User talk:Regireki

Stenosphecia columbica

Let me start by wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, as it seems no one else has done so. Would you appreciate me dumping the rubber-stamped box with all sorts of handy links on your user talk, or rather not?

Now onto the reason I actually came here: I wanted to let you know that I ended up redirecting Stenosphecia columbica to its genus article. You see, the genus is monotypic & in that case, the species should lead to the genus article per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. No worries, though—it's an obscure enough thing I can't blame you for not knowing. Just figured I'd let you know so you understand what I did and why.

(Before I redirected it, I did notice the article had a number of other issues that were a little less obscure: you listed the wrong year (the source you gave says 1917, not 1914), and more importantly, the wrong species name in the lead (Heterobathmia diffusa is a moth of [...]). That kind of is something you should've caught before creating the page, or at least on a quick look-over afterwards. Not a huge deal, we all make mistakes sometimes, but still, probably something to keep an eye on. ) AddWittyNameHere 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tinthiinae had similar problems. (Wrong year, wrong type species, wrong picture) I somewhat suspect you're using other taxon articles as a template of sorts to write yours? Please remember to carefully double-check you're not leaving anything behind that pertains to the other taxon instead of the one you're creating an article on, next time. AddWittyNameHere 00:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere I'm very sorry, I should have caught those problems, I cross referenced my notes a few times, but it was late so I must have missed it. I'm still learning, I've been doing a lot on Wiktionary but I'm rather new to writing on Wikipedia. I'll be more careful going forwards! Thank you! Regireki (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I just wanted to get ahead of issues because fixing 1-2 articles isn't that big of a deal but once it becomes 10-20 of them it gets a lot more frustrating. If you ever want/need advice on a moth article, feel free to ask me, Lepidoptera articles are what I spend most of my wiki time on. AddWittyNameHere 13:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AddWittyNameHere I sure will! I'm still figuring out what I'm good at, so I'm just finding random pages with red links and giving it a shot. Regireki (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, moths have plenty of those all right. Plenty of other stuff that needs doing, too, just far too few editors to actually do it. So if you'd like some ideas on what to edit, I've got some stuff I could point you at, see if you like doing any of it. Only if you want, though. AddWittyNameHere 14:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind my kibitzing (since I was just passing through here), I do also edit extensively with respect to insect classification, and while I do agree with WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA as a proactive policy, I do not generally suggest enforcing it if it has not been strictly followed in a given case but is not erroneous. Just yesterday (and today) I came across a few articles on extinct monotypic genera that were listed by the species name and where the genus name is not a DAB (e.g., Prototrox transbaikalicus). I did not, however, take the time to move them by overwriting the genus article redirect; not because I disagree with the policy of using the genus name article by default, but because there are so many other issues that more urgently merit time and attention for fixing - like actual errors or miscategorizations - that under a "triage" sort of principle it just seems like a low-priority thing. I've been noticing a lot of your edits, Witty, and I think you're making very valuable contributions, which I don't at all want to discourage - but just from the perspective of using one's time editing as constructively as possible, I always try to encourage other editors working on classification to consider prioritizing tasks. There aren't a lot of us doing edits, and the number of articles is staggering. After 16 years doing this stuff, I've learned that triage really is important. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(responded on your talk page) AddWittyNameHere 16:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are blue pigments in insects

Until and unless someone publishes a paper about X. caerulea (which they have not), the assumption is that the coloration is based on pigments, as it is not metallic or iridescent. See the butterfly genus Nessaea for an example of a well-known blue pigment in insects. The point is, just because some insects are blue because of scattering effects, you can't assume that this is true for all blue insects. I can point out that the bee is pretty definitively pigment-based, because specimens retain the blue color even when they are wet, even when soaked in ethanol. The wings of Morpho butterflies, bird feathers, etc., do NOT retain their iridescence under those conditions. I can't put this into the bee article because it is a personal observation I can provide as an expert on carpenter bees, but it's not published. Wikipedia requires reliable published sources and not original research or extrapolation. Dyanega (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyanega I apologise, the paper I referenced mentioned X. Caerulea with a list of other microstructure insects, but it appears that is not valid evidence. I'm still new to editing on Wikipedia and I'll be more vigilant next time. Regireki (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]