This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Pages for genera and ranks upward in Erebidae (in the newish sense) have, as far as I can see, been updated to reflect the new sense; but the highly numerous species pages still have taxoboxes and text which reflect the 'old' system of families, such as Arctiidae. I have started updating these, which puts their taxonomy out of sync with the most of the secondary sources, but in an orderly and easily explained way which I think is unproblematic. Anyway, previous updates by other editors down to the level of genus have been done by introducing automatic taxoboxes. I've been replacing old-style taxoboxes in the species articles below those genera with new-style speciesboxes that pick up the taxonomic hierarchy from the genus, mainly because it's the simplest way to get consistency. Nobody has objected so far, but I thought I'd put a note here. William Avery ( talk) 11:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Lepidoptera/Archive8 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Vincent & Laguerre (2010, 2014) listed Ennomomima as a synonym of Zatrephes, and www.funet.fi has a Zatrephes page that follows suit. Does anyone have any objections to following the funet page as a source, or to the Ennomomima species pages being moved using WP:RMT? William Avery ( talk) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this really a seperate species? According to funet, http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/noctuoidea/arctiidae/arctiinae/lophocampa/#ingens, it appears to be a synonym of Lophocompa ingens. Lepindex doesn't list it at all.
My newbie question: do we delete this entry? Added it as a synonym to L. ingens? I'm still unsure of the process in these cases.
Your post was not signed (doesn't matter, damned complicated wikipedia.....) - and I just guess that you are user:ThorbyTech Thanks for cropping the images from those historical Schaus plates. Regards Tonton I'm so tired ( talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC) user:Tonton Bernardo
Balacra compsa From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Balacra vitreata)
In genus list for Balacra, Balacra vitreata redirects to Balacra compsa. From what I can tell Balacra vitreata is not really a synonym at all, but a variant of a Rothschild synonym. Any input would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorbyTech ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I will let it be for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorbyTech ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For species from other continents they are sometimes the only source, so no way to get around them/ Regds I'm so tired ( talk) 15:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems Colotis eucharis needs to merged with Colotis aurora. See http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/sp/690/Colotis-aurora J e e 04:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems quite logical and well researched, I'll make a redirect to
Colotis aurora
regards
I'm so tired (
talk) 14:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Tonton_Bernardo
Both are same and it seems the preferred name now is Caleta decidia. J e e 08:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Neopalpa is linked from Neopalpa donaldtrumpi. The latter will get homepage exposure including a photo in a few hours. The former article isn't in good shape. It would be good if members of this project could give Neopalpa some attention. Schwede 66 18:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
A pest species ? Tonton_Bernardo I'm so tired ( talk) 05:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Both are same and the preferred name now seems Chilades parrhasius. J e e 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jkadavoor, Thanks for your efforts on those butterflies. Preferred names do not exist. If there is a synonyms, there's a rather simple rule: the earlier description (= the first name given) preveals before later descriptions. It'q also called senior synonym - and all others (later) made descriptions become therefore junior synonyms. That 's just some of the bureaucracy... hehe.
For the first species mentioned above: that's a little bit more difficult: both were described in the same year and same author (probably in the same publication): so it would be needed to look up his publication to see, which one was described first.
The second species complex is easier: Fabricius did it a lot of time earlier.But for both complex there's no sources for such synomysation (maybe you now a publication? ) Should be take up first in some other databases, for citation. Best regards I'm so tired ( talk) 05:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
As a note there is a rather contested RFC happening at Talk:Neopalpa donaldtrumpi on what details of the type description should be included in the article. Further opinions are needed to give clarity on how to proceed.-- Kev min § 06:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
So much attention on 100mg of biological matter? I'd prefer to give half of this to the 50.000 species that are completely missing or the 250.000 moths species stubs. rgds I'm so tired ( talk) 02:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
as ps: as there's a population of that moth in Baja California - I'd be ready to make a 4-years study on genetical degeneration of this species due to an eventual construction of a wall and isolation of populations. I'd suggest publication of the results 3 months before 2020 elections. I'm so tired ( talk) 03:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The articles Lepidopterist and Aurelian (entomology) seem like virtually identical subjects, and I propose they be merged. Furthermore, there has been a proposed merger of Lepidopterist and Lepidopterology since 2014. Is there serious objection to all three being merged into the single article Lepidopterology, which can discuss the history of the science as well as prominent lepidopterists? --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm so tired ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ruigeroeland Ruigeroeland, now I 'pink'pinged you - may I suggest you (don't know where to to this, maybe you'll better suggest yourself. Regards
( talk holy, I'm so tired I'm so tired ( talk) 08:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC) PS: just inscribed you here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll - I would appreciate feedback of other 'lepidopterists' !
Many lists and sites concerning Asian moths are rather uncomplete.
Having set up a page on List of moths of India (Geometridae) - based on a recent publication from 2016 - I think that there might be some species found that are not yet listed in the respective genera pages.
Have fun Tonton I'm so tired ( talk) 06:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a lot is missing - therefore I appreciate this work of Gunathilagaraj Kandasamy (2016). Checklist of Indian Geometridae with FBI number.docx. - Tamil Nadu Agricultural University - Gunathilagaraj, K. so much. Fortunately some Indian scientists have recently 'attacked' their moths. Unfortunately this is not the case everywhere.
I have recently checked on some families in South America - holy godness, what a mess.
But also this wikipedia taxonomic database started once with a whole mess of synonyms and outdated data. Slowly its becoming quite performing. Best regards to all of you & good continuation. User:Tonton_Bernardo I'm so tired ( talk) 08:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I have proposed moving the following categories to correct the spelling.
Hello, WP Lepidoptera. Over at WP Insects, we're having a discussion about recommending insect pages be moved from traditional taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes and speciesboxes. We'd value your input on our discussion page! M. A. Broussard ( talk) 02:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Where should the template {{ Lepidoptera}} be used? Right now it seems to be used somewhat randomly. It seems clear that it should be used in all the articles which are linked in the template. Should it also be used other clades' articles such as genus and species or other Lepidoptera articles? Should it be used in all Lepidoptera articles as a default? What do people think? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 15:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Archive8/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Lepidoptera, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a merge proposal related to Morpho laertes and Morpho epistrophus, with discussion at Talk:Morpho epistrophus. There is a dispute as to the relevant authority to determine a direction of merge, so opinions would be welcome. Klbrain ( talk) 20:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Members of this wikiproject might be interested in participating, remotely or in person, in an upcoming edit-a-thon. With the support of the University of Auckland, I'll be helping run an all-day workshop centred on the 52 species depicted on the Insects of New Zealand playing cards. It'll be 10:00 am – 4:00 pm NZST on the Tāmaki campus, free to attend, with lunch and refreshments supplied. We have 7 signed up so far, mostly postgraduate students new to Wikipedia, so we could use experienced editors. If anybody else wants to join in please go to the #NZInsectCards project page for more details, including the list of species, and to register. Remote participants from all around the world are welcome! Giantflightlessbirds ( talk) 03:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has about a million rules, but you don't need to know them in order to start. My suggestion is to find good articles about moths and butterflies and try to do what they do. Of course you can't copy them, but you can use them as a guide. I trust that your professor is giving you good advice. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here, in the Teahouse or at the Help desk. Enjoy! SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone out there know why the above category states it should be empty on the talk page? Moths and beetles have their own category pages for the description year, and I know butterflies are pretty popular (dragonflies also). The Insects category looks pretty unwieldy now, so by adding a couple of categories, I think things will be a little tighter..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking of putting the text below into the Online resources section of the project page.
- Linking to Afromoths: On the Afromoths website, maintained by Jurate and Willy De Prins at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, pages for species have somewhat dynamic links. Linking to the URL in the browser's address window will not reliably continue to go to that species. Each species page has a "Permalink" button - right clicking on that button and selecting "Copy Link Location", "Copy link address" or similar depending on your browser, will put the permanent link for that species into your clipboard, from which it can be pasted into the link you are creating. Such dynamic links used in Wikipedia can be found by searching insource:"afromoths.net/species/show".
Does that make sense? Anything I should add or take out? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 06:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Could someone who actually knows what they are doing from a taxonomic point of view check to see if the correct spelling of this moth is Tamsica floricolans or Tamsica floricolens. I renamed the article based on Zimmerman, Elwood C. (1958). Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 8 Lepidoptera: Pyraloidea. University of Hawaii Press., but it could be in error there. There's a card at LepIndex, but I can't make sense of that. Suggestions? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of a good structure of subcategories to subdivide Category:Spilomelinae stubs into more manageable groups of around 200, but the best I could think of was alphabetical categories by genus. Do people have any better ideas?
Cross-posted at Talk:WikiProject Stub sorting
- Furicorn ( talk) 05:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
On pages like List of moths of North America (MONA 4618-5509), several species have a MONA number with a letter following it,
For example:
What do those letters indicate? There is nothing on this on the pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Members of this project are invited to take part in a discussion about the geographical categorization of moths. DexDor (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
In trying to fix dead links to Afromoths and I've got some I can't figure out. I've made some notes at Talk:Metarbelodes obliquilinea, Talk:Hellinsia tripunctatus and Talk:Mesoptila festiva. I would appreciate help from someone with fresh eyes and more experience than I have. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
A new phylogeny of the butterflies has been provided in the following paper :
"Marianne Espeland, Jesse Breinholt, Keith R. Willmott, Andrew D. Warren, Roger Vila, Emmanuel F.A. Toussaint, Sarah C. Maunsell, Kwaku Aduse-Poku, Gerard Talavera, Rod Eastwood, Marta A. Jarzyna, Robert Guralnick, David J. Lohman, Naomi E. Pierce, Akito Y. Kawahara. A Comprehensive and Dated Phylogenomic Analysis of Butterflies. Current Biology, 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.061"
Any comments on how to work this into the phylogeny section of Lepidoptera? AshLin ( talk) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's up with LepIndex? The small sample of links I've checked today, like http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/lepindex/search/detail.dsml?UserID=&UserName=&TaxonNo=31468.0&SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card=rubrilatera&listPageURL=list.dsml%3fSCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_cardqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26sort%3dSCIENTIFIC%255fNAME%255fon%255fcard%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card%3dboettgeri%26recLimit%3d30&searchPageURL=index.dsml%3fsort%3dSCIENTIFIC%255fNAME%255fon%255fcard%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_cardqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card%3dboettgeri%26recLimit%3d30 for example, now return a 404 error. Using their search function for the same species brings me to a page with a different format for the URL, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/detail/?taxonno=31468&&snoc=rubrilatera&search_type=starts&sort=snoc&indexed_from=1&page_no=1&page_size=30&path=search in this case. I fear there are tens of thousands of such links in Wikipedia which may no longer work.
Taxonbar links have the same result.
The LepIndex homepage now says "Database last updated January 2018". However their How to cite page still has a 2003 date.
Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I've been playing with this using AWB, but I know just enough about programming to be dangerous and I'd appreciate if someone else would look this over. I've done several dozen of these and they seem to work.
A search for
gives over 7,000 results all of which look like links to LepIndex,
replacing
with
and changing the number following "taxonno=" to remove the ".0" and deleting the rest of the url seems to solve the problem.
Could this be automated, or should I just slog through? Or am I doing something wrong? Some of the links go to the wrong species now, but I think (based on Internet Archive) that they have been wrong for years and are going to the same place they used to. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I've done about the first 1100 of these, converting them to use the template. There are now 6,183 to go that I've identified. This will take a while.
I'd be happy to share the work. I've developed an AWB script that saves a lot of effort, but is not foolproof. I'd be happy to share that. It averages me about a minute each.
I change from wikitext to the template, check the existing "taxonno" without the ".0" against the LepIndex database and the article title, specify the name used at LepIndex as needed, and make corrections in Wikipedia as needed. If anybody sees any mistakes I make, please point them out. I hate to make mistakes, but with this many I'm sure I'll make some.
I'm looking forward to the updating of the template as we've discussed here and at Template talk:LepIndex. After that is done, I may go back and make the references more template compliant, and may fill in more information in the template going forward, making the template as good as the best of the old references and much more adaptable.
I've heard nothing substantive from the Natural History Museum. I don't know what's going on at Wikidata re. links through {{ Taxonbar}}. @ Shyamal: Any ideas?
Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through and fixed all the broken species and genera links I could find. I've also gone through and fixed links to the search page that no longer worked.
There were several articles where I couldn't figure out what was originally intended or perhaps LepIndex has changed since they were created. I have not fixed: Copromorphoidea, Stiriinae and Ratardinae.
I don't know what's gone on at Wikidata, but the Taxonbars of articles I've looked at recently seem to be working.
I'm not aware of anything else that needs to be done, but I could have missed whole categories of things. If anyone knows of any other links to LepIndex that aren't working as they should, let me know and I'll try and fix them.
Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not actually a member of this project; for many years, I've been making it my project here to tidy up categories. I recently set up a category for the genus Pyrausta; the category is a subcategory for the huge subfamily Pyraustinae. Pyraustinae also has a huge stub category, with a note that it might be good to set up subcategories.
I propose to set up--and populate--a stub category for the genus Pyrausta; I estimate it would contain almost 300 articles--removing the same number of articles from the Pyraustinae subcategory. But it's come to my attention that not every project necessarily wants large categories subcategorised. So I thought I'd run it up the flagpole here, and see who salutes.
Uporządnicki (
talk) 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Caftaric has been indeffed as block-evading sock. They were incredibly active in single-handedly categorizing pages, creating categories, and related matters without discussion within the Lepidoptera area and frankly speaking created a mess. I've fixed boldly fixed some of the most blatant issues regarding the placement of those categories, but I doubt it's a good idea for me to equally single-handedly start undoing their work.
Some of their creations are valid enough (extending various of the 'taxa by rank' structures down into Lepidoptera, for example), others (especially everything related to higher taxonomical division of Lepidoptera) have resulted in a multilayer-hell partially divorcing the existing-and-widely-applied moth structure from its categorization trees.
(Look for example at Category:Lepidoptera genera. Okay, nice, there's Category:Moth genera, with one monotypic subcategory and a Geometridae subcategory. Reasonable. On the other hand, not so reasonable is that there also exists, for example, Category:Megalopygidae genera, four layers down the Category:Glossata genera mess, and in no way connected to Category:Moth genera, even though Megalopygidae certainly are moths. Same with various other (super)family specific moth genera categories: they exist, but they're in the other tree only.)
At this point, there's a handful of options I can think of:
In my opinion, 1 and 2 are only theoretically feasible due to the sheer amount of categories and articles involved. 5 is almost certain to overwhelm CfD and beyond that will either result in discussing which categories to keep anyway or if they're all removed result in a massive amount of articles needing to be recategorized. Of the remaining options, 3 and 4, my preference is for 3 as this appears to me to be the sole solution that might actually be manageable before the end of this decade. However, I welcome other opinions. Due to the low activity of this WikiProject and the fact most of our editors are active in the wider Tree of Life anyway, I'll be cross-posting a notice to the WP:WikiProject Tree of Life. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 20:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.
WikiProject Lepidoptera is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 26.3% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew ( talk) 01:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 12#Category:Lepidoptera described in 1758, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects#'Insects described in' category tree mostly ok?. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Pages for genera and ranks upward in Erebidae (in the newish sense) have, as far as I can see, been updated to reflect the new sense; but the highly numerous species pages still have taxoboxes and text which reflect the 'old' system of families, such as Arctiidae. I have started updating these, which puts their taxonomy out of sync with the most of the secondary sources, but in an orderly and easily explained way which I think is unproblematic. Anyway, previous updates by other editors down to the level of genus have been done by introducing automatic taxoboxes. I've been replacing old-style taxoboxes in the species articles below those genera with new-style speciesboxes that pick up the taxonomic hierarchy from the genus, mainly because it's the simplest way to get consistency. Nobody has objected so far, but I thought I'd put a note here. William Avery ( talk) 11:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Lepidoptera/Archive8 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Vincent & Laguerre (2010, 2014) listed Ennomomima as a synonym of Zatrephes, and www.funet.fi has a Zatrephes page that follows suit. Does anyone have any objections to following the funet page as a source, or to the Ennomomima species pages being moved using WP:RMT? William Avery ( talk) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this really a seperate species? According to funet, http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/noctuoidea/arctiidae/arctiinae/lophocampa/#ingens, it appears to be a synonym of Lophocompa ingens. Lepindex doesn't list it at all.
My newbie question: do we delete this entry? Added it as a synonym to L. ingens? I'm still unsure of the process in these cases.
Your post was not signed (doesn't matter, damned complicated wikipedia.....) - and I just guess that you are user:ThorbyTech Thanks for cropping the images from those historical Schaus plates. Regards Tonton I'm so tired ( talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC) user:Tonton Bernardo
Balacra compsa From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Balacra vitreata)
In genus list for Balacra, Balacra vitreata redirects to Balacra compsa. From what I can tell Balacra vitreata is not really a synonym at all, but a variant of a Rothschild synonym. Any input would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorbyTech ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I will let it be for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorbyTech ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For species from other continents they are sometimes the only source, so no way to get around them/ Regds I'm so tired ( talk) 15:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems Colotis eucharis needs to merged with Colotis aurora. See http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/sp/690/Colotis-aurora J e e 04:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems quite logical and well researched, I'll make a redirect to
Colotis aurora
regards
I'm so tired (
talk) 14:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Tonton_Bernardo
Both are same and it seems the preferred name now is Caleta decidia. J e e 08:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Neopalpa is linked from Neopalpa donaldtrumpi. The latter will get homepage exposure including a photo in a few hours. The former article isn't in good shape. It would be good if members of this project could give Neopalpa some attention. Schwede 66 18:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
A pest species ? Tonton_Bernardo I'm so tired ( talk) 05:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Both are same and the preferred name now seems Chilades parrhasius. J e e 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jkadavoor, Thanks for your efforts on those butterflies. Preferred names do not exist. If there is a synonyms, there's a rather simple rule: the earlier description (= the first name given) preveals before later descriptions. It'q also called senior synonym - and all others (later) made descriptions become therefore junior synonyms. That 's just some of the bureaucracy... hehe.
For the first species mentioned above: that's a little bit more difficult: both were described in the same year and same author (probably in the same publication): so it would be needed to look up his publication to see, which one was described first.
The second species complex is easier: Fabricius did it a lot of time earlier.But for both complex there's no sources for such synomysation (maybe you now a publication? ) Should be take up first in some other databases, for citation. Best regards I'm so tired ( talk) 05:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
As a note there is a rather contested RFC happening at Talk:Neopalpa donaldtrumpi on what details of the type description should be included in the article. Further opinions are needed to give clarity on how to proceed.-- Kev min § 06:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
So much attention on 100mg of biological matter? I'd prefer to give half of this to the 50.000 species that are completely missing or the 250.000 moths species stubs. rgds I'm so tired ( talk) 02:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
as ps: as there's a population of that moth in Baja California - I'd be ready to make a 4-years study on genetical degeneration of this species due to an eventual construction of a wall and isolation of populations. I'd suggest publication of the results 3 months before 2020 elections. I'm so tired ( talk) 03:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The articles Lepidopterist and Aurelian (entomology) seem like virtually identical subjects, and I propose they be merged. Furthermore, there has been a proposed merger of Lepidopterist and Lepidopterology since 2014. Is there serious objection to all three being merged into the single article Lepidopterology, which can discuss the history of the science as well as prominent lepidopterists? --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm so tired ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ruigeroeland Ruigeroeland, now I 'pink'pinged you - may I suggest you (don't know where to to this, maybe you'll better suggest yourself. Regards
( talk holy, I'm so tired I'm so tired ( talk) 08:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC) PS: just inscribed you here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll - I would appreciate feedback of other 'lepidopterists' !
Many lists and sites concerning Asian moths are rather uncomplete.
Having set up a page on List of moths of India (Geometridae) - based on a recent publication from 2016 - I think that there might be some species found that are not yet listed in the respective genera pages.
Have fun Tonton I'm so tired ( talk) 06:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a lot is missing - therefore I appreciate this work of Gunathilagaraj Kandasamy (2016). Checklist of Indian Geometridae with FBI number.docx. - Tamil Nadu Agricultural University - Gunathilagaraj, K. so much. Fortunately some Indian scientists have recently 'attacked' their moths. Unfortunately this is not the case everywhere.
I have recently checked on some families in South America - holy godness, what a mess.
But also this wikipedia taxonomic database started once with a whole mess of synonyms and outdated data. Slowly its becoming quite performing. Best regards to all of you & good continuation. User:Tonton_Bernardo I'm so tired ( talk) 08:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I have proposed moving the following categories to correct the spelling.
Hello, WP Lepidoptera. Over at WP Insects, we're having a discussion about recommending insect pages be moved from traditional taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes and speciesboxes. We'd value your input on our discussion page! M. A. Broussard ( talk) 02:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Where should the template {{ Lepidoptera}} be used? Right now it seems to be used somewhat randomly. It seems clear that it should be used in all the articles which are linked in the template. Should it also be used other clades' articles such as genus and species or other Lepidoptera articles? Should it be used in all Lepidoptera articles as a default? What do people think? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 15:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Archive8/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Lepidoptera, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a merge proposal related to Morpho laertes and Morpho epistrophus, with discussion at Talk:Morpho epistrophus. There is a dispute as to the relevant authority to determine a direction of merge, so opinions would be welcome. Klbrain ( talk) 20:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Members of this wikiproject might be interested in participating, remotely or in person, in an upcoming edit-a-thon. With the support of the University of Auckland, I'll be helping run an all-day workshop centred on the 52 species depicted on the Insects of New Zealand playing cards. It'll be 10:00 am – 4:00 pm NZST on the Tāmaki campus, free to attend, with lunch and refreshments supplied. We have 7 signed up so far, mostly postgraduate students new to Wikipedia, so we could use experienced editors. If anybody else wants to join in please go to the #NZInsectCards project page for more details, including the list of species, and to register. Remote participants from all around the world are welcome! Giantflightlessbirds ( talk) 03:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has about a million rules, but you don't need to know them in order to start. My suggestion is to find good articles about moths and butterflies and try to do what they do. Of course you can't copy them, but you can use them as a guide. I trust that your professor is giving you good advice. If you have any questions, feel free to ask here, in the Teahouse or at the Help desk. Enjoy! SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone out there know why the above category states it should be empty on the talk page? Moths and beetles have their own category pages for the description year, and I know butterflies are pretty popular (dragonflies also). The Insects category looks pretty unwieldy now, so by adding a couple of categories, I think things will be a little tighter..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking of putting the text below into the Online resources section of the project page.
- Linking to Afromoths: On the Afromoths website, maintained by Jurate and Willy De Prins at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, pages for species have somewhat dynamic links. Linking to the URL in the browser's address window will not reliably continue to go to that species. Each species page has a "Permalink" button - right clicking on that button and selecting "Copy Link Location", "Copy link address" or similar depending on your browser, will put the permanent link for that species into your clipboard, from which it can be pasted into the link you are creating. Such dynamic links used in Wikipedia can be found by searching insource:"afromoths.net/species/show".
Does that make sense? Anything I should add or take out? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 06:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Could someone who actually knows what they are doing from a taxonomic point of view check to see if the correct spelling of this moth is Tamsica floricolans or Tamsica floricolens. I renamed the article based on Zimmerman, Elwood C. (1958). Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 8 Lepidoptera: Pyraloidea. University of Hawaii Press., but it could be in error there. There's a card at LepIndex, but I can't make sense of that. Suggestions? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of a good structure of subcategories to subdivide Category:Spilomelinae stubs into more manageable groups of around 200, but the best I could think of was alphabetical categories by genus. Do people have any better ideas?
Cross-posted at Talk:WikiProject Stub sorting
- Furicorn ( talk) 05:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
On pages like List of moths of North America (MONA 4618-5509), several species have a MONA number with a letter following it,
For example:
What do those letters indicate? There is nothing on this on the pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Members of this project are invited to take part in a discussion about the geographical categorization of moths. DexDor (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
In trying to fix dead links to Afromoths and I've got some I can't figure out. I've made some notes at Talk:Metarbelodes obliquilinea, Talk:Hellinsia tripunctatus and Talk:Mesoptila festiva. I would appreciate help from someone with fresh eyes and more experience than I have. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
A new phylogeny of the butterflies has been provided in the following paper :
"Marianne Espeland, Jesse Breinholt, Keith R. Willmott, Andrew D. Warren, Roger Vila, Emmanuel F.A. Toussaint, Sarah C. Maunsell, Kwaku Aduse-Poku, Gerard Talavera, Rod Eastwood, Marta A. Jarzyna, Robert Guralnick, David J. Lohman, Naomi E. Pierce, Akito Y. Kawahara. A Comprehensive and Dated Phylogenomic Analysis of Butterflies. Current Biology, 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.061"
Any comments on how to work this into the phylogeny section of Lepidoptera? AshLin ( talk) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's up with LepIndex? The small sample of links I've checked today, like http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/lepindex/search/detail.dsml?UserID=&UserName=&TaxonNo=31468.0&SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card=rubrilatera&listPageURL=list.dsml%3fSCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_cardqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26sort%3dSCIENTIFIC%255fNAME%255fon%255fcard%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card%3dboettgeri%26recLimit%3d30&searchPageURL=index.dsml%3fsort%3dSCIENTIFIC%255fNAME%255fon%255fcard%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_cardqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26SCIENTIFIC_NAME_on_card%3dboettgeri%26recLimit%3d30 for example, now return a 404 error. Using their search function for the same species brings me to a page with a different format for the URL, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/lepindex/detail/?taxonno=31468&&snoc=rubrilatera&search_type=starts&sort=snoc&indexed_from=1&page_no=1&page_size=30&path=search in this case. I fear there are tens of thousands of such links in Wikipedia which may no longer work.
Taxonbar links have the same result.
The LepIndex homepage now says "Database last updated January 2018". However their How to cite page still has a 2003 date.
Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I've been playing with this using AWB, but I know just enough about programming to be dangerous and I'd appreciate if someone else would look this over. I've done several dozen of these and they seem to work.
A search for
gives over 7,000 results all of which look like links to LepIndex,
replacing
with
and changing the number following "taxonno=" to remove the ".0" and deleting the rest of the url seems to solve the problem.
Could this be automated, or should I just slog through? Or am I doing something wrong? Some of the links go to the wrong species now, but I think (based on Internet Archive) that they have been wrong for years and are going to the same place they used to. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I've done about the first 1100 of these, converting them to use the template. There are now 6,183 to go that I've identified. This will take a while.
I'd be happy to share the work. I've developed an AWB script that saves a lot of effort, but is not foolproof. I'd be happy to share that. It averages me about a minute each.
I change from wikitext to the template, check the existing "taxonno" without the ".0" against the LepIndex database and the article title, specify the name used at LepIndex as needed, and make corrections in Wikipedia as needed. If anybody sees any mistakes I make, please point them out. I hate to make mistakes, but with this many I'm sure I'll make some.
I'm looking forward to the updating of the template as we've discussed here and at Template talk:LepIndex. After that is done, I may go back and make the references more template compliant, and may fill in more information in the template going forward, making the template as good as the best of the old references and much more adaptable.
I've heard nothing substantive from the Natural History Museum. I don't know what's going on at Wikidata re. links through {{ Taxonbar}}. @ Shyamal: Any ideas?
Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through and fixed all the broken species and genera links I could find. I've also gone through and fixed links to the search page that no longer worked.
There were several articles where I couldn't figure out what was originally intended or perhaps LepIndex has changed since they were created. I have not fixed: Copromorphoidea, Stiriinae and Ratardinae.
I don't know what's gone on at Wikidata, but the Taxonbars of articles I've looked at recently seem to be working.
I'm not aware of anything else that needs to be done, but I could have missed whole categories of things. If anyone knows of any other links to LepIndex that aren't working as they should, let me know and I'll try and fix them.
Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not actually a member of this project; for many years, I've been making it my project here to tidy up categories. I recently set up a category for the genus Pyrausta; the category is a subcategory for the huge subfamily Pyraustinae. Pyraustinae also has a huge stub category, with a note that it might be good to set up subcategories.
I propose to set up--and populate--a stub category for the genus Pyrausta; I estimate it would contain almost 300 articles--removing the same number of articles from the Pyraustinae subcategory. But it's come to my attention that not every project necessarily wants large categories subcategorised. So I thought I'd run it up the flagpole here, and see who salutes.
Uporządnicki (
talk) 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Caftaric has been indeffed as block-evading sock. They were incredibly active in single-handedly categorizing pages, creating categories, and related matters without discussion within the Lepidoptera area and frankly speaking created a mess. I've fixed boldly fixed some of the most blatant issues regarding the placement of those categories, but I doubt it's a good idea for me to equally single-handedly start undoing their work.
Some of their creations are valid enough (extending various of the 'taxa by rank' structures down into Lepidoptera, for example), others (especially everything related to higher taxonomical division of Lepidoptera) have resulted in a multilayer-hell partially divorcing the existing-and-widely-applied moth structure from its categorization trees.
(Look for example at Category:Lepidoptera genera. Okay, nice, there's Category:Moth genera, with one monotypic subcategory and a Geometridae subcategory. Reasonable. On the other hand, not so reasonable is that there also exists, for example, Category:Megalopygidae genera, four layers down the Category:Glossata genera mess, and in no way connected to Category:Moth genera, even though Megalopygidae certainly are moths. Same with various other (super)family specific moth genera categories: they exist, but they're in the other tree only.)
At this point, there's a handful of options I can think of:
In my opinion, 1 and 2 are only theoretically feasible due to the sheer amount of categories and articles involved. 5 is almost certain to overwhelm CfD and beyond that will either result in discussing which categories to keep anyway or if they're all removed result in a massive amount of articles needing to be recategorized. Of the remaining options, 3 and 4, my preference is for 3 as this appears to me to be the sole solution that might actually be manageable before the end of this decade. However, I welcome other opinions. Due to the low activity of this WikiProject and the fact most of our editors are active in the wider Tree of Life anyway, I'll be cross-posting a notice to the WP:WikiProject Tree of Life. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 20:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.
WikiProject Lepidoptera is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 26.3% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew ( talk) 01:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 12#Category:Lepidoptera described in 1758, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects#'Insects described in' category tree mostly ok?. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)