User talk:PeterR/Archive 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago by PeterR in topic Make your edits easier
This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.

Anthene Subgenera


Peter, the current sub-generic arrangement of African Anthene follows Williams, 2008. If you have access to the 2010 Libert paper revising African Anthene can you tell me how Libert deals with the other subgenera, Neurypexina and Triclema? Does he also raise those to full Genus status? I won't make any structural changes until I have been able to understand Libert's revision. Does it really run to more than 400 pages? Thanks for pointing this out. Alan Accassidy (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Safian has also set up an online database of African butterflies, but it is clearly not yet in accord with Libert's published work. Libert's 2010 "paper" is actually a book, and I think that is what we should presently be using as the most recent authority for African Anthene. I cannot ask the RESL library to photocopy something that big. I can buy a copy for about €100, but my interest in African Lycaenidae does not yet stretch to spending the money. One of us will have to try to borrow a copy from somewhere. Accassidy (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think Libert will keep you busy for some while. I will be unable to do much on WS for a while as I will be in Cologne for the next 4 days and then in South Africa for about 2 weeks. Best wishes. Accassidy (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I saw the Libert volume at a colleagues office two days ago, but I do not have it here. You can re-arrange the genera and species as he lists them and dispose of the sub-genera, following his arrangement. Accassidy (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Peter, I have now rearranged all the Genera under Lycaenesthini to accord with Libert, 2010. I have included Libert's Species Groups, but not SubGroups nor Complexes, as these seem to be less authoritative and we have no agreed way of dealing with those ideas. If you want to continue to add species information from Libert's book, as you have already done for some species, that would be very useful. I find it interesting that Libert resurrected Monile as a good genus. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Peter. I use "===Synonymy===" as a heading because then it is proper to add original combinations, new combinations and so on to the list, rather than just actually objective synonyms. Also, I have a subroutine that automatically creates redirect pages for these other combinations, as long as the heading is "Synonymy" not "Synonyms". Could you change your process to include this small change? Then I can create the redirects etc. Alan Accassidy (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I shall change synonyms in synonymy. PeterR (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
 Done PeterR (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re:Editing Template:Ou,Wang & Wei, 2014


What is wrong is that you forgot to put a space in the template's name between "Ou," and "Wang". Just edit this template, select Move at the top and move the template to "Template:Ou, Wang & Wei, 2014" With this space included. Mariusm (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peter! I love animals. Can you help me using this site! You can better ask Accassidy. I'm not a programmer PeterR (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Peter, happy new year to you too. Accassidy (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Global account


Hi Peter! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was previously PeterR elsewhere but have now vacated the name PeterR so this may help - see --PeterR2 (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Walter Leopold Victor Hackman


Dag Peter Roelofs, bij nazicht stelde ik vast dat deze entomologist niet voorkomt op de List of entomologists, enig idee waarom? Ik voegde de naam ondertussen toe aan de Hackman (sukunimi) Finse wikipedia. Hopelijk volgt hierop een positieve reactie. Lotje (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Geen idee. Ik zie dat deze lijst (voor mij) door vreemde mensen wordt bij gehouden. Er ontbreken ook veel Chinese entomologisten. Ik zou niet weten bij wie je hiervoor terecht moet. Misschien één van de personen die onder view history staan. PeterR (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Toch bedankt! Lotje (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Als je op de pagina van Walter Leopold Victor Hackman kijkt en je drukt dan op entomologists bij Category, dan staat hij er wel. Ik denk dat dit een idee is van iemand. Net zoals Category:new species etc. Het wordt niet bekend gemaakt of besproken. Je moet er toevallig tegen aanlopen. PeterR (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply



Dear Peter, the file Comphotis is now restored. At the same date, 16th of December, I deleted more files, which were submitted to the speedy delete, namely Template:Comphotis sophistes (Incorrectly named) Comphotis sophistes (Incorrectly named) and Template:Comphotis (Incorrectly named). Would you like me to restore those files as well? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please do. I have checked the genera and species Original bulletins and the book from Lamas, 2004 and Funet. PeterR (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

 Done Dan Koehl (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks PeterR (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Koehl: Dan, can you please determine who marked those Comphotis pages for deletion. If it was me, then either I had a good reason, or I made a mistake, but I don't think it was me? Stho002 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Koehl: @Accassidy: @OhanaUnited: In fact, something funny is going on here! If those files were submitted to the speedy delete, as claimed, then this would be logged in their edit history, but there is nothing in their edit histories to indicate that they ever were submitted to the speedy delete, as this would require editing the files (i.e. adding {{Speedy}}). What is going on here??? Stho002 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here you can see the list of files I have deleted upon request at speedy delete. I gather most of the files were submitted there by User:Stho002. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just let me know, and I will restore any file at your wish. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Côrecha Jauffret


Hello Peter. What's up with the Jacques Dominique Côrecha Jauffret article? I saw that you've marked it for speedy deletion, and you're the only contributor. If it gets deleted (and consequently also the the redirect pages Jacques Côrecha Jauffret, J.C. Jauffret, and Corècha Jauffret) it will affect 20 other pages where the links are present. Therefore: is the problem with the page fixable, and if so, can I help? Regards Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC).Reply

Dear Peter, I also want to ask, should the file Jacques Dominique Côrecha Jauffret really be deleted? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dan , I have allready make a new file Jacques Dominique Corêcha Jauffret. This is the real name. I don't know Jacques Dominique Côrecha Jauffret. To add new authors you have to concentrate you very well. Will you add them via search like DeVries he gave you Devries. So I have learn now to make first the author template and then add the new author via the template. (sorry for my english). PeterR (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see, I deleted, but please not that two files link to the deleted file; Semomesia wallacei and Semomesia alyattes fassli. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dan Thank you. I have change the Somesia. You can See in the Reference page that the name is wrong. PeterR (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Tommy. Côrecha Jauffret is wrong. It have to be Corêcha Jauffret. Official it is Jacques Dominique Corêcha Jauffret. I have the same problems wit Philip James DeVries. If I type Philip James DeVries automatic he create Philip James Devries. PeterR (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (Moved from User talk:Tommy Kronkvist)Reply
It seems to work now. Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC).Reply
Thanks. PeterR (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Subgenera & photos


Peter, I see we have the question about subgenera again, this time with regard to Catasticta. Could I ask you please not to include the subgenus name in brackets in the species and subspecies pages. Just keep the species pages binomial the Genus species and the subspecies pages trinomial Genus species subspecies. You can group the species into sub-genera on the genus page and can include the Subgenus in the Taxonav hierarchy, but please not in the taxon pages as it makes the collection much more accessible to keep species pages simply binomial. The simplest solution is to cut and paste the data from the existing species pages into binomial ones and then to create REDIRECTS from those now empty pages that had the subgenus in the title. Also, I noticed that your link to "Photos" on one page led to a website that appears not to exist yet. Maybe there is a spelling mistake. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alan. This is old. I'm updating them to our agreement see Catasticta flisa. I can't do all in one. PeterR (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
redirects to Photos or bulletins can change. I can't help it or have you a solution. PeterR (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Appeal to WMF


@Dan Koehl: Peter you should consider an appeal to WMF about your treatment- see the Pump how Stephen Thorpe has undertaken this. I am sure Dan will help you out if needed. If you did this then it would be ironic and also beneficial to you and the community. Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Peter, they are just trying to push you out on to the battlefield as "cannon fodder", while they sit back and watch from a safe distance. By all means, feel free to make an appeal to whoever you like about me, but it would be in your own interests to make 100% certain that you are right and I am wrong, before embarking on any such move Stho002 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Peter, I will look into this issue, please give me a day. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Peter, is it possible that you activate your email, so we can communicate through emails? Ich wurde lieber durch Emails reden, wäre es bei dir möglig? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Koehl: Be aware Peter, User:Dan Koehl may just be trying to manipulate you now. As a crat, he can see all the relevant "evidence" of blocks, and so he doesn't need your input at all. But if he can convince you to make a fuss about nothing, then he is safe from any bad consequences, should it all go terribly wrong ... Stho002 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Blocking done by Stho002 proof


Here is your proof of the blocking done on you by Stho002: BLOCKING LOG Mariusm (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mariusm: Can block logs be found in other places other than as a record on the users page? Andyboorman (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Andyboorman: In the above link just enter either the user-name of the Performer of the block or the one of the Target and press go. This is the only place for block logs. You can enter also the log type such as a deletion-log for a certain user. You can go the the log main page by clicking on the right on Special pages and then select Logs ([1]) Mariusm (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Koehl: @Mariusm: @Andyboorman: @Accassidy: @PeterR: I may well have blocked you once or twice in the past. Maybe I was justified, maybe I wasn't. More likely, the truth is somewhere in between. However, the important point is that only admins can block, and I am no longer an admin. Therefore, I cannot now block you (or anyone), even if I wanted to, which I don't. The only "punishment" (actually "cure") for an unjustified block is to have admin powers taken away. Since I have already resigned my admin powers, this whole "discussion" is purely "academic". If you don't believe me, ask your friend Alan to confirm. Stho002 (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Stho002: my dear sir - this block is only a SYMPTOM of your inadequacy to cooperate with others and to disservice a WS user. When you tried to chase away the user Fagus you were no longer an admin, yet the harm was done nevertheless. Mariusm (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Mariusm: If User:Fagus or anyone else refuses to listen to reason and puts pointless stuff all over core taxon pages, then we are better off without them. All he had to do was listen to reason and move it to categories. He didn't care about the project, he only cared about himself ... Stho002 (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Stho002: Again I repeat: I'm not talking about the editing-controversies or whether a certain practice is right or wrong. I'm talking about the STYLE you use, about the LANGUAGE you use, about your overall CONDUCT. Mariusm (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Mariusm: I am a mirror ... Stho002 (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Friendly advice


Peter, we both want what is best for Wikispecies, don't we? You are making a very valuable contribution to the project, but it just needs overseeing and correcting when necessary. That is the reality. By resisting that, you are putting WS in danger. The project is only going to survive if current levels of activity are maintained. User:Dan Koehl and the others are making a huge mistake. If they block me, WS activity will drop by at least 50%, making it possible that WMF will close us down. Sometimes you need to accept what you don't want in order to get what you do want in terms of the bigger picture. Think about it ... Stho002 (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC).Reply

@Accassidy: @Stho002: I agree that sometimes some people have to make corrections. But if I ask Accassidy how to create for example an author template and I create this after his advice, you don't have to change that. You think that you are the only clever boy here, but you are not. And all those corrections irritate me. On the side of Acassisdy I have made proposals for templates, but no reactions. I want only do contributions after original bulletins and books and in consultation with others. PeterR (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

An IP contributor


Hi Peter – I was looking at's contributions, and am guessing they are yours, from if/when your computer logs you out of Wikispecies without your knowing. The number locates to the Netherlands. Is this correct, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

MPF. I think there is nothing change. But I'm not sure. Where have I to look. PeterR (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! If you look at the contributions link above, are any of them edits you remember making? It happens to me sometimes that my computer logs me out without my knowing and I end up making anon contributions without realising it. - MPF (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ackery et al 1995


Peter, I notice that on a number of species in Anthene and Neurellipes that I have looked at recently, you have listed some combinations, usually starting Anthene sp. as new combinations by Ackery et al, 1995,presumably from "Carcasson's African Butterflies". It is also apparent that most of these Anthene sp. combinations were earlier published by Stempffer, 1967, in his "Genera of African Lycaenidae". This latter paper is available to download through BHL. So it is clear that these were not, in most cases, new combinations by Philip Ackery in 1995. As he worked in BMNH and Stempffer published in BMNH I would be surprised if Ackery had actually claimed the new combinations. If you have access to the Ackery book, perhaps you could check. Cheers, Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alan, I have no books from Ackery and Stempffer. If you have an example of my mistake I can look in the book from Libert. PeterR (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Jiao & Yang, 2015


Some hours ago, I was going over Zootaxa Feb 4, for any articles not templated. There was conflict, as Zootaxa citation said "Jiao" only, and ZooBank said "Jiao & Yang". At that time, there was no template at all, so I opted for citing it as in Zootaxa, as that would be more authoritative than ZooBank. I do suspect Zootaxa may have made an error. If you confirm, I will delete my template.

Zootaxa citation is Jiao & Yang. So you can delete your template.
Done. My only access to Zootaxa is contents/abstracts. If those have mistakes, I have no idea. LSU has no subscription. Thanks to our Republican administration for 8 years, education budget has been cut to nothing nearly. All journal subscriptions have been halted since 2009. Some have been subscribed to since before 1900. We used to have one of the finest science libraries on world. Our 4 floor library now has only one help desk, on lower floor. Each floor had one, but all others closed down. Aggravating. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I also entered Meng Jiao on your Jiao disambiguation page, and added {{disambig}}, which sets up format and enters it into its appropriate categories. Neferkheperre (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply



I handled that affair today. I located original description (Erwin, 1978), templated it. Seems he named his genus after the acronym. I hope that isn't contagious. Apparently it is monotypic. I moved Inpa to [[Inpa (Coleoptera)|Inpa]], made disambiguation page, and used @Mariusm:'s suggestion on acronym. I built acronym page, and category. I put Erwin's reference template on your taxon page for your use. Erwin's taxon authority page is gold mine of his references, but only one is templated. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Logged out from templates


Peter, I can not find anything wrong with the template file you mentioned, I dont get logged out, and when looking on the file, I dont see anything strange. I do understand that this is annoying though, and would be happy to solve the problem, but presently Im not sure why this happen.

I believe it maybe can be a result of using several tabs on your browsers, where some sort of conflict regarding your cookies occur.

The page Login_issues_and_problems gives following advice:

(The dutch version is located at Anmelden)

I get logged out just after logging in

There are a few possible causes of this problem:

  • If you appear to have logged in, but as soon as you try to look at a page after 'Log in successful', you appear logged out again, it is very likely to be a cookie problem. See this brief tutorial on how to enable cookies for your browser.
  • Make sure your computer's date and time are set correctly; if they are not, cookies may expire before they are supposed to. Note that some firewall and ad-blocking software may interfere with the cookie that Wikipedia uses to keep a person logged in.
  • Some ISPs use transparent proxies which cause problems logging in. Try using the secure server to bypass the proxy. This happens most often with some satellite ISPs (particularly HughesNet/DirecWay/DirecPC).
  • Occasionally, a user may find him/herself "automatically" logged out between beginning an edit and saving it, or when switching between multiple wiki pages open in multiple windows or tabs. This can be a result of your browser's cookie, cache, or firewall settings, but sometimes, especially during heavy server load, the system can "glitch" and your login information will be lost, resulting in a logout.

I believe in dutch:

  • Incidentele fouten
    • Een gebruiker kan automatisch worden afgemeld tussen het openen van de bewerkingspagina en het opslaan ervan. Dit fenomeen doet zich ook sporadisch voor bij het wisselen tussen verschillende Wikipedia-pagina's in verschillende vensters. Dit kan te maken hebben met de cookie-cache van de browser of met firewall-instellingen.
  • De beste oplossing
    • Ongedacht wat de oorzaak van het afmelden is, de makkelijkste oplossing is het onthoud mij vinkje: in de meeste gevallen lost dit het probleem keurig op. Let er wel goed op dat je je afmeldt als je op een publieke computer werkt (bijvoorbeeld een bibliotheek, het werk of school).

I understand that all this may be a tiring process to go through, still this is the best advice I can give, presently.

Ill try to make further research, and will tell you as soon as I find something that may explain the problem. Meanwhile, I suggest you go through the list above.

regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have an Apple. Those give more problems then others. I have problems to with downloads. He don't finish them. If my son comes to me I shall ask him for a solution. He is a manager by Apple Amsterdam. I'm nearly 69 so it is too difficult for me. PeterR (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see, well then its even more impressing, seing your large contribution to Wikispecies every day, thanks a lot for putting all energy into the project. I hope you can continue in spite of the logging problems. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Modern versions of the Apple "Safari" web browser often have very strict security policies when it comes to cookies – and most prominently, third-party cookies. I think that in this case it is important that any cookies share both the same second-level domain (for example "wikimedia") and the same top-level domain (in this case ".org"). Cookies from any other second- or top-level domain will be considered third-party, and can quite often lead to the user being automatically logged out.
Example: If you have several tabs open, and they all have the same second-level and top-level domains, you shouldn't face any trouble. For instance, having tabs with both Wikispecies ( and Commons ( shouldn't pose any problem, since the second- and top-level domains (marked with bold text in the examples) are the same for both tabs. However, if you add a third tab with another second- or top domain, you might also add a third-party cookie, and then you might get logged out. This is very apparent if you open a tab with a totally different domain, say However, it's worth mentioning that some second-level domains are quite sneaky. For instance, it's easy to miss the fact that Wikipedia would be considered third-party from Wikispecies, since "" of course isn't the same sub-level domain as ""
Solution: 1) Simply log in again, since this most often only happens once every session, or 2) Use another web browser, for instance Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome. Both are free, and work flawlessly with the Mac OS X operating system. (Internet Explorer is since long Windows only, and no longer available for OS X.)
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC).Reply



Peter, now that we have a page for each museum it doesn't make sense to write [[Holotype|NHMW]]. It's better to write [[NHMW]], so you can reach directly to the museum page. [[Holotype|NHMW]] was constructed because we didn't have specific pages for each museum. So please write [[NHMW]]!!! Mariusm (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Template:Saenz Manchola,García Aldrete & González Obando, 2015


This title seems cumbersome Saenz Manchola,García Aldrete & González Obando, 2015. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand you. This are peoples real backnames. PeterR (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
True. Page title normally would be expressed as Manchola, Aldrete & Obando, 2015. Those backnames are more suited to inside the template body and linking to taxon authority pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
I could easily fix it if you like, including all the links to (and from) the template. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC).Reply
This template is good. PeterR (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Category by author


Peter, I see you you started to make categories by author. Please make them in the format "Category: Willem de Haan‎ taxa" and not "Category: Willem de Haan‎". Mariusm (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 07:51, 13 February 2015.

Defaultsort and categories


Hello Peter. Please note that the magic word "defaultsort" (and categories and links to Wikipedia, if any) should be placed last in every page. Not before "Works include" or any other such section. Otherwise the author names might not get sorted correctly in automatically generated lists and category pages. I've made a correction to one of your edits, and you can see the difference between your code and mine here: Kevin R. Harrison(diff)

Also, if you use "defaultsort" on a page then you should not specify the sort in the categories. See for example Andrey Sergeyevich Ukrainsky(diff)

Here you can see a picture with examples of how the error looks in a Wikispecies' category page: DEFSORT.png

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC).Reply

OK I shall do it. Maybe you can make an overview of defaultsort who are wrong and repair it. PeterR (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
As you can see from my list of contributions, I have already repaired some of them. I don't know of any good way to automatically make a list of all the wrong ones, since both types of errors are quite common. For instance Mariusm have made quite a few, and I did it too when I was a new user. I will check out yours and some of the other users' edits, and make the repairs when needed. I think these types of errors are only present on pages about humans individuals, such as author pages, pages about botanists and zoologists, and so forth. Except for some very rare cases the errors are never present on pages regarding taxa or reference templates, so luckily it is not necessary to check all Wikispecies pages. It will take some time, but they will all get fixed, soon enough. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC).Reply

UCB repository page


I am working on UCB page, but won't have it finished till [my] tomorrow. Essig Museum of Entomology is but one full museum on UCB campus. I shall enter them all on repository page. I studied your taxon page Tetracis australis, and read Ferris, 2010. Turns out Ferris gave VERY confusing information on his type specimens. He never provided any type numbers, and was never that clear on acronyms. Please see Tetracis australis. Note actual acronym as EMEC. Ferris did actually list EME as Essig's acronym in his introductory section, but failed to note it in that species types section. His use of UCB is actually for locality citations. This last page I cited derives from EMEC's searchable database. I plan to create linkable template for this, which should be placed in External links section. It won't work well on Types line. It will call up type specimen pages as above.

Please note that EMEC's type pages contain clickable illustrations of subject specimens. I shall let you know when everything is finished. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had already such a suspicion, but i didn't have yesterday the time to find out this. PeterR (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Saved what I had yesterday, and added more this morning. I have not found collections for any invertebrates other than EMEC, which restricts to land arthropods. I created one template to call up type specimen pages. It worked partially, with an error page. I shall keep on, as similar templates can be used for USNM, UF, LACM, and BMNH. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add "Described taxa" to author page


If you make "Category: AUTHOR taxa" then it would by appropriate to add at the author's page the following:

==Described taxa==
* [[:category:AUTHOR taxa|{{PAGESINCATEGORY:AUTHOR taxa}} taxa described by AUTHOR]]

Where AUTHOR would be the respective author name.

For example for Volker Assing you'll get: 1,724 taxa described by Volker Assing      Mariusm (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

User name PeterR


I was previously PeterR on 15 Wikimedia projects including and

Wikimedia recently invited me to set up a global unified account, and since you have far more edits than me, I have given up the name PeterR and am now PeterR2. This should mean that you can claim PeterR as your global account name. See and for help, you can email --PeterR2 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Autopatrolled rights


Dear PeterR, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Camptoscapus planiusculus


Hello Peter, There is something missing. Do you have a reference for Camptoscapus planiusculus? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Camptoscapus was made by Sthoner. All I have done was making author taxa and create species. I have no further information. PeterR (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, that's not good. Probably this is the original description. Do you think, it could be used as a reference for the species article? Anyway, GBIF is telling, it is a doubtful species. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, the problem seems to be bigger: Broun (1909) cites "Man. N.Z. Coleopt., p. 511", which obviously is this page, where he himself has described in 1880 Pentarthrum planiuscula (which probably should have been P. planiusculum - neuter gender). So, the author citation actually should be "(Broun, 1880)", as in 1909 he only made a new combination. Anyway, we seem to have one more candidate for a reference in the species article. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
See also here. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Be very careful with assuming specific epithets to be adjectives. The author of the above species indeed recognizes Pentarthrum as a noun with gender neuter, as is to be concluded from the epithets zealandicum, longirostre, subsericatum, apicale, brunneum, rufum, brevirostre, parvicorne and others. It is clear from this that P. fulvicornis was an error. The epithets assimilata and planiuscula may however be nouns in apposition. "Assimilata" may be a plural. One should at least know the meaning of "planiuscula" in order to be able to treat it as grammatically right or wrong. As the protologue doesn't reveal anything about the etymology, some external evidence is needed. Not just another coleopterologist who "corrected" the epithet, but someone who explains what it means and why is has to be treated as an adjective. If no reference to this effect is to be found, then the protologue is authoritative with respect to the correct spelling, especially as most other epithets were given the neutral gender there. I found this epithet as planiusculus, planiuscula, and planiusculum in combination with many other generic names, so it's most probable that this is in fact an adjective. But one has te be sure that it was meant as an adjective here too. Wikiklaas (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Wikiklaas: OK, a noun in apposition might explain this seemingly wrong termination. However, the author himself should have known, if it was intended as an adjective or as a noun. At least, when Broun himself in 1908/1909 created the new combination in Camptoscapus, he treated the epithet as an adjective by changing the gender. The meaning of "planiuscula" is not too difficult to explain. The termination "-ulus/-ula/-ulum" indicates a diminutive of "planius" which is the comparative of "planus". So, "planius" means "more flat" or - as the protologue is telling - "less convex" and "planiuscula" can be translated as "the small more flat one". Basically it is an adjective, but of course adjectives can be used as a noun. If at first place it was intended to be noun, its female gender expressed by the termination "-a" in my opininion does not make much sense, as in 1908/09 Broun writes that he had seen a male individual and "one only", i.e. as I understand this, no female individual. I suppose, Broun did not care much about gender of names. E.g. when he described Toura ( see [2]), he mixed female epithets fulva and morosa with the neuter epithet longirostre. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your reply. I know my way in Latin and Greek. And as I already expressed: it seems most likely that this is meant as an adjective but with the wrong termination. Wikipedia however is not about one's own interpretation, but about expert knowledge, i.e. what experts published about it. The same goes for Wikispecies. It's not about what we think is right but what the experts tell us about it. It is already hard enough to decide which expert to give most credits when it comes to classification or correct names. We don't want an extra level of semi-expert knowledge. Don't interpret this as a disqualification: I really appreciate your obviously well-informed contribution. But we can't change names stating "Franz Xaver was sure it should be spelled like this". Wikiklaas (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Wikiklaas: Anyway, the wrong termination in the original description by Broun 1880 was not my main point. More important is, that Camptoscapus planiusculus is missing any source and that obviously the author citation is wrong. I provided links to the original description as Pentarthrum planiuscula by Broun (1880) and to the place, where the same author created the new combination Camptoscapus planiusculus. And you may source the correction of the author citation with NZOR. Is there any reason, why these two references cannot be added and why the author citation cannot be corrected? Moreover, at the place, where Broun described Camptoscapus (see [3]), he mentioned this species under the name Pentarthrum planiusculum. So, probably this can be used to source a correction of the spelling. If you think this correction by the author himself is not sufficient, you may keep the original spelling, but both references Broun (1880) and Broun (1909), as well as the basionym, anyway should be added to the article. Otherwise it will be a candidate for deletion as being unsourced content. --Franz Xaver (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply



The original diagnosis of Nepalorhynchus and Nepalorhynchus lucidus obviously is contradictory as far as it concerns the gender of this genus. The author writes "Species tip.: N. lucidum n.sp.", but on the same page he describes this species with the name Nepalorhynchus lucidus. At least one of both is an error. As far as I know, -rhynchus generally has male gender, so lucidus would be correct. However, maybe you have better information? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have search on internet and the species have to be Nepalorhynchus lucidus PeterR (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Admin nomination


Dear Peter, you have made a comment on the present admin nomination, on the place where the nominated is supposed to confirm the acceptance of the nomination. The poll have not even started. I ask you kindly to remove your comment, but please feel free to vote, comment etc later, once the nomination has started, but then please do it on the correct place. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. PeterR (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply



Fixed. I made appropriate changes to ZFMK, redirected MAKB there, and put Category:MAKB onto ZFMK. I have been doing that on my newer repository pages, but this was one of my older ones. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Is it possible to do this with other museums? PeterR (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Definitely, in fact, I have been doing that as I locate them. Hopefully this weekend, I shall have some time to catch up on some repository pages, and fill them out. Neferkheperre (talk)

Cyphon sieberi


Peter, as far as I understand, User:Bastenbas has on the article Cyphon sieberi put the wrong picture (File:Cyphon_princeps.jpg)on and his version should be rollbacked to your version, or am I wrong? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Both are not listed in the species list through Sthoner. I shall answer you what is good or wrong. PeterR (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Both species are valid. Picture is wrong. Cyphon princeps. PeterR (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Explaining needed


Peter, can you please explain why did you remove all content from the pages Silenis and Plebicula in 2013? Please don't make this sort of editing in the future without explaining or requesting the pages to be deleted. Thank you. Mariusm (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can't but I have repair them. PeterR (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Please check also the following pages which you've blanked: Bunaeinae Anthony C. Galsworthy Boloria distincta distincta Boloria distincta distincta Boloria distincta machati Boloria distincta ershovi Cnidocampa, Chrysodeixis (Pseudoplusia), Torodora silvatica, Latoia undulata, Sciopetris nigrocinerella, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) bimaculata, Ctenocompa javensis. Please, in the future do not blank pages like this, as it's doing us much damage. Mariusm (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Done. PeterR (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply



Peter, I have made reference templates for the two volumes of Saalmüller's treatise on Lepidoptera of Madagascar. (see Max Saalmüller). You can use these templates on any pages relating to taxon descriptions by Saalmüller. Accassidy (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 15:07, 17 March 2015.



Peter, you submitted Bunaeinae for deletion, but not Template:Bunaeinae, should both be deleted? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes the template too. Thanks PeterR (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
 Done Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC).Reply

Patrolling rights


After you were granted patroller user rights, it seems you did zero patrolling. (since you are autopatroller, the pages you edit gets automatically marked. But if you have patrolled pages , and marked them patrolled, your edit gets a "marked revision (number) of page (page name) patrolled")

If you dont wish to patrol pages, this is no problem at all, but please inform me if you tried and experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.

Since you have not made use of your patroller user rights, I need to know if you still want to keep them, because you plan to use them in the future, or likevise. If you are not interested in patrolling, you dont need to do anything, and I will remove the user rights in a couple of days.

In any case you will keep your autopatrol user right, but there is no need for both.

But please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

If you want to try to patrol pages:

In Special:NewPages you can see the not patrolled new pages with yellow background. Presently there are probably none, since the pages made today and the last days has been made by users who already have 'autopatrolled' user rights. But if you do, or you choose to see the last 500 newly made pages, you may se files with yellow background. You can click on such a file, and scroll down to absolute down-right corner, where you can read "mark as patrolled" or similair, becasue the contributor does not have autoptarolled/patrolled user rights. When you click on the link, the file becomes patrolled.

But theres older files that need patrolling. In unpatrolled pages on recent changes, and you will see a list of unpatrolled pages. You will see a red colored ! in front of the unpatrolled file. If you click on each diff, you can mark the diff patrolled.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Peter, thanks for showing interest for the patrolling. It is not so difficault at all.Its a system of double checking pages, and see to that they are OK and follow the Wikispecies Policy; and if so, you can mark them "patrolled": If you go to Chamaecytisus podolicus, you will notice in the lower right corner of the page, the text "[Mark this page as patrolled]". If you decide that the page follows the policy on Wikispecies, just click on that link, you will mark the page patrolled. Please try with Chamaecytisus podolicus, Chamaecytisus rochelii and Eucestoda, good luck! Dan Koehl (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for any confusion. Please see this list, can you see pages marked with yellow background? And roughly, how many, more than 1, 10, 50? (this may depend on dates of creation of the page, and the date you had the user rights) Dan Koehl (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
There is a new edits that you hopefully will be able to patrol: if you go to a revision of Euphorbia pulcherrima and Colchicum, you most probably can see in the upper right corner:
Latest revision as of 2015-03-19T08:55:45 (edit) (undo) (thank)
Agnese (Talk | contribs | block)    [rollback 1 edit]
(→‎Vernacular names)   (change visibility)
  [Mark as patrolled]

Try click on [Mark as patrolled] and I think you will have success. Theres also at the very bottom of the page a "[Mark as patrolled]" link.

Please let me know that it worked. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi Peter. My guess is that the name of the genus in Diatypa satipo should really be Diatrypa, with an "R". Is this correct? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC).Reply

Tommy, you're right. I have changed the name Diatypa in Diatrypa see Diatrypa satipo. Can you delete the names with Diatypa? PeterR (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'll take care of it. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
 Done, 19 deletions. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
Thanks PeterR (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Patrolling rights


Thanks a lof for using your patroller user right and doing some patrolling! Please inform me if you experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.

Since you have made use of your patroller user rights, you will keep them, and I will remove your autopatrol user right, since there is no need for both.

This user has patrollers rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

Patrollers may use the Patroller user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Patroller}}

Please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Blanked pages


Peter, it seems you blanked this page Euryzonella latifascia, does it mean that it should be deleted?

Yes. There is already a new page with Euryzonella latisfascia
Sorry, it was Euryzonella latifascia, I deleted that file. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Its now and then that you need to have files deleted, and Im sure all admins are happy to do this, but the question is if you would like to do it yourself? I asked you before if you would consider adminship (as admin you can delete files) and you were reluctant, due to language and that your are not a programmer, but you could use adminship in the way you prefer, e.g. delete files but nothing more, there is no demand to take part of administrative work just because you are admin. In your case, I can see that you could use it, and Im sure you would not misuse the admin tools.

Everyone will be happy and help you by deleting files, but its easier to know tht they should be deleted if you mark them for deletion. As for now, the category stubs may contain files which should be deleted, and noone knows.

Dan Koehl (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

More questioons regarding files you have blanked: Boloria distincta dubatolovi, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) korea, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) arquata, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) chalybeia, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) chalcidis, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) ferrea, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) pluto, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) pluto pluto, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) pluto cyanus, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) clarofacia, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) clarofacia clarofacia, Callophrys (Ahlbergia) clarofacia meridionalis, Parnassius (Driopa) eversmanni ukukensis, Anatoly V. Krupitsky, Lobelia purpurascens, Protautomeris, Eremicamima, etc...

You can find them in the beginning of the listings, with files 8 Kb, at short pages

Please delete mark them if they should be deleted.

Every admin is happy to delete those files, but wouldnt it be easier for you to be able to delete those files yourself?

Dan Koehl (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is. PeterR 07:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you would accept to be admin, you would be able to delete them! I relly think that would be easier for you. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ok. I accept PeterR (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks a lot! Please confirm here that you accept to be nominated, between where I signed my nomination and the line which starts with Support. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edits on Chelodina (Macrochelodina)


Hi @PeterR: wanted to ask why you are removing subgenera on for example this edit this edit? It makes no sense since you have left it on the other species in the same subgenus. Cheers Faendalimas talk 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok in response to your answer on my page thats fair enough, I just was not sure which way you were going with it. I am editing many of these taxa right now too, so will follow that. By the way, since you made a Cat for NTM, my species Chelodina canni also has its type in the NTM, save you finding it. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have no issue with the solution, just was not sure which way you were going with it. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply



I noticed this morning (mine) that you created MNHS for Coleophora koreana. Baldizzone apparently made some confusion. Swedish Museum of Natural History is really SMNH. Digging around in their databases was slightly helpful, and gave me this. (GP Bldz 7988) seems more like type number with Baldizzone as ID authority, while "Korea Shuotsu ..." represents collection locality and date. Labels are photo'd on that link. Here is their search portal, but collections are only about 20% online. Coleophora koreana is naturally not one of them. Going through lists, entomological entries seem to begin with NRM or NHRM, as these are older acronyms. Looks like I shall have to upgrade SMNH soon.

If I recall properly, which I may not, you made museum page for Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. I cannot find anything in our very rapidly growing Repositories section. Do you remember? I located excellent website for their foundation, with acronyms and databases for several collections related to our project. I am going to put it under one blanket title of its initials, FIOCRUZ. I plan to have it finished this weekend. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can see in the Holotype list under IOC. I have found three species: Paraephydra freitasi, Stichelia cuneifascia & Ischnocnema hoehnei. PeterR (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply



Peter, where did you get the name Phrynops hoggei from? Please this is actually really important. Email me. Faendalimas talk 18:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just typo maybe, on EnWp is Mesoclemmys hogei with one G listed. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
No It is Phrynops hogei. I have change it already. PeterR (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
Yes sorry, on the EnWp Phrynops hogei is redirected to Mesoclemmys hogei. Maybe someting to look into? Dan Koehl (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dan. In the museum you find this turtle under Phrynops hogei and not under Mesoclemmys hogei. If you look by Phrynops hogei you see Current status: Mesoclemmys hogei PeterR (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Actually the current status is Mesoclemmys hogei please trust me on that I am currently writing a paper on it. It has not been in Phrynops for decades after Mesoclemmys was split out from Phrynops. Phrynops are distinguished from Mesoclemmys by the presence of a first neural in contact with the Nuchal bone, absent in Mesoclemmys, including M. hogei. However, I will say that is not correct the species is actually not a Mesoclemmys but this is information not yet published. Where did you get info that it is a Phrynops? Only about 5 people know its real status at the present time. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I trust you, but in the SMF museum you find him under Phrynops hogei and not under Mesoclemmys hogei. The status now is Mesoclemmys hoggei and that is not changed. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 18:47, 23 March 2015.
That is the original lodge meta data for the specimen when it was described, Chelodina longicollis is listed as Testudo longicollis because in 1790 thats what it was thought to be. Museum data is often wrong, around 90% for turtles. I would really prefer not to see this species listed under Phrynops until it is sorted out in the published literature, the most recent combinations have it in Mesoclemmys. I am fine with the synonymy calling it by its original described name, but it should be listed by its latest accepted combination on the Wiki. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
A little history may help, with this one, McCord et al made a complete mess of the south american Chelids in their 2001 and 2002 papers, their genus Bufocephala and Rynchocephala are paraphyletic and their use of Mesoclemmys was disastrous. Molina decided the best was was to lunp them all together again, however in recent times since 2005 (Bour and Zaher, Mesoclemmys has been resurrected for the non Phrynops species. However it is far from resolved. It is one wehere it is best to keep it out of Phrynops for now. Things are going to change here but we need to wait for the publications not preempt them. The reason the ENWP has links from Phrynops to Mesoclemmys is those pages date back to when it was a real mess, and as some species were púlled out of Phrynops, again, redirects were made. I know that, I made the redirects. Cheers Faendalimas talk 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
If I understand you well the original species was not Phrynops hogei? PeterR (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
No you are correct the original name was Phrynops hogei because at that time Mesoclemmys was a junior synonym of Phrynops see here But Mesoclemmys was resurrected in 2005. Cheers Faendalimas talk 09:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I guess my other concern is there are currently two pages for the same species. Phrynops hogei and Mesoclemmys hogei, both indicating a valid name, the valid name at present is Mesoclemmys hogei, should not Phrynops hogei redirect to that? By the way I am sorry I reacted, this happens to be a very political issue right now, and I was not sure how you knew this, but now realise you are using the original metadata of the museum specimen, which is fine. My initial shock was I thought someone had released unpublished information I am privy to. Cheers Faendalimas talk 09:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
So what I have done is wright. The original species is Phrynops hogei and the current status is Mesoclemmys hogei. PeterR (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes except Phrynops hogei should be a redirect to Mesoclemmys hogei since the latter is the name in usuage. The former is no longer used. Cheers Faendalimas talk 10:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Current status is the redirect. Cheers.PeterR (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
No its not both Phrynops hogei and Mesoclemmys hogei find separate pages on the same species, clicking on Phrynops hogei should take you straight to Mesoclemmys hogei through the #REDIRECT magic word. It also should not appear on the Phrynops genus page, since the species has been removed from that genus, having it appear in two separate genera is confusing. Comment out the info on the Phrynops hogei page and add the redirect at the top and delete the link from the Phrynops genus page is the correct placement of this species, the name Phrynops hogei appears in the synonymy on the Mesoclemmys hogei page. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Faendalimas here: if Phrynops hogei is a synonym of Mesoclemmys hogei, then the P. hogei page should not include any data, but instead only be a redirect to the M. hogei page.
As a side note Faendalimas, thank you for the background information regarding McCord et al. etc. It was an interesting read, especially when investigating the matter a little closer. Regards,Tommy Kronkvist (talk) , 11:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC).Reply
I add Museum and author taxa. Where should you add them? The original taxa (who I can find in the Museum) or the latest taxa (who I can't find in the Museum)? 11:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Info on the holotype can go in the Mesoclemmys hogei page, its still the same species, just the genus has changed, the type data belongs to the species name not the genus. The types of the genera are differnet, for Phrynops its Phrynops geoffroanus and for Mesoclemmys its Mesoclemmys gibba so neither are relevant here. Name combinations change the types do not. The Mesoclemmys hogei page already has this information, just I have not made a link to the museum. All information on a speciesbelongs on its species poage under its current combination. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 12:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: and Peter, your welcome on the background. I will help you all out a bit here when it comes to turtles the IUCN Turtle Checklist that I have just linked the homepage for has much of this information in it. It is the most comprehensive list of the turtles of the world and is used by Peter Uetz of Reptile Database also. It has multiple editions and it helps to have them all the page I have linked has pdfs of every version. When you look at a taxa you will see small numbers next to the name egMesoclemmys raniceps (Gray 1856b) (12:41) on page 424 of the 2014 edition, the numbers refer to discussions on an issue, the 12 means the 2012 edition the 41 is the comment number in that edition. Anytime there is needed discussion or explanation there is a comment in the relevant edition. So as to make my position here clear I am a member of the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group, I do not author it, myself and James Parham are the reviewers of the document, we are both Taxonomists and Palaeontologists who specialise in turtles. I am second author on the Fossil Checklist of Turtles which should be out soon it is in final stages of its first edition. But I would recommend to anyone editing turtle pages they get those pdf's and follow what goes on in there, as I said this is where Reptile Database gets its information for turtles, it is also the document of choice for the ENWP and EOL is trying to follow it also. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 13:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
For me I don't doubt about your expertise. The only question for me is: where can I find the original species in the Museum. Under his first name or under his last name. PeterR (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
In a museum you will find a species under whatever name they were given when it was lodged, if you very lucky it may have been updated, usually not. However the only name that matters for holotypes of species is the species name, the genus is irrelevant only worry about the species name, ie the second one. the combination of the genus and species name will change, often alot with older specimens. It does not matter. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 14:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
oh and Peter, dont worry, I made my position clear for NPoV reasons, ie I am being upfront in my involvement with those documents. I did not believe you doubted me. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 14:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edits on Anthene irumu


Peter, thank you for contributing to those pages. However, I have just seen your recent edits on Anthene irumu. In the last line of the Synonymy you have taken the brackets away from the author name. Stempffer originally combined irumu with Cupidesthes. Libert has now combined it with Anthene. Therefore the brackets around the original author name/date "Stempffer, 1948" should be reinstated. These brackets are a convention to show that the combination is not the one originally conceived by the original author. I would be grateful if you could conform to this convention in future and leave the brackets around the authors when this is appropriate. Alan Accassidy (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can't remember that I have delete the brackets. But if you say so it will be wright. Normal I don't do that. PeterR (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Administrator rights


Dear PeterR, You have been granted administrator user rights, congratulations!

Admin userbox on Wikispecies

This user is an administrator on Wikispecies. (verify)

Administrators may use the administrator user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Admin}}

Userbox on Meta-Wiki


If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies admin user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

Dan Koehl (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Polyommatus Subgenera


Peter, I don't understand why you have reverted my edit on Polyommatus damone. We have a policy here to have species pages in binomial format, not with subgenus names in brackets in the title. This is to facilitate searches for binomial names from outside search engines. We keep the subgenus name in the Taxonavigation section, as you will see on my recently created binomial species pages, but not in the page title itself. So the Species Page title will be Polyommatus damone, but the taxonavigation shows sub-genus Agrodiaetus. I am also keeping a Subgenus Page for Agrodiaetus but this will link to binomial species pages such as Polyommatus caerulea. So please put Polyommatus damone back to the way I left it. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alan It was a very stupid mistake PeterR (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your first action as admin


Peter, now you can delete G.D. Hale Carpenter. Go to the page, and then you find in the menu in upper right corner of the page an arrow after the word More. Click on that link, and choose delete. Good luck! Dan Koehl (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dan done. thanks for explain PeterR (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Peter, bitte schau Austrophthiracarus_longisetosus an. Name und Synonyms ist gleich? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Glaucopsyche aeruginosa


Peter, on the page for Glaucopsyche aeruginosa you have a reference of Korb, 2013 with a link to the full article. However, I can only make this link connect to a Russian web page instead of a document. Can you refine this link or explain to me how to follow the web site to see the publication? Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alan, this is the web site from Amurian zoological journal. When I started with it they had an english site with journals. Now it is only a russian site. PeterR (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC).Reply

Paola Martin


Yesterday, I created author site for Paola, but with A.R., from information I got from Zootaxa. As yours looked somewhat better, I combined what I had into your page, and made redirect. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thats ok. PeterR (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi Peter. Pages such as; Acontia (Acontia) cimbebasia are orphans and you have replaced them by their equivalent e.g. Acontia cimbebasia. It might be a good idea to delete them in order to tidy up the list of orphans. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Andy, I'm clean up the subspecies this year, but I couldn't do all. Every time if I add new species I update them. PeterR (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sure is a slow process dealing with orphans. I made a few when I first started, but now going through those created by others - that is until my head hurts! Regards and good luck Andyboorman (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply



I have two questions. First, "Jong, de R., 1991: A note on three species of Taractrocera Butler (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Zoologische Mededelingen 65 (19): 257-265. Full article." What are 65 (19) mean?

Second, I want to help out adding taxonomic contents but have no idea where to start. Is there a list of all the entries that have not been created? Or the list of all red internal links? Or something that points me to the direction of underdeveloped areas. Thanks! Trongphu (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, it doesn't have to be original. There are currently millions of known species in the world, and there are only 425,311 articles as of now. However, I have no idea which area of the taxonomy is hugely missing. I don't mind what bulletin (original or not) it is as long as nobody has written on Wikispecies because I actually want to do some work here. Basically, I want to know which areas of the taxonomy are missing a lot. Thanks! Trongphu (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Author Template


Peter, I see that on Plebejus maracandicus gobianus, among others I expect, you have changed my formatting of the author name in the Name section from the {{a|Author Name|Name}} Template version which provides a link and puts the name into small capitals, to a [[Author Name|Name]] style that keeps the link but removes the Small Capitals formatting. As Small Capitals are invariably used in properly formatted scientific publications, and also in our references, It seems retrograde to go back to just ordinary letters on this quite important line of the page. If you could leave the name formatting as I have created it, then the final result would be better and you could save a little time for yourself. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Peter, when you add the [[Author Name taxa]] link on a species page, I don't think that you should also add it on the nominotypical subspecies page. Really, these two pages Genus species and Genus species (sub)species still represent only 1 taxon, so give a misleading author count. Regards, Alan



I am dealing with three way homonym I found. Genus group Alaria shows up three times in Animalia. What may be senior homonym is Alaria Morris & Lycett 1850, Jurassic gastropod. Spider genus from 2012 is obviously junior. But I found one other mention of Alaria florida Guem., also called Peruvian Rose Moth, from one late 19th Century reference. Guem. may refer to Guembel. Can you help out with this? Neferkheperre (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I figured it all out. See Alaria for disambiguation. There were 3 junior homonyms in all, and lepidopteran is included, with replacement names. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yin & Li


Looks like you and I created same reference template at almost exactly same time. Happens occasionally. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that Zookeys has partnership with Wikispecies since 2007, where Zookeys automatically uploads its illustrations to Wikimedia Commons. No reference citations, that is on us. So you should be able to link original illustrations from Commons to your taxon pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Koiwaya 2007


Peter, I have a copy of Koiwaya, 2007, The Zephyrus Hairstreaks of the World. In it he erects 11 new Genera: Neogonerilia (2), Pseudogonerilia (1), Noseozephryus (1), Borneozephyrus (1), Palawanozephyrus(1), Fujiokaozephyrus (2), Uedaozephyrus (1), Kameiozephyrus (1), Shirozuozephyrus (13), Inomataozephyrus (2) & Kawazoeozephyrus (2). The numbers in brackets show the number of species included in each new genus. I have not seen any follow-up from reputable authors with any comment on the clarity of the distinctions between all these genera. I do not really have a view on the validity, but it does appear odd, and probably un-necessary, to create so many monotypic, or bitypic, genera based solely on minor variations in genitalic structures. Personally, I have experience of borneanus and I have always been happy with its inclusion in Austrozephyrus. I do not really see why Koiwaya has erected Borneozephyrus for just that species. On this website, however, we should include that action and should probably construct a page for Borneozephyrus and move borneanus to it. Here we just report other papers, we do not create new synonymies. However, I would not be surprised if at some future date another author creates a new synonymy and Borneozephyrus sinks as a synonym of Austrozephyrus. Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply



Peter, yes there has been confusion about "CMNH" as there is the Chicago MNH, which is also called the Field Museum, and the Carnegie museum which is in Pittsburgh. You can find an active page for the Carnegie Museum at CM. So if you want to link to Carnegie, just use that shorter abbreviation. I think I will change the page titled CMNH to a disambiguation page, but it will be best to use just "CM" for Carnegie. Alan Accassidy (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Peter, you are not wrong, but it is a potentially confusing issue with abbreviations. Go to CMNH now and you will see that I have made an explanation and a disambiguation. Accassidy (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added CMNH to FMNH as informational. I am trying to find out Carnegie Museum's present official acronym, which must be unique, but I think can overlap with former no longer used acronyms. Neferkheperre (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I just did some further digging. Chicago Museum's official name and acronym is Chicago Natural History Museum (CNHM). It carried this name and acronym 1943-1966. See Holotype and Field Museum. Carnegie Museum of Natural History is definitely CMNH. There is confusion potential in names, but acronyms are distinct. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

B.S. Chang


Hi, Peter. I just got this in from Benny K.K. Chan. Here is website for Chang; B.S. Chang. His note: "This bookbis written in chinese and there are only chinese names and short form of english name". I sent this link to Chinese editor here for help in translating.Neferkheperre (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Neferkheperre: What do you need exactly? I can read Chinese. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
The full firstnames. B. = and S. = PeterR (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Is supposed to be on this website, which I apparently forgot to include; Taiwan
@OhanaUnited:, I forgot you spoke Chinese, too. Neferkheperre (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Neferkheperre: This is a head scratcher. B. = Bao (Mandarin) or Bo (Cantonese). What's confusing is what S. should represent. In Mandarin it should be Xin. But in Cantonese it's Shun. Now Taiwan uses Mandarin so it should be Bao Xin. But obviously the abbreviated initials are B.S. This means it's either Bao Shun or Bo Shun. However, you never mix your name spelling. So realistically it should be Bo Shun. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hello PeterR, have a look in the title please: Clanis hhyperion hyperion. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for warning. Its ok now/ PeterR (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bugs in Cossidae


Hello Peter I've noticed that some of your records for Cossidae are linked to Coleophoridae. For example - look at genus Deserticossus. Couch you check it please and fix if possible? ;-)

Chris Jonko, European Butterflies and Moths — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lepidoptera~plwiki (talkcontribs) 12:34, 15 August 2015.

In 2006 Yakovlev create the new tribus Holcocerini with the genera Deserticossus, gen. n., Cryptoholcocerus, gen. n., Streltzoviella, gen. n., Barchaniella, gen. n., Plyustchiella, gen. n. , Franzdanielia, gen. n., Holcocerus and Yakudza. See Eversmannia Supplement 1 [4]. The tribus Holcocerini belongs to Coleophoridae, subfamily Blastobasinae. So Deserticossus belongs to Coleophoridae and not to Cossidae. If you have other information please inform me. PeterR (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply



Maybe it's me, but I'm pretty sure CAS and CASC are in fact the same institution. Shouldn't these be merged? Circeus (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

This whole architecture is pretty brand new to me. Is that our attempt at the Biocol/Index Herbariorum merger (which never materialized) for a standardized set of collection acronyms across biology? IH already standardizes most significant herbariums, but it seems no one has genuinely tried to compile a list of unambiguous acronyms across all types of collections. Circeus (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

CASC does not appear to be valid acronym. According to CAS website, entomology acronym is CASENT. Zookeys article is confusing and not too clear on holotype catalog numbers. I will do further work this week. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not blaming Peter. I'm pretty sure he creates these pages and categories based on what appears on the taxon page, itself based on what's in the published source, and what's in the published sources? It's a mess. Different specialties, different languages, different regions have different sets of semi-standardize acronyms, which have often varied depending on time period, too! There is no such thing as "invalid" acronyms as used outside herbariums because there has been no standardization whatsoever, and people (although they tend to reuse acronyms) will just use whatever they want since they only need to separate the institutions used in the article at hand.
I'm mostly asking because I approve of the standardization effort, but I don't know what to do about such cases of several abbreviations. Another case: AM and AMS Circeus (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
That last one should be AM the official acronym of the Australian Museum and what appears on all their material. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Basically, my question comes down to: what's the best way to document duplicates and what to do about them? I barely have to look to find more: UNAM, CNIN, INBUNAM are the same, but refer to a single collection (I count three herbariums--the national herbarium MEXU and two departmental herbarium FEZA and FCME, none of which have pages--and at least 8 separate zoological collections hosted at UNAM). Circeus (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Best way to find out current acronyms is to visit that museum's website. This does not invariably work, but it helps. And most museums do keep collections under originally cited/published acronyms, for ease of loans and study.

Peter, can you please, PLEASE check for obvious duplicates before creating a page in category:Repositories? I BEG you not to make more work for us when/if we ever get around to clean and merge these pages. I only had to glance at your recent update to find out in the last week you've created no less than four duplicates, one of which I told you was already found in two different forms just earlier this month!

Circeus (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to apologize for attributing UZMC and AMSA to you. Since you're the one doing most editing in that area I did not look closely enough at the page creators. Mea maxima culpa. I'm starting a discussion on the broader issues (notably the collection/institution distinction) on the Village Pump. Circeus (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Harry ten Hove


Harry A. ten Hove is Dutch, from Naturalis. I have more of his pubs coming up for citations this weekend. Would he be better cited as "Hove" or "ten Hove"? Zootaxa is no help, as all authors are in allcaps. Also, their Chinese chief editor has some problems rendering European names. "Junior" comes up as if it were family name. Neferkheperre (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The backname is ten Hove, like van Son. In german it is van (von) and in french it is le Cerf etc. PeterR (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sonthonnax, update


Just today, got full name: Léon Sonthonnax (1844-1902). Neferkheperre (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

van Achterberg confusion


I have 3 van Achterberg taxon authorities, and I am beginning to suspect they are only one or 2 people. All 3 are listed with Naturalis. They are: Cornelis van Achterberg, Cees van Achterberg, and from today, Kees van Achterberg. For Kees, see van Achterberg et al., 2015 as source. Can you help with this? Neferkheperre (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Seems pretty clear to me. All the zookeys article use a single email address (, and the only exception (the article under "Cees") has the email that's listed in the CV page for Cornelis. The only part that's confusing to me is the use of two distinct email addresses within such a small time period. Circeus (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
The official name is Cornelis van Achterberg (first name Kees) PeterR (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply



Peter, I see your recent change on the Godart author page. If you title the section "Publications", then you are really obliged to list there all the author's work. I use the title "Works Include" to explain to readers that this is probably not a complete list. I think this is better terminology for our purpose. Alan Accassidy (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC).Reply

I agree earlier with you, but MariusM found References better and others Publications. (Publications means books and bulletins etc.). I can mention not complete. We have to find an agreement with all the editors which term we use. PeterR (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC).Reply
I think this depends if we want complete bibliographies in the first place. By the general rules of "wikis are a work on progress", it's fine if the list is not exhaustive, as long as it at least include all works that wikispecies refers. Circeus (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
It is very difficult and time consuming to try to create a full bibliography for many prolific authors, especially from 19th and 20th centuries. We use References on species pages for works pertinent to the taxonomic acts represented on the page. My preference for author pages remains "'Works Include" for lists of publications that might be incomplete. However, I do not think it good use of my time to change the alternative conventions used by other contributors. I only make the point that my solution is the best phraseology in English to express that this is a list of the authors published works, but that it might not be complete. Accassidy (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Peter, I have no objection to subgenera following such a publication. However, I think that the individual species pages should be kept in binomial form such as Pilodurdorix whateveri. Then the genus page can list all the species of the genus and also link to subgenera pages, But when either of these pages links to a species, it should remain binomial, not have a species page for which the page name includes a subgenus in brackets. I hope this is clear. Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi PeterR, I see you are quite prolific on Wikispecies, creating a lot of new pages. If it's not too much to ask, could you, for every new taxon page, check Wikidata if there are already pages on other Wikis, and add your new page to the respective item, or create a new item? That would be tremendously helpful for Wikidata and, by extension, Wikipedia folks. No need to fill in details on new items yourself (though "instance of":"taxon" would help), we'll take care of that eventually. Thanks, Magnus Manske (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Institution acronym


Please don't revert acronym normalization edits unless the new institution is not the same as the one originally intended (in which case there was probably a problem with the acronym anyway) or you intend to argue that the acronym in use should be changed. The important thing is that the correct institution be referred to, not that we refer to it using exactly the same acronym as the source reference.

If you disagree with the process, I've been asking for input on Wikispecies:Village Pump for over a month now. Circeus (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I could n't react that time, because I was with holiday in Portugal. I use the original acronyms in the bulletins such as ZMHB, MfN etc. The acronyms for ZMB change already 10 times. Some authors use to day still ZMHB. Neferkheperre makes redirects so you see the acronym of this moment. PeterR (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's useless to have these categories in the first place if the taxa are split amongst dozens of categories for a single isntitutions (that the users have no indication even EXIST) just because we've decided to exactingly reproduce zoologist's problems with basic standardization. Circeus (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nyodes brevicornis


I added the Primary reference for Nyodes brevicornis. Mariusm (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

For Xanthia brevicornis you can add {{invalid}} (see the page). Mariusm (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi Peter,
you deleted Template:Zt3590.51, but there is one page linkig to it: ISSN 1175-5326/2012.2. Could you please check, whether the link also should be deleted? Best --Murma174 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done PeterR (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Creation of Template


Many thanks for your help and patience. I have problems to create templates (author or taxon template). Any help would be appreciated. Hmandre (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Which repository?


Nola calochromata has its repository listed as NHMU (i.e. ZMB), but it is categorised in ZSM. Which one is correct? Circeus (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

It was by mistake categorised in ZSM. Hacker say in NHMU and Afromoths say in ZMHB. The species in ZMB is official Nola (Mecothrix) calochromata after ICZN. PeterR (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Same situation at Plusia aeneofusa. Circeus (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

done PeterR (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ancylis halisparta (I dare not assume that the category is always correct because I suspect I will inevitably run into the reverse case eventually) Circeus (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Complicated case


At Agdistis kruegeri, it's a lot more complicated. The abbreviation actually given in the article is "BM", which is not one they are listing, and I can't tell/don't dare pick whether it's an error for "TM" (=DNMNH) or "BMNH".... Any thoughts? Circeus (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC) done PeterR (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi Peter,
what is the difference between Batia and Batia (Stephens)? Why do we need two articles about the same Genus? --Murma174 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not ready with update Batia.PeterR (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for your reply. I created a disambiguation-page Batia now an corrected the entry at Wikidata. Take care --Murma174 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I was forgotten to make this. PeterR (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi Peter, there is one page still linking to the Zt-template:
Could you please check, whether the link in that page should be deleted? Thank you --Murma174 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done PeterR (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Make your edits easier


Hello Peter, Instead of writing [[ZFMK]] plus [[Category:ZFMK]] you can write just {{rl|ZFMK}} it will add the category automatically. Mariusm (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Marius, For me maybe it could be easier, but not for the reader. Now I add all on the same way and the reader see now immediate the results. Museum or species in museum. By {{rl|ZFMK}} you see only the museum. The reader have to know that he have to push on repositories to see the species. To add the just species who are in the museum I add in the redirect page the category museum and in the new combination page the museum. PeterR (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC).Reply

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.
Return to the user page of "PeterR/Archive 2015".