Talk:Lepidopterist

lepidopterists

Does Robert Baden-Powell qualify as a famous lepidopterist? --Paul A 04:59 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion, no; he may have been a lepidopterist, and famous, but he wasn't famous for being a lepidopterist, which is what I think this list is about. - Hephaestos

Neither is Nabokov...

Nabokov is a distinguished lepidopterist in addition to being an author. One can still purchase books of his technical writings regarding lepidoptera. He's not just a famous person who happened to collect butterflies. Regardless, I don't see the harm in including Baden-Powell. -- Schaefer 07:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FICTIONAL LEPIDOPTERISTS: The villain Stapelton/Baskerville in AC Doyle's 'Hound of the Baskervilles"

Speaking of Lepidopterists, why is it when you look up Julian Jamalon, you get no information. Nor do you get anything if you look it on google either. Please email warriorlaurastar@yahoo.com if you know. Thankies

Lepidoopterists

Why is it when you look up Julian Jamalon that you don't get any information. Nor do you get any information if you look it up on google or factmonster, yahoo or anything else. Please email warriorlaurastar@yahoo.com if you know. Thanks so much! I need to look that up because I have a report on a lepidopterist, and Julian Jamalon is the only girl...i think. If there is a girl lepidopterist you could email the name of them to me aswell. I'm 12 years old by the way. Have a great day.-laura

A note

It might be useful to add the character from Silence of the Lambs here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.129.63 (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

I propose this article be merged in Lepidoptera. For most articles covering a specific discipline of science there is no separate page for the scientists (i.e., Paleontologist redirects to paleontology). This is how coleopterist (one who studies beetles) is handled and I don't see a reason to have a seperate page for lepidopterists. Scientific29 (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is sound from the WP:MOS point of view. However, famous Lepidopterists do deserve an article of their own, one which would also permit the "Lepidopterists in fiction". Since Lepidoptera is under development at the moment, I will consider the merger while developing. If more material is available, I would like to develop this article instead. Request status quo for the time being. AshLin (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Vide no reply, assuming agreement to my proposal to develop the article. Removing the merge tag. AshLin (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral on the merge, but it seems reasonable to cover people with the existing 'Category:Lepidopterists', and as Scientific29 says, other similar articles have the professions integrated into the discipline articles. What content do you plan on adding that would not work equally well as a subsection of 'Lepidoptera'?Dialectric (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I propose that Lepidopterist be merged into Lepidopterology. There is a lot of overlap with the content, and I think that the content of this article could be better served as a subsection, something like Lepidontist, which can include a section on fictional Lepidontist. Mnidjm (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Already far too much splitting of content among Arthropodology fields and the "-ogy" from the "-ogist" in general (e.g. Orthopterology) A Lepidopterist simply engages in Lepidopterology and while the subjects are not synonymous they can easily be accommodated in one article. While both are barely lists disguised as articles, and I am no fan of trivial In fiction lists ("An episode of Family Guy once showed a biologist..."), I say lump first, then improve. While we're at it let's merge Aurelian (entomology). --Animalparty! (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support both. There's no justification for separate articles, especially when they're mainly about the terms rather than about the subjects the terms denote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)