius.
I will create a page Anadara (Lepidoptera) and redirect that to Euploea. It will then come up in searches, and may be of use to researchers in Lepidoptera.
Thanks for pointing it out. Accassidy 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your quick response. I've added a disambiguation hat-note to the Anadara page, linking to Euploea. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC).Reply

"Schroder, Treadaway, Nuyda, 1993" template


Hi again Alan. Regarding the {{Schroder,Treadaway,Nuyda, 1993}} template, shouldn't the citation read Fil-Kulisap 12: 5–7, 10–11, 20 rather than Fil-Kulisap l(2):5 -7,10-11, 20. Or in full wiki code: ''Fil-Kulisap'' 12: 5–7, 10–11, 20 rather than ''Fil-Kulisap'' '''l'''(2):5 -7,10-11, 20 ?

Also, I guess it would be best to rename it {{Schröder, Treadaway, Nuyda, 1993}} with spacing as in proper author designations, but that's perhaps not as important. Friendly greetings, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC).Reply

Actually, I believe it is correct as it is. It refers to Volume 1, issue number 2, of the magazine. The volume is in bold and the Issue number in brackets. This is an established convention among many publishers. Accassidy 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC) (Moved back from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#"Schroder, Treadaway, Nuyda, 1993" template since the discussion started here.)Reply
Okay, if you say so. :-) The reason I asked is that I came across this page: ErurekaMag might not be the most scientifically correct webpage out there, but I still felt I had to ask. Regardless, the volume number "1" in the template is actually a lower case "L" rather than a digit, and should of course be changed. Using bold text for the volume number contradicts consensus and our Village Pump poll on reference format, but in most cases I don't think the finer details of text formatting is a huge deal. (Although I generally correct it anyway, if I happen to edit the page for other reasons.)
Thanks for your recent Lycaenidae fixes! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC).Reply
Odd, but I don't remember being aware of, nor making a contribution to, the Reference format consensus. I would prefer bold volume numbers as thatis the convention I grew up with, but for new references I will conform to the consensus.Feel free to change older ones as you come across them.. Accassidy (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
You're right, you didn't take part in that particular Village Pump discussion. However a total of 13 users did. 11 of them voted in the poll, and 2 abstained from voting. Considering that there are only about 180 active users on Wikispecies I'd say that's a fair number anyway, and the result is since then reflected on the Help:Reference section page. As a last note in this discussion, I've changed the letter "L" in the template to the digit "1". Best wishes, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC).Reply
Yes, the right thing to do. Easy to look at but not see... Accassidy (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Afarsia morgiana



You have create Afarsia morgiana. I have a few questions.

  • 1. is the original combination Cupido morgiana?
  • 2. Where are the subspecies?
  • 3. I have a new subspecies Plebejus morgianus lorestanensis, described by Jean-Francois Charmeux, 2016 in Lépidoptères - Revue des Lépidoptéristes de France 25(65): 104-106. Can I tranfer it to Afarsia morgiana or is Plebejus morgianus reinstate?

PeterR (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Peter, the authority for Afarsia is Talavera. I would stay with this, unless the new paper contains a specific rebuttal to Talavera. I am not aware of any other subspecies, hence there are none listed. You can create pages for the new and the nominotypical subspecies. This would be the minimum change. Accassidy (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Alan thanks. There are three other subspecies: blomi, badgeri and montetaftanus (information funet). I shall add them today. PeterR (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thnk you. I am in South Africa for a few weeks and rather out of touch. Accassidy (talk)

Phoenicurusia Verity, 1943



Did you already read Zootaxa 4306 (1): 137–139, 2017 from Krupitsky about the status of Phoenicurusia Verity, 1943?

PeterR (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Peter, no I have not read this before. The first significant change is that "differences in the male genitalia structure supporting distinct genera Phoenicurusia and Athamanthia". So we should elevate subgenus Phoenicurusia to genus and associate the subordinate species accordingly. I will not be able to do this in the near future as I am a long way from home. Please go ahead if you can. Accassidy (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply


Discolampa ethion
Discolampa sp.

Hi Alan. Thanks for creating the many Discolampa pages. As a curiosity, did you know that in Swedish "discolampa" literally means "disco light"? Fairly suitable, I think. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC).Reply

I guess it means something similar in a lot of places now, but in Nederlands in 1920s it was probably something else. Or maybe Minheer Toxopeus was well ahead of his time!! Accassidy (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
(Message moved back from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#Discoblanca [sic] since the discussion started here.)

Vandalism of user pages


Hi, I'd like to ask a question. What happens if somebody vandals a page or user page? Does it get reverted? What if somebody does that to my user page, so many times, does that mean that eventually my page will be protected from vandalism? Penny Rose Smith (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Penny Rose Smith (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Chilades contracta


Does this a valid species now. Only Chilades parrhasius is mentioned in all new books in India. Jkadavoor (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reference format


Hi Alan! I know we've discussed this before, but please note that your recent copy edit of the {{Fruhstorfer, 1902b}} template doesn't comply with the outcome of Wikispecies' Village Pump poll on reference format back in December 2015, which lay ground for the version of the user guidelines in Help:Reference section we still use. (That poll took all aspects of the reference format into consideration. When specifically talking about whether to (not) use bold type for volume numbers, 2 users voted "yes", and 9 users voted "no".) Here on your talk page in September 2017 you and me had our first discussion about reference format were you wrote "I would prefer bold volume numbers as that is the convention I grew up with, but for new references I will conform to the consensus. Feel free to change older ones as you come across them." Today, since I was already adding BHL templates and ISSN links to your newly created Fruhstorfer reference template, I figured I might as well go ahead and also replace the text formatting with the format preferred by the community. In our talks you and me shared the opinion that these aren't matters of huge importance, and I still feel the same way. Also, I think you know I'm not the guy who would start an edit war – especially not with one of our best contributors! 😃 Hence I'm not going to "revert your revert" but please don't change a recommended format into an unrecommended ditto in the future, at least not simply for the sake of doing so without also making other (more important?) changes at the same time. That's all for now. As always: thank you for your very welcome contributions! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC).Reply

Just me falling back to old habits. Thanks for the reminder. Will keep to unbold in future if I remember. Accassidy 19:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC) — The preceding comment was moved from another user talk page, since the discussion was initiated here.Reply
No worries. On other matters if you like, please have a look at Problems in User:Knson2 edits at the Village Pump, and New user group for editing sitewide CSS and JavaScripts on the Admins' Noticeboard. Neither of them has anything to do with reference formats, nor each other. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC).Reply
I have looked at both those situations, but they are a bit beyond my level of expertise to resolve myself. I am content that you will do the best thing under the circumstances. Accassidy (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kretania martinii vs. martini


Hi Accassidy,

I see that both spellings (martini / martinii) were used in the original description, and martini seems to be widely considered as the correct one (I have never heard martinii). Would you please modify the page Kretania martinii? Thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

–––––––––––––––––––––– (The text below was copied from User_talk:LamBoet.)

Thanks for your comment, and well spotted. However, the original spelling of martinii is actually used by Allard on both the text and the accompanying plate. I have included links to both of these original pages. Also, Bridges suggests that there was an "incorrect original spelling", but without any justification. So there is need for a discussion regarding the validity/precedence of the original spelling as against current usage.My feeling is that original spellings are correct unless there are clear ambiguities in the original text, and that is not the case here. There is also a similar issue, oddly enough, with Kretania allardii which has had either spelling in the past, but seems settled on the -ii ending. We can discuss this further, but for the moment I feel it better to stay with Allard's original spelling of martinii until there is clearer resolution. Can you explain why the original spelling with double-i might be "incorrect"? We can no longer ask Mr. Allard!! Accassidy (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Accassidy: actually, Mr. Allard used the martini spelling at page 323, as the title of the description itself. That's why I wrote that both spellings are used in this original description: this is actually an ambiguity. According to Article 32.2.1 of the ICZN, in such a case, the correct original spelling is the one chosen by the first reviser. But I don't know who the first reviser is. I suspect that martini makes more sense since it is derived fron the name of "Mr. Emmanuel Martin", but this is probably not for us to decide. Unless we find more information, I think it is best that we follow the principle of least surprise, i.e. using martini. --LamBoet (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
About Kretania allardii: yes, I was aware of this; funny how such ambiguities reproduce. But this case seems a bit simpler, because only the allardii spelling is used in the original description (as far as I can see). --LamBoet (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Accassidy: Are you OK with this, and can you make the change, or shall I? Cheers --LamBoet (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

–––––––––––––––––––––– (End of copy.)

...Thanks for getting in touch. I have to answer here as you do not have a user page.
If you look at the original text and plate, you will see that the name given was martinii. The only odd thing about this original print is that the dot is left off the second "i" on the plate caption. However, the stem of the second "i" is clearly printed and carries the author's intention. I have made a page with the single "i" spelling and it links to the double "i" page. That others have mis-read the original in intervening years is not cause to change the original spelling. I have also added an explanatory note at the completion of the synonymy. I think this is sufficient for now, until a convincing argument for a single "i" is put forward. Accassidy (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Accassidy: I do have a talk page (you used it last week ;-) ) and I wrote to you from there, but it seems like you did not read all my answers. (Does the template "reply to" not send notifications in Wikispecies as it does in Wikipedia?) To make things simpler, I have just copied all messages back here, in chronological order.
Now, please (re-)read my above message of “09:43, 22 August 2018”, and you will now understand my point. --LamBoet (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to make any changes you feel appropriate. I will continue to contribute to the best of my ability. Cheers. Accassidy (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Freyeria minuscula


Hi Accassidy, I think this one should not be miniscula but minuscula, or have I missed something? Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply




Maybe you can help me with NBM (National Butterfly Museum) in W. Sussex, England. It don't exist anymore. In 1982 a part (2 lots) via an auction from Christie’s is in the Glasgow Museums. In 1983 there was a new auction in Sotheby’s but I don't know which Museum have bought it. It Seem that Tennent, W. J., 2005 know more about this. See Entomologist’s Gazette, 56 (1): 13-24. I can't find it on google. PeterR (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society


Dear Alan, tomorrow is a special day, if I am not wrong you will celebrate 10 long years on Wikispecies.

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Very symbolic, I do wish there was champagne, trumpets and a coffin with gold, but Wiki is wiki... But, the honor is yours, and we are all greatful for your devoted work! You are now listed at Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikispecies editors.Dan Koehl (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't suppose there is a 13-year society... ;-) Accassidy (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Nope. There is a 15-year society though. ;-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC).Reply
Let's hop I live that long... ;-) Accassidy (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Template:Kardakoff, 1928


This article is formatted as though it were an article split in sections through a single volume, but really it's two different articles in two different issues that happen to have the same title. The first is from issue 4, while the second is from issue 8 and opens [rough translation] "I would like to add to my report in vol. 17 issue 4, the following news on Rhopalocera". Zobodat is a great resource for German 19th and early 10h century literature (and sometimes just German journals in general). Circeus (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply



Hi Accassidy, would you have a recent reference to make Liphyrinae a subfamily? I see that Espeland et al., 2018 still view it as a tribe within Miletinae. Kind regards --LamBoet (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, well spotted, however...
I refer to Eliot's higher classification which carries a lot of respect. I note that in this new circular chart the Aphnaeinae and Lycaeninae originate exactly as the Liphyrini, so they are not internally consistent even with all their data. I don't think its really important from a Wiki point of view, but the more modern work is inconsistent and I have a lot of respect for the common sense of John Eliot. Accassidy (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
(Moved back from User talk:LamBoet#Liphyrini/ae since the discussion started here.)
Hi Accassidy,
The problem is, as far as I can see, current taxonomic references do not follow Eliot's 1974 classification anymore for this particular taxon, and reinterpreting Espeland et al.’s 2018 paper would be original work, which we are not supposed to do on wikispecies. (I agree that their tree makes it looks like Liphyrini could deserve subfamily status, but I wouldn't call their work inconsistent: they just don't make age an absolute criterion for taxonomic rank, and they don't comment on this particular taxon.)
Since there doesn't seem to be any publication about a molecular higher-level phylogeny of Lycaenidae yet, I think it would be best to just wait for it and see what happens... Kind regards. --LamBoet (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to overstep the mark. So have reverted to the earlier hierarchy, but retained both references and noted the synonymy. Accassidy (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
However, they definitely raise Aphnaeini to subfamily as Aphnaeinae, from tribe status. I hope you can agree with changing that much. Accassidy (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Yes, good point about Aphnaeinae. By the way, it's interesting how messy the situation in Theclinae and Polyommatinae is, I am curious to see how future publications address this. --LamBoet (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
I am still very admiring of John Eliot's Higher Classification. Nobody has yet really taken a broader and more convincing view. Accassidy (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I have no doubt that it was remarkable work! In the meantime, I have dug a little deeper into the history of Liphyrini/ae: see my edit here. I found an interesting paper of Kaliszewska et al., 2015 about Miletinae: they treated Liphyrini as a tribe and Lipteninae as a subfamily, but the relationships between subfamilies don't look very robust in their tree yet, and are different from Espeland's. --LamBoet (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Content with that, thanks. Accassidy (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reference formatting


Practice onn Wikispecies is currently to not bold volume numbers (While bold is also my preferred formatting to match Wikipedia, this was voted against when the topic came up) or include links in article titles. Think of it as the links in the reference being meant for bibliographic disambiguation. Circeus (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Accassidy, I have the same request as Circeus. You create a lot of reference templates, and none of them exactly follows the formatting recommended in Help:Reference section. An example here. Thanks! --LamBoet (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

F.G. Browne



Do you know the full names from F.G. Browne? It is an english coleopterist from 19, Vivienne Close, Twickenham, Middlesex, England. I don't know if this gentleman lives today. He signs his work with F.G. Browne. Regards PeterR (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Peter, but I do not know his names, nor have I found them after quite a lot of searching. Not able to help, this time. Accassidy (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Alan PeterR (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please block


Please block this ip for an extended period of time, they are a persistent xwiki vandal. Praxidicae (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Blocked by Accassidy, and also globally blocked. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Amysoria / Arnysoria


Hi Accassidy, I saw that you did this redirect, but the original publication spells it Amysoria. Am I missing anything? Cheers --LamBoet (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate articles


Hi Accassidy, before you create a new article for a recombination, can you please always check if the taxon already has an article with the old name? Two examples: Pares maritza already had an article as Thoon maritza, and Pares pares already had Niconiades pares (and even another one: Phlebodes pares). The right way to proceed would have been to rename and edit the existing article. It looks like you often create such duplicates, can you please be keep an eye on this? Thank you. --LamBoet (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

We sent you an e-mail


Hello Accassidy,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reverted bolding in template


Hello Alan, and as always – thank you for all the great work you do around here! However, I "undid" your recent edit to {{Abang, Treadaway, Schröder & Page, 2006}} where you added bolding to the volume number. You and me had a chat about this issue in September 2017; see our discussion related to the "Schroder, Treadaway, Nuyda, 1993" template here at your talk page, a few posts above. The Wikispecies community decided upon these changes to text formatting in December 2015: for details, please see the Village Pump discussion about it and the poll that followed.

Please note that the main reason for editing the template wasn't to revert your edit, but to fix an author link as the corresponding author page has been moved since I first created the template back in 2016. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC).Reply

Again with the bold text?   As I note above we already discussed this in September 2017 right here on your talk page, and you then wrote “I would prefer bold volume numbers as that is the convention I grew up with, but for new references I will conform to the consensus. Feel free to change older ones as you come across them.” Hence I will probably remove the bolding, but… no hard feelings, right? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC).Reply
The important thing is that the information is correct, rather than its formatting. I started writing scientific papers some years ago and have adopted a lot of conventions that were in common usage then; including the formatting of references etc. Bolding of volume numbers, for example, makes them more obvious and so easier to refer to quickly when searching through a list of old editions of a publication. You can continue to make everything flat and less informative if you feel it is tht important.Accassidy (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
On a personal level I fully agree with you that bold volume numbers are preferable, but then again I think it's important that the page layout of Wikispecies is consistent throughout the site. That's all for now – have a great new week! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC).Reply

Rowland Edwards Turner


Hi Alan! Way back in 2013 you created a page about Rowland Edwards Turner, an Australian entomologist. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt anything of that (and I don't) but I wonder if you have a source stating his nationality? I'm updating his Wikidata item, and such a reference would come in handy. (Not that it matters in this question but for the sake of completeness: according to Wikidata and its sources he was employed by the Natural History Museum in London, and passed away in Mossel Bay, South Africa.)
–Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC).Reply

Moved: was at [[Talk:User talk:Tommy Kronkvist#R.E. Turner]]
I can only find paper(s) from him in the Australian journals with Australian co-author(s). So I think it would be safe to put him down as an Aussie. I've searched in a few places, but he is rather obscure. Alan — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Accassidy (talkcontribs) 22:04, 9 July 2021‎.
Okay, thanks. Some of the authors are really hard to get a grip of. For example (and unrelated) who is "J.R. Turner"? Nobody seems to know... :-) Anyway: thanks. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Special characters, page moves

IPA symbol used to indicate that the preceding consonant or vowel is long.

Hello, the list of pages not yet linked to wikidata items includes:

I think these appear on the report because they feature the character ː instead of : — would you be happy to and/or for me to move them to the equivalent non-special character pages? Also, should Pelicia angra axina and Pelicia angra angra have two ls? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to link relevant things to wikidata items. Just something I am not familiar with. If the exact form of the colon needs changing, please go ahead if it will improve the experience for others. Accassidy (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hello Alan, and thanks for the heads-up @Maculosae tegmine lyncis! It's not a huge list of pages named using the IPA phonetic "ː" symbol with triangular "dots" rather than common colon. However it's been a long day so I'll take care of this first thing tomorrow, rather than tonight. Have a happy and healthy new year, both of you! :-) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC).Reply
Seems okay now, and I've also checked and added categories to all of the target templates/redirects that use the "proper" colon, e.g. Template:Ochlodes agricola (per the first example in the list above). Question: from which page did this list first originate? I don't seem to be able to find any log file, "Special:" page or category that would generate it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC).Reply

How we will see unregistered users



You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

G. M. Dodge


Hello, I just did a quick google search for information on this man and found this article from 2013 by John V. Calhoun, which may be of interest to you. It gives his full name (George Marshall Dodge), years (1846–1912), a biography, a list of taxa by him, and a list of patronyms of him and his brother Edgar. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I took the liberty to redirect the page to George Marshall Dodge, and also created a corresponding Wikidata item Q110528168 for him. I also created an author page for his brother Edgar Addison Dodge, together with a Wikidata item (Q110528003) for him as well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC).Reply
well done. Eliminate some obscurity. Accassidy (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The works of Adalbert Seitz


Hello Alan! Long time no talk. :-) Quite a few years ago you created the templates {{Seitz,A, 1910}}, {{Seitz,A, 1912a}} and {{Seitz,A, 1912b}}, all referring to a publication called "Grossschmetterlinge Erde". Are you sure about the name of the journal? The reason I ask is that I speak a little German and the title simply doesn't make any sense. It literally translates to "Large butterflies World" (or "Large butterflies soil/Earth"). Please note that there is no possessive case here i.e. it doesn't mean "Large butterflies' World".

But as I said that's the literal meaning of the title. A more correct translation would probably be "Macrolepidoptera World" since Grossschmetterlinge is the German vernacular name for Macrolepidoptera (unranked). It still wouldn't make much sense though, because (at least in German) there's still no possessive case involved. My guess is that the correct title of the journal is "Die Grossschmetterlinge der Erde", which means "The Macrolepidoptera of the World". (The German words der, das and die are most often only equivalent to the English definite article "the", but can also imply genitive case i.e. "of the".)

I'm not sure if it's directly related to your templates, but I found this online: DOI: 10.5962/BHL.TITLE.62014

Any thoughts? All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC).Reply

I believe that I just reproduced the title as it is printed on the copy of the book available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library. There may well have been versions in different languages with marginally different titles, but I have just gone with the title as shown on the book which appears when you click the link. That seems most appropriate to me. Accassidy (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Allen and Harman


Hi Alan! You don't happen to know the full names of Michael G. Allen and Tony W. Harman, do you? Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC).Reply

Try Not used it for a while but may still work. Sorry, but I don't have an email for Mike. Best of luck. Accassidy (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, no. Just Mike and Tony for me. Mike was an officer in the Brigade of Gurkhas, if I remember properly, so that might be an avenue. Accassidy (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agenjo, 1967


Hi Alan! In Agenjo, 1967 you claim that the volume number is "Vol. XXII", however you refer to hdl: 10261/162525 which lists it as "42(3–4)". The page numbers are the same, but perhaps the volume number in the template should be changed from 22 to 42 (or XLII per your preference, and as stated in the footer on the first page)? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC).Reply

If you have the correct data, please feel free to make an appropriate ammendment. Over... Accassidy (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lycaena margelanica questions


Are you sure Lycaena margelanica is a synonym of Tharsalea margelanica? Can you give me the latest ref? What to do with Lycaena margelanica gaudibunda, Lycaena margelanica legezini etc. which you left hanging orphaned? What about Korb & Bolshakov, 2011, Eversmannia Suppl. 2: 76 which still refers to Lycaena margelanica? Mariusm (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Marius, If you have access to current documentation that changes the status of any of these taxa, please feel free to change the pages and add appropriate new references. That's all we can do to keep things as up to date as we can. If I leave anything "hanging" it is because I don't have any information that is more relevant. If you can improve on any such situation then please do so; that is what we are all here for. Accassidy (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I reverted the edit back to Lycaena margelanica. Your transfer just isn't justified. Mariusm (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Have a look at: LepIndex - margelanica ( Accassidy (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Phoenicurusia phoenicurus margelanica isn't accepted but Phoenicurusia margelanica is a serious possibility. See Tuzov: 2016. A new subspecies of Phoenicurusia Margelanica (Staudinger, 1881) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from Darvaz Range, Tadjikistan Far Eastern entomologist 310: 11-15.
This is the current viewpoint of the NHM London, literally: "PHOENICURUSIA phoenicurus ssp. margelanica Staudinger, 1881".
No! not a subspecies but a species - Phoenicurusia margelanica! Mariusm (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well look here, on the BMNH website.

De-adminship warning


Dear Accassidy. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Wikispecies because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Wikispecies:Administrators/Inactivity Section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Wikispecies:Administrators/Admin Review.

Thank you.

Removal of Admin Tools


Hi Accassidy, as per the discussion on the Admin Review your admin rights have been removed. Under admin review this is not a penalty just a safety protocol with respect to advanced tools. If you wish to and believe you can dedicate time to this role again in the future you are welcome to do an RfA to re-acquire these rights. Thank you for your time, effort and service to wikispecies. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time to administer anything right now, so no problem for me... as long as I can still contribute new material now and then..... Accassidy (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Please use the format seen in this diff when adding coordinates. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply