This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Hexatricha is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
A note that this genus has been variously spelled Hexatricha and Hexathrica has twice been deleted from the page, on the grounds that it's "Not worth mentioning in this context!" or "The fact that the genus name has been misspelled once or twice has no place in the lede of an article primarily about a species". Actually, this is exactly the place to mention it. Because Hexatricha is monotypic – containing just one species – there will never be a separate Wikipedia page for the genus, and all discussion of both genus and species has to happen in this article. The misspelling dates back to the 1870s, and was not corrected until 2011.[1] It's not trivial; this article was initially created under the wrong name and had to be moved because of an error in a published database.[2] So I'm reinstating the passage, one last time. If anyone would like to delete it, please explain where the information should go instead. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is primarily about a species and only secondarily about a monotypic genus. There is nothing particularly important about the misspelling. It is just an extremely minor issue of no consequence. It is therefore not appropriate to mention in the third sentence of an article which is primarily about a species! The article says very little about the species so far. We should not elevate minor technicalities to seem to be important, when they are not (just about every generic name has been misspelled at some stage and this one no more than most others). There are many far more important things yet to be said about this species. If, eventually, the article has a section on generic nomenclature (which is unlikely), then the misspelling may be worth mentioning somewhere in that section. BioWikiData (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those are your opinions, and I respectfully disagree – as I've said, I think the fact is not so minor, and this is the place to say it. But look: from your contribution history it appears you've only been editing Wikipedia for a week, and you're already engaging in an edit war. Repeated reversions like this can lead to you being blocked. As a new editor, it might be a good idea to read up on some of the conduct guidelines. If this issue is as minor as you say, why not just let it stand, and concentrate on something constructive like expanding the article with useful information and references, like I've been doing? Anyway I'll leave things as they are for now; plenty more to work on. Cheers, Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
