User talk:PeterR/Archive 2014

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Speiredonia darwiniana[edit]

You left a comment at the top of the page. I don't know if that was intentional or not during page creation so I removed it in the mean time. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have restored your comment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a professional either so I can't comment or observe these potential mistakes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, credentials are not required for the participation in this project so I fail to see how an individual's credentials make his opinion more (or less) valued than others. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletins[edit]

Peter, can you give me an example of what you mean. It is not completely clear to me. Thanks. Alan Accassidy (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you think it important to have the full title spelt out, then you can modify the text on the Reference Template and it will be on every page once the change has been made. Another very good reason to have a Template for the Reference rather than a separate entry on each relevant page. Accassidy (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you also. I have made a Redirect from the A. p. insulana page to A. p. insula. Well spotted. Alan Accassidy (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a redirect in case anything else links to the old page. This way the link still leads somewhere (the new page) instead of leading to an error message. Accassidy (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polyommatus[edit]

Peter, I now have a copy of the Talavera et al 2012 paper published in Cladistics on Polyommatus sensu lato. I think this is the paper to which you refer as 'recent molecular studies'. The Talavera paper disposes with subgenera under Polyommatus sensu stricto and has Cyaniris, Eumedonia, Neolysandra, Lysandra and Polyommatus as separate genera. As you have done most of the work on this group, I thought I would discuss it with you. I think it would be a good idea to raise the subgenera to full genus status in accordance with this paper. Talavera's genus Polyommatus includes a great many taxa. It may be possible to group these under some existing sub-genera. Do you agree? Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. According to Talavera we should also keep Neolysandra as a separate genus. I have a pdf copy of the paper I could send you if you do not have it. I just need your email. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will email pdf, just confirm email address to use. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 2013, 69: 469–478. Do you? Alan Accassidy (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
accassidy@aol.com
Peter, the taxonomy of the wider Polyommatus group is treated differently by different authors. My own view is that it is very unwise to copy what is on other web sites, and that we should work primarily from serious academic papers. This whole area was treated quite recently by Talavera and a few others who published a paper in 2012. Cladistics, 29(2): 166-192. I have purchased a pdf copy of this, but you should be able to find it in Naturalis. See what they say about Vacciniina on page 175. If we could agree to stay with the higher classification of Polyommatus group using that paper, I think we would be doing the right thing. Reference Template below. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lycaena subgenera? preferably not.[edit]

Peter, I suggest you look at Bridges, 1994 which gives some basic information about these various generic or subgeneric names that fall within Lycaena sensu lato. Part IV deals with genus group names. The most recent document I have that deals with Palaearctic Coppers is Tshikolovets, 2011, Butterflies of Europe and the Mediterranean Area. He is a lumper and he uses several names as sub-genera of Lycaena, including: Lycaena, Helleia, Thersamolycaena, Palaeochrysophanus, Thersamonia, Alciphronia, Loweia, Pheonicurusia and Athamanthia. Many of these genus-group names are already listed as Synonyms of Lycaena. Oddly, the type species of Pheonicurusia is margelanica not pheonicurus, as the author made a mistake. Bridges has notes on this in Part IV. Species phoenicurus Lederer is included by Tshikolovets in (subgenus) Athamanthia Zhdanko, 1983. Sub-genera are not easy to deal with in Wikispecies, especially when the data is addressed by other semi-automated website, so I much prefer now to keep the designations and titles of pages to genus/species/subspecies without putting (subgenus) in the middle. On the genus page you can note that certain species are included by some authors under a certain name as a sub-genus or a species group (whatever the difference may be!!). I hope this helps. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your contributions[edit]

Hi Peter, as I was informed on this via the Dutch Wikipedia, I had a look at your contributions here. I see an awful lot of good work. The one thing I do think is not wise is when you place signed comments like this one: "This subspecies is valid PeterR (talk) <time>, <date> (UTC)" at the top of pages.

First thing that springs to attention is that you create a useless red link here. Second thing is that you're not supposed to sign your contributions in the main article space. Most important however is the content of this message: This taxon is valid. Taxa are just one way to create an ordered representation of what's out there, in the field. They are a human interpretation of the complex nature of nature itself. A taxon is never valid. A name can be published validly, or can be illegal. A taxon can't. A taxon is something that's created in the mind of a scientist. It can be accepted by other scientists. It can be accepted for a while and then be discarded. It can be accepted by some and be regarded as superfluous by others. Classification is never finished, and even if the moment comes when all creatures can be given a "correct" place in a "tree of life", then there still can (and will) be debate as to their ranks.

By placing this comment at the top of a page, you try to say the data is correct and definite, and others should not make amendments. That's a very unscientific approach and also not the way Wikispecies works. If new publications come out, and new data reveal your work is outdated, then it will have to be changed. Moreover, you stated yourself you're an amateur. And indeed I saw you make some mistakes that show a lack of knowledge, like when you created an article on the Dutch Wikipedia about "Incertae Sedis (Psychidae)", stating this was a subfamily.

You do very good work here, which I appreciate very much. I argue however that you don't have the expertise to make the decission whether a taxon is valid or not, and whether the page on that taxon is definite or finished. I therefore urgently ask you to stop making these comments, to stop signing your contributions in the main article space, and to remove these comments you already made on quite a number of pages. Kind regards, Wikiklaas (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ik weet niet wat voor beroep je hebt, maar Incertae Sedis heb je in de insektenwereld op verschillende nivo's. Toen ik bij species.wikipedia kwam waren er al heel wat aanwezig en na studie van diverse bulletins en boeken heb ik verschillende toegevoegd. Ook in officiële boeken wordt Incertae Sedis vernoemd onder familie, Subfamilie ec. Ik doe niets in species.wikipedia zonder overleg met andere gebruikers of de authors van de nieuwe species. Ik heb nu al een paar keer meegemaakt dat ik species had aangepast en anderen het verkeerd hebben veranderd. Op andere sides zie ik staan bij een species valid zoals bij de species van BMNH. Na overleg heb ik besloten om dit ook bij species.wikipedia te doen. Het is een soort vlag. Sommige veranderingen kun je nog nergens vinden, deze moeten nog gepubliceerd worden. Ik zou eerder vallen over de families, subfamilies, tribus etc. in nl.Wikipedia welke niet correct zijn. Aan de bijdragen te zien zijn deze mensen geen professionals of amateurs. Ik ben een gepensioneerde liefhebber van 68 jaar zonder kennis van programma's.
Mvg. PeterR (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peter, "Incertae sedis" means "position uncertain". It is neither a rank, nor a taxon. It basically means: we don't know. It is used to inform the reader that certain lower taxa are likely to belong to the higher taxon that is the subject of the study, but that they don't fit in the overall hierarchy of that taxon as it is proposed at that moment. You treat "Incertae sedis" as if it were a taxon. It only shows you're not very well educated in taxonomy.
Another sign which gives away your lack of knowledge is that you think of classificatioins as something fixed. If this were the case, then the treatment of a species could be "correct", meaning "without errors" and reflecting a fixed position. Classification is however nothing more than a certain view upon the hierarchy of nature. Views can be disputed. There is a lot of debate among authors as to the position of taxa and as to their ranks. Different names for one taxon reflect different views. It's not like one is correct and the other one erroneous. Different views can coexist. In this light, it is ridiculous when you put the message "This species is valid and correct" at the top of a page, which basically means that you don't want others to make amendments anymore. Since you're a not very well informed amateur, I argue that you're not in a position to make such statements. Wikiklaas (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subgenera (again)[edit]

As the discussion on the topic of subgenera is scattered over several talk pages, I did not yet find what exactly the debate has been about so far. I however see an important problem with the way you add species names with the subgenus added in brackets. If a species is assigned to a genus, lets say the carabid beetle species with the epithet melanarius is assigned to the genus Pterostichus, then there can be no other species in this whole genus, bearing the same epithet (also not in another subgenus). So if I want to look up this species, it should be enough for me to type Pterostichus melanarius, not Pterostichus (Morphnosoma) melanarius. When you start adding names like this last one, with the subgenus included, you run a risk of adding duplicate lemmata. At some time, the database can then have a lemma on Pterostichus melanarius and one on Pterostichus (Morphnosoma) melanarius, which both represent the same taxon. This is no theoretical risk, it already happened at some scale in the Dutch Wikipedia and in Wikidata, with as a result lots of work to clear up things and remove duplicate items. One can off course mention the subgenus in the treatment of a species (like it is done in the example of Pterostichus melanarius) but making it part of the name of the lemma will cause significant problems. Wikispecies is a database, and when editing a database, you should treat it as a database, with it's specific database problems.

Pterostichus as treated in Wikispecies, has 33 subgenera, and about 1200 species. Distributing these species over the 33 subgenera, would mean that someone who tries to find a species name in an alphabetical list, would have to look in 33 places in stead of one (so on average the species would be found after checking half this number, that is, if the name exists; if it is not in the list, one should check all 33 subgenera to find it's not there). That's just not very convenient. Another thing is that many species are not assigned to a subgenus, even in genera that are subdivided into subgenera. This place will become a mess if contributors keep on adding these superfluous parts to names. If that's what you were critisised about before, then I can see your opponents have a valid point. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ik weet nog steeds niet wie je bent en wat je doet. Het voorbeeld wat je laat zien is tegen de afgesproken regels in. Wij vermelden de species met subgenus en als synoniem de species zonder subgenus. Op deze manier kom je automatisch op de goede plek terecht. Ik vind dat je nogal een hoge dunk van jezelf hebt en meer van entomologie weet dan bv. Dubatolov. Sinds de afspraken geschonden worden door verschillende mensen lopen de echte entomologisten weg. Species.wikipedia wordt i.p.v. betrouwbaarder steeds onbetrouwbaarder wat niet de bedoeling was met het opzetten van species.wikipedia. PeterR (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Peter, as this is Wikispecies, and most contributors here do not understand Dutch, I guess it would be wise for you to formulate you contributions to discussions in English. This is not some debate between you and me. Others might be interested in the matter too.
Who I am, and what I do is not of great importance. It is the arguments I give that are to be discussed here. And so far, you did not really refute the things I had to say. Dubatolov is without doubt a very well informed entomologist, but is he also schooled in the rules of taxonomy? Did he encourage you to write an article on "Incertae sedis" as a subfamily? Does he recognize the specific problems coming up when entering names into a database like Wikispecies? And you may be a member of the Dutch Entomological Society (NEV) but you are not an entomologist yourself. And if entomologists run away from this project because they are not willing to adhere tot the rules and standards, then let them, I would say. This is Wikispecies, a project that has rules for all who would like to contibute. If someone doesn't want to go along, you can't stop them from leaving.
You state that there are some rules in place here, regulating the names of taxa with the subgenus included. I guess you will be able to point me to the page where this rule was formulated and approved. Seeing the vast amount of discussion you already had on the topic of subgenera, I can hardly believe there really is such a rule, or it would have to be that we do not include these names in page titles. And having a look at Trifurcula (Glaucolepis) sinica for example, seeing there's no redirect Trifurcula sinica, or to the last one you added, Chrysartona (Chrysartona) stipata (Chrysartona stipata), you do not really reassure me that these taxa will be found easily and that this problem has been tackled. Wikiklaas (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one of the main reasons for not including subgenera in species article titles is that it complicates automatic linking to external sites like CoL, EOL, etc., none of which bother with subgenera. The linking code would have to remove the subgenus, which is a pain. Stho002 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See templates Taxonavigation section. From the beginning we have set-up them after these templates. But is allways the same. There come new ones, they don' t look at the templates and go their own way. After a few weeks they are gone.
I didn't say that I'm an entomologist. I said I'm a amateur with insects (butterflies and moths) as hobby. You say that I'm not able to see of a species is valid or not. But I don't want to discuss with someone who thinks he is very clever and better is than Dubatolov and think that we don't need his contributions and a coward for not saying he's doing. I'm able enough to see that nl.wikipedia is not good. PeterR (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing matters on any Wikimedia project is not about who we are but about arguments. I pointed at several mistakes you make, and at a number of points that cause problems in Wikispecies, and the only thing you argue is that you discussed things with several professional entomologists. That's not a proper argument. And it certainly doesn't show how this is beneficial for Wikispecies.
I had a look at Template:/Taxonavigation. I don't see any agreement on using names with the subgenus included for titles of articles. Not in that page, not in the history and also not on the discussion page. Which agreement are you refering to then, when you say you set up taxonavigation after these templates, but include the subgenus name in the title? Where did you find evidence that this was standing practice or that an agreement on this was reached before? Isn't it the other way around? You have a certain idea about how to present your taxa, and although this is contrary to standing practice, and although it is pointed out to you that you create severe problems by doing so, you did not agree to re-evaluate your methods so far.
Oh, and by the way: I like to keep questions and answers together, not scattered over several pages. You can post your replies to this discussion here: I will read it because your talk page is on my watchlist. Wikiklaas (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Subgenus (Non-Plantae) 13:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC). This was allready before my contribution and I had to work after those templates from MariusM.
Dear Peter, I tried Template:Subgenus (Non-Plantae), Subgenus (Non-Plantae) and did a search on "Subgenus (Non-Plantae)" (also in different combinations with the initial letters not capitalized). I found no results. Can you give a link? Wikiklaas (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... The genus who is made after this template is Polyommatus. Contributions from Accassidy and me. PeterR (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Wikiklaas. Yes, Polyommatus is set out with sub-genera, but this was done before I made some edits a few weeks ago and I did not disturb it. But to remake the whole of Polyommatus without the sungenera will take a longer time than I have at present. I prefer not to use subgenera in page titles. We could still have pages for the subgenera, linking to the species, but these and the main genus page are linked to species pages that are strictly binomial e.g. Polyommatus icarus, not Polyommatus (Polyommatus) icarus. The links effectively go like this:
Genus X
..↓.......↓
..↓....Subgenus X(Y)
..↓.......↓
Species X z
If we could agree that this is a good solution, presenting the concept of sub-genera but keeping binomial page titles, then we would have a very good way forward. I think this is also the best way to treat the "Species Groups" that some authors have also used in place of more formal sub-genera. Can we reach consensus on this way ahead? Alan Accassidy (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the subgenus is still listed on the species page, but it is not part of the page name. This is what I have been doing for a while now. Alas, it is a challenge to explain it to Peter! Stho002 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a challange to explain it to me, but it is a challange to make an official template PeterR (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I have done Hadena (Anepia) wolfi. But if we do it this way I can't use BASEPAGENAME. PeterR (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I have made a small change to Hadena wolfi to show my suggestion in action. I have also put a link direct to the species on the Hadena Genus page. The Subgenus still appears in the Taxonavigation on the species page but not in the title. I would be happy to make this a standard procedure. In any event, the exact status of genus, subgenus and all higher classification is a matter of discussion, not of fact. So using the method shown above we are keeping the notion of the subgenus alive but not allowing it to interfere with the binomial naming system at the species page level. Alan Accassidy (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the subgenera is a mist. You have pages with:

  • Subgenus: Hadena (Anepia) - I think its OK to have this page but the links to included species links are best kept to the form Hadena wolfi
  • Subgenus: Anepia - This page is not necessary as Anepia is not accorded status of Genus. If it has been created, it should simply REDIRECT to Hadenia (Anepia)
  • Species: Hadena (Anepia) wolfi - this page is the one that other websites find difficulty accessing, so if it exists it should be made a simple REDIRECT to Hadena wolfi
  • Species: Hadena wolfi - this is the good species page that we want to have all the information in.
  • Species: Anepia wolfi - this is not a good combination, but if we have a page of that title it should REDIRECT to Hadena wolfi

No body works after the official templates. Who controlls or every body works after the same template? Which templates we use? Who is changing all the contribution with subgenera like Dubatolov and many others? What to do with people who works with taxobox in stead of Taxonavigation? Who can objective give a meaning about classification. I think that Wikiklaas can't do this. You have to work with official bulletins or books like Accassidy and I do. PeterR (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I've put some notes in bold on the multitude of page names above as to how I would deal with them. The page simply called Templates shows how to format for species aggregated in both genera and subgenera, and it would not be wrong to format a whole bunch of pages including the subgenus, but we now know that this makes interaction with some other websites rather difficult so we are wise to revert to the small model I used above and have our species pages strictly binomial. I have used Subgenera myself in some places in the past, but I will eventually get round to formatting and redirecting to revert to strictly binomial species pages. The trouble with publications and authors is that sometimes even contemporaneous articles use different arrangements of species groups, subgenera, and even genera. If two publications disagree, as they often do, - especially recently in Polyommatini - both cannot be right and neither should pretend to be fact. As the primary data should be included at Species level, then we are best here, following the name WikiSpecies to keep our main data pages as binomial without intervening (Subgenus) in the title. At least, that is my view. Alan Accassidy (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) And my view Stho002 (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand now that you don't want that species.wikipedia be a reability side. Every body can do what they want for example working with Taxobox in stead of Taxonavigation etc. I have send Sthoner an massage about a false Subgenus, but no answer. I go further with the way we started. PeterR (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Templates are made for people like me. I'm not a programmer but I have now an example how to add genera etc. PeterR (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I don't know what you mean by "reability" and I think you use "side" where I would use "site". I am not a user of Taxobox notation but I wish to spend my own time adding useful information, not changing the inputs of others, so I do not raise the issue for discussion. I want this site to be a reliable store of information on the taxonomy of species. Where there are areas of greater subjectivity, such as higher order classification, Sub-tribes, Sub-Genera, whatever, I am happy that such ideas are mentioned but I think it best to keep the species pages strictly binomial. The method I have outlined above allows species to be grouped in sub-genera by those authors who want to do so, but keeps the species pages readily accessible just using binomial names. When there is doubt about the correct genus, one should be chosen for the page and the other(s) made redirects. This arrangement can quickly be changed if authoritative revisions suggest that is the correct course of action. Best wishes, Alan Accassidy (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean reliable. (sorry). PeterR (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC). Kheller use taxobox and nl.wikipedia use it. PeterR (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. It seems that Taxobox just presents the same information in a different underlying configuration. As long as the information is based on reliable sources, I don't see that the method of generation is better or worse. We should just strive to present information that is based on authoritative sources and not be over-sensitive about small differences in presentation. Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had add some species and Kheller change it in Taxobox without further information and not after reliable sources. So I can add the species in Dutch or German. The result is the same. Thanks. PeterR (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agassiz[edit]

Peter, I am sorry but I have no knowledge of David Agassiz. Can you tell me the context of the question, and I might be able to speak to someone in BMNH and get an answer. Accassidy (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So why don't you just send an email to one of the addresses and ask for confirmation that they are both the same person. I think it most unlikely that there are two different people with such similar names in such a small institution. I am sure he won't mind you asking. You will know which section to ask for (lepidoptera, Coleoptera etc) from the content of his papers. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

As one of the most active users on Wikispecies, I wonder if you would accept to be nominated as one of its Wikispecies:Administrators? Dan Koehl (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C.A.W. Jeekel[edit]

Hello there! I have recently started an article on C.A.W. Jeekel on the English Wikipedia. If you have any relevant information to add, it would certainly be welcome! Cheers, Animalparty (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubriek in de nieuwsbrief van Wikimedia Nederland[edit]

Beste PeterR, Voor een nieuwe rubriek in de nieuwsbrief van Wikimedia Nederland, ben ik op zoek naar iemand die kort wat wil schrijven over Wikispecies. Het stukje hoeft niet lang te zijn (een regel of 6) De bedoeling is om mensen te informeren over de diverse wiki's naast Wikipedia. Wellicht vindt u het leuk om iets te schrijven, of weet u iemand anders die dit zou willen en kunnen doen? Ik hoop iets van u te mogen vernemen. Bij voorkeur via de email info((at))wikimedia.nl Alvast bedankt!SindyM3 WMNL (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ik heb geen interesse. PeterR (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis[edit]

Peter, The page title and species name on Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis differ. Probably as a result of a hasty cut and paste process. This problem can be avoided by using the ''{{BASEPAGENAME}}'' template. Also, you may see on my Talk page some correspondence from Wikiklaas regarding the quality of your contributions on Wikipedia. Perhaps you would care to respond with your side of the matter. On the separate subject of subgenera: I think that it is OK to include a page for a subgenus and to list the species reportedly included in it, but the primary pages for a species should always be binomial, excluding the subgenus. So the principal article name would just be Chamaesphecia chalciformis. You can see how this structure works at Udara dilecta, as Udara has a number of subgenera. The benefit of having primarily binomial species pages is that these are then much easier to find with external search engines. There was some Village Pump talk on Subgenera some while ago, and I think it would be much better if we could deal with them as I described above. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new page called Chamaesphecia chalciformis and then copy your data from Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis and paste it in the new page. Use the BASEPAGENAME template as appropriate. Then on the Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) chalciformis page put #REDIRECT [[Chamaesphecia chalciformis]] to refer readers to the new page. Create a page Chamaesphecia (Scopulosphecia) for the Subgenus but when you list species on it just use the binonmial citation. Accassidy (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done Scopulosphecia. I hope this is good now. PeterR (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems appropriate. I think it would also be useful to but an Overview of Species on the Chamaesphecia page, so that all the species are listed on the main Genus page. You can see how I did this on Udara. Accassidy (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I make an Overview PeterR (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Done PeterR (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Do you have access to a reference that will give you the information needed to add a Name section and a Type Species for the Genus Chamaesphecia? Accassidy (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done PeterR (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

incertae sedis[edit]

Peter, yes I have an alternative suggestion. Look at Xestia and see what I have done. Also, I don't think that it is worth the time to link all the authors names in the Synonym list to their author pages. I have slightly changed the links to Jacob Hübner in the Name section, but having all the links for all the synonyms is probably not worth the effort. Thanks for asking. Accassidy (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your alternative suggestion. PeterR (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subgenus is still Incerta Sedis PeterR (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the unassigned species, just use a genus template as I have on Xestia bryocharis. Sorry to hear of your medical issues, but happy to have you back here helping us. Take it easy. Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craniophora tapaishana[edit]

Peter, this happens occasionally. Three steps. 1) Create a new page with the correct title and copy across the text from the incorrect page. 2) replace the text on the old page with a REDIRECT to the new page. 3) Correct the spelling of the species on the Genus page so that it links properly to the new page. Well spotted. Accassidy (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: 4 steps. 4) remove the old incorrect spelling from the Genus page list of species.Accassidy (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inquieta[edit]

Peter, I see no reason not to add species C. inquieta based on the Draudt description. It appears in a number of other places and you have a valid citation from its original description. I am not familiar with the "Poole" reference that you quote, so cannot comment on its reliability as a list. Can you give me more explicit information on it? At the least, you would have to carry out searches to check whether other species names have been added already, but under different genera. Accassidy (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a list. Poole has authored a number of books, especially on Noctuidae, since the late 1980s. I do not know whether these have been peer-reviewed, but I suspect not. They appear to be books for collectors, rather like Bernard D'Abrera's butterfly volumes, rather than academic papers. A lot of the taxa you list are from old journals with original authors names given. If those species do not yet have pages, and you can find the original descriptions in journals on BHL, then it would be reasonable to add pages for them under Craniophora. Just be sure to search on WikiSpecies for the species name first, in case they already have a species page under a different genus. Accassidy (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xestia[edit]

Different people have different ideas. It might have been more understandable if you clarified which authority you were using to assign species to subgenera. The consolidated list does conveys less information than the two lists. However, it is pointless to get into a war about it. I suggest you continue to create the species pages for the whole genus. For those that are assigned to a subgenus, include that in the Taxonav hierarchy. If no subgenus is assigned in your source, then just go from Genus to Species in the Taxonav of the species page. Anyone interested will see from the species page that no subgenus is listed. The collapsing boxes are not standard and serve very little purpose unless the enclosed list is a very long one. But I would not get into an edit war over them as long as the content is reliable. I suggest that you put an entry on the Genus "discussion" page noting the source for the list of subgenera, something like my note about the species included in a different group, see Talk:Harpendyreus. Accassidy (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could also make a list of species in each subgenus on the Genus Talk page, as I have done for Talk:Udara. Nobody should revert additional information that you put on a discussion page; to do so would be considered vandalism, at least by me. Accassidy (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadena caelestis[edit]

Peter, I found that the link to the primary reference on Hadena caelestis did not work for me. I went to the web page with the pdf and have made a second link, after yours, on the reference line. You might want to look at this and see whether both links work for you. If the "Hacker, H.H. & Gyulai, P., 2013" reference is likely to appear on a lot of Noctuid pages, it might be worth your creating a Reference Template for it, or else it might need changing on every page. Thanks, Alan Accassidy (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC) By me both are working now. PeterR (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC) I don't know how to create a Reference Template. I hope you can help me PeterR (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I have created a Template at Template:Hacker,Gyulai, 2013 that will give you an example. The text that you normally include in the reference all comes before a space and then you add the bit that starts "<noinclude>". You can copy and paste this second part into any new reference template. The second part also includes the template name and so you have to make this the same as the Template Name when you make a new one. The text on the one I just made is "Template:Hacker,Gyulai_2013" Note the underscore between the author names and the date. I keep the following text in Micorsoft Word, so that I can just paste in the new Template name - in this case by replacing everything in bold.

"<includeonly>[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Hacker,Gyulai_2013 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>"

Once the Template has been created you just list its name in curly brackets in the References section. If the template subsequently gets minor changes, such as the addition of a BHL link, then it will appear that way on all pages where it is used. So all the pages that use the Template are future-proof. On the Template I have enhanced the author names so that they link to the respective author pages, and I have added the Template to their list of publications. See Hacker and Gyulai. Have fun... Accassidy (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Peter, your Template seems to be fine now, so perhaps you already discovered the fault you referred to before. You will also see from my Talk page that your changes to the initials of the Chinese authors of the [[Template:Zt3044.49]] has caused User:Stho002 to be annoyed. On the actual Zootaxa paper they only list a single initial for each author, while you have added a second initial, probably to make that reference consistent with some others. I think for now it would be better for you to take away those second initials on that paper, so that the authors are consistent with the pdf, even though their names appear more fully in other references. Thank you. Accassidy (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a Template for the reference you want to cite in Polyploca laororshanae. First go to that page and see the result so far. From the pdf of the paper, I see that the first author is Müller and as there are so many co-authors it is not sensible to list them all in the reference or its template. There is a red link at the author name and you can resolve this by creating an Author Page titled "Gunter C. Muller" (no accents - just plain letters) and then putting a link to the Template on that page. You could also generate Author pages for the other 7 authors, entitled "Gyula M. Laszlo" and so on and then add the same Template link on each author page. It would be good first to search just for Muller so that you can double check that he does not already have an Author Page, and the same check should be done first for all the other authors. Its a long process with so many authors, but the only way to be careful. Accassidy (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stohner[edit]

Thank you Peter for your massage. Would you please post your complain also at the PUMP, so that everyone can see what damage Stho002 does to a lot of WS users? Mariusm (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Author name[edit]

Peter, regarding Teinopalpus imperialis herteri, is the first author's first name really spelt "Steeve" as opposed to "Steve" Collard? I would have thought the latter much more likely. If I am right then you will need to change the author page accordingly. Regards, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete[edit]

Dear Peter, do you agree on delete on those two files? https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion Dan Koehl (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Koehl: Note that there is no space between the initial and the family name, and they are not used on any pages. Stho002 (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Stho002: but its polite and doesnt hurt to communicate. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree PeterR (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneThank you, they are deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I deleted the files you requested. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template format[edit]

Can you please, to be consistent with other users to name article templates "Template:Adamski & etal, 2009‎" instead of "Template:Adamski,etal, 2009‎" and with spaces after each ",".

Thank you, Mariusm (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred standard is Template:Author1, Author2, Author3 & Author4, 2014 Mariusm (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "I don't see anything". can you give me an example? Look for an example at Template:Wolski & Gorczyca, 2014 which is composed this way:
* {{aut|[[Andrzej Wolski|Wolski, A.]]; [[Jacek Gorczyca|Gorczyca, J.]]}}, 2014: Revision of the plant bug genus ''Xenocylapidius'' (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Miridae, Cylapinae), with descriptions of five new species from Australia and New Caledonia. [[ISSN 1313-2989|''ZooKeys'']], '''459''': 73-94. {{doi|10.3897/zookeys.459.8015}} <includeonly> [http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wolski_%26_Gorczyca,_2014 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>
Notice that in the URL path you have to replace every space with a "_" and the "&" with "%26". Mariusm (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting is really wrong but instead of:

Template:Paukstadt,Paukstadt, 2013

* {{aut|[[Ulrich Paukstadt|Paukstadt, U.]]; [[Laela Hayati Paukstadt|Paukstadt, L.H.]]}} 2013: ''Antheraea (Antheraea) selayarensis'' sp. nov., ein neuer wilder Seidenspinner von der Insel Selayar, Provinz Süd Sulawesi, Indonesien (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). [[ISSN 1612-2674|''Beiträge zur Kenntnis der wilden Seidenspinner'']], '''11'''(3): 107-118. <includeonly>[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Paukstadt,Paukstadt,_2013 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

It is better to write like this:

Template:Paukstadt & Paukstadt, 2013

* {{aut|[[Ulrich Paukstadt|Paukstadt, U.]]; [[Laela Hayati Paukstadt|Paukstadt, L.H.]]}} 2013: ''Antheraea (Antheraea) selayarensis'' sp. nov., ein neuer wilder Seidenspinner von der Insel Selayar, Provinz Süd Sulawesi, Indonesien (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). [[ISSN 1612-2674|''Beiträge zur Kenntnis der wilden Seidenspinner'']], '''11'''(3): 107-118. <includeonly>[http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Paukstadt_%26_Paukstadt,_2013 reference page]</includeonly> <noinclude> ** [http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} find all Wikispecies pages which cite this reference][[Category:Reference templates]]</noinclude>

Mariusm (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO, Template:Author1, Author2, Author3 & Author4, 2014 isn't a real template, it's just a syntax example. (Instead of what you write: Template:Author1,Author2,Author3,Author4, 2014) Mariusm (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only the NAMES of the templates are wrong. Everything else is good. Mariusm (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The 15 files you requested speed deletion for, are now deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, do you agree that Template:Zhang,Li & Wang, 2014 should be deleted? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, because Sthoner have make an other without to ask me. He is changing every day my contributions.PeterR (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, for 3 authors the name would look like: "Author1, Author2 & Author3, 2014" with spaces after each comma. Mariusm (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeterR/Archive_2014&oldid=3318834"