Talk:Bembecia scopigera
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bembecia scopigera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303214853/http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/issues/zoo-05-29-1/zoo-29-1-4-0402-1.pdf to http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/issues/zoo-05-29-1/zoo-29-1-4-0402-1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Removal of "Glearwing" as a vernacular name[edit]
I have removed "Glearwing" as a listed vernacular name, and I'll explain my rationale here.
Checking the sources cited on that, I do see that name being used in this source within the article. However, I cannot find anything else that uses this name for the species other than sites that have forked content from Wikipedia. As a note, the Ukrainian name for the species is stated to be "Стеклянница" within that source, which is actually the Russian name for moths of the clearwing family in general (It would actually be "Склівка" in Ukrainian).
I believe it's reasonable to conclude from this mistake that:
-The site does not necessarily put species-specific names for the species, and may instead just use the name of the family.
-The site is not very reliable for getting the names of the species and may have mistakes.
Source typoing "Clearwing" to refer to the family of the species seems to be very plausible. This would explain why there's nothing else that uses this vernacular name other than Wikipedia forks and also explain why the name is even there in the source. Randi Moth (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)