Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

This is the beginning.

hi please add described categorys for your articles by years and add templates for articles thanks

Hello! I noticed while reading Brachistinae that the lead contains ..subfamily of braconid wasps in the family Braconidae, and although this isn't that bad, I thought about fixing this as A) it contains 2 links to the same page (Braconid wasp redirects to Braconidae), and B) there doesn't seem to be any clade that starts with "braconid-", meaning it also states the same thing twice, but then I looked at other articles under Braconidae, and I found out that most pages with this in their lead seem to be added by you.

Are these simply due to not-noticed mistakes, or were you not aware of The second half of WP:OBVIOUS? Of course that isn't a policy, but it is typically bad practice to state something that has already been said in the same sentence / most likely obvious to the reader. (See Wikipedia:Principle of some astonishment) - User:BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 06:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I think links to "Braconid wasp" should be removed since they go to a redirect. I could go either way about using "Braconid wasp" in addition to "Bradonidae" at the beginning of the article. It might be slightly beneficial (there are a number of articles with "Braconid Wasp" in the title), but that's not true for most insect families and it might be setting a bad precedent. I don't see any serious disadvantages removing "Braconid Wasp" form the initial sentence, and I'll plan on doing that in the future.

Bob Webster (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. So, should "Braconid" be omitted from the first sentence for these articles? If so, then should "wasp" be linked instead? I am not aware of any MOS guideline that precisely determines if taxon descriptors should be linked, although MOS:LINK does give some guidance as to what should be linked generally. (Relevant connections to the subject of another article that help readers understand the article more fully)

Doing an advanced search for "Braconid wasps in the family Braconidae" returns 100 results, so it's good we're discussing this first. - User:BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 21:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think something similar to "Cyanopterus is a genus of wasps in the family Braconidae" would probably be best.

(A Google Scholar search returns almost 5000 hits for "braconid wasp", so it's not an unknown term.)

Bob Webster (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Should Braconidae be linked? Since most of these articles are stubs, the taxobox will be running along most of the article, and so the "Braconidae" link in the family section will be nearby, but, MOS:LINK does say that relevant connections that could help readers should generally be linked, so I was planning to link it. - User:BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 23:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is usually one link in the body in addition to the link in the taxobox, so I'd link the first (sometimes only) mention of Braconidae in the body. Bob Webster (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I filed a script request since modifying 100 pages would be very tedious to do manually. In the example there, I have "wasp" not linked; is there anything I should change? (Looking at parasitoid wasp articles through Special:RandomInCategory/Parasitoid Wasps seems to return articles with "wasp" not linked about 90% of the time.) - User:BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 03:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, please remember that references and further reading sections need to actually be constructive to the article. Pages like Tromatobia and Tromatobia ovivora should not have citations that don't support the given claims or even mention the genus at all. It also isn't conducive to add the same further reading reference (Arnett, 2000) to virtually every entomology article when it at most includes the genus name once in a list and provides no further information on the article's topic. This is well into the territory that Wikipedia considers spam and needs to be cleaned up on articles you've created. Lhikan634 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dipoenoides, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Georgia, Menge and Reunion were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]