Talk:Butterfly gardening

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Workman Publishing Company#Timber Press|Timber Press]] The anchor (#Timber Press) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Workman Publishing Company#Storey Publishing|Storey Publishing]] The anchor (#Storey Publishing) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kopph.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation

I am going to create edits to expand the information in several sections to include cited references and more in depth habitat creation techniques. I'm planning on giving more information about the importance of creating butterfly habitat (ie to mitigate habitat fragmentation from development, degradation, and provide pollinator habitat etc). I am going to give more information on puddling (why butterflies do it, how to create a puddling habitat), bait recipes and placement, and how to include wind breaks as a refuge. I am also planning on adding more to the 'Butterfly-attracting plants' section. I am going to talk about resources on how to know local Lepidoptera in order to select plants appropriate for them, resources to find which plants will grow in zones, the importance of structural diversity, and information on native vs non-native plants.

I am unfamiliar with the "problems" section: I have heard about the disease that affects monarchs/queens but haven't heard nor read about the impacts of predator species. I do not think it is necessary to suggest removing natural butterfly predators (spiders, wasps, birds etc.) as long as they are native species. These are natural predator-prey relationships and their removal detracts from overall ecosystem functionality. Kopph (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Has anyone tried the pumpkin trick? I couldn't find any other sources for the fact, but I tryed it recently and the little buggers ate it up. Albeit they wouldn't eat a potato.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Butterfly gardening. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526105602/http://www.nababutterfly.com/index.html to http://nababutterfly.com/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsensical fighting with the bot"

The bot is defective. It removes parts of urls. These removals redirect users to different urls. For example, in this article, the bot removed the following url (among others):

https://web.archive.org/web/20210802012705/https://watermark.silverchair.com/870219.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsEwggK9BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKuMIICqgIBADCCAqMGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMoO_4Es1bAh8sljpHAgEQgIICdFVPCQ0TUXRiIoxNLrar2dd_wEkvPpnnXRLxKFBcFmU51cZgHiaXnbtoHYeBb-E0VJuebFny6Ezd6bJKMlZoC29VRvjxUvOMHbYKP_sXn7PapNGYk4teLH2Bnzwltc2s6bQbiHcrlasWYefOFk8OH-GV8IexM9iqhbgpWLPLGKrCOk9TIx4jb_kNNZhCtK_2ufTAonG2YMpolaCkVbjBYCX93e2MlMhL9mHuVZF-zpPu2JLeK6qY8C_Qjoor4RWTjZjJuArrs_3HHAQBd36GvmSCciJUJRsWeSluI_6t47V75evmyox-PFtxZjc2TLuoYeinMcONfo_wLhDLI5niIPjUk5DmJEYl_JM2DkA4pALNMqvUVBtB89hGtWCOwp7_b4FS2UlR-v_meVJrS8H1eruffa72fh-WkTWHuPfaJARGjar8VtGwT59y3KTwpsGBiC8gcA0JUbGuFC5ahJDLLxJkA-A3a-bQxvF4R6A0hUeIz3cc5d48JSq7WK_43AzOLxjcojVELjf_ScVsJCiYXHY90Mk3QkafEln2UtjCbhmZp4Kwo2oCjwcSnxik_liVa1J5WdnyHaRbpfhxWBJvOkmFGBhbMT6-dAazym0mUMmegp1Sn4xYO8kKU54fMmO-W4OWo3JwhR7CtlBt5IIVim2s54Jy4F2_9OFTijmN2USs_VEasDngJkRlZbQ_5QWtOkEkjzdLGxR5ZMsChu6rdTcdLzcJae2-L8StxFRI6aGyT5RWBmRYYOU612lHyoIeK8FnhnTyMTWaAHTjWb4Sfbl0D08drUO4WnUl-RG1QZ4-4SdE1brvO5NtLyrdWEuyAw8imrc

The bot replaced the above url with the following url:

https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/87/2/219/2588364

A comparison of the contents of the two urls shows that the contents are not the same. The original url linked to an image of a publication. The bot's change created a link to a different web page that does not contain an image of the publication.

I am therefore reverting the most recent edit to this article to enable users to directly access the image of the publication, as well as to restore other links that the bot removed or changed. Corker1 (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like failing to look at the actual edits and links. The bot link goes right to the publication without all the mess you are reintroducing, and there's a reason why the bot links to a standard doi. As has happened on other pages, you need to slow down and not revert problem edits back in. Do not do it again. KoA (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently reverted my edit. As a result, this article again contains a link to https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/87/2/219/2588364. Please access that link.

If you do that, you will find that the link does not "go right to the publication". The link goes to a page that contains only the publication's abstract. You will need to click on a PDF icon to access the publiction itself.

You have made statements that have no factual basis. You have taken actions that reflect those statements. To avoid subjecting this issue to a formal dispute resolution process, please revert your most recent edit to enable users to "go right to the publication" when they click on the link. Corker1 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you actually demonstrate, the doi link goes to a permanent page that allows the user to go right to the publication page and decide if they want the full pdf page or not. There is no legitimate issue here that warrants your edits, so we have to follow WP:ONUS rather than you just demanding your edits be reinserted (again) without consensus.

If you take issue either with how the bot is setup for what we consider standard linking on Wikipedia or how DOIs work, this is not the page to do so. You would either have to take that up on the bot owner's page or speak with those who run the DOI system if you want that changed. I do not reasonably foresee either happening. KoA (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]