User talk:Noym/scratch

Hello.

I'm embarrassed

Sorry about reverting your page move request. I have no idea how that happened. I've done the move... --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm in no position to complain about the occasional keyboarding error. Thanks again for resolving this! Noym (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Eurema smilax

See Talk:Eurema smilax Cheers! Love your work by the way, keep it up! We can really use some help with butterflies. I am mainly working on moths, but make some butterfly articles from time to time. We have quite some, but there still are many missing. Furthermore, a lot of old articles are in need of some serious rewriting. Especially with regard to their taxonomy. Anyway: thumbs up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and thanks! You're right, there are quite a few articles whose taxonomy sections need to be redone from scratch. I will probably do some of the rewriting at some point, but I want to take a survey of the existing material and repair the article titles first. It's easier to argue sweeping changes to other people's articles if they immediately click with what has already been established. Noym (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is better to clean up first. Nice to see someone pick that up. If you ever feel like writing an article though, this might be helpful: User:Rocket000/Lepidoptera. A list of pics on commons without articles on wikipedia. I made a lot allready. Most remaining are butterflies. Cheers! P.S. see Talk:Delias aganippe Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list; it is... impressive.

I will probably not write any new articles before I'm done taking stock of what there already is. I see scores of links that go to the wrong species due to fuckups involving ambiguous common names. I see species we have two articles on due to fuckups involving synonyms; I've just recently merged Phoebis statira into Aphrissa statira for example. Right now nobody really knows what articles we actually have.

At some point I may be forced to move a few large, popular articles from common names to scientific names. They will be articles that people care about and they will be in taxa that use common names fairly consistently. I'm somewhat afraid of the knife fights that will very likely get me into. Take a look at Talk:Charaxes (genus); apparently even the obvious moves are something that some people will oppose just because they like opposing. No idea how far the cleanup will go before I'm exhausted or they've beaten me into a coma. Noym (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for moving articles to scientific names, so give me a heads up when you are running into troubles with people, I'll back you up! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small White is now Pieris rapae. Let the bloodbath begin. :) Noym (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a barnstar -and you just got one!

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For your WikiGnoming activities related to Wikiproject Lepidoptera. AshLin (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks a bunch. I'm happy I can help. Noym (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atrophaneura vs. Pachliopta

You've moved Pachliopta kotzebuea to Atrophaneura kotzebuea but the taxobox does not match and there is no support in Lepindex for this. Have a look at the discussion at Atrophaneura. I tried to get a consensus on which is the correct taxon name. But nothing happened. Now there are differences between the commons, wikispecies, and wikipedia. It has generally been decided that Lepindex is the standard. In this case, it prefers Pachliopta. Many other sources agree. Why do you disagree and what is your source? Usually you should check out such a move before you do it by placing an item in the discussion page. Cheers. Dger (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main source is the deptartmental phylogeny server, which runs off the Lepsys database and a number of public sequence databases including the NCBI FASTA repository. The Lepsys does contain some errors, but if neither the curated NCBI taxonomy, nor the curated Uniprot, nor funet, nor tolweb, nor the Leptree, nor GloBIS/GART directly contradict it (and in this case none of them does) then the result is usually safe to run with.

I know the Lepindex is widely considered the one true source of Lepidoptera names, but large parts of it are a decade out of date. I was aware of the fact that Lepindex disagrees with me on P./A. kotzebuea, but the index card in question is from 2003, which means it predates Tsao & Yeh 2008. Tsao & Yeh disproved a large portion of what we thought we know about Pachliopta and Atrophaneura phylogeny and I don't think we should consider anything older than this paper conclusive proof of anything.

I do try to err on the side of too much discussion rather than that of too little; sorry if I wasn't trying hard enough in this case. :) Cheers. Noym (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will start changing the articles to match. I have no vested interest in either name. I just like consistency, whenever possible. Cheers. Dger (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Obviously I should have updated the article myself. I'm somewhat embarrassed I forgot. For the record, I don't have any ego stake in any particular taxonomy either. I don't usually change scientific names unless there is an obvious type or Wikipedia forces me to by being inconsistent with itself. IIRC in this case links to the article used one name and the article itself used the other one. Cheers. Noym (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from common names to binomial names

I have noticed that you are moving many butterfly articles from their common names to their binomial names. This is unnecessary and in opposition to the policy for naming insect articles (Names and titles). All you need to do is make sure there is a redirect from the binomial name to the common name. When you do make a necessary move, you should add the following command to the beginning of the article {{italic title}}. That makes the article title appear in italics. Dger (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unnecessary; I believe it's the only way to ever have a Lepidoptera tree with a clean, navigable taxonomy and consistent naming. The Wikiproject Lepidoptera has consciuosly ignored the policy for naming insect articles since at least 2007. Please see

the old discussions here and here;
the recent discussion here;
the current discussions here and here.

Noym (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the latest discussion. I have no trouble with supporting this change for the butterflies. I work in many different areas of nature and it is difficult to keep the different rules straight. Capitalization of common names is a good example. I will support your suggestion. Dger (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Just so you know, your comment here has prompted me to try and get the naming convention formally documented. Noym (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea as few people ever read species discussion pages. I see you are using one of my pictures on your user page. Cheers. Dger (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]