Talk:Aedes albopictus

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

German Wikipedia article on Aedes albopictus

For those who understand it, take a look at the German Wikipedia page: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatische_Tigerm%C3%BCcke. It is currently the most detailed page on the Asian tiger mosquito in the international Wikipedia community, with many references. It could serve as a source for someone willing to expand the English page on the topic.

Vandalism

I reverted the "apparently" vandal-entered text to the previous version. People may want to keep an eye on the article for a while to ensure that nothing else happens.

Vandalism - unable to edit out?

whats with the strange text at the end of the section "Invasive Species"

with the text:

Bold textOH YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jones Senior Rockz!!!!!!!!!!!!!--205.244.113.134 18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC

yet when you click the edit button, it doesn't show up, so attempt to edit it out, is impossible?

I hope this message will notify a spupervisor or something to check it out.

Thanks

202.181.241.190 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro cites

Note I changed some code in the intro section. This was done for a number of reasons:

the "cite news" template in particular is not flexible enough to handle the spectrum of citations; it only allows a very restricted input of information.
the template does not handle dates unambigously.
the access date is really the least important bit. Especially here, it is far more important to know when the info was originally published.
the templates are usually a waste of space. Especially in the crammed intro section this is important; new editors can easily break the bloated and cryptic template code. The new code is more intuitive for newbies (it uses only standard markup) and nearly 10% more compact. (For the "Science" citation, the template uses a whopping 30% more code compared to what's necessary to procude the exactly same (unwikified) output using "plain vanilla" wiki markup. Even the wikified "vanilla" code is only as long as the unwikified one with the template. So KISS these templates goodby and code refs manually. Takes a bit longer, but it keeps the code sleek and n00b-friendly, and you will be able to handle even the most unusual sources without problems.)

I removed the "NEST Sheet Dec'98", used to "source" an event that happened 4 years after the "source" was published! This is where leaving out the publication date and using these crappy templates will get you. In a topic that is of health concern, factual errors are an even more serious problem than elsewhere.

"http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/insect/overview.php" does not source the arrival of the ATM in E Canada, but is about the local presence of EEE (the horse disease). This disease also has an indigenous vector (Culiseta melanura). I have therefore removed the ref. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]