Talk:List of butterflies of India (Riodinidae)

Untitled

This page is under development. We're presently trying to fix the number of species and get their correct nomenclature and taxonomy pinned down. Important-contact me before making any changes/ plans for deletion, either through this talk page or my user home talk page.AshLin 13:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a page Riodinidae to which this should be moved/merged. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the recent chages made by AshLin made the list any different in terms of why it should not be merged with the Riodinidae article. Therefore, I propose putting the merger tag back up on the article and continuing discussion here on the talk page until a consensus is reached. Hoopydink 16:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Merge with Riodinidae

Dear Hoopydink,

I did not know you were monitoring this page made by me. I had explained the rationale behind the two different pages to Mr Clayworth on his home page, but did'nt realise, I should put up the argument on this talk page also. I am reproducing basically the same comment for explaining to you.

Firstly, we'd like to thank you for interacting with our nascent effort to develop a wikibase on Indian butterflies. Though not having offical project status, the members, Users: Shyamal, VirenVaz and AshLin (self) are deveoping material on Indian butterflies. Since the three of us are handling a canvas of over a thousand butterflies, you can imagine we are having our challenges. We depend on well wishers like you to comment and protect our intellectual gift to the Commons of mankind (though we may feel the pinch of criticism from time to time :). )

We are tackling one family in detail first, the Papilionids, basically to set a standard and showcase the value of open collaborative knowledge in the field of Indian natural history. When it comes to contributing, there is a lot of FUD about the viability, usefulness and reliabilty of Wikipedia in India. As a people, we do not seem to have open sharing of information as a part of our ethos - we have major problems of public support.

Our plan is to develop the Pailionidae part to Wikipedia quality first to showcase the potential of the project, while adding material as we come across regarding the other families. So you'll find our wikispace presently filled with stubs and incomplete articles. Slowly but surely we are getting there (Please see contribs of AshLin and VirenVaz for that). Please also see Spot Swordtail and Lime butterfly as representative outputs for phase 1. (Phase 1 is making enough material to help and motivate a newbie naturalist to sustain his interest in the world of butterflies.) We are working quite hard putting in a lot of material daily on WP.

While doing an odd review somedays ago, I found that our Indian butterfly lists were grossly off. I could'nt find one of my favourites - Plum Judy (Abisara echerius) in either Nymphalidae or Lycaenidae family lists where it was logically expected to be. I did a search on LepIndex and found to my horror that the world had recognised two families since the vintage of our reference books - Riodinidae and Libytheidae. We would need to restructure our lists.

We use family lists as our basic navigation and control sites. See the Papilionidae list as an example of the family list we are trying to develop. Being a family list page for Indian species of that family only, we just mention very few facts about the family to educate the newbie as he navigates using this list. For detailed information of these families he is encouraged to go to the family wiki page for which we provide a hyperlink. These family specific wiki pages have been created as long ago as 2003/2004. Now it appears, their development has not been of the standard we expected and hoped for (We'll do something about that in the future).

Since our control panels are the family List wikis, I needed to hurriedly patched up a list page each for both Riodinidae and Libytheidae. I made a mistake in the process, ended up making two pages of slightly different wording and learnt the valuable process for requesting deletion for the first time :).

Then, I found a stub requesting a merger of our Indian species list page with the parent Family page. Going there, I was shocked to see the parent family page virtually empty. My meagre info for newbies on the list page (a ten minute hack) was far more than the Main Page. I then proceeded to take this basic info and flesh up the Riodinidae family page. Its barely satisfactory now but in better condition than before. I have already taken it onto myself to steward this page till it reaches wiki quality levels.

My own list has got neglected while I am awaiting information from a book of 1932 vintage called Evans. Once that comes, we'll upload the 20 odd names after taxonomic review using LEPINDEX. We are trying to have the highest stds of published information, references, attribution etc while trying to reach our goal - on online guide for Indian butterflies.

Now this List page has a different purpose from the Main Family page. It is under development, I have stated so myself (we need time). We have informed the original tag placer who has not objected. You have now reverted the merger tag. On the face of it, as of now you may find the material superficially similar. As it develops, this List of 20 species of Indian Riodinidae will remain local in scope, while the Family main page will develop into a globally applicable general overview of the 1000 strong mostly New World Riodinindae.

Now my action has been constructive, I have already taken moral resposibility for future development of both pages. I am dealing with a 1000 species mostly New World family which has only 20 obscure species in India. I've added almost as much info to that neglected Family page in one day as rest of community since that wiki was started.

I am of the opinion that contrary to outward appearances, these pages need to be kept apart and developed as per their separate purposes.

Based on my rationale, I request you to accept our way of development and I request you to kindly remove the merge tag.

With regards, AshLin 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for posting such a detailed description of what your goals and aims were/are regarding your project. I'm engaged in a project myself (Portal:Rugby Union) and I can relate to the inability to complete it all in one sitting, so to speak. I was unaware of the vast scope of your project and was merely making a wikipedia observation, as the articles are very similar on the surface. I'll defer to your judgment on the merger, as you seem to have a very clear vision for what you're trying to accomplish. I am simply an observer and happened across your article by ways of the recent changes button on the left. I look forward to monitoring your progess (as a casual observer), as the subject matter is fascinating and the pictures on the articles you link to are great. Cheers! Hoopydink 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs put up, but...

the nomenclature and especially the author & year need rechecking. So the taxoboxes show that all the Indian member of this family were discovered by Guerin in 1843 which definitely is not the case :). Await with 'baited' breath for the results. AshLin 16:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]