Talk:Culicoides

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies 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.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Merger proposal[edit]

Hello. I think we should consider merging Culicoides annettae, Culicoides chaverrii, Culicoides cummingi and all the other Culicoides stubs into the main article, Culicoides. Since the individual stubs consist of barely a line of text each, it would be more practical for readers to find all the information centralised in just one article. What do you think?--Leptictidium (mt) 19:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please do. The stubs provide next to nothing and the species names and distribution would better fit in a list or table in the Genus article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FoCuSandLeArN:, creator of these articles, what do you think?--Leptictidium (mt) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the stream of thought that species deserve separate articles, however if little literature can be found on them, then sadly they ought to be merged. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By definition any species needs to have a scientific description - all of these insects will have them somewhere - these can be hard to find with google or google scholar, but they exist. Species are regarded by all as a pretty basic unit so I suspect there would not be a consensus to merge. Have you tried looking for information already? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding species descriptions to some, as I always try to in general. Some are under paywall or unavailable, but the potential's always there! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]