Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Archive2

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera posts from September 2007 to December 2007 are archived here.

Moth Confusion

Can anyone tell me the diffrence in these two? I thought I knew the lower one was a snowberry clearwing but now im not sure. Any help would be great thank you. -- IvanTortuga 01:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Call for help - first GA Collaboration proposed for Glossary of Lepidopteran terms

Hi all,

Making our first call for collaboration in getting an article upto Good article status. The article is Glossary of Lepidopteran terms. It already has some nice images, but is butterfly-centric, needs stuff about pupae and moths, lots of images of the terms/features/characteristics and has no references. Lots of good work and fun stuff ahead.

Lets go for it, guys. If we succeed, we can truly call ourselves a WikiProject. It'll be proof! Regards, AshLin 08:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing images

Hi, the Indian butterflies subproject has made lists for all families. In some cases, we have fairly stable family or subfamily lists with stubs made for each species. Now we have made image inventory lists which lists which species have how many and what kind of images. Wikilinking has also been done for quick access from these lists. From these lists we can see which species have images and which do not. I request all WP Lepidoptera members to donate images they have. Dont forget to update the list when done. Thanks, AshLin 12:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Announcing the Indian moths endeavour

Announcing the Indian moths subproject of WikiProject Lepidoptera. Interested editors, please visit the subproject page and add your name there. Well, there are an estimated 10,000 species, so it'll probably extend beyond our life-spans but so what. We boldly go where no wikipedian has gone before. Regards, AshLin 12:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

great free images

There are some great free images on flickr by this photographer: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alphageek/ Unfortunately, I don't know enough to ID the butterflies and add them to articles. If anyone else can, it would be great! Calliopejen1 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Misc Desk question about moth with legs stuck

Perhaps one of you experts could answer the question that was posed at the desk. Cheers, --Dweller 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the wikilink - Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Moth.27s_legs_stuck_together --Dweller 08:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the help desk. Thanks for the wikilink. AshLin 11:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Assessment of importance of articles

This outcome of this discussion has now been incorporated as a policy guideline of the WikiProject here. Thanks to all who participated. Regards, AshLin 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion itself has been archived here.

Pictures

I've got a few pictures of butterflies that I'd like to add to Wikipedia but I have no idea what species they are. Is there a page to post this kind of stuff or a willing expert on the insects of California? --Calibas 02:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calibas,

You may post your pictures here. May I also remind you that images with free licenses should preferably be loaded in WikiMedia Commons rather than english Wikipedia itself, so that all the world's wikipedias can access that image. Feel free to post here again if you need help in this aspect. Regards, AshLin 03:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to this... On commons there is a category called unknown butterflies. Each family also has an unknown list. So use these categories and someone will definetly get these species cleared up --Viren 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Polbot

Greetings. I run a bot called Polbot, and she's right now adding stub articles on butterfly species that are listed at the IUCN but do not yet have Wikipedia articles. You can see her contributions here. Feedback is welcome. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for Polly's help. She gets the status of First Bot to focus on WP:LEPID. She brings great possibilities to the project.

Firstly, could you amend the bot code so that high importance is added as an argument to the template like this - {{LepidopteraTalk|stub|high}} That's because any endangered butterfly is high importance regardless of its IUCN threatened status.
Secondly, does that mean that when Polly's work is done, all IUCN threatened butterflies will be part of Wikipedia?
Thirdly, could a raw dump of wikilinks of all IUCN mentioned lepidoptera articles be made so that a list of IUCN threatened butterflies is generated. We can have an article on that. We dont have one as yet and such a list would only need embellishment to become a good list.
Lastly, could Polly help out with threatened moths too? Is Polly already helping out for other arthropods, mammals, birds etc?

Great work Quadell, regards, AshLin 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Polbot has finished creating all butterfly and moth articles in the IUCN database, but she can certainly go back and make changes to them based on your suggestions. The IUCN lists species that are not endangered as well as species that are endangered, so you probably don't want me to tag all of them high priority. There are seven statuses: least concern, near-threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically-endangered, extinct-in-the-wild, and extinct. Which of these should be considered "high priority"?

Polbot has already created stubs for all birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in the IUCN database. She's also done many of the arthropods, but this work has been put on hold due to concerns from a very picky entomologist. She's also done some plants, and will probably do the rest of the plants soon. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The lepidoptera articles Polbot created are listed at User:Polbot/taxa listing/SpeciesLepidoptera1. But again, this includes non-endangered as well as endangered species. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. I didn't know what was a butterfly and what was a moth, so I gave them all the {{butterfly-stub}} notice, knowing I'd have to go back and fix them. I just found out that there are seven families (in the taxobox at Butterfly) that are butterflies, and the rest are moths. When I go back through, I'll change the moths to use moth-stub -- but I want to make all the changes at once, so I'll hold off making this change until we know everything else she can do at the same time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

List of butterflies of Tasmania

Hi. I've just added a list of all of the butterflies found in Tasmania (Australia). I recently made a list of birds in Tasmania and a list of mammals of Tasmania and I intend to keep making lists covering most of our (Tasmania's) fauna. AshLin has already helped me a bit with my list, but I can use all the help I can get. I'm primarily a photographer and intend to add as many photos as I possibly can to the project.KeresH 05:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Keresh, just been past this list. Great going. I made a few changes and suggested a couple of things on its talk page. --Viren 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft categorisation guidelines & Common vs scientific names

Hi,

The draft categorisation guidelines are up for comments. Please note they are made quite complicated by the fact that some articles are named after common names and others after scientific names. Should we switch to scientific names? Snakes in WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles are following that [path]. So comments on both aspects for our consensus please, in separate sections please.

Regards, AshLin 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments re common names vs scientific name

I'm going to suggest that we use the scientific name for each article and redirect from the common name (or use a disambiguation page where needed). I'd tend to think that if we used consistent naming for every species on the encyclopedia, it'd make the project as a whole more respectable.

If possible, it may be a good idea to interact with WikiSpecies also to ensure that we have interlinking there. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with using scientific over common. There are many problems with using the common name and the topic has been brought up before with the same objections on both sides (the only time I've seen tempers rise while on wiki). I personally think using the scientific is much easier, cleaner, and more encyclopedic. We should make an effort to create the appropriate redirects to the scientific name since some people might have trouble finding the page otherwise.--Kugamazog 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I favor scientific names over common names for article titles. I've been involved in disputes over plant article titles that would have been avoided had scientific names been the rule. Sometimes common names are numerous and/or dissimilar, e.g., Piggyback plant/Fringecup or bedstraw/cleavers. With adequate redirects from common names, the arguments for common names in article titles are weak and frequently parochial, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I favor the scientific name, and redirects from common names, because a scientific name is less... common. You can have multiple things with the same common name... but not scientific name. Plus, that's one bit of information a person learns just upon coming to the page... without hardly even reading anything. They know the common name already. The scientific name doesn't jump out as much though. I think the scientific name is a better title. It's more educational. SadanYagci 21:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are often widely differing common names for widespread species in different locations. (Witness White Admiral) Another thing is that the common names often overlap with other articles creating the need for lots of disambiguation pages. (Viceroy - Viceroy butterfly, Quaker Neopithecops zalmora, and so on apart from historic names that are inappropriate today Orsotriaena medus) I would vote for scientific name with common name redirects for the more popular species. Shyamal 01:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User Jwinius of WPr A&Reptiles faced the same problem too - that of a plethora of common names for a species and which was the 'correct' or most common one. I know, I argued with him in favour of Bamboo pit viper for Trimeresurus gramineus. :-) He has become quite correct on that issue as well and does not want to give primacy to one common name over the other even in the wiki.

I hope everyone is aware WikiProject Tree of Life says, that if an organism has a common name, it should be used for naming the article first and scientific name for those who dont have one.The exact wording is given below :-
In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles, except for plant articles. Scientific names should be used otherwise.: I think this is a very strange state of affairs for a scientific TOL endeavour. While we cant change the state of affairs at Tree of Life, we can establish the guideline for this WikiProject, though I want to give this issue more time and hear from more members. We have had no dissenting voice till now - the cons of such a decision are not yet apparent! AshLin 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Without necessarily expressing an opinion, I would like to remind contributors here that Wikipedia's core naming policies favour the most common name in most circumstances. There are plenty of lepidopterans which are familiar to English speakers and whose common names will be just as unambiguous as a scientific name. There is only one Purple Emperor, and that is Apatura iris; there is only one Monarch Butterfly. Cases where the same species is given different names in different countries can (and do) default to the scientific name (Nymphalis antiopa instead of "Mourning Cloak" or "Camberwell Beauty"). In general, I think this method is sufficient. It suits scientists to favour scientific names, but Wikipedia is written explicitly for a readership of non-specialists. If they expect Comma (butterfly), we should not give them Polygonia c-album. Yes, common names can be ambiguous and species can be given several common names, but the existing disambiguation methods can cope. Indeed, they would be necessary even if we used scientific names exclusively. Having said that, a lot of species are given invented "common names", which carry no weight whatsoever, and a lot of species not found in the Anglosphere are more commonly referred to by their scientific names (i.e. just because a "common name" exists, doesn't mean it's the most common name). --Stemonitis 06:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have always been a scientific over common name person... and I will continue to be one. That wikipedia is explicitly meant for readership of the non-specialists is a statement that I cannot swallow, but that is really neither here nor there. Lets go back to the basics on this one. We need information on every species of everything. Its that simple. Now after numerous arguments with numerous people that have really come to naught I have decided to "live and let live". Where a common name exists and I find it (cos this is the real problem I find with some species), I create a redirect from the scientific name. Yes the title reads the common name and again the solution for this is to correct our introduction. In it, we need to include the scientific name and maybe go as far as including a table with country and common name. This way we get information into the wiki space, which is my goal. I refuse to waste anymore of my precious energy fighting about which name is better as a title. --Viren 05:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What's more difficult, for a non-scientist to use a scientific name or for a scientist to use a common name? I'm guessing that the majority of the people using these articles are not entomologists, though many of the people editing the pages may be. As long as the scientific names redirect correctly I don't see why it would be a problem for well-programmed bots to sort things. I'm for making a rule to use the common name when it's unique and well-known and to use the scientific name when there isn't a well-known or unique common name. I think this is an excellent compromise. I believe if you make things like this more accessible to the average person more people will care about things like science and conserving these animals. Calibas 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Summarising

The WikiProject has voted as follows :-

In favour - Kylu, Kugamazog, Wsiegmund, SadanYagci, Shyamal, AshLin.
Neutral - Viren (though favouring).
Against - Stemonitis (though he said he was'nt expressing an opinion one way or the other).

The way, I see it, we generally have consensus. In all fairness, though Stemonitis said he wasn't expressing an opinion perhaps Stemonitis should be counted as a voice of dissent. If that is so, we must address the issues so that we are clear before we close the issue. Let us list the reasons for and against the path being considered.

PRO

Uniform system of naming - one scientific name per creature. (All creatures do not have common names. Some common names point to more than one species. There are problems with some common names also. No disputes over which common name is more correct or better. One scientific name means one species only. The problems of more than one scientific name, if any, can be resolved by resorting to literature, experts, or (theoretically at least) applying ICZN rules.)
No need for disambiguation pages for scientific names.
Administratively suitable for categorisation, stub-sorting etc.

CONS

Users expect to find common names in the title if they have searched for it using that. (This can be overcome using the method mentioned in the next subsection.)
It is in direct contrast to Wikipedia TOL guideline which allows both systems to coexist in the manner indicated. (No solution can be found to this. The TOL guideline is sought to be changed in respect of our WikiProject only and for positive reasons only using consensus after all WikiProject Lepidoptera members have been alerted to the discussion with adequate time for input from all. No attempt has been done to push either point of view prior to discussion on talk page.)
Species with widely recognised common names should have articles named after them. (Common names cannot provide the one-to-one corelation which the redirect/disambig of common names will direct them correctly. If this were so the alternative of switching to common names only could be explored. The solution proposed is that the lead is to be changed so as to make common names prominent in the manner specified so that this disadvantage is reduced).

I hope I have portrayed the concerns correctly. Its important that we do this correctly as per the spirit of WP:CON. Regards, AshLin 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed a few times in the past at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life in the archives. Since there was no consensus, policy remained unchanged. I saw an interesting point - Scientific name makes it easier for interwikilinking. Regards, AshLin 19:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think common names need priority where they are unambigious. What is a "common blue" for example. There we need a disambiguation field.

One point no one has mentioned is what is the relationship between redirects and search engine listings. How does Google respond to this. We should be creating articles that people can find. Neilj

Hi Neil & Calibas, thanks for your inputs. I see your point - but we are looking at this aspect because by following this method of both in use, we are unable to get consistency in categorisation, stub handling, inter-wiki linking etc. Common names are not able to give a completely consistent pattern either so we cant switch to that system. If a person types a common name, no other advantage is received except that he sees it in slightly larger text in front of him. The common names redirect will get him where he needs to go - the article. In no case will naming an article after a scientific name prevent him from reaching the page. To overcome the fact that he may get a bit startled if faced by a common name, we have discussed two ways - ensure common names are either in a list at the top of a page, or place them prominently in the first line text, suitably bolded.

An encyclopaedia not only needs to get a person to a place, he should be able to navigate amongst the sea of information and get more value. A case in point, Vipers. User:Jwinius in this small area, had all the articles as per scientific name, was able to create articles/categories listing vipers by [name], common name and synonyms. Now this is possible by having consistency in one way or the other. Efforts to add value to wikipedia in TOL have faced major problems due to inconsistency. Please see the draft guidelines for categorisation that I had placed for comment above. I get myself tied in knots to tackle the three way problem of scientific name, common name and disambiguation pages.

Inter-wiki linking is another value addition. Other wikis find it much easier to locate the article in en:wikipedia.

As far as Googling goes, I tried Mourning Cloak but got a whole host of sites and could not find wikipedia in the front page. But they were very good sites, better than wikipedia's entry which is sorry to say, not vety much more than a stub. For a relatively unknown species Bamboo pit viper, I get the article though the name was a redirect. This lack of material, interlinking, hits etc may be the reason Wikipedia is not thrown up on Google in some cases. But it did succeed on a redirect. So redirects seem to work. Google also checks the text, this I say because 'Bamboo pit viper' threw up Trimeresurus wiki as well as Trimeresurus gramineus. So I got to the relevant articles.

I could argue that articles should be named after common names since they are articles of more importance - they have common names! But this fact does not endear them to editors and we still get red links (See List of Texas butterflies and stubs (see Zebra Swallowtail). I feel all these articles with common names should be our best developed articles but this is not the case. If common names are to be taken into account in our naming articles, they should give a benefit - but its not forthcoming. Some people face problems with common names and appeal for scientific names. See this.

So my request to to you is to please acquiesce so that it allows us to carry out value addition and consistency. I assure you that the small disadvantage of finding scientific name will be greatly compensated by allowing us to go forward and develop the WikiProject as a whole. In good faith, AshLin 13:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not really enough to say that someone will always be able to find a page. Since trafic comes from OUTSIDE wikipedia we need to consider that. Firstly I'd like to know what the effect of the changes has on search engine positioning. Can we find an expert who can help? I do know quite a bit about this myself but not how it relates to Wikipedia. This is an important point. There is no point building a web page that people do not see. The title of a webpage is a VITALLY important factor when it comes to search engine rankings. I am concerned that if we don't have the right title on the webpage it will be invisible to people looking for information.

For me the motivation is to be able to educate people about my subject. For example I am currently working on two pages one is a translation of a page that I wrote on the wikipedia in my own beloved threatened language. It is their only butterfly article that isn't a stub. And I intend to write more for it as I doubt if we have half a dozen competant lepidopterists who are literate enough.

The other is an article which contains some poor information but ranks highly in Google. So I need to dig out the research references. I want to get my information across ( thoroughtly researched and NPOV of course) I don't consider it motivation if no one can see what I am doing.

There is no doubt that scientific names frighten people. That is why the web of Life has chosen common names to be a priority. Let's please remember this.Neilj 17:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Typing Mourning Cloak into Google I get "Nymphalis antiopa - Wikipedia" as the fifth entry so it doesn't look like Google has any problems translating common to scientific. I'm still not convinced this is the best way to go though. Isn't there a way for consistency in categorization, stub handling, and inter-wiki linking without requiring the title to be the scientific name, like using the taxobox entry? In fact, it doesn't seem so complicated to add things to categories based solely on the taxobox entries and not even bother with the category tags (it's redundant data anyway). I'm not sure how the database is setup so this might be harder than it sounds, especially for a person instead of a bot. Calibas 23:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Common vs Scientific - an aside

Should scientific names be chosen over common names, as it appears to be so heading, it is important that we address the issues raised by absence of common names as a title.

Firstly, the recognised common names should all be made redirects except where they would need to be disambiguated.

Often the argument for retaining common names as opposed to scientific names comes from the argument that a young person clicks or enters a common name in Wikipedia, he/she expects to see an article with the common name as the header. But what happens in case she does not find it so? In the case of Mourning Cloak she would see this!

The viewer would be perhaps taken back by the strange title, but would he leave the page thinking he has landed up at a wrong page? I assume that a young seeker of information in an encyclopaedia would have at least an attention span and interest to scan the article before abandoning the page. For the reader too impatient to even scan the page, he or she is doomed to not being able to enjoy the joys of knowledge, since this requires an attention span which permits the reader to scan the page and say, yes, this is the one I want. Information is not delivered cut, wrapped and tagged, as anyone who has googled will realise.

Despite the 'strange' title, the common name would appear in two places - one under the Scientific name, saying that this is redirected from said common name, and usually, the common name prominently displayed in the opening section of the lead, bolded and capitalised as per the WP:MOS. What happens in case the species has many common names, and the one typed in is not mentioned in the lead?

A very nice solution has been found by User:Jwinius. See Bitis arietans & Trimeresurus gramineus for two variants - one with few, the other with many common names. The common names appear as a list at the very beginning. This brings to the readers notice that here is where they search for their common name. In the rest of the article, Jaap is extremely careful to avoid the common name in its entirety, due to his preference for not giving any preference to one common name over the other. An editor may choose to be so exact or more forgiving in the use of a common name in the article.

This approach makes the article appear more 'encyclopaedic' and reduces the strangeness of finding a scientific name as the title of a wiki.

While I see the usefulness of TOL's permitting diversity in article naming to date, this has hopelessly complicated the attempt to make simple and clean categorisation guidelines. It also affects the usefulness of categories as some names in them are scientific and some are common. Anyway, that is a different issue which I intend to bring up for discussion at a later stage!

Should the decision be taken to favour scientific names over common names, I propose that we adopt this feature in ~~butterfly~~ Lepidoptera articles too.

Regards, AshLin 11:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think:

Nymphalis antiopa, known as the Mourning Cloak in North America and the Camberwell Beauty in the British Isles.

is slightly better than:

Common names: puff adder, African puff adder, common puff adder.

You're going to have to read the first line anyway in either situation. Calibas 00:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, I was looking for another alternative way of emphasising this. We may opt to use either form, as long as the aim of making common names prominent is achieved. Regards, Ashwin

Another problem is disagreement on scientific names. Two come to mind: (1) the use of Cynthia in the UK vs Vanessa in the US, and (2) disagreement among experts on the sub/specific status of European Large Skipper —GRM 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments re categorisation

Here

Animals project proposal

I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

Call for help (Commons)

I recently added 17 images, constituting Commons:Category:Butterflies & Blooms (about an exhibit at the Woodland Park Zoo). There are some good pictures, but I know almost nothing about the lepidoptera. These could use species-specific descriptions and categories, and I'm not the one to do it competently. - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Identified all except the Pierids. --Viren 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pearson Scott Foresman donated a number of pictures to commons, including one with two butterflies. I figure I'll include those here in case anyone has a nifty idea or two.

~Kylu (u|t) 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Drive to assess the unassessed articles

Hello to all members of WikiProject Lepidoptera,

We have a large backlog of unassessed articles in the WikiProject - 1,176 in all. They can be found here. May I request each Project Member to help out by each taking up a letter. Many hands make light work and we'll be able to at least get all our articles classified as per quality and importance. Just to remind you, the guidelines can be seen here and they can also be found as a link in the WikiProject Lepidoptera messagebox when it has not been assessed. Please indicate against each letter which you are taking up.

A AshLin Done.

B AshLin

C AshLin and Viren

D

E

F IvanTortuga Done

G IvanTortuga Done

H IvanTortuga Done

I IvanTortuga Done

J IvanTortuga Done

K IvanTortuga Done

L IvanTortuga Done

M

N VijayBarve Done

O VijayBarve Done

P VijayBarve

Q IvanTortuga Done

R Viren Done

S Viren Done

T Calibas

U Calibas Done

V Calibas Done

W Calibas Done

X Calibas Done

Y Calibas Done

Z Calibas Done

Regards, AshLin 07:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna start at the bottom and work my way upwards one at a time. Might take a while since I have a hard time not doing lots of research for articles. Calibas 01:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We're deleting the tags from the talk pages of redirects right? Calibas 02:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, redirects are not articles and do not require WPr LEPID tags. Regards, AshLin 03:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I did F-K and Q. Im just finishing them up and I will try to keep up to date with new ones that pop up before it gets out of hand again. Im going to start working on L now. My point of saying all this is that I don't mind doing it but I would like if someone took some of the letters I finish now and watch them. If that makes any sense. If not ill try to word it diffrently. -- IvanTortuga 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What about category pages... are we assessing those too? here --Viren 17:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, category pages are not to be asessed. Did you find any which were assessed? AshLin 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we removing the project tag or just leaving it blank? Calibas 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd question, but dont we need to put the leptalk tag on the articles of indian butterflies?? --Viren 18:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, havent we done that already. Of course we must.AshLin 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate

The articles Short-tailed Blue and Elkalyce argiades seem to describe the same species. --Rosenzweig 21:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to check this but I can barely find any information on Elkalyce argiades, mostly just copies of the Wiki page. Can't find any references of reclassification and Google book search turns up zilch. What makes you think they're the same species? Calibas 03:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this because Everes argiades redirects to Elkalyce argiades, whereas in other Wikipedias it redirects to Cupido argiades (or the respective common name) [1]. Regards --Rosenzweig 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the present status. As per Marrku Savela its - [2]. But as per LepIndex we have a problem, this [3]. But considering that NMNH has stopped checking out and correcting its card base, Savela, though incomplete at times is more correct. So we should have Cupido argiades as the article and it should have redirects from Elkalyce argiades, Short-tailed blue, Tailed Cupid and Chapman's Cupid also. Regards, AshLin 04:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Zebra Butterfly

I'm 90% sure that the page Zebra Butterfly is referring to Heliconius charithonia. The page doesn't give a scientific name or references. I'm thinking it should be made into a redirect. Calibas 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, See [4]. Regards, AshLin 04:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Distribution Maps

Do any of you also believe we should start putting maps up? If so i'd love to if I knew how to. -- IvanTortuga 00:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've considered how to do this before but I think it may be beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

If we just do it but country it shouldn't be too much work. We could add categories like "Insecta of USA" and have an image of the world that shows the countries in red. The hard part would be getting someone to write the script. If we wanted to get into more detail we could categorize by state or even county but we'd need a bot or a whole bunch more WikiProject Lepidoptera members to enter all the information. Still, I think it's more trouble than it's worth, a verifiability nightmare, and more suited to similar projects like Encyclopedia of Life (cant wait for this site to launch). Calibas 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If http://www.gbif.org has point records for museum specimens, they could be used to generate spot records quite easily which makes it both verifiable and editable. For some rare bird species it makes it a lot easier to use spot maps like this one on White-tailed Iora. Shyamal 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia policy against using the .svg files? I heard they don't display correctly on all browsers. Calibas —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the server converts svgs into PNGs and so should look identical on all browsers. Shyamal 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you do the overlays on PNGs? Calibas 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be possible. See Template:Location map start. You need to set up the locator map template with the corner lat longs. Shyamal 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have an image of the range you can put it into the taxobox using the following:

| range_map = Bullfrog_range.gif

| range_map_caption = Bullfrog range

See bullfrog for an example. Calibas 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How should moth pages be named

I have come across several moth pages which are titled with their Latin name. For instance Orange Moth. It would make it a lot easier for non experts (in categories etc.) to see which moths the pages are if they were titled with the moth's common names. Is there a rule about this? Dixonsej 10:22 30 august 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixonsej (talk • contribs) 09:24, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

We discussed this earlier, see the Comments re common names vs scientific name section. There's already a precedent for Wikipedia articles to put things in layman's terms so for the most part we've been doing it that way. Plus the parent project, WP:TOL, uses common names over scientific. Here's a summary of the current consensus: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Calibas 00:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As of today, many members feel that articles should be named after scientific names. While TOL guide;ines are as Calibas mentioned above, the present policy which mixes both common and scientific names, makes creating guidelines for categorisation, indexes, and maintenance of links etc unnecessarily complicated. To me, the status quo doesnt lead anywhere. If either one or the other schemes can be followed consistently, that would make things much easier. At this point, IMHO that we let things lie till later; as of now the status quo is favoured by some members. I'm reluctant to push scientific names because of lack of consensus, and common names, because that doesnt really lead anywhere. So we should spend our time in better tasks, such as clearing the backlog of unassessed articles, stub-making (use common or scientific names as you prefer), stub-development, and most important of all, developing articles on lepidoptera biology. AshLin 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Article request

One red link, article request.

Dioryctria zimmermani (Zimmerman Pine Moth)

I had others but they aren't in the scope of this project, however, barnstars to be had, indeed. :)IvoShandor 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we def. need some unofficial barnstars here. -- IvanTortuga 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD of Nigger butterfly

Funny no one posted this here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nigger_butterfly. Shyamal 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have if I had known about this project (:.. You say it's a historical name, is there another name for Orsotriaena medus? I didn't find any other when checking it out.--Victor falk 05:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just found that the Australians have rechristened it the Smooth-eyed Bush-brown. Hope this link works [5] Shyamal 05:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Help identifying a current name

I'm writing an article on François-Xavier Bélanger, and there will a reference to Gelechia balangeriella (!), a species named after him (author is mentioned as V.T. Chambers, apparently a notable American amateur lepidopterist). Can anyone check that:

The name isn't typoed in the work (a short biography), and
Whether it is still the current name?

Thank in advance. Circeus 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[6] Does not list it, nor does LepIndex. This Northern Treeshrew might be after him as well? Shyamal 02:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. Bélanger was born in 1833

. Probably a homonymous Frenchman. I wouldn't be surprised if the name was moved (hit that with a similar reference in Charles-Eusèbe Dionne). Maybe we can locate a list of name for Chambers? I don't think I can access JSTOR from here... this mentions "Miller, S. E. and Ronald W. Hodges. 1990. Primary types of microlepidoptera in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (with a discursion on V. T. Chambers’ work). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology152: 45–87." Circeus 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking for belangerella coughs up Pseudotelphusa belangerella and Argyresthia belangerella, both "Chambers 1875", which might, or might not be the same. Dammit, taxonomy of animals will give me ulcers... Circeus 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pseudotelphusa is in Gelechiidae but the other is in Yponomeutidae. The first is very likely a synonym for the above mentioned Gelechia. Shyamal 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And here is the confirmation. Yay! Circeus 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[7] LepIndex also says it was originally described under Gelechia. Chambers, 1875. Canadian Entomologist 7:210. Shyamal 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Some new pictures

i'm currently practicing on taking pictures of mounted specimens, and got about 200+ pics mostly of lepidoptera (what i unexpertly like to call 'butterfly' ;) up as a first start. they're not perfect yet, but they're there, just wanted to tell you so that you guys can start on creating articles for them ;)

cheers! --Sarefo 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

mouthparts - help!

Hello! You are a great group :) I would like to ask you something that only you could do well enough! I have found a not very complete article called mouthparts and despite displaying a picture, there is nothing about the Lepidopteran mouthparts. I can't really find it anywhere else on wiki. I guess it would be enough to write just a few sentences. You are the experts of butterflies and moths, so I guess the best would be if it could be one of you, and not someone who knows much less about it (like me). I'm not asking this because I don't know how it looks like or how it is built up or have no time or power or wish to write it myself, but my Lepidopteran-English is not good enough, and I don't consider myself an expert anyway. Thanks!!! ;) Myrmeleon formicarius (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Antlion, go ahead, be bold and do it anyway. We'll pitch in when and if we can. We're mostly just regular guys like you. Thanks for the thumbs up to the WikiProject. If you are interested, you should consider joining us! AshLin (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the gap. Some material has now been added. Shyamal (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Moth stubs being created en masse without sources

Hello Lepidopterans. From watching Special:Newpages I see that new moth articles are being created using AWB and the articles in many cases don't include any sources. Is there any guidance or rationale for how such stubs should be created? One would assume that if genera are being created en masse in a semi-automatic way that there ought to be a semi-automatic way of including a common source citation that at least gives some background. (It would be very time-consuming to add such a common source later). In a recent discussion at this thread about ProteinBoxBot there was some criticism of the mass creation of protein stubs. Yet the protein stubs are far better sourced than these moth stubs. Any comment on this issue is welcome. EdJohnston 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, there are two of us creating moth articles: jj137 and NielsenGW. JJ's using AWB to create the Gelechiidae articles at blistering speed; I'm creating the Arctiidae moths by hand. These genera lists seem have been gleaned from the Natural History Museum Lepidoptera Index by Richard Barlow. I can add that reference text to future articles. If need be, I can go back and adjust my previous creations as well. I figure that anyone doing future expansion of these articles will add new sources.--NielsenGW 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin ^chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)