Talk:Venezuelan poodle moth

Image
The image going around the internet is by the discoverer and photographer Dr. Arthur Anker and can be found on his Flickr feed here. But I don't know the ins and outs of putting Flickr photos on Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia. Someone more versed want to weigh in? TuckerResearch (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving from Flickr to Commons is technically not an issue, however the image in question is marked as copyrighted so cannot be used. If you have a flickr account you could make a request to change the license of the photograph.--Traveler100 (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

redirect?
i cut this from the article--clearly not the place for it:


 * This name is made by the Photographer Arthur Anker and the correct name is already exist in Wikipedia in the following refrences
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombyx_mori
 * http://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2012/08/mystery-of-venezuelan-poodle-moth-have.html
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/artour_a/4207478815/in/set-72157603542118616

Please make a redirect link to the existing information about this Moth [Posted by User:Altaye6]


 * I checked out these "sources." They prove no such thing. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Snopes
An IP user made an edit with the subject line: "This is a trash article on a potential hoax, check snopes. Article should be axed IMO."

Well, I did check Snopes.com, here is the article: "Venezuelan Poodle Moth." The article points out that some pictures making the rounds are of "the Bombyx mori, also known as the (China) silkworm moth." But then the article shows the actual picture of the "so-called Venezuelan poodle moth," which is the same one referenced in this article. Far from stating that the Venezuelan poodle moth itself is a hoax, it says some of the pictures purporting to be it are hoaxes. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Pakistani poodle moth


User:Iqra Khalid Awan, to add to this article you have to have a source citation to a secondary source. Like a news article, a magazine article, an academic journal article, or a reputable scientific blog of some sort. You can't just use your word and a picture. If this picture is of a legitimate moth in Pakistan, it is likely not the same species as the Venezuelan poodle moth. (Can an lepidopterologist help with identification of this image?)

See the following articles:


 * No original research
 * Citing sources
 * Reliable sources

Cheers. TuckerResearch TuckerResearch (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And, of course, compare to the original "Venezuelan poodle moth" picture in the external image link provided. TuckerResearch TuckerResearch (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Answer to above question :)
The moth in the picture seems to be a Bombyx Mori (also known as a common silk moth), and its the one that is often confused with Venezuelan poodle. The difference between the two is that the poodle is a wild variety of the domestic silkmoth (b. Mori), and lives in the wild, but b. Mori is an indtirely human reliant species. You would have to see the wing patterns to be sure, and possible the gender, but the most likely conclusion is that it is in fact a member of the bombyx family, however, with that singular image, I can’t actually tell which species, but we could assume it was what the user uploaded. Hope this helped!

Status
Are they endangered considering the few actually photographs 104.251.79.15 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Authenticity of Citation 1
Citation 1 at this point links to 'The Christian Post,' and this topic seems to be somewhat outside their expertise. Even the snopes article previously mentioned cites it. At time of writing, The Atlantic Wire is not available, leaving The Christian Post as the only source. It could be worth finding another source, or even contacting Dr. Anker himself about this. If he actually does have "a total of 75 photos of the species," it seems realistic that he'd be willing to publish one under CC that could be used in the article. Additionally, he may have even mentioned the species in a paper. This is my first ever Wikipedia edit, so apologies for any faux pas. 14:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.67.176 (talk)
 * The problem is that Anker posted the photo on Flickr, and the activity surrounding it has vanished into the internet ether. There ARE no reliable external sources, and there has never been a follow-up. Essentially the only source is the Flickr image itself. Dyanega (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Don’t delete
It was an internet phenomenon, and it has seven citations. If you want to merge it to something else, okay. But, c'mon, Wiki is not paper. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC) TuckerResearch (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I know, I know: I started the article. And, yes, some of the sources are "news" and "speculative blog posts."  But, it is a term that is searched (Google Trends "Venezuelan poodle moth"; Google Trends "poodle moth"), and it should have a landing page on Wikipedia.  It is in books now (Google Books "Venezuelan poodle moth").  Yes, some books are self-published, some are for kids, but even academic presses have got in on the act.  See Gardening for Moths from the Ohio University Press: "Moths can be furry-some fantastically so-like the Venezuelan Poodle Moth (species not yet formally named), whose image and discovery went viral. People were understandably enamored with this moth's huge eyes and overall cuddly cuteness. Though resembling fur, moths' hair is actually modified extensions of their chitinous scales. It would be logical to presume that furriness in moths serves as insulation to keep the moth cozy during cooler night temperatures, and it does. However, the trait is also perplexingly seen in diurnal and tropical species."  People are going to search for it.  Wikipedia is the place where properly-NPOV, properly-sedate, and properly-filtered and encyclopedic information can be found about it.  Hopefully, one day, it will get a scientific name and an academic article.  But, it has enough notability, I reckon, to stay.  I say keep (or, at the least, merge and redirect as a subsection of genus Artace). TuckerResearch (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Since you've raised the possibility of redirecting to a subsection of Artace, I suppose it should be discussed more directly. Your point about notability, while true in a literal sense, is still sort of marginal by Wikipedia's overall standards, and the "seven citations" are pretty redundant, and pretty old. As "viral news items" go, this one was a pretty small one, and if there was such a thing as a "notability meter", it would be ranking pretty low, and getting lower with each passing year. I'm personally pretty deep in the field within which any systematic effort to find and identify this moth would be taking place, and I can say with some confidence that no one is actively looking. We don't have teams of moth researchers carrying machetes out there in the jungle, on the hunt. There are a small number of Venezuelan entomologists who, during their travels in the field, might accidentally come across this moth species, and a handful of them might have heard of the "poodle moth" story, and know to send specimens to moth researchers to get them identified. I wouldn't hold my breath. The point is that if this information is to be kept in Wikipedia, until and unless the species is identified, the most appropriate way to retain it would be as a small section in the Artace article, to which THIS page would become a redirect. If you consider this to be acceptable, then I'll see about finding time to make it happen. Dyanega (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * See: Articles for deletion/Venezuelan poodle moth to register your opinion there too. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)