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
This article has been created, improved, or expanded by a translator from the Open Knowledge Association. See the OKA task force page of WikiProject Intertranswiki.Intertranswiki/OKAWikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKATemplate:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKAOKA articles
Hello Nessie - I also updated the species lists for Diestrammena and Tachycines: yes, there are several other spp. better placed in the latter (I have classed them as "uncertain placement", but this is probably too weak). The only other sp. having a page is "Diestrammena bifurcata", which didn't come up in an OSF search ... I will look at that one some more. Roy Bateman (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, these taxonomic changes should be explained in the articles, then readers won't be confused. With that, i could abide a move, but I'm not a bug expert. --Nessie (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can only quote the scientific papers, update 'synonyms' and explain in the first sentence - as I have now also done for D. bifurcata. In the case of this sp. name, it appears to have be reverted to its original. Roy Bateman (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the change is accepted or rejected by reliable databases. It may not be accepted by major coleopterists so we should follow the databases and not the primary papers--Kevmin§02:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hello Kevmin - this is an Orthopteran (not Coleoptera) - can you suggest a more reliable database than the Orthoptera Species file? In any case it is also a revertion to the name used in standard texts going back to Ragge (1965). Roy Bateman (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake in mistyping. However the statement stands. If Orthoptera Species file has made the change and we feel its the current go to secondary source then it should be moved. If it has not been changed in OSF then we should not change it, but wait to see what happens.--Kevmin§21:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will AGF that current taxonomic papers are all using Tachycines and support the move reluctant, but note that the opening wording made it seem that there wasnt clear consensus between major Orthopteran databases.--Kevmin§22:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, there was no reason not to just be bold and move the pages to the current combinations if they are non-controversial--Kevmin§23:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
An administrator is now required to merge the page histories because the move of the page, discussed above, was performed incorrectly. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anthony - finally, we need to move the link for Ru:WP to this sp. (Оранжерейный кузнечик - a good article) on Wikidata please: I don't know how to do this. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
,_logo.png){kind=logo}
