- This is an archive of closed discussions. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.
How to edit redirects
Peter, you can get rid of the redirect by editing the page Lecithocera squalida as you edit any other page. To edit the redirect, you can first click on the link to Lecithocera squalida from the page Lecithocera. It will redirect you to Lecithocera aulias, BUT just underneath the page title Lecithocera aulias, it will say "(Redirected from Lecithocera squalida)". Then you click on the link in "(Redirected from Lecithocera squalida)" and it will take you to Lecithocera squalida, which shows a redirect image. Then just click edit and add the content you want to the page Lecithocera squalida. Hopefully this helps you. Koumz (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Mexicantha is no genus of Tortricidae, but of Saturniidae: Hemileucinae
I am not experienced with Wikispecies pages and internal links (and editing these), so I cannot do the changes by myself, but I would really appreciate if someone more experienced with this could move the "Taxonavigation" links for the genus Mexicantha from presently Tortricidae to family Saturniidae, subfamily Hemileucinae, (and, of course, adopt the entire tree correctly) where it really belongs.
I should know that, as I am one of the authors of that genus: Mexicantha is no micromoth, but a [small] saturniid ... If there are any questions, please ask me under my email wnaessig [at] senckenberg.de . I am not having any Wikispecies identity so far, and presently have neither time nor interest in becoming a Wiki contributor for the time being, but I could offer some help [restricted in capacity by time problems] on specific requests regarding Saturniidae, Brahmaeidae or Eupterotidae.
–Wolfgang A. Nässig — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2013
Hello, Peter. Firstly I want to express my appreciation to your solid work for WS. As regards Stho002, I'm at a loss of what to do. I agree he's a kind of a bully, and his conduct is unacceptable, but what are the alternatives? Most of the requests he makes are sound enough (for example, I agree with his opposition to subgenera [see my treatment of subgenera here: Bolitoglossa]). For now let's just calm down, and proceed with augmenting data to WS as we find fit. Mariusm (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Peter, thanks for the update. No, I don't know any more than you about this User. I will keep an eye open. Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've also tried to establish more meaningful contact, so we will see what happens next. Accassidy (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
First of all I have to confess I admire your perseverance to the Lepidoptera. As to the template BASEPAGENAME, it is simply the current page-name (which is also eventually the genus or species name). So instead of writing the species name you can put this template, and in case the species needs a relocation to another name, you won't have to retype it.
I don't quite understand what you mean by: "Don' t forgett that we did' t have had take classes. I'm working now for Razowski (Tortricidae, Poland) and Nässig (Saturniidae, Germany). I'm 67 year now and i need templates." Can you be more specific please?
I am really glad to have you around here, Mariusm (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Yes, you're correct about the strive for consistency, but we need also to progress somehow, if we realize there's a better way to do things. I don't think we're using Java here in WS ... or am I wrong? Mariusm (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, No!! You don't have to make a new template! Instead of writing:
== Taxonavigation ==
Species: ''[[Micragone morettoi]]''
- You write:
== Taxonavigation ==
Mariusm (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Peter, please do not revert reference templates that I add! Thanks, ...Stho002 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- PS: If you want to know why they are a good idea, then please ask someone else around here, and they can give you an unbiased answer (hopefully!) ...Stho002 (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let me be clearer: if I change a reference to a reference template, please do not change it back, thank you ... Stho002 (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Peter, I am in the USA for a few weeks and do not have access to my reference library at home. I suspect that the large discrepancy is due to splitting or lumping of related genera. For example, some include Freyeria under Chilades, while others do not. If there has not been a recent revision to follow, then it may be hard to get wide agreement. Do you have a recent paper that you are trying to follow? I have not turned my attention to this area for some time. Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Peter, There are a lot of species missing from Chilades. I would use Williams for Afrotropical species (and he includes Freyeria under Chilades) and a mish-mash of other books/papers to review the Oriental species. This might be something I can get round to during the later parts of the winter, but for now I don't really have the time to spend. Regards, Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Peter, currently its on this page: Plebejus (Albulina) orbitulus. Higher classification of the Holarctic Polyommatini is not very stable right now, as lots of new papers being circulated following molecular analysis. This is where we have the species page for orbitulus, not under Agriades. Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this archive.