Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Insects (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Dioctria atricapilla rating[edit]

Hello all, can someone do a check on Dioctria atricapilla? It's still listed as stub-class, but I'm pretty certain that it's much better than that now. I don't know much about bugs (not sure how I stumbled into this one....maybe a random page patrol?) and I've edited it way too much to give it a fair rating, so could someone check it out? Thanks, Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Supernerd11: There is no set size at which articles stop being stubs; some use the DYK stardard of 1,500 characters of readable prose. Dioctria atricapilla is currently at 961 bytes, but I've no problem assessing this article as start class given the number of references and due to the fact that low-importance GA-class insect articles are generally shorter than the average GA. Upgrading stubs to start-class articles is not a big deal and it's not frowned upon to assess articles as start-class even if you've worked on them yourself. I've changed the article from stub to start-class, but feel free to make the edit yourself in the furute, cheers, jonkerztalk 09:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jonkerz: Oh, okay. Thanks! Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Common name of species are not capitalised[edit]

For your information, following discussions on Talk:Crowned crane#Requested move, on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane and especially on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird common name decapitalisation, it is now clear that the consensus is not to capitalise the common (vernacular) name of all species.

The guidelines are detailed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms.

Coreyemotela (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC).

NewBees[edit]

Wikipedia can have information about NewBees.

Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. Unless something happens to make it notable it's just a one-off joke/hoax posted on YouTube. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have just found the article "RoboBee".
Wavelength (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The Scientific name and Scientific name's[edit]

I tend to never use e.g. "The Lasius niger is", simply "Lasius niger is" and rewrite "Lasius niger's distribution" to "distribution of Lasius niger'". I'm currently making basic copyedits to a set of articles written in the above style and would like to know if we have any guidelines on this? jonkerztalk 09:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 06/06[edit]

Not sure whether Draft:Caddisfly silk (fibroin) should be merged with Fibroin. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Onthohpagus and Onthophahus[edit]

Onthohpagus and Onthophahus look to me like misspellings for Onthophagus. Any expert opinion on whether we keep these two or delete them? Nurg (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, misspelled. Delete. Shyamal (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Well, replaced with redirects to Onthophagus. Nurg (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging Knulliana with Banded hickory borer[edit]

Please see Talk:Knulliana, where I've just posted a suggestion to merge these two pages. They are both about the one species in the monotypic genus Knulliana, namely Knulliana cincta. I'm not sure which title is best to use for the page, but the current setup is certainly redundant. Thanks in advance for any input that anyone here can contribute. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)