User talk:PeterR

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There are archives of this talk page:
Archive 2008: 1, 2   Archive 2009
Archive 2010   Archive 2011
Archive 2012   Archive 2013
Archive 2014   Archive 2015
Archive 2016   Archive 2017–2019
Archive 2020   Archive 2021
The archives are searchable:


Hello PeterR. I've recently added a list of species + author and year of publication to Enypia (Geometridae). Before my edit, the page did not list any species or author. Since you specialize in Lepidoptera, could you please have a quick look and check whether the information I added is correct and complete? Also, do you have access to Hulst's publication? I couldn't find out whether Enypia perangulata Hulst, 1896 or Enypia venata (Grote, 1883) [= Cleora venata Grote, 1883] is the type species. Thank you, and best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Sofar I could find I have add the species with details in Enypia. PeterR (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Mimia phydile (sic)[edit]


The correct original spelling of this species name is actually phidyle not phydile. You can see the OD in Biodiversity Heritage Library, which is always worth checking before you create a page here.

Could you make the appropriate changes please?

Thanks, Alan — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Accassidy (talkcontribs) 11:36, 10 June 2021.

I had the information from Delgado-Botello, F. & Vargas, J.I. 2016. They described a new subspecies Mimia phydile tatamaensis. Nobody had add Minia Phidyle, so I didn't check if the species name was good. PeterR (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are they entomologists?[edit]

Hi Peter. In June you created pages for the three authors Amy-Jayne Dutton, Liza Fowler and Natasha Stevens, all based in Jamestown, Saint Helena. You didn't add scientific disciplines for any of them, but I guess that they are entomologists? I would like to create Wikidata pages for each one of the authors, but first I must know their profession. (You don't need to update the author pages, if you don't want to. You can answer me here, and I'll take care of the details.)
Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Tommy, I forget sometimes to create defaultsort etc. I have now done it.PeterR (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I have now created the Wikidata items for Dutton (Q107771928), Fowler (Q107771668) and Stevens (Q107772305), and added the "Authority control" template to their Wikispecies pages. This means that when information about their relations to universities, libraries, museums and databases is added to Wikidata, it will also automatically be shown here on their Wikispecies pages. (In other words, their links to BHL, WorldCat, IPNI, GND, ZooBank, ISNI, etc.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Hello. The page for Nama refers to a plant genus. I suggest that if you have an accepted zoological genus then you rename it as per consensus. Andyboorman (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies taxon page has been renamed. Thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Mikhailov & Reshetnikov publication date[edit]

Just so you know, I created the template as "Mikhailov & Reshetnikov, 2022" because it has "Published 11 January 2022" online, despite the issue being for "October 2021". I don't believe that particular article was online at all last year. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

You have to look for issue date Entomological Review, 2021 101(7): 979–991. The series 101 are from 2021. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterR (talkcontribs) 08:30, 16 January 2022.
Yes, I saw the issue date, but with journals published online those issue dates can be misleading sometimes I find... I'll have to ask around how the publication dates even work for that journal at some point, they have confused me before and could affect publication dates or years for a couple of other references from that journal. It's a pity that almost nobody there registers their articles on ZooBank for some reason. (Only seven articles are linked to the series' ZooBank ID even now.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I only publish after original bulletins. Entomological Review is a translation in english from Russian journals. PeterR (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware, though usually the translated articles have a notice with "Original Russian Text @ authors, year ... published in Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, [details]". But some of the articles in Entomological Review do not, which could mean they are original articles for the English version? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes they publish only in english. See Entomological Review , 2018, vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 76-113PeterR (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grishin, Janzen & Hallwachs, 2014[edit]

Could you look into this template, Peter, and see if you can get it working?

Template:Grishin, Janzen & Hallwachs, 2014

Thanks — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Accassidy (talkcontribs) 11:36, 22 January 2022.

Done. PeterR (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zaragoza-Caballero et al., 2021[edit]

Just letting you know, the page "Temnaspis chamelensis" you created should be Tenaspis chamelensis, for Tenaspis LeConte, 1881 in Lampyridae. Temnaspis Lacordaire, 1845 is an unrelated genus in another family (Megalopodidae) that unfortunately has almost the same name. (I'm basing this information on this version of the article uploaded to ResearchGate). Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done PeterR (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jane Costa[edit]

Hello, just wondering, where did "von Sydow" come from exactly? According to her website her full name is "Jane Margaret Costa de Frontin Werneck", which is also the name that Jane herself edited the page as back in 2018. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah wait, sorry, I see "von Sydow" on her website too so it might be one of her other names, but it doesn't seem to be the full name she prefers either way. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peter, Have you got a web link or a full title etc. for this reference? Henning et al., 1997 Thanks. AlanHenning et al., 1997

Wunderlich templates[edit]

Hello PeterR. Currently the two templates {{Wunderlich, 2008b}} and {{Wunderlich, 2008c}} which you created last year are marked for deletion. The user who marked them for deletion claims that the "References doesn't exist". Do you perhaps have a link similar to the actual publications, so that we can keep them instead of deleting them? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Tommy See [1] PeterR (talk)
Thank you. The templates was unused (on Wikispecies) and has now been merged with {{Wunderlich, 2008a}}.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Tommy, I'm now missing the pictures from the spiders. How can we fix it now? PeterR (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What pictures? The templates did not include any pictures (they never do). Both templates only included 2 links, namely to the Jörg Wunderlich and Beiträge zur Araneologie pages here at Wikispecies. They did not include any links to external pages outside of Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Tommy, I had made two reference templates 2008a and 2008b. 2008a described all the new families, species etc. and 2008b are the picturess from the new species etc. PeterR (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

───────────────────────── No, unfortunately that is not correct. Your original version of the "Wunderlich, 2008a" template can be seen here, including the timestamp "15 March 2021, at 12:34) by PeterR" which marks the time you created it:

As you can see it does not include any information about the families and species. Here is a copy of the same text which may be easier to read:

* Wunderlich, J. 2008a. Descriptions of fossil spider (Araneae) taxa mainly in Baltic amber, as well as on certain related extant taxa. Beiträge zur Araneologie 5: 44-139. Reference page.
** Find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference.
Category:Reference templates

The Wunderlich, 2008b template was deleted earlier today by administrator @Neferkheperre. As usual, all deletions can be seen in the Deletion log. The only differences between the 2008a, 2008b, and 2008c templates was the page numbers (a: 44–139, b: 803–804, c: 813–818) which I have now instead all added to the merged {{Wunderlich, 2008a}} template.

Please note that we normally do not add pictures to reference templates. You have created a total of 42,515 templates here at Wikispecies, and I don't think you have added pictures to any of them. We only add pictures to taxon pages and author pages.

I will be happy to help with any further detais, but unfortunately that will have to wait until tomorrow. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Author Padron[edit]

I suspect these two names are same person. They are in your specialty; Pablo Sebastián Padrón and Pablo Sebastián Padrón Martínez. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have moved all to Pablo Sebastián Padrón Martínez and Pablo Sebastián Padrón Martínez taxa. PeterR (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New taxon author pages[edit]

Why do you sometimes not add categories or sortkeys to new taxon author pages you create, such as Giovanni Bianco and Tom Schneider? Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Sometimes I forget it and sometimes I do it afterwards. PeterR (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. I wondered if you meant to leave them out for some reason, but obviously that is not the case. Thank you for explaining. I'll fix the pages if that happens again in future, if I see they're missing categories etc. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello PeterR. I recently looked at the Mirinae page, because it was edited by an unknown user (the unknown user then reverted the edit himself). The page was created in 2008 and has been edited several times by many users. It has always listed "Mirinae Carvalho, 1959" as the author and year of publication. However almost all online sources I can find instead claims that it should be "Mirinae Hahn, 1833". This includes ITIS, Fossilworks, Dyntaxa, BioLib, etc. (You can use Q6018203 at Wikidata for more identifiers and references: they all list Hahn, 1833 or no author.)

The only online reference that mentions "Carvalho, 1959" that I can find is this one by Randall Tobias Schuh (American Museum of Natural History, 2013). That page also lists a lot of other authors and publications for this taxon name: all of them newer than 1959.

There is a {{Carvalho, 1959}} link to a reference template on the Wikispecies Mirinae page that was added in 2020 by our administrator Neferkheperre, but the template itself was never created so it has always been a red link. Done PeterR (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that you usually have access to very good literature in regards to entomology. Do you (or @Neferkheperre) perhaps have access to any good references to verify the currently most up-to-date author name and year of publication for this subfamily?
Thanks beforehand. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

There are a lot of fake templates under ===Primary references===. PeterR (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, but that's not the main issue here. I think it is very strange that 99% of the online references list Hahn as the author instead of Carvalho.
Thanks for creating the "Carvalho, 1959" reference template! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Hahn, 1833 would be the actual author, using ICZN Code Article 36.1; „A name established for a taxon at any rank in the family group is deemed to have been simultaneously established for nominal taxa at all other ranks in the family group; all these taxa have the same type genus, and their names are formed from the stem of the name of the type genus [Art. 29.3] with appropriate change of suffix [Art. 34.1]. The name has the same authorship and date at every rank.“ Even though Carvalho did establish Mirinae, he would at most be noted as nom. transl. One problem is that very many authors of articles do not make proper note of the Principal of Coordination, especially when it comes to tribes, so correct attribution may be hard to come by. Neferkheperre (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, are you sure about the name of that species? because I just came across {{Gonzalez-Filho et al., 2022}} and the new species is named "Cyrtogrammomma frevo". This is confirmed by ZooBank or by World Spider Catalog. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I have make a new one for frevo and I delete momma. It was a mistake.PeterR (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honduran entomologists[edit]

Hello PeterR. You have created the two pages Mildred Paola Márquez Godoy (Honduran entomologist, born 1988) and Mildred Marquez (Honduran entomologist). Do ou know if they are the same person, perhaps? Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • They have the same address. So I think they are the same persons. PeterR (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tommy Kronkvist @PeterR I think they are the same person too: Mildred Marquez has email starting with "mildredpmarquez", which could be Mildred P. [= Paola] Marquez, and I found a page for Mildred Paola Márquez Godoy [2] which also gives the same email address as Mildred Marquez's. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a note, i think these can be merged, the one who created the insecta-web can also be contacted at facebook, under name Mii Lii. I'm risking sharing but i know her personally we worked together in projects in honduras 2011,2012. Sjl197 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I think one of those spellings is not correct. Same source, both created by you. Can you have a look? --Succu (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have had a look, but both species assist. See google. PeterR (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

duplicate pages[edit]

Hello PeterR, during the last years you have created hundreds of duplicate pages (see User:MatSuBot/Duplicates). I am now working to redirect the duplicates (mostly with subgenus in the title) to the Wikispecies standard form of binominal title (or trinomen for subspecies). But I noticed that you still continue to create duplicates, e.g. Agrypnus herczigi, although Agrypnus (Colaulon) herczigi already exists. Please just move Agrypnus (Colaulon) herczigi to Agrypnus herczigi and do not copy the content to a new page! Thank you, and kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC). I shell try to do that. PeterR (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thenpea penthea[edit]

Hi, you may see i've made some edits within butterflies, but notably i merged the best from Adelotypa penthea into Thenpea penthea. That latter seems to be the valid combination, and it was mostly your earlier edits on Adelotypa penthea that got merged in. Obviously if you think the synonym is wrong etc, lets talk, but otherwise please check and then perhaps removed the outdated Adelotypa penthea content such as a redirect. Else, there are three subspecies listed in both files - i don't think any remain valid but maybe so. Sjl197 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For above under Adelotypa, that has untidy links to the 'penthea' files that i'm notifying about. But further, also i just found A. trinitatis needs to be linked with Pachythone conspersa, again i've part done it, but for example the "Adelotypa trinitatis" file could become a redirect if you think that's right. Again notice there are subspecies.
[note, several others listed after my wording "Transferred to other genera" were added back in by another user after your creation - not added back by me - i'm trying to clear up what got transfered elsewhere!, and i'm sorry to leave some bits] Sjl197 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have original papers you can change it. Some species are chang after years I add them. I have a lot of papers but not all.PeterR (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Peter, Why are you suppose that the author is Alla B. Vereshchagina? Why did you add additional "h"? Are you sure that this is original spelling? Hunu (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have search on internet and the only Vereschagina or Vereshchagina I found is Alla Borisovna Vereshchagina. If this is wrong You can change it in the good name.PeterR (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You was wrong. Alla Borisovna Vereshchagina is specialist in Aphidoidea. The author is Tatiana Nikolaevna Vereschagina. And latin spelling of her family name is Vereschagina. [3] Hunu (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find on internet publications from her. Can you tell me in what for bulletin she has published this species?PeterR (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

V.F. Bakhvalov[edit]

Hi Peter, I see this creation on Wikispecies and I am pretty sure that this author is Viktor Fedorovitch Bakhvalov (see Wikidata). In fact I found him on this ResearchGate page trying to found his russian name (Бахвалов, В. Ф. = V.F. Bakhvalov). Maybe you can rename the Wikispecies page... up to you. Thank you so much in advance :-) Givet (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way a species describeb by him is Zygiella kirgisica...
Thanks for your help. I have made all the reference templates for Viktor Fedorovitch Bakhvalov so far I know. I cant add the full species because they are written in Russian. Maybe you can translate those bulletins. If you have more full names you can inform me.PeterR (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned authors[edit]

Hi Peter. You've recently added A LOT of authors, but they are just names without any content. No one knows whether they are taxonomist or just zoologists without any described taxa. Please, when you add an author, add also at least one taxonomic article or one described taxon. Otherwise the author will be considered an ORPHANED AUTHOOR and eventually will be DELETED! Mariusm (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Marius: This are authors who died, but I don't know of they have published something. Its all in Russian and a little summery in English. PeterR (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't add such questionable authors anymore! Mariusm (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally think that it's okay to add them, but only if they have published work that is directly relevant to taxonomy, systematics or nomenclature of a particular taxon or taxon name. In my opinion, it's not strictly necessary that they have also authored any taxon names. However, if they haven't (re)described a taxon, it's very important to not add the [[Category:Taxon authorities]] category to their author pages, and also not add the {{Taxa authored}} section.
Please see Who can be considered a Taxon Authority? and Candidates for speedy deletion in the Village Pump archives for old discussions about this. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]