Talk:Theodor Gottlieb von Scheven
Latest comment: 4 years ago by AddWittyNameHere in topic Objection to templates
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Objection to templates
editvon Scheven Died 1810 so not living. Notablity species descriptor Notafly (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Notafly: Hi, thanks for pointing that out, the BLP sources template was wrong. I do think for the article as it is now, it could use more/better sources on the subject. You say he is a notable species describer, I fail to see from the article how he is notable. For now the only claim that goes towards his notability is describing 1 species. Can you tell me which notability guidelines he passes in your view? Thanks. Achaea (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Achaea: Mind if I remove the additional references template now? I'll wait with the notability template until either Notafly or I have gotten around to expanding the article to a point where it shows his notability. (For what it's worth, though? The first moth species was described less than two decades before his description of Zygaena lonicerae, making him one of the pioneers of Lepidopterology. Article doesn't quite show the academic impact he's had just yet—online sources are relatively scarce due to the whole "has been death for 2+ centuries and while he has had significant impact (& thus is notable per WP:NACADEMICS) he isn't particularly well-known" issue—but we're starting to get somewhere) AddWittyNameHere 03:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- @AddWittyNameHere: I have removed the sources one. Feel free to remove the notability one when you feel like it has been established in the article. Thanks for making the improvements! Achaea (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Achaea: Mind if I remove the additional references template now? I'll wait with the notability template until either Notafly or I have gotten around to expanding the article to a point where it shows his notability. (For what it's worth, though? The first moth species was described less than two decades before his description of Zygaena lonicerae, making him one of the pioneers of Lepidopterology. Article doesn't quite show the academic impact he's had just yet—online sources are relatively scarce due to the whole "has been death for 2+ centuries and while he has had significant impact (& thus is notable per WP:NACADEMICS) he isn't particularly well-known" issue—but we're starting to get somewhere) AddWittyNameHere 03:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Notafly: Thankyou both.For my part I will investigate the journal Naturforscher and if possible his contacts and freinds.Best regards Notafly (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Notafly and Achaea: Thank you, and you're welcome. I'll try to improve the article further, but it may take a few days before I can add further substantial improvement. 250-years-old antique-typeset scanned scientific articles in German aren't the easiest of resources to work with, to put it lightly. AddWittyNameHere 17:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Notafly: Thankyou both.For my part I will investigate the journal Naturforscher and if possible his contacts and freinds.Best regards Notafly (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)