Talk:Monarch butterfly migration

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 4 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itb4030.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Progress
This article is making good progress with some rather elderly and sometimes flaky materials. Some of the old citations from 2009 make use of TV programs, hardly ideal for a scientific article, and should likely be fact-checked and replaced with scientific sources. This might involve removing or rewriting some of the claims made.

Other paragraphs are simply uncited and could be WP:OR given the age of the material and the pop-science nature of the topic.

There is quite a lengthy section on theory, which mainly concerns animal navigation. I've inserted a main link; most of what is said looks quite general (not only monarchs, not only butterflies, and often not only insects use many of those mechanisms), so it would likely be appropriate to cut the section down leaving only a brief summary of animal navigation in general, and a short summary of what is specific to monarchs.

The citations are in a wide range of styles with many empty parameters. It would be helpful to choose one format for dates, and one for names.Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for identifying the progress being made on this article. I certainly appreciate the assistance, since for such a while I have not received much feedback concerning any of the articles that I have created or have made major contributions. I think this article will be better for your input.

As for the elderly and flaky materials, you will soon notice, ifyou haven't already, that the information from these sources will be expanded quite a bit with journal articles, government publications and other scholarly references. But your point is valid, better and more references are necessary. I happened to have the PBS program around and so I watched it.

The lengthy theory section related to the migration of the monarch differs quite markedly from the general topic of animal migration for a number of reasons. Some of the study methods are unique to the study of monarch migration. The topic is notable and differs from animal migration because of: the distance travelled during the migration, the multigenerational aspect of the migration, the cues and timing of the migration, the physiological state of dormancy during which the butterfly migrates(!), the number of animals participating in the migration (perhaps half a billion), the visibility of the migration and the public interest in the migration. In addition, the study of the migrations involves conservation organizations with big budgets, tri-lateral conferences between governments, interests of indigenous people groups in Mexico and the recent petition submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency to declare the monarch threatened with extinction along with the declaration that the migration is an endangered phenomena. A lot of people, a lot of non-profits, a lot of governmental agencies, some agricultural interests and even state transportation departments are being affected by the topic of this article. President Obama recently issued a memorandum regarding the migration. I don't believe he has probably commented on animal migration in general. If someone does a search on monarch butterfly migration on google you will find more than two dozen articles from news sources (not even included yet in the article) discussing the migration - and this has been in the last few months. A search on the topic of animal migration invaribly leads back to using the migration of the monarch as some kind of poster child for the general migration of animals.

At this point in time, I have not even been able to add the numerous other theories that exist and are not included in the article. The study of monarch butterfly is unique and quite different than that of animal migration. Perhaps I will work on the animal migration article after this one.

An article exists on insect migration and lepidopteran migraton, too. But these articles are also limited in their scope. Let's work together on this, I certainly appreciate your perspective and suggestions.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Move to article talk
We should probably move the discussion to this talk page since we are spending some effort reverting edits. I am pretty sure that we can improve the article by working together. Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

References for Instinct
I've got a stack of references here next to my laptop waiting to be added to the article. I guess I am asking for just a little more time to get them put in before you are tempted to merge something or delete. If you can, would you let me know what you are changing. I have read your edits but I am unfamiliar with some of the acronyms/abbreviations that are used. I apologize for my lack of knowledge. Regards,  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 17:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments
50.111.8.229 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)I am grateful for this wonderful article. Regarding the first illustration: The titles are in German, even though this is the English Wikipedia. I would be grateful if it were possible to convert the titles into English. (I also cannot figure out how to pause the changes in the figure. I might be able to figure out the German titles if I could pause the changes.  Otherwise, my German is just not fast enough.)50.111.8.229 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bfpage asked me to comment on this article, with some concern about reversions. I can't immediately see reversions or negative editing in the history, and the two other recent contributors are both experienced editors. Bfpage, if you have specific concerns, please provide diffs for the edits that you are unhappy with.

Some further comments
 * ✅ There shouldn't normally be refs in the lead section. It summarises the article, so everything should be referenced in the body of the text anyway
 * ✅ MoS says headings should be lower case after first word, some are capitalised with every word, eg Southern Migration
 * ✅ there shouldn't be links within headings at any level
 * Having subheadings for single paragraphs, and in some cases single sentences, is poor style, looks like a tabloid newspaper. Merge the subsections to get flowing text rather than soundbites
 * The possibility of an inherited map has been posited suggesting that the butterflies may follow streams and recognize landmarks.[35][60][61][62][63][64][65]— seven refs for one statement seems excessive. If all are really needed, group them together in one ref
 * A content point. There is no mention that this butterfly regularly crosses the Atlantic in small numbers. I've seen Monarchs in Cornwall
 * Countries, continents and US states don't really need linking
 * Lots of inconsistency in refs Surname, fist name or first name, surname? Stick to one style, and never have full caps like BROWER, LINCOLN P.
 * Article titles vary in capitalisation style, probably following the original. Stick to one consistent style
 * Web-only refs must have a publisher and access date (not needed for web versions of real documents
 * The uncited sections of the text obviously need citations, especially as one appears to be just opinion as it stands

I realise that this is a work in progress, so just pointers. I've deliberately avoided editing the article myself, so that if Bfpage, or any other editor, can highlight edit-warring or other undesirable practices I remain an uninvolved admin. I've watchlisted this page now

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, I can't see any reverts either. Bfpage was worried about my recent edits being reverted, but I can't see that. You are lucky to see the butterflies .  A few months ago I was telling Bfpage that I would see them all the time, but not anymore.  Mass migrations every few years or so would go thru the valley I live in, but I haven't seen any migrations since '92.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I will use your suggestions above as a checklist over the next couple of weeks to bring everything up to standard. As for the monarch appearing in Cornwall, the topic of "Range" is in the article on the monarch butterfly per the accepted layount style in leps.  It is interesting, though, because the range of the monarch is so large = worldwide, as a matter of fact and of reference, it makes it difficult to justify making the point of imminent extinction make sense in the article.  A better term would be exterpation (not extinction) but then none of the sources that I have found even use that term. Redefining the terms is something that I am pretty sure is not a good idea, since there are no references to do that.  It probably against some wp policy, anyway. I can't tell you how wonderful it is to have two more pairs of experienced eyes looking over my shoulders making sure I do not make profound blunders.  I really do hope to bring this article up to FA status, it would be my first.    Bfpage &#124;[[User talk:Bfpage|leave a

message]] 03:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic but relevant
I subscribe to different listserves that follow the monarch butterfly migration. I can't possibly keep up with the dozens of articles that are published daily in the media so I will post them here on the talk page for any interested parties:

news story news story news story news story

"The Travels of Monarch X" (1966)
In 1966, there was a book by Ross E. Hutchins, titled "The Travels of Monarch X" about the tagging of a Monarch butterfly in the Northeastern United States and following the flight to Mexico. I'm not sure when this fits in the history of learning about their migration - I haven't seen my copy of the book in well over 35 years, but from what I remember, it seemed to be fairly early on in tracing their migration. If anyone still has a copy of this, it might be worth including in this article. Jtyroler (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Jtyroler . Can you believe it? I have that book myself right now in my library. I thought once that we should have a section in either the monarch butterfly article or the monarch migration article under the title of children's literature. How do you think that would work out?
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 20:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bfpage - I think Monarch X should be mentioned in at least the Monarch Migration page - it seems to be an early study of their migration, albeit written for a young audience. IMHO it probably should be mentioned in both articles.  I think it's great that you still have your copy of the book - I probably bought my copy at school through the Weekly Reader or Scholastic Book Fair. Jtyroler (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * what a great conversation we are havingJtyroler. If there is even this much interest between you and I, then I bet we could even put together an article possibly called monarch butterfly children's literature. I have a friend who has written at least two books on the monarch butterfly for children. I wonder if the copyright has expired on Monarch X? It would be wonderful if we could use a photo of the book cover in this proposed, new article. So what you think?
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bfpage I don't know if the copyright has expired on Monarch X, but, looking at the page on Amazon.com, it's out of print. There are photos of the book cover on the Amazon page, but I don't know if it's available per Wikipedia's terms.  Would a page need to be started for each book and then a list of butterfly books for children. I don't know anything about the author, but, we should be able to get the publication info from the Amazon page. Jtyroler (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Swarming template
Hi Bfpage, well done on a nice article. However, you might reconsider the validity of the swarming template. You removed it with the edit summary, Monarchs have never been described as swarming; scientists call it roosting"''. In fact it is not unusual for |swarming&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= scientists to talk about swarming in the context of monarch butterflies. Sure |roosting&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5"roosting" is used as a specific term when referring to a swarm of monarchs resting at a site. But "swarm" is still valid as the more general term, just as it is the general term for "schooling" fish or "flocking" birds. The template has a group devoted to migrating animals and insects that display swarm characteristics, and monarch butterflies fit squarely within that group. By removing the navigation template you are removing all the relevant links to similar swarming and migration behaviours. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh! I think I know what you are saying-swarming is the plural term of a group of butterflies. Is that right?  Or do you mean that swarming refers to a moving group of butterflies?  Either way, I believe I made a mistake in removing the template.  Feel free to revert, it was my mistake.  Thanks for being so diplomatic about it!  You have a new friend.
 * Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

B-Class criteria checklist
The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:

References

Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?

Scope

Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?

Layout and organization

Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?

Well written

Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?

Supporting materials

Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?

Understandable

Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.

Input anyone?


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 02:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monarch butterfly migration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305034410/http://ipm.osu.edu/trans/053_231.htm to http://ipm.osu.edu/trans/053_231.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104180128/http://www.wwf.org.mx/wwfmex/prog_bosques_fs_mm.php to http://wwf.org.mx/wwfmex/prog_bosques_fs_mm.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)