User talk:B33tleMania12: Difference between revisions

Hello, I’m The BO77!. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I just noticed from your edit summaries that you might be using AI to generate articles for Wikipedia very quickly. Kindly avoid relying solely on AI tools and ensure proper research, sourcing, and manual review before publishing. The BO77! (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm.. no I did not use AI.. why would you think that? B33tleMania12 (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I’ve noticed in your recently created beetle stubs that you cite journal articles and other sources as raw URLs. Could you possibly format your citations with citation templates such as {{Cite journal}} and {{Cite web}}? They would look a lot better if you did that! Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will see if I can change the ref..! Thanks B33tleMania12 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to this, please put citations after punctuation, not before, as I’ve noticed in many of your edits. It’s a small thing, but it matters… please do this:

Sentence.<ref>citation</ref>

instead of this:

Sentence<ref>citation</ref>.

Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do! B33tleMania12 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also after a comma? So …in North America,<ref><ref> where it has been recorded from… instead of …in North America<ref><ref>, where it has been recorded from… ? B33tleMania12 (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, exactly – same rule with all punctuation, except dashes and parentheses (per MOS:REFPUNCT). Jessicapierce (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. For some reason it looks not right to me to place the ref after the comma, so that is why I placed in before. B33tleMania12 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Spanish Wikipedia (and probably some others) the reference comes before punctuation. It is just a convention that has been decided a long time ago here. — Reconrabbit 13:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you! B33tleMania12 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Iucetima. Another editor, Memer15151, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Meets specific notability guideline for organisms

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Memer15151}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, like Balsam Cottonwood above, I’m impressed by your work on beetles. A couple of requests:

1. I monitor the taxobox error-tracking categories. It’s helpful if you use “Preview” first and then “fix” to create the taxonomy template before saving the article. If you save the article first, the system puts the page in Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup. It doesn’t get removed immediately you create the taxonomy template – often taking a day or more – so those of us monitoring this category have to go to the article and when we find it’s ok, make a ‘null edit’ to fix things.
2. It’s also helpful if you create the talk page. For a stub article, it would contain:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|
{{WikiProject Beetles|importance=Low}}
}}

Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do the first.. I will go back later to do the second.. although I am wondering if a bot could do that? Its quite a hassle to add those talk pages for each genus article… I am working from a template and using NL wikipedia, who have this whole subfamily added based on a checklist that is not available anymore sadly.. B33tleMania12 (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I misunderstood: preview the article. I thought you were talking about instances where the article title does not match the taxobox link (so “GENUS NAME (beetle)|GENUS NAME”). I understand now and will work with the preview.

Yes, the idea is to create the article including the taxobox, then use the “Preview” button, create the taxonomy template, then finally publish.

I think the problem for a bot creating the talk pages is to determine which WikiProject to use. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Peter coxhead is saying is that all you need to do is copy and paste the text he linked in his first comment. That’s all you need to do. It is pretty easy. You can try applying for permission to use AutoWikiBrowser to make it even easier. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can always use rater. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 13:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Based on your recent edits, you are using Joel Hallan’s page at TAMU. Be aware that this resource is outdated, contains numerous misspellings, and other errors. Over-reliance on a single source, especially one as badly outdated as this one, can lead to all sorts of problems if it is adhered to without double-checking it for accuracy. For example, just one of your recent additions to the page for Luperini added one junior homonym (an unavailable name), one junior synonym (an invalid name), and one duplicate (a name already listed under Luperini). Please consider using supplementary resources before proceeding as if that one source is authoritative. I very strongly suggest you use IRMNG, which is the most intensively curated nomenclatural resource, and it is maintained better than GBIF, ITIS, or other similar resources. Case in point: see [1] for the status of Barombiella. On a related note, given that “Nymphius” presently is a redirect to a page where the word doesn’t even appear in the lede, changing the Nymphius article to refer to the beetle genus would be acceptable, with a hatnote to direct readers looking for the river to that article. Then you do not need to retain “Nymphius (beetle)” as a disambiguation. Dyanega (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps clarify a point: when I say that Hallan’s list includes numerous misspellings, they are sometimes Hallan’s error, and sometimes not – regardless of their origin, he lists them, and there are some 900 such misspellings in the list, overall. Just for Chrysomelidae, for example, there are entries for “Agempa”, “Caryotrypes”, “Miocolaspis”, “Parachelepus”, “Polycalca”, and “Stenorrhopalus”. These might not all be indicated as misspellings in the list, and if not, you might accidentally include them when editing. Dyanega (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your detailed explanation. I am not really using it directly though.. I took the higher level taxonomy from wikispecies to start. I did not check if all of these genus names are still valid at this point. I am using the Dutch wikipedia to get the list of species, and they seem to have used the source you are reffering to. If both wikispecies and Dutch wikipedia do not have an article for the genus, I was investigating further, and indeed encountered a few misspellings and synonyms. I know it is not perfect, but I was hoping to get the basics on wikipedia. I was mainly working on adding species before, but was hindered by the fact that a lot of higher level taxonomy was either not there or wrong. The question now is: did NL wikipedia include the misspellings or not. I will do a check. If they did, I better just drop this current endeavor and focus on something else. B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A first quick check: the misspellings you listed (“Agempa”, “Caryotrypes”, “Miocolaspis”, “Parachelepus”, “Polycalca”, and “Stenorrhopalus”) are not on wikispecies and not on NL wikipedia, so I guess they did not just copy paste them out of the list. B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology for one particular edit: evidently, IRMNG has managed to incorporate some of the errors in Hallan’s catalog and so is not entirely trustworthy, either. The synonymy of Barombiella is an error; it appears that every species in Barombiella was removed to other genera except for the type species, so Barombiella still exists, but is monotypic. I’ve restored it in the two places I deleted it. As User:Monster Iestyn correctly points out, Wikispecies is probably the best-curated data set for Chrysomelidae at present, though if there are discrepancies between that and IRMNG, I can pass these on to the IRMNG manager if you notify me. That aside, the correct procedure for dealing with Barombiella is actually to make the article title Barombiella violacea to avoid using a disambiguated article title (i.e., not “Barombiella (beetle)”). Dyanega (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. I am not an expert at all, but just trying to figure out the systematics as I go along. I do start with wikispecies, but most species are not on there, so I use NL wikipedia for that for now. I have been making some species as well, and for now, they are placed correctly on NL wikipedia, although that is just a small percentage off course. B33tleMania12 (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there’s a problem, as Dyanega notes above, when Hallan’s catalog appears to be the only source. For example, at Nancita (beetle), there’s no source given for the species Nancita alterna. The only source I can find is the reference to Hallan’s catalog at es:Nancita alterna. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the actual catalogue is not on the internet anymore it seems, so won’t pop up using google. B33tleMania12 (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in these edits, you added many genera to the article, placing them in subtribes and sections. However, none of the references given in the article support these additions, as far as I can see. Did you use Hallan’s catalog? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I used wikispecies as a starting point. However, it is hard to ref that, since reffing wikispecies is probably not allowed, and using the refs they used amounts to a whole list of refs, that I actually did not use directly.. B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, we may not use blogs like Wikispecies as refs. So the result is that the lists of genera by subtribe, etc. are unsourced. Um… Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.. it seems to be right though.. feel free to remove the whole subtribe/sections stuff.. but yeah.. seems a shame if it actually is correct. I will try to find a propper source for it later this week. B33tleMania12 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I just wanted to make you aware of WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA if you weren’t already, since some of the beetle genera you’ve created recently, e.g. Platycesta, are actually monotypic (i.e. they contain only one species each). This means for instance that Platycesta should serve as the article for both the genus and its only species, and Platycesta depressa should be a redirect to the genus. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but since it is impossible to find a good source for this family it seems, I cannot be sure that genera actually are monotypic, so I thought to make them separate for the time being.. at least until I can find a source conforming they actually are monotypic. B33tleMania12 (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah true, there isn’t a source for all of Chrysomelidae, being so large and with so many subfamilies and genera… with the New World Galerucinae genera however, I should point out that the source you’ve been using for them (Viswajyothi & Clark (2022)) does at least give species counts for many of the genera. Having checked many of these myself for Wikispecies purposes (I have been updating Chrysomelidae at both en.wiki and Wikispecies for some years now), I have confidence that most of the data there at least is correct! (Both authors are Chrysomelidae specialists too which should add to its reliability as a source) Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to know. I will take their info as thruth then..! B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are creating a lot of stubs on beetles — and they’re not bad! But per MOS:OVERLINK, please don’t link the countries. Thanks! Abductive (reasoning) 23:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, check, will not link them! I will make more substantial stubs later. This source I use at this moment is just good for the absolute basics (synonyms, distribution and foodplants) B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that MOS:OVERLINK says “major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked: Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese)”. It doesn’t say all countries. Agreed it’s hard to draw the line, but I would certainly link countries like French Guiana or Gabon, to suggest but two. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I think I can make that distinction in most cases. Thanks. B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to add your content to existing articles, rather than creating so many stubs. For example, all the Octotoma beetle species could be combined into Octotoma and you could have a section for each species. What do you think? Perhaps one higher quality article would be better than 10 stubs — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is more info to be found (i.e.: there is always a species description). However, these descriptions might be 100+ years old and taxonomy might have changed (a little or a lot) in the meantime. Hence it makes sense to have the basic article under the correct name, so more info can be added later. I intend to find species descriptions after I finish this tribe. B33tleMania12 (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ I disagree. If the species was described before 1930, we can copy and paste the entire description if the information isn’t outdated. Another editor does something similar with Gastropods. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my intention. Doing one full species article at a time would take way more time then getting the basic info on wikipedia first. B33tleMania12 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have enough material for a full article then I have no concerns. But mass-creating stubs has been frowned upon in the past and is discouraged. I would suggest slowing down and fleshing out each article as you go. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try to flesh out on creation (at least a bit). See: Oxychalepus paranormalis. B33tleMania12 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my idea for a table format. You could also use subsections if you prefer. It’s nice to have a summary of the genus, even if you continue to flesh out the separate articles. I only did the first 5 as an example, but I will do the rest if you like it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great, however, I am worried that this will double the amount of work if something changes? B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can use it for genera with only limited info though? B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m trying to say is that all of the information you have on these stubs can comfortably fit in a table on a larger article. So there is no need to create the stubs until and unless you have a lot more to include. One good quality article will serve our readers better than 20 separate stub articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand your position, but I don’t see why beetles should be described under a genus page while other animals get their own articles. There is enough info to create an article for almost all species. I was just starting with the basic taxonomy (synonyms, placement in correct tribe/subfamily), distribution and foodplants. However, I conclude that it is better to include more info right away because of all the discussion it is creating, so I will do that from now on..! B33tleMania12 (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ I am just seeing this discussion now, and so I wanted to point out that consensus was reached a year ago to promote WP:NSPECIES to be a notability guideline. The effect of this is that any currently living eukarotic species is presumed notable so long as it is verifiably recognized by the relevant taxonomic community.

Prior to that RfC, some editors had proposed guidelines for rolling up species that have less significant coverage in reliable sources, but those proposals did not meet with consensus. Therefore, sub articles that have appropriate sourcing are fine in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial So basically it is ok to add articles with basic info that is verifyable (so: species name, synonyms, distribution, host plants [if known]). Also: I added a lot of those in a short time, which has caused issues with some (i.e. mass creation needs approval). And to be clear: I do intend to flesh out articles, but creating basic stubs is a great way to get a basic framework. I abandoned that however, because I was under the impression that it is not allowed. What I understand now though, is that it is more nuanced than that. B33tleMania12 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; reality is more nuanced than that.

First of all, you are correct that “mass creation” is not allowed – from the discussion on the Talk page of WP:NSPECIES, you can see what counts as “mass creation” and make sure not to create too many articles too quickly.

Second, the presumption of notability is triggered when a species is variably shown to be recognized taxonomically. The way to establish that presumption is to make sure to include WP:RS in the initially created article, showing that the species is recognized. The best practice is to provide a valid source for all the tombstone information you include in the article, and from a practical standpoint an article citing two RS for the information it contains is more than twice as likely to survive than an article that cites only one.

Third, you didn’t ask me about this, but I would not encourage you to use the Draft and AfC process for articles like these. AfC reviewers are likely to reject perfectly valid “stub” articles, and they are unlikely to be aware of domain-specific norms like NSPECIES. In such cases, I think it is better to create articles in main space: just not too many, and always adding good sources for the facts provided.

Of course, adding additional information to each article is also welcomed. I’m just pointing out that species are one of the few subject areas where there is broad agreement on enwiki that it is better to have an article on each element of a defined set. 🙂 Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok noted, then I will go forward as I did most recently (i.e.: trying to flesh out right away), but wont be to worried to add a few short ones if I cant find a source to flesh out right away B33tleMania12 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Microrhopala xerene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aster simplex. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, —DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating articles with only one source, and the topic doesn’t appear in the source, so basically your article are unsourced (well, incorrectly sourced, which is worse). Fram (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ref points to the site where the catalogue is located. I can link to the actual pdf list if you prefer? B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched the website for info and got no results (see my draftifications so far). So yes, if there is somewhere a source you used you should identify it correctly so people can verify it. Fram (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? Draft:Octhispa_lineola?

And indeed, I see it is hard to find these Tribe pdf’s now that I start searching from the site Homepage. They are here: https://naturalhistory.si.edu/research/entomology/collections-overview/coleoptera/catalog-hispines-world (under Tribes) B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that’s a different webite, no wonder it was hard to find. Can you please update all your pages with this issue? I don’t know whether such miniature stubs are really useful (all info could easily be included in the main page for octhispa it seems), but at least with this pdf they are verifiable. Fram (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will update them (already did the ones you moved to draft – could you move them back?). I know they are very short for now, but I intend to find more info (species descriptions), but to work on that, it really helps to have all of them under their current name with synonyms. B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move them back to mainspace! Fram (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do, thanks! B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B33tleMania12! Was wondering if you’d thought about becoming AutoPatrolled? It wouldn’t affect your article creation one way or another, but it could go towards helping to reduce the backlog of unpatrolled new articles. Food for thought! Ryan shell (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan shell I don’ think that is a good idea at the moment. There are still some WP:V issues that need to be sorted out. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll get there one day 🙂 B33tleMania12 (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I admire you creating these articles on Coleoptera that most likely would have never been created without your efforts. However, I would slow down a bit until you can create these stubs to the point where reviewers find nothing wrong with your creations. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I try to adjust my creations every time someone points me to an improvement. I will also try to add at least two refs to each article, because that seems to be an issue as well. B33tleMania12 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Mass creation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12,

I’ve just had a look at Thlaspidosoma and was trying to find a Template:Taxonbar item over at Wikidata for this genus, like the one I added to Octhispa goyasensis here.

It doesn’t – as yet – have a Wikidata item.

Thlaspidosoma does have an article over at ceb:Thlaspidosoma, which created 23 Feb 2021.

Things are all kinds of complex about this – may I suggest you read the English language Wikipedia article Lsjbot to start with?

Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not aware of Lsjbot, but I did not use ceb:Thlaspidosoma as a source.. I used this scientific article: https://www.aemnp.eu/data/article-1628/1609-56_1_275.pdf B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When the literature contains a preponderance of misspellings of a scientific name, it is important that the Wikipedia article makes reference to this fact, to inform readers and editors as to which spelling is actually correct under the ICZN. If there is no note in the article explaining this, a well-intentioned editor might move the article to the incorrect spelling, citing what appears to be an authoritative source. I will be restoring the annotations to the three Cephaloleia articles for species that Staines misspelled when he described them, and I hope you will not remove those annotations. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, will not remove them! B33tleMania12 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. There was one more, the name “h-nigrum”, which was originally misspelled as “Hnigrum” in 1923. Editing articles in order to maintain compliance with the ICZN Code is a little contentious, but – obviously – I feel that it is both necessary and justifiable. For your reference, the essential thing is that there is a large class of mandatory changes specified by the Code (mostly in reference to gender agreement, sometimes orthography, such as umlauts and hyphens), and no one has to publish a mandatory change in order for that change to be adopted; the nature of a mandatory change is that it is universal and automatic. This creates issues with the Wikipedia policy requiring a citation; mandatory changes, if they are not published, cannot be cited, but they are still demonstrably required to be adhered to. That’s what I mean by necessary – all of the nomenclatural Codes have mandatory provisions like this, and the editors of Wikipedia are not granted an exemption from those rules. As for what I mean by justifiable, it’s this: Wikipedia is very often the number one “hit” for any scientific name a person might enter into a Google Search. If they type in a misspelled scientific name, then they should be informed that the name they have just searched for is a misspelling. If Wikipedia allows articles to use misspelled scientific names, then users will not be made aware that they are using the wrong spelling; they will think that the misspelling is correct, because it appears in Wikipedia. That will make it harder for the correct spelling to ever gain the proverbial upper hand versus a widely-used misspelling. Those three names by Staines are a good example; the only existing published sources are those authored by Staines, using the misspellings, but readers need to know that they are misspellings if they are ever going to be replaced by the correct spellings, and Wikipedia is crucial; if WP adopts the correct spelling, then that is the spelling that will propagate. Dyanega (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive a naïve question from a non-specialist, but how can anyone know that there has been a mandatory change if it is not published? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know either, but it seems everyone needs to stick to the rule. If the original author did not, the rule essentially changes the mistake for him/her automatically, without the mistake having to be corrected in a publication B33tleMania12 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great explanation! I will try to keep that in mind and maybe spot a few of my own and will correct them if I do. B33tleMania12 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B33tleMania12, I’ve noticed a couple times that you will copy or closely paraphrase from public domain or compatibly licensed sources (i.e, Oxyroplata bellicosa, Cephaloleia horvitzae), without adding attribution. Adding an attribution template is required when you copy text from these sources. For public domain sources, add a template like I do here, and like this for text licensed under a compatible Creative Commons license. Thank you! The4lines |||| (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do, thanks! B33tleMania12 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please try to include {{Taxonbar}} in articles you create. Put this template before the categories. If there’s a corresponding Wikidata item, it will cause a completed taxonbar to display. Look at Cephaloleia erichsonii where I have added this template. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, did not know it worked that way. Will do! B33tleMania12 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Cephaloleia perplexa. Another editor, Zzz plant, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Given category “Beetles described in 1885”, this should be mentioned with a reference in the article text. Otherwise looks good!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Zzz plant}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Zzz plant (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it’s usual to include something like “Cephaloleia perplexa was first described by Joseph S. Baly in 1885″ with a reference (e.g. GBIF). The same reference can then appear against the authority in the taxobox. This supports the category Category:Beetles described in 1885 and also the category “Taxa named by …” if it exists. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I might use that to give some more substance to short articles.. B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Parvispa. Another editor, Bastun, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

The taxonomy template on this page needs to be amended.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it sometimes need some time to process, because I did make the taxo template. (it displays correctly for me now at least) B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. I do not find species-level information in the reference that you provided (Staines, C.L. (2012). “Hispines of the World”). I do find it in “Catalog of the Hispines of the World” (2015), but that is a different (but related) source. Can you provide a precise link, or link to the real source?
Best wishes, Micromesistius (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I linked to the wrong page for some articles, thought I fixed them all. Did the whole genus and all species in it. And it is not a completely different source, although hosted on another domain, they do ‘belong’ together.. that is where the initial mistake stems from (which I should have spotted right away) B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed in a massive amount of your species articles you include the exact same phrase “The food plant is unknown.” under a “Biology” header, with no additional context. This doesn’t really make sense grammatically or explain what a “food plant” is, and causes confusion at least for me and probably other readers seeing it.. This also doesn’t make sense with a Biology header given how broad the word is and when that sentence is all there is in it; the five words should just be added to the top instead. Honestly though, it probably isn’t something worth including in an article of that size if it isn’t known, and would be better replaced by something like a characteristics/description. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 14:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is the plant on which it feeds, as most insects are specialists on certain plant species (if they eat plants that is), making it ‘important’ (especially if it is an important plant for agriculture off course, but next to distribution and taxonomy, it is mostly included in descriptions of species, even if it is unknown). I can rephrase if you like. Any suggestions? As for the header: also commonly used is ‘Life history’ if that is clearer? I do intend to expand these articles if sources are available to do so (I already did a bunch) with a species description. I need access to some paywalled stuff for some though, but maybe I can get my hands on them somehow B33tleMania12 (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just use something like “[insert species name] are herbivores/omnivores, and their preferred food/species/something to feed on is unknown/disputed/whatever”. I also wouldn’t put it in a heading just by itself since it’s so short, but if you have more and expand it a better heading would be “Diet” or something like that. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 17:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes, it is not the typical terminology when describing a species of insect though.. and that whole family of 50,000 species are herbivores, so if you read only a slight bit more that is kinda stating the obvious.. what about: the larval host plant is unknown (if there is no indication of a plant association whatsoever) and ‘the larvae are thought to feed on XX species’ (if it is not certain, but suspected). Diet header could work, however I would prefer something like Life history since that is used quite often in literature. This also covers descriptions of larval and adult behaviour (if known) B33tleMania12 (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re more than welcome to use whatever terminology you think is best, I would just say be mindful of WP:TECHNICAL and to try to “dumb it down” as much as you can, as phrases like “larval host plant” can quickly become confusing to those unfamiliar with the subject (I’ve learned an awful lot of people know a lot less than you would think about basic biology). Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 17:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT suggest ‘No host plant has been documented for this species.’ I kinda like it, what do you think? B33tleMania12 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

What is the difference between those 2 species ?

Is it a species and a subspecies ?

Best regards
Io Herodotus (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was the wrong picture, I corrected it, thanks! B33tleMania12 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean ?

I thought it was a mistake, but it appears many times. What is that word ?

regards Io Herodotus (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hstory? What do you mean? Do you mean ‘Life history’? See this: [2] (the 3rd point) B33tleMania12 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem, I typed ‘hstory’ in the template I use. It should be history. Fixed it for all articles. Thanks! B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My name is Jahnavi and I am a design researcher at the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). The Language and Product Localization Team is conducting a study on how editors create new articles or add new sections to existing articles on Wikipedia. We’d also like you to explore some design concepts and provide feedback. Based on your experience, we believe you would be a valuable participant in this study and would like to invite you to take part in an interview to share your insights on creating new sections or articles on Wikipedia.

This study is taking place between 15th Sept – 6th Oct. The interview lasts about 75 minutes and is conducted remotely over Google Meet in English. Please note that you would be required to share your screen to demonstrate your process and explore the design concepts. We can provide live interpretation into your preferred language upon request. We are pleased to offer a digital thank you gift through our partner service, Tremendous, for completing the interview.

If you would like to participate in an interview, please complete this short form. I will contact you using the email you provide in the form with instructions on how to participate.

If you have any questions or concerns about this research, please feel free to ask me. I look forward to hearing from you,

Jahnavi MJahnavi-WMF (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi beetle maniac, I wanted to show you another approach to creating tables of species. Please see Octotoma where most of the information is drawn from Wikidata — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly warned by patient editors against creating useless stubs which treat Wikipedia as a database and violate our WP:NOPAGE guidance. You have already written a dozen or more articles today. You do not appear to understand why these violate our guidelines.

I will be redirecting your database entries to their parent genus articles and expanding those Actually, it’s more helpful for the reader for these to be taken out of mainspace, so I will draftify them. Your next database stub will mean me taking you to WP:AN/I with the intention of a block or ban. I suggest you take your editing to Wikispecies if you want to keep editing privileges here. Your disucssions have shown you do not understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a taxonomic database, and show you are WP:NOTHERE. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cremastra Please do that WP:AN/I if you want to, I understood from others that these are in fact fine, although some disagree, as you clearly do. So, if you believe they are not fine, follow that procedure if you think the consensus is that it is not ok to make these. B33tleMania12 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this: I will not make a new article until that ANI or whatever is done. No need to get me blocked, if the consensus is that these cannot be added, I won’t. If the consensus is that they are fine, I will continue making them. The way I understood it, that the consensus is that they are in fact ok, but that some just don’t accept that that is in fact the consensus. B33tleMania12 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Agonita andrewesimima. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start! Please add sources for the first 2 sentences. Also, please explain what a “host plant” is, and possibly add a link to that concept on Wikipedia. Have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Agonita nigriceps. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start! Please add sources for the information in the first 2 sentences. Have a wonderful day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey B33tleMania12. Please do remember to add interlanguage links to your articles. I’ve done so for a few, and this is how you do it: in Wallacispa, for example, choose the menu option Tools>Add interlanguage links. A pop up window will open. Entering cebwiki in the first field is usually a good choice, because someone at that wiki masscreated many species articles. The second field will probably be the same article title as the one on this wiki – Wallacispa. Press “Link with page” and check if you’re linking to the right article(s) before confirming your choice. Thanks, Ponor (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmzzz.. doesn’t the system pick that up automatically somehow? B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it does it automatically: see Agonita laeta. Nobody touched it but me, but the link is there. B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the link was provided by another editor Sophisticatedevening in this edit. This will sometimes happen but it is best not to rely on other editors to do this work, so please follow the advice of Ponor above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I did not see any edits when I looked at the page history, and indeed: if it does not do it automatically I should do it myself. B33tleMania12 (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better to do it on wikidata right away though? Seems to be the best place for it B33tleMania12 (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. The method suggested by Ponor will have the same effect. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, nice. I will do that from now on B33tleMania12 (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the menu option Tools>Add interlanguage links anywhere. Is it on the edit page? B33tleMania12 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found it. It is not part of ‘tools’ but below tools, should have looked better B33tleMania12 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a bot adding interwiki links, so maybe you can go back to your articles after a few days and see if it did the magic, like in d:Special:Diff/2410835741. Good luck, and stay strong @B33tleMania12. Ponor (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries, now I know how it works it’s easy. I might forget sometimes, so good to know that a bot will help me in those cases..! B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Dactylispa monticola. Another editor, Lynch44, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article. Please make sure to provide the correct references when creating new articles in the future. Keep up the great work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lynch44}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lynch44 22:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Maladera weni. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page..

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re awesome! 122.57.215.158 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well thank you. You too I guess! B33tleMania12 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen the thread started against you and other insect article creators over on the species page. Sorry you have to deal with this, and FWIW, as a new page reviewer, I have no issues with your creations. You are doing the encyclopedia a lot of good. Thanks for all you do! Lynch44 23:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your kind words! The last run was a bit much, but I wanted to get through that genus. I hope to find sources to expand a number of them, but at least all of them have basic info now and I was able to clean up the species list in the genus article in the process. B33tleMania12 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I’ve reviewed a few more articles you have made; you’re doing a great job, but I would advise you be a tad more careful. Looks like you messed up the years here and more concerningly linked the wrong species in your source once. Nothing major, just something to be aware of. Thanks for all you do! Lynch44 13:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, thanks for spotting. I will take an extra few moments to double-check. Thank you for the hard work in checking everyones stuff!

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Ovotispa. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know a lot more about some beetles after patrolling your beetle articles. One minor point that you might like to bear in mind is that journal articles uploaded to ResearchGate are sometimes/often copyright violations, which Wikipedia articles should not link to: if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. It is safest to link to the official journal article. You can make a {{cite journal}} citation easily if you know the DOI number for the article using RefToolbar. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! I did not know that! Ok, I will not link to ResearchGate anymore in that case.. Will still use it though haha 😛 B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s probably the safest thing. Soon (well, in January next year) you’ll be able to access the Wikipedia library which gets you access to a whole bunch of subscription-only journals. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That will help a great deal indeed! B33tleMania12 (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend that you apply for WP:AUTOPATROL right, it will automatically mark your articles as patrolled, so they won’t end up in the new pages queue. Zalaraz (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people nominated me for that, but I did not qualify (yet). Also because some users where taking issue with my creation rate/speed. I might make it now though, but I guess I will let others decide if they want to grant me autopatrolled. It seems to me that the page patrol people should decide if they are done with reviewing beetles.. B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I kinda like not being autopatrolled. Everyone makes mistakes and an extra pair of eyes to spot them is always welcome. B33tleMania12 (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Acentroptera dejeanii. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating these articles about beetles!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 12:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Sceloenopla cincta. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Sceloenopla cayennensis. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Sceloenopla calopteroides. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

congrats and thank you for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Sceloenopla callangana. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Sceloenopla brevispina. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Sceloenopla bimaculaticollis. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Sceloenopla bilineata. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thank you for creating this page..

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]