User talk:Accassidy

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive1 to Jan 2013
Archive2 to Mar 2017


Michel Libert[edit]


I have the book Révision des Anthene africains from Michel Libert now.

There are now 5 genera: Anthene, Triclema, Cupidesthes, Neurellipes and Molina. Anthene have not subgenera any morre. Lycaenesthes is synonymized with Anthene and Neurypexina is synonymized with Neurellipes.

If there are questions I hear from you. PeterR (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I shall update the genera PeterR (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor template problem[edit]

Hi Alan - also see the pump. I think I have found a minor comma problem in Template:Hacker,Gyulai, 2013‎, which I seem to have fixed. However, it may have got propagated through some of PeterR's template work. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I found the problem, and have already corrected many templates created by PeterR. I don't know what he is doing to propagate the problem (which you seem to have originated), but he should be using {{subst:reftemp}} to create those templates, and not copy-pasting from another template. Better still, it would be better if he didn't use templates at all, and left it to others to do his templates for him Stho002 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002:@PeterR: Yes, I see that the {{subst:reftemp}} is a good way around the formatting issue and risks of copying in Template construction. I will use it when I create or edit reference templates in future. Peter, you could do the same to make life easier. Accassidy (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem is communication Stho002 may have found the problem, but did not tell us and I found it independently and made a "gentle" correction. He has some excellent ideas, but only seems to communicate them after the event via edits, as opposed to letting us know these ideas using the pump. I have tried to find examples of the use of the string {{subst:reftemp}} on a small sample of the many thousands of reference templates Stho002 and others have created but can not find it. However, I am ignorant, as most editors are, of the finer points of templates never mind coding, so am clearly missing something. Embarrassingly, it took me ages to find the template to have a look at it anyway! Alan have you any examples of the use of {{subst:reftemp}} you could point in our direction? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ignore the last few sentences it is easy when you know how, d'oh. See {{Template:APG, 2003}} any comments appreciated on this template. For example is the direct link to the PDF redundancy on this template and how about the format for botany? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Steve or Steeve Collard[edit]


I can't find back the bulletin at the moment. If I have the bulletin I shall report you if it is Steeve or Steve Collard. PeterR (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Deudorix livia[edit]

Alan, I see no subspecies by Deudorix livia. I have a subspecies Deudorix (Virachola) livia barnetti. The author is Michel Libert and published in Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France, 2005, 110(3), 297-298. What to do.PeterR (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, Mark C. Williams, 2008, also lists subspecies barnetti as you suggest. I recommend you create subspecies pages for D. livia livia and D. livia barnetti. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Done PeterR (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Protecting templates[edit]

Hi Alan, @Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist: with sadness I feel that I had to protect the templates {{APG, 2003}} and {{APG, 2009}} due to Stho002's persistent minor format edits, which lead to a crazy situation over the last couple of days. As we were dispute over the templates, I did this very reluctantly, but I thought wrongly that the dispute was resolved after discussion, which you can see on my talk page and the template discussion pages. No doubt he will protest vehemently claiming Admin abuse. I intend to rollback in a week or so after things calm down, but if you feel my actions are an excessive use of Admin powers then I am happy for you to rollback. Indeed if you feel that the templates can benefit from your experience then please make suggestions. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist: Wtf? User:Andyboorman has protected two templates over an issue about whether the word "journal" should have an upper or lower case "J" (and he is wrong!) And this after we finally made progress/agreement, eventually coming to the conclusion that what he really meant by his overly verbose and redundant additions to the DOI link was simply "Open access article"! Somebody talk some sense into him! Stho002 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist:. Stho002 what do you mean by wtf? Do you mean "what the fuck"? Not good and not subtle either. If anybody can find an example of a journal that uses lower case for its titles in its reference section, please let me know. Andyboorman (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Andyboorman:I was referring to your protection of the templates, which was highly inappropriate. As for the lower case issue, you just completely fail to understand. However, since it is a trivial issue, I'm not going to argue Stho002 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I now know I made a mistake by protecting the templates - live and learn. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ISSN numbers[edit]


Do you know how I can find the ISSN numbers from the bulletins? PeterR (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@PeterR: I am not certain, but you may find them on the editorial page of the articles themselves, or perhaps you will have to try Google to see what you can find. Accassidy (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, PeterR (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ISSN number[edit]


I have add the ISSN number by

@PeterR: Peter, OK. Wouldn't it also be more useful if the link took us to a web page for the publication rather than just to another WikiSpecies page. See what I have done here. Accassidy (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove my posts on VP[edit]

I'll assume that was accidental! Stho002 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: Not only accidental, but also a technological mystery. Your remarks, which are quite reasonable, did not appear at all on my screen when I made my last small comment to Dan. It looked to me like I was simply responding to his suggestion. I see you have reinstated your section, and I have no problem with that. Accassidy (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandal active[edit]

Check recent changes. Vandal IP may need blocking for a day or two Stho002 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: Please be more specific, as I cannot see on recent changes that to which you refer as "Vandal IP". Accassidy (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
e.g. this diff (the IP is the vandal, not User:Courcelles). Anyway, they may have gone away now? Stho002 (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, hey! I said a day or two! We don't indefinitely block IPs without very good reason, as they may have used someone else's, or a shared, computer Stho002 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You saw the edits. They are just obscene vandalism. I hardly think that this is a potentially valuable future WS editor. It is possible to redress the block if a genuine user explains and asks. Accassidy (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl:As I said, we don't indefinitely block IPs, only accounts. It could be a kid on a school computer, and you have just indefinitely blocked the whole class (and all subsequent years classes!) or something! Pls change it to 1 day Stho002 (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template-name standardization[edit]

Just to make some order in the author-template chaos, can you please add a space in the template-names after each comma as well as a dot after each initial so that instead of "VanSon,G, 1959c" it would be "VanSon, G., 1959c". PeterR already agreed to comply to this standard. Also when multiple authors are concerned, please add a "&" before the last author like: Author1, Author2 & Author3, 2014". Thanks, Mariusm (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mariusm: I fear that it is rather late to try to standardise this name construction. Also, there are many reference templates that work from he publication rather than the author. We cannot even implement a standard for the way the reference citation actually appears on the page - hence recent discussions about full stops or colons - let alone in the template name. If we want to discuss "standard" further, my own view would be that the template name is rather like a file name and that the less punctuation in it the better. For this reason, I have omitted any full stops and most spaces for the template names I have created. Spaces, in particular, run a risk of causing coding errors as in many instances have to be replaced by underscores "_" in order not to generate syntax errors. So my real preference would be for comma-separated names and initials, without any full stops and with the minimum number of spaces, if any. Accassidy (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mariusm:I agree with Alan. It doesn't actually matter what the template name is, except that it is easier to check if a template already exists for a reference if you know where to look. Ultimately, though, one should check the journal page to see if a template already exists for a reference, but we have a lot of work to do in making journal pages complete with journal contents. A better idea is to paste a copy of any template created on to the relevant journal page, so we can see which templates have already been created. Stho002 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: I'd better concentrate on updating the author pages than the journal pages. Your practice of prefixing Zootaxa templates by "Zt" rather than by the authors names adds to the difficulty of tracking down existing papers. Mariusm (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mariusm: I don't see why, since the "Zt" names make perfect sense (and there are now many thousands of them, see here, for example). Perhaps you could try asking me what they mean if you are unsure? Stho002 (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002:@Mariusm: Say you are looking for a paper by an author named Sartori. You don't get far searching for "Sartori" because there is only 1 author page for this surname, no papers are listed under his name and he died a while ago. To find recent papers, you can search for "Sartori M." or "Sartori, A." but only if you know the initial. The only quick search that returns the Zootaxa ref template is if you search for "Template:Sartori, M.". It would be easier for newcomers, I think, if there was an author page for each "Sartori" (3 at least) and their publications were listed there. Searching using the "Template:" prefix is workable but not intuitive. Accassidy (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
When creating new author templates I always also aim to create author pages for the authors, if they're not already available. Sometimes it's difficult to find explicit information regarding the authors at hand – there's a lot of different Johnsons and Smiths, for example – but if I can find that info, it's only a matter of maybe five minutes to create an author page, including the proper categories. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC).
@Stho002:@Mariusm: For me I don't have problems with the templates from Accassidy or Mariusm. PeterR (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem for me with Zt and other templates from Sthoner is that I can't make a link to the authors see Template:Zt3900.2.3. To make a link to the authors I have to change the template in Template:Zt3900.2.4. When the author no exist I make a new one. PeterR (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has become muddled ... Stho002 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002:@Mariusm:@PeterR: I don't see any muddle, just that there is a lot of support for author pages with a list of publications on them. Zootaxa pages like this just work like a backward index (page 1 last in the list) and are difficult to search for author names as they are not alphabetic. Accassidy (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What a muddle of confusion! Ref. template names are not meant to be used for searching purposes. They are just dummy names. Author pages with a list of publications on them are fine, but it is better to create category pages, i.e Category:Publications of AUTHOR. If you want to know if a ref. template already exists for a particular reference, you just need to check a relevant page where it might be listed. If it is a Zootaxa publication, then these are listed on the Zootaxa pages in order of issue number and page, so you should easily be able to see it if it already exists. PeterR keeps on creating duplicate ref. templates without even bothering to check the publication page to see if one exists already. Stho002 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002:@Mariusm:@Dan Koehl: Sometimes it happened that I make duplicate ref., because I can't see if this template all ready exist. Stohner create templates with Wang et al, 2014a till 2014r without mention the other authors. See Template:Wang et al., 2014h. If I make a template with three or four authors in the Template name, Stohner change it in a new template with One author name and et al. and ask Dan Koehl to delete my authors template. If Sthoner makes the templates on the manner like Accassidy or Mariusm, the misunderstandings are over. PeterR (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC).
I agree that following a standard would make things easier, but the second best is that everyone simply have a little tolerance for each others small variations in templates. @PeterR:, If I deleted any of your work since it was marked with speed delete, I apologize. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: I have no problem with "small variations" (except for Zootaxa templates, where I have created thousands of them in a standard way). Duplication is a more serious issue. My advice to PeterR would be for him not to bother with reference templates, as he is out of his depth. Despite what PeterR says above, he can fairly easily check if a template already exists. First step: check the relevant WS journal page(s); second step: check the relevant author page(s); third step: check some relevant taxa pages. If you still don't see it, then it probably doesn't exist yet. Stho002 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl:@Stho002:@Mariusm:@PeterR: Two things: Firstly, if you think someone else is "out of his depth" then perhaps you could try to work with them and help rather than just deleting work that they have contributed. Secondly, imagine a situation where you know that an author (Lowry) published a paper in Zootaxa in 2014. If you search for "Lowry Zootaxa 2004" you do near the bottom of the search results get a link to ISSN 1175-5326/2014.1 but when you get to that page it takes a while to look for all the papers under Lowry's name because they are not in alphabetic order. If you just search for "Lowry" you get a disambiguation page and can then get to J. K. Lowry if you know his initials. Having got to the user page, the Zootaxa reference is not included. In the other direction, if you see the Zootaxa reference on a page such as Tongorchestia borabora you cannot click and get to the author page to see what else he has written, as your reference template does not link to the author page. At the very least, you should ensure that this link is included in the Zootaxa reference templates. Accassidy (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl:@Accassidy:@Mariusm:@PeterR: Different issues are being conflated here. None of what you just said has anything to do with reference template names. The problem you are talking about is just a consequence of incompleteness. Whatever name is given to a ref. template, it is best (I haven't always been doing it myself, but nevertheless it is best to do so) to link it to the author(s) somehow. There are several ways to do this, none of which have anything to do with the name of the template. One way is to link the name of the author in the reference to the author page. Another is to add [[Category:Publications of AUTHOR]] to the ref. template. Another is to list the ref. template on the author page, etc., etc. Stho002 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not relevant to the present issue to search for a paper that Lowry published in Zootaxa in 2014, unless you know the paper citation, and are checking to see if a ref. template already exists. Then it is easy. Zootaxa DOI end, for 2014, with 2396.1.2, or whatever, where the first number is the vol., the second the issue, and the third the sequence position of the article in the issue. So, if you add {{Zt2396.1.2}}, in this example, to a page, one of two things will happen: (1) your get a red link if the template doesn't exist; or (2) you see that it does exist. You can also find the article on our Zootaxa pages using 2396.1.2 as an index. Zootaxa ref. templates should not be created using different names, and even if they have been, they should be on a relevant page where you can find them easily enough. Stho002 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl:@Stho002:@Mariusm: It would be a great help if the author templates links with the genus mentioned in the article. PeterR (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case not only genera, since quite a few author templates predominately refer to other taxonomic ranks, e.g. species, family, order, class, and so forth. Also and quite frequently, published works doesn't only include a type description for one taxon (such as a species OR a genus), but can often include type descriptions for several taxa – and sometimes of different taxonomic ranks (for example both species AND genera). Hence linking an author template to all of its relevant articles might not always be the best road to take. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC).
@Dan Koehl:@Stho002:@Mariusm: If we agree with Zt templates, how to create Zootaxa 1986: 1–50 (2009). Normal it is Zt3903.1.1, Now Zt1986? PeterR (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl:@PeterR:@Mariusm: Zootaxa has changed its publishing structure a couple of times. Initially each issue had only a singe article. In that case, just use Zt23 (for example, for issue 23). Then multiple articles per issue, but no DOI. In this case, use {{ZtISSUE.FIRST PAGE}}, so Zt1986.1 in Peter's example. Stho002 (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl:@Stho002:@Mariusm:. I have the idae that we don't agree with each other about the author templates. Therefore herewith a proposal for the Author templates: Template:Li & Wei, 2012 or Template:Li, Lei, Wang & Wei, 2014. You can also create the last Template as Li et al., 2014 in the template headline or Zt template Template:Zt3895.4.7. I think that there are now no problems any moore between the ideas from Sthoner, Accassidy and Mariusm. One question remain: what is the profit from mention the new species and Nomenclatural acts in the author template? PeterR (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nag or vandalism[edit]

@Dan Koehl:@Stho002:@Mariusm:. I have made a template: Liu et al., 2012e. I had mentioned the 4 author names. To add the author names was a proposal from Accassidy and Mariusm. Sthoner have changed it again in Liu et al, 2012. Why do he change it only by me and not by Accassidy and Maruism. Is this nag or vandalism. I do nothing wrong. Every template from me he controll it and change it. If he don't stop with it I stop. If he thinks I make a mistake he can explain it to me on my talk page. For example he add full article . If you click on it you see something in Chinese. Therefore I didn.t add it.PeterR (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

@PeterR: Peter, Stho002 has strong tendencies towards micro-managing unimportant detail on many pages, especially references, to suit his own defined "standards". He clearly thinks that his ways are "best" even though often they do not make any significant difference to the information provided. The changes he made to the Template you created are not really significant and were, in my opinion, a waste of his time. You should not be greatly concerned, but continue to make original contributions. The pedantic changes he made may well be changed again in future by someone else. This is the nature of a Wiki project. I suggest that you pay less attention to changes to pages you have started, but add new material as it becomes available. This will be by far the best use of your time. I am hoping that, in time, Stephen will come to realise that his best actions here are to contribute valid data rather than to fiddle with the presentation of the contributions of others. My main concern over the Reference you have written about template: Liu et al., 2012e is that the Zootaxa link appears not to work on my computer. You might want to double-check that it is actually reproduced correctly. Please be encouraged to continue your contributions. Alan Accassidy (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with Alan, in regards to micro-managing existing pages vs. creating entirely new pages with valuable content. That said, when it comes to references I can occasionally be rather pedantic myself; however I then rarely change any actual facts, I mainly just rectify punctuation marks and line feeds and such. As for the Zootaxa link in template: Liu et al., 2012e it works fine from here, using a Mac with the latest versions of the Safari web browser and OS X operating system. Maybe the server simply suffered from synchronous diaphragmatic flutter for a while, i.e. had the hiccups? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC).
Alan. It is not a bulletin from Zootaxa, but from Acta zootaxonomica sinica. And on my computer its works. If he changed the author template in Liu et al. (not the head line), You can't add this article too the other authors See [1]. My contributions are new from Acta zootaxonomica sinica. Is he changing your templates too? PeterR (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a short note, somewhat off topic: Indeed the browser window with the download link is in Chinese, which of course is rather confusing for the majority of Wikispecies users. However, there are only 3 links in the window, and only one of them mention PDF (i.e. 点击下载PDF全文). It would of course be best to link it from an English web page, if available, but at least the text in the PDF file itself is written in English... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC).
The link is working for me now. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The link to the PDF is once again dead. Perhaps an alternative link or document can be found, on a different site? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC).

Happy new year[edit]

@Dan Koehl:@Stho002:@Mariusm: A happy new year everybody PeterR (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Libert 2010[edit]


I shall add the species mentioned in Libert, 2010 again. Are you doing the genus Anthene? I shall start with Cuidesthes, PeterR (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, you can add species in any of the genera. I do not mind. As I do not have a full copy of Libert, 2010, just the indexes, I do not have access to type information for any of the species, nor to type locality data for the types of Libert's new taxa. So some of the Anthene pages I have created recently could be made better if you could add the type specimen information or the type locality from Libert's book. See Anthene anoae for example. Thanks for your help. Accassidy (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I shall do this. The book from Libert lies on my desk. PeterR (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR: Thankyou. Accassidy (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)



In many bulletins is BMNH now NHM. But NHM exist as Naturhistorisches Museum, Bern, Switzerland. I see in the list from Holotypes NHML (see BMNH). What do you prefer to use BMNH or NHML. PeterR (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, I use BMNH. Probably either is acceptable. But older people will not recognise NMHL and younger ones not BMNH. Difficult to decide, so probably either is OK for now. Later someone might devise a bot program that changes all instances of one option to the other. Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. I shall use BMNH. PeterR (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR: Thankyou. Accassidy (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)



Is it true that you have block Sthoner for 48 hours via Dan Koehl? Is this happen after he have delete the authors?. If it is true I can only congratulate you. Finely you shows your balls. PeterR (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Yes. Stephen is blocked until Monday. Dan Koehl wanted to do it for a week, but that was a bit premature. We will see what happens next. Accassidy (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A week was better, because he have delete contribution from me through Dan Koehl. The contribution where good and after original bulletins. I'm afraid that you will become a scapegoat like me. PeterR (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Here we can see the previous Special:Block/Stho002 with start 28 November 2008. Unfortunately it doesnt seems like they changed User:Stho002 attitude much. I am not arguing about the time of block, with another admin, but would like to focus on something more important, that in order to get unblocked, we demand that User:Stho002 follow some conditions, like a promise to follow the Wikispecies:Policy and meet the conditions of the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Torres-Núñez et al., 1996[edit]


If I make the author templates like Template:Torres-Núñez et al., 1996 Sthoner change the text in Torres-Núñez et al. 1996. Please can you tell me if those templates are not in according with your or Mariusm author templates? You have call it micro managing but I don't like it. I add those templates to the four authors. PeterR (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, I don't follow your question. I can see no changes to that template, only your editing of it. He also changes a lot of the Templates that I create. As long as the information is retained and the BHL links work properly, then I will not get upset about his formatting changes. I think it is a waste of his time, but he seems to want to do it. Accassidy (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Stho002 conduct[edit]

Hello Alen, being the one who "reduced" the punishment of Stho002, I expect you to reconsider. Facing Stho002'2 refusal to respect the WS policy, and his continual disruptive conduct after returning from his blockage (see the pump), I would expect from you to re-block him for the remaining period which was initially determined by Dan. The alternative would be a continual chaos and a real harm to WS. Many thanks, Mariusm (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthene otacilia arora[edit]

Your page seems a bit unclear. From ION, I glean that it was originally proposed as a full species Anthene arora, but this is not clear from what you have written...Stho002 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stho002: I do not have immediate access to the Larsen volume, so am not certain as to the status accorded arora in its original description. I would not take the web notation in ION as authoritative without consulting a reviewed publication. I do have Libert's taxonomic structure, and he treats it as a subspecies of otacilia as I have listed. If you are certain that the original designation was Anthene arora then it is a simple change to the Synonymy section to add an extra line. At this time I suggest that we keep Libert's placing of the taxon, as the most recent authoritative revision of the group. Accassidy (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)



Is this new? Scolitantides, without mention in the species the subgenera. If the contributors change every time their contributions then you create a chaos. PeterR (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, see what I have done at Scolitantides bavius to insert the subgeneric name without including it in the species page name. This works without making distractions. Alan Accassidy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you make a mistake. The subgenus have to be Pseudophilotes. PeterR (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR: Yes, you are right. I have corrected it. Accassidy (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw that you didn't look back on my talk page after making a remark. If you had looked in View history than you saw that the contributions with the subgenus in the species name was old. So I just started to update the genus and species we had agree. So your conclusion was not correct. PeterR (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR: Ok carry on with the reviews. Just be sure to keep the species page names binomial, without the subgenus in the title of the page. Accassidy (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Allan, you have told me to do the contributions with subgenera to do on this way Catasticta ludovici, but you do Scolitantides bavius. Why the difference? PeterR (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR: I have changed the templates for the subgenera now so that they show the same as in your Catasticta example. If you look at the latest edits on Template:Scolitantides (Pseudophilotes) to you will see how to do this. Accassidy (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Alan, now we add the subgenera on the same way again. Thanks PeterR (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference discussion[edit]

Thanks for participating, by the way. It may be appropriate to move the latest template argument into its own section, as it is not really relevant to the discussion on the reference section. I was intending to do this, but would hate to potentially inflame the situation. Feel free to undertake this if you think it would help the reference discussion. Back to DIY bought a project not a house oh woe is me! Andyboorman (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: I know about those projects. Hope it works well. Accassidy (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Aurivillius, 1899[edit]

Before you go blaming me, it was very confusing for you to put a [1899] reference under the ref, template title 1898b. I created it again with 1899 ref. template title, before I noticed a template already existed. I think we both got confused a bit, trying to deal with it. Stho002 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stho002: The older template was created some while ago before the date of the article became clear. Hence the slight mismatch. Some other treatments have called it 1898. Its OK to have a new 1899, and I have improved it so that it actually links to the Aurivillius paper directly as well as the doi link the BHL overview page. You are clearly still repeatedly interrogating the Recent Changes hyperlink. Your desire to monitor and "police" others is what makes you such a bloody nuisance to so many editors. You really would do much better within the community if you would curb this habit. Accassidy (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Naming of subgenera pages[edit]


I add the subgenera on this way Morpho sulkowskyi, but Sthoner on this way Morpho (Laurschwarzia). Every time when I update the subgenera he add them to, but not on the same way. What is good. 09:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, it really doesn't matter. Either is understandable; neither is really "better" than the other. I prefer to show the subgenus as you have on Morpho sulkowskyi, without the Genus (Subgenus) brackets. After all, we do not put both Family and Subfamily names in the Taxonavigation for Subfamilies, nor Order and Suborder for Suborders. So I think it sensible to just have the subgeneric name on its own under the title of Subgenus. But, as you know, Stephen has an almost pathological desire for everyone to see things exactly as he does, and he clearly has a lot of time on his hands. So he is able to waste his time making changes that are not important. I try very hard to ignore the things he does that relate purely to formatting like this. My time on WS is limited by other responsibilities, so I'd rather not spend all my time refereeing disputes. Accassidy (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)



Official is CMNH Chicago Museum of Natural History, Illinois, USA.

  • Carnegy Museum of Natural history is CM. See also Preview PDF

Regards, PeterR (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, I have been using CMNH for Carnegie Museum Natural History. I made a template a week or so ago. I understand what you say about CM, but where are you getting the "official" standards from? If necessary I can change CMNH to CM on the affected pages. There are not so many as they are just associated with Type specimens of William Jacob Holland. Thanks for flagging it up. Accassidy (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I get the information from original bulletins and I add all the museums in Holotype. PeterR (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR: Peter, the principal natural history museum in Chicago is called the Field Museum of Natural History, and I have created a page for it at FMNH. I have searched in pages I have created recently and have changed my notation from [[CMNH]] to [[CM]]. I notice that there are still a number of pages of your creation using "CMNH" and that some of these pages are authored by John Rawlins. For example: Neocalyptis taiwana. As John Rawlins works at the Carnegie Museum, I strongly suspect that your notation in this case is for the Carnegie Museum, not the Museum in Chicago. So I am not sure whether CMNH should redirect to CM or to FMNH, Chicago, in these cases. Can you look into this further? Accassidy (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR:; Field Museum of Natural History was changed to Chicago Natural History Museum from 1943 to 1966, when it went back to FMNH. There might be potential confusion with Florida Museum of Natural History. That acronym is UF. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Neferkheperre:, @PeterR:. Thanks. I will try to remember the Florida abbreviation... Accassidy (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


Anthene ochrefascia[edit]


You have create the species Anthene ochrefascia. Libert says that the species is Anthene ochreofascia. Can I change it? PeterR (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Well spotted. Small spelling mistake. I've fixed it and made a redirect. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthene kikuyu[edit]


You have create the species Anthene kikuyu without subspecies. Libert have two subspecies namely Anthene kikuyu kikuyu and Anthene kikuyu separata. What is the status. PeterR (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, It seems I missed separata, but you are right in suggesting that Libert has it as a subspecies, first described in his recent revision of Anthene. If you want, please go ahead and make the necessary alterations, if you have access to the Libert paper. Alan Accassidy (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
done PeterR (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Anthene minima[edit]


You have create the species Anthene minima without subspecies. Libert have two subspecies namely Anthene minima minima and Anthene minima williamsi (author is Collins). Can I add these two subspecies? PeterR (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, Same answer as above. Libert is the expert, not me. Please go ahead and make the necessary alterations, if you have access to the Libert paper. You don't need to ask me if you have currently published information. Alan Accassidy (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Alan for me you are the expert. I don't know if in later editions there is something change. So I ask you for your opinion and I don't mean to let you know that you are making mistakes. PeterR (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR: Peter, Everybody misses things. Me included, although I try to be up to date. I do not mind being changed when I miss something. Cheers Accassidy (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Hello,  Done for the template Lien wikipédia --Bastenbas (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bastenbas and Accassidy:, Maybe that template should be renamed to Template:Wikipedia links or similair? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Saalmüller templates[edit]

Hi Alan, I suppose you understand some German, but don't feel very comfortable with this language? Isn't it? The title page of the first volume (Abteilung = division) is telling "Herausgegeben im Auftrage der Gesellschaft von M. Saalmüller", which translates as "edited on behalf of the society (Gesellschaft) by M. S." So, the title page claims that Saalmüller rather would be the editor (Herausgeber) of this publication. However, it is difficult for me to evaluate, if any other author has contributed to the text. At the end of the page you find "Im Selbstverlag der Gesellschaft", which can be translated as "published by the society itself". So, the publisher would be the Senckenberg'sche Naturforschende Gesellschaft. (The name of the Gesellschaft further up at this title page is given in genitive and terminations have to be changed accordingly.) For the second volume, according to its title page, the Gesellschaft obviously commissioned Moritz Diesterweg as a publisher. Moreover, "angefangen von dem Verfasser und nach dessen Tode abgeschlossen durch L. von Heyden" can be translated as "started by the author and after his death finished by L. v. H." So, also L. v. Heyden would be author/editor of the publication. Concerning year of publication, I don't know, whether these books were published in several issues during a range of years. I was searching for some indication in both books, but could not find any. As it seems now, there was a first volume published in 1884 and a second one in 1891. However, it would be easier to tell with the real book in hand. Often there are some differences in quality or color of paper between issues, when months or years have passed between.

Would you have any objections, if a make some changes to these templates? Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: None at all, as long as they keep the correct dates and links to BHL. You are right in suggesting that the subtleties of the language escape me ;-) Accassidy (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Please, have a look at the changes I made in Template:Saalmuller,M, 1884. Actually this is a book in two volumes that was reprinted in one volume of a formal publication series. I have changed the BHL link for the reprint edition to the respective volume of Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft. I hope it makes the history clearer. As far as I see, giving publication date as a range of years, comes from some authors who prefer to cite both volumes in one reference. As you have created separate templates for each volume, we should give only the actual year when the respective volume was published. Is this OK? I do not yet know, how to deal with L. von Heyden in the second volume. As far as I can see, Saalmüller is the author of the first volume, not an editor. However, L. v. Heyden seems to be not much more than an editor of mostly completed Saalmüller manuscripts. Saalmüller in 1889 already wrote a preface for the second volume, so he certainly had completed the biggest part of the manuscripts. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Thanks for improving this one. Could you make similar changes to the one relating to Abt.2 from 1891, which deals with remaining Heterocera? I think it best to keep them as separate templates otherwise it would be one very cumbersome single template. Cheers, Accassidy (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I have changed also Template:Saalmuller,M, 1891. Still in doubt about L. v. Heyden. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC) - OK, maybe the last version may work now. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: Yes, I'm sure that will do. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)



I have update now the genus Anthene. PeterR (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now update the species of the genera Anthene, Cupidesthes, Neurellipes, Triclema and Monile after Libert, 2010. PeterR (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@PeterR: Thank you Peter. Accassidy (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)



If you search in your Museum (BMNH] for a species par example Neurrellipes atewa find you this species under Neurellipes atewa or under the original name Anthene atewa. PeterR (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter, the BMNH no longer employs enough curatorial staff to maintain the collection in accordance with modern systematics. So searching for particular specimens is sometimes slower than expected. In the collection of Type Specimens, especially, it is most likely that the insects will be under an older, rather than a very new, genus name. However, when a revising author has had access to the collection during his work, you can usually see the new arrangement reflected in the drawers of the main collection. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates and categories[edit]

Dear Alan, I am experimenting a little bit, trying to mass change articles/files when needed, and when manually simply would be too much work. But before going to action, Im trying to get support for the actions, just so I know that there is a common wish which supports my actions.

Im primarly refering to various templates made by Stho002.

Please join the discussion at removal of templates at Village pump.

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Village pump[edit]

I don't know if you agree with me that Village pump has grown to massive, too many details are discussed, but with no follow-up, no decisions, and no changes of Policy. Later all discussions just get stored in million of characters in old Village pump discussions which no one reads.

I hope we can do something bout this, and I would value your input in the discussion "To many issues here on Village pump". Dan Koehl (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, while I understand that no area will ever be completed, I'm interested to know which area is the most underdeveloped right now? There is not a page that has the list of all red internal links? Thanks! Trongphu (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't understand what's the difference between {{ssp|T|aractrocera|l|uzonensis|bessa}} and [[T. l. bessa]]. Why is there an extra template? Thanks! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If that is a reason then this [[Taractrocera luzonensis bessa|T. l. bessa]] would also work. I don't see the need for a template.Nguyentrongphu (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello I want to do it .wikispecies Arabic please. Help me الداكري (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2015



Do you know the status from Noseozephyrus Koiwaya, 2007? Now their is a new species Noseozephyrus lisus. PeterR (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I suppose you add the genera in species.wikipedia. PeterR (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)



You have make a redirect from CMNH to FMNH. I think this is not correkt. CMNH = Chicago Museum of Natural History, Illinois, USA and FMNH = Finish Museum Natural History. PeterR (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter, FMNH page here relates to "Field" museum, the name of the museum in Chicago. There is a page for the Finnish Museum at FMNHH, which has the second "H" to mean "Helsinki". Accassidy (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My interpretation was wrong. Sorry. PeterR (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC).
The solution now is clear. thanks PeterR (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

Shaanxiana takashimai pauper[edit]


The author from Shaanxiana takashimai pauper is Hitoshi Sugiyama and not Tadashi Sugiyama. See Pallarge 3: 1-12.


PeterR (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)



In 2014 Collins et al. have made 5 subgenera: Pilodeudorix, Kopelates, Unikopelates, Strongylates and Diopetes. I can't find the publication. I have found all the subgenera and species in [2] Maybe you can help. PeterR (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)



I see you list some publications. You might like to register for an ORCID iD, and add it to your user page, as I have done on mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You're now in Wikidata[edit]

FYI: Q21261255. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Linnean Collections[edit]


Is The Linnean Collections a part of the BMNH or is it an apart department in London?

PeterR (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@PeterR: The collections are part of the Linnean Society assets. See: here. I am not certain of the location of the various parts of the collections. Some may be held for them by BMNH. I've never had to seek any of them out. Cheers, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do nobody know this in your direction? If it is apart I have to make a new museum template. PeterR (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Peter, look at this link to Linnaean types of Lepidoptera. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add some knowledge here. The Linnean Society is independent, all be it linked to BMNH and others such as RBG Kew. They have most of the original physical specimens of Linneaus's collections as well as his research writings and so on. Others have duplicates or images. You can usually access the collections, but I suggest you contact them first, if you need to physically access the specimens in order that the curators can get you the material out of storage prior to your visit. However, you will not be able to touch them! Andyboorman (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Patrol stats[edit]

Thanks to Cgt on danish Wp, we can now see statistics on patrolling: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the patrolling stats URL has now changed from the da:WP user Cgt's personal web page (listed above) to a URL within the Wikimedia project itself, more specifically at Wikimedia Tool Labs. The old "" URL no longer works without a proper SSL certificate. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

Changes by unregistered user[edit]

Heya, was looking at unpatrolled pages and user has changed a series of pages last edited by you. Has blanked references for most part, could you check them for possible need to rollback. Cheers Faendalimas talk 01:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: Thank you for the heads up, but the IP is informed, and the matter is already being discussed by me and Accassidy. By the way, there is a similar IP ( currently editing the same pages. It is probably the same user, but perhaps that IP needs to be addressed as well. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC).
The edits are now reverted. Apart from removing references, the IP also created Chilasa agestor kuangtungensis. That page still remains, since I have no literature saying whether the data is correct or not. I'm sure Alan knows what to make of it... :-) If you decide to retain the page, please remember to add a subspecies link to Chilasa agestor. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC).
Tommy, thanks for that. The added page is OK; the subspecies is corroborated here which is reliable. I have added the link. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Great! Case closed. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

The IP has started to make the same changes, i.e. removing references. All edits are reverted, and the IP is now blocked. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

Oeneis tanara[edit]


You add the species Oeneis tanara, but I can't find the source. The official paper say Oeneis tanana see [[3]] after the river and valley tanana. We have an agreement about the templates with all editors. I see you make your own templates like Warren,Nakahara, 2016. This have to be Warren & Nakahara, 2016, but the original bulletin mention 8 authors, so the template have to be Warren et al., 2016 and you have to mention all the authors.PeterR (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhamma livida[edit]


The holotype from Rhamma livida is deposed in MHN-UPN = Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Pedagogica Nacional, Bogotá, Colombia. See Elfin butterflies of the genus Rhamma Johnson (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Theclinae): A review of the Colombian species. Zootaxa, 2016, 4093 (3): 323–342, Carlos Prieto & Maria A. Vargas. PeterR (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhamma shapiroi[edit]


The holotype from Rhamma shapiroi is deposed in AMNH. See original bulletin. PeterR (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhamma Types[edit]


I have make those links because I add the author category and the museum category. Those categories are always in the original species. The species held their own description even they are transferred to an other genus or by designation of a lectotype etc. See Martania taiwana. PeterR (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC).

I had first make a link to the original species with a full text and not a redirect and made the new combination without text like Type locality and Holotype (such a lot of authors do). Others ask me to add those text in the new combination and redirect the Original one with author category and museum category. PeterR (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Plebejus sephinus[edit]


I'm missing Plebejus sephinus Frivaldszky, 1835 (= Lycaena sephinus Frivaldszky, 1835). I have two subspecies described as Plebejus (Plebejides) sephirus magnificus Bálint 1987 and Plebejus sephirus kovacsi Szabo, 1954. What is the reason for missing these species in Plebejus?. PeterR (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. My information is this bulletin from Galathea [4] and

Lepidoptera Science[edit]


I have receive Lepidoptera Science. Thanks PeterR (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Panjab University Research Journal (Science)[edit]


Do you have in your library (BMNH) issues from Panjab University Research Journal (Science)?. In Naturalis they have no issues. PeterR (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you go to Bali for work or holiday? I don't have the pages but only the authors. Volume 53, 2003 H.S. Rose and P.C. Pathania 1. Two new species etc. 2. Significance of the external genitalia etc. Volume 54, 2003 Walia and Wadhawan 1. Taxonomic studies on Indian Gelechidae I. 2. the same VIII. Volume 55, 2004 Walia & Wadhawan 1. Taxonomic studies on Indian Gelechidae X. 2. the same IX.

I was three weeks in Portugal (Algarve)

Regards Peter.

Thanks for your help PeterR (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Anthene merioli aridicola[edit]


Can you see if the author of the subspecies Anthene merioli aridicola is Alan J. Gardiner?. I don't have the book anymore. PeterR (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mimia phydile tatamaensis[edit]


If you described a new subspecies or species is it possible that you have only an Alotipo?. see [5]. PeterR (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC) (Moved from user page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC).


This discussion was continued here.


I see in the authors list only Thomas de Grey Walsingham, but not Lord M.A. Walsingham. Do you know the full names ? He wrote Biologia Centrali-Americana volume 4. see [6] — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 12:08, 9 January 2017.

Alan Thanks for your information. PeterR (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)



I have a lot of syntypes with one type. Is this type the holotype?. Automolis carmesina Rothschild, 1909a: 40. type locality. — [Brazil], Amazonas, Fonte Boa. type specimens. — Undisclosed number of syntypes (BMNH; one male syntype labeled TYPE). PeterR (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Polyommatus schuriani attalaensis[edit]


You have made under the genus Agrodiaetus the subspecies Polyommatus schuriani attalaensis. The original description is: Parnassius (Agrodiaetus) schuriani attalaensis. Is the species and subspecies not Agrodiaetus schuriani and Agrodiaetus schuriani attalaensis? PeterR (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have a lot species and subspecies from Parnassius (Agrodiaetus). For the real category author taxa I make the original combination. In this case Parnassius (Agrodiaetus) schuriani attalaensis. PeterR (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is a mistake from me. Of course It have to be Polyommatus and not Parnassius. PeterR (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Application for Checkuser[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Third application for checkuser[edit]

Further to recent messages, I am also offering to serve, so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Checkuser Application[edit]

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[edit]

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)



Is Monotypus the same as holotype? TD: Monotypus ♀, im Natural History Museum, London

PeterR (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@PeterR: Peter. I imagine that is it, yes, although I do not remember seeing it before. I can't think of any other interpretation. Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks PeterR (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Checkusers[edit]

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)

Taxa by author categories[edit]

Just a reminder: could you make sure to put those in Category:Taxa by author? Circeus (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, do you think it possible, likely even that D. M. Seok might in fact be en:Seok_Joo-myung? I mean, there can only be so many Korean lepidopterists active in that time period with a strong interest in Esperanto and the "Seok" family name... Circeus (talk)
This page lists places of work at Songdo, which seems to accord with other sources online mentioning he taught at the high school/college there. Could the "D" be caused by the absence at the time of standardized syste fro transliterating Korean (I believe none of the later system that are still in use actually uses d- as an initial.) Circeus (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME[edit]

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)

Template:Koiwaya, 2000[edit]

Can you explain why you deleted this? It has a dozen incoming links. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies Oversighter[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Pallas volumes[edit]

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

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


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

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

"Schroder, Treadaway, Nuyda, 1993" template[edit]

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

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

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

Afarsia morgiana[edit]


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

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

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

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

Phoenicurusia Verity, 1943[edit]


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

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

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


Discolampa ethion
Discolampa sp.

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

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

Vandalism of user pages[edit]

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

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

Chilades contracta[edit]

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

Reference format[edit]

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

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

Kretania martinii vs. martini[edit]

Hi Accassidy,

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

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

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

–––––––––––––––––––––– (End of copy.)

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

Freyeria minuscula[edit]

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



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

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

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

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

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

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