Talk:Lymantria dispar in the United States

Should I remove unreferenced instructional text or convert it?

Much of the latter half of this article seems to be instructional text. Should I remove this completely or convert to another format? Most of it seems to be unreferenced. I've already converted some of it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done; text removed as part of copy-edit. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gypsy moths in the United States. 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/20110831145736/http://datcp.wi.gov/Environment/Gypsy_Moth/index.aspx to http://datcp.wi.gov/Environment/Gypsy_Moth/index.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508095439/http://www.iscatech.com/exec/SPLATGM.htm to http://www.iscatech.com/exec/SPLATGM.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 18:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

---

• Gypsy moths in the United States → Spongy moths in the United States
• Gypsy moth in New Zealand → Spongy moth in New Zealand

– Per the official changing of the common name as adopted in March 2022. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC) HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There is no "official" list of common names for insects. Spongy moth is just the name that the Entomological Society of America put on their common name list, a list almost nobody knew existed until this gypsy moth renaming made the news. If you really want "official," the Canadian government decided it is the LDD moth, the initials for the subspecies name.

In New Zealand, it is called the gypsy moth. I'm curious why the New Zealand page should be changed to a name not used in New Zealand. Bigwhitmer (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Since I'm supposed to base arguments on article title policy, I'll quote it: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used."

Based on that, neither article should be renamed. Gypsy moth will be the commonly used name for the foreseeable future. Bigwhitmer (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, it will likely take a long time, if ever, for people to stop calling them "gypsy moths". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as Zxcvbnm above. While ESA has some considerable weight, that is currently only a US/Canada organization, and we need to take a world-wide view of common names. Normally ESA names are following what the rough common names are, but creating a brand new name for an established species is going against the flow a bit. We'd really need to see significant adoption first before changing anything major here. For now, WP:RECENTISM applies.

As a side note, I saw the survey for the candidate list of new names. Out of all the options, I was really surprised to see this one come on top. Part of the recentism caution is that ESA's common name could still change, so best to give it some time to make sure it actually settles in. KoA (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing gypsy to Spongy moth.

Due to updated naming in 2022, the name of this moth is now Spongy Moth 2600:387:C:6F10:0:0:0:9 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This has already been brought up over at the parent article Talk:Lymantria_dispar#Common_name, not to mention the move request above. KoA (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to reiterate this at this point, but if someone feels really strongly on WP:CRYSTAL, which generally default to the species name if there isn't a predominant common name. Now isn't the time to be changing everything over to spongy moth though, and the main article has tried to wrestle with that a bit already. KoA (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This discussion was started in the summer of 2021. We need to get with the times, this is 2022 and the spongy moth season is a bad one. It's in all the papers and nobody says Gypsy Moth anymore, just like they don't say "23 Skidoo". It's about time for a change. 2603:7080:8341:6700:10C4:EDB4:2057:A9B3 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a citable source for "... nobody says Gypsy Moth anymore,"? 165.83.133.249 (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Due to the renaming, many of the links in the article are now broken and unreachable, such as the many references to the spongy moth in the WI DoA, hence the new page for the species: https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/SpongyMoth.aspx 75.164.15.116 (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this discussion after being pointed to it. I happened to see that the USDA adopted the changed name in December 2022 and thought it should have been followed here too and boldy made changes. I wouldn't argue if someone wanted to reverse my changes. Shyamal (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shyamal thanks for clarifying. I reverted this per WP:RM/TR, but if anybody wants to discuss again as above with any new citations that may have surfaced, that is of course always an option. ASUKITE 15:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Shyamal, was away for a bit and just saw this, but there was very strong consensus in the last RM about not moving to spongy moth, and the USDA doesn't really change that. If you check out Lymantria dispar though, the default has been to use the species WP:COMMONNAME moreso because subspecies were being dealt with there, but it does get around the common name issue. There's been some discussion over there too such as at Talk:Lymantria_dispar#Common_name, but the main issue is that spongy moth really isn't an uambiguous common name, and the name gypsy moth isn't really an issue for us as editors in terms of WP:UNCENSORED. It's not clear that it's really faded from the predominant common name worldwide yet.

I wouldn't be opposed to potentially retitling this page to the scientific name in the future, but back when I was visiting this, it seemed better just to wait and see. The other option is to globalize the species article where this article could be merged back in alongside other content where titling wouldn't matter anymore either, similar to what was done over at emerald ash borer. That's been on my to-do list for a bit, but a longer term option. KoA (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Question of time frame

Yo! I noticed a bit that said "The egg masses ... will be present from late July until May when they hatch." Are the months swapped or do those suckers really hang around for like a year? I'd like to leave the answer and the edit (if required) to someone more entomologically minded than me. 205.251.184.218 (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)