Talk:Leptofoenus pittfieldae

"Species"
I removed the following statement:


 * "Identification of L. pittfieldae from modern members of the species is through a number of characters."

This is impossible. If it is an extinct species there are no modern members of the species. Millifolium (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I readded the removed text as it was all referenced and the sentence in question was fixed by changing "species" to "genus"--Kevmin (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing it to genus helps, but it still isn't clear what you are saying. It is true that all the text that I removed was referenced, but as far as I could tell it wasn't saying anything.  So either I just couldn't figure out its meaning because it was too confusing, in which case it needs to be fixed, or it actually wasn't saying anything, in which case it should be removed.  I've tried to clarify the article once more, see if you agree with my interpretation.  Note that this currently doesn't meet the size requirements for DYK, you are going to have to add more information.  Millifolium (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok now i do not agree with the changes. The information was from the type description and is information often included in articles on extinct taxa, such as accession numbers of known specimens when the number of specimens is small.

(moved from User talk:Millifolium) I saw the comment on the my DYK nomination for Leptofoenus pittfieldae. Im not certain what information you think is not relevant to the article, could you give examples? I didnt include the other genera in this article as it is not something generally done with species level articles that I have seen. I will create a genus level article at Leptofoenus to encompass the general information of 5 living species and the extinct L. pittfieldae. --Kevmin (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should be written for a general (although educated) public. Things like the accession number of the one specimen, and a detailed description of the exact wing venation aren't particularly useful.  Given that almost nothing is known about the species, some background on the genera is necessary, otherwise you are not really saying anything about this species except that it exists.  For instance, I can't tell from the article if Leptofoenus pittfieldae is the only species of Leptofoenus, or merely the only species that there is a fossil record for.  This makes the article very confusing.  I found the article very confusing and tried to make it more clear, but you reverted my edits.  You have since corrected a couple errors, but it still needs work to be understandable.  I have tried again to edit it, see what you think.  Millifolium (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will take a look and I would ask in return that you look through some of the articles on taxa known only from the fossil record as these are what I have been basing my article creation on. Accession numbers, especially for species known from a single specimen are notable and thus should be included. I would suggest we take the issues to the article talk page and see if we can reach some compromises.  The lack of general information is to be expected since there is only the type description to work with.--Kevmin (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Im not sure why the details of the identification section are not to be included in the section. Yes this is an encyclopedia for everyone, and who is to say they will not want to know what the specifics are? What about the antenna is different? what about the wings is different? also why the complete removal holotype from the article along with the journal where the description was published?--Kevmin (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The journal where the description was published wasn't removed. You've referenced it at least a dozen times, and it appears in the reference section at the bottom.  There is just no need to reference a reference with that same reference - that's redundancy.  That citation you provided for the statement that the species was described by Dr. Michael S. Engel tells us where the description was published, you don't need to do it twice.  Saying that the only specimen ever discovered is the holotype is also redundant, and not particularly interesting.  Of course it's the holotype, anyone who knows what a holotype is will know that, anyone who doesn't won't care.  I just thought it was unnecessary, and negatively impacted the flow of the sentence.  I think that this article is looking much better, and it would be good for a DYK if you add in some general info about the extant members of the genus so we have some idea what this species might be like.  Just one sentence would be great, like "The modern members of this genus are parasitoid wasps that live in tropical forests." (I obviously have know idea if this is true, I just made it up for an example.)  But I still think you need to fix the hook, I find the current one confusing.  Does something like "The only member of the Leptofoenus genus of wasps in the fossil record is known from a single specimen that was found in the Caribbean" work? Millifolium (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that species description is much better. I'm just making a few very minor copy edits. I still think that you should add in some general info about the extant members of the genus. Millifolium (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)