This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I've restored the {{over-quotation}}, I see Mitsingh that you've shortened it, yes. But the concern is that the entirety of the article is just the quotation. It is likely fine from a copyright perspective as it was published in 1908, it just that there is no summary style of the actual text itself. It should instead describe in summary style the description of the species and then cite to the work. As it was published in 1908, it can follow pretty closely, it just needs to be more encyclopedic. The length is fine, per se, I see that you've shortened it; I understand the confusing nature of the template but it shouldn't be the whole article. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Mitsingh: no objection if you wanted to do that. I was simply trying to preserve as much of your original quotation as possible because, like I mentioned, I wasn't concerned with the overall length, but rather that it was nothing but the quotation. Feel free to further trim if you'd like, or adjust/remove section titles/headers. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply