Welcome!

Hello, VirenVaz/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Bart133 (t) 02:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

portuguese[edit]

Oh,Oh

Nymphalid list[edit]

Hi Viren, I have used only Krushnamegh's list for the Western Ghats and added it to the list of species found in the Oriental region. The current Nymphalid list definitely has species not reported from India and they need to be weeded out by someone who has access to all the available literature. Shyamal 03:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just got the Evans list posted by KK to ButterflyIndia. Shyamal 05:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images on commons[edit]

Hi Viren, Great work on the Red Pierrot. Please prefer commons to en.wikipedia for uploading images. That way other language authors can more or less copy the page and translate it without any trouble. You can duplicate the images on commons, i think the search order is first en and then commons. So for some other language it will first search and failing which it picks the image from commons. Shyamal 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I do is to just add the picture with the neccessary license information and then use it an article. Someone later comes along and categorizes it if needed. Shyamal 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link[edit]

check out Butterflies of Meghalaya Shyamal 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to South Asia[edit]

I thought about it a lot too. I guess some misinterpret the usage of the name 'Indian subcontinent' as a term glorifying India - so maybe I guess we should accept South Asia. But this makes it neccessary to define the geographic area being covered. I looked at Pamela Rasmussen's new bird guide which also uses South Asia in its title and the area covered is rectangular, stretching from the Indus drainage in the West to the tip of Arunachal in the East and from the Maldives in the South to somewhere North above Kabul. This would also include the Andaman and Nicobars and the Maldives. I guess we can add a map to the articles for now showing what we really cover. Shyamal 03:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butterflies of Indian sub continent moved[edit]

Can we really say that this list is applicable for the entire South Asia?? The "Indian subcontinent" is British term and it has been replaced by proper term "South Asia". There are seven countries in this region and have shared flora and fauna. We Pakistanis, and also other countries in the region, object to using this older colonial term. I would apprececiate if we could talk and come to mutual understanding. Thanks. User:Siddiqui

Hi Viren, I think I have messed up many of the articles now. I noticed that the page titles were incorrect with a the South Asia and I moved them to correct it and things look quite bad now :( Shyamal 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed most problems except with the Birds of South Asia pages which have been in existence for much longer. I agree with your approach.Shyamal 03:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finally decided that the Amphibians and Mammals pages should move, since South Asia is a too much to cover. For reptiles - the coverage is actually India and a little bit of Sri Lanka but maybe even that should be trimmed. I wrote to Ashok Captain to help with the reptiles... it is quite a mess of taxonomic changes. However I have added stubs for most species. I think we should put in stubs for all the butterfly species as well. Just the taxo boxes and a single line just giving the common name and scientific name. That helps get more people to add on stuff to it. I used EditPlus and used its record/play macro feature to good effect to make all the stubs. Shyamal 12:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your idea of splitting the page into subfamilies - esp for Nymphalidae. I found that TextPad is a bit better than EditPlus for recording and replaying macros. This is a feature which allows a set of keystrokes to be repeated. So for instance if you want to make a standard search followed by a copy and a paste at some other place along with some formatting, you can record your operations and repeat for the entire page. But i guess it is ok if you have found a way to do that in Excel. As for standard formats, I guess it will evolve as we go along and as more people join in. I would say that your articles form a good standard for the butterfly articles. Shyamal 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about List of Butterflies of India (Hesperidae) etc.. ? Shyamal 02:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image request[edit]

Hi Viren, there was a discussion on the topic on tree of life talk page and the consensus opinion was that the articles are written for readers and not for wikipedia contributors and therefore against any request for images. Shyamal 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junonia lemonias[edit]

I restored the image as requested. To the non-butterfly person, the two photos are very similar but they do provide slightly different information. My original intent was simply the image placement. Tax boxes lead to difficulties with text, often hiding words or the end of sentences when images are close by. So, I moved the two images below the tax box. Hope that works for you. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

I have added a few images and stubs. Not sure about the IDs of some.

I got another picture of a Palm Dart ??

Shyamal 10:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding more Lycaenid images as and when I photograph them. Here is another unidentified Lineblue or Cerulean.

Shyamal 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and these are some authors I could find.

Shyamal 06:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Name vs Common Name[edit]

I took my lead from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life which says "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles". Whatever our personal opinions, the Wikipedia standard seems to be to create the articles under the common name... Bluap 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion vote[edit]

Have added my keep vote. By past precedents it definitely doesnt deserve deletion. Shyamal 08:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we just have to add what we can. Not all Internet using naturalists understand that you get only what you put in. Yes, stub addition should probably help. Shyamal 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back[edit]

Hi Viren, Was wondering where you had vanished ! Now my turn to dissappear into the woods... will be off into Wynaad and Coorg next month ! Catch you after that, will have some butterfly pictures for wikipedia (and will need your help in IDs) 04:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Viren, Want to join your team[edit]

Dear Viren, Am an army officer and amateur naturalist. Butterfly-lover who picked up my interest in being an aurelian from Shri Thomas Gay in Pune in early eighties. Have done butterflying in Nilgiris, Maharashtra, Himalayas. Am interested to contribute to the Butterfly section. Shyamal told me that you are the MAN. So looking for orders, Sir ;-). Have a personal copy of 1932 Evans, Kunte and Haribal. Regards, AshLin 17:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled[edit]

Dear Viren, Your comment gave me the impression that you wikiload info on development stages only in the case of those butterflies you have reared. Puzzled. Firstly, a ton load of basic info exists in published sources which should flesh out our articles very well. I'm under the impression Wikipedia only wants published info and not original research. Should we re-invent the wheel?

Secondly, is giving attribution/reference adequate to extract info from the published sources. Do I need to take permission of each author before I quote (with attribution) from his published sources?

I shall depute myself for work on Papilionidae. They're my favourite family.

Have you approached ButterflyIndia for people to donate flicks? We'll really have to tackle this like a brainwashing or marketing spiel for people to give up IP voluntarily. :-)

Thanks for letting me on the team, AshLin 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and image issues[edit]

There is some interesting info here on Science Commons [1] From it one learns that

1) facts themselves are not copyrighted - the format and means for displaying data however can be copyrighted
2) copyright requires creative inputs - inventions can be patented
3) fair use - means that one can uses another person's work even verbatim as long as the author/copyright owner is given credit and that the extract is merely used in conjunction with other pieces of information to produce a new perspective. This is a fairly basic freedom that any field of study requires at least as far as the written word goes.
4) As regards images of course - there is a big difference, since there is creativity involved.

By and large I think most of the photography people add the (c) symbol just to keep their name and not really based on a real understanding of the idea of copyright. I think most people can be persuaded to add (cc) and their name instead of (c)! I tell some of the people about the attribution 2.5 license and most photographers seem to be ok with it. The only part is that it also allows commercial use and some are opposed to that.

Shyamal 11:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Work Done & Clarifications Sought[edit]

Just to clarify the issue once and for all, I've written a specific email to info-en@wikimedia.org asking them if we have to ask permission from each source we are citing/deriving info (not repeating verbatim). If you email me, I'll fwd it to you and the reply when recd. Also added 15 stubs so the entire Papilionidae are blue. Much more work reqd on them but its a start. I have also taken liberty of reclassifying Nevill's Windmill, separating Ceylon and Malabar Roses.Any objections. Sorry should have asked first but man on fire. I have also completed the list of Papilionids but in a different page - see Revised List of Butterflies of India (Papilionidae). My next job is to add stubs for all. Side by side populate with info once this business of citation gets sorted out. Regards, dog-tired AshLin 22:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Papilionid Family now has stubs for all Species[edit]

Phew, where do we go from here? Check out my future plans on my user page. AshLin 09:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Papilionidae - revised GloBIS/GART species checklist (2nd draft)[edit]

Its by Christoph L Hauser, in cooperation with Rienck de Jong, Gerardo Lamus, Robert K Robbins, Campbell Smith & Richard I Vane-Wright? Its downloadable as a PDF. Its link is on the Swallowtail Butterfly wikipage too. Amended as of 25th July 2005. Seriously, I'm not overjoyed by taxonomic review. I'm developing a format similar to the sarpedon site to deploy progressively as the info comes in see Scarce swallowtail. I must have a good look at your reference (Lepindex). Remember, I have intermittent internert - took me hours to upload my stubs.AshLin 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]