Talk:Eumeta crameri

Lepidoptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep and move.

Wow

How did this article possibly survive from October 23, 2005? Magical. MGlosenger 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow is right! I am the original author of this article, so imagine my surprise at all the controversy I missed by not logging on for six months.

I'll take this opportunity to address the concern that this article was a hoax, as some thought, or that it was intended in some off-color way due to the common name for Eumeta crameri - large faggot worm. First, I think that the way this was addressed, without even the input of the author, is a great example of Wikipedia editing policies and procedures working correctly. I think that if I had been able to contribute to the discussion, perhaps it would not have been moved, but I think the resolution was a good consensus and that's what this community is all about.

So here is the background...

I have started seven article on various species of bagworm -

The large faggot worm is now this article, Eumeta crameri. Note that for every species of bagworm for which I have started an article, I used the common name instead of the species name unless no common name was known to me. The article for polar bear is not found under Ursus maritimus, but under the common name. I followed that pattern. In this case, the reference that provided the common name is no longer available on the web, but can be seen on the Internet Archive at the following link.[1]

So, by the only available reference, the common name is not faggot worm, but large faggot worm, and I'll make the appropriate change in the article shortly.

I wanted to learn how to write new articles on Wikipedia several years ago and decided that I would find an obscure animal and thoroughly research it. I have an old animal encyclopedia published in the UK in 1969 and simply went through Volume one until I found an under-covered animal, the bagworm moth. I then research in printed books and on the Internet, starting seven new articles and improving nearly every other article on the bagworm. The fact that the common name for one species was large faggot worm was unrelated to the American pejorative definition for an alternative spelling of the word "faggot.".

So, I hope, once and for all, this addresses the origin of the article and the common name. This is not a hoax and its origin here was completely unrelated to the American pejorative definition of the word. Condorman (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eumeta crameri. 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://archive.is/20130129082957/http://www.metapress.com/content/p8r1561u1k6h08l3/ to http://www.metapress.com/content/p8r1561u1k6h08l3/

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) 20:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]