This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths 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.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Biota of Great Britain and IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandBiota of Great Britain and Ireland articles
Merge from List of moths of Great Britain (Saturniidae)[edit]
The List(s) of moths of Great Britain is a new project and likely to be a long time in coming to maturity. The family list on this (generic) page is in taxonomic sequence per UK texts. Micro families have still to be added into that sequence. It was my thought that "sub-pages" for sequential families might be merged in due course, but thought this merging could wait until the project had progressed further. Having some families' species listed on the generic page would look rather strange in my opinion—GRM (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with your last statement, maybe we should look at List of beetles of Great Britain again and find a better solution for it. I can't decide what would be best for naming these articles, for example List of moths of Great Britain (Cossidae) could be named List of leopard and goat moths of Great Britain which would bring it inline with other lists, as commons names seem to be preferable. You're doing great work, I'll help out any time I can. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think about it, I'm tending to agree with the List of moths of Great Britain (family) naming system, everything becomes more consistent and looks more organised, especially if organised in categories. Jack (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]