Talk:Fender's blue butterfly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of Butterflies and Moths. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] correct proper name, Fender's Blue

I believe that referencing unscientific sources using incorrect proper names and establishing them as the basis for a decision to use lower case for blue in the proper name of this tiny butterfly named, Fender's Blue, makes Wikipedia seem amateurish. Why not follow the scientific format if we intend to seem professional? In an effort to clarify the correct use, this is a gossamer-winged butterfly named, Fender's Blue (not Fender's).

I am aware that this issue has been hashed out before, but believe that the incorrect decision was reached.

Going to the Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Butterflies, dated 1981, one may find gossamer-winged butterflies listed by their proper names from page 400 through 517 and many of the blues are listed between page 483 through page 517. The blue portions of their names are always treated as a part of the proper name, and therefore, are given an initial capital letter.

Scientific resources use the same convention when using the proper name, Fenders's Blue, although it may be confusing when documents refer to the blue butterfly discovered by Fender as, Fender's blue butterfly. The context of the quote must be considered. These are discussions of blue butterflies which are generic, and not capitalized—but if one is noting the proper name, the convention is clear. The resource used to resolve the issue previously seems to be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is not a scientific authority, it is a governmental bureaucracy, which are noted for mistakes in their publications and which are not published by scientists. Someone's error is often replicated by the next writer... soon no one knows what is correct. Wikipedia should attempt to be correct.

If this is unsatisfactory as a basis for correction, a long list of search results making a correct reference among Internet documents also can support the correct capitalization format as readily as the incorrect—the list is readily available and may be cut into the discussion, if needed. Please make a request and I will cut the list into another discussion entry. Many things on the Internet are sloppy and incorrect -- it is not a good source for accurate information unless the authority for the information is clear. I think that Wikipedia should strive to be correct, or remain always as a dubious source of encyclopedic information.

I have edited the text to make these distinctions more clear and correct. The title of the article may remain unchanged since it can be interpreted as an article on the blue butterfly discovered by Fender, even though I would make the blue a capital—if it were my choice to name the article.

Apart from this, the photograph caption and box title should have initial caps for formatting standards alone -- including the word, butterfly since it is part of a caption and a title. ---- kb - 2006 0708—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.132.120.184 (talk • contribs).

I agree that the actual spelling at times in federal webpages may not always conform with the scientific nomenclature, but, as in the case of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they are the authoritative body which determines, after nomination by third parties sometimes, whether a species is to be listed as endangered, threatened, etc. I agree they may not be 100% accurate, but without a more authoritative citable reference, all we do here is report what is printed by those sources that are generally well regarded and deemed to be in compliance with reliable sourcing. I'm always open to better sources and information, but without that, we do the best we can with the sources that meet our policies. I think the title of the article could even be changed to the latin name as has been done for many other species...is the rest of the information in the infobox accurate as far as you can tell?--MONGO 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the Wikipedia editors do a good job and think this is a good article. It is up to editors who see things that may be incorrect to follow-up when there is a difference between what editors find as data—working out the corrections as we are now. Changing the title to the Latin might limit the search results that point to the article—so I would leave it as it is (unless you want to put a capital on the B of the blue, which doesn't bother me if it is complicated). There is a great deal of discussion of this butterfly by the common name. I presume that searches by the Latin name will still point to this article if you leave it as it is. Are you comfortable with the changes I made to the article to attempt to clarify the name? If it is acceptable to you, I would be happy with it now. ---- kb - 2006 0708

I'm sure they are fine. I don't understand the latin naming for animal species that well, unless we are discussing humans and their closest relatives, I'm a newbie to the latin nomenclature.--MONGO 19:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)