User talk:Adityavagarwal/Archives/2017/January

Piercolias
Hello there and thank you very much for your edit on Piercolias! We're badly in need of more editors interested in Lepidoptera, or any interest that allows them to occasionally throw in some edits to Lepidoptera articles.

We usually omit the Kingdom, Phylum, Class and Order&mdash;especially articles on the lowest taxa like species and genera. For one, most of that information can already be found through the taxobox on the side, but also because it tends to clutter up the lead somewhat&mdash;and most leads have a wikilink to higher taxa that mention the exact taxonomical placement. (Most genus/species articles have in the lead at least a link to a family or subfamily (and not infrequently, both), and a link to the more generic moth or butterfly articles.) As such, I've removed the Kingdom/phylum/class/order from the article again.

To draw an analogy&mdash;mentioning the Animal Kingdom in the lead of an article on a genus or species is like starting the lead of an article on a particular (traditionally-published) book by mentioning that it is a text printed with ink on paper. Entirely correct, of course, but perhaps better fitting on a general article about books than that of a specific book. It's probably not the information readers are first and foremost looking for when they check out a specific book.

I have of course left the information about the name being a replacement for Trifurlcula alone, because that's information that indeed should be mentioned explicitly on the article. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * For the same reason, I have just reverted your edits to Platychora and Capnolocha praenivalis. Please orient yourself on the format of other species articles when editing - you will find that none of them has a section (bolded and arrowed or not) that just recounts the entire phylogeny. Good luck! - Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Won't it be easier and more readable if the arrows were included and yeah I will try to add more to the Piercolias as you said since it has very less information ?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not really. The taxobox on the right side of the article already has that function, except instead of using arrows it arranges it from high (the higher taxa) to low (the lowest applicable taxon). As a result, repeating that information in the article text is highly redundant to the taxobox. Furthermore, information regarding taxonomy generally can be split into either 'obvious, basic knowledge' or 'pretty expert knowledge', with not very much in between.
 * That a moth's Animalia and Insecta even those without interest in entomology will probably know&mdash;even if they're likely to call it by the English names 'animal' and 'insect' and may perhaps not have memorized the taxon rank of Insecta. On the other hand, ranks like phylum and subclass are likely to only be of interest to people with at least a passing knowledge of taxonomy, who would mostly* have no difficulty reading and understanding the taxoboxes; the order of the taxon ranks is clearly high-to-low. (Readers that use a text-to-voice program may have some difficulty in specific cases, as I hardly know if every taxobox on every part of the project is used-as-should, but I believe that generally our taxoboxes follow the infobox accessibility how-to guide; furthermore, that issue wouldn't be solved by the edit reverted.)
 * As a guide-of-thumb, a taxon does not need to be mentioned outside the taxobox if:
 * it is general, common knowledge (e.g. moths belong to Insecta and Animalia) effectively redundant to information already given that can commonly be understood by a layman (e.g. that the article's subject is a moth)
 * it is expert knowledge neither germane to a general understanding of the article nor the least bit specific to the article's exact subject. (Taxa applicable to a far, far wider group of species or genera than the article's subject and those most closely related to it, especially taxa applicable to a wider group than the most specific term in the lead a layman can be expected to understand--e.g. every butterfly is by definition an arthropod, and so is every member of every other kind of insect, whereas only some butterflies and no other insects are Pieridae; ergo, Pieridae is in effect a modifier of 'butterfly': you're basically saying "X is not just a butterfly, it's part of this specific group of butterflies". That's useful knowledge. Saying "X is a butterfly, and like every other butterfly (and many, many non-butterflies) under the sun, it's an arthropod", not so much. People looking for information on what exactly a butterfly is, are wont to go to the butterfly article, not that of one of its tens of thousands of species)
 * There are some other cases as well, but those require a bit more specific knowledge and are at least in part a matter of taste/style. I'm glad to hear you're looking to add some more information to Piercolias. You're right that it has very little information--the result of having ~100000 articles on butterflies and moths floating about, and only about a dozen editors working on them. If you have any questions or want help, please do feel free to ask me. (And please don't take up my comment above too harshly; I'm responding in-depth because I think you could be a great editor, not because I think you're a particularly bad one.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I took your responding in depth and also the previous message too happily, as you replied so much in depth and really were too polite and kind in your previous message too, there may be very few words to describe your devout nature to help, because replying in depth for me to understand was really niceAdityavagarwal (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC).Also can I find a list or something regarding the moths and the plants to edit like in one place?Is Xyloryctidae the one, but this is not the generic for the insects right?
 * I'm glad that you considered my response so helpful. One thing: In wikipedia conversations like here, custom is to indent one time more than the message you're responding to, so folks can understand which exact message you're responding to. In a conversation between two people, it's not a big deal, because there's not likely to be much confusion&mdash;but when you're in a conversation with a lot of people, it can become difficult to figure out who is responding to what message otherwise. To give an example:

Apples are awesome! -ILoveApples
 * Bananas are even better! -BananasForever!
 * No, they're not! -IHateFruit

In this example, fictional User:IHateFruit is responding to (the equally fictional) User:BananasForever! and disavows the awesomeness of bananas. However, if the indentation had been different, like this:

Apples are awesome! -ILoveApples
 * Bananas are even better! -BananasForever!
 * No, they're not! -IHateFruit

User:IHateFruit would be responding to User:ILoveApples, saying that no, apples are not awesome.

Of course, in a long conversation, the indentation can get a bit far, skewing the messages into a very small part of the page.
 * Like this, for example.
 * Even a pretty short answer like this now gets skewed to the right and will easily get split over several lines, not because it's long (it isn't) but just because of how far it's been indented.

That can become pretty difficult to read and just annoying in general. At that point, you use the outdent-template (by typing like I did at the start of this line) to 'out'dent the conversation while still making clear you're responding, not starting a whole new discussion.

As to a full list of, say, all insects, no, that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. (It would become very unwieldy, too. There's over a million described insect species. About 180000 species of Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), about 400000 species of Coleoptera (beetles), about 150000 Hymenoptera (wasps, bees, ants and sawflies), 125000 Diptera (true flies) and various other orders, and the current estimate is that there's a couple million more insects still waiting to be discovered and/or described) However, articles like the one you found&mdash;Xyloryctidae&mdash;are pretty useful in finding articles to edit. Those are articles about families of a particular kind (Xyloryctidae, for example, is a moth family) and usually either list the genera in it, or if it's further divided into subfamilies and such, those subfamilies. Otherwise, the categorization structure might be useful to you. For example, Category:Lepidoptera has various subcategories through which you can find moth/butterfly articles. Trying to edit all of them is going to take a long, long time, though&mdash;even if you make a hundred edits every day, you'd spend most of the next three years editing just Lepidoptera articles&mdash;and it's probably easier to just start with an article or two and improve those. If you want, I could mention a few articles that could use some improvement and send you a few links to sources. I've got a pretty long list of articles I intend to work on at some point but haven't gotten around to yet, and it's a lot easier for you to start working on them if you know there is information known but not yet included and where to find it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I knew about the indentation thing but not the outdent thing. I overlooked the indentation the previous time, or perhaps many more times. But yeah I will take care of it as you said. Also, your replies are really good, elaborated, comprehensible, etc., you pointed out my mistake so politely and also made sure that I learned the indentation thing presuming that I did not know that. This is something really good, since I never saw anybody replying from the basics other than myself. Your reply was so good, elaborated, etc. that I feel bad asking for any help from you since I feel that it might be a wastage of time for you. Even though wikipedia is open and where obviously helpful people are found due to it being open, still I feel beholden if anybody helps me and especially so much. I instead feel nice helping others in return of no help whatsoever. So yeah thank you very much, and also there are these links which have suborders, and all which are not included in the taxobox, so I thought of including those but as you said there are a lot of articles for each subfamily and any class in general, so it might be better to improve them individually and completely as much information as found.Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I did not know that if i replied with the same indentation level, that meant I was replying to the person with a level of indentation lesser than that of my replied message. For more than one replies to a message if I had to reply to somebody among those who replied to the message, I would not shift the indentation to a level deeper. I instead would reply with the same indentation level, just like your second of the apples examples. I only knew the ones of the kind of the first of your apples examples.But if I look at it now, then it is such an obvious thing that I did not know.Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Never feel that asking for my help is a waste of my time! If I felt sharing knowledge was a waste of time, I wouldn't be on Wikipedia to start with, y'know? Not that much difference between sharing knowledge in the form of an article or in the form of helping a new editor&mdash;especially one as eager to learn as you are. (If all editors had your willingness to ask for help when needed, to listen to advice when given and to improve, we'd certainly have a lot less drama on the site. A good editor isn't one who never makes a mistake&mdash;that's only possible if you never edit to start with. Rather, it's the one who, when they make mistakes, makes them in good faith and learns from them, always striving to have their edits be an improvement to the site or article). Besides, if me helping a few editors here and there helps even just one or two of them stick around, it's a net benefit to the site&mdash;because two or three editors can do a whole lot more than one. When those editors I help stick around are willing to work in often-neglected parts of the site (like articles on insect species and genera, in your case) it's a pretty big benefit, too. We've certainly got hundreds of editors willing to make sure football-players have the amount of goals scored updated within a day or two of a match, but we've got maybe two dozen editors willing and able to help expand moth species articles.
 * Yeah, I figured that you might or might not know the basic indentation trick, but hadn't yet picked up on the rest of it. You would've figured it out yourself sooner or later, but Wikipedia's got a pretty steep learning curve and you can hardly learn everything by yourself at the same time. If I'm talking with you and I notice, I might as well explain it so you learn it now rather than in a week or two, no? Saves you time, so you can get around to learning other parts of the site faster, which in turn eventually saves me time too, because it means you can get around to improving articles faster, which means I can focus on a few other articles to expand, or maybe build upon information you've started adding.
 * Yeah, the different articles don't all include the same information in the taxobox. In some cases that's a deliberate choice (especially subfamilies and lower when the taxonomical placement of a genus or species is disputed, sometimes with higher taxa that are monotypic and thus all redirect to one article), in other cases it's that no one's gotten around to adding it yet, and in yet other cases it's that no one really cares if that particular info is in the infobox.
 * Unless you're dealing with something specific that you know needs to be implemented among a large amount of articles&mdash;and you have a pretty good idea of exactly which articles those are, where to find them and there aren't too many possible exceptions muddying the water&mdash;yeah, it's usually a lot easier to just work on an article or two at a time. Certainly when it comes to expanding the available information, because that's rarely something that can be mass-implemented. After all, what information is available on species A may not be available on species B, and even if it is available for both, chances are you need to look at a lot of different references to find it.
 * In regards to references, please do double-check that the reference you're adding isn't one that copies its information from Wikipedia to start with. Those sites are known as "wiki-mirrors", and can't be used as a reliable source any more than Wikipedia itself can. After all, if we make a mistake, the text they copy will have that mistake included. If someone then comes around a month later, sees the mistake and decides "well, that looks like something that needs a reference..." and adds a wiki-mirror as source, we're basically perpetuating our own mistake, except it now looks vaguely reliable, making it less likely other folks will notice it and correct it and makes it slightly more likely yet other sources might copy our info, not looking very closely at the references. (Which, then, in return might be added as another source, potentially ad infinitum). Sites that have 'wiki' in the name very often are wiki-mirrors, but some other sites are as well. (I'm saying this because you added revolvy.com as a ref on Capnolocha yesterday. Kuru removed that link pretty soon after, but I wasn't sure if you had seen it, so I figured I'd throw in a quick mention/explanation). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know. There is some really logical person who understands the point, instead of being like a typical "know it all" who often tends to be brusque and doesn't care much. This is because I never talked to such a person who understands things "literally" by keeping themselves in others shoes. You were more than right when you explained your point of explaining indentation to me, as I would have done the same instead of waiting for the editor to learn it after a few days.
 * Yeah I was asking about the wikipedia mirror thing the other day, as I did not want to trouble you with more questions. I was confused if wikipedia took it from the other website or the other website took it from wikipedia, but yeah it makes more sense to think that the other website took it from wikipedia, as the edits might have been reverted right away due to copyright issues. No wonder you explained to me even this mistake when it came to your mind. This is so appreciated. Not even in Mozilla Firefox do you find such extremely helpful people, but since it is open so it purely might depend upon the nature of the person.
 * Of course I would listen to advices given by anybody and improve on my mistakes, as it makes less sense not to listen to them and also not improving yourself.This is not what many do, I agree, whose reasons are unfathomable to me. The line added by you "that's only possible if you never edit to start with" was so cool, as you enumerate the possibilities,even though this might not be a very significant thing to say in this context, as it is apparent, yet it shows that you are too clear to anybody and you make sure that one may have less doubts after you explain anything to them. The "!" added by you makes one feel at ease and comfort at asking any questions to you. "y'know?" and "no?" also adds to it. Even though many may be good at anything they tend to be distant and aloof so that the other feels that this distant person knows a lot and has a lot of respect for him just because he seems to have a lot of knowledge, but "A good editor isn't one who never makes a mistake&mdash;" is less said by anybody who knows a lot in that area. They say "Oh yeah this was such an easy thing you din't know you should have atleast known this." or something like that, but they might often tend to forget that when they were new, they might as well have had such "easy" things that they did not know. I am saying all of this because it is so rare for somebody to be like this, none of whom I know, that it is really cool, since I understand the exact similar things and would have replied similarly if I were in your place.Not to mention, your smile emoticon and a polite and kind reply to improve my mistake instead of being harsh, and also stating "And please don't take up my comment above too harshly" even though you did not seem harsh in any sense. When I first saw this and many more things in your message, I was thinking how nice a reply it was.
 * I also added my name in the so that I may know more articles to be edited and which are in need of any edits. Also, make sure you ask me any help you need, not only because you were so helpful, as I help people irrespective of they return or not, but also because you understand things being in their place.Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Some Lepidoptera things you could do
I've started a new subsection here, even though I'm also in part responding to your message above. That's because our conversation was growing pretty long and I figured it might be helpful to have a specific section to scroll to to find this information. Anyway, first the response to the above:

Again, I'm glad you find my responses so helpful, and I'm flattered by how nice you consider me to be. (I do try to be, of course, but only when doing so is a reasonable course of action. If instead of making a few perfectly understandable mistakes in good faith, you'd been replacing the page with swear words or other petty vandalism, I would have been a lot less friendly, and if I tried to help you and you'd started attacking me, I probably would've dropped your talkpage off my watchlist really quick. No point in being friendly and patient towards people who prefer to be abusive to either the project or me. Turning the other cheek is nice in theory, turning around and walking away from the situation usually works better, possibly with reporting them to folks who can do something about it if necessary, like with vandals and other such folks) I'll also admit I find it really helpful of you to explain what in my post helps make you feel comfortable. Usually folks don't really go into detail even when they acknowledge something was (or wasn't) helpful and it's sometimes difficult to judge if what you're trying to say is also what the other reads in your message. I'm glad that is indeed the case.

Yes, when folks have been around for a while, it can sometimes be easy to forget how new and difficult it all is when you're just getting started. I'm sometimes guilty of that myself, I just try to think 'okay, but is it reasonable that I expect them to know?' before saying it. (This doesn't really go for minor mistakes like those you made-those are easy enough to recognize as perfectly good-faith, enthusiastic contributions by someone who simply hasn't been around long enough yet to know every darn little pesky rule, policy, guideline, tradition and habit this place has. Some stuff that on-the-face looks like a deliberate attempt to sabotage can be a bit harder to recognize as good-faith, though&mdash;especially if you've seen very similar if not identical things done by people indeed acting maliciously).

I'm glad that you're asking around when unsure of something, that is after all one of the best ways to learn. Still, like I said before, don't be afraid to ask me. Worst that can happen is that I'm busy at the moment you're asking and you might have to wait a bit on a response. Long as you don't mind that, I don't mind answering questions.

Now, onto Lepidoptera stuff you could do. Mind you, these are just suggestions. I'm not saying you have to do any of these, or all of these, or that there's nothing else Lepidoptera-related you could do. If none of those are your cup of tea, that's perfectly fine&mdash;and if you have more specific ideas on what kind of work you'd like to do, by all means state it and I'll help you find out how to do it, where to look, where to find the appropriate articles and what pitfalls to look out for.


 * Common names of the species, genus or family the article is about. Those should be in bold on first occurrence, and without capitals throughout the article (except for the obvious exceptions. If it's at the start of a sentence, the first word should be capitalized. If it's a word that's always capitalized in English (mostly names of countries, geographical features and people), that word should remain capitalized. As a result, it's "Behr's hairstreak", because Behr is the surname of the person the species was named after, but "common white" because neither 'common' nor 'white' are "proper nouns" (which should always remain capitalized, in case you're not familiar with the term). Most but not all moth articles mentioning common names have this correctly by now, but there's still a lot of butterfly articles that have Unnecessarily Capitalized Names hanging around.


 * Scientific names of genera and species should always be in italics, including synonyms. If they're the subject of the article, they should also be bold on first occurrence. (So "Name is a genus of moths in the family Gelechiidae" (because the article is about that genus and that sentence clearly is the start of an article), but "It includes the following species: Species name, Another name and Third name", because those clearly aren't the article's subject, so they shouldn't be bold, but they're still scientific names of species, so they should be italicized). Most articles do this right, so it's not something worth looking for specifically, but it's good to know for those cases you come across it.


 * Verification and referencing. A lot of our articles are really lacking on the side of references, or have them but don't use them inline, and more than a few articles contain outright mistakes. Unfortunately, it comes fairly precise which references are reliable for exactly what content in regards to Lepidoptera, especially when it comes to taxonomy where even a few of the otherwise-reliable sources are often outdated.

One thing that generally doesn't require an extremely in-depth knowledge of Lepidoptera, wikipedia sourcing requirements and moth/butterfly-specific sources is the genus_authority and binomial_authority fields in the infobox. Ideally, those would all be referenced; in practice, only a very small portion is. The best source for this most likely is funet.fi, and the easiest way to find the page you need is often to just google "funet genus name". (Alternatively, if you already have the site open in a tab, you can use the internal search function) It misses a few genera/species, especially when they've been very recently described, but it has the great, great majority of them and makes very few mistakes. When it comes to those fields, the important parts are: If you look for a particular genus on funet and get redirected to a page on another genus, that means the name you're looking for is a synonym or at least considered so by funet. In those cases, don't reference the infobox but just point me (or another editor familiar with Lepidoptera/entomology) to the page; how much work it is to fix depends a lot from case to case and I'll see what exactly is off. (And if it's a fairly easy one and you want to be the one to fix it, I'll gladly explain how/what/why, too--I'm just not going to describe half a dozen different possibilities before you've even come across the issue. My responses are long enough as is, I'd say. )
 * Name. The name of the person (or names of the persons) who first described the genus or species. Does what we have in the infobox match what funet has directly after the genus or species name?
 * Year. See above.
 * Punctuation. Parentheses and square brackets have genuine meaning when it comes to taxon authorities. If funet has something like (Warren, [1916]) and we have Warren, [1916] or (Warren, 1916), that needs correction just as much as if we had (Warren, [1906]) or even (Walker, [1916]). (The presence or absence of a comma between name and year is purely stylistic, though, as is the choice for & or 'and' in case of multiple authorities, such as with various species described by Denis & Schiffermüller. There does seem to be a mild project-wide preference for & over and, but it's not wrong in and of itself, so if the information is otherwise correct, there's no reason to edit it for that alone)

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Categorization. Some of this is pretty pesky and requires a pretty in-depth knowledge both of how we usually categorize things and of Lepidoptera, but some of it is fairly simple and just requires someone to get around to doing it. No clue if you're at all interested in doing that, though, and even the fairly simple categories require some explanation, so just let me know if you want me to describe it in more detail. Figured that my response was already long enough to count as an essay without adding several paragraphs about categories to it. :)
 * Even if it were to be an essay, still it would have been on the positive side, as you rarely see such replies right? I think I might have read each of those so called essays two to three times due to it's perfectness and (not getting a word to describe it so AddAppropriateWordHere :) ). You were sure to include few more emoticons and wow was that so nice. I stopped using emoticons and all due to all these people swearing and all and indeed I also stopped using open communities due to that being one of the most dominant reasons, but I admit I had to write a few of them for those really nice replies.
 * I forgot to include the link -"the so"- in between there was supposed to be this WikiProject Animals/Participants. I suppose it is regarding moths, flowers, etc. so I added my name here.
 * Just ask me away whatever you want me to edit, as I am not specific to moths, but anything in general. I was editing on moths as they had very less information, so it was easier to add information for them, and also they were too small so I thought people were paying less attention on those so it would be nice if I payed attention on it( as you said only a dozen or so people edit on those categories ) which explained their less information, maybe also because there may not be much information on them available to add any, but still I felt those articles needed some more information. Not to mention, I also felt they were easier to search for information, as you can add any amount of water in an otherwise empty pond, when compared to yet another ponds which are almost filled to the brim. However, finding information on other articles are also easy, as when I would google about them, I would find lots of information and citations which could be included. So yeah, just let me know if you would like me to edit other categories of articles.Also, you can of course take time in replying, it is cool.
 * Also those were some really nice and helpful information regarding the scheme followed by Lepidoptera and co. articles of which I almost knew none. No wonder those were some really helpful information, as they were previously unknown, like the ones about using bold, using italics, those for names, etc.
 * Also "Alternatively, if you already have the site open in a tab, you can use the internal search function" was as usual cool and you made sure that I saved time. "That's because our conversation was growing pretty long and I figured it might be helpful to have a specific section to scroll to to find this information" too. Just feel free to say to me whatever you want me to edit or any other thing, as I would be happy to do so.Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Animals is pretty nice and does fit the kind of thing you're looking for, I think. I'm not very closely involved with it, though, so I can't say for sure. My "side" of things is mostly WikiProject Lepidoptera&mdash;the moths and butterflies specific WikiProject&mdash;and the projects it falls under the umbrella of, WikiProject Insects and Wikiproject Tree of Life. There's a lot of overlap between all the various projects that keep themselves busy with living beings that are not humans, though, and while some people have a strong focus on one particular kind of plant or animal, most of us do at least some similar work here and there on related articles. (For example, while I mostly focus on Lepidoptera, I've also helped clean up Boletopsis nothofagi (a fungi) after it was badly translated from German, did some work on Ribbon shiner (a fish), created Trichostetha, Trichostetha capensis and Trichostetha coetzeri (a beetle genus and two of its species) and similar such things. The same goes for most of the folks who work a lot on taxonomic articles for non-mammal species. Once you get the hang of things for one particular kind of them, there's not so much difference except perhaps in where to look for good references for the rest of them.)
 * Yeah, those are the small things you pick up after working with those articles for a while, but while most if not all of that information is included in the rules and guidelines somewhere, it's pretty scattered across various places. I think most folks who don't work much with such articles won't know about it. Just like I, for example, don't know the exact intricacies of updating the articles on TV Series and such. I mean, some things are the same across Wikipedia regardless of article, and some things are just common sense (like that if your edit is causing all sorts of red errors to pop up on the page, you likely made a mistake somewhere, and that if it's still 2016, it makes no sense to start articles on television seasons that will start some point in, say, 2021), but no one can know every bit of knowledge and how-to of every corner of the project. Still, it's good information to have when possibly editing a lot in a particular area, and if someone you're talking with happens to actually know all those little tidbits, it makes sense for them to share them. (For both parties. You, because it means you don't have to either search through half the guidelines Wikipedia has to see if anything anywhere says something about italicizing the names of genera or constantly wonder why some names are italicized and others aren't, and for me because every editor that knows to italicize genera and species, but not orders and families and such, is one editor less making minor mistakes for me to fix&mdash;after all, it's not like I have a shortage of maintenance and fixing work on moth/butterfly articles. Even just things like getting (almost) all butterfly and moth genera categorized as such is enough to keep me busy for the next few weeks to possibly months. Thankfully it's now finally at a point where most of the categorization structure approaches something sensible. Now just getting the various articles actually categorized with those fancy new (or old and neglected) categories...)
 * Yes, some places online are sadly filled with rude people. I'll admit Wikipedia has its share of them as well, but while you can never fully prevent running into one, most of them can be found in the 'usual' places. (Articles about controversial subjects; at noticeboards dealing with editors who've misbehaved or where someone feels this other editor has misbehaved; when vandal-fighting&mdash;they don't all hang out there and only there, mind, but the chances of running into someone rude or at least abrasive obviously are a lot higher when editing an article on, say, religion, sexuality, abortion, politics, disputed territories or conspiracy theories than when editing an article on an obscure grasshopper species maybe twenty Wikipedians are aware even exists and maybe three will get around to editing at some point in the next twelve months.
 * I'm glad you don't mind the length of my responses, because they do seem to be growing larger and larger. If at some point you start feeling "Hey, AddWittyNameHere, could you please use a couple less words to say what you wanna say", let me know. I won't consider it rude, because I know I can be a bit...verbose. (Understatement of the century, perhaps?)
 * You're right that the lack of information on a lot of moth articles is a combination between a scarcity of editors and the scarcity of information. Most articles don't contain all the available information they probably should contain, but there generally also is less information available about a species of moth than, say, a species of dolphin, and more importantly, it's harder to find unless you know exactly where to look. With a lot of other subjects, when wanting to expand, the logical approach would be to see a specific article and look for sources with which to expand it. Beyond the basic knowledge available on (almost) all moth species, the logical approach for moths usually is the other way around: seeing a specific source and finding in it the information that can be used to expand one of our articles, then locating the relevant articles on Wikipedia. Entomology- and Lepidopterology-related journals usually are your best bet if you want information that is available online that goes beyond the basic 'x is a moth of [(sub)family]. It was first described in [year] by [person]. It occurs in [country]' or 'x is a moth genus of [(sub)family]. It includes the following species: [Species name] person, year, [Species two] person, year ' with the occasional common name thrown in.
 * What I'd like you to do, if you're interested (though it feels strange for me to tell someone else what to do--please do keep in mind that no matter how I phrase these, they're all suggestions, and if anything is not your cup of tea, please say so), is to take a look at this source and add the distribution information mentioned in the source (that is, which species occur where) to the relevant articles where not yet present, with the above as reference. As the exact formatting for journal references can be a bit pesky, I've filled out the ref for you, so you can just copy it for use:
 * That would display as:.
 * I've also named the reference. That means that if you want to use it multiple times on one article, you don't have to copy-and-paste the whole reference everywhere (which clutters up the source-code pretty badly). After you've used it once in full form on the page, you can recall it for every subsequent use by typing . The slash (/) is crucial there for it to work, though, as are the double-quotes. If you get a cite error when previewing, those are the two most likely causes.
 * I've been meaning to do so since the beginning of the month, but with the huge list of other things I'm also doing, I have yet to get around to it.
 * Once again, if you have any questions (whether in regards to the above, or because you're not fully sure you understand the source correctly, or you see other info in it that you want to add but you don't know how to word it or whether it belongs in the article&mdash;or even just "hey, nothing to do with what we've talked about so far, but do you happen to know why [something] is displayed like that in [article]?"), please do feel free to ask them. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those WikiProject Lepidoptera ( I also added my name here ), WikiProject Insects and Wikiproject Tree of Life are really good links. Also as you said about this, I will add those details in the articles and also the information from other sources too similar to that which you mentioned. If there are any other things too, you might say to me. Not at all strange, you could have phrased it in any way you wanted, as I understand clearly whaatever you say, so even a rude reply would appear nice to me.In fact, I never take any type of reply from anybody to be rude, as it makes less sense for anybody to be rude without a reason, so instead I try to understand their reason and make sure I could help them for their reason for being rude to vanish.
 * Regarding the length of your replies, they are wonderful and really soothing to read. Just do not care about your message looking howsoever, and just right it away. As you might already be knowing I have very few words in order to explain the goodness of your replies. (there had to be a better word instead of goodness so AddNiceWordThere, as my vocabulary is not so good :) )
 * Yeah I noticed the name field of the html tag when you rectified one of them in an article which I edited, so you used the name field as is without having to write the link again. Also since it is a html tag so / marks it's ending so yeah it is important.
 * Of course I will ask you anything I do not understand, as I would not want to commit errors for you to take the trouble of correcting them. So this is one of the reasons for asking things to you instead of committing errors, of course others include your length replies which are, as I said earlier, truely nice. :) I would instead say "Hey, AddWittyNameHere, could you please use a couple more words to say what you wanna say" :D . Just that you are fine with it and your fingers do not pain and you do not feel it as a wastage of time, which as you said earlier is not the case but still I had to say that again to emphasize on it, then it is cool, otherwise you can type in short or anything you like and of course in any way.
 * Also, just a fun fact that I do not like tea, but yeah milk and coffee, so yeah that is my cup of coffee or milk :D . This was since I got to know that tea is bad for health, which I used to drink tea long ago occasionally, and I started abhoring it( not green tea, I mean the normal tea ).
 * "maybe twenty Wikipedians are aware even exists and maybe three will get around to editing at some" yeah that is true, as you said that there are a dozen or so people so yeah I thought of the same.
 * There are not many articles which have (Warren, [1916]) I think in the link so do you think it is to be left as is?
 * Also there are more links for taxonomy which includes other details like this. So I will be sure to amend almost every of the detail that I find including those in the link you gave.Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Full reply in progress. In the mean time, I've put up a new section below with the exact information about what to do with species authorities. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And on to the promised reply: Yeah, those are nice WikiProjects. Mostly it's the same handful of people replying on all three of them, but it's still useful to have those on your watchlist. It's also a couple of good places to go if you have some questions regarding taxonomic articles and I'm not around for a bit, though chances are it might be a while before you get a response if the question you've asked is complex.
 * Like you, I try to both avoid being rude and to avoid unnecessarily taking things as rude when they either might not be meant that way or when there might be a good reason someone is being rude. Occasionally, though, you come across folks that are either rude without reason (or well, without reason other than disliking the person they're responding to, or similar things) or so very rude that whatever their reason might be, it doesn't make their behaviour acceptable. Mostly when I have to deal with folks like that, though, it's folks who are here on Wikipedia for other reasons than contributing to the encyclopedia (like vandalizing it instead, or blatantly spamming their blog/website/youtube channel/brand/company/band), so I rarely have to put up with them for long.
 * Ah, good, you're familiar with html somewhat. That makes a lot of the things that trip new editors up a bit easier to comprehend. Naming references is good practice, even if you use the reference only once on the page. (The main purpose is so you can cite the same reference multiple times while having them combined in one reference in the reference section, but 'de-cluttering articles' source-codes' and 'making it easier to see on the face of things which ref is which' certainly are nice benefits).
 * It's good that you ask questions. :) Though don't worry about committing the occasional error, everyone does from time to time. It becomes a problem when folks keep repeating the same mistake over and over again even when they've been told not to, or when they're clearly paying so little attention to what they're doing that they very often commit mistakes, even if not always the same one, and especially if they pay so little attention that they're usually not the one cleaning up those mistakes.
 * Good practice is to both preview the page before saving it and giving the page a quick look-over after you've saved your edit. It helps catch at least the more obvious stuff yourself. (The kind of mistake that is more visually obvious especially, like not properly closing a ref-tag and everything else that throws up big red cite-errors, edits that break the infobox, stuff like that)
 * It still does nothing for mistakes committed as a result of not knowing any better, but that's quite fine&mdash;like I said, no one can know everything and it's certainly better to have appropriate, so-far-missing content added to an article and to have someone have to go over it afterwards because it wasn't added in a neat separate section or because a couple of the terms used should be linked to our articles on them, than to not have that content added at all.
 * As I said before, I'm glad you like my long replies. I know however that a lot of people don't have the patience to read replies of the length I'm giving, though&mdash;much less read one or two of them daily for a week straight&mdash;so I do try to make sure folks know to tell me 'hey, shut up for a bit' (or a politer phrasing thereof, though really, I'm pretty thick-skinned and can handle it when folks are direct about things like that) if they figure I'm flooding their talkpages with a bit too much text.
 * Your vocabulary isn't bad, though. I mean, sure, I can tell that English almost certainly isn't your native tongue (fun fact: it's not mine, either), which is part of why I occasionally add a quick explanation after terminology I figure you might not be familiar with to ensure you understand what I mean. Though to be fair, a lot of those are terms native speakers not familiar with the subject also won't know&mdash;they just might have a slightly easier time gathering the meaning from context and fairly technical texts about such terms. (I'm guessing from your username that you're Indian? If so, you're doing a lot better than many other Indians I've come across online. It's mostly that you occasionally phrase things in ways I don't often see native speakers use (which I myself occasionally am guilty of as well) and a handful of small mistakes here and there that are still perfectly well-understandable. Some of it might not even be (really minor) mistakes so much as that it's Indian English (if my guess based on your username is right) rather than the British/Canadian/American/Australian English I'm more familiar with) In any case, using a site like Wikipedia will help expand your vocabulary in my experience. (I've learned most of my English through English-language sites, games, books and music. The more you get into contact with a language through actual use, the more of it you absorb)
 * Much like you've repeatedly said you don't mind long replies, I'll repeat what I've said before: I don't consider this a waste of time. :)
 * Articles in journals like Nota Lepidopterologica do often contain a lot of usable information not yet in our articles. Distribution and host plant information are two of the easier matters to deal with, because they don't deal with too much jargon and technical terms and are just about always relevant to us. (Whereas descriptions of appearance and DNA-sequences and nomenclature and similar such matters tend to be filled to the brim with taxonomy-related terminology and may be less easy to understand*) However, they often also include' a lot of information that, while true and factual and possibly interesting, is of little to no use in our articles.
 * Less easy to understand: for example, a quote from a recent article in ZooKeys: "From a total of 23 samples, 22 sequences for COI and 21 for EF-1α were obtained. The alignment of the combined sequences consisted of a total of 1724 bp (658 bp of COI and 1066 bp of EF-1α genes, respectively), including 277 variable and 200 informative sites"


 * That's admittedly a bit harder to understand than, say, the article I linked you to above with distribution details on a lot of species new for Mongolia and/or where we didn't have Mongolia listed as part of its range yet. (It's also an example of 'of little use to us: not particularly relevant to our articles', as it's specific data from specific research. The interpretation of that data that follows later in the article could be useful, but the exact data beyond its most basic implication (that it was based on 23 samples) is unlikely to ever make it into one of our articles.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a quick note regarding infobox parameters and ranks: I haven't removed them from Opisina, because they're not wrong, but articles on the lowest taxa (species, genus) don't really need every minor high taxon listed even in the infobox. (Taxons worth listing: Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Superfamily*, Family, Subfamily*, Tribe**, Subtribe**, Genus and Species). *Superfamily and subfamily are not always listed and while generally not inappropriate to list, if dealing with an already pretty long taxobox, consider leaving at least the superfamily out of things. **Tribe and subtribe are not always applicable, but if those exist, it doesn't hurt to add them. (Though if you're listing family, subfamily, tribe and subtribe on a species, that's one of those cases where superfamily can probably be omitted).
 * There's exceptions, of course, but the reasoning is pretty much the same as with the not-listing-the-entire-taxonomy in the text above in slightly more lenient form. The more steps down from the taxon you're considering listing the article is, the less likely it is to give additional, useful, information (with exception of the major given above), because it's not specific to the subject, but rather to the very large group the subject happens to belong to. That's useful information for articles about the entirety of said large group, like an article on insects, or on Lepidoptera, but not on those about individual members (species) or small groupings of members (genera) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That reply. However, it is not a formality or anything to reply so long, even though you keep saying it is not a waste of your time,yet I still iterate the same by saying it, this may be because either I am less used to seeking help, or more probably that you are so helpful.
 * Yeah, I wondered why the taxobox were not completely filled, and as you said, I will not list those details of superfamily, etc. Yeah those details in the taxobox, like superfamily, etc., can be omitted as they are in a deeper level from the root. Also, it makes less sense not to read something typed by somebody, and why not read a lengthy one for that matter, and in which, somebody might have spend a lot of time of theirs right? After all replies by you do not look so lengthy anyways once a person starts reading it. Also, as I said earlier, it is soothing, and I do not think anybody must consider as flooding a talk page no matter in what length they reply, as talk pages are meant to ask, reply, etc., so it is just a matter of scrolling in order to reach the reply right?
 * Yeah I am an Indian, and I know html quite a bit :D . Even though I knew it, yet I appreciate your reply to make sure I understood the / in the end tag, and that, it were syntactically right.Also, I will name the references, as it also might help somebody if there are adding some information.
 * Yeah I figured that you might not be a native speaker of english, as there are a few apparent errors, but those are just very few so no worries. Your english is still immaculate. :)
 * Indian english follows British english due to colonization by them I think. Yet, the grammar I use might stray from the correct scheme, and more often in such replies where an idea in each line I type might be completely different from the one typed by me in the very next line. It is less cohesive and might require some cogitation by the reader, so yeah it can be a bit too difficult for somebody to understand.
 * I was talking about this link earlier, but I think I forgot to type it-.And as for the work you wanted me to do- I see very few articles which do not include the country in which they inhabit, so do I understand completely by what you meant?(You mean -write the country names, etc. where these moths inhabit along with those references right?)
 * Yeah I will also amend those names, etc. in parantheses. (I was just making sure I understood what you meant :D )
 * Again, that reply was really cool and nice by you, so do not care about flooding the talk page or whatever. You can add any number of subsections or whatever,as it does not matter, and you can as well explain the reason for making the subsections or not-as you wish- or add anything or delete whatever you want.
 * Yeah phrasing the details in a more understandable way than writing it in a rather abstruse manner might be helpful, as you said. So I will not write it in that manner which might be unfathomable to readers.
 * The paragraphs I type might be jumbled, you know? "X is to be after Y, but it is instead the opposite in my replies" so yeah that also might create a confusion as to what I might be replying might be difficult to comprehend. Did I reply in the way you wanted me to? I continued instead of continuing to the subsection, as that is what I think you meant.
 * Also, the review for the article seemed quick when compared to other articles submitted as draft so yeah maybe few people make articles on moths as you said earlier, so it took less time for it to be reviewed.Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, then we'll keep the repeating-back-and-forth cycle going for a bit longer: still not a waste of time. I think it's not so much a matter of whether you're used to asking for help, or whether I'm being particularly helpful&mdash;probably, it's more a matter of both of us wanting to make sure the other is as comfortable with the conversation as we are, and both of us judging the other person as nice enough they might not say so without prompting if they were not. The length of my replies somewhat depends on how much there is to say in response of yours, of course. If you responded with an 'okay, thanks', I'm not likely to find enough to reply to for more than a paragraph (with perhaps another paragraph of tangentially-related rambling attached). However, since you respond in full, there's certainly plenty for me to respond to if I like, and I do like&mdash;as evident by the size of my prior replies. It's your talkpage, so as long as it doesn't bother you I'm quite fine with it. (Article talkpages would be a different matter, because those serve other purposes than tens-of-thousands-of-bytes-long conversations between two people). If you'd like, it might be useful if either you or I created a subpage in your user or user talk space (perhaps at User talk:Adityavagarwal/Lepidoptera advice?) where I can move the more summarized-and-needs-no-real-reply kind of advice like the stuff on taxon authorities below. Would help to keep it all neat in one place, easy to find back and could serve as a quick go-to page when you're looking up specific advice without having to read through the conversation again. It'd also be helpful in that if you ever decide to start archiving your talkpage, you don't have to go dig through several archives to find back what exactly was the reason for square brackets around years again, or in which cases a species name should be bolded and such. I could also add summarized versions of some of the other info I've given in the middle of conversations there if you'd like. But it's not required, so if you'd really rather not, that's quite fine too. (I didn't take the initiative here like I did with the sections because it's considered somewhat rude to create pages in someone else's userspace without permission or really good reason)
 * Yup. When an article is about a higher taxon than species or genus, that information does become more and more relevant the higher you go up the tree of life, which is why parameters for it do exist, but with very few exceptions (such as articles where some of the higher taxa have no actual article yet, thus no other way for someone to figure out the exact placement of, say, a superfamily&mdash;though that's becoming pretty rare) it really serves no purpose on low taxa.
 * Yeah, I make the occasional mistake myself, though I think the bigger clues that I'm not a native speaker (versus a native speaker that just happens to make some mistakes) are the occasional cases of somewhat idiosyncratic word-order and the fact that I keep flip-flopping between British and American spelling and grammar.
 * /shrug. I can understand you perfectly well on first read about 99% of the time and I can at least figure out most of what you're trying to say on second read those few cases I didn't immediately grasp what you meant, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. (I know native speakers I have more difficulty understanding; at least you take the time to try and make sure you use the right word spelled the right way and only very infrequently slip up. Some native English speakers can't be bothered to do that) In any case, the more you use English, the more naturally it will come. These days I think in English almost as much as I do in Dutch.
 * I think you forgot to add the link again. I suspect you either meant to link to the Nota Lepidopterologica article I gave you earlier (the one about Mongolian Lepidoptera; I'll refer to it from here-on as 'NL article') or a specific wikipedia article related to the content of that article, yes? You're pretty much right in that that's what I want you to do, with one addition: if the species article does list it as occurring in Mongolia, but that information is not referenced, add in the reference. In case of the species Alucita helena, the major subject of that article, if I remember correctly the distribution info on Mongolia isn't there yet. Beyond that, you can also add in the information that it's the first species of the family Alucitidae to be found in Mongolia, since that's also pretty relevant information. Some of the other stuff worth mentioning is hidden a bit in between other text in the NL article. I think there's a short mention of foodplant info on that species in there as well, but that's going by memory, so please do double-check. Probably some other relevant information on Alucita helena in the NL article, too, but I'd have to read it with more attention than the quick glance-through I gave it so far. Beyond that, the NL article has a very useful references section. Most of what's listed in there should be accessible online and will almost certainly have more information on Mongolian Lepidoptera to be added to various articles. (If you use those, do make sure to change the reference you use to whichever article you found the information in; it wouldn't do to use information from article B while still using the reference for article A after all (and that can be really easy to forget to change when you reached article B through article A). Two of the useful and online-available-for-free articles referenced in there are
 * Yakovlev RV (2012) Checklist of Butterflies (Papilionoidea) of the Mongolian Altai Mountains, including descriptions of new taxa. Nota Lepidopterologica 35(1): 51−96. - can be accessed (as PDF) here. Let me know if you need help formatting the reference
 * Yakovlev RV (2015) The Cossidae (Lepidoptera) of Mongolia. Check List 11(5): 1–10. doi: 10.15560/11.5.1736 - accessible as PDF through here, but requires either a PDF-reading browser plug-in or downloading the PDF to your computer/device. Again, let me know if you need help formatting the reference.
 * There's also Yakovlev RV (2016) New Notodontidae species for Mongolian Fauna (Lepidoptera). Russian Entomological Journal 25(2): 173-176 - not listed in the ref section for the NL article I gave you earlier (and it couldn't have been, since volume 25, issue 2 of the Russian Entomologic Journal was only published a bit over a week ago), which is accessible as PDF here.
 * In regards to both the above and the taxon authorities: yes, always a good idea to verify you've properly understood things before setting out to fix a large number of them. It'd be a waste of your time if you spent hours fixing things the wrong way 'round, after all, as well as a waste of the time of whoever went and cleaned up after it. So I'm glad you're making sure. :)
 * Exactly; an encyclopedia is written to be read, after all, and if our readers look at an article and after reading it think 'well, I have no clue what I just read', that's not really helpful.
 * Occasionally you respond slightly out-of-order, yes, but you tend to either quote something specific I said, or otherwise make clear what you're talking about, so that's no problem. I do the same here-and-there when I think some things asked together are better answered separately, or two separate parts are better addressed as one issue. As long as we both understand what the other means and is replying to, it doesn't really matter if the order in which things are stated, asked, answered, mentioned, further explained and commented upon within our replies move around a bit from reply to reply, does it? The purpose of talking is communication, not chronological ordering, after all. And yes, I meant for you to respond here because this seems to be our general "discussion" thread and it would make little sense for you to address points regarding, say, the distribution of species in a section that solely deals with taxon authorities and might lead to unnecessary confusion (while a short mention regarding taxon authorities here is not at all confusing), so I figured that'd be the best way to prevent needless confusion.
 * I suspect that the reason the review didn't take very long is because--relatively speaking--a species page is easier to review than a page on a business or person. A lot of issues that are really common with the latter two just straight out don't apply to species. If the existence of the species can be confirmed, it is pretty much notable by default; it's not a biography so it can't be an unsourced biography, either; it's practically impossible for a moth species article to be severely non-neutral (much less so in a way that a non-expert would notice, as the only thing I can think of from the top of my head would be taxonomy-related issues); moth species articles really aren't something that can be promotional, either. Many of the other causes for listing an article for speedy deletion are things that can be fairly easily seen--blank pages, pages completely lacking context, pages that actually are vandalism attempts, stuff like that. Means that what's left is mostly stuff like 'is this a copyright violation?', which doesn't really take much to check when an article consists of an infobox, two sentences and a bunch of references; and the non-deletion-related stuff. Since you took the time to add proper referencing, inline, and proper wikilinks, that's all also pretty easily checked. (I mean, it's clearly not lacking references, so it doesn't need to be tagged for that. It's not lacking links to other articles, which is easily visible from the various bluelinks. That it's linked to from other articles can be easily seen through 'what links here' on the left-hand sidebar, etc.) While there were some issues with the article&mdash;it's a species and I suspect you copied the format from a genus article; in any case, you called it a genus and put the species name in the genus parameter in the infobox&mdash;those require actual knowledge of taxonomy and thus weren't spotted by the reviewing editor. (However, a couple of folks in the various Tree of Life subprojects like Lepidoptera have taken to checking out every new relevant article, so it was fixed not long after&mdash;and if that hadn't happened, once I was online, I would've come around, checked it out and done so myself. Since you're asking me for advice and help anyway, I'm keeping half an eye on your edits to see if there's something I ought to be mentioning, explaining or fixing. More efficient that way, no?). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC) P.S. We're getting pretty far indented again. Want to give outdenting it a try?

You knew to let me try the outdent thing right? That is cool. Yeah it is a nice idea to make a subpage so if you want to make it or want me to make it just let me know. (Even though I do not think I exactly know what a subpage means- either a link in this page which redirects to another page or a button which expands it or something like that) As I said earlier, you can add anything or delete anything or whatever you want. It is not rude or anything. Instead of giving you the trouble, I can as well make it so just let me know.

Yeah, but I am a bit used to both, british english and american english, as Indian english follows british english and computer english follows american english. :D Atleast you understand quite a bit of what I say ( even though 99% is not quite a bit but a bit too much, but still ).

You seem to know quite a few languages, including German as you were talking about translation in that language earlier. It is cool. Also, that you translate means you might know the language really good, so yeah.

Yeah the link. No it is neither of the two, but this one that I was referring to. There are these taxonomic details, which I reckon is more in detail when compared to other ones. ( I still did not add the link, I am adding it ) :D

Yeah a moth article really might not require anything much to be checked for. Just few links and that is all. Yeah you are right, I took the content from an article that I do not remember, but as you figured out a part of it already, then it might as well be a genus article :D. Yet, I was addled about the species and genus listing, as that was given in the link or something ( in the link which I did not write both the times :D ). So, I edited the article once even after it was created due to the confusion.

Yeah it is more efficient that way, as the mistakes might be covered too.

Atleast you understand a bit of what I say ( even though it is not quite a bit, but a bit too much, but still ) :D And how did it outdent? Was it fine?

Yeah, it might matter less, as you understand what I say and also do I understand what you say, so it may not matter and also, you really are so understanding and understand things from other's view point, so it is obvious that it might not be any problem irrespective of the ordering of a reply.

It is generally me who asks things in this way like an obvious question to the reader, and very few people might do that, so I understand things what you mean and also do I figure things easily due to your way of writing. Also is your writing too nice and clear not to understand, so it adds to the reason even more, right?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, you did the outdenting right. (On second try, that is, but it's quite an understandable mistake and this way you get to make it on the safety of your own talkpage where I doubt anyone other than you and I is spending their time, rather than on a public noticeboard where a few dozen folks might notice. Which is indeed why I made sure to have you try it; doing often is the best way to learn, especially if it's something where a mistake won't cause trouble.
 * You're fairly close to what a subpage is, but not completely right. Take a look, for example, at User talk:AddWittyNameHere/Archive3. That's a subpage of my own, more specifically, an archive used to host old talkpage messages that I don't want to clutter up my current talkpage, but might still want to be able to find back later without looking through the several-hundred-edits-long page history. In most ways, it's the same as any other page, except that at the the top left, just below the page's title, it has a link back to its 'parent' page (in this case, my actual talkpage), generated not by any code on the page, but by the actual software. (More specifically, the slash (/) in the 'full' pagename denotes 'everything prior to the slash is the "parent" page (or 'base page') that this page descends from. In almost all ways, such a sub-user talkpage functions exactly as a normal user talkpage would, except for the purpose of talkpage message notifying, which functions only for the page denoted by User talk:Your username (In your case, User talk:Adityavagarwal), so if anyone were to edit a subpage of your talkpage, you wouldn't get the 'So-and-so left a message on your talkpage' notification.
 * From a technical point of view, subpages can be created in every namespace except mainspace (also known as article namespace, articlespace, main namespace; the space where articles, redirects, disambiguation pages, etc. are located, denoted by its lack of prefix, as opposed to every other namespace. Those other namespaces are generally called by the pattern of "prefixspace" or "prefix namespace": talkspace, Draftspace, etc. Userspace is slightly more convoluted, because it is also used in the meaning of "my/your/his/her userspace", in which case it means "all pages starting with User:User's name". Ergo, my userspace is User:AddWittyNameHere and all its subpages; your userspace is User:Adityavagarwal and (future) subpages; your userspace and my userspace don't overlap, but it's all in (general) userspace), File, MediaWiki, Category and Education Program. Article/File/Category/etc. talkspace can and does have subpages, most of which are talk page archives.
 * In practice, there are several rules tied to the use of subpages, and just because the software permits the creation of a subpage in a particular namespace doesn't mean all potential uses of them in that namespace are okay. For subpages in usertalkspace, though, it's really pretty obvious. Don't put stuff on them that would get you in trouble if you put it on a non-subpage. Don't use the fact that they're a bit more out-of-sight than non-subpages to try and get around rules/policy/etc. So basically, 'use common sense'. (Which makes sense, they're still pages that are part of Wikipedia, even if less visible)
 * The major two uses of subpages in userspace/user talkspace likely relevant to you are article drafts and talk page archives. (We nowadays have a specific Draft: namespace, of course, but we didn't always, and 'userspace drafts' (the common name for drafts made in someone's own userspace) are still explicitly permitted.)
 * Feel free to create the page at the place I mentioned above, yes. :) Even if you've done some pagecreation before, like with the recent article, more experience doesn't hurt. If you haven't gotten around to it by the next time you reply, or if you'd rather I do so, I'll see about doing it by then.
 * Aye, I'm multi-lingual. I'm fluent in use and understanding of Dutch and English, and got a near fluent understanding of German and (West-)Frisian, though my active use of German is a bit spotty especially as far as grammar goes and I lack any active use of Frisian beyond the most basic. I've got some (very) limited knowledge of French in either direction, though my active use is even worse than my passive understanding. I've studied Ancient Greek and Latin for a few years in secondary school, but those are both dead languages, thus none of it was focused on active use&mdash;and besides, some of that knowledge has faded. It's still occasionally helpful for recognizing related words in other languages, though, especially Latin which has had strong influence on many European(/Europe-originating) languages, directly and indirectly. Linguistics and languages is one of my passions, I'll admit. (As a result, I'm generally able to puzzle out a fair bit of the other western European languages and a few others through the handful of languages I understand well, and there's also heaps and heaps of languages where I know a couple of random words and can probably understand a few more words through relationship with words I know from other languages, especially when helped both by context and linguistic knowledge of relationships between languages)
 * But Dutch and English are the only two I can truly use well, though I'm working on getting at least my German up to the same level, and for any purpose other than my own, Dutch, English, German and (West-)Frisian are the only languages I feel comfortable fully translating, and then only to Dutch or to English. (As opposed to 'reading, understanding, mentally summarizing and then writing down that summarization in Dutch or English' which I am capable of for a few more depending on the difficulty and subject of the text in question)
 * Well, let me know when you've added the link.
 * Moth articles still require some checking, but most of what can be wrong with them isn't really a matter for New Page Patrol (unless the patroller in question happens to also have significant taxonomic knowledge, including the knowledge of how to read and use the various taxonomy-related sources out there, how to tell if something's a genus or species, etc. as is the case with a few but likely only a few of them). With a big heap of the deletion-related issues not applying, and most of the fact-checking better done by people who know taxonomy, there's mostly the fairly obvious (and thus fairly easy) work left to do on checking those articles. Mistakes like that happen every so often. You're not the first to list something as one taxon when it's another. (But a quick guide of thumb: If the scientific name exists of two words, it's a species. If it exists of three words (or seemingly four, with the third being the abbreviation ssp. or subsp.), it's a subspecies.)
 * Exactly. The order doesn't matter as long as we both understand each other. :) Especially not the order within a reply. Now if you were to start responding somewhere in the middle of our older conversation, that could get confusing. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the more important thing which I meant was that you remembered, which most people do not. (Remembering the outdent thing, that is) That looks like a nice subpage there, and yeah that might create a path, so the file inside a directory gets a / followed by it's name. Did you see the diff to know that I used two attempts to outdent? Yeah, as I thought the number of indents followed by the od ( with flower brackets ) was the one to type, this is because I thought that it would not know where to outdent from, but instead it seems like it outdents from there by default ( Like in your first of the apples example, if somebody were to reply to the second message instead of the third whist outdenting, then they might not be able to do so, and it makes sense, as the person who typed the second message could do so without outdenting, or may be not too, as the person who typed the message might have typed a small one instead, so he might not have found a need to outdent or anything- so there might as well be a possibility of outdenting some other message instead of the just previous message, but it might create a confusing as the people replying to some message prior to the outdent and that has been indented more than the message which was outdented, he might have to reply after the outdent, which might as well be confusing ).
 * That is a nice userpage ( I knew about a few basics though like what a userpage is, but it is so cool that you explained it, I really feel you are a bit different than other people as you seem to care a lot more that the other person understands things even if it means to explain things assuming they do not know it ). :D
 * At least I did not use a bro earlier, (good that I do not have that habit of referring to people by using bro). :D
 * Yeah I will create the page ( I wanted you to know that you can create pages or anything without asking ). So how is this subpage? Transferring the reply means deleting it here and pasting it there or something?
 * You know a lot though, languages, computer, and a lot more things like being a good editor ( really good I mean :D ), etc.
 * You said "it's a subspecies" making sure that I as well know the abbreviation? You seem to miss less while replying right?
 * That means, you might have gotten two to three such things? "'So-and-so left a message on your talkpage' notification", as I think I might not have replied everything, and for that reason, almost every of the things I replied, at once ( Like editing the outdent the second time ). Yeah, you might have, as I received two of them I guess once when you replied ( When you made the subsection? ). Also, since you know that I attempted two times to edit the outdent ( may be because you saw the diffs if I am right ) so did you as well see the edit of when I was talking about me liking milk instead of tea? :D I omitted something.
 * You really are so practical and all, as there is really less of any blemishes that I might point in your cool replies. Also, yeah your information about the subspecies in two names was really helpful. ( This might have as well prevented the error in the newly made article )
 * The link, you might be angry. :D Here it is.
 * Yeah it might be confusing if somebody replies in the middle, but may be if you reply in the middle, that would not be confusing, as you replied it. :D Also, you replied in detail and enumerate quite a few possibilities, so the person who reads it might not be as much perplexed as much as they have been if they were to read most people's replies.Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Might be overlooking something, but I -still- don't see the link. Not angry, no. A little bit confused, maybe. (If somehow adding the link won't work, how about you just describe where to find it and I'll look for it?)
 * Yeah, replying in the middle is only useful in very specific cases and mostly it's best to just refrain from doing so&mdash;or at the least adding a note at the end of the conversation that you added or changed something earlier in it. Similarly, outdenting is best done when your own message is the lowest message in a message-tree; if there's a more complicated situation with multiple people responding back-and-forth and your message goes somewhere in the middle of it, outdenting can become difficult. (If outdenting in such a case really is necessary, it's probably better to just indent, add a small note like 'I've responded below', then outdent below the lowest message)
 * Subpage looks good. :) Transferring means removing it here and adding it there, yes, though as a result of attribution requirements, it's probably easiest that I do it, so I've moved the section below there, and I'll see about similarly summarizing some of the other things I explained there too"I'll see about similarly summarizing some of the other things I explained there too. Might be a day or two, though, I'm a little busy at the moment. :(
 * Attribution is easy when I move my own text because I'm the sole author of the text getting moved and thus no attribution is required&mdash;though as this is user talk space, things are a bit easier to start with than if we were dealing with article contents. When moving/renaming an entire page in articlespace, cut-and-paste is not the way to go (rather, the move function is) and when moving or duplicating parts of an article to another article, whether new or existing (splitting and merging articles, basically) some pretty specific attribution is required. That's because the CC BY-SA 3.0 & GFDL, under which all contributions to Wikipedia are released, require that attribution remains intact. The page describing how to do that is at WP:Copying within Wikipedia, should you ever need it, or just ask me for a more in-depth description.
 * I noticed that you usually craft your replies spread across multiple edits, yes, so the few times I was actually online as you started responding, I made sure to wait for a bit before replying to make sure you had said everything you wanted to say. (Usually, though, I seem to be responding while you're offline and the other way around). I saw your tea message, and your edits to it. Not sure if you meant you omitted something else you haven't added since, though? If so, then I'll obviously not know. :P
 * I don't get actual notifications for them, though, as this conversation is all held on your user talkpage, not mine. That isn't a problem, though, since I have your talkpage on my watchlist, and am actively keeping an eye out for unread messages there. (Sometimes it can be a problem to make sure folks see a response, though. In those cases, it might be useful to either leave a quick note on their talkpage or ping them. Pinging users triggers a similar message as the talkpage notification, except instead of it saying 'So and so left a message on your talkpage', it says 'So and so mentioned you on [whichever page they pinged you on]'. There's several ways to ping someone, but the easiest to remember is probably the ping template. You use it by typing (without nowiki tags, those are just so you can see what it should look like), with name replaced by the username of the person you want to ping, but no User:-prefix. For example, pinging me would be done by typing  . For a ping to work, it must be added in the same edit as your signature, so if you forget to sign and add the signature later, it won't work. If you'd like, you can try pinging me in your next reply. . (I'll let you know if it worked. Don't worry if you're not sure if you did it successfully, as I'll check for new replies here anyway, ping or no ping :P)
 * I mostly just try to make sure that when I mention or suggest something, people both understand what I'm referring to and have at least some idea of how to use or not use it. After all, if I feel it likely enough that someone doesn't know what the feature I'm explaining is, then it is at least equally likely that they don't know in what ways (beyond common sense) its use is not permitted. Saves them (well, in this case, you) and me some wasted time if you don't try to do something with a feature that's either not possible or not allowed. Plus, I'd feel somewhat responsible if folks went to try something out because I explained it to them, and then got themselves into trouble because I didn't bother at explaining the basic rules regarding it, or at least mentioning that such rules exist.
 * It wouldn't have been a problem even if you had used bro. I'm well aware that most people seem to default to male pronouns and terms online, and on top of that neither my interests nor my username are easily read as 'female', so it would hardly be the first time such a thing happened. I know it bothers some folks, but it never really bothered me. (Might be because I'm used to being active in male-dominated areas of interest. Wikipedia- and taxonomy-related areas tend to have a far higher rate of men than women. On top of that, I'm a gamer and a metalhead, and those are if possible even worse in those regards. /shrug) Just to make sure I don't accidentally misgender you, though, what--if any--is your pronoun preference? (If I had to go solely by your name, I'd presume male, but I'm well aware that names don't say everything)
 * I see we both haven't gotten around to doing much editing the past few days. I know I've been ridiculously busy in real life--same with you, or did you run into any problems on-wiki you'd like some help with? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is here, the link. So, the matter is, it was so cold that I just snuck into the blanket to sleep for like a few minutes, but I fell asleep, so I could not send to you the link even though I typed the link word without the link. ( Since I added the link for some other articles, when I would edit a bit more than now, you must have known that there might be some other problem and not that I could not paste the link, this is because you notice things a lot so yeah :D also is it cohesive because I would not even edit anything, so instead of editing I would have send to you the link right? )
 * "I'll see about similarly summarizing some of the other things I explained there too" no no it is quite some work for you already, so I can summarize it instead if you just say to me.
 * "Not sure if you meant you omitted something else you haven't added since, though?" I mean I wrote something and saved it and then omitted it ( that somebody said it is bad for health :D ). "more in-depth description" I better search it myself :D. I saw your page when you send to me your link, and your replies were short and all, so I do not assume you type lengthy replies for many people do you? Am so beholden about so many of your helps already
 * Yeah I knew the ping facility here, and that, if I referred to somebody by their name, only then will they get the message and saying "'So and so mentioned you on [whichever page they pinged you on]'", and it also sends to you something like your message was successfully send to that person. I figured the nowiki thing, ( the name sort of is self explanatory but still you explained it as usual :D ) . "Don't worry if you're not sure if you did it successfully, as I'll check for new replies here anyway, ping or no ping " wow you know what? Your replies are too good.
 * "I don't get actual notifications for them, though, as this conversation is all held on your user talkpage" yeah I got it a few times instead."least equally likely that" probability at it's best? As usual, your replies are far beyond good.
 * "of that neither my interests" Your interests ( I think it is learning languages, etc. ) are really good, and I did not think you are a boy or a girl by them. I thought just because, well, of no reason. ( I generally think the same about anybody ). Yeah I am a boy, it is somewhat evident from the name you are right.
 * Yeah I apologize, as there were exams and I did not edit anything, and cold, so I just replied to you ( without the link, that is ) and then either studied if I slept a while ago or slept if I studied a while ago. I thought you would say that, so I sort of already had the apology to say. ( Not to mention all of your help included that I did not edit )
 * " you'd like some help with" AddWittyNameHere, you say that so nicely.Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't worry or apologize about not having had time to edit. Wikipedia won't explode just because you or I haven't had time to do much for a few days, and while there certainly is Wikipedia work that needs doing, there'll always be Wikipedia work that needs doing, no matter how many edits your or I make. Real life (like health and studies and jobs and such) do and should come first.
 * I just figured I'd make sure that you hadn't run into issues or trouble figuring out how to do something; I know that wanting to make a particular edit and not managing to figure out exactly how to do it can be frustrating and off-putting, so if that had happened, it'd be easier if I just guided you along or pointed you in the right direction.
 * Regarding gender and names: somewhat evident, perhaps. Sometimes name and gender just don't match, though. I'd know, my given name traditionally is a boy's name, even if it's occasionally used for girls/women too. Not very often, but it's not a very common name to start with. (Hence me not editing under my real life name. My first name is uncommon, and pretty rare for a woman. My surname is extremely rare, as in, there's around 50-60 people alive with that surname. 'Worldwide. I'm the only person with my first name-last name combination alive, and the first woman with my first name-last name combination ever, to the best of my knowledge. (In fact, as far as Google can tell, my name combination doesn't exist&mdash;Googling "[first name][last name]" (with those two replaced by the actual names of course) returns exactly one hit, and it's a false positive.) Seems prudent to be a little more careful than most about using my name online when any use of it is that'' visible.)
 * Yeah, nowiki is pretty self-explanatory, but I see folks copy it along with the example often enough that I've started explicitly mentioning not to copy those tags along just in case. 'course, since you know HTML, you're likely to understand tags a wee bit better than most random new editors I come across. Still, doesn't hurt to make sure.
 * Ah, finally, the link. :P Don't worry about it, by the way. I figured that either there was something on Wikipedia's side preventing you from adding it (like one of the filters or the blacklist) or that it was just sheer bad luck that caused you to keep not adding it in. You're certainly not incompetent, so I know you can copy-and-paste a link perfectly well. :P
 * In general, insecta.pro is a good website for Lepidoptera articles, yes. I've come across a couple of inaccuracies and other issues there before, though&mdash;as is the case with pretty much every Lepidoptera website. That's just what happens when dealing with about 180-thousand species, errors slip through every now and then and things may get outdated&mdash;and I'm not certain how well it is kept up-to-date (though a quick check showed no obvious outdated taxons, so that's something, and a fair bit better than most other sites) down to species level.
 * As far as using it goes: In general, if insecta.pro says something else than funet, follow what funet says unless you have a real good reason to expect the mistake to be on funet's side. (Such as a typo, or something where you can show genuine, referenced proof that funet's wrong&mdash;it's usually more likely that funet just was faster in updating something from outdated classification, though)
 * If they both say the same thing, there's certainly no harm in adding both; and in the (rare) cases where funet lacks information but insecta.pro does have it, it is a reasonable substitute. (If species, though, do double-check that funet actually misses information, rather than has it as synonym of another species; in the latter case, funet's probably right.)
 * For non-Lepidoptera insects, where funet obviously isn't an option, it is very useful. Insecta.pro started as a Lepidoptera-focused site, though, so their information on other insects may be less complete, but from what I can see they certainly do have a lot listed.
 * I don't mind summarizing things for you. It's not that much work, it just requires a little time and that's what I've been a bit short on the past few days. (And it'd be more work for you than me, because it's easier to summarize something you know by heart than to summarize from a text you're reading or have read a few times.)
 * I occasionally type long responses to other folks, but in my experience, most of them prefer short messages, or at least normally-long responses (like two-three paragraphs), not 'requires repeated scrolling to read the whole message'. :P I certainly don't mind that you prefer the longer responses, though. Barring simple situations where there really isn't much to say (after all, something like 'hey, what was the link to the policy on this-or-that again?' doesn't quite require an explanation on reasons behind the policy, just the link; and a quick thank-you for removing some vandalism really doesn't need an explanation of why I did so, either. :P) I usually have to really keep an eye on the length of my responses to keep them from being longer than most people appreciate. It's nice to not have to every now and then. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just clicked the log out button when I saw the one for the message that you replied, so I logged in again. Let me read. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, wikipedia is sort of an abyss to fill in informaion."it'd be easier if I just guided you along or pointed you in the right direction" yeah, I figured you thought that I might be in some trouble or I might not be knowing a thing or two in order to edit, so I said to you that I had exams so that you know the reason for me not editing. In fact, I just came online for a few minutes to read your replies and reply back, as I do not like to reply late to anybody so I replied even before catching my flight. :D ( Atleast I type fast ) To be honest, did you ever see a person as helpful as you?
 * "there's around 50-60 people alive with that surname" this might explain why you are different than most people. "returns exactly one hit" did I mention earlier that very few people are as helpful as you are? ( Maybe the distinct name, so it might be a positive factor for one who puts that name ) :D . Also, does it matter whatever the name anybody has? There might not be any classifications as to which names pertain to which gender. ( Even though you mostly know it does not matter, but still I questioned, as I said earlier, I question obvious things to the reader too ) :D So, every name is cool right? ( Even hilter's name is cool ( name not person ) -just as an example that names might be immaterial to anything other than just, well, name ) :D
 * "a wee bit better than" Thank you so much for the compliment. :D ( I am not used to them ) "Still, doesn't hurt to make sure" yeah, as I said right? you make sure to help even if the other knows it, so it is really nice of you.
 * No no, not wikipedia preventing the link, but that, I fell asleep all of the times ( four perhaps? ). I thought to just sleep for a few minutes, but I would fall asleep so I could not add the link, even though I also work more at night than on day ( nocturnal too rather than diurnal ) but I was a bit too tired due to all those exams and all, so even though I was not even able to edit anything, but still I made sure to reply and study a bit or sleep for a few minutes and then study ( but I instead would sleep for a bit more time ), then waking up a while before the examinations and studying through completely in some time. ( I hate it when I have to study everything in such a short span like an hour or two when I fall asleep in the night but I apologize ) Yeah, it is so careless of me I know, as I could have added the link, it would just take a minute more, but I was so tired that I just fell asleep, but still it might be an excuse and it is completely my fault. ( Less than a minute peerhaps ) But I just could take the few seconds to write the link, but I had to save it, search for it and then edit it and resave it, so I though I would sleep for a few minutes and then write it, but I just slept.
 * Yeah, the link is better than funet I think too. It also has a bit detail of the taxonomy. Even though as you said earlier not to include them, but since it has those, so atleast it may know more about the species, so it might be a good link right? Or maybe even funet knows about the detail but does not list it or something?
 * "funet's side" yeah whatever you say. :D If funet has disparity with the other link, then we can go with funet.
 * "I don't mind summarizing things for you" you do not seem to mind any help, but it feel you already helped a lot, so it is just not nice of me to ask you to do so much. "It's not that much work, it just requires a little time" "And it'd be more work for you than me" Even though this is almost the exact thing I say to people I help, and I do not think I expected anybody to say the same to me ( Very few people even care about anything you know? ), but if I were at the receiving end of the reply ( as in this case ) I would have said "you are really cool and wonderful" and done it myself instead and thanked them as much as they did it for me. ( At that point it really does not matter whoever did the task, as they already did their part by offering the help and that is what I like. Does it? ) So yeah, I will just summarize the points if you are fine with that of course.
 * "I occasionally type long responses to other folks" please feel free to reply in short if you like. Any manner, any length, whatever you wish, reply in that manner. :D I prefer any type of response, long or short does not matter, but the one which you prefer. ( Of course, it might be painstaking for the writer to write long responses and soothing for the reader to read those nice replies ) :D.
 * Also, the reason for my edits to be very few because of examinations is bad. Nothing is impossible you know? So I should have still edited. The more reason for it might be that I fell asleep. ( Apologies ) Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

- Note: moved reflist-template outside the collapsed section as it kept breaking it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

New section header
Another new section header for ease of navigation. It's still the same conversation that we've been having the past 10/12 days (depending on whether you count from my first post or your first reply), and that's now grown to a size of around 100,000 bytes, but navigation was becoming a little annoying and a new section header helps for a bit. Until another week of responses back-and-forth passes, anyway. On that note, would you mind if I collapse our above discussion so it doesn't take up so much space? That way, it'd still be accessible (you'd merely have to click 'show') while not taking up the equivalent of sixteen pages in MS Word (yes, I checked). Nicer if anyone else has reason to visit your talkpage; that way they can at least reach the bottom of the page without scrolling down for a minute or so. :P

Names have their purpose: knowing when someone's talking to you, and knowing who someone is talking about. Beyond that, they're indeed quite immaterial. (Though to be fair, they do have their cultural purpose, too; a name signifies in many cases not merely as label for a particular individual, but also as a sign of cultural identify; the name then suddenly means not merely 'this specific person', but rather 'this specific person, who is one of us' (or 'this specific person, who is one of theirs') Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends a lot on circumstances and context; it can as easily serve to help foster understanding and a sense of connection as it can feed into distrust or hatred; and they can help communities stay strong but can also make already insular communities yet more insular. Such is the way with most those things that serve the purpose of identity&mdash;and especially those that serve the purpose of a greater, beyond-the-individual identity&mdash;I suppose.)

With that out of the way, let me repeat: school and sleep come first. If you're so tired that when you aim to sleep for a few minutes, you find yourself sleeping for hours instead, that is a really clear sign that yes, you needed the sleep. Badly. (And no miracle, that. If you're normally nocturnal, and you're awake at what are clearly diurnal hours, on top of studying and exams...yeah, you've probably not been getting enough sleep for a while. Us nocturnal folks usually don't when for whatever reason we have to make the switch to diurnal hours for a bit, plus you get something fairly similar to a jet lag effect. (The other way around goes as well, diurnal folks who need to stay awake at night, but for some reason, everyone understands the problems it causes when someone used to waking up at 6am and sleeping at 10pm has to be awake at 2am for whatever reason, but a lot of them can't seem to grasp as easily that someone used to, say, falling asleep at 8am and waking up at 4pm has similar trouble when having to be awake at noon.) ('course, I don't think many folks, even the nocturnal ones, have a sleeping pattern as 'off' as mine (8am-4pm describes mine fairly well, though it always fluctuates and I rarely sleep the entirety of 'm. Past few days have mostly been 11am-4:30pm, which on top of being slightly ill is not sufficient sleep in the long run. Better than last week, when I got maybe 28 hours of sleep total, though)

And to be honest, if you're that sleepy, it's probably in everyone's best interest that you don't edit. I know from experience that mistakes that are already easily made certainly are a lot more easy to make when one can barely keep their eyes open. Beyond a certain point, exhaustion and really, really closely mirror one another in the way they effect your thinking, and isn't a good state to be editing in. Especially not when you're still learning how to edit. (I'll admit to some hypocrisy here, as I do occasionally edit while exhausted to the bone myself, but to be fair I only do so when I both know I won't be getting sleep anytime soon anyway and am doing something pretty routine, so that the chances of me slipping up and doing something stupid are not particularly high. Even so, I find myself making stupid typos slightly more often during such sessions. Still, I'm well aware that it's not an ideal situation, and if it were not for my recurring insomnia, I too wouldn't.)

And especially not while you're in the middle of exams. Wikipedia is around to be edited 24/7, 365 days a year; those exams are only around for a specific time. Those moth articles have in some cases been in their miserable state for a decade or more; a few days or weeks really doesn't make much difference in the long run.

On top of that, there is one thing you should always keep in mind when editing Wikipedia: '''Editing is a choice. It's not a duty or obligation, and no matter the cause, if at any point you feel it's best to take a step back, whether short-term or permanently, that is your good right. Doesn't matter if it is because you're getting frustrated with specific users and feel your patience and control slipping, whether it is because you're well on your way to burning yourself out, whether there are real life events requiring your attention, whether it's your health or job or family or education. Hell, even if it's just 'I'm not in the mood for it today', you've always got the right not to edit.'''

Because I can tell you're a person that takes responsibility and duty serious, and that does also shoulder those burdens when not necessarily required of you. It is really, really easy to start feeling responsible for (a small part of) Wikipedia, or to feel you have to edit it, either as a duty to the project, to specific users, to specific articles or even to yourself, but in the end, we're still small portions of the project, which will survive if and when we have to take a step back for a bit.

The sole responsibility you have in regards to Wikipedia is the responsibility for your own actions, no more, no less&mdash;and in the end, Wikipedia benefits a lot more if you stick around editing steadily for years with the occasional week or even month of no edits and another few weeks and months with few edits, than if you edit a couple thousand pages in those first few months and burn yourself out so thoroughly on the project that you disappear for the next few years or even forever. (And I'd be sad to see you go in such a way. It's one thing when an editor decides that for whatever reason, the project doesn't hold their interest anymore; it's another when it is their very passion for the project that's their downfall)

I appreciate that you took the effort to respond to me quickly; but nonetheless, I am quite patient and willing to wait for a response next time. Always, but especially when I already know you're quite busy.

Funet has that information included as well, but it's a bit more effort to find it and requires a bit more background knowledge to extrapolate in some cases, especially those where the exact taxonomy is in dispute with different experts having a different opinion. Funet doesn't have it listed as a quick, easily-visible table like Insecta.pro, though, and in that I can understand the reasons for prefering insecta.pro, even if my personal preference is (*drumroll*) funet. (A real surprise, that, no? /sarcasm) If you want, I can explain to you how/where to find the taxonomic info in funet.

As to not adding the link before, like I said, don't worry about it. I know perfectly well what extreme exhaustion can do to a mind and how desperate the need for (just a few minutes of course, though they'll always turn out to be a few hours instead) sleep can become, and how it can make even the smallest tasks seem ridiculously daunting. As frustrating as my insomnia is these days, it has nothing on what it was like a few years ago. I've fallen asleep mid-step before. (Admittedly, that didn't last more than maybe a minute and was the result of being awake for around 96 hours straight (if excluding a couple of 2 to 3-minute bursts of sleep) with only four hours of sleep directly before that&mdash;it was sheer stubbornness and willpower keeping me awake in the hour up until that point. I could hardly afford to fall asleep while on my way home on bicycle. Prior to that, my insomnia)

In regards to the summarization: let's just wait and see which one of us has the spare time first? We're both busy and having little time for editing at the moment anyway, so it's not like there's a particular hurry. If you get around to it first, you get around to it first, and if I do, I do. Probably easier than both of us continuing this back-and-forth "nah, I really don't mind". We both don't mind, we're both willing, and we're both lacking time at the moment, and I suspect we're both mildly uncomfortable delegating work that feels like 'our' responsibility to the other.

As to my helpfulness: again, I'm glad to know you consider me so helpful. I don't think I'm being that much more helpful than others, though, but I do figure that for whatever reason (probably the fact that we appear to be very similar in a fair few ways), we just connect well, meaning that any particular amount of help granted by me just is, I dunno, more effective or useful or such to you than the same amount granted by another; and the other way around, when you describe a problem or situation, I just manage to pick up what info you likely could or couldn't use than another editor might. So I suppose that we're both right and both wrong: I probably am more helpful to you, but not because I am generally more helpful than others but because the same amount of help and explanation from me works better than other people's help does for you, and probably also works better for you than it would work for others. And like I said, I certainly don't mind giving long responses.

As to people and not caring: to a degree I agree, but I think that a large part is also than any individual being is only capable of caring about so much (some more than others), at least in part out of protection of both one's emotional well-being and thus indirectly one's sense of self. (Much in the same way that there are limits, again not the same for everyone, to what we can really, genuinely, comprehend on an emotional level, which is mostly a protection of our sense of self and thus indirectly our emotional well-being) We aren't made to fully imagine and comprehend the six billion other individuals, at least not all simultaneously and as individuals, and are simply not capable of coping with it. Much the same with infinity, among other things. It's why propaganda and stereotypes work so well: because we cannot simultaneously, genuinely comprehend the however-many-thousands-or-millions of individuals in any particular group, we pick out a small number that serve not just as examples of such a group but to a very real degree become that group&mdash;at least inside our mind. Propaganda and stereotypes thrive on this by steering people towards particular examples. Some people are more aware than others of this particular trait of our minds than others and thus more capable of negating or at least circumnavigating it, and some people can simply get a lot further in comprehending that entirety than most. (And some have both, which is...not entirely a good thing, at least for the person having it, to say the least. Though I'm suspecting you may know what I mean somewhat.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Another new section header for ease of navigation" as i said earlier, you can do whatever you want on the talk page. ( You can even delete it ) :D

"depending on whether you count from my first post or your first reply" you are so specific and on the mark. :D Would the number vary by one or two in "10/12"? That would vary the result from 8.3% to 20% (worst percentage for the latter best percentage for the former), but the variation was already included in "10/12" instead of just ten or just twelve ( 20% variation anyways ). :D However, you were so specific when you said "depending on whether you count from my first post or your first reply", I have less words for your super cool replies. "that's now grown to a size of around 100,000 bytes, but navigation was becoming a little annoying and a new section header helps for a bit" yeah I knew that, as your contributions had those five thousand plus bytes succeeding my name and the rest being around thirty. ( As I said I feel beholden ) You do not need to explain me even if you would have deleted the page. ( If you would explain then it can be for just increasing my knowledge ) :D
 * "On that note, would you mind if I collapse our above discussion so it doesn't take up so much space?" as I said, you can do anything you like, and I already thought of that as I sort of did not want you to search for where to reply, but at the same time I thought you might be sad if I asked that because you might have felt that all your cool replies were squeezed into a line. As I have no problem whatsoever, but I you want to then I might do it as well instead of you doing it. So, just let me know if you want to collapse it. Yeah I know about the show button, as I saw on somebody's page when I saw your page I guess? That is when you gave the link to your page. "sixteen pages" you really did check that? ( You said already in the bracket, but still ) That is really cool. "anyone else has reason to visit your talkpage" I it all fine, as long as you are fine or you want to collapse it then just let me know, otherwise it is fine.
 * "they do have their cultural purpose" yeah. Especially Indian names have some reason as to why somebody has that name ( It might mean something rather than just a random permutation of letters ). I do not know about names in other countries, but even they might be having some reason."beyond-the-individual" you understand that? Not many people do in fact, so I did not know if I should have said it earlier or not. This is because it might be really really difficult to explain by typing and might easily be wrongly interpreted by the reader. ( Atleast I should have know it is you I was talking to, so chances of misinterpreting were slim )
 * Actually, I am fine if I am awake. If I am awake, I do not do mistakes that sleepy people do. In fact, if I am sleepy, I can study much faster than if I am not sleepy. I would not have slept if I would not have slept for a few minutes. I could have stayed awake, but I thought I would wake up in just a while. If I was sure that I would fall asleep ( which I actually was ) I would not have slept for a while either. ( But, I thought I would wake up, but I knew I might sleep if I sleep for a while )
 * By nocturnal I do not mean I sleep in the diurnal time instead. :D I mean I sleep less and wake up as most diurnal people do, just sleeping late instead. Your time is really different. That sleep time is so different, but still, since it is you, it still is cool. :D
 * "And to be honest, if you're that sleepy" It does not matter. If i wanted I could have become not sleepy, but I thought just a few minutes was fine. Even though I could have prevented the sleep altogether."I know from experience that mistakes that are already easily made certainly are a lot more easy to make when one can barely keep their eyes open" No, I am fine even if I am sleepy, as that just might make my eyes close a bit for a while without effecting any other thing, and also after a while even the eyes would become fine, so avoiding sleep altogether. Yet, I just thought to, like, sleep for a few mminutes ( Maybe because of the cold that I thought to sleep for a while ). I edited some of your reply. "not while you're in the middle of exams" it does not matter, as nothing is impossible. Even in the midst of a lot of different things, still I am fine with more things. ( Just reducing sleep a bit more or something ) :D "Those moth articles have in some cases been in their miserable state for a decade or more; a few days or weeks really doesn't make much difference in the long run" so cool are you? You say so many things I would have said if I were in your place. I do not know but it feels so cool when I hear to such things that I would have said to the other too. Did you feel what i feel if somebody replied to you in the way you would have replied if you were in their place instead? "It's not a duty or obligation, and no matter the cause, if at any point you feel it's best to take a step back, whether short-term or permanently" Yeah, but as I said, you beholden people so much that they cannot even temporarily stop editing. :D So much help and I temporarily stop editing? Less likely right? Also, as I said, I can do additional work even if I do a lot of work, so it matters less right? Whilst not effecting my performance in any of the other works.
 * "also shoulder those burdens" I am fine with as many things as there are without affecting any of them."sad to see you go in" do not worry, you might not be sad. :D
 * "I appreciate that you took the effort to respond" I do not like to make anybody wait. So yeah, I atleast made sure that I replied to you even if I did not edit. Actually I came online because I thought you might have replied, so the previous time when I logged in you did not reply but when I logged out in a minute or so your reply was there. So I logged in again to reply to you.
 * Not really. If it would not have been your preference, you might have said to me the other link. Since you preferred this link, so you specified it. :D
 * "perfectly well what extreme exhaustion can do" As I said, it does not matter. I can do as much work as there is without getting tired. I slept few a while just for no reason ( maybe cold ). Also, if you are asleep just let me know if there is any work, and I can do it instead. :D ( You can also say to me any work even if you are not asleep or anything as I said to you earlier that just let me know if you want me to do something )
 * So, should I summarize our both's replies? Or only the ones regarding moths?
 * "six billion" A bit more. :D Around seven point two billion?
 * "much more helpful than others" Even the smallest help is really a lot I feel, and I avoid help for the same. This is because I feel so beholden by any type of help whatsoever that it just seems a lot. I do not consider any help given by me significant. I feel whatever help I did what really nothing on the other hand. Even though, your help was actually a lot from other person's perspective too maybe.
 * Yeah, but does it even matter? People must be thinking that it makes less sense to not care and all right? How to explain? Just care for the other and do not think about their deficiencies. Instead improve their deficiencies while still caring for them. You understand what I mean? It might sound a bit awry ( Why not leave them to their hand instead? ) Yeah do leave them at their hand if it means a net good. However, this is just what I think may be right and it may vary a lot. Also, Indian religion is a bit too, how to say?, like, caring for other people much more than caring for yourself Even if the other is not a good person and harms you, you should always forgive them. :D "I can do it while you do something else or you can even sleep" this is what I say to many people who need help, as I add work on my docket and free them instead. However, I do keep one condition that the other person sure does learn the way it is done, so they might not face any problem if they had to do it by themselves. Otherwise, would it not be a net loss? This is because they just did not learn anything right?
 * Also, you replies are so cool you know? No wonder that so many people might have praised you on that.Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response; my internet was incredibly spotty all of yesterday. It still is, so this'll be a quick-and-short response. If my internet goes a bit more stable again before you reply, I'll add to it. Similarly, I'll get around to collapsing our older conversation once my internet doesn't disconnect every other minute or so (I currently can't reliably use preview, because chances are the page won't load and all that, and when using templates, preview somewhat is a must.)
 * The difference between those two in this case would be 41h17m, so closer to two than one for sure. And yes, I really did check the length of our conversation so far. :)
 * You're right, it's a fair bit more than six billion. I'll admit I was a bit tired when I typed that post, and the number I had memorized in primary school, 6-6.2 billion, was probably correct then but certainly isn't now. (...that's only a decade and a half ago. World population grew fast). Similarly I tend to default to 16 million for the Netherlands population when tired, even though we've hit the 17 million now.
 * It's a trait of organized religion in general, I think&mdash;but in case of the western religions, it has for many become more word than deed. And indeed, taking away someone's opportunity to learn by doing something for them solely to ease their comfort in the present is often a hollow gift and a net loss; easing someone's comfort by helping them learn is usually a net benefit. Of course, there can be other factors playing a role; if someone is incapable of learning something, you've not taken their opportunity to learn&mdash;for they did not have it to start with&mdash;and if you take away their opportunity to learn for other reasons than merely their comfort in the present time, it can still be a net benefit. (After all, if a toddler plays near the edge of the street and falls on the asphalt, then attempts to get up and walk back to the sidewalk, by picking them up and helping them back up on the sidewalk you may have taken that specific opportunity to learn walking from them; but the situation was never one where it was safe for them to make the attempt. In such cases, the urgency of the problem to be solved outweighs the benefits of learning in that particular moment; and in some cases, the urgency of the problem outweighs the benefits to any one particular individual, sad as it may be.)
 * You sound like me when I try to downplay the effects my insomnia and other sleeping problems have on me. Just because you can do something instead of sleeping, doesn't necessarily mean you should. If it's urgent or massively important, sure. If it's adding a category or fixing a minor typo on an article that maybe three people a month look at? It can wait, I assure you.
 * I'm glad to see you intend to stick around Wikipedia in the long run, in any case. That's good. You're not beholden to me, though&mdash;and I assure you that if for whatever reason you can't edit for a few days, weeks or months I won't hold it against you. (Would be extremely hypocritical, anyway. Real life often enough causes me to be absent for a while)
 * As my internet is being a pest, there's some stuff I had been hoping to do that I can't quite do at this specific moment. If you'd like, feel free to check the genera listed in this article and add Category:Moth genera to them. Much like with the nowiki, the starting : is a trick so it displays instead of adds your page to the category. When adding a category to an article, it should start with Category directly after the [[
 * I have already checked the genera listed as Teleiodini; it's the genera listed under 'Gelechiini' and 'Unplaced to tribe' that still need checking/category-adding. Please do double-check that the article says it's a genus before adding the category.
 * I wish I could give a longer response (there's a lot of stuff I haven't responded to), but I'm afraid that if I take the time to type out more, I might have no internet again&mdash;and since I have to go away from the pc in about 10 minutes, I can't afford to wait for it to come back on in this case. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is all ok. Do you even need to explain the reason for your short reply? :D I can collapse it, just let me know how to do it. ( Should I summarize it and delete it and paste the summarized one or collapsing means putting that show button? ) "The difference between those two" even though I might not have understood what you meant, but the calculation sure does seem precise just like the counting of pages. :D
 * Yeah, if the person can anyways not do it, then the helper better help him and make sure he learns. ( If the helper knows he cannot learn, then all the more reason to help, as for a net profit ) "if someone is incapable of learning something, you've not taken their" you sure list out the possibilities, do you not? :D I sort of did not think of enumerating that but I meant the same. You for sure are cool right? :D
 * "If it's adding a category or fixing a minor typo on an article that maybe" yeah, still it might not be right to not type a link on my part, but I would say if it were somebody else then it were fine. As I said earlier right? I feel them as mistakes if I do, but just nothing if others do. Also, I kind of do not seem to care so much for sleep, as there might be a lot of things to do than sleep. So much work might entail some reduction in sleep. However, the good news seems to be that it might not effect the work no matter how sleepy it gets. It might just effect the eyes instead of any other thing. :D "I assure you that if for whatever reason you can't" no need for that. You can scold for not editing. :D
 * For sure, the this article articles if they have no things like Teleiodini, 'Gelechiini', etc. then are they in 'Unplaced to tribe'? The work you mentioned. :D So, just making sure before doing that what you say is understood. ( Instead of doing it wrongly, better to ask before ) Also, 'Gelechiini' looks fine, the genera listed under it as specified by funet link. :D ( Should I include one genera listed in funet under 'Gelechiini' but not in this article? )
 * It is really fine. :D You do not have to reply to everything you know? It is so clear to understand that since you have a fitful internet, it might not come again.
 * So you busy or something?
 * Oh yeah I see the link of collapse, so it means the show button.Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First internet trouble, then illness. (See below. Tonsillitis & influenza, with somewhat high fever and migraines. And mild dehydration thanks to the fevers, which of course fueled the migraines further. Spent most of the past week in bed. Second year in a row, fourth in the past six years in total, that I am or fall ill on Christmas. *sigh*)
 * I see you've found out most of what you were wondering about from your edit to your response and your recent edits. If anything new popped up or I forgot to answer something, please remind me though.
 * Yeah, I meant the collapse-through-template function, though in cases like this, the specific templates to use are collapse top and collapse bottom; 'plain'/simple collapse isn't particularly useful when it comes to long multi-paragraph conversations. I've finally gotten around to doing it. For ease of convenience, I've left the first few replies uncollapsed.
 * I've started typing out some more useful stuff for your Lepidoptera subpage, including summarization of some of the now-collapsed conversation above where relevant, but also some new information. Expect to see it added there in a few hours (or tomorrow at latest), though I'll leave a message here as heads-up once I do so as well.
 * Hope you've been well while I was absent? Oh, and happy (and only slightly belated) New Year! :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, illness might really be troublesome at times. I once had jaundice due to too much studying and less eating. (Even though I did not care about the illness) Yet, the doctor adviced to rest for a while, so it might be problematic. So did you recover?
 * Tonsillitis might be more imminent if you had any cold things. Also, you might have tonsillitis if you do not wear those heating clothes. So, can you make sure to be warm? Also, you seem to have illness repeatedly, so if you see any symptoms of them, then it might be better if you take precautions earlier.
 * Yeah, I was not sure as to what work had to be done. (I was not completely sure I mean) As from what I know, those names of those moth genera have to be pasted in the other article whilst removing it from the former article right? ( For the ones you specified, that is )
 * I can summarize them instead. So, you do not need to summarize anything. :D This is because, you already typed those long replies and now summarizing those is just not cool. So, I can do it instead. Just let me know if there were any mis-summarizations by me.
 * I was fine and what about you? ( Even though it does not seem that you were fine due to your illness ) Again, are you feeling nice? Is our illness gone? Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I always have a cold. A chronic cold, to be exact, and chronically irritated mucous membranes in the whole head-area (especially throat/nose/ears). Not much I can do about it, but yeah, it certainly makes me more susceptible to throat infections, tonsillitis, etc. Anyway, I'm well-enough for now. Still slightly recovering, but that's how it is. /shrug.
 * Do make sure to put the right description in new articles. I see that a couple of the articles you created on species had you describe them as genera. Animalparty noticed-and-fixed it, but not every new page reviewer might notice such a thing.
 * No need to remove anything. Just check the genera listed in the article I gave you, open those in separate tabs. Check the tabs. If it has the category Category:Moth genera on it (or in some cases, Category:Monotypic moth genera), good, you can close the tab and nothing else needs doing. If it doesn't have such a category on it, add it to the page. Save the page. Close the tab. Next tab. No need to add, change or remove anything in the Gelechiinae article: that one just lists what the genera in that subfamily are. That's still valid information whether those separate articles are properly categorized or not&mdash;it's just that in a lot of cases, such a 'parent' article is the easiest way to find the various relevant articles to check if they are properly categorized to start with. (At least, I think that's what you were asking about, yes? It's been a while since I pointed you at specific things to do, what with my illness and such. I think that's the most recent 'job' we talked about, though, right?)
 * Sure, feel free to. I'll edit-and-explain anything you might have misunderstood or mis-summarized. (Might even be a good way for you to double-check if you properly understood me. I think you did, but never hurts to make sure) Just do let me know when you've added those summaries, that way I know when to check.
 * I'll still be adding some summary-style information there, though&mdash;just not of information I've actually stated full-length above. No need for us to repeat one another's work, after all. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do not think I noticed if it was a genera or a species. When somebody pointed it out, I made sure to amend it in the other articles as well.
 * Yeah, that is what I asked. That explanation by you made it more than clear on what to do. :D Also, Gelechiinae was mentioned by you earlier as well I think. There were two categories mentioned by you, which I think, might be the most used ones or something like that. So yeah, now it is more clear on what to do.
 * Yeah, it might be better to double-check instead of getting it wrong. So, it might increase the accuracy.Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Advice on GA reviews
Greetings, when reviewing GA nominations it makes sense for you to explain briefly which steps you took to check the article for compliance with the criteria. Also, check that the article has no maintenance tags; I spotted one on Licancabur which I've remedied now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, like looking for the GA criterion and it's cohesiveness with other of the similar articles ( along with checking if the links are reliable, which is present in the GA criterion anyways ) would be the ones to mainly mention for? Also, appreciations for the advice. It might be too helpful if the mistakes made are pointed out so that they might be ameliorated. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)