User talk:Accassidy/Archive2

Conflict with Stephen

Hallo Alan,

could you, please, be a judge in our conflict with User:Stho002. He made the following edits, after I tried to standardize the Thambematidae page (which means: to make it look like other Asellota pages): [1], [2], [3]. Please note the way of conversation he has chosen: [4], [5], [6]

Because Stephen's style of page design, including his Template:zfg are not universal standards, I feel myself having the full right not to follow it.

This is not our first conflict with the user. I think, something is fundamentally wrong: User_talk:Stho002/Archive_4#Taxonav_loops_.26_zfg, User_talk:Stho002/Archive_4#Page_formatting, User_talk:Stho002/Archive_4#Trichocanace_.28an_example.29.

Thank you!

Kuzia (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood the situation, I think. The style I used for the pages is exactly the same as you use and that's the 'old style'. But the problem is in the personal attacks I experienced from the above mentioned "admin". Kuzia (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Editprotected

Hi! Could you done Talk:Головна стаття#renaming please? I think it is undone too long --Base^talkсontr. 18:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not really sure what you want here. Wikispecies is a scientific resource and uses English language, not Russian. There is no need for pages in Russian language, but as I do not know the purpose of this page, I have not yet deleted it. Accassidy (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The user asks you to rename the title of the Головна стаття page to Головна сторінка (Ukranian "Main page"), because the current name means "Main article" in reality. Kuzia (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but as I understand WikiSpecies it is not appropriate to have pages in languages other than English, regardless of the titles. Renaming pages is not simple. It would be better for you to put the information onto the page with the correct title and then redirect from the one with the wrong title - the opposite of what happens now. I am reluctant to do this as I do not have a Cyrillic keyboard and am uncertain about making correct spellings. Accassidy (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have no keyboard - you could just copy and paste also you can temporary remove move-protection. It is translation of a Main Page also wikispecies is multilingual project, not English only. See also at meta-wiki, mediawikiwiki, Wikimedia Commons and wikidata - all of them has Main Pages translations. Also an interface require it. See //http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/?uselang=uk and click a to a logo. Also it is Ukrainian not Russian language. --Base^talkсontr. 18:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fgt

Alan,

You have support from F. Gil-T.. He add new species of Lycaenidae and species (author F. Gil-T.).

He have make changes like Polyommatus (Cyaniris). He says that Cyaniris is now a genus, but did not inform which author have change this and didn't make a new side with Cyaniris.

I have ask him on his talk page for more information but no reaction. Maybe you know more.

Its a Spanish entomologist with a lot of publications.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Primate taxonomy

I don't know if anyone's monitoring the talk page for Help talk:Reference section, but I just posted this question. If you would have time to comment, I'd appreciate it. Maky (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:Lampides

Hi Alan, I want to highlight how far from the mark CoL (and therefore EoL, etc.) is, so I have, for the moment, just added a note to the species list to say that probably just L. boeticus belongs there. This is a temporary step, but one I prefer as part of a more consistent methodology. When all those red linked names become blue linked (i.e. redirected to where they should be placed, with sources), then a more definite solution can be applied. Cheers, Stho002 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Ref. templates

Replied on my talk page Stho002 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Something isn't working correctly on your Eliot 1973 ref. template .. I will fix it .. Stho002 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There was an underscore missing which was breaking the link back to reference page ... now fixed Stho002 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know how to do bots. Maybe you could use AWB? Stho002 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Photo credits

You're absolutely correct on the credit portion for Creative Commons license. The credit is given in the file description of each image (e.g. File:RemelanaJangalaRavataMUpUnAC1.jpg) but not on the page where it is used (as a thumbnail). This convention is applied to all of foundation wikis (including Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons). The file description serves as a centralized location so that your image is properly attributed even in languages that you don't understand (and hence you don't edit or add your name to the thumbnail caption), such as Swedish and Norwegian as an example of the image usage for your particular image. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Reference templates

A solution that I can think of is having something like this. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Chilades

You or Sthoner says there are 4 species of Chilades but I have 23 species. Please can you tell me with is rigt?

It is not so important. We can contact if you are back. Have a nice time in the USA.

PeterR (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment needed

Please, your comment is needed on issues concerning the user Stho002. See here: Wikispecies:Village Pump Mariusm (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Admin Discussion

Many thanks for the detailed explanation of your points of view. May I start by saying I share many of your consideration, but the way of the world is such that sometimes one has to be tough, otherwise he'll be marginalized and, yes, run-over. I had a lot of patience, and it can verified going through the old village-pump posts; however this has reached a point where I couldn't abstain anymore; seeing how S. is using his rhetoric to force his way without much regard for others. Being this site a low-volume wiki with perhaps four or five active admins, and being the admins (excuse me for saying this) soft-hearted, S. has an open road to force his way unhindered, which revolts me. This is no way to promote science, and a calm discussion or succumbing to the majority's opinions, are not S. great assets. I realize your wish for peace and understanding, yet when they bring about dictatorship or single-sided manipulations, well, they become counter-productive and humiliating. As it were I would appreciate if you express your general views at the village-pump. We don't have to apply drastic measures. We can at least request S. politely to behave and to be more considerate. Truly, Mariusm (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomenclature box: reply

I don't understand! You can put anything in the nomenclature box, you just have to enclose the section with {{Nomen|}}. I DO put Type Location and the repository of the type material in the box, see Geodorcus species. In some cases, I just may not have that info. or may not have included it yet. ...Stho002 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Riley

Alan,

What is the benefit from making a lot of templates for Riley?

Regards, Peter

Peter, The useful thing about Templates is that you can later change just a small detail on the Template and it will then appear on each page that references the Template. It is quite a lot of work creating them, but the dividends will come later, especially as more old journals of 1920s onwards become available online. There may be 20 or 30 taxon pages all having the same reference, and so any updates only have to be done once, not on every page. Its easy to find if a Reference Template has been made for a paper: just type the author name in the search box and find the right author page. All the Templates are linked there. Anyone can use the Template once its there and it also saves a bit of typing once you get used to it. Cheers, Accassidy (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok

What is when the author name is not wright. Example Chinese or Spanish names. Stephen make a lot mistakes with Chinese and Spanish names.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter, that's the other good thing about having a Template for the reference. You can correct a spelling error, I sometimes make them myself, and you only have to do it once, on the Template, for it to be corrected on all the pages that link to it. For example, if you wanted to change Huebner to Hübner you could just do that once and all the pages that link would be fixed. You could suggest corrected spellings on Stephen's talk page and he could then fix them easily if he agreed. Best wishes for Xmas, Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. And the best wishes for Xmas too.

PeterR (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Agriades orbitulus

Alan,

Please can you tell me the status of Agriades orbitulus de Prunner, 1798.

I have a bulletin from Korb, 2013 with a subspecies Agriades orbitulus pheretimus.

Regards,

Peter

Bulletins

Alan,

I see you add bulletins without full names. My suggestion is that you add the bulletins with there full names. (Every body knows which bulletin you mean) Not every body reads german, french, russian, spanish etc.

Chilades cleotas gades:

Deut. ent. Zeit. (Iris) = Deutsche entomologische Zeitschrift Iris

Zool. Meded. = Zoologische Mededelingen

It is not only important but you can easier find the original bulletins on internet (or when you surch in the archive BMNH or for me in Naturalis)

Regards,

Peter

Here are copy/paste journal titles linked to journal pages via ISSN numbers. These should be used on reference templates ... Stho002 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Arhopala paraganesa insulana

Alan

I have changed Arhopala paraganesa insulana in Arhopala paraganesa insula (after original bulletin )

And a happy new year

Why make a redirect for a species that no excist? normal some one delete this page.

Regards

PeterR (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hello Accassidy, could you please have a look here. [7]. Thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Polyommatus

Alan,

I agree with you that two subgenera are upgrade to genera (Cyaniris and Lysandra). Sofar I have understand that the other subgenera are good (In publications of Talavera)

I'm doing now the russian species and subspecies wit help from russian entomologists. (The bulletins in russian)

Ok. Neolysandra allso. Maybe you can sent me the bulletin (I have them in backorder in Naturalis)

my e-mail address is peterwillemalbertroelofs@hetnet.nl

Thanks

I have received the bulletin of Cladistics 2013 (2012).

But have you Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2013, 69: 469–478 too?. From the same author.

I have this bulletin in backorder by Naturalis. I shall ask them when I can get it.

I have get the bulletins. what is your e-mail address?

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Vacciniina

Alan,

Maybe I have not look good enough, but where is Vacciniina? Was subgenus from Plebejus.

I have found an other side with vacciniina namely Plebejus (Albulinea) vacciniina Species Gouep with the species Plebejus (Albulinea) alcedo and Plebejus (Albulinea) optilete. Can all the species under Plebejus (Albulinea) to Agriades?

Regards, PeterR (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Phoenicurusia

Alan,

Phoenicurusia is in tolweb a full genus, but Eckweiler published a new subspecies as Lycaena (Phoenicurusia) phoenicurus monalisa in Nachrichten des Entomologischen Vereins Apollo, 2004, NF 25 (3), 104.

The question is:

Is Phoenicurusia a full genus or a subgenus

Thanks for your answer

Regrds,

PeterR (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Subgenus

Alan,

If I add species from Hacker, H. , L. Ronkay & M. Hreblay, 2002: Noctuidae Europaeae Volume 4 Hadeninae I: 1-419. The subgenera mention in this book is for me a fact. So Lithophane stineae Benedek, BaBics & saldaitis, 2013 was a new species. I have sent an e-mail to Benedek to ask him wich subgenus this species belong. He e-mailed me back that he was forgotten to mention this and it have to be Lithophane (Lithophane) stineae. For me is this now a fact. I agree with you the solution you show me. But now every body have to work on the same way. PeterR (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

David Agassiz

Alan,

David Agassiz works at The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD. e-mail:david.agassiz@gmail.com published among others in Zootaxa, 2014, 3774 (5): 401-429.

David J(ohn) L(awrence) Agassiz works at The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD. e-mail: david.agassiz@worldonline.co.uk and published among others in Nota Lepidopterologia, 2004, 27 (1), 41-49

Regards,

Peter PeterR (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Subgenera redirects

Oops, I hadn't considered that, though I think it is unlikely to be a big issue. I will refrain from deleting any others. Stho002 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Species Request

Could you make pages for Bombylius major & Blattella asahinai? That would be greatly appreciated. --2601:8:1580:27D:11B4:B666:F5AA:9CE3 20:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll handle it Stho002 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do. Not in my area at all. Accassidy (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Stho002 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Mariusm's "vote"

Mariusm's vote is hastily concocted and lacking clarity. Even I don't want to make my preferred format into "the official WS format"! Please read my comment under your vote, and respond as you see fit. The thing with Mariusm is that he doesn't want anybody to edit pages he created, even if all that they are doing is replacing hard written refs with ref. templates, etc. He seems to think that I am targeting his edits, but I keep an eye on everyone's edits, not just his, though his constant whinging has put a bit more focus on himself! Stho002 (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hello, I am a voluntary contributor of the French-speaking wikimedia, of passage here I noted that the home page has no more updated since an end of time.Then I made some modifications concerning the èspèce of the week so that the page but i am to bring up to date misses authorizations to carry out one updated complete but two section are to protect in writing.I wants to know if I can obtain the rights for y made the modifications in real time. Cordially excuse my translation i have a Middle English level --Startupevo1 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

redirects

Hi Accassidy. Did you manage to create your redirect page OK? If so it should appear at the end of the list of Tools on the left of the WS page. Andyboorman (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. Still no information on the method. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Try this

Go to your User Page (not Discussion)

Add ----------- to create a line at the bottom

Type *[[User:Accassidy/common.js]] which creates a new page

Use Preview and then open the new page in another tab.

Cut and paste all of the .js procedure from User:Orchi/common.js

Save Changes for both pages!

Close browser.

After restarting your browser you should find a Create Redirects link at the bottom of your Tools on the left.

Go to a page where you want to create redirects and click once on the Create Redirects Tool. You should see a counter and the synonyms to be redirected will be highlighted.

Click on the Create Redirects Tool once more and they will be created.

Yours only works with Wikispecies ===Synonymy=== not ===Synonyms===. Mine does the opposite. May be we can ask for an OR function in the procedure. I will drop a comment to you regarding Synonymy v Synonyms later.

Species must be formatted such: Basteria Mill., Fig. Pl. 40. t. 60. 1755, nom. rej. vs. Calycanthus L. (1759) The italics around the name is important and the rest you format as you wish.

Hope this helps. Good Luck Andyboorman (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Zt3860.6.3‎

Alan, please revert your revert (or else add full authorship to all 3870 Zootaxa issues), or else justify your revert (which you should have done before doing it, technically!) Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to encourage edits which are a pointless waste of time. The full authorship is only a click away (on the doi), and is not worth wasting time copying it here. It would be much better if editors added new articles than wasting their time copying full authorship lists. Your point about "more information" [being a good thing] is misconceived. I have actually now added the same information to Template:Zt3860.6.3, but in a way which provides a much better data structure, and which doesn't complicate the citation of the reference. Stho002 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Euchrysops

Alan, there are more considerations than just the taxonomic content of pages. We do, I suggest, want to have a half decent data structure linking taxa with publications, authors, etc. One issue is the use of letter qualifiers to disambiguate references (Smith, 1990a, Smith, 1990b, etc.) This adds unnecessary complexity (particularly for reference templates, since letter qualifiers are context specific) and we don't need to do it if we simply link citations to the correct reference, as I have done on Euchrysops. I'm thinking that this data structure stuff isn't really your strong point, but it is important nonetheless. Stho002 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Oh, just to clarify, the letter qualifiers are still used to name reference templates, but the latter qualifiers just don't need displaying on taxon pages. Stho002 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As you say, we need to differentiate on Reference Template titles. Generally I don't add the suffix in citations, although they do sometimes appear for clarity in reference lists. They are also very useful on author pages, for example see Butler. Accassidy (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would dispute their utility on author pages. It might appeal to you aesthetically, but I challenge you to defend their actual utility for anything Stho002 (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

BHL vs. Internet Archive

One more thing, if you have the choice, it is best to use BHL over Internet Archive. The issues are complex, but basically BHL is the biology community's attempt to turn Internet Archive into something more useful for their purposes. Stho002 (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have discovered this and when I look up new references for templates I now always use BHL. Old references that link to Archive.org may get updated in the long term, but as they do still work I don't see any point in seeing them out to change them all as a specific task. Accassidy (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you presumably don't object to me updating the odd one or two? Stho002 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No. If they take the reader to the right document the route is not critical. I would prefer the links are not hidden in collapsible boxes unless the page is so long that they would otherwise force other first-rate information off the screen. But if the current links work OK, I still don't see why you would bother when there is still so much original work to do. Accassidy (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already do more original work than anyone else by a fair margin, so I'm not overly convinced by your last remark. Stho002 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Double pages

Dear Accasidy, I'm a biologist with a keen interest in taxonomy. I'm also an administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia. On the Dutch Wikipedia, I had to stop PeterRoelofs from making contributions for a few days because of the awful mess he made, so we would be able to make an inventory of the problems and give some advise in order to prevent the creation of new problematic articles in the future (I don't expect you to read Dutch but you can find the list here). It is clear from his contributions, that this user lacks a basic understanding of taxonomy and systematics. He also is not very good at making informative contributions in a way they are most useful to the reader who is looking for information. One of the problems we encountered is that he is inclined to break up information into such small pieces that they loose coherence. As an example, he made many small articles on subgenera, which lead to the reader being lost when he was looking for a certain species but had no prior knowledge of the genus. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, intending to inform interested readers. it's not a repository where taxonomist can put their information is as many small boxes as they would want to do when they furnish their museums.

Since I blocked this user on our project (only for three days), he has shifted his attention to Wikispecies, as PeterR. There has been a problem before when he was making articles on organisms, including the subgenus in their names. He is back on that track again, and creating new problems here now. As an example, I point at the creation of a series of articles on species in the genus Pyropteron. Pyropteron minianiforme already existed (be it under the incorrect name Pyropteron minianiformis) when PeterR created Pyropteron (Pyropteron) minianiforme. In general, I think it is a very bad idea to create articles with the subgeneric name included, as it leads to the creation of double ones. Peter has been warned about this but he is a very stubborn user, just doing what he thinks is right, not listening to warnings or comments when he feels noone is looking.

To make things worse, this user is careless in all his bones. He delivers sloppy work, with many errors. Take for example Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis. He makes articles by creating a kind of template article, and then copiing it over and over again, changing some of the names and details but overlooking many aspects that have to be changed too. In this one, the name that's presented as the specific name in the article (Chamaesphecia christophi) is different from the one in the title (Chamaesphecia chalciformis).

I'm still very busy, dealing with the mess Peter left behind on the Dutch Wikipedia. I have no intention to do the same on Wikispecies but I feel this project should be warned for his sloppy work. If this user can go on like this, he'll create a mess that will very soon be nearly impossible to deal with. I don't think it would be a good idea if I put myself in the same role here as I did on my home project, namely being the person to inform him of his errors, to correct him and eventually block him. He'll probably be fed up with me because of my intervention on the Dutch project. And of course, I wouldn't have the power to block him on this project. But someone has to take a very good look at his work and either guide him very closely, or stop him from doing what he does at all. Please feel free to contact me at my talk page on the Duth Wikipedia, if you would like to discuss things. I'm very busy there and don't check my talk page (or this talk page) on Wikispecies every day.

Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I found your reply. Thanks for taking notice. Wikiklaas (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis

Dear Alan,

I shall change Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis such as you did Udara and I use again BASEPAGENAME allready.

Please Alan I need your help with Chamaesphecia. How get I only Subgenus Chamaesphecia.

Regards, PeterR (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your explain, but I still have problems with Chamaesphecia subgenus Chamaesphecia

Regards, PeterR (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps look again at Udara (Udara), click on the Edit tab so that you can see the underlying layout and the Template structure. There is a Template called Template:Udara (Udara) as well as the page. Accassidy (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Incertae Sedis

Alan,

I have make by Xestia the subgenus Incertae Sedis. Is this correct or have you an other suggestion? PeterR (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 was a very bad year for me. In january I get a heart attack. I got a percutaneous and a stent. Now I'm 4 weeks at home after 7 weeks in the hospital and 6 weeks research. They told me I had lung cancer. During the surgery they saw that I didn't had lung cancer but a bacteria. They have remove my right lung. So I live now with one lung. So maybe I missed some changes and when I'm not sure I ask you for advice. PeterR (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Alan, I know this user is doing his best. And I also know he's having a hard time. But the fact is that he has been told several times already that "incertae sedis" is not the name of a taxon. I explained to him, in Dutch, that it means: "position uncertain", in fact very often "we don't know". On the Dutch Wikipedia, I encountered numerous contributions of Peter where he treated "incertae sedis" as if it were a subfamily or a subgenus. To me it is a sign of his lack of knowledge of the subject. The same lack of knowlegde that leads to this user having no healthy scientific doubt when some new taxon is published or some new proposal for a classification, based on limited data, is published. In Lepidoptera for example, there is a huge difference between the work of Van Nieukerken et al. (51 in all), published in 2011, with a broad acceptance, and a recent proposal to raise a subfamily to family status, based on the limited work of two researchers. Yet for Peter, there seems to be no difference. He treats every new publication as a definite step towards what is in his view "the true classification". The fact that different authors can have different views on the matter, both equally valid, is strange to him. This added to his slovenliness, the fact that there is at least one error in nearly every contribution he makes, has created severe problems on my home project. As I said before, I feel I have to warn you: keep a close look at this users contributions, before it grows out of hand, if it hasn't already (with over 160,000 edits). This is not a matter of setting things straight between two users who fight each other (we don't). This is a matter of real concern for Wikispecies. Having to live with one lung is no excuse for making erroneous contributions. Wikiklaas (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you guessed my first name. As I have to deal with vandalism a lot, and with users who are trying to advertise their work or their company or whatever, I prefer to stick with my nickname, in order to make it more difficult for users to track me down in real life. Wikiklaas (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I think PeterR does understand what incertae sedis means, but he just isn't open to change when it comes to his edit habits. Stho002 (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, @Wikiklaas:, @Stho002:, Peter made an edit on Xestia of which he was uncertain, asked for my opinion, and now appears to be following my suggestion with species of that Genus not assigned to a sub-genus. That suggests to me that he is open to change, and is neither hot-headed nor stubborn. My own view with respect to WikiSpecies policy is that subgenera formalised by names in brackets, splitting a binomial name, are cumbersome and unhelpful as they render searches by binomial less effective. Some respected authors have instead used "Species Groups" within a genus as a way of showing affinities without breaking up the established binomial name. My preferred solution for WikiSpecies is: always to keep main species pages as simple binomial; if using a subgenus page to link this from the genus but then link down to the binomial species page, keeping the subgenus name in the Taxonav hierarchy; or list "Species Groups" on the genus page and still link to binomial species pages. Such grouping of species, or assigning of sub-genera should be supported by a published reference, such as "Species Groups, from Hirowatari, 1992", as I have just done as an example on Jamides. Would you support this as a wide policy? I realise that it may not work in botany as it does in lepidopterology. Accassidy (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for responding this late. Yes, in my view this would be a good idea. I agree with you that things better be kept simple. If one offers information that is hard to find, it's not really offering information. Having said that, I don't feel I'm in a position to impose my views on Wikispecies. I'm quite busy resolving taxonomic matters on my home project, and every now and then I check how a taxon is treated in Wikispecies, but so far, I don't see this project as very authoritative. It will not be a leading source for me in the near future, but it can be helpful. Very often it's not the classification as presented here that's most helpful, but the references that go by the articles. Wikiklaas (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Craniophora tapaishana

Alan

In the original description from Draudt in 1950 the species name is Craniophora taipaishana from Tai-pei-shan and not Craniophora tapaishana. What to do? Have I change the species name in taipaishana and synonym tapaishana? Regards PeterR (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice see Craniophora taipaishana PeterR (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Craniophora inquieta

Alan,

Draudt described a new species Craniophora inquieta on page 7 from Mitteilungen der Münchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft, number 40, 1950. This species is not add in species.wikipedia and not mentioned in Funet, But mentioned in Poole, Lepidopterorum Catalogus, Fascicle 118, page 280. Can I add this species and the other species mentioned by Poole: Craniophora. PeterR (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Poole described other species then in species.wikipedia:

• Craniophora adelphica A.E. Prout, 1917
• Craniophora albonigra Herz, 1904 (Acronicta)
• Craniophora hemileuca Berio, 1941
• Craniophora jankowskii Oberthür, 1880 (Apatela)
• Craniophora melanisana Wiltshire, 1980
• Craniophora nigrivitta Hampson, 1891 (Hyboma)
• Craniophora nubilata Hampson, 1894 (Euplexia)
• Craniophora obscura Leech, 1900
• Craniophora oda Lattin, 1949 (Cranionycta)
• Craniophora paragrapha Felder, 1874 in Felder & Rogenhofer (Acronycta)
• Craniophora pontica Staudinger, 1878 (Acronycta)

All those species can be found on internet.

Regards, PeterR (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.PeterR (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

About advice Xestia

Alan,

You advice me to use Overview of assigned species and Overview of species not assigned to a sub-genus by Xestia in stead off using Incertae Sedis. Now I have add those headlines by Cyana and others, but Sthoner have change it in Overview of species. Is your advice not anymore valid?

Is nomenclature [Expand] and Synonyms [Expand] standard see Cyana? I don't see it by Udara

Thanks for your answer.

Regards PeterR (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Alpichola

Alan,

I don't know what is wrong with Alpichola. I copy the species from Agrochola (Alpichola) to Alpichola and then I clean up the species.

Regards PeterR (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it better with just binomial pages. Accassidy (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Cooperation

Yes, I'm aware of your efforts. Keep up your spirits. Mariusm (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alan, I tried. The truce didn't last long even though you asked for a period of quiet reflection. Others started to question my "responsiveness" so if I don't comment back to their speculation, they would use this as a proof of my unresponsiveness. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "recent edits" is far too vague perhaps just "edits"? Andyboorman (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lvovsky, 1985

Alan,

I have made the Template:Lvovsky, 1985. But something is wrong. Please can you look to this template and tell me what I did wrong or forget? PeterR (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing appears to be wrong. Stho002 (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

More of a problem is that PeterR is tinkering with author names (like this diff). I request that this be reverted as it is not the way that the author names are cited on the publication itself. They must appear as on the publication, but can be redirected to the appropriate author page. Can you deal with this, please, Alan? PeterR has made such changes to several refs already! Stho002 (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that, in the spirit of co-operation, PeterR should have to discuss in advance with me (either directly, or indirectly via you) any edits which modify my edits. Stho002 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

template:Zt3044.49

Alan,

The authors by [[template:Zt3044.49]] are ZHAOHUI DU, HOUHUN LI & SHUXIA WANG. This is in chinese Zhao-hui or Hui Du, Hou-hun or Hun Li & Shu-xia or Xia Wang. I know this from OhanaUnited (he is a chinese). So I have make a correction. PeterR (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Stephen know this too, because we had years ago a discussion about Chinese names. OhanaUnited say why don't you ask me, I'am a chinese Stephen answer was that he is a chinese he could see it on his name.PeterR (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

making author templates

Alan,

What to do with bulletins more than 3 authors. see Polyploca laororshanae. Have I make a template:Müller et al., 2006? Total 8 authors. And what to do with bulletins with the same backnames like Ronkay. Have I make a template:Ronkay,G,Ronkay,L, 2006? PeterR (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Have I done it well?

• Müller. G., Laszlo, G.M., Ronkay, G., Ronkay, L., Speidel, W., Kravchenko, V.D., Mooser, J. & Witt, T.J. 2006. The Drepanoidea of Israel: Distribution, Phenology and Ecology (Lepidoptera: Thyatiridae and Drepanidae), with description of a new species. Entomofauna 27(4): 57–76. Reference page. 

Anthene (Neurellipes)

Alan,

Neurellipes is now a subgenus from Anthene see Anthene (Neurellipes). In 2010 Libert upgrade Neurellipes to a genus in Révision des Anthene africains (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). African Butterfly Research Institute, Nairobi & Lambillionea, 420 pp. + 32 colour plates. In Zootaxa, 2014, 3860 (2): 195–200 Sáfián described a new species Neurellipes rhoko. Make you the corrections? PeterR (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the 2010 Libert paper revising African Anthene at the moment, but don't you have this book in your library? If not I can e-mail my library to send this book. PeterR (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I shall borrow this book from my library Naturalis. It cost me ca. € 6,50. PeterR (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If their are questions I shall keep them for you. Nice days. PeterR (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

References

I prefer to use all the authors on journal references that I use not just Author et al. It is both common courtesy and accepted practice to acknowledge all the authors, except when undertaking in text citations. As per the "agreement", would you please be kind enough to ask User:Stho002 to be careful when editing my reference templates and ordinary references and not remove the full authorship. I do not want an edit war over this, but it is beginning to happen all too frequently. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: Stephen, please note the request above. If you are creating new reference templates, you can format them initially as you wish, but it would be appreciated by me if you could refrain from removing content from the Templates originated by others. If someone takes the troible to list all authors, out of politeness for example, then it seems a waste of time to remove some names and thus reduce the content. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: OK (reluctantly). However, please note that, as you said, I can create a template initially with my preferred format. Therefore, if Boorman doesn't use a template, I can replace his hard written citations (in his format) with templates created by me (in my format). Thanks Stho002 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: The above is fine by me, but two questions. Firstly will you rollback the templates that I created and then you edited, or can I do it myself without causing any problems? Secondly, if I have not yet got round to creating a template is it then OK if I add my preferred author format to one that you created without getting into a rollback session? Andyboorman (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We need a definite policy regarding the use of et al. Until then, neither of us changes the format of the other (except for replacing non-templated refs. with templates). Stho002 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK fine by me and this will also include bare doi links. Andyboorman (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

>and this will also include bare doi links< I do not understand what you mean Stho002 (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

While we are at it, Alan, can you pls try to talk some sense into Boorman over edits like this one, where he adds "date accessed DD-MM-YYYY" to published journal article citations! I have tried to tell him that this is nonsense, but he just claims that "it has its uses" and keeps doing it! Stho002 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

While we are at it Alan, can you pls ask Thorpe to stop putting my templates on a speedy deletion list. This is totally unacceptable surely? It may be best if you also suggest that he keeps well away from my edits as we have history that does not need repeating. As has already been note he is doing excellent work in the area of his expertise. Andyboorman (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, Alan, Boorman is claiming territoriality rights over certain taxa, which is totally unacceptable on an open Wikimedia site. I put two of his templates on the deletion list because they were misleadingly named (as if they only had a single author). I will not keep away from any taxa. WS is no place for territoriality. Stho002 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Alan: Cooperation is a two-way street, and although you are putting pressure on me to "cooperate", I don't see balance on the "other side". Keeping out of each other's "territory" is not cooperation. I don't have a "territory". Boorman needs to learn to cooperate and listen to advice. Stho002 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andyboorman:, @Stho002:, @Accassidy: Any removal of content must not be tolerated, especially removal of author names. Replacing authors names with "et al" is removing of content, which can be considered vandalism. The consensus over WS is to use "et al" as sparingly as possible and by default to use the full author range. I would consider therefore any replacement of author names with "et al" as a rule-infringement which is punishable. I think we must stop handling Stho with kid gloves. He lately threatened me and also he swore at me. We must enforce our rules on him, or else we'll end up in anarchy. I feel free therefore in the future to block Stho if he continues his disruptive practice of replacing author names with "et al". Mariusm (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and lies! I didn't swear at Mariusm, I just said "Wtf?" after he removed content (species) from a page without giving any indication why! Stho002 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002:@Andyboorman:@Mariusm: Everybody please stop for a day or two. I cannot write much now as I am in a 3-day legislatory meeting outside of WS jurisdiction. However, I propose the following convention:

• In Reference Templates we always list all authors of a document as they are listed in the paper itself.
• In the "Name" and "Synonym" sections of taxon pages, we cite just the first of 3 or more authors followed by "et al".

This ensures that all authors can be see on the page under references, but that names and synonymies do not get over-complicated. Accassidy (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

All right Alan, I'll try and stay calm as a hindu cow (Bos taurus indus) [;)] until you come back and sort things out. Mariusm (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I will try and remain calm. However, @Stho002: I have had to remove your collapse box list as the species list was not based upon TPL, if it was it would have appeared on my original reference list. The sources I used were WCSP and MBG, both of which, as you have been informed, are more reliable than TPL and should be used when they are available. Can we please not tread on each others toes for at least a week? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Alan to have to post here again in your absence.! @Stho002: I have rolled back your template edits on Koecke et al, 2010 and Cusimano et al., 2010 due to the following reasons. 1) We should not use semi-colon deliminators between authors, as it is virtually unknown in journals where the comma deliminator is used instead - see the reference pages in both of the journals above. 2) We should not point to broken links, but I can see the reason for doing so for DOI, as it reminds us to keep an eye open for future edits, although we can do this via other routes, such as a note on template discussion pages. 3) The other edits you made are not that important, although not to my taste and so have been reverted. However, thanks for the working ISSN links and these have been added and I would have done this today anyway! I could not get ISSN in Koecke et al, 2010 to link satisfactorily last night for some reason. Finally and most importantly, in line with the "agreement", I suggest, we do not edit the content of templates the other creates, but we politely post suggestions somewhere, such as a discussion page or another forum. Apologies for when in the past, I have made unannounced content edits on templates you have created, I will not do so in the future. I also feel that side-stepping this by creating a "replacement" template is not on, although I did get the point about "correct names" once this was politely pointed out to me by Tommy Kronkvist. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Alan, but here we go again! @Stho002: your suggestion on re "give user a choice" is excellent on templates Koecke et al, 2010 and Cusimano et al., 2010, but please respect my preferred formats and also it is sensible to use the correct title format for a journal. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andyboorman:Pls get your facts right before making comments like "and also it is sensible to use the correct title format for a journal"! Stho002 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: Here is the fact Cambridge Journals web site! Andyboorman (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andyboorman:It is now virtually universal in the academic community that words in journal titles don't get capitals unless they are proper nouns. The page you point to is using the journal title as a heading. In a reference citation, it is not. Stho002 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you are correct, why not follow the convention in reference lists? Surely that is logical and the way we tend to do things in academic communities over here. Just another silly format spate me thinks Andyboorman (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that I am correct. I am following the widepread convention. You are not. Why do you persist in annoying Alan with this trivia?? Stho002 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Format spates are trivia of course, have you read the articles linked to by the above templates? Basically I do not care what formats you use, but you have been asked not to impose your views, particularly when there is evidence supporting the counter view. More seriously, how do you explain your "appearance" on Basellaceae very soon after I started on this obscure family? Co-incidence or is it a case of even a paranoid has enemies! I use Alan's discussion page reluctantly as he is courageously monitoring our behaviour. Andyboorman (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not imposing my view, I am correcting your mistakes. I added a very important reference to Basellaceae, which I am perfectly entitled to do. You are not trying to keep me out of "your territory", are you? Stho002 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your format of authors, year and journal titles in your reference templates is a view and is up to you to use. I prefer a journal reference format I find most commonly in the journals I read and do not see that as a mistake. Correction, I found and added the very important reference you templated it with a JSTOR link - collaboration in a way, I guess. No territory, but was it really only coincidence to find you there? Andyboorman (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well a very important reference isn't much good without a link to content so one can read it! Stho002 (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)