User talk:PeterR/Archive 2017–2019

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.

---

Updating ISBN's

OK I may have over-reacted slightly, and I've struck part of my comments on my talk page.

The update being made was technical in nature in that an ISBN in plain format won't necessarily be converted into a link automatically after some time after 2017. The technical update was to convert these magic links into explicit template calls.

I can understand your concerns when you see a lot of (unexpected) edits though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It is ok, but don't update the ZT numbers PeterR (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't plan on changing those templates myself (and the updating would be limited to the ISBN numbers ONLY.) given the concerns you expressed. However as I said above at some point the magic conversion may stop working. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. you can help it. PeterR (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Vraag

Category:Reference templates Why are you removing this category? Was it an accident? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not. It is not after our agreements. I update my own Reference templates and from Sthoner after our agreements. PeterR (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Navigation It makes it harder to find the templates and it puts them on a report for Special:UncategorizedTemplates. Please continue adding the category and not removing it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I go every time to the author to search if a template for his article exist. The author page have the first priority for searching references templates. Therefore must every reference template add in the author page. You have to fill the reference templates with the full author names. Thats the agreement. This category is made by Sthoner without comunication. PeterR (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Author pages Of course, add the templates themselves to author pages. But also please add them to categories as well so that 1.) this maintenance page is emptied and 2.) so other users can navigate all of the reference templates. The latter is also helpful in case someone needs to do maintenance across a lot of templates (for instance, adding {{ISBN}} to the ISBN magic links). Everything other than the root category should be categorized. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't find in the agreement of reference template to add ISBN but only ISSN numbers. So show me the agreement for ISBN. PeterR (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ISBNs If you don't want to add ISBNs, then don't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Walsingham

This discussion started here.

Peter, Thomas de Grey Walsingham was the 6th baron of that name and lived 1843-1919. There is a bibliography for him here. The only paper that comes up under a search for The Lord Walsingham is from 1919. There is nothing outside this date range. I am confident that these are the same person, as the son and grandson of Thomas were John and George. Thomas is the only one alive in 1919 that has any publications in Lepidoptera. Where it says "Lord Walsingham M.A." the "M.A." refers to a degree of Master of Arts - which is consequent to graduating from Cambridge University where he was a member of Trinity College (which is, by a strange coincidence, where I did my degree also). Details of him here. Accassidy (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have put in the web links that should have been there earlier!! Accassidy (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Ennomomima is invalid

Please look at Ennomomima - it is a synonym of Zatrephes (see reference at the bottom). Mariusm (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Marius. I shall fix it. PeterR (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Types

Peter,

Rothschild describes both male and female of carmesina here. This would be a good reference to add to the species page. He doesn't say "holotype" or "allotype", but the male comes first. If the BMNH has a series of males, as seems likely from the new paper, but only one has a "Type" label, then I think it is fair to describe these as "Holotype ♂ + Syntype ♂♂" and so on. Also, I would delete all the text on the Automolis carmesina page and just reduce it to a Redirect for Zatrephes carmesina.

Alan Accassidy (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusing deletion

Template:Zt3777.1.1 This has over 100 transclusions--why did you delete it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Because this reference template is not after our agreements. I Have made a new one after our agreements. If I update species or genera, I update the reference templates to. PeterR (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Template agreements I'm still a little confused: did you remake it already? If so, I will replace the old template with the new one to clear out all of these redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a programmer. So I have done nothing. If you want known more ask Mariusm. PeterR (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

First you say "I have made a new one", and then you say "I'm not a programmer. So I have done nothing." How can you both make a new template, and also not make a new template?? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC).

Peter, when you change a template's name which is used in many pages, please leave a REDIRECT on the old name. Mariusm (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Marius, normal I do this, may be I have forgotten it to do with this one. He could sent me a list for updating. PeterR (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

On 18 july 2015 i have make a new one for Zt3777.1.1 namely Yang, Wang & Li, 2015. I have replace the new template by the species. See Edosa bicolor . total 24 pieces. PeterR (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Tommy, you restore the template Zt3777.1.1. Thats against our policy. What is the real problem. I don't understand koavf with over 100 transclusions. PeterR (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ I am sorry for my late response. The problem is that you deleted the template named "Zt3777.1.1". The template is used on more than 100 pages (see here.) As a result there are "red links" to the template on all of those 100 pages, which is not good. That is why I restored the template. I then moved the template to the new name, {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}. Moving a page changes the name of the page, but it also automatically creates a redirect from the old name to the new name (see here.)

The final result is that the name of the template is now correct, and there are zero red links to the old name. That is how you should have done it: instead of deleting the template, you should have moved it to the correct name. Please see Hilfe:Seite verschieben on the German Wikipedia for information on how to move pages. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

I still don't understand it. I have made already more then 50 replacement names for Zt reference templates, without trouble. Why give this trouble. If I get a list where I have forgotten to replace ZT3777.1.1 , I can do this replacement. PeterR (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, the {{Zt3777.1.1}} template is used on more than 100 pages, and a list of them can be seen here: Pages that link to "Template:Zt3777.1.1". If you want to you can change all of the {{Zt3777.1.1}} links on all of those pages into {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}. However that is not necessary, since I have made an automatic redirect from {{Zt3777.1.1}} to {{Yang, Wang & Li, 2014}}, as you can see here.

Unfortunately many of the "Zt" templates you have deleted are still used on many pages, without redirects. Now there are red "Zt" links on those pages, instead of the templates. A few examples can be seen on these pages:

• Helina medogensis: {{Zt1137.63}} red link
• Dicrepidiina and Gabriel Biffi: {{Zt3587.65}} red links
• Oonopidae: {{Zt3709.1.3}} red link
• Homoneura (Homoneura): {{Zt3890.1.1}} red link

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

If you need a thorough explanation about redirects and redirect pages, please se Wikipedia:Weiterleitung in the German Wikipedia. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

Please don't include the (Subgenus) in the page-names

Peter, I thought we agreed a long time ago not to add the (Subgenus) to the species page-name. This causes so many pages to be incompatible with one another. We want our database to be standardized and our standard is Genus species. In the page itself you can add the Subgenus without problems; you can also redirect if you wish. I deleted many pages with Genus (Subgenus) species so why have you started now to make them again? Please be reasonable and conform to WS standard. Mariusm (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Marius, We have discussed this already. If there are new genera or species or subspecies with subgenera we can add those. If you add author taxa and museum you take the official combination. I know you don't like that, but I want to add the species or subspecies after official bulletins. There are genera with subgenera with only species with subgenera, so there are no old species transferred to them. I'm a little bit tired over all the discussions. For instance ZT3777.1.1. I have make a new one after our agreements and replace Zt3777.1.1 through the new one via authored taxa. What Kronkvist have done I don't understand it. I see a lot of new contributions also with subgenera. Every body here is doing his own thing. PeterR (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I have send this to Koavf: On 18 july 2015 i have make a new one for Zt3777.1.1 namely Yang, Wang & Li, 2014. I have replace the new template by the species. See Edosa bicolor . total 24 pieces.

Peter, I can't agree with your argument about "official combination". You can add the "official combination" in the species data. See for example a page I made: Zyras prudens. in the data I specify "Subgenus: Zyras (Cephalodonia)", isn't that enough to satisfy you? I'm talking only about the "name of the page" not about the data included. Mariusm (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In this case I add the data by Cephalodonia prudens, because this is the original combination. After that I transferred it to the current status with subgenus. If you like I can show you by this species. PeterR (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC).

I understand you perfectly, you don't have to show me. What I say is only this: write the data exactly as you wish - ONLY make the name of the page in the format Genus species. Mariusm (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I shall try an other experiment. If it works its ok. I try to find a compromise for original species with subgenera). PeterR (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You get only the original combination with the full text in the species. I'm sorry, but there is no other way. PeterR (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC).

Here an example of new contributions: Trachys reitteri. I see many more from others. Is there no control anymore? PeterR (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Polyommatus schuriani attalaensis

Peter, I have made a small revision to that page to remove the obvious inconsistency. Thankyou for pointing it out. If we take Tshikolovets 2011 as the current authority then Agrodiaetus has only sub-Genus status. There is a lot of catching up to do in Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus). I may get back to that when I tire of the current work I am doing on African Poritiinae. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Peter, Parnassius is in Papilionidae, while Agrodiaetus is in Lycaenidae. "Parnassius (Agrodiaetus)" makes no sense to me. Surely it is Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus). All the taxa under Agrodiaetus should be done as you have with Polyommatus yurinekrutenko. Thanks. Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Application for Checkuser

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another application for Check User

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Checkuser Application

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Standing for role of checkUser

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Checkusers

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Peter, danke fur dein kommentar bei Abstimmung von PAGENAME, du hast aber kein direktes Wahl gemacht, nur ein Diskussions Kommentar? Möchtest du dein der Stimme enthalten? Falls nicht, Könntest du ach bitte, dein Wahl einfügen? Schöne grüsse, Dan Koehl (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Neozephyrus uedai kachinicus

@PeterR: Peter, in Koiwaya, 2007, this taxon is given as kachinus not kachinicus. I do not have access to the original 2002 paper. Can you double check the original spelling, as clearly one form of the name must be wrong. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, The original description is Neozephyrus uedai kachinicus. This subspecies is described in Gekkan-Mushi, 381 page 8 in japanese and page 12 in english, 2002.

Secondly, you have created pages for suroia Tytler and its subspecies under Chrysozephyrus, with reference dates up to 2003. Koiwaya, 2007, p.184, has this species in Neozephyrus, so I think it should be moved. Have you any reference later than 2007 retaining the binomial Chrysozephyrus suroia?. Accassidy (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, I don't know. I have the information from funet. If I ask on internet for Chrysozephyrus, I find a lot of publications. So, I don't know whart is wright. PeterR (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies Oversighter

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

Link to PDF file no longer works

Hello PeterR. You have created the Zygaena (Zygaena) rhadamanthus page. Thank you for that! Now, a few years later, the link to the PDF reference does not work anymore. Do you perhaps have a new link instead? If you do, can you please add it? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Fixed it. ;) --Succu (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed it too. ;-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Template:Zt3704.1.1

Hello, you deleted the template [[Template:Zt3704.1.1]], because you wrote a new template instead. Deleting this template causes 20 pages with red links now! PLEASE stop deleting templates, which are used by other pages. Always check the special page "What links here". PLEASE do not delete the template, but redirect it to the new template. For other users, who want to repair the red links (like me) it is very difficult sometimes to find out the name of the new template. Bedankt! --Murma174 (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Same with [[Template:Zt3613.176]] --Murma174 (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

All done PeterR (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reaction! --Murma174 (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Move

Hi Peter,
during the last days I checked your deletion log (back to Dec., 01 2016) and found a bunch of deleted templates, which are used by other pages. These are resolved now back to Dec., 01 2016. I will continue this check in the next days.

Many of these problems come up, when you write a new template to replace a Zootaxa or a reference template. Have you ever tried the 'Move'-function of our editor interface? You find it in the upper right corner of every page, left of the search field. Just click on 'More' and then on 'Move'. Give the Zt ore reference template a good new name and that's it. You will never again produce redlinks! This is much easier for you.

All the best --Murma174 (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, PeterR (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: Check done back to Feb 01 2016 Dec 31 2015 now. --Murma174 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Yang, 2015a

Peter,
I'd really like to know, why you are continuing in your old habits: Template:Yang, 2015a
Redlinks now after Special Page: What links here in these pages:

• Raphicera satricus
• Raphicera satricus satricus
• Raphicera satricus sichuana

--Murma174 (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The template:Yang was wrong had to be Lang. Had make a new one for Lang, 2015a and delete Yang, 2015a. Had to go to hospital for attest and after that, I forgot to update. PeterR (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Peter! You don't need to apologize. It would help a lot, if you could try to use the Move-function. --Murma174 (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Albodikra or Aldodikra

Hi Peter! You created the new genus Albodikra and the new species Aldodikra bifida with a different spelled genus name. Which genus name is correct? --Succu (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It is Albodikra. PeterR (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Subgenus

Please, please stop putting on subgenera to Bembidion. You're making things more difficult to sort out. This isn't right and it isn't what we've decided to do. I beg you to leave Bembidion alone and not to mess with it any more. Mariusm (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Its all ready a big mess. I only add the original combinations after original bulletins. It have all the status valid. What you are doing have all the status invalid. We had this discussion before and you know that we have to add the original combination for author taxa and museum. At the time we decided to work without subgenera, we didn't had author taxa. I have ask many authors for comment and all say that genus with subgenus is the valid name. I cant made species who don't assist as valid. PeterR (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Cuora chriskarannarum

PeterR, Cuora chriskarannarum is a junior synonym of Cuora pani it should not have its own page, it was synonymised by the original author McCord, as an error. This taxon should not have a page I will be deleting it. ok? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: Please do not delete, but create a redirect to the valid name. Thanks --Murma174 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Murma174: of course, cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I have done it. PeterR (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page archival

Hello Peter, and as always: thank you for your many good edits! Your user talk page is getting very long, with a lot of old discussions. If you like to I can archive the discussions from 2016 and earlier, in the same way OhanaUnited helped you with the archives from 2008 and 2010? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC).

Please Tommy do it PeterR (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

Tommy, thanks PeterR (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please block 94.122.92.179

Please block Special:Contribs/94.122.92.179 because this IP doing vandalism. Thanks.--Rxy (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Atachorutes najtae

Hello Peter, your reference is about Stachorutes najtae. A mistake? --Succu (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Succu, This was a mistake. It have to be Stachorutes najtae. I have repair it. Thanks for your attention PeterR (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Repositories error

Hi Peter, Why did you make the this change in Repositories? You made a mistake, please revert this edit. Mariusm (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Marius, I don't know what you mean. PeterR (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You redirected Repositories to Walter Michael Neukirchen which is wrong. Mariusm (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Marius, I hope it is good again. PeterR (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Aurivillius, 1909b

Peter, I thought we agreed to keep the "b" in "1990b" for the Template name, but not to include the "b" after the "1990" in the reference itself. This keeps the citation cleaner and more normal, but enables us to list multiple references for the same author in the same year. Can we agree to keep it that way? Thanks. Alan Accassidy (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC).

Alan, I have made the template like the same way as 1909a which made by you. We had an agreement to make the templates on this way. What is the problem now? PeterR (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacques Plante

Hello Peter. May I ask what reference you used when you added the years of birth and death for Swiss entomologist Jacques Plante? He is currently being discussed at Wikidata, here. We would like to be able to verify the information, since there are at least four different people in the database listed as "Jacques Plante". (You are welcome to answer here in your Wikispecies talk page: you do not have to answer at Wikidata if you do not want to.) Thank you in advance, and best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Tommy, So far I know I use the Jacques Plante reference whose collection is deposed in Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Genève, Switzerland. What I could find on informations I have placed by Jacques Plant, PeterR (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, I was specifically wondering about this edit when you added the years of Plante's birth and death. From were did you get that information? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

Tommy, I found the dates (1920-2003) in Lepidopterae novae 6(1) see: [1]. page: 7

Thank you very much! I will add the reference to Wikidata. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC).

If you have more questions, I hear it PeterR (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I'm Penny Rose Smith. I have created an account on Wiki Species to join the project. Could you give me a welcome page on my talk page and give me some tips, advice and some starters to help me? Thanks! Penny Rose Smith (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please! I know a few rare species that you might have not heard of. Penny Rose Smith (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My background is to think of ideas on what type of species that I'm currently interested in, or what article needs improving. Penny Rose Smith (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Rare dinosaur species and other extinct animals. Penny Rose Smith (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery

Dear Peter, I found two versions of Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, HUMG and HMG the last one has a Wikidata item. Both of them link to one species each, Calodesma collaris and Eucosma parvulana. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dan. This is a problem from search Wikispecies. If I type Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, I don't see HMG. So I think this museum don't assist and make a new one. PeterR (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand, still this location should only have one record here and on Wikidata, and I have been trying to find which of your two abbreviations is more common, but in fact, I have not found any abbrevation at all. Sometimes the museum is referred to as "Hunterian", thats all. So maybe it makes sense to make a page with the full name, and delete or redirect, the two abbreviations? Or, did you find any of the two abbreviations mentinoed as source anywhere? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dan see Calodesma collaris — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC).

Peter, as I mentioned above, I have read Calodesma collaris, where it is specified to HUMG, please see Eucosma parvulana, where it is specified with HMG. The location is submitted two times, with different abbreviations. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I Changed to HMG in Calodesma collaris, and deleted HUMG. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Raymond Gill

Also a duplicate is Raymond Gill and Raymond J. Gill. I understand the second is more commonly used, I statrted to merge them. Please take a look, I may miss someting. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have redirected the "Raymond Gill" page to "Raymond J. Gill", stating the former as a duplicate. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

Arturo Roig-Alsina

Sorry to bother you, heres another duplicate, Arturo Roig-Alsina which you created in 2008 and Arturo Roig Alsina which was created a week ago. I vote for to keep the first, oldest one, which has a Wikidata article, and delete the new one? Or do you want to redirect? Dan Koehl (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dan sorry, but I didn't create this one but Neferkheperre. I find your vote good. PeterR (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Strange, according to the history, you created both. I deleted the new one. All well! :) Dan Koehl (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Gilligan et al., 2013

Hi,

You recently deleted Template:Gilligan et al., 2013, but didn't give a reason - why was it deleted, please? I note that there are several pages still calling the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a new one Gilligan et al., 2014, 2013 was wrong PeterR (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What I think Andy maybe means, theres still links to the old one which need to be fixed. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; yes. The same applies to Template:Fu et al., 2016a, which has two inbound links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Have clean up this template. PeterR (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

And Template:Ullah et al., 2017a. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have clean up Template:Ullah et al., 2017a

I have clean up Template:Gilligan et al., 2013 PeterR (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If I have forgotten something you can tell me. PeterR (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much Peter. (here is some information about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation). Dan Koehl (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Deckenia

Hello PeterR. Please note that the page Deckenia (Hilgendorf) (created today, by you) is a duplicate of Deckenia (Potamonautidae) (created as "Deckenia (Deckeniidae)" by Keith Edkins in 2006‎ and moved to "Deckenia (Potamonautidae)" by Stemonitis in 2011). They pages should be merged, using the name Deckenia (Potamonautidae) for the main page. It is better to use the family name for disambiguation, since in theory a person named Hilgendorf could be the author of both the animal and the plant genus. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC).

Last year we have decide to use genus with author name, because the author never change. PeterR (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good point... However in theory we might then have "Deckenia (Schmidt)" and "Deckenia (Schmidt)" : one for animals, and one for plants – but with the same name? And perhaps also the same for Fungi and Protista... But you are right: consensus is consensus. Thank you for your edits. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC).

I have changed all old links to "Deckenia (Potamonautidae)". Now they link to "Deckenia (Hilgendorf)" instead. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC).

Tommy, thanks. If we find an example with two same genera with the same author we find a solution. PeterR (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Novosatsuma Johnson, etc.

Peter, In his Atlas of Neptropical taxa, Lamas, synonymised a number of genera, Ahlbergia (Bryk) and Novosatsuma etc (Johnson), with Callophrys, despite these genera being Sino-Oriental in distribution, rather than Neotropical which was the subject of his book. Additionally, as a consequence of his study being Neotropical, Lamas did not include any of the Oriental species in his listing for Callophrys. I have re-established Ahlbergia as a valid genus in our pages, and I seek your comments on doing the same for Novosatsuma, which I see you have been still updating but with the "invalid" notation. Do you have any view about the wisdom of reinstating Novosatsuma as a valid genus here? Regards. Accassidy (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have follow Lamas, 2008 and Butterflies and Moths of the World. [2] PeterR (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, then we will follow those and ignore the synonymy by Lamas from 2004. Accassidy (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear PeterR/Archive 2017–2019, tomorrow March 10 2018, is a day of celebration, when you have edited Wikispeces for ten amazing years!

I think this edit was the first of your contributions

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.

Members are listed at Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikispecies editors. Those who would like to indicate membership of the Society on their user page can use the {{User Ten Year Society}} userbox.

Best regards,

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Lasiocampini

Hello Peter! Since you are a specialist on Lepidoptera, could you please check if this edit of the Lasiocampini page is correct? The page was originally created by you in 2013, and the edit I ask about was made today by an unregistered IP-user (i.e. the editor was not logged in). Unfortunately I do not have any valid printed literature or online records to check it myself. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Tommy, it is good so. Dendrolimus is in the tribus Pinarini and Macrothylacia is in the subfamily Lasiocampinae. I'm not sure if this genus is in the Macrothylaciini. PeterR, 14:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Okay, thanks. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC).

Parides species groups

Hello Peter Are the species groups of Parides those given (circumscribed?) by Möhn, 2006, Butterflies of the World 26: 3. as the ref suggests? There are later papers by Racheli and others based on supposed apomorphies but I don't find them convincing.I don't have Mohn so I can't check myself.Notafly (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I ask since I'm expanding Parides on En Wikipedia. This follows Funet and by implication Möhn. Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Iurubanga arix

Hi Peter, shouldn't this be Iurubanga arixi? --Succu (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You'r wright. I have change it. thanks PeterR (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Mimopogonius hoverei

Hi Peter, another typo: Mimopogonius hovorei? --Succu (talk)

You'r wright. I have change it. thanks PeterR (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Ragadia crisilda crisilda

Hello Peter. Shouldn't the author of Ragadia crisilda crisilda be Hewitson, 1862 instead of Riley & Godfrey, 1921? Best wishes, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC).

I have repair it and thanks PeterR (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC).

Private collections standard

Hello, Peter. I would like to establish a standard for private collections. The collection names would be constructed like this: <Last + Middle name>, <First name> collection. As an example I created Private collections; Assing, Volker collection and Category: Assing, Volker collection. See also the page Neosclerus barbatus. I hope that you follow this standard. Mariusm (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

On further reflection, and to be consistent with the author handling, the names will be constructed as follows: <First name> <Last name> private collection. For example: Volker Assing private collection and Category: Volker Assing private collection. See also Private collections. Mariusm (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Its depend whose private collection. I have a lot of bulletins with private collections from authors like Inoue, etc. In the meanwhile the collections are deposed in a museum, in this case BMNH. When I have a private collection, I link it to the authors name, this for more information like address and what is your solution for collection L. & C. Brévignon? In the bulletins the text is alway collection Volker Assing never Assing, Volker. 09:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC). — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talk • contribs).

One more typo...

Ocrepeira pedregai is Ocrepeira pedregal. --Succu (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed. thanks PeterR (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

NBM

You can purchase a copy of Tennent's paper for £20 here. Accassidy (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. thanks. I order one by Naturalis. PeterR (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wesolowska & Russel-Smith, 2000

You recently deleted Template:Wesolowska & Russel-Smith, 2000, without giving a reason. It has 40 inbound links.

1. Please always give a reason when deleting something
2. Please check for inbound links before deleting pages or templates
3. If you created a new version; please make a redirect

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Likewise {{Wesolowska & Russel-Smith, 2011}}, with five inbound links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Mostly I do this on the way above. In this case the name Russel-Smith is false, the name is Russell-Smith. PeterR (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

How do you propose to handle the 45 links to non-existent templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

If I know these templates I shell handle it. PeterR (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Category:Xavier Mérit taxa

Hello Peter, There are 3 more species to add, how can I create them?

1/ Xavier Mérit et Michel Mérit - Problongos baudiliensis genus novus & species nova : un nouveau Lépidoptère fossile découvert dans la diatomite du miocène supérieur de Saint-Bauzile (Ardèche, F-07) (Lepidoptera, Geometridae, Ennominae) - Lépidoptères – Revue des Lépidoptéristes de France (ex Bulletin des Lépidoptéristes Parisiens), 2008, 17 (39) : 29-33.

2/ 3/ (amjadi amjadi & amjadi hoparensis)

Charmeux Jean-François et Mérit Xavier - Polyommatus metallica Felder, 1865 vole-t-il au Pakistan ? -Notes sur le complexe Polyommatus omphisa Moore [1875] et descriptions de Polyommatus amjadi sp. nova et de P. amjadi hoparensis ssp. nova de Hunza (Pakistan) (Lepidoptera : Lycaenidae) - Lépidoptères - Revue des Lépidoptéristes de France, 2017, 26 (68) : 98-105

4/ Slobodan Davkov and Xavier Mérit - Muschampia cribrellum inexpectata, a new subspecies from Mt Olympus, Greece (Lepidoptera : Hesperiidae) - Lépidoptères - Revue des Lépidoptéristes de France, 2018, 27 (69) : 2-11

Thanks. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xavm (talk • contribs) 12:17, 7 December 2018.

I have create Problongos and Problongos baudiliensis as example. If you want you can create the others now and if you need help you can ask me. If you wish I can create the others for you. PeterR (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Macroglossinae (Lepidoptera) vs. Macroglossinae (Chiroptera)

Hello ! It seems that there is a wrong link in Template:Philampelini, but I don't know how to correct it. TED (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Done PeterR (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ! TED (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Hello Peter, I noticed that you cut the content of the page John W. Brown to the page John Wesley Brown. In such a situation, when you want to change the title of a page, it is best to move the page to the new title instead of cutting and pasting its content. Thus it preserves the edit history and the Wikidata item is connected to the newly named page. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Korg (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree about full names, and thanks for your edits. However, please use the move function if you want to change the title of a page: in the upper right corner, click on "More", then "Move", then you can change the title. If you click on the "Move page" button, the title will be changed and a redirect from the old title will be automatically created. Please see en:Help:How to move a page for more information. Thanks, Korg (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I change a lot of reference pages create by Stohner. I have to do a lot more than alone change the title. So I make a new ones. PeterR (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a lot more than alone change the title"? If you have to change the title, you can move the page using the move function.

For information, all pages in Category:John W. Brown taxa have been moved to Category:John Wesley Brown taxa. It can be done quite easily with the gadget Cat-a-lot. Korg (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean add the full names after our agreements etc. If you make a reference page such as Young et al., 2017, you have add all the other authers with their full namesPeterR (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can made me a example how to use Gadget-Cat-a-lot.PeterR (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example on how to use the gadget Cat-a-lot. First, you have to activate the gadget in your preferences, section "Gadgets", it is at the bottom of the page: check the box "Cat-a-lot" to enable it, then save the settings.

Now suppose you want to move the pages in Category:John W. Brown taxa to the category Category:John Wesley Brown taxa.

Go to the category Category:John W. Brown taxa. In the bottom right corner of the category page, you will see a box labeled "Cat-a-lot"; click on it.

In the text field, enter the name of the new category, without the "Category:" prefix; in our example it will be John Wesley Brown taxa, then press Enter. The new category will appear in the list, with 3 icons next to it: (-) [remove], (→) [move] and (+) [copy/add].

You want to move all the pages, so next to "Select:", click on "all": all pages in the category will be highlighted in light green.

Next to the category John Wesley Brown taxa, click on (→): it will move all the pages you selected from the current category (John W. Brown taxa) to the desired category (John Wesley Brown taxa).

You will find additional information here: c:Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot. Let me know if you have any questions. Korg (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Peter, I saw that you created the page Marina Arnoldovna Makarchenko instead of moving the page Marina A. Makarchenko. Please use the move button to rename pages instead of recreating pages that had history. Korg (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you created the page Jober Fernando Sobczak instead of moving Jober F. Sobczak. Again, please use the move function. Thank you, Korg (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Standardize the reference templates please!

Good day Peter! Please see this link for the right way to compose a reference template. Please follow the procedure mentioned there to make your templates better and with less effort. Mariusm (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what I do wrong PeterR (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Dear Peter: Instead of the following code:

* {{a|Antonio Martínez|Martínez, A.}}, {{a|Gonzalo Halffter|Halffter, G.}} & {{a|Violeta Halffter|Halffter, V.}} 1964. Notas sobre el género Glaphyrocanthon (Coleopt., Scarab., Canthonina). [[ISSN 0065-1737|''Acta Zoologica Mexicana'']] 7(3): 1–42. <includeonly>[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Martínez,_Halffter_%26_Halffter,_1964 Reference page.]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference.]</noinclude>

The right way should have been:

* {{a|Antonio Martínez|Martínez, A.}}, {{a|Gonzalo Halffter|Halffter, G.}} & {{a|Violeta Halffter|Halffter, V.}} 1964. Notas sobre el género Glaphyrocanthon (Coleopt., Scarab., Canthonina). [[ISSN 0065-1737|''Acta Zoologica Mexicana'']] 7(3): 1–42. <includeonly>[[Template:Martínez, Halffter & Halffter, 1964|Reference page]].</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference]].[[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

But my suggestion for you is to write:

* {{a|Antonio Martínez|Martínez, A.}}, {{a|Gonzalo Halffter|Halffter, G.}} & {{a|Violeta Halffter|Halffter, V.}} 1964. Notas sobre el género Glaphyrocanthon (Coleopt., Scarab., Canthonina). [[ISSN 0065-1737|''Acta Zoologica Mexicana'']] 7(3): 1–42.{{subst:reftemp}}

The correct data will be automatically saved!!!! Mariusm (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Liansu Gong

Hi Peter, could you please restore the page Liansu Gong? I'd like to see the history. I'll redirect it to Lian-Su Gong. Thanks in advance, Korg (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You can do it by your selfPeterR (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No I can't restore the page, since I am not an administrator. Korg (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have Marius ask for help. I don't know how to do it.PeterR (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thank you! Korg (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Larsen & Congdon, 2012a

You recently deleted Template:Larsen & Congdon, 2012a, but there are eight pages transcluding it; and Template:Zt3322.49 redirects to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Likewise Template:Park, 2018 (five transclusions). I've raised several other examples here in the past. Please can you stop breaking templates like this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

a further example is Template:West, da Silva Jr. & Bertani, 1992. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I told you earlier that I didn't know that the move function is so bad. Before I restore above examples you have to update the move function to a reliable function. PeterR (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett:

1. I've now corrected all 8 pages that linked to the deleted Template:Zt3322.49 so that they link to the new Template:Larsen & Congdon, 2012a instead. After my edits only PeterR's own talk page link to the deleted template which of course is okay since we are talking about it here...
2. I'm a bit at a loss about the "Park" template. I've corrected the syntax of all the {{Park, 2018}}, {{Park, 2018a}}, {{Park, 2018b}} and {{Park, 2018c}} templates but can't really see any errors in terms of wrong links. May be that problem has already been fixed?
3. The deleted Template:West, da Silva Jr. & Bertani, 1992 was still linking to 2 pages (Pedro Ismael da Silva Jr. and Rogério Bertani) but I've fixed that as well. They now link to the correct Template:Lucas, da Silva Jr. & Bertani, 1992 instead.

Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi PeterR/Archive 2017–2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikispecies and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi PeterR/Archive 2017–2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi PeterR/Archive 2017–2019,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Lepidoptera Research

Just a heads up that this journal is in open access on the FLVC website. Circeus (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I knownPeterR (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Template:Zeller,_1852

I added the full publication info, but I'm not entirely sure what's the best way to indicate the date. It's the proceedings for 1852, but the printed date on them is 1854. Circeus (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think its ok now. PeterR (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference template

From Circeus's talk page.

• You wrote - I see you still try to change my reference templates. The only change you may do is to add the bulletins. Other changes are not good. If you still changing my Reference templates I stop with wikimedia. Their are a lot (1000+) reference templates that don't content after the agreements.
  • I added - what exactly are you referring to I am not aware of any agreement that would preclude Circeus from doing what he has been doing, Adding BHL and ISSN's and Categories to the reference templates is a good idea and not one I would disagree with. All ref templates should have the category added, which is in noinclude space, people should be able to find these refs. The pages on Wikispecies, no matter what they are, are public domain, they do not belong to any one of us.
    • Please could you explain what the problem is. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
      • If I make a reference template 2 minutes later Circeus is change them. He change for instance the full bulletin text in abbreviation text, or he delete the text full article (PDF) in PDF etc..He can't do that. If he want do some corrections he can only add the redirects to the bulletins or doi numbers. By the way he is doing this only by me and not by others. I make the reference templates after our agreements. He is doing the same as Stohner and that is very irritating. PeterR (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

He has made changes to mine and others templates, I do not mind. They do not belong to me. Please link some examples so I can see what has happened. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

the "2 minutes later" is definitely nowhere near accurate, but as I have said, I have been monitoring new template creations to standardize them. Peter's are not ones I typically do much to: to the best of my knowledge we mostly disagree in how to label the external links, but his posting to the Village Pump was the first time I heard that he was upset about it at all. I don't keep all these templates on my watchlist, so if he reverts, I wouldn't usually know about it. Circeus (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ Two things, PeterR (and a notice to @Circeus and @Scott Thomson so they get informed of my edit):

1. As we discussed here on your talk page already back in 2016, please stop calling him "Stohner". It is not okay to accuse him of using narcotics or being a drug dealer. His user name is "Stho002" and his real name is "Stephen". Nothing else. Please see User talk: PeterR, Archive 2016: Please stop insulting Stephen for our earlier discussion about this, to which you agreed.
2. About how you format new reference templates we can use Template:Teng & Wang, 2019b (created 17:55, 30 October 2019) and Template:Marusik & Omelko, 2017b (17:20, 30 October 2019‎) as examples. They renders like this:

• Teng, K.J. & Wang, S.X. 2019b. Taxonomic study of the genus Lateantenna Amsel, 1968 (Lepidoptera: Blastobasidae) from Mainland China, with descriptions of four new species. Entomologica Fennica 30(1): 1-19. DOI: 10.33338/ef.79901 . Full article (PDF). Reference page. 
• Marusik, Yu.M. & Omelko, M.M. 2017. A new species of Tekellina (Araneae, Araneoidea) from the Russian Far East. Entomologica Fennica 28(3): 164-168. DOI: 10.33338/ef.84684 Full article (PDF). Reference page. 

I find the following problems with them:

1. In both of them you add the "b" after the year of publication. This is incorrect, since the letter is not part of the publication data. It should be the year only.
2. You do not add any period (punt) after the year of publication. This is also incorrect, since the year is not part of the name of the article. For example the Teng & Wang article is named "Taxonomic study of the genus Lateantenna…" etc. It is not named "2019 Taxonomic study of the genus Lateantenna…" etc. but that is what you write. Please do not forget to add the correct punctuation.
3. You use the {{a}} author template when you list the name of the writers, for example Teng, K.J. That is very good, so I thank you for that. However could you please consider also adding the {{aut}} for any author names within the article titles? It works in the same way, except it will not add a link. Again using the Teng & Wang article your version says "Taxonomic study of the genus Lateantenna Amsel, 1968…" It is not hugely important, but the Wikispecies praxis is to use {{aut|Amsel}} for his author name, so that the title instead reads "Taxonomic study of the genus Lateantenna Amsel, 1968…" That way the author names will be formatted in the same way in all reference templates.
4. Please note that the author links in the Marusik & Omelko template are wrong. They link to Yuri M. Marusik and Mikhail M. Omelko (both redirect pages) but they should link directly to Yuri Michailovich Marusik and Mikhail Mikhailovich Omelko (without going via a redirect page). Checking the links only takes a few seconds, so it's a small thing to ask. (Also, it was actually you who created those redirect pages, even though it was quite a long time ago.)
5. In both of the above templates you use a hyphen for the pagination, for example "30(1): 1-19" in the Teng & Wang template. I know that using hyphen for this is the standard in Dutch, but as the Wikispecies Commmunity have agreed earlier we should instead use the longer "en dash" (gedachtestreepje), like this: "30(1): 1–19". This is all explained in the Help:Reference section guideline.
6. In both of the above templates you write "full article (PDF)" for the PDF link. Why do you use a small, lower case "f" for the word "full"? The text starts after a period (.) and therefore it is a new sentence (zin). As you know all sentences should start with a big letter, so it should be like this: "Full article (PDF)."

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC).

My interest in this was resolving it calmly, an aternative to the {{aut}} template is to use the {{a}} with the "|nolink=y" parameter, this will do the same as the {{aut}} template. My understanding was we wanted to get this down to one template. I recognised what he was doing using the nickname for Stephen, I have been ignoring this, but was aware of the previous discussions on this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Tommy, Please show me the proposal from MaiusM who we accepted as standard.

See allso

• Jiao, K-L., Wang, H., Wei, D-W., Mo, J-Y., Wang, Y-H., Bu, W-J. & Kolesik, P. 2018. A new species of Procontarinia (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) damaging fruit of mango, Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), in China. Zootaxa 4413(2): 368–376. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4413.2.8 Reference page.  using {{a|. If you see other sides with publications you see the references always year ending with a, b, c etc.

What is wrong by template Marusik & Omelko with the author names? If I know the full names I use the full names.

I think that this template

• Marusik, Y.M., Seropian, A. & Koponen, S. 2019. On the northernmost record of Pritha (Aranei: Filistatidae) in the Caucasus and entire Asia with notes on Filistatidae from Caucasus. Arthropoda Selecta 28(3): 403–407. Full article (PDF). Reference page.  is good and need no corrections. What Circeus have change in it is that he change Full article (PDF) in PDF. and there i'm angry about, because in my opinion the text is good.PeterR (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ "Please show me the proposal from MaiusM who we accepted as standard." The discussion can be found here: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 33#Reference Format. Please note that it is a very long discussion, started by MPF in 11 December 2015. A proposal was then added by Mariusm (not "MaiusM") the day after, at 12 December, 2015. The discussion ended with a poll about the References format in 24 December 2015. After that, our official Help:Reference section guideline was updated, so that it reflects the outcome of our votes.

"What is wrong by template Marusik & Omelko?" I already described that in my text above. They link to Yuri M. Marusik and Mikhail M. Omelko (both redirect pages) but they should link directly to Yuri Michailovich Marusik and Mikhail Mikhailovich Omelko (without going via a redirect page).

–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

In my text I can't find what you are saying. In my text I see Yuri Michailovich Marusik and Mikhail Mikhailovich Omelko

You didn't answer my question about Reference temlate:

• Marusik, Y.M., Seropian, A. & Koponen, S. 2019. On the northernmost record of Pritha (Aranei: Filistatidae) in the Caucasus and entire Asia with notes on Filistatidae from Caucasus. Arthropoda Selecta 28(3): 403–407. Full article (PDF). Reference page.  and you didn't answer my question about the reference template
• Jiao, K-L., Wang, H., Wei, D-W., Mo, J-Y., Wang, Y-H., Bu, W-J. & Kolesik, P. 2018. A new species of Procontarinia (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) damaging fruit of mango, Mangifera indica (Anacardiaceae), in China. Zootaxa 4413(2): 368–376. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4413.2.8 Reference page.  if this is correct (the author names). PeterR (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Tommy, sorry. I looked by the template {{Marusik & Omelko, 2019. I had to look by template

• Marusik, Yu.M. & Omelko, M.M. 2017. A new species of Acantholycosa baltoroi-group (Araneae: Lycosidae, Pardosinae) from the Russian Far East. Zootaxa 4232(4): 597–600. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4232.4.12 Reference page. . I have moved the names Yuri M. Marusik and Mikhailovich to the full names.I didn't update the reference templates. So far I know this is not wrong.PeterR (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you don't go back and correct the author links in old templates when an author page is moved, but there is no reason to use the old, incorrect links when creating new reference templates. Here are some more details about the above templates:

1. Template:Marusik & Omelko, 2017b. Here is your text: https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Marusik_%26_Omelko,_2017b&action=edit As you can see the author links point to Yuri M. Marusik and Mikhail M. Omelko, not the full names/links. You moved the names Yuri M. Marusik and Mikhailovich to the full names in November 2016. This template was made much later, in October 2019. There is no reason to use the wrong links 3 years after the author pages was moved, so why did you?

This is the text I have. A new species of Tekellina (Araneae, Araneoidea) from the Russian Far East. Entomologica Fennica 28(3): 164-168. DOI: 10.33338/ef.84684 . full article (PDF).  

Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference.. Changed by Circeus and why have I use . I can't remember to use this and which proposal is this.PeterR (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Template:Marusik, Seropian & Koponen, 2019. Pritha is a genus. Its name should be written with italics (cursief), not "Pritha" with straight (rechtopstaande) letters. (Also, the journal name links to the redirect page Arthropoda Selecta instead of the correct ISSN 0136-006X page. However that edit was made by Circeus, not you.)

This template was made by me and changed by Circeus. I always write a genus or species name in italics. PeterR (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Template:Jiao et al., 2018. I can't see anything wrong with the {{Jiao et al., 2018}} template. In my opinion it is correct, so what do you mean? (Also, that template was created by Neferkheperre, not by you.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

┌─────────────────────────┘

I show this template using {{a| and not {{aut} PeterR (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

PeterR wrote "This template was made by me and changed by Circeus. I always write a genus or species name in italics." That is not true. Here is the very first version of that template, created by you:

https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Marusik,_Seropian_%26_Koponen,_2019&oldid=6618920

As you can see Pritha is written without italics. That version has then been edited two more times by you, and one time by Circeus. You can click the "Newer version" link near the top to see all versions. It has never had Pritha written with italics: not by you, and not by Circeus. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC).

Hi, sorry to jump in, but I noticed earlier Peter referred to how "Full article (PDF)" external links in reference templates were being changed to show "PDF", which I've noticed happening with some of the templates I've created as well. I'm not particularly angry about those changes myself, as I assume there must be some good reason for them ...but what is that reason exactly? Circeus or Tommy, can you clear that up at all? Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: My logic is basically that by default we link to full versions of articles (I'd say those are the vast majorities of such links in red templates), so saying "full article" is pretty much entirely pointless, unlike noting if we happen to link a useful abstract (which does happen sometimes, though not commonly) or, as often happens, a PDF of the entire periodical issue). Circeus (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC).

It is normal since 10 years or more to use in the link to the bulletin Full article (PDF). Show an agreement that says to use [PDF]. In the comment from Tommy he says that Full article (PDF) is good and full have to wright with a capital F.

I'm not angry about changes in my reference templates, but I'm angry about changes that not correspond with our agreements. If he change full in Full its ok to me.PeterR (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If there is any "agreement" (whatever you mean by that) about how to word these links, I would love to see a link to it, Peter. Circeus (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as PDF notations are concerned, Zootaxa always used to provide PDFs of their first page of all articles, including abstracts. They stopped this in 2018. Thus it became necessary to differentiate abstract PDF from full article PDF until they stopped. Now I use Full article for information purposes. `Neferkheperre (talk)

┌─────────────────────────┘

@Circeus: Ah, makes sense. But yes, it sounds like we need some sort of agreed standard for this (if there isn't one already), a lot of templates created ages ago I've seen use "Full article (PDF)" style PDF links which is probably where problems are coming from. If we agreed to just use "PDF" we would then need to apply that to the old templates too, or if "Full article (PDF)" then likewise for the newer templates. Having multiple standards for this I can see being a bit confusing, and consistency is good. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not super invested in it, honestly, and I'd rather not start a debate on this point right now. I intend to convert the currently unhelpful/outdated help pages into a proper manual of style eventually, and there will be several other issues (some of them more relevant than the exact wording of external links) to discuss all at once. Circeus (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is not what I'm doing wrong, but have Circeus the right to change reference templates in templates that don't commit the standard reference template. Such as Full article (PDF) change in [PDF]. in the text use .PeterR (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear PeterR. The Help:Reference section Guideline does not say whether we should write "Full article (PDF)" or only "(PDF)" for full articles, so I don't think we have a proper, official standard for that. The guideline only mentions "Preview (PDF)" (and presumably also "Abstract (PDF)") which is supposed to be used for everything that is not a full article. But nothing is decided about how to present full articles, so I really don't know.

Now, about the {{Access}} template. If I'm correct that template was first discussed at the Village Pump in September 2019, now archived here: Open access template. The discussion was available and open for all users in the Village Pump from September, until it was moved to the archive two days ago, in November 2. During that whole period all users, including you and me, had a chance to complain and/or contribute with alternative ideas, but no one complained about the introduction of the new template. Personally I think it is good to be able to see if a PDF is free to open, or if I need to pay an expensive membership and login to access the file. However other members may of course have different opinions, and their ideas are of course as valuable as mine or any other user's. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

I missed this proposal. I was with holliday in Portugal. If I have a reference template with Full article (PDF) I must not pay. If I have a reference template with only DOI: /// I have to pay for the bulletin. People who add species know that. Personal I have access to thousands of bulletins. Others have to pay for them, I get them for free.PeterR (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Different publishers use different systems. For some journals a link to a full PDF article is always free, but for other journals we need to login and/or pay a subscription fee to access the full PDF article. The problem is that Wikispecies is not only for you and me and others who add material to it. It's for all 7,700,000,000 human beings on the planet. Most of them don't have access to free subscription of any taxonomy-related publications, so when they want to read such a PDF they will have to pay. I think it is fair to mention this directly in the reference template right from the start, and adding the small "open or locked" icon is one way do this. There are of course several other ways to do this as well, but Circeus' {{Access}} template presents a standardized method that is the same for all of our reference templates.

Lastly, there is a fundamental difference between PDF- and DOI links. PDF links often change, and there are many, many reasons why this can happen. Perhaps the journal change their database so that the PDF file is moved from one folder to another on the journal's server, or perhaps the journal change their web address, or perhaps the journal is merged with another journal, or perhaps the journal is discontinued and stop to exist. In all of theses cases the old web links to the PDF will stop to work, and we have no access. DOI does not work in that way. Instead DOI links are persistent and permanent, and the DOI will be available even if the journal is taken away from the internet. Therefore it is often better to add a DOI instead of a PDF link – or we can of course use them both. Please see Persistent identifier in the Dutch Wikipedia for more details. Cordially, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

If you don't have a doi link what than to do?PeterR (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then of course we use a PDF link. And if there is no PDF link either, there are sometimes other alternatives. I've even seen links to Microsoft Excel files used on Wikispecies. It's not good, but it is better than no link at all. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

Subgenera of Alphaea

It seems we have duplicates here, both from you: Alphaea (Flavalphaea) and Flavalphaea, and Alphaea (Nayaca) and Nayaca. Maybe pick one style and redirect the otehr to it? Circeus (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Done PeterR (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Legalov, Kirejtshuk & Nel, 2019

Are you sure all the bibliographic information for this ref is correct? The DOI doesn't work, and neither issue 6 nor 7 are out yet on Springer's website (and there is no early view articles as far as I can tell), so I have no idea where you got those page numbers. If it's a translated article of some sort, then the original Russian wasn't published in 2019 either. I checked the ToC's for the Russian edition and there's only the one Legalov article for the whole year, and it's template:Legalov, 2019e. Circeus (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I know this problem. I have to fix out to day. PeterR (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

I have l check it out, but I can't find who have placed it on the author page of Legalov. Their are a lot publications placed on his side without made templates. I have copy them for making templates. Maybe you can see who done this. PeterR (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

---

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.