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
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
@LamBoet: Re [1], the informal rule I've been using is that if the article title is the name of the species, then it's best to use the commons category for the species, but if the title is the genus, like this one is, then it's better to link to the genus. That also then matches how the Wikispecies links work, as we link to species:Manto here rather than species:Manto hypoleuca. Does that make sense? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: In my experience, Commons categories of monotypic genera never directly contain files, so it feels weird to me to have the template say that "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Manto", when actually the user will have to make one more click to find the species category and the media. But for sure, your harmonization logic makes sense too, I don't mind if you revert back. I also sometimes wonder if we should put these links at all, since they just duplicate the links in the left bar? Best --LamBoet (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LamBoet: I thought I'd seen some monotype categories containing files, but not enough that I can easily find an example now. I've changed it back for now. Whether to have the links or not is an open question, some people seem to prefer them to the left-hand link. At the moment I'm just trying to synchronise the two, working through Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories (where all articles should be in the 1st or 4th listed categories) - this article was one of the cases where they didn't match, but they now do. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
