This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks
Hi, thanks for your significant contribution in Captive. Just a proposal: can you divide the hints section into more subsections according to their specific subject, arrange lists with bullets and/or tidy it a bit? Pictureuploader 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia; nice to have you on board. I can see that your contributions will be valuable. Thanks for joining. If you need any assistance with any Wiki problems give me a hollar (I'm an admin). Pollinator 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I added an image to Scopa (biology), for you. That was a good page to create. Pollinator 18:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oxaeinae
I see you did a rewrite of an already existing article under a new name, if you would like to change the name in the future however, please use the "move" button (on top of the page, along with "edit this page"), using it will preserve the edit history of the article, regardless of how erroneous it may be. I've merged the history of the two articles for now, just keep it in mind if you're changing names of articles again :) -Obli (Talk)? 20:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No worries, a good thing about Wikipedia is that no matter how much you mess up, any action is reversible, but don't hesitate to ask if you run into any other problems on the technical side. Cheers! -Obli (Talk)? 20:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Move
Consider it done. -Obli (Talk)? 22:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Potter Wasp
I added an image of a nest I believe is a potter wasp. The only reason I haven't uploaded one in the past is that I am unsure of the ID. If I am wrong, feel free to remove it. Pollinator 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Yes it seems that we were working on the same article there. In fact I was about to start the notum article myself, but you beat me to it, and that's why I decided to do the metathorax one instead! Anyway, all's well that ends well. You seem to be doing a lot of work on insect anatomy, and that's great because a lot of critical articles are missing. I would be more than happy to help if you need me for anything. I also invite you to take a look at the WikiProject Arthropods, I think that it might interest you. Regards. IronChris | (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hymenoptera are also one of my favourites. Just remember that if you need help or advice on layout, taxoboxes, categories or anything else, you can post on my talk page or on the talk page of the WikiProject Arthropods. Also if you notice anything that needs doing but you don't have the time to do it yourself, you can add it to the tasklist of the WikiProject and one of the participants will look into it.
One thing I advise you to do is to sign your posts on talk pages using four ~ (~~~~). If you are interested in other biology-related projects, you can take a look at Portal:Biology and WikiProject Tree of Life, which has many descendant projects for various phyla. Out of curiosity, may I ask which insect collection you maintain? Peace, IronChris | (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting article of yours
Spotted your article on cracker butterflies. That is quite an intersting name! Keep up the good work. Kimchi.sg 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I looked and no one had welcomed you formally, so here is a belated welcome banner. Feel free to blank it or remove it, though.
Welcome!
Hello, Dyanega/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kimchi.sg 17:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought this article is too good not to be mentioned on the "Did you know?" section of the Main Page, so I nominated it on the suggestions page, Template talk:Did you know. In order to make the article conform to the Did you know? section rules, I've had to remove the stub tag from the article, but that shouldn't be much of a problem because the article is no longer a stub by definition. Besides, I hope this makes it to the Main Page and I'm sure you'll love recognition for your hard work.
P.S. I noticed butterfly stub articles have their own stub template, {{butterfly-stub}}. It is a sub-class of {{insect-stub}}. Kimchi.sg 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Fan post
Hi Doug! A welcome from a silent spectator to many amazing posts by you in various places over many years. Coming from a biodiversity rich-literature poor region, I know I am in for a treat with material on wikipedia. Shyamal 04:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doug. Welcome! Please add my name to the fan club too :). We hope and are eager to learn much from you and would be honoured by your visiting our small but developing Indian butterfly world and commenting on things.
Could you please give a species-global distribution context to Xylocopa please? We have Xylocopa in India but are unable to make out if all the facts apply here. For example, we believed Indian Xylocopa to be stingless. Now, this article tells us that female carpenter bees sting. Regards, AshLin 12:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Taxoboxes
Hi! There is a special way for introducing taxonomic levels in a taxobox, for example, if you want to add an order, you have to write "ordo" and not order. That's why it is generally easier to copy an existing taxobox and then modify it (good examples of taxoboxes can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods#Use a taxobox). For the subsection, the magical code is "zoosubsectio = ...". For the whole list and details about the use of a taxobox, please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage. Happy editing! IronChris | (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
RE: collapsing multiple pages into one page?
You're not bothering me! I'm more than happy to help!
I don't know of a method for fusing two pages into one. One way to keep the history, etc., would simply be to keep each page separate but make it obvious that this classification is outdated, and give the link to the new group. Or indeed by using a redirect, the history would be kept for future reference.
If it is just a minor classification shift then I think the redirect is best. If you think that the word is still likely to be used or has some historical importance, then I should keep the article short, explaining the change. Which pages are you thinking of?
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article cracker butterflies, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Interesting article, thanks for your efforts on behalf of the encyclopedia! ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Horse guard
A fascinating article! I suspect this is the "hornet" that a fellow with a team of oxen was telling me about. He said it would come and snatch the horsefiles off the oxen. And he was always amazed that when they came, the oxen would stop switching their tails and stand still. More intelligence than you'd expect from a bovine, eh? Anyway, was this the creature he referred to, or do hornets do the same? Pollinator 03:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Cleaning up some of your articles... and enjoying it!
Hi. I've been taking a look at your edits and cleaning up when needed. It's a great pleasure, because your edits are highly interesting and entertaining. I'm tempted to say that it is a good thing that you don't "expend nearly the effort your could" on standardizing pages you create, as you say, because it gives me a reason to read everything, and that's quite a treat sometimes.
A few bits of advice :
when creating lists (of genera, for example, as in Heleomyzidae), all items should be wikified, even if there is no page at the moment. This applies to all links in taxoboxes too.
In the taxoboxes, you needn't go into great detail about the classification: we have discussed this briefly in the WikiProject Arthropods (here); the best thing is to put the most important taxonomic levels and the levels directly below and above. Details such as "Endopterygota" in a taxobox about, for example, a fly species, are not all that useful. If a reader wants to know what subclass the Diptera belong to, they should refer to the Diptera article. This makes the taxoboxes clearer. So i would advise something like Formica rufa rather than Horse Guard. That said, it's not a big deal. Wikispecies aims at creating these kind of complete detailled taxonomies. There are no articles, just taxonomy, photos and vernacular names; it is simply an attempt at creating a census of the world's life. Just thought you might be interested if you didn't already know about it.
A last minor thing, disambiguation pages should not contain any other internal links than those directing to the pages directly concerned by the page (full details at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)).
If you have the time to look over insect wing and arthropod leg articles, that would be great, they are young articles and there's still lots of room for expansion. That's all for now, keep up the great work! IronChris | (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What I meant about the disambiguation pages (it's not a big deal really) was that for each line, there should be only one link, usually the one pointing to the related article or, if there's no article, to the closest topic. For example, the pedicle disambiguation page used to look like this (note the large number of internal links, which are just confusing, the stub templates, which do not belong on a dab page, etc.). After cleanup, it looked like this : pedicle. Unfortunately, in this case, none of the articles are yet created so it's just a list of red links. That's all for now! Regards, IronChris | (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
On Categorisation of Hymenoptera
Hymenopteran articles are categorised in two different ways - as Apocrita (with subcategories Apoidea and Vespoidea) and Aculeate Hymenoptera ( with subcategories Ants and Bees ). Now, this is absolutley unsatisfactory. We need a clear single heirarchy, especially as it appears that you have made it a life's goal to put up all 20,000 Hymenopterans in this calendar year itself ;) :))). Please advise.
Better start thinking about WikiProject Hymenoptera (as a descendant of WikiProject Arthropods), it appears to be urgently required.
Can you identify some Indian hymenopterans for us if we give you images. We'd send them by email, and put them up on Wikimedia Commons once identified.AshLin 19:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Same problem with image categorisation in Wikimedia Commons too! Slog work for some interested hymenopteran. I should know, I've spent a score hours or more on butterfly categorisation. AshLin 20:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions on the Heteroptera article and related articles. It's good to see experts at work on the wikipedia, and I think your additions clarify the present situation a lot. I think there are a few problems with these pages though:
The detailed description of the different taxonomic systems are a bit intimidating for the interested layman, so I've reordered the introduction a bit, moving those parts a bit lower. There is still room for a description of these bugs themselves.
References to "Wikipedia" in the text are frowned upon (see Wikipedia:Avoid self references). This includes references to talk pages. I have rephrased some text.
The taxoboxes on Prosorrhyncha and Heteroptera are now inconsistent. It would be better if both boxes used the same system. One option is to make Heteroptera an unranked group; see the example to the right. I don't know if this is appropriate, though. It would probably mean changing a lot of articles of lower taxons.
Please check if you think my changes are improvements; if not, feel free to change them back. If you are going to overhaul the classification on wikipedia completely, it might be good to talk to the people of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life about them. There has been a lot of talk already on whether to follow the newest classification of the established one, and how to treat unranked groups. Mainly about plants, though. Eugene van der Pijll 20:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction. I don't think we disagree all that much. You are right that a large part of the audience is knowledgeable in biology, but wikipedia articles should also be written for the lay public, and some compromises in presentation will have to made (but not, of course, in content). This is one of the reasons the taxoboxes present a Linnaean taxonomy: it is what many people know, the system of kingdoms, classes, families, etc.
"Heteroptera" is a name with quite a bit of history; it is probably in all the books of the previous two centuries, and will be encountered by many people outside the relatively small group of entomologists. That is why there should always be a page Heteroptera in wikipedia, just like there is a page on the Caryophyllidae (an obsolete subclass of plants), or even Vermes.
I think wikipedia policy is that taxoboxes should contain the current consensus, which means that all taxoboxes should be consistent, and that there should not be taxoboxes on obsolete taxa. It is better to point out the differences between the two systems in the text; not in the taxoboxes. It would perhaps be useful to insert some diagrams; for example a cladogram, with indications of which clades are considered to be orders/suborders/etc., for both systems.
Anyway, my changes were meant to change the presentation of the articles only, not the content; I'm not qualified for that. All I know about taxonomy, I learned from wikipedia. Eugene van der Pijll 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Xylocopa additional info request
I have heard about Xylocopa having phoretic (?) associations with mites and that some species have modified abdominal pouches (acarinarium) for accomodating the mites. Dinogamasus is apparently one species. (I find only one reference online by Norma Leveque, Am. Mus. Nov. 432) Would love to learn more about this on the Xylocopa article. Thanks. Shyamal 11:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
in your last snakefly edit, you wrote that these insects "occur exclusively in the Western United States". Do you really mean the geographical distribution? I've shot some pictures from Raphidia sp. in Münster, Germany. Regards --XN 11:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
For ID
Disregard the file name. This is from southern India.
And please do considering a separate non directing user page... you need it. thanks in advance Shyamal 13:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
once I discovered what Userboxes were, I agree. ;-) The wasp is a Ropalidia, from what I can see. Can't say which, though. Dyanega 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and here are some more...
A Ropalidia wasp
family Hispidae?
Which family?
User:Shyamal|Shyamal]] 05:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
the beetle is in the Chrysomelid subfamily Hispinae, the moth is a pyralid.
Merge process
Hi Dyanega. If you want to merge two articles, you can simply copy the text of one and paste it into the other and create a redirect (#REDIRECT [[article]]). If you think there needs to be a discussion first, you may want to put up the templates{{mergeto|DESTINATION}} and {{mergefrom|SOURCE}} on each article (see the talk pages of the templates for more information on how to use them and variants of these templates). I hope this helps. Take care, IronChris | (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ironclad Beetle
Hey, I noticed you switched the info to subfamily Zopherinae. When did this happen? Here at Texas A&M they have been considered a family in our collection for some time now. --Kugamazog 02:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Do take a look at this. I am unable to find out how these ants jump and whether they are unique in this. Shyamal 10:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Very many thanks
Very many thanks for your addition to forensic entomology. This fly was reported in a forensic context in Portugal recently.My real name is Robert Nash http://www.habitas.org.uk/rnash.html see we have things in common. Keep in touch. Anything on Diptera. 25C in Ireland today. Unusual. Robert
Thanks
Thanks for bringing some much needed expertise to 'Difference between butterflies and moths'.Regards, AshLin 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Id needed
This image was added to Stingless bee but I had my doubts about it and think it should belong elsewhere.
Blue-banded bee drinking nectar from Mussaenda flower
Indeed it should. It's in the genus Amegilla, in the tribe Anthophorini. I'll use it on the Anthophorini page. Thanks.
Preferred name of cotton bollworm/corn earworm?
I thought the Helicoverpa zea was correct, but I see on the Maize page Heliothis zea, which a quick search finds is also in use. Which is the preferred contemporary choice here? It seems that Wikipedia should not have two. Thanks. Pollinator 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Helicoverpa is the present name, Heliothis is considered obsolete (for this species - the genus Heliothis does still exist). I'll see about changing those. Dyanega 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
News
Hi D, good job on the page creations, I specially liked the cuckoo wasp and critically needed Aculeata articles. I haven't been very active lately unfortunately, but I got round to creating the Macrophya montana article today. Unfortunately I couldn't find much information about it (even the common name!), so the article is rather short. I would be grateful if you could take a look at it.
I'm thinking of buying a macro camera to take photos of insects, do you have any knowledge in the matter? I'm thinking about the Canon EOS 350D with an EFS 60mm f/2.8 macro lens. Any advice is most welcome. Take care, IronChris | (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Rhogogaster viridis?I also uploaded this photo on the commons. I think it's a Rhogogaster viridis (Tenthredinidae). Do you agree? Thanks; IronChris | (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you know anything about the Anophthalmus genus of beetles?
Hey, I was just creating Anophthalmus hitleri just for the sake of amusing trivia for DYK, it's a beetle named after Hitler. Anyway, it's lacking in the biological aspect of the article and I can't find any information whatsoever about the species or the genus of the bug, any chance you know anything about it? I'm willing to assume that most of the information found on the genus would apply to the species, otherwise Anophthalmus could be created.
Relative to your edits to Carnivora, I've never thought of "meat" as being exclusively vertebrate (especially not while eating lobster).--Curtis Clark 00:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A Ropalidia wasp
family Hispidae?
Which family?
