Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Archive6

Monotypic genera, where do they go?
The way I read WikiProject Insects an article on a monotypic genus should be named for the genus, not the species. But I've seen at least one case where a veteran Lepidoptera meister moved an article from the generic name to the full binomial name, stating that "this is how we do that here" or something to that effect. Is there any consensus on this? Noym (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the consensus across the Tree of Life is as you read – monotypic genera are dealt with under the genus' name, not the species. There are exceptions – for instance, genera which would otherwise need a disambiguating term are dealt with under the species' name as a natural means of disambiguation (e.g. Electrolux addisoni, Polypodium hydriforme, Dactylanthus antarcticus, Aratus pisonii) – but in the large majority of cases, the genus is the right title. If you can find which article was moved against that convention, I will readily move it back to where it belongs. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't remember right now, sorry; it was more than a week ago. I'll let you know if you run into it again. Noym (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Names and Titles, part umpty
My effort to survey the butterfly tree and fix obsolete/nonstandard article names is meeting resistance: A large part of the problem is that this WikiProject has never formally documented its preference for scientific names over common names on the Project page. Can we please finally do this? Objections anyone? Noym (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Freyer's purple emperor
 * Talk:Apollo_(butterfly)
 * User_talk:Noym


 * I think the reason this project has never "documented its preference" is because it hasn't got one. It follows the general naming conventions, which favour common names where they exist (but not where they don't). Attempting to force all articles to scientific-name titles probably isn't helpful. Some projects have done it, but not without some controversy, and certainly not without considerable (prior) discussion. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the last two times this came up people here were in favor of binomial names 7:1 and 3:0, respectively. I think I've established that I'm happy to discuss first and act later, but I don't really see myself getting involved in Wikipedia politics on anything beyond Project level. Just that my account is young doesn't mean I haven't been using and following Wikipedia for years. I know very well how steep and cliquish the power hierarchy is this place has got itself. Noym (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you may well know about WP:CONLIMITED: "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". The use of common names where appropriate is policy, not just a guideline. It might be possible to develop a consensus here, and take that to the wider community for their approval, but don't try to form a splinter group here. Some lepidopterans have very well established common names, and I for one see no reason why they shouldn't be used. As a biologist, I would love to see scientific names used, but as an editor of an encyclopaedia, I agree that common names are preferable. I would be amazed if Phlogophora meticulosa wasn't at Angle Shades, or if Thaumetopoea processionea wasn't at Oak Processionary, and the principle of least astonishment is generally considered a good one. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Aargh, edit conflict. Ok, I'll type the whole damn thing again. I think we can set this as a policy if we want though. There are not a lot of editors active whithin the wikiproject and I think most of us agree with using scientific names and most others dont really have a preference. You reasoned earlier that other projects have done it, so I think we can too. I suggest you make a draft guideline and we can have a vote. I am pretty sure it will make it as a policy for the project if this is allowed. Some further arguments in support of scientific names: I think the reasoning for using scientific names is a bit the same as the reasoning for introducing the system of binomial names in the 1700's in the first place. It is a name unique to the species and is known to people speaking different languages. Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Species are only known by their common names in certain geographic areas. They often have different or no common names in other areas of the world where they are known. So a species common name might be the most logical think to search for someone from the US, but the same species might also occur in South America, where it would have a Spanish and/or Portuguese common name. Someone speaking Spanish would not know the English Common name for the species.
 * If a species occurs in different English speaking countries, it might have various common names which are only used in one of the specific locations. Would we use the US common name or UK common name?
 * 90% of the species in the world are not found in English speaking countries and do not have an English Common name. If they do have a common name, it would be in the language of the country they occur. We dont make articles under Dutch or German common name titles, although that would (if reasoning in favour of common names) be the best choice.
 * Of the 10% of species that do occur in English speaking countries, most do not have a common name.
 * The species that do have a common name, often have several. Sometimes the larval and adult forms have their own common names for instance. There are also common names which have an endless amount of spelling variants, such as (fictional example): North American Webworm, North American Web-worm, North American Web worm, North American webworm, American Webworm, etc.
 * Editors who are not familiar with making articles, who are not aware of genus pages and country lists, might make an article on a species without making a redirect to the scientific name. The red link in the genus article would thus remain and the new article would be lost in limbo so to speak.


 * All this is true, but is not necessarily a reason for the exclusive use of scientific names. Certainly, where a species has no common name, or a variety of common names, the scientific name will be used. That is already the case. If a Spanish-speaker is looking up information about a moth in an English-language encyclopaedia, they should not be surprised to find it using an English name. I don't expect the Swedish Wikipedia to call their "Orycteropus afer" just because I'm unfamiliar with the name jordsvin. The point is that where there is a single prevalent English-language common name, policy dictates that we should use it, and I have seen nothing here that would overrule that. The policy is there for a reason. You have to ask what is it that makes Lepidoptera different from almost every other group of living things in terms of naming? I suspect the answer is – nothing. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if we (the people working on these articles) prefer to use them, why not do so? People can make all the policies they want, but in reality, no article under a common name has been made in the last year or so. I would know, because I check all new Lep articles made. Furthermore, you stated "Some projects have done it, but not without some controversy, and certainly not without considerable (prior) discussion". I would say these projects have editors with common sense, and we should follow their example. User Noym is doing a great job at checking the taxonomy and status of all our butterfly articles. He is one of a very small group actually working on these species. If this small group prefers to handle things a certain way, they should have the freedom to do so, especially since it wont affect the findability of species articles at all, since common names are redirected anyway. A big problem with wikipedia is that there are a lot of people only working on upholding all kinds of policies and guidelines who are hindering the people wanting to contribute actual content. The people I know who are contributing to Lepidoptera articles are AshLin, Bugboy, Wilhelmina Will, Dger, Stemonitis, Noym and me and that is about it at the moment (sorry if I forgot someone!). People can complain they disapprove of a move to scientific name, but without these users, 99% of the Lep articles would not even exist in the first place. Discouraging people doing the work is very counterproductive in my opinion. One more thing about common names for insects: I understand people prefer common names for birds, mammals, etc. but be honest: how many common names for insects do you actually know? You would know the common names of whole orders or families, but not that many individual species I am guessing. I at least, can come up with only a few in my native language (Dutch). Other online references for insects (see for instance Bug Guide, Moth Photographers Group and UKmoths) who are targetted at the general public also use scientific names first, and common names as extra info. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are ignoring the point of WP:CONLIMITED. Even if we all agreed (which we don't) that scientific names are the only acceptable titles, it wouldn't be enough to trump the very well established Wikipedia-wide policy of using common names where reasonable. You have to think about it from the point of view of the readership, not the editors. I like scientific names; you like scientific names; the vast majority of readers are infinitely more comfortable with common names. Lepidopterans – at least the showy ones – are unusually well endowed with common names for a group of arthropods, and those are the names that the general public will encounter. Note that plenty of other sites actually put the common name first, including UKmoths, contrary to your assertion, not that it affects the argument at all. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC x2) I agree that unique, unambiguous, and very widely known common names take precedence over scientific names, just like "bird" obviously takes precedence over "aves". If there is a name that virtually the entire planets knows and expects then nothing else makes sense. But how many species does this apply to, out of the 150,000+ there are? A couple dozen? a few hundred? This problem is a red herring.
 * I'm also not trying to form a splinter group; I thought I was implementing established consensus. If the consensus I thought there was does not in fact exist then, well, it's not like there's nothing else do to. I'm still strongly in favor of using binomial names for article titles to the extent reasonable, but I'm really not interested in going into Wikipedia politics.
 * One footnote: I grew up alternating between two countries where they don't speak English and I currently live in a third country where they also don't speak English. Scientific names of insects are hugely useful to me because a given folk taxon from one local vernacular does not usually match any folk taxon from any other local vernacular, at least not exactly. I don't have any hard numbers on this but I'm fairly certain that most other users of this encyclopedia are not native speakers of English either. Lepidoptera are special in this regard. Every living language has a word that means exactly that same as "mammal", exactly the same as "bear", or exactly the same as "rodent". No language other than English that I'm aware of has a word that means exactly the same as "fritillary". Noym (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So, you're arguing that where there's a good common name, we use it, and where there isn't, we use the scientific name. That is exactly the meaning of the existing policies. That requires no extra discussion here, no project-specific policy, and certainly isn't the same as requiring all articles to be at scientific name titles. You moved Speckled Wood, an entirely unambiguous and well-attested common name, to Pararge aegeria, for instance, and I have undone that, in accordance with policy. You cannot seriously claim that common names for butterflies and moths are a "red herring". Rather than using scientific names "to the extent possible", you should be doing the opposite – using common names where reasonable, and scientific names when that won't work for whatever reason. I don't wonder that some of your attempted moves are being resisted. Wikipedia uses common names as far as possible. It's as simple as that. All your foreign-language arguments are irrelevant to article naming on the English-language Wikipedia. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict again. Reaction was to "You are ignoring the point of".. Ah yes, you are right about Ukmoths, I was under the impression it uses scientific names because I am working on microleps a lot (which dont have common names in most cases). Anyway: I still dont see it as a problem for readership at all. It is only the title of the article and changes nothing else. If a user searches for a common name he will find the article just as easily regardless of the scientific name title. Anyway, if it is an uphill battle to change the policy, I will not spend too much time on it. If Noym decides he wants to try and change the policy, I will support him. There are dozens of pro's and only some con's to using scientific names and the number one reason to use common names at this moment seems to be "it is the current policy". I think wikipedia has evolved a lot in regards to biology articles, and a change of this policy will eventually take place I think. In my experience, old articles (2 to 3 years old) use common names, while all others which have been made since (with some exceptions of course) use scientific names. I see the problems with the old articles, because they are not always properly redirected to their current scientific name and you can only see if it is redirected properly by clicking "what links here". This results in red links which should be blue links on genus pages and in country lists, which in turn leads to duplicate articles. In the end, this makes wikipedia less user friendly, instead of friendlier, which is the most important "pro"-common name argument. All in all, I think we have a strong case for switching to scientific names for insects. Like I said before, everyone knowns common names of various mammal and bird species, but this is not the case for most insects, even the showy butterflies I might add. Just take a look at List of butterflies of North America (Papilionidae). How many of these common names do you know? And these should be the most famous US butterflies. Anyone who knows most of these names, is probably into butterflies in the first place and would be familiar with scientific names as well. This is quite different from mammals for instance. I can see a kid searching for "Dolphin" in wikipedia and being confused by the use of scientic names. I dont picture a kid searching for "Broad-banded Swallowtail" out of the blue though. Well-known common names are mostly limited to groups of species with some exceptions off course. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To add to that: When searching on google I also get a lot of hits on "Speckled Wood Butterfly" and "Speckled wood". There is no possible variation in the scientific name though and that is exactly why scientific names are better in my opinion. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the "number one reason" is not that "it is current policy". The reason is to make things as easy as possible for as wide a readership as possible. Look at how other general encyclopaedias do it; they use common names for the same reason (certainly not because of Wikipedia policy). The use of common names neither improves nor worsens the provision of redirects, so that argument carries no weight. You argue that people don't know common names of showy insects, but I disagree. People know a Red Admiral (only not an article title because it refers to different species in different places), or a Comma or a Tortoiseshell. They know the Cabbage White and the Death's Head Hawk Moth. These are familiar and widespread names, used by authoritative figures and popular sources alike. If a non-specialist was shown a butterfly by an expert, they are quite likely to be told it's a "Broad-banded Swallowtail", and might later look it up here. It's unlikely they'd be told or remember the name Papilio astyalus. Most people prefer common names. Many leps have suitable common names. That's why we use them. It's not like that because it's policy; it's policy because it makes sense. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think "speckled wood" is a different name from "Speckled Wood"? Let's not descend into idiocy now. The same kind of variation exists for scientific names; all of the following are valid: --Stemonitis (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Papilio slateri
 * Papilio slateri Hewitson, 1857
 * P. slateri
 * P. slateri Hewitson, 1857
 * Papilio (Chilasa) slateri
 * Papilio (Chilasa) slateri Hewitson, 1857
 * P. (Chilasa) slateri
 * P. (Chilasa) slateri Hewitson, 1857
 * Chilasa slateri
 * Chilasa slateri (Hewitson, 1857)
 * C. slateri
 * C. slateri (Hewitson, 1857)
 * No I dont think they are different names, but allowing articles to be made under common names would result in red links if only a slight variation in spelling is used. An example of an article made today: a new mammal article made today Tate's Three-striped Dasyure. This article was not linked to the binomial name "Myoictis wavicus", furthermore, in the genus article, the common name was spelled as "Tate’s Three-striped Dasyure". So, the link in the genus was still red, while the species page was made. This only because of the use of ' instead of ’. If the genus would have listed scientific names as a link, and common names as an extra addition and the standard policy would be to make articles under the scientific name title, these kinds of problems would not exist. I think there are numerous redundant articles on species listed under a slight variation in spelling which nobody has spotted yet. I could think of some other likely ways to spell "Tate's Three-striped Dasyure", such as "Tates Three-striped Dasyure", "Tate's Three striped Dasyure", etc. In other words: if we want to keep wikipedia managable, the policy should be to use scientific names. There is less risk of redundant articles that way. Someone who wants to look up the species would still find it, because the common name redirects to the article. The risk is that someone else will accidently make "Broad-banded swallowtail" or "Broadbanded Swallowtail" and this is exactly the problem. It is just like database management: you need a unique key in order to keep track of large volumes of content. The binomial name is just that. Most of the variations listed above are not the binomial names as you know quite well. P. slateri would never be accepted as a title, just as the inclusion of the author in the title. Chilasa slateri is not the correct name, since it is a subgenus, so would not be the proper title either. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Chilasa slateri is correct if you believe (as you are entitled to) that Chilasa should be treated as a separate genus. (A lot of people don't realise that more than one scientific name can be equally valid depending on differing opinions of circumscription.) As long as you make the redirect from the scientific name when creating an article at the common name, as you are supposed to, almost every duplication will be picked up. Sure, when people don't make the redirects, problems arise, but neither approach solves that. That argument is flawed. Neither the scientific name nor the common name is really a unique key. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are always some species which would pose a problem if authorities dont agree on their current placement. You are overstepping something important though: Tate's Three-striped Dasyure, Tate’s Three-striped Dasyure and some other minor spelling variants are all just as likely to be used as an article name. I 99% of cases, there is only one logical choice for a binomial name. This would leave only a small percentage at risk of being overlooked as an existing article. So no, it is no unique key, but as close to it as we can get. You cannot seriously argue that this is also the case when using common names. Anyway, I'm quitting my argueing. I seriously think this will come up again and again until policy has changed. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but where there is real variation in common names, we'd be using the scientific name anyway. Where there isn't, the problem doesn't arise, and that's where we'd use the common names. So it's not a problem. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not trying to bust your balls here, but in that case you should move Speckled Wood back to the scientific name because it could also be Speckled Wood Butterfly, Speckled wood, Speckled Wood butterfly, Speckled wood butterfly, etc. That is the whole deal with using the scientific names (I know this is far fetched, but do you see my point at least?). We all agree that users are likely to search for common names for famous species, so they should find these species when searching for them. However, we are trying to make a concise and complete overview of species, and the common name policy is hindering us in doing that. In other words: it is not practical for the people who are trying to make wikipedia a good source for Lep species. This discourages these same people from contributing and thus makes wikipedia less acurate than it could be. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the same name, just different typographic conventions (with or without "butterfly" on the end; every lep could have "butterfly" or "moth" affixed; I'm not saying that "speckled wood butterfly" never crops up, but it's much less frequent than "speckled wood"). Differing common names would be something like Mourning Cloak / Camberwell Beauty. You will find that the "Search" function on the left copes with differences in capitalisation admirably. Try it. There is currently no redirect at "black hairstreak", but if you type that into the search box, and press go, you will be taken straight to Black Hairstreak.
 * You have yet to show that "the common name policy is hindering us". You have only shown that people failing to adhere to the existing policy (which includes the redirects and so on) causes problems. All the other stuff, about discouraging potential users, is rank speculation. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the same name, but it still gives a red link if you dont redirect all possible variants. Off course you will find it when you hit search, but it does appear to be missing on the genus page or country list if not linked properly. Do you really dont see this is a problem? In the ideal world, if all users would be making perfect articles with all possible redirects this indeed would not be an issue. Regretably, this is not the case. And off course it is hindering us. When red links should be blue links we dont know a page exists. And yes it is discouraging. I can only speak for myself, but it is discouraging when you strongly believe something is helping the project is not implemented. In the past, I worked on the List of Australian Butterflies and added redirects for red linked common names. There were many which were linked to a common name, but with just some minor spelling variant. They appeared to not be linked at all though. The people at the Plants project have implemented the scientific naming convention, so when cant we? Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap
Stemonitis, my last message was a concession of defeat, okay? I made a point of explicitly agreeing with with the main argument in your preceding post; how tone deaf are you?

For the record:

(1) I immediately stopped moving pages (or requesting pages moved) the first time I met opposition (on grounds not orthogonal to this discussion). I immediately went here to discuss things, see if there were any possible objections to what I'd been doing that I'd overlooked, and get the Project's official blessing before continuing. I explicitly asked if there were objections in the very first message in this very thread.

(2) Moving species from common names to binomial names was a small part of what I did. It looks like a large part because every move counts a four edits; in terms of time invested it was insignificant. For the most part I was fixing undeniable factual errors.

I've tried to be diplomatic about this, but the butterfly tree on this wiki is not in the shape it could be. On the one hand, large parts of the taxonomy are a decade out of date. Part of the reason seems to be the overreliance on a lepidoptera name index that hasn't properly been updated since 2003 and significant portions of which have been skewered by recent molecular results. Another part of the reason seems to be that nobody really gives a shit. Aside from the outdated taxonomy there are the simple editing mistakes:
 * In a few cases I can't find right now links were going to the wrong article (ie. not the target article the author of the source article had in mind) because people got confused by ambiguous names.
 * In one case (that I've found so far) people got so confused there were actually two articles on one species.
 * Articles use the wrong scientific name to refer to their own subject.
 * Articles on species use common names belonging to other species. Lots of articles on species.
 * Species articles use common names that belong to the containing genus.
 * Genera articles use common names that belong to other genera.
 * Species articles use common names as headwords that are used for other species besides.
 * Overview articles list species that do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist..

I tried to improve things, and I still think that on the balance I did.

I did this because I didn't see anyone else getting their hands dirty.

Noym (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, dont use past tense dude, you cant stop now! :) You can continue your cleaning regardless of the article title discussion by using proper redirects. Might I suggest the following to ensure there is less chance of duplicate articles: always include the original combination in the synonyms list and create a redirect for it. If we implement this, we will have made a big step in reducing duplicate articles. You are right about the number of editors working on butterflies. I concentrate on moths and make some butterfly articles from time to time. User Dger is making some articles from time to time too, but that is about it. We really need someone to properly dive into the subject matter. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Beware of personal attacks, Noym. Neither "holy crap" nor "How tone deaf are you?" are in an appropriate tone. I think it's great that you're fixing problems, and I'm sure the vast majority of your changes are beneficial. My only point, in answer to your initial post, is that insisting on scientific names violates policy and is not needed to achieve your aims. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Just to move this forward and get more involvement of other participants I propose to implement the naming guidelines of wikiproject plants for Lepidoptera and possibly Insects as a whole. See WikiProject Plants. Most active editors seem to agree on this, since only one user is objecting to it so far - but is doing a great job objecting I might add :) -. I have no idea how to actually start a procedure like this, so if anyone who does know want to get involved, please go ahead. There are tons of arguments listed above and we will need to get them organised. To further our cause I suggest you read the research Noym did and posted on Apollo (butterfly), which clearly illustrates the problems with common names. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: defies policy for no clear benefit. (Most of Noym's arguments in that section were not about the title of the article in question, and don't seem particularly pertinent.) Where there are problems with common names, the current advice is already to use the scientific name. Those instances would not be changed under this proposal. Instead, all the familiar lepidopteran names would be replaced with (for most people) unfamiliar scientific names. No more Lulworth Skipper; no more southwestern corn borer; no more gypsy moth; no more Heath Fritillary; no more garden tiger moth; and a thousand other examples. Even butterfly would have to be moved to "Rhopalocera"! This proposal has nothing to do with reducing confusion, which would only be increased in the general readership if it were implemented. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: You make it sound like we are purging wikipedia of common names, which is not the case at all. The proposal is to switch the prefered title to scientific with the common name redirecting to it. Anyway, I was not expecting a vote yet, since I dont think this is the proper place to have this discussion. Hardly anyone reads this page. Furthermore, there should be a list of pro's and con's to vote on. We cant expect people to read this whole discussion. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you're proposing, and I'm trying to nip it in the bud. It is misguided, and no shred of evidence has yet been presented that Lepidoptera is a special case which deserves to be treated differently from any other group. The fact that WP:PLANTS made a decision doesn't make it right. Note that "other stuff exists" is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid in discussions. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying Lepidoptera alone should be treated differently, but I cant judge which others might encounter the same problems so I am not touching that if you dont mind. I am also not saying that we should do it because they have done so, I am saying they have a guideline like that and I would want the Lep project to have the same. Furthermore, Other stuff exists is a valid argument here, because they have discussed it and agreed on it. You can easily reverse your argument and say: why are plants treated differently than Leps? Their taxonomic tree seems in much better condition than ours is. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Might I also add that you have every right to oppose, but why do you presume the discussion should be ended because you dont agree? Apparently many others do agree, because this has been brought up several times by several editors and will be brought up many times. This should be an indication that using common names is hindering people, why else would they bring it up? Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bold move – perhaps a foolhardy one – to counter my comments with an assertion that "other stuff exists" is somehow a valid argument here, despite the considerable evidence to the contrary. Please read the links I have provided. They are quite illuminating. Note that I do not suppose that my voicing my opinion would stop the discussion, but I dared to hope it would.
 * If you are not saying that Lepidoptera should be treated differently to other groups, then you have started the wrong discussion in the wrong place. There are no problems here that are specific to Lepidoptera; there are indeed no problems here that are not dealt with by proper application of the existing policies and guidelines. How would readers benefit from moving Heath Fritillary to Melitaea athalia? Put simply, they wouldn't. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not foolish. You are the first to refer to a guideline to support your argument (the tree of Life policy to use common names). I refer to another, contradicting guideline, supporting my argument. Plants are part of the Tree of Life and should adhere to their guidelines, but do not. Leps do also belong to the Tree of Life, but have no exemption, because nobody has taken the initiative to propose a guideline. I am now. Dismissing this by referring to yet another guideline (other stuff exists) is a weak argument. Moreover because, although mentioned in the first sentence, this other stuff exists guideline does not speak about policies at all, but only refers to article discussions. The tree of life guideline was put in writing after reaching concensus I am sure. If the wikiproject Plants participants would have been active in this discussion though, this consensus could not have been reached since they clearly disagree. In other words, just because it is written as a policy does not mean there is still consensus.
 * Furthermore, how could readers be hindered by moving the article to the scientific name? Put simply, they would not. If they search for Heath Fritillary, they would arrive at exactly the same page with the same article. You oppose the WP:Plants policy, but is it more difficult to find the articles on Oaks or Willows? The articles are named for their scientific names, but just as easy to find. So I have heard no convincing argument from you why they could not be moved to scientific names. On the other hand, using scientific names would be beneficial to the editors, since it reduces "lost" articles and improves the overall consistancy of wikipedia, because 90% of species cannot be placed at their common name title. If it is beneficial to the editors, it is also beneficial to the readers, because we can spend our time doing useful stuff. Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with using the scientfic names as the article names. In fact all the new articles I have added have been by the scientific name with a redirect from one or more common names. Most of the articles I have worked on have had common names but that is because I mainly work with North American butterflies. Such is not the case for South American or Asian species.
 * One very good reason for using the scientific name has been mentioned earlier and is especially true for butterflies and moths and even dragonflies. Their common names can be ambiguous. Such names as, Monarch, Wanderer, Dragonhunter, Painted Lady, Bog Copper, to name only a few, can easily be confused with many other non-insect subjects. Redirects and disambiguation pages solve any problems finding the appropriate article but the scientific name almost always offers an immediate entry point for a new article.
 * I don't think it is necessary to swap all existing pages; but let us set the standard that new articles all start with scientific names. Common names can and should appear in the "name" item in the taxobox. Dger (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Who here understands Wikipedia's policy on using common names? Who can explain why it states what it does? Who can explain the need to avoid local consensus overriding global consensus? Who understands the difference between policies and guidelines? Until you can understand these issues, any further arguments are going to continue in this painful vein. And please stop the comparisons with WP:PLANTS; if your argument is to be convincing, it has to work even in the absence of that decision. Stop discussing the species with no applicable common name. Stop discussing normal practices of disambiguation. None of this is relevant. The changes entailed by this proposal refer solely to those articles which would currently be at a common name title under proper application of the existing policies. It is only those articles which should be discussed, because those are the only ones that would be changed. Arguing that readers "would arrive at exactly the same page" is hardly a compelling case for change; making life easier for editors is laudable, but is not a good enough reason to make life harder for the readers, who overwhelmingly prefer common names. This proposal will surely fail unless the quality of the arguments improves dramatically. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, can we agree on one thing here. Move all species with ambiguous common names to scientific. This includes all species with multiple common names and species with common names which are subject to various spelling variants. This does not include the earlier mentioned Speckled Wood, but does include species which might be written with or without "-" such as the American web-worm or Webworm, etc. and species names which might be prone to similar typographic variants. If we agree on this, we would tackle most of the problems with common names, without having to change policy. Don't get me wrong: i still do not agree with the policy at all, and in my opinion there in fact is a big difference between mammals (which have well-known common names for 90% of species) and insects (which have well-known common names for only a small number of species). In my opinion, the policy is plain wrong. Stemonitis believes the opposite, and I respect that opinion. That being said, I am seriously doubting the policy as it stands today would reach consensus if put up for vote now, instead of years ago. As you can see here, most active editors on species prefer scientific names. Ruigeroeland (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think most would agree on moving ambiguous common names to their scientfic names. Don't forget to include differences between various English spellings (i.e., particularly US vs UK, e.g., grey vs gray, sulphurs vs sulfurs etc.) and not just differences between European names and North American names. What I would like to see as a starting point is that all new articles use the scientfic name. My guess is that most new entries are least likely to have common names so this won't be an issue. We should definitely stop moving scientically named articles to their common names. That is most likely to be the cause of future problems. Dger (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We can agree that all species with well-attested, substantively different common names should take the scientific name title (e.g. Nymphalis antiopa). I don't think that needs to apply to differences in hyphenation, and so on, but that is perhaps best dealt with as a separate issue. I also don't think it's tenable, as Dger suggests, to treat new articles differently from existing one, at least not through some kind of project guideline. I imagine it already occurs de facto, because all the active lep writers have avowed their desire to do that, but a policy that treats new articles differently from existing ones is not something I've seen before, and would lead to some undesirable situations, I believe. The correct title for an article should not depend on the date it was written. Ruigeroeland, you are still discussing all the species which have no common name; they have no bearing on this matter, which affects only those which have. The whole point of WP:UCN is that we should use the name most commonly used in reputable sources to identify the taxon. If the taxon is uniformly referred to by its scientific name, then that is the most common name (albeit not a "common name"). Various people over the years have tried to insist that WP:UCN means that a vernacular name must always be used, but they were always wrong. That is neither the intention, nor the practice, of that policy. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Of Lepidoptera Indica
User:Shyamal has completed the image harvesting of Lepidoptera Indica volumes 1 to 10. A truly humungous task which has great relevance to Indian butterfly articles. AshLin (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing! Great work Shyamal! On a related note: I have recently uploaded all images from "Stainton’s Natural History of the Tineina (1855–1873)" except volume one, which I could not locate. If anyone can find it, I would gladly do that one too..! I am now working on making articles for the uploaded images. Cheers and keep up the good work everyone! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The workflow that worked best was - http://www.BiodiversityLibrary.org -> - batch conversion of JPEG2000 to TIFF using IrfanViewer - GIMP - > crop - > PNG (mainly) -> Commonist. The labelling of images with current names is still a big task. Shyamal (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Martania
Can anyone here provide some information about the genus Martania? That title currently redirects to Martania taeniata, after a move on the basis that the genus was "not monotypic". The only references on that page are a broken link to Fauna Europaea, and a link to UK Moths, where the species is called Perizoma taeniata. If the genus is monotypic, the article should be at the genus title (per WP:TOL); if not, the redirect currently at the genus title should be deleted (or replaced). I am happy to do either of those things, but I would need to know which. There is a third possibility, that the genus is generally treated as a synonym of some other genus. In that case, the redirect would only need to be changed. In any case, we need a solid reference for the monotypy / non-monotypy / synonymy, and I don't really know where to start. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can find some info. Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems valid and not monotypic. See: which lists at least four species. Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the genus page. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Progress check list
I have made a page to keep an eye on our progress. Please have a look and add or change anything you want. See: WikiProject Lepidoptera/Checklist. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy vs Classification vs Systematics vs.....
Debate on taxonomy sections listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life It follows on from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lepidoptera Image Error
It seems that the image in the taxobox of the article Lepidoptera, is not displayed. After looking at the history of the page I have concluded that there is nothing wrong with the article. Something is wrong with the image - it doesn't seem to exist. How can this be fixed?


 * It was deleted on the Commons, because the montage was not available under an appropriate licence. I have replaced it temporarily with a fairly random image. Feel free to pick a better one. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A request by User:HKmoths
User:HKmoths has made a request on my talk page, which I am reproducing below for members of this WikiProject to help out with.

";Lepidoptera taxonomy

Hi AshLin (& Happy New Year).

It is time to revisit taxonomy of Lepidoptera and update the relevant Wiki entries following van Nieukirken et al., 2011. Order Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In:Zhang, Z.-Q. (ed.) Animal Biodiversity: an outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa 3148: 212-221. I am fully occupied with work at the moment, so am unable to assist. Could you please ask the other contributors to the Lepidoptera pages to help out? The van Nieukirken paper is open access, which helps.

cheers, Roger.

HKmoths (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)"

AshLin (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I also got this from User:Shyamal some time ago. I will chip in at some point, but have some other stuff I would like to finish first.Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the phymatopus page
Hi! I'm new to this, I just wanted to ask if it was ok for me to expand the phymatopus genus page? I will only add, not delete Minirolls1991 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Considering your use of lower case initial for a genus (which should be initial capitalised) which indicates possible lack of exposure to Biology and your lack of experience in editing leads me to suggest that you edit the article in the user-page — User:Minirolls1991/Phymatopus which I have created for you. I have put a welcome meesage on your talk page and recommend you explore those links as you edit your user page. When you feel that your user page is done, let us know here. AshLin (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible duplicate article
Apatura iris and Doxocopa agathina are both called Purple Emperor. Are they the same? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, they are not the same. A identical common name might be a clue, but there are numerous species that share common names. Especially if the two species are found in other parts of the worldm like these two. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm very relieved. Thank you. I'm the one who posted it at Requested articles/Images, so it would have been my head. :) I'll go ahead and make sure all the synonyms have redirects, and make a dab page for Purple Emperor. Cheers to you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like Apatura iris is primary, so I'll just add a hatnote. Is that the right thing to do? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know, but I guess it would be the best thing to do. Keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam
FYI: free subsriptions to HighBeam: HighBeam/Applications. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WP Lepidoptera in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Lepidoptera for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

some errors in the article
I can state some mistakes in the article about "Orenaia helveticalis". First, Orenaia helveticalis gedralis and Orenaia helveticalis murinalis are good and valid subspecies (see Leraut in Alexanor, 2011). Orenaia helveticalis ventosalis has been described by Chrétien and not Chretien. The list of countries of distribution is not complete. I also ercall that O. helveticalis murinalis has not been described as G. Leraut (in Leraut&Leraut, 2011) but in G. Leraut, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.116.6.10 (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved the two subspecies from synonyms to the subspecies section. Chrétien had already been fixed by someone else (?). I did not add countries to the distribution list, because I dont know which ones. The ones that are there now are from Fauna Europaea. If you see errors, please feel free to correct them, but please give sources if you do. Cheers and thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Chrysiridia rhipheus is TFA for April 7th
Chrysiridia rhipheus will run on the main page on April 7th. I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Papilio aristodemus
Please take a look at the article and the Emergency reaction to the latest status report, I just added. TIA --h-stt !?  14:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work, I see no problems at all with your addition. Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Argyresthia ivella
Hey under Argyresthia ivella, would it be simpler to alter the distribution of the species since it lists so many areas of Europe it is NOT found in? Maybe limit it to something like 'found mainly in central Europe'?
 * Hmm, that would be an option, but it is found in, for instance, Belgium and the UK, which are not central Europe. I chose this sentence since it is the most precise I could make it (except for listing all of the countries it IS found in) using the listed source. If you can think of anything better, please feel free to change it. It is not that big of a deal in my opinion though... Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 23
Hi guys, can you help with the Neochrysops → Lepidochrysops issue on the linked Rfd above? -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tagiades ID
Hullo. I tentatively identified one of my unknowns from Mindanao, Philippines as Coladenia similis. However I'm not very sure about it. I'm not even sure about the genus as it also strongly resembles snow flats (Tagiades). There's a description and a few [bad] photos of Philippine Coladenia from a 1992 paper by de Jong & Treadaway here:, but I have trouble understanding the technical descriptions. I based it mostly on the photo and the shape of the hyaline spots on the forewing. It's definitely Tagiadini though. Does anyone have access to a key for the genera of the latter?-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah... Tagiades japetus apparently.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a key from "The Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera )of the Philippines" (de Jong & Treadway, 1993)


 * 1.Forewing without hyaline spot in space 11 over cell spot. In male, hind tibiae without hair pencil → 2
 * Forewing with a hyaline spot in space 11 over cell spot. In male, hind tibiae with short recumbent hair pencil on inner side (difficult to see) → 4
 * 2.Forewing with hyaline spots in spaces 2 and 3 → T. japetus
 * Forewing without such spots → 3
 * 3.Dark spot in space 6 on upperside hindwing nearer to origin of vein 7 than to termen → T. gana
 * Dark spot in space 6 on upperside hindwing nearer to termen than to origin of vein 7 → T. parra
 * 4.Upperside forewing with lower hyaline cell spot but without hyaline spots in spaces 2 and 3. Underside forewing without a double subtornal white spot → T. ultra
 * Upperside forewing with lower hyaline cell spot and hyaline spots in spaces 2 and 3. Underside forewing with double subtornal white spot → T. trebllius


 * Am I correct in assuming that I have two species? -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hadena perplexa
Just left a question here. A very perplexing question at that! Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Darlia Deletion
An IP editor has indicated that Darlia is "untrue". Could someone with expertise on the subject take a look to make sure there are no issues with the article? Thanks. Monty 845  03:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the article history (the page has now been moved to Darlia Praetexta), and I think the IP complainant perhaps was not aware of the concept of a monotypic taxon, or was perhaps clumsily trying to address that possibility. I've made minor changes to the article, though didn't know how to change the title, which is currently incorrect, as sentence case is not used for the species epithet. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Help Identifying moths
I posted this a while back on the science ref desk. Just wanted to confirm the ids of the moths below so that I can rename them and they can be used in articles. Would like to be extra sure as for many people the images on wikipedia are equivalent to type specimens :P.

Found this hawk moth/hornworm on some sort of colocasia. Narrowed down to some type of Theretra.

Thanks. Staticd (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

African butterflies
There is not that much activity left here, but just to let interested people know: we now have coverage of all Afrotropical butterflies. There are over 7000 species (about 20% of the world butterfly diversity) that all have an article containing at least the common name, all synonyms, the distribution, subspecies, foodplants (if known), flight times (if known) and habitat (if known). Furthermore, there are country checklists for all countries in the Afro-tropics. North Africa is not done yet, but I will have a look at that later. I still need a checklist for Libya, so if someone has access to one, that would be great.. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

=Rugioland wrote:' "still need a checklist for Libya...."

Ruigoland, I think, you are going too far: I believe it's better to make regional lists, than country lists. For Libya I would suggest to fuse Maroccan, Algerian, Libyan and Tunisien (and maybe also Egypt) lists to: North African.

Same could apply to other countries, where the species often 'overlap' with frontiers. One list for West Africa, East Africa Southern Africa would probably cover the areas better and more exactly, than 25 or 30 country lists.

Same for other regions: example: Portugal & Spain I would combine,  North America for Canada & USA,   Caribbean' for all Caribbean islands,  etc.

Cheers Tonton Bernardo (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great, but the problem is that the available sources are usually about countries and not regions. In other words: I cannot create these lists you suggest, since there are no sources for that. Furthmore, similar lists exist for mammals, birds, etc. So why not for moths and butterflies? Anyway: I already made lists for Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as the whole of Europe and the Afrotropical ecozone. You are more than welcome to make regional lists if you can find a source for them off course. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * iiiiih, Ruigeroeland,   that's a work for a whole scientific publication !

Some Turkish institute work on this,.... (Cenasa??? or something similar) but they still lack a lot of infos too. There are simply to many publications. i try to keep up on "my region" and the 3-4 countries around. Any more will be will require a full time job. I have some kids to feed (and quite many lizards too :)  ) I am already glad, that Jurate does an excellent work,  I could never compete with her.   Asia (and South America??) seem to be lacking much more reliable databases. Tonton Bernardo (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)