User talk:Ruigeroeland/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wikiproject Lepidoptera

Hi Ruigeroeland,

You have edited many Lepidoptera articles recently. Please do visit

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Lepidoptera. We look forward to your becoming an active member of the wikipedian community. Welcome, AshLin 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


Graphocephala coccinea

Thanks for fixing the mis-caption in the Graphocephala coccinea article. - House of Scandal (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well timed indeed!

The Bio-star
For translating loads of Lepidoptera articles from the Durch Wikipedia, just as I happened to do a major copyedit of
Geometridae subgroups. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Categories

Well, I have made a few stubs (mainly

Geometridae, Noctuidae, Nymphalidae
) down to tribes, and usually the categories exist down to that level too... when there were too few pages in a category I didn't create it though (so there is no category for Alsophilinae because there is only one genus and one species article yet for example).

So when you make a species page, and the genus page exists, you can see there how it is categorized. If the genus page does not exist, you can click on the redlink and check the search results... if the genus is already listed in an article, it will show in the results. For example if you try this with Epione repandaria, you'll see Ourapterygini in the search results list, and then you can go there and check what category it's in. Cheers! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

I noticed that you have created quite a few new articles that do not start with the definition of the subject of the article, and where the context of what the article is about is fairly unclear. E.g. this applies to Xanthorhoe, Camptogramma, Aplocera‎‎, etc.

It is a very good idea (and in my view basically a necessary requirement) for an article to start with the definition of its subject, per

WP:NPP may be tempted to quickly AfD or even CSD such articles. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Links to "Hawthorn" in Lepidoptera articles

Thanks for your work on translating various Lepidoptera articles, I htink that this is valuable and I am glad that you are willing to take the time to do this.

I found some of your articles as part of my fairly casual work as a disambiguator. I picked a set of words to disambiguate about 18 months ago, and I periodically check the "what links here" pages of these words and fix them. One of my words is Hawthorn.

Quite a few of your moths feed on the Hawthorn tree. I would appreciate it if you could please link to the tree itself rather than to the disambiguation page. in Europe, "Hawthorn" usually means the "Common Hawthorn", or Crataegus monogyna. You can link as follows:

[[Crataegus monogyna|Hawthorn]]

which yields

Hawthorn

In North America, the word "Hawthorn" generally refers to any member of Crataegus, so when the moth has a North American range, I think it is better to link as follows:

[[Crataegus|Hawthorn]]

which yields

Hawthorn

However, I am not an expert, so please do what you think is best: you may choose to list the actual botanical nomenclature instead of or in addition to the common name. If you decide not to bother with any of this, please continue your fine work and I will clean up later.

I suspect that some of the other common plant names (e.g., apple) may have a similar problem, but those names are not currently on my list. You may choose to follow some of those links to check.-Arch dude (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flight times

I've note that you sometimes put in flight times for specific regions, and that your sources often include generic flight times. Is it not better to usually include the generic flight times when available? --Insectgirl (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: Flight times

You are right that this would be better I guess. I translated them from the Dutch wikipedia, so I included the flight times for this region. I use UK Moths for finding the English Common Name, this site has the flight times for the UK only and this differs from the Dutch region most of the time. I am no expert, so I don't exactly know how much variation there is in flight times, so I decided to stick to my main source. I could take the flight times from the different sources and use that to make sort of an avarage to use in the articles. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moths

Nice going on all the moth-translations. I keep bumping into them while patrolling new pages, good that somebody takes the time to do this! Lekker bezig :) Stijndon (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papua

Your spelling of the location is eccentric and not standard - any reason?

Suro 11:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Vlinderartikelen

Leuk dat je zoveel vlinderartikelen van nl vertaalt. Ik heb voor het eerst ook een terugvertaling gemaakt van Chrysodeixis argentifera. Heb je niet zin om soms je eigen artikeltjes ook op nl te vertalen? Lymantria (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Barcelona

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for retagging an obvious hoax for deletion Dlohcierekim 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and

welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions
. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The

help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page
. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Richard Cavell (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I realise you've been here for a while but no one has officially welcomed you, so here it is. Do you mind if I say - I like your articles on moths and so on. But please have a read through the manual of style. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at
Parthenice Tiger Moth. I took the most recent article that you created and adjusted it in line with the usual conventions. See the talk page, also. You're doing great work. By the way, when you added something to my talk page, you should have put ~~~~ at the end of your message, which adds an automatic signature and timestamp. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Unreferenced article creation

I see you have created numerous articles on moths without a single one, as far as I can see,

verifying the content . Your edits are obviously very much in good faith, but uncited additions are a cancer on Wikipedia. It might slow you down but if each article was created with one inline citation, that would be worth twenty of the unreferenced variety you are creating. I would be glad to help set up a referencing format if you desired.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi again. I used
verified by that page) and converted it from an external link to an inline citation. An external links section tells the reader, "here are additional resources you might use"; it does not tell the reader "the information in this article is verified by a reliable source and here it is", which is what a reference does. I have combined all the information into one paragraph for two reasons.: First, there was only a few sentences so I don't see the purpose of having it all broken out into separate sentences in a short stub; and second, so that I could use the citation just once, rather than at the end of each separate sentence. Using a single reference multiple times can be done, and looking at this[1] sentence[1] in[1] edit[1] mode[1] will[1] show[1] you[1] how[1]
, but it's easier to just do it once.
The template that I placed between the ref tags is {{cite web}}, which helps format the citation. Click on that template to see all the parameters you can use. The particular link for this article was a bit painful to figure out who were the authors, the publisher, etc. Others may be much easier. The date parameter I used was for when the page was last modified. The accessdate is when you used the reference, so the article creation date was used. If you need help or anything I said or did needs clarifying, please give me a shout.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Opodiphthera helena

criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify
their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that

talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jamiebijania (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i reference text

You Are Appreciated

Wow you just solved a major problem in one swift immaculate swoop, thank you...--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox error

Crap, thanks for letting me know; I thought I'd fixed everything from the pattern I made. Think it'll keep until this evening, when I'm home and can AWB it all in a half-hour or so? --

Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry

I hate when I do that, but I frogot to get rid of some things it seems, well thanks for telling me, I'll be more careful next time. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All is fixed!Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come Together: America Salutes The Beatles

D'oh! Thanks for catching my mistake. Of course I know the Beatles are British, I just missed that when I copied the text over from another page... Fortdj33 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moth Expansion

Thank you very much for the compliment. Not knowing much about moths, all I can do is transcribe from available sources (as well as folding in suggestions from other editors) and hope someone with more expertise comes along. FUNET is great for this project. Thanks again! NielsenGW (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vertaling

Heb een keer iets van jou vertaald, zie nl:Halysidota harrisii. :) Lymantria (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much deserved:

The Original Barnstar
For all the effort and work you are putting in creating taxonomy type articles both from scratch and from other language wikipedias. Your notable contributions are much appreciated and I hope you continue the great effort (well, until all 30 million species are added :p).Calaka (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe no worries! The least I could do to recognize positive contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work and happy editing!Calaka (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometer moth genera

Hi

I have been using Fauna Europaea and Nomina Insecta Nearctica for the "selected species" lists. European and North American species tend to have more information available so I reckoned there was a better chance of those redlinks getting turned blue!

Do you think I should link to the sources? (I hadn't done so as the info is available from a number of sources) Richard Barlow (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree synonymy is a minefield. When I created the genus lists, I limited the lists to genera marked as "available name" or "objective replacement name" in the NHM catalogue but there are clearly many genus names in there which have been placed in synonymy. To take your example, the NHM page for Codonia is marked "available name" but there is a footnote detailing synonymy. If I had checked every footnote, the lists would have taken me years!
I do agree something needs to be done about this, I shall give it some thought Richard Barlow (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right about taxonomy being messy, and its not going to get any easier - just wait until cladistics becomes the norm! I would carry on using your source, it looks meticulously researched Richard Barlow (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for all your WikiGnoming, especially in the areas of entomology and taxonomy! Your contributions do not go unnoticed. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moths, Moths (...and more moths)

It's kind of funny to watch you follow me up with new talk pages on the noctuids. I can't wait to finish this damn family (only 157 genera to go). I'm thinking of fully attacking Zygaenidae next (with complete synonym lists and redirected species placeholders). It's too bad I don't know more about morphology or these articles wouldn't be so stubby. Cheers! NielsenGW (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- I finally transferred every Noctuidae species from FUNET into Wikipedia. It only took 3 months. Thanks for your encouragement. Time for a beer... NielsenGW (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! NielsenGW (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally right! It looks like when I pulled all the info from FUNET, the pull stopped in the middle of the Ocnonemis species. Boy, do I have a lot more to do! Back to the grindstone... NielsenGW (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psara moth

Thanks. Could you please check out if

Thessalia). But I admit species taxonomy it is a great topic and its fun to create such webpages! Maybe I'll encounter more of that type as I go. Shadowmorph ^"^ 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Windmills

Hi! Yes I thought so. I think they must have been renovated in those years and had existed previously.... Hey are you interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Dutch. I need people on board who speak Dutch and are interested in improving content on the Netherlands and Belgium! Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In due course we will start all 1200 and hopefully get them expanded into good articles. I have an interest in windmills for a sentimental reason. My grandfather regularly went to the Netherlands and he had a model windmill on his mantlepiece. If you wound the windmill turbines it would play beautiful music. When he passed away I don't know what happened to it but it always reminds me of him! Dr. Blofeld White cat 08:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi if you are translating any material from Dutch or German wikipedia it doesn't matter, we just need to know who is transferring content. You don't have to commit to a project, do what you do, the project is intended to be a loose one anyway as most articles will be translated independently. It is just for keeping tabs on what is missing and who is working on the articles. You are free to use the space to draw up lists of articles you need to transfer on moths etc or whatever. Regards. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, if you want add a note to say you are working on translating moth articles then that's fine. Keep up the good work! Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch windmill dates

Hi, the Dutch tend to date a windmill as early as they can. The dates given are the date the mill was built at the location it now stands at, not the date built at its original location. For example, De Adriaan, Haarlem was originally built in 1779 and burnt down in 1932. It was rebuilt in 2002 and thus this is the year given. A similar example in the UK is Chillenden Windmill, built in 1868 and collapsed in 2003. It was rebuilt in 2005 and that is the year given in the infobox. Hope this clears any confusion. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'm trying to concentrate on getting articles up for all surviving UK windmills. I was working through Norfolk when I got distracted by Blofeld creating loads of Drenthe stubs, which all needed moving because he didn't allow for the many mills with the same name. I prefer not to create stubs but I understand the reasons behind their creation. I generally try to create C or B class articles myself if I can. You are welcome to expand, improve any of the stubs created. See
WP:MILLS for a suggested article structure. This is not set in stone as there are sometimes good reasons to deviate - see Thelnetham Windmill for an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK for Ctenomorphodes chronus

Updated DYK query On
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice new pink abalone article!

Your contribution is very much appreciated! I know you may not be much into gastropods per se but I am sending you this invitation anyway.

Wikiproject Gastropods
 I've noticed your edits on pages relating to
Gastropods; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Gastropods?
If you would like more information, please visit the project page or the project talk page
.


Thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rijksmonument

Hi, thanks so much for fixing up the new Rijksmonument article! I just drafted a DYK for it, and I asked for other help on the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Rijksmonuments (with link to the DYK from there). Could you possibly help further develop the article to meet 1,500 character DYK requirement? I can pull out my Nederlands-Engels dictionary but it is slow going for me to translate anything from the official website. :) doncram (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A long-deserved Lepidoptera barnstar

The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
For User:Ruigeroeland who has contributed greatly to Wikiproject Lepidoptera especially on the moths and their lists.

AshLin (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely welcome. Check out
Lepidoptera morphology under construction and simply crying out for help! AshLin (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
So what's new? Welcome to the club! Combat engineer and electrical engineer here! The internet's good enough. You really think that the really important work is done by experts? We should be so lucky! Check out
Snake scales and I know even less about snakes than butterflies. <Done boasting> Seriously, its up to us! AshLin (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK for Rijksmonument

Updated DYK query On
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
.

NW (Talk) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moth stubs

Hi. New proposals are at

Himalayan 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Callistege

Hoi Ruigeroeland, Ik zag dat je op nl:user talk:Kristof vt een discussie startte over Callistege. Ik heb daarop gereageerd. Om het hier niet dunnetjes over te doen, verwijs ik je naar de nl-pagina. Mvg, Lymantria (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of all those stubs I made. A little insignificant (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italic titles

Hi, did you know that the "name" section in taxoboxes is obsolete if it is the same as the binomial? If you remove it the article's title becomes italicised as I've done here. If you use a common name in the title you can use {{

italictitle}} to make the title italicised. Hope this makes sense, message me if it doesn't! Smartse (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Taxon author citation

Hi, I noticed you don't add parentheses when you're supposed to. You should always add them when the genus-species combination is not what the original author first described it as. Unlike brackets and commas (and even years), these aren't optional. Only in certain rare situations (e.g. justified emendations) and when the genus stays the same but the rank changes (e.g. species to subspecies) is it ok to attribute the original author without parentheses. See §51.3 of the Code. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's one of those things that once you familiar with it, you forget not everyone knows they actually mean something and aren't just there for looks. I know another user was adding parentheses to everything. He thought it was a stylistic thing to separate the author name from the taxon name. And that's completely understandable because it's generic enough syntax where that's normally all it is. Rocket000 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Pages

Can you help me redirect pages? Roryrules123 (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughtful gesture!

Thanks for giving the barnstar to NielsenBW. I wanted to give it to him but you already had, I'll give him something else! AshLin (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Butterfly Articles

I see what your doing, but you should really add references. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs aren't so hard to use. Make once, store in editor, use often! AshLin (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to. A lot of the articles I'm currently making are about species with little to no info though. I can always use Poole as a ref though. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poole? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! do you need any help? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one: Poole, R. W. (1989). Lepidopterorum Catalogus (New Series) Fascicle 118, Noctuidae. CRC Press.
ISBN 978-0916846459. Someone had a link to an online version though: http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:591/spod/catalogue/search.html

I could certainly use some help..! I am extracting images from the Hampson plates I uploaded, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Catalogue_Of_The_Noctuidae_In_The_Collection_Of_The_British_Museum. After I extract them, I try to make an article on each of the species. Problem is, the binomial names used on the plates are mostly outdated, so I need to find the current name to make an article. Poole is a good source, but it's old (1989), so after I found the species in Poole I tend to just google on the species I found in Poole and look for any new info on the species. I try to add as many synonyms (and redirects) as I can. If you could help in any way, that would be great...! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you extracted all of them? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm doing one at a time. If I did the extraction for one plate, I make articles on the species I have extracted the pictures from. You can see which are done, because I made a list of the extracted files on the commons description page, see for instance: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CATALOGUE-BM-PLATE_CCVIII.jpg Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This website mite help, but it is long, so it might take a while to load and you have to look for the genus Cyligramma. And I worked on some, before I continue, tell me how they are coming out. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're going to help making references! I thought making articles. Good work! Anyway, looks great. You can use catalogue of life or zipcodezoo as a reference, but please never use them as a basis to create articles, because both of these sites are filled with tons of synonyms (i.e. a lot of the species they list are no longer valid, but placed as a synonym of other species). Furthermore, they list some species multiple times. When a species is transferred to another genus, they list both the old combination and new combination as species, but these are in fact the same animal.. Anyway: great job! If you want to help out creating articles, you are also more than welcome..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope to get through the articles fixing refs/taxobox/wording and then create articles. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware I made some 3000 moth species articles over time though, so thats a lot of work.. Most are a lot longer than the ones I have done recently though. At first I was concentrating on translating dutch and german articles and I made a fair amount of North American species. European and North American species tend to have much more information available. The ones on the plates seem to mainly consist of African and Asian species thus far. Information about those is very hard to come by. Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you give me a list of the ones that need more info, and can you verify where you found they're located. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If you want me to make articles, you are also going to have to give me a list. Then I'll throw them into the ol'insectarticlemakeomatic machine. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you like to make articles (please don't feel pressured, if you like to, that would be great, but if you don't I'll just carry on on my own), maybe I can extract images and send you a list of pictures I extracted? I'll try to upload a bunch and search for the current names, which I can send you. Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long, I just found out that my article (Insect) came under GA review. OK a list ould be good, but added info like location would be hard to do, and can you send me the apropriate references for each and I'll see if I can get to it today. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on it. see Talk:Insect/GA3, Oh and Grotella septempunctata and Grotella dis, under description, may need to be rewritten and wikified. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly articles

There seems to be a confusion about 2 articles you created? See the Wikiproject WikiProject Lepidoptera talk page. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images are from the ZooKeys article (see external links). Someone uploaded the wrong picture. I have corrected it. Thanks for the warning! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Lep morph

Thanks, every little helps. I got an antenna image too! AshLin (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. let me know when you are done. Thank God that such important topics are finally being tackled instead of the usual species account. AshLin (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take it from here. It will take a few days though. AshLin (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Placed an 'under construction' template till its reasonably done. People need to know its not yet stable. AshLin (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request

Thanks for your edits to

Croesia semipurpurana. I have expanded them about as much as I can (still have a bit to add to A. semiferanus). Anyway, I was wondering if you could look them over and make sure I've not made any mistakes. I also am a bit confused as Archips semiferanus is also known as Archips semiferana (not a big deal) and Capua semiferana here. Should I list Capua as another name or is that a mistake on bugwood? Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks so much for checking them and for the barnstar (you are too kind). I have added the synonyms to A. semiferanus and still have a bit more to do there. Both articles should havea few hours on the Main Page in the DYK column too (in a double hook). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quickdraw McGraw

Fast work! How did you find Doru aculeatum? I had just created it! AshLin (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! AshLin (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of moths of Great Britain

Greetings!

Sorry to say that I have very little time for Wikipedia-ing at the moment. After a year of relative quiet, work finally picked up for me in October, and now I'm "swamped". I'll be happy to fill in some of the gaps when I have more time (maybe around northern summer).

Cheers and thanks for all the hard work!

GRM (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera species with images

I made a list here. I didn't remove the blue links or anything, so feel free to edit it if you want. If you come across any synonyms (or misspellings), let me know so I can update the classification over at Commons. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the list. This should be it for awhile since it accounts for every individual species we have on Commons. The only future updates will be for new species we get. I'll add them on in a new section or something so we can track our progress (your progress I should say ;). I've run out of good places to upload from and I hate extracting so... do you know of any sites or Flickr users I can upload stuff from? Rocket000 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This is for all your hard work making new Lepidoptera articles. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia more complete. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, feel free to remove any articles you create from my list, however I like seeing your progress. :) Rocket000 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I already uploaded all those. I got the guy's gallery bookmarked to watch for when/if he uploads anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's two groups I didn't do yet. I was waiting for them to make the pages on TOLweb first (sometimes they make mistakes in the uploads), but they're taking their sweet time so I might just do it anyway. Heh, that would be funny if Wikipedia had articles using these images before TOLweb for which they were uploaded for. :) I'll be updating the list pretty soon too. Rocket000 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I have a feeling he will be uploading the Dioptini species to TOLweb as well (it would make sense for him to do the whole subfamily). If he doesn't in the next month, I'll ask him (or if you want them now, you can ask ;). The easiest way would be for him to simply change the license on the other site, otherwise OTRS would indeed be needed (and I'm no longer on the OTRS team so I couldn't handle it directly and they like to take their time too). Rocket000 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Just remember to be very clear that the images must be free for anyone's use, not just Wikipedia. I'm sure he's familiar with this type of "free" since he uses CC-BY. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no. Some images may be allowed but they would have to meet Wikipedia's (not Commons') non-free criteria guidelines. In other words, it would be like fair use. Rocket000 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notascea straba

Notascea straba?
Notascea loxa

These are the same (!) The straba doesn't even have a page on TOLweb. Rocket000 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tortricidae

Sure - I'll try and work on it tonight and see what I can do. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot - I'm also going to try and fill in some of the other genus redlinks tonight. At the clip I went last night shouldn't take me long at all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing - I think what I'll do is fill the genus pages first and then go back and start adding in species. That'll help me keep things straight. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered using AWB to fill in the genus links? It cuts the article creation time in half, if not more. Those two-hundred-plus I did last night I did in just under 20 minutes, if you can believe. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noctuidae - heh, some of those might be my fault, actually. Sorry about that. Anyhow, there's something on TV I want to see tonight, but I should be able to fill at least some of those genus redlinks before bed. And after that, I'll go back in (probably tomorrow) and start adding species. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks.
Question for you - I was going to fill in List of Pyralidae genera before moving on to species tonight. However, it looked like it needed a lot of attention first. I cleaned up some of the misdirected links, but looking at Category:Pyralidae indicates some attempt to classify them by subfamily, too. I found the Encyclopedia of Life entry for the family, and it makes no mention of subfamilies. So should I go ahead and create the stubs under the category "Pyralidae"? Find subfamilies? Or just leave it for now? You've a lot more experience in this arena than I have. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. There was another source listed in a couple of those articles, but I'm not entirely sure how worthy it was. I'll take another look and get back to you soon. I have a few Saturday chores to attend to before I begin editing, anyhow. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right - I'll leave it with what I've got, then, and fill in some species lists soon. I just want to AWB the talk pages first. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I see - you beat me to it. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'll have to be this evening - I'll see what I can do then. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ruigeroeland. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 11:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tim1357 (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again! Tim1357 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar

The Bio-star
For all of your excellent work in creating genus and species articles for moths and other little beasties, I award you something pretty for your wall. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and work on it this weekend - no promises, but if I can I will. And you're quite welcome. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your hard work on a daily basis in working towards missing content, particularly on moths. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn the Herringster beat me to it but I honestly think you deserve this, Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moths of Italy

Congratulations on your work too - Italian moths Why not? Perhaps starting here [1] then working through the macros.It's a big fauna though Alpine at the top Maquis in the South and a lot in between. All the best from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Talkback

talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please leave me a talkback template. 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Request for Interview Concerning Encyclopedia of Life (EOL)

Ruigeroeland, I'm a graduate student at the University of Maryland working with the EOL and hoping to better understand the integration of Wikipedia content into EOL (and visa versa). I've noticed the important and unique role that you play in Wikipedia related to species pages (specifically moths) and am hoping that you will let me interview you to get your thoughts on the subject. If you are willing, send me an email at kprocita at umd dot edu and we can set up a call. Thanks. Kprocita (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Coleotechnites milleri

speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Coleotechnites_milleri - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page
.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{

article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Srikant Kedia 10:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikantkedia (talk • contribs
)

Your contributed article, Coleotechnites apicitripunctella

speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Coleotechnites apicitripunctella - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page
.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{

article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Srikant Kedia 10:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikantkedia (talk • contribs
)

Talkback

Hello, Ruigeroeland. You have new messages at AshLin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noctuid facts

Noctuids are strange to me. I wonder if you would consider adding those morphological characteristics of the Noctuids which are most important and educative and add them to the

Lepidoptera morphology article. I cam across proboscic adaptation for bloodsucking and lachryphagy. AshLin (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Endemic moths of Hawaii stubs

Can these stubs be expanded? If not, would a single list suffice? Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BioLib.de - source for images

Check out www.biolib.de. They have tons of old PD illustrations. Rocket000 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of moths of Great Britain (Micromoths)

Dear Riuigeroeland,

Great job on the page referenced in the subject line! Thanks for that. It was on my agenda, but then so are too many other things!

It is, however, a huge page, and I wonder whether we should split it up into families like I did for the "macro" moths?

GRM (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow! All the countries of Europe—good "luck" with that! Sounds like much too big a task to me :-) Cheers —GRM (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again! I sourced a paper online that seems to support (some of) your comments re "demotion" of moth families to subfamily status (for the Noctuoidea), but I am checking with the UK Amateur Entomologists' Society on current accepted taxa in the UK. So far, they suggest that my source (Waring et al.) have it right, but I'm waiting for confirmation. Taxonomy is such a fluid thing at all levels! Again, best wishes with all those lists—GRM (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile the AES is sticking with "A Checklist of Lepidoptera Recorded from the British Isles" J.D. Bradley; technical editors, D.J. and M.J. Bradley 2000 (
    ISBN 0953250822). One must be loyal to one's national authorities ;-) —GRM (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Tortricidae

Wow, splendid work you guys did there!

I found out that the "Online World Catalogue of the Tortricidae" has problems with special characters - The author name "Réal" for example is given as "Ral". You may want to keep a watchful eye on strange-looking author names. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Blastobasis decolorella

Hello Ruigeroeland, this is a message from an

CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Pgallert. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Pgallert (talk · contribs) 12:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Lepmorph images

Thanks, Ruigeroeland. I have made a few edits in Amyna axis as a return gesture. AshLin (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. May I suggest that citations be inline rather than as external references? The Binns-Wagner paper needs attributing intimately as the information from that paper is mixed with that of Bailey's Pests added by me. AshLin (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Since you started the article, would you like me to add you to the credits for the

talk) 16:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Done.
talk) 18:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Boloria eunomia

I expanded

talk) 21:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I solved all three problems by changing threatened with vulnerable, changing it to say that a threat to the butterfly is bog hydrology, and I made the Serbia sentence clearer.
talk) 01:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK for Aglaope infausta