User talk:B33tleMania12

This is B33tleMania12's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

Hi!

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]

Hello

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!

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

Linking to ResearchGate papers

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 :P 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]

Autopatrolled

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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]

Hi :)

Just wanted to drop a line and say "hi" and that I think the work you are taking on is really cool! Are you familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Beetles (WP:BEETLE)? The project is largely inactive but I know there was some interest in reviving it. I'm not a member but I'm aware of it. Happy editing! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 16:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to you too! I have seen the project, but not done anything with it (yet). I might if it becomes active again though! B33tleMania12 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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

Nice work!, but go slow. Thank you

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

Pasados (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will, I am done for today. :) B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on many of your articles

I was looking at Neoserica rotundotibialis, an article you just created, and the prose sounded overly technical. This is usually indicative of a copyvio. I looked at the source, and I was right. You seem to have copied the description and etymology sections in this article (along with others) almost verbatim. Thankfully, I do not have to redact the text because it is released under a compatible license, but I do have to add a Creative Commons template. You need to attribute when you copy this closely. If the content were not released under a compatible license, the content would have to be redacted from the page history. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already found another copyvio on Acentroptera basilica. This time, I had to remove it completely because it was not released under a compatible license. I am pinging Moneytrees, and Sennecaster to see what the best course of action is.

I admire you for creating these articles, but these copyvios have to stop. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested revdeletion on another. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was under the impression that I changed enough, I will look at the ones I created with the source that is troublesome B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sericini of India is licenced under CC-BY, so even if I did not change enough, I can add that tag to comply with the copyright? See: [1] B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees, Sennecaster, The Knowledge Pirate: Is this not OK? I changed this: "The head (except black mandibles and labrum), antennae (ex-cept antennomeres 8-11 black), and legs chestnut-brown; eyes and scutellum black; pronotum shiny reddish-brown with medial 3 black (with bluish reflections) longitudinal vittae- 1 medial and 2 lateral;elytra shiny reddish-brown with 3 shining black oblique vittae from lateral to sutural margins; venter and legs reddish." into this: "The head, antennae and legs are chestnut-brown, while the pronotum is shiny reddish-brown with three black vittae with bluish reflections. The elytra are shiny reddish-brown with three shining black vittae." That is not a copyvio in my mind. How else should I ever get a species description on wikipedia. B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added the cc-by licence to all of the articles sourced with Sericini of India and Sericini of Sri Lanka (both Bonn Zoological Bulletin). B33tleMania12 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at all Acentroptera pages using this source B33tleMania12 (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I change it like this, is it still a copyvio? If this is still not ok, could you help me out and explain how much I should change to make it ok? Acentroptera norrisii: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. Many of the words (pronotum, elyta, etc.) are just like a leg, arm, etc. in humans. There is not really a way to say it differently in my mind. Same goes for a colour. I could change yellowish in just 'yellow' or 'somewhat yellow', but still: if the pronotum is yellow with a black margin, it is just that. What else could I say? B33tleMania12 (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I want to check this as well to be sure. This source is in German and I translated and changed it, but I want to know if this enough to not to violate any copyrights: Original - "Beschreibung. Länge 7,4-7,7 mm, Elytrenlänge 5,4-5,7 mm, Breite 4,7-4,8 mm. Körper eiförmig oval, dunkel kastanienbraun, Oberfläche mit matter Beschichtung, Labroclypeus, Tarsen und Schienen glänzend, bis auf laterale Bewimperung und einige Borsten auf dem Kopf kahl." Wikipedia entry - "Adults reach a length of about 7.4-7.7 mm. They have a dark chestnut brown, oval body. The dorsal surface is dull and glabrous, except for the lateral cilia and some setae on the head."

I will not create any articles that are sourced from non-CC-BY articles until we work out what I can and cannot use. Because of this discussion I did learn that I can use all images in the articles published by Bonn Zoological Bulletin, which is great! I will concentrate on extracting these first B33tleMania12 (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my rambling but, would using the (very short) species description not be considered fair use? I mean, a whole description is about 1 page, I only use two sentences and re-write it as well. Although the re-writing may not be enough to not be a copyvio, I would think it would be fair use to still use it because how many ways are there to say a species has a certain size/colour/markings that distinguish it from other species? B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. In the content I removed, it appears that you only changed a few words. See WP:CLOP for more information.

I will file a report at WP:CCI within the next few hours.

Last year, I conquered Wikipedia's largest ever WP:CCI by myself. It was on Lepidoptera. None of his articles got deleted, but I had to attribute or remove all offending content. Thankfully, I do not expect any of your articles to be deleted.

My advice to you for the time being is to stop adding descriptions if the content is not released under a compatible license. You can still create articles, but I would hold off on paraphrasing non-free sources until you have a better understanding of our copyright policies. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will not add that info then. But it seems to me that this (from your WP:CLOP link) applies: Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. And generally for all species descriptions to be honest, because all authors use a specific format when describing a species. If you want to describe a red cube, you are going to describe it as a red cube. Even if someone used that exact phrase to describe it earlier. B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:LIMITED only applies to one or two sentences. I expect this to apply to many of your articles that I have looked at, but not all. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed: one or two sentences. I don't think I used more than that in any of them if the source was not CC-BY, but feel free to investigate and correct me if I am wrong. I am happy to help purge any you find. B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: should I somehow make clear that I use CLOP if I do? B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you are closely paraphrasing a non-free sources, that is not acceptable. If you are closely paraphrasing a public domain or Creative Commons source, you must attribute it. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes I will do that. So basically: it is impossible to add a species description based on a non-free source to wikipedia? B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused though. Look at this article of todays featured picture Oxybelis aeneus and go to the species description. The sources are not available to view online, but I highly doubt this is original prose. This would be the case for many many species descriptions. B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I could never do it myself if I only cite one source. See what I did on Lake Erie watersnake. I used multiple sources for the description, but I rearranged the content in a way so that the prose was completely original. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is only one original description for a species, and in many cases, there is no more than that (i.e. a species from a mountain in Nepal that was described two years ago will not be mentioned anywhere else, besides maybe in a checklist or a database) so you cannot use multiple sources - there is literally just one source B33tleMania12 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to create beetle articles at a pace that exceeds the normal limit

Hi, I'm not sure if you have received any other notifications, but Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Permission_to_create_beetle_articles_at_a_pace_that_exceeds_the_normal_limit was closed with permission granted (subject to some conditions mentioned in the closing statement). Plantdrew (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, but thanks for the notification! I already started another haha.. B33tleMania12 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the outcome! I know you need to resolve the question of how to provide descriptions, but this is a milestone.

I suspect that a couple of editors would not be sorry to see you fail, so I recommend scrupulously following the agreement:

1. A maximum of 100 new articles per day, with "midnight" being measured on the UTC clock.
2. Always cite at least three separate sources. This means in ref tags, not just in the {{taxonbar}}. Some of them can be the same sources as in the taxonbar, but they need to be little blue clicky numbers.
3. Follow any additional restrictions imposed by any admin. (If the additional restrictions are inappropriate, there's a process for challenging those, but most admins are pretty sensible if you just talk to them.)

The things that will force you to cut your output (temporarily or permanently):

1. If "any sysop uses their discretion to grant B33tleMania12 the autopatrolled flag", you'll have to slow down to ordinary WP:MASSCREATE limits (25 to 50), and we'll have to have another discussion.
2. If someone formally complains about your article creations, you'll have to slow down until that complaint is resolved.
3. If any admin tells you to slow down to ordinary levels.

The closing editor's advice about "RPS" (readable prose size) is aimed at reducing the odds of someone formally complaining. Longer articles get fewer complaints.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and guidance and thanks for the detailed explanation. And useful advice on the refs not including the ref in the taxobox (which I would have counted as 1 myself). I will, from this point on, create not articles with fewer than three. I might have done so before today though!

Regarding the species descriptions: if I cant use them I will probably not even get to 100 a day, but lets wait and see what comes out of that discussion. B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @WhatamIdoing:: is there a way to easily see how many articles you created on a day, excluding redirects. And about those redirects: I think they do not count towards the 100 a day limit? If they do, there are species with so many synonyms that I could only make 1 or 2 (not the ones I am working on now, but some well-known European/American species have tons of synonyms)

B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects won't be counted. Special:Contributions/B33tleMania12 will let you filter for page creations in the mainspace, but it won't exclude redirects. I think your best bet is https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/B33tleMania12 but do watch out for any warnings about database lags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can make redirects display in a different color which makes them easier to pick out. I don't remember where I copied it from originally, but I have User:Plantdrew/common.css to make redirects green. Make a common.css page for your username and copy the script I use. Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I dont think I will come close to the 100 most days though, but nice to have a tool that helps with the counting! B33tleMania12 (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, B33tleMania12. This message is being sent to inform you that a request has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked to be the sole person to work on this CCI, as I want to preserve as much content in your articles as possible. I don't normally do this for editors under copyright investigation, but I will make an exception in this case. I will respond at the village pump discussion tomorrow as well. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have no problem with this at all, I know I did not fully understand the rules for attribution in the beginning, and I may have forgotten to add some from time to time. Feel free to ping me if you find a source I used a lot without proper attribution and I will assist in adding the appropriate tags myself. B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before trimming/removing stuff (so I am not talking about proper attribution, which I should have done properly in the first place, so that is my bad, although I hope you forgive my 'childish ignorance' about the matter when I started): maybe wait and see what the others in the village pump discussion think about what is and what is not acceptable first? I think I know where you stand on this, but lets see what others (with knowledge about copyright [edit: I do not imply you don't have this knowledge, I just realized it might sound like that]) think about this.. B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is not clear yet if it close paraphrasing is allowed or not in some cases, I already added some PD-notices (works created by USDA) to a bunch of articles I created in August (not done all of them yet though). Even if the close paraphrasing is allowed in the end, it would still be a good thing to have these PD-notices in place to avoid discussion (even if they would not even be needed if close paraphrasing is allowed for 'obscure species') B33tleMania12 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Maladera rufoplagiata, I would not have removed any content because WP:LIMITED applies. You are merely listing where it is found, so there aren't any other ways for you to list them.

Now, for the description. You are correct that most beetles have only one description. However, some of the more studied species have additional descriptions from later sources. I normally like to include information from multiple sources in the same paragraph as long as they do not contradict each other, and WP:SYNTHESIS is not violated. If you use three sentences from a source that are next to each other with no other content, you are effectively engaging in WP:CLOP. If you want to continue adding descriptions from copyrighted sources, I would recommend using no more than two sentences if the description is short, or merely summarize the description if it is long. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree that it would not be allowed to add a description from a copyrighted source if it is a relatively well-known species (i.e. most European and North-American species, as well as well known beneficial and pest species). For the relatively obscure species, I tend to use the 1 or 2 sentence summary most modern species treatments have that summarize the very basic description (length/size, colour, body shape and a short overview of striking markings). The actual species description is usually very long (about one page) and technical. I try to rewrite this short 1-2 sentence description if I can, but there is not too much I can change usually, because it already is very short and to the point. How do you feel about the etymology section? I usually more or less copy that, because it is the author him/herself explaining the meaning of the name. I think it is important to get that right? Also for Etymology: there is actually really is just one true source: the actual etymology section in the original description is the one and only place where it can be found. Others trying to explain the name without using that source are just making an (probably educated, but still) guess at the meaning B33tleMania12 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the request is going to be declined. I was likely just being overzealous. I am happy to say that I won't be bugging you (haha) anymore. I look forward to seeing more of your content. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I caused you any distress. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and no hard feelings, it is good that people like you monitor these things! B33tleMania12 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello. Per the results of the discussion at the Village Pump (courtesy link here) the community stated that you should be citing at least 3 reliable sources. I have reviewed some of your recent one and the most I have gotten is two. I personally do not care - I will continue to review them, but for the sake of the community I would try to find three if possible. Cheers and thank you for all you do! Lynch44 11:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was told multiple refs to the same source count towards that number... B33tleMania12 (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I have read it wrong.. sorry! I will find another, although it might just be a pretty useless link to a database. B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. A reference at all is better than nothing. Thanks again, Lynch44 12:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will go back and add BioLib refs. Thanks for alerting me. I really need to read better... B33tleMania12 (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I fixed them all now. Thanks again for letting me know! B33tleMania12 (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BioLib isn't great; there are a lot of errors there.

Ideally, the three sources should be:

1) A good taxonomic* database that can show that a species is accepted (not treated as a synonym)

2) The original description

3) A recent monograph that accepts the species

Catalogue of Life is going to be 1) for most beetles. I guess one problem getting a third source is when the original description is in the recent monograph. In that case, a second, independent taxonomic database might be the next best source.

I distinguish taxonomic databases from nomenclatural databases; taxonomic databases have synonym/accepted status, nomenclatural database record that a species name exists without reporting whether it is treated as a synonym. GBIF is taxonomic, but mirrors CoL. ZooBank is nomenclatural. BioLib is taxonomic, but error-prone. If you can find any other database (Fauna Europea?) besides those three, that would be good. In some cases, I see articles you've created where GBIF and/or CoL have links to an out-of-copryright original description hosted on archive.org (or BHL?); that would also be a good thing to add. Plantdrew (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Fauna Europea was offline? Anyway.. cant use it for the species I am working on now anyway, because they are all from Asia. BioLib might be error-prone, but seems to be quite good with regard to the area I am working on now. They had entries for the 200+ species I made the past few days and I only found one spelling error (CoL also has some errors sometimes.. seems to be about the same percentage.. at least for the Tribe I am working on). Anyway: I think I will use it for this Tribe, because I was not able to find anything else. I will look for other sources when I move to another area of the Tree of Life though. B33tleMania12 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A task suggestion for you - create BioLib and/or BioLib.cz?

Hi B33tleMania12,

Over at Neoserica lushuiana, the first reference is just "BioLib"

Not being an arthropod, I don't have compound eyes. With my simple WP:ADMIN spectacles on, I can see that BioLib and BioLib.cz have never been created over on en.wp. Maybe you could look into creating them?

Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, making articles on databases is not my area of expertise, but I will look into it. Not right away though! Thanks for raising it, would indeed be good to have the article I think. B33tleMania12 (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neoserica

Thanks for the series of Neoserica articles, although they are so similar that I wonder whether they would be better described together on the species page. The reason I suggest that this is not to claim a notability problem, but rather for short text, context, and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your thoughts, but this is a discussion I have had a number of times already. I know some people feel they should be merged, and others think they should not. I prefer them separate, but everyone is free to make genus pages with species descriptions merged into them off course. However: I am planning to make species pages for every species I can find a decent amount of info about. Most will have pics as well. B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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

COnsider also Melolonthinae as a subfamily in the infobox, and it would be helpful to set this up on Wikidata too.

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

Klbrain (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subfamily would be ok, but it fills the taxobox automatically, so not sure how to do that.. regarding wikidata: I have not worked on that at all, so I am not really sure how to do that. 99% of the species I make have a wikidata entry though, it is only for some of the very recently described that these are missing.. B33tleMania12 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor ranks such as subfamily aren't usually included in taxoboxes that are more than one major rank below them. I.e., superfamilies are shown in taxoboxes for families, but not for genera or species; subfamilies and tribes are shown in taxoboxes for genera, not species.

I'm guessing Klbrain suggested including the subfamily in the taxobox to make it more obvious why the article is included in Category:Melolonthinae. B33tleMania12, you should consider making categories for genera any time there are going to be at least 20 articles for species in that genus (or even 10). Plantdrew (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can do that. Will make them if they are 10+ from now on! B33tleMania12 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Microserica allovarians. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. You have caused this error on literally dozens of pages. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This caused a bunch of pages to have errors. PLEASE be more careful and use WP:PREVIEW moving forward. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry about that, I did not get an error message. Normally, if something is wrong in a ref, it gives a red error message, but not for this. Anyway: I will check better, but I am only human, so mistakes happen.. B33tleMania12 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea these errors appear up top in a yellow box. It's dumb that they don't show up in red, I know. And yes, we are all only human, it's just particularly frustrating when the same error appears on 20+ pages by the same editor. When you are going to copy and paste the same thing onto multiple pages, be extra careful you aren't propagating errors. Anyway, you live and you learn! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yellow error in a box, thanks for that tip, I will look for that, thanks! B33tleMania12 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Coleopteran Barnstar
		I'd like to award you the Coleopteran Barnstar in recognition of the many, many, many beetle articles you have created. Keep up the good work! Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I will find a good spot on my digital mantelpiece :P B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Side note: might I suggest you set up archiving for your talk page? It's getting pretty lengthy. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only just now realized that you do have archiving set up. Whoops! Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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

Good job!

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) 10:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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

Congrats and thanks 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) 10:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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

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) 10:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation of articles - a cautionary tale of sorts

Hello again,

Please see User talk:Ruigeroeland.

I in no way suggest that your good self is creating articles that are WP:COPYVIOs - I simply note that mass creation of articles is fraught with all kinds of, let's just say, difficulties.

Peter in Australia aka 09:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, uhm: why this message all of a sudden? I think you have seen the previous discussions about rate of article creation (I am allowed to create up to a 100 per day) and the discussion about using species descriptions. B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi B33tleMania12. Thank you for your work on Sphaerotrochalus somalicola. 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) 10:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Autopatrolled permission

Hello, B33tle. I wanted to notify you that I've nominated you to receive the autopatrolled permission, to allow you to create pages without explicit new page reviewer review. You can read more at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Cheers! Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 13:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for your confidence! Although I do not mind being patrolled (I actually kinda like it, because everyone makes mistakes, and having an extra pair of eyes helps finding them). However, I also understand that patrollers might want to spend their precious time on other stuff if they feel there is little need to check all of my beetle articles. B33tleMania12 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi B33tleMania12, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sennecaster (Chat) 02:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, man! The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! B33tleMania12 (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That means we have to go back to the village pump about your WP:MASSCREATE rate, because the closing summary by S Marshall at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 224#Permission to create beetle articles at a pace that exceeds the normal limit said to have another discussion if/when you received autopatrolled. Plantdrew, will you be able to help with that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we do. It's the additional requirements that expire now. The permission to create 100/day survives.—S Marshall T/C 02:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I remember (though I defer to your interpretation). Hopefully this can continue to be a low-drama expansion of Wikipedia's contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing:, from what I'm seeing skimming the VPP discussion, autopatrolled was a minor side discussion. S Marshall's close gave the autopatrolled issue more weight than I would've thought the overall discussion warranted (but that's OK). Plantdrew (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you all. I will keep on doing as I do! B33tleMania12 (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]