Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AJseagull1 (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 4 April 2011 (→RFC:Use scientific naming conventions?: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconInsects Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Synonyms or subspecies

Could somebody please advise? There is a list below the name in a big, fat block. Are these all synonyms? The first name is a synonym, but the last part of the list seems to have subspecies. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are all synonyms, the subspecies are basically synonymized with the nominate species. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will add them to the article. Sorry for the late reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an ID on two insects from the Philippines

Hello, I'd like to ask if anyone knows what these insects are. I could get as far as their family but nothing much beyond that. Pictures were taken in the island of Mindanao, Philippines. Thanks in advance. Obsidi♠nSoul 05:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The blue bottle fly is perched on a leaf of a young palm. It is blue throughout, no bronze or green highlights as far as I can tell. If I would guess, it's probably Chrysomya rufifacies based on pics on the net?
    The blue bottle fly is perched on a leaf of a young palm. It is blue throughout, no bronze or green highlights as far as I can tell. If I would guess, it's probably Chrysomya rufifacies based on pics on the net?
  • This Jewel bug was feeding on Jatropha.
    This Jewel bug was feeding on Jatropha.
  • Jewel bugs on a Gmelina arborea leaf. They were preparing to mate I think. Family Scutelleridae, that's all I'm sure of of these bugs, heh.
    Jewel bugs on a Gmelina arborea leaf. They were preparing to mate I think. Family Scutelleridae, that's all I'm sure of of these bugs, heh.

Acromyrmex laticeps nigrosetosus

I started Acromyrmex nigrosetosus. I see this laticeps word when I google it. What does that mean? What's the proper species name? Please advise. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two subspecies it seems. A. laticeps is the correct species name. Subspecies are A. laticeps laticeps and A. laticeps nigrosetosus. According to our very own Wikispecies.--Obsidi♠nSoul 13:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. So what does that make Acromyrmex nigrosetosus? A redirect to the article Acromyrmex laticeps?
Wait, no.
ITIS lists it as a subspecies. As does Systema Naturae, Encyclopedia of Life, and Taxonomicon.
But look here in AntWeb AntWeb. Seems to have been revised as a species name in 2007 by A. L. Wild. The linked PDF doesn't work anymore though. Seems to have been originally published in the journal Zootaxa. Info was given as 21367 Wild, A. L. 2007. A catalogue of the ants of Paraguay (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zootaxa 1622: 1-55. Publications are listed here, but no PDF link to the article. Currently hunting down the said PDF--Obsidi♠nSoul 13:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Ucucha 13:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see matches at that site of any of these keywords: Acromyrmex, laticeps, nigrosetosus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC) I get it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha found a copy. I found another copy as well. And yes. Seems like it got promoted to species level. Another species from the genus that got elevated seems to be Acromyrmex pubescens, formerly from Acromyrmex lundii. You should take a look at it and revise the other articles as needed as well (it includes several other Formicidae as well). Use the journal as reference.--Obsidi♠nSoul 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your digging. I am trying hard to figure out what you just wrote i.e. what was what and what is now is. :) I hope I get it right. Thanks all! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, no worries. I already added A. nigrosetosus and A. pubescens among the list of species in the Acromyrmex. Your article should be fine now (it's now a species, to put it simply). I also removed A. lundii pubescens and A. lundii parallelus from the Acromyrmex lundii article. Again referring from the same journal. You can reuse the cite I used as well:

<ref name="Journ1">{{cite journal|last1=Wild|first1=Alexander L.|last2=|first2=|year=2007|title=A catalogue of the ants of Paraguay (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)|journal=Zootaxa|volume=|issue=1622|pages=41, 51|publisher=Magnolia Press, http://mapress.com/|doi=|url=http://mapress.com/zootaxa/2007/zt01622p055.pdf|accessdate=January 22, 2011 }}</ref>

Saves you having to rewrite it. ;D --Obsidi♠nSoul 14:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! There's no way I would have gotten it right. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with vast species lists

Does anyone know of a quick way to format huge species lists? I've just completed formatting a 300+ strong fly genus and my typing hand is feeling the strain. I'm now having second thoughts about tackling any other similar sized genus. Deargan (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the sources you're using. I noticed you haven't put the citation in the article yet, so that makes it harder to advise. Most online sources, including most PDF files can be reformatted into wikitext fairly simply using the right tools. With some PDFs and all purely printed media, you have to type it in manually. Is that what you've done here? Be aware that the parentheses around the authorities are very important, and should not be added or removed. I am sure that at least some of the Copestylum species you have listed should have parentheses around the authority. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, most of them apparently. I've started working on that. The area I need help with is creating this -
  • Copestylum albertoi Marcos-Garcia & Rotheray, 2007 from this - Copestylum albertoi Marcos-Garcia & Rotheray, 2007 for example, multiplied many hundred times over. Is there some tool which would make this task any less onerous? Also I should say I'm using the Catalogue of Life and Encyclopedia of Life websites for information and lists.Deargan (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I use a text editor I made myself which can use regular expressions in its search and replace function, although any decent text editor would do, as long as you can replace special characters like the new line. I then make the following replacements:
  • ", " becomes ",_"
  • ". " becomes "._" (for names with initials: "C. L. Koch" and the like)
  • " & " becomes "_&_"
  • "de " becomes "de_" (There may be more of these depending on what names occur in the list. If it includes "Le Loeuff", say, you would also need "Le " => "Le_". The lists I work with have a lot of "De Man" and "de Haan".)
  • "\n" (new line) becomes "</small>\n*''[["
  • " " (space) becomes "]]''_<small>" (The only remaining spaces should be between the binomen and the authority.)
  • Finally, "_" becomes " "
This does most of the reformatting in a set number of steps. There are always a few problems with two-word surnames that hadn't been noticed, or with inconsistent formatting in the sources, but it generally gets through the lion's share of the work.
Catalogue of Life, incidentally, is not a reliable source of information on the membership of a group. It is quite useful for finding likely authorities, but it includes all sorts of names which are no longer valid, or never were, as well as multiple orthographic variants of the same name. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for authoritative sources, I have come across the following snippets; it looks like a good, comprehensive list may be almost unfeasible. The Kaufman field guide claims that there are at least 39 species of Copestylum in North America, including those formerly classified under Volucella (a reclassification which may well complicate matters). Marcos-García & Pérez-Bañón (2002) state that there are > 300 species, and go on to describe yet another. There is also a paper from 2009 (doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2008.00503.x) describing 7 new species, which don't appear to have made it onto any of the online lists yet. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see what you mean. I checked my hastily assembled species list against a search on the BDWD Nomenclator and discovered a rather different list there. I'm not sure if the nomenclator is any more or less reliable than other sources (though it ought to be!) so perhaps I should just settle for a brief introduction to the genus with possibly a few better known species included as examples. Deargan (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You who are more insect-knowledgeable than me might want to consider adding , Mass provisioning and related articles to the purview of your project. As it stands now, they are a part of no Wikiproject. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added one of the two articles to your WikiProject ("2011-02-03T23:26:58 Innotata", on Progressive provisioning), but not the other (Mass provisioning). Your call. N2e (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can do that too. If they are specific to insect behavior, they should definitely be tagged for this project. —innotata 19:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Would it be permissible to add a "See also" section to such a page as Coccidae?

It could have links to species that are not accessible from the family page because there is no page for the genus. In this instance it could include Eulecanium cerasorum and Pulvinaria innumerabilis, both of which are tagged as orphans. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, yes. I think it's an ideal use of the "See also" section. I do this fairly frequently, particularly where I can't find a reliable source and so can't knock up a decent linking stub. It might be time for WP:Insects to opt in to Svick's WikiProject cleanup listings, which will show up just how many (tagged) orphans there are in the project's purview (as well as other types of cleanup); I suspect it will be quite a few. Incidentally, if you fancied fleshing Coccidae out a bit as well while you're there, it could certainly do with it. Oh, and perhaps add Conchaspis capensis to your list – we haven't yet got an article on Conchaspis. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will add a "see also" section to Coccidae then, and in other places when I notice a similar lack. I won't include Conchaspis capensis though as it is in Conchaspididae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point. Excuse my confusion. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the provision of one link in this way enough to remove the Orphan tag from Eulecanium cerasorum? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's partly a matter of opinion, I think. Since the instructions in the {{orphan}} tag are all about adding links in other articles, and I'm pretty sure the text "Eulecanium cerasorum" doesn't appear anywhere else, I would tend to remove the tag, yes. WP:ORPHAN also states that the current intention is only to tag articles with exactly zero incoming links (from the main namespace). There are a lot of taxonomic articles whose only incoming link is from the parent taxon (typically the genus linking to the species article), so I think it's fine to remove the tag. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I have had a look at WP:ORPHAN and it specifically mentions "Organisms/Taxonomic/Species articles" as being difficult. I plan to do some orphan rescue work and perhaps I'll make a start on Insects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scale insects

I have been creating new pages for scale insect families but I have met a problem. The family Monophlebidae has been carved out of Margarodidae according to this source and this means that some genera such as Icerya and the species Icerya purchasi currently appear in both. Wikispecies puts this genus in Monophlebidae. Any views? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies has information related to Monophlebidae.
Nobody has replied to this so I plan to go ahead and move some of the genera as appropriate from Margarodidae to Monophlebidae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikispecies has information related to Margarodidae.

Help finding naming papers for myrrha insects

My Google-fu has evaporated. Can not find ANY of the naming papers for some insects with species names "myrrha". See here, especially source 71. It's not really so much for the references as citations, but we really want to read them and see if the "namers" had some comments about the Myrrha myth, motivating them to label these butterflies myrrha. Please help!!!TCO (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some investigation but I am afraid I could not find any useful information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I've been able to find is the protologue for Antona myrrha, which was originally described as Geometra myrrha. Descriptions are given by the author in Dutch and French, but with no etymology or discussion of the epithet. My own suspicion would be that these insects were all simply named after the plants that they live on, either referred to by name (Myrrhis odorata, for instance), or using myrrhus more generally for any aromatic plant. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Would you say those plants are named for Myrrha (or for myrrh...given she and the plant are the same thing anyhow, she turned into the plant). Is myrrhis a general term for bitter or fragrant? Not just referrring Myrrha/myrrh?TCO (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera

I've been editing Lepidoptera like there's no tomorrow, but I can't do all the work myself. If anybody would like to go over it and see if they can add as much information as they can, or give me advice on what needs to be extended, moved, reworked, ect. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 21:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC:Use scientific naming conventions?

The use of scientific names is the most beneficial way to go. There are to many common names or on the other end none at all to be reliable. Scientific names are for the most part reliable (well at least more reliable then common names) at higher levels. Here is are aim to make all higher level taxa use scientific names down to the family, unless further compromising dictates otherwise. to make your "vote" add *(your side: '''oppose/support''') reason why. ~~~~

  • Strong support: Currently the insect orders are a mix of vernacular and scientific, which not very consistent. These are higher ranking taxa which are stable and include many different species with different names. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, we use (or should use) vernacular names when they are commonly used and well-established, and scientific names otherwise. Is there any reason not to use some of the well-established vernacular names for insect orders, like "beetle" for Coleoptera? Ucucha 12:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few reasons actually. First note, using the scientific name is encyclopedic, as the encyclopedias I use all use the aforementioned rather then the vernacular. Second, many higher taxa include species that do not only go by one common name (though debatable). For example Coleoptera includes "fireflies, june bugs, ladybugs, weevils," ect., though those could be called beetles, I've personally never heard someone calla firefly a beetle. Another note is that there is no consistency, half of the other insect orders use the proper scientific name. Scientific names of higher ranking taxa are more reliable (though lower ones are not at this moment do to ongoing research). Can I move this up into the box and include it as an oppose? It will make it easier when a vote is considered. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 13:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a laymans encyclopedia, so use vernacular names when they are well established, and use scientific names when they are not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Use vernacular as redirects to scientific nomenclature. Of course, this may require a considerable number of disambiguation pages, as a particular common name (and don't get me started on the ridiculousness that are "ESA approved common names") may refer to a number of different organisms. Aderksen (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, or rather, agree with Ucucha and van der Linde. If the vernacular name is not common, established, and clear, the scientific name should be used, as may be appropriate with Coleoptera. —innotata 16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:I'm seeing some consistency in the reasons why in those who oppose. Speaking from someone who once, albeit along time ago, was a "layman", do we not come to Wikipedia to learn, where they are redirected to the page and realize what the scientific name. Another thing to note, we are only considering only high taxa (orders mostly) in Insect, with only 6 using common names with the other 28 using the scientific. Other encyclopedias do not use the common names, are they not also for the common reader, certainly there not only for experts? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. We come to find out what a beetle is. That the closest scientific taxon to the common and vague notion is the Coleoptera is a fact about beetles; not the most important fact (if we were only interested in terminology, we'd be on Wiktionary) nor the one which should determine the title, but one the article should prominently mention - and does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was the most important fact, neither did I say it did not mention it. However I have yet to find a reason to not to change it, as using the scientific does not hinder or discourage (in my own opinion) the reader, and considering the pros and cons I'm not convinced that we shouldn't. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 00:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I can see good reasons on both sides; using scientific names for everything is neat, unified, consistent and encyclopaedic. But on the other hand, the majority of readers (I assume), aren't going to recognise these names and because the articles are supposed to be targeted at the reader it almost seems right to use vernacular names. A compromise could be to redirect vernacular names to scientific ones. (-that's what we've already been doing). -- — JamesDouch • Talk 01:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was hoping to accomplish, but there is no consistency what so ever, maybe we should do this for the insect orders. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The common name should redirect to the article which would have the scientific name. It would be more accurate, morew consistent _ i.e, more encyclopedic. So that the common man is not confused, the leads would be appropriately worded. AshLin (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Just to be sure we all understand the proposal, you are proposing to move all WP Insects articles, down to the rank of family, to scientific names, right? So:
  • Hemiptera
  • Hymenoptera
  • Neuroptera
  • Odonata

but not:

and are you including these?

or the various articles under WP:Lepidoptera?

This list is probably quite incomplete. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this point, my main focus is the orders, anything below that I can compromise to, but I believe, yes, that the families should be moved. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 14:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While this is a layman's encyclopedia, it seems that the use of scientific terms for (at least) the orders of insects would function the same way here as they do in entomology--in the avoidance of confusion. No one looking up "beetle" would be misdirected or misinformed by the article's heading being coleoptera, and once it has been established that this is the technical term, use of the folk taxonomy within the body of the article could probably be used interchangeably with the scientific terms. This would ensure, where common terms might overlap or be misleading, that the placement within actual taxonomy is correct.Lo, i am real 00:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the same reason. Although it is no big deal in my opinion. Redirecting the scientific name to an article with a common name title also works for me.Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note- Just a random note, the family Micromalthidae should be a full page and not a redirect to Micromalthus as it includes at least one extinct genus, Cretomalthus, found in Lebanese Amber. Similarly the extinct Cretocoma means that Pleocomidae should be a family page.
  • Oppose. It's important that the scientific name be present in the article, but I don't see any overriding reason to disregard WP:COMMONNAME in this case - it's a widely accepted standard across the encyclopaedia as a whole. Birds and fauna both prescribe using the common name, and flora uses common names for any plants commonly known/used outside of botanical circles. For consistency-sake, insect articles should use common names with scientific title redirects pointing to the common name article. The articles themselves should make mention of the scientific name in the first sentence. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your looking for consistency, then you got it backwards, thousands upon thousands of insect related articles use scientific names, half don't even have common names. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have it the right way. I'm in favour of consistency across the encyclopaedia as a whole. For subjects that don't have common names, of course the scientific name is appropriate. Scientific-titled articles on insects with common names should be renamed, in line with the vast majority of other articles on living things, along with the vast majority of articles on any topic across the board. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Participants here will be interested in the recent discussion at Talk:Beetle#Requested move, which proposed moving the article to Coleoptera but which reached a rough consensus to stay with the common name (although my assessment of this outcome as been politely queried). Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Right now there is no consistency between pages. Using scientific names with redirect pages from common names would fix that issue. Using redirects would also avoid any confusion by lay people looking up "beetle" or"fly". It is not possible to use common names to create consistency due to the fact that some orders do not have common names (e.g.Hymenoptera and Odonata). In fact, there isn't even consistency in using common names when one is available (e.g. the Hemiptera page is entitled Hemiptera, not "True Bug" ). AJseagull1 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Ucucha, TechnoSymbiosis, etc. WP:COMMONNAME is the standard across Wikipedia, so adopting this proposal would actually cause less "consistency", not more. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I don't think there's an issue requiring correction. Wikipedia operates in net space, not a physical library. To that end, I reckon most people find there way in via google or a have a Wikipedia search bar. Either way, search by common name or binomial, and you'll pull up any good article. And if you're a student, you should be able to find your way in and drill down to specific articles using taxoboxes. Also, I don't think any WP below WikiProject Biology should set a standard for this.Heds (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthidium

A couple of bee questions:

  • The Anthidium article says they are commonly known as mason bees. But, the Mason bee article says mason bees are from the genus Osmia.
  • Are all Anthidium species leafcutters?

I plan to make some Anthidium stubs and want a common lead. Is this sample okay? Should I move the stub tag down a bit? Is all correct? Can more info common to all species in the genus be added? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if that's all you're planning to say about each species, it could happily be accomodated in the genus article, rather than dissipating the information over many very short articles. The only information not already included at the genus is the authority for the scientific name; that could easily be fitted into the genus article (and probably should be anyway). This also solves the problem of a "common lead", since the context will already be provided by the existing text. At the moment, Anthidium is poorly referenced, so I would consider improving that more of a priority. I expect some of the references used at Anthidium manicatum will provide information about the whole genus. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points. I was really undecided on the bare-bones stub matter, until recently. I stubbed around 30 leaf-cutter ant articles. Somebody came along and filled them in. I'm convinced that the content never would have been provided had the stubs not been created. I've even added tables to some list articles to encourage content, but so far, not much action. Now, after seeing what happened with the leaf-cutter ant stubs, I am quite determined to stub these bee articles. I would love to have your approval. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to know which is more inviting to the average editor – a red link or a bare-bones stub. I wonder if anyone has researched it. If there is good evidence that stubs are more likely to be expanded than new articles created, then that would be a strong argument in favour of your proposed action. Without it, I still think that a good genus article is more valuable than many short species articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I know what you mean. A bare-bones stub exists. A redlink does not. If you mean a genus article containing redlinks versus a stub, then I think the stub is more inviting because it's specifically about the subject, and invites improvement. Plus, it links to the genus article for broader info. But I'm not sure that that is the whole issue.
If you are simply talking about immediate usefulness to readers, then I guess this is a matter of eventualism. Stubs become progressively more useful as they expand.
I contend that if the stub is not created, and will only be created when either somebody writes the whole thing, or the genus list is expanded to include info on species listed therein, (thus warranting a break-away article), a lot of "would be" edits will never be made, which inhibits the very engine that drives Wikipedia. The leaf-cutter articles are a perfect case in point. If I had never stubbed them, that whole part of Wikipedia would be virtually unchanged.
I also think that if there is good evidence that stubs are not more likely to be expanded than new articles created, then that would be a strong argument against my proposed action. Without that evidence, I think that a good genus article is valuable, and many short species stubs with the potential and tendency to expand are also valuable. I also intend to begin expanding them myself once stubbed.
The crux of this issue, as I see it, is choosing between these two imperfect scenarios:
  • Stubs:
Pros: Harnesses editor power to help project grow.
Cons: Search draws visitors to temporary bare-bones stubs are less useful to visitors.
  • No Stubs:
Pros: Search directs visitors to immediately useful genera articles.
Cons: Little or no growth.
What do you think? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I dont want to interfere in your discussion here, but I just wanted to say I am all for stubs, especially for species. If little or no info is available they are still valuable if they at least have the authority and distribution data. Furthermore, I urge everyone writing on insects to add synonyms and redirect them to the species page. If this data is up, the basic framework is done, making it easier for less experienced users to add info, without having to worry about technical wikipedia stuff like taxoboxes, categories, etc. Anyway.. just my opinion.. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are very welcome.
I'm sure distribution data will be among the first to land during expansion. I will personally get on that ASAP.
As for your synonym comment: EXCELLENT POINT! I've been stung a few times with that when first starting out. Is that written anywhere in policy in giant red letters? It should be. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis: I'm going to go ahead and make some of these stubs. I don't mean any disrespect or defiance. I remember the very long thread on this topic months ago involving many editors. It seemed to be split, so I don't ever think consensus will be reached. I dug up as much on distribution and synonyms and I could, and I promise to do my best to find images and expand what I can. I hope you understand. If, in a year or so, the stubs are still bare-bones, you will have my total agreement of your point of view. But, for now, after seeing the leaf-cutter ant results, I feel compelled to stub these bees. Best wishes and good will. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ruigeroeland, stubs are the way to go, as they can be expanded upon latter on. However, if its any help, I'll see what I can do myself to expand them. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quite understand. My general concerns (about having numerous very short stubs) remain, but I don't think any of us really knows how the average editor acts. I think I am much more likely to write a new article that expand a stub, but I may well be atypical. I doubt that I would ever merge stubs into genus article if they contained information that wasn't in a genus article, or couldn't be easily accommodated there. In practical terms, this means that the sort of stubs you are planning to create, with indications of distribution and synonymy, would always be left alone. It seems that we now have broad agreement here. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your understanding, and I do fully see your point. I will do my best to make all stubs I start worthy. I am now adding images to external links wherever I can find them. Public domain images for this genus seem hard to come by right now. So, with a bit of synonymy, dist., and a pic or two, they seem off to a reasonable start. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms

Are the items below the main name synonyms in this link? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, this link here shows them as synonyms. --Kevmin § 05:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intend on adding synonyms to a section in the article, and not to the taxobox. I will add "see text" to taxobox. I want to do this because these bee names are really long and tend to wrap in an unclear way. Also, if the list becomes longer, it will mean extra work in the future moving them to a section. Any objections, please say. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to do this even if there is only one. This is because it is likely that another will be added at some point anyway, and two or more in the taxobox looks really hard to read. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: Anthidium alticola. Only two syns and it looks like poop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On last thing. Should such a section title be "Synonyms" or "Synonomy"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for "synonyms" that's the heading I generally choose when Ihave synonyms in paleo-taxa articles I write. I still put the synonyms in the taxobox in most cases. In regard to Anthidium alticola I would have formatted the synonyms thus:
  • Osmia superba Friese, 1920
  • Anthidium (Melanoanthidium) alticola Tkalců, 1967
I am wondering if the subgenera are still in use for Anthidium, if so then it may be that Anthidium (Melanoanthidium) alticola could be left off the list and the subgenus level included in the taxobox. I also note that "homonym" is a descriptive term and not part of the name Osmia superba. If you include a Synonyms section in teh article also you have the option of leaving the authorities out of the taxobox. --Kevmin § 07:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped using the small text after a project gastropod member pointed out how hard to read it is.
homonym: so that's what they mean.
I definitely prefer a section that includes auth. rather than leaving that out and shoving it into the taxobox.
Now, are you a computer person? I need some advice on how to mass-produce the syn redirect pages. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Redirect pages needed

Per Ruigeroeland's advice, this is a list of synonyms that needs to be redirected to articles. I extracted the list from the synonyms listed in the new Anthidium stubs. The list is represented twice. The top part is ready for some kind of bot or AWB doodad to automatically create the pages. (I hope there is such a thing.) The bottom part is the same list, but with links to see what's already in existence. Anthidium cingulatum and Anthidium trochantericum are the only items that confuse me. Please advise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding them manually, they're not too many. Hopefully won't confuse anything, heh.--Obsidi♠nSoul 12:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Obsidi♠nSoul 13:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Ok, here are the ones that eventually double redirected from my watchlist, you might want to either add them to the list of synonyms to the species they eventually redirected to or just doublecheck:
Anthidium luteiventre‎ . . Fixing double redirect to Anthidium oblongatum
Anthidium manicatum var undulatofasciatum‎ . . Fixing double redirect to Anthidium latum
Anthidium dissectum‎ . . Fixing double redirect to Anthidium latum
Anthidium oraniense‎ . . Fixing double redirect to Anthidium latum
Anthidium rufispinum‎ . . Fixing double redirect to Anthidium latum
--Obsidi♠nSoul 03:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coleoptera for GA

I've started working on the article to my own accord. It is the next project for Wikiproject Insects, and I decided to start early until we can get a reviewer for Lepidoptera. Maybe if we can expanding on the present sections, work out any concerns on its layout, add some more info, ect. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthidium synonyms with "homonym"

The following have synonyms listed in the synonym section that contain the word homonym. I don't know how to handle that. Please advise and I will fix them, or if you are up to it, click away. Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be a problem of using inappropriate sources. I have yet to find any circumstance where I would cite discoverlife.org. Taking the first example, Anthidium atricaudum, a more reliable (looking) source explains that Anthidium piliventre Friese, 1925 is a junior homonym of Anthidium piliventre Friese, 1913. That is, Heinrich Friese named this species A. piliventre in 1925, despite having already named another species A. piliventre twelve years earlier. The later name is therefore invalid. The earliest valid name is A. atricaudum Cockerell, 1926. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A thousand pardons. I am just looking at moure.cria.org.br, and if you could give me another good source, I will look over all of them. I hope there aren't too many that are inaccurate. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moure.cria.org.br

Synonyms

I'm not quite sure how to read it. For example this page has:

  • "...Melanthidium Cockerell, T. D. A. (1947). A new genus of bees ..."
  • "...Stenanthidium Moure, J. S. (1947). Novos agrupamentos genéricos..."
  • "...Tetranthidium Moure, J. S. (1947). Novos agrupamentos genéricos e ..."

What does that mean? Are those synonyms?

Also, this a good source for distribution, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Melanthidium Cockerell, 1947, Stenanthidium Moure, 1947 and Tetranthidium Moure, 1947 are all synonyms of Anthidium Fabricius, 1804. The site does seem to be authoritative, so I would trust its distributions, too. I hadn't seen it before yesterday, so I can't really vouch for it, but it appears to have been made by qualified specialists. Note, however, that it only covers the Neotropical ecozone. If Anthidium is endemic to that region, then the information should be complete. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. I will any any missing info to the stubs. I spot-checked some stubs against this source, and I don't see any major errors in terms of synonyms. I hope the stubs turn out to be an asset to the project and not just a bunch of malarkey. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions

All of the Anthidium species listed at moure.cria.org.br are articles at Wikipedia. Three, however, are exceptions:

If that site is correct, then those three should be articles, and not redirects. Please advise, and I will stub them and add them to the list at Anthidium.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lepdioptera for GA

We have a reviewer for Lepidoptera! And he has started the review, for the most part it is grammar (of course). Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free credo accounts

Free accounts and access to a large database of references on Credo is being given to the first 400 Wikipedians who sign up, sign your name before its too late! I suggest reading the requirements first though. Sign here: WP:Credo accounts and if you meet the requirements, they will send information to your e-mail (make sure your e-mail is enabled in your preferences). Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to photograph a locust?

I've looked online for some tips but can't find any, I have caught five spur-throated locusts (classed as a pest in QLD and NSW) however, unlike other locusts it is hard to photograph alive without holding as it will fly off (can fly for a long distance). Bidgee (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only sugestion I can make is to be patient. Insects are sensitive to carbon dioxide, so avoid beathing on them. There also sensitive to shadows, try moving in as slowly as possible. Hope it helps, and tell me how it goes. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 11:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Insects&oldid=422399819"