Talk:Neocicindela tuberculata

Neocicindela tuberculata has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 28, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beetles Low‑importance

	Insects portal Neocicindela tuberculata is within the scope of WikiProject Beetles, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to beetles. For more information, visit the project page.BeetlesWikipedia:WikiProject BeetlesTemplate:WikiProject Beetlesbeetle
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Common tiger beetle" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Common tiger beetle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 7 § Common tiger beetle until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common name

In the redirect discussion above, the common name question for this species came up, so I wanted to get some of that summarized over here. In short, this is the only reliable source using the common name "common tiger beetle" for this species. The problem I ran into I was went looking at other sources though is that it looks other usage treats it as a common tiger beetle rather than the common tiger beetle. Part of this may be because the genus Cicindela uses the common name, of which this species was part of at a time according to that source as well. That's just me speaking with my entomologist hat on mostly, but it does get murky from a WP:DUE perspective when other sources aren't really corroborating that name for this species.

The other issue is a lot of not so reliable sources that populate Google (and with language that has drifted into a few websites) have pulled language from this page using common tiger beetle since it was started in 2007 as WP:CIRCULAR. It's probably better to be on the safe side and leave that language out for now in that respect too. KoA (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA There's three other easy to access sources that list N. tuberculata as "Common tiger beetle", all pre-dating the FNZ publication:

Helmore 1982 and Lowe 1967 both list it as "Common tiger beetle". Keep in mind that the latter is a list of standard common names for NZ insects. Hudson 1934 also states "this is the common tiger beetle of new zealand". The language is a bit unclear, but note he refers to it as "the common tiger beetle of new zealand" not "the most common tiger beetle of new zealand".

From memory, Forster & Forster 1970 refers to it as "Common tiger beetle", but I can't find an online source to share. I know this doesn't pass as evidence, but it should be noted that within the NZ entomological community, it is generally understood by those familiar with beetles that "Common tiger beetle" refers to this species.

I agree that the name shouldn't be used as a redirect for obvious reasons.

AxonsArachnida (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also one other thing: I never (intentionally) created a redirect for this. When a name is made in bold in the lead, does this somehow automatically create a redirect page?

AxonsArachnida (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly looking the name here independent of any redirect issues since that had been handled already. Bolding the name wouldn't automatically create one.

When it comes to just listing a common name here though, those sources do help a lot compared to what we were dealing with earlier. I've added a bit back on that with those. Just FYI, you don't have to bold all common names, but just the title and anything that redirects here (see MOS:BOLD). In this case the two common names don't have to be bolded. Normally sources aren't needed in the lead (if it's mentioned in the body), but in this case, it's probably safer given the past discussion so the sourcing is clear. KoA (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KoA Awesome. Thanks for all that. AxonsArachnida (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I noticed is other names like moeone. Most of the source for that seems to just be describing tiger beetles in general and maybe not just this one species. The one sentence primarily cited says Another example cited is the endemic tiger beetle (Neocicindela tuberculata; syn. Cicindela tuberculata), which has several Māori names. . ., but others are just describing general tiger beetle behavior. It would seem odd just for this one species to have such focus otherwise unless there was something making this one tiger beetle species have the spotlight in those cultures. Seeing what source they cite says would help, but I haven't been able to access it. I guess I'm just cautious when I see sources namedrop the species name maybe once when it may not be just this one species. KoA (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moeone and the other names do generally refer to tiger beetles. I've added an additional source and made this a bit clearer. AxonsArachnida (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neocicindela tuberculata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AxonsArachnida (talk · contribs) 06:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cremastra (talk · contribs) Will do. I'll read through the article and I'll post initial comments here soon. 18:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good luck with the review. AxonsArachnida (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you've likely seen, I made some copyedits to the article. Prose is on hold until the [clarify] tags are resolved. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've gone ahead and resolved the clarifications needsed. AxonsArachnida (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after my read-through and a second look I've started filling out the GA criteria (see progress below) and overall the article looks pretty good. For a little-researched species it's a good length, and you've done a good job finding references. I'll do a source spot check and a copyvios check, but if those don't turn up anything I think we're pretty good. (I'll of course do another read-through or two).

There are some pretty good quality pictures of the beetles on iNaturalist which I think are freely licensed, as well as some good pictures on commons. [1] I think the article should include one live, ideally in situ picture. Personally, I prefer live photographs of animals over dead specimens for the lead (infobox) image, but both are acceptable per MOS:LEADIMAGE and it's your choice. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I went ahead and swapped out the taxon image for that of a live one. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

[5] Y verified that the Systema entomologiae is his famous work. No CV/CLOP concerns.
[8] ? No CV/CLOP concerns. It's certainly an early description, but Castelneau doesn't claim it as the first. Please either add a secondary source verifying it was the first or change the text to "an early description of the larvae came from..." Consider adding a specific page number even though the BHL link takes you to the right page.
[17] Y verified; no CV/CLOP concerns. The specific page number (p. 1102) wouldn't hurt.
Continuing. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the comments above. I've also gone through the rest of the references and added specific page numbers where possible. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks.
[14] Looks good.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Neocicindela tuberculata

... that the tiger beetle Neocicindela tuberculata (pictured) was discovered during James Cook's first voyage to New Zealand?

Source: Radford, W.P.K. 1981: The Fabrician types of the Australian and New Zealand Coleoptera in the Banks collection at the British Museum (Natural History). Records of the Australian Museum: 18(8):194 (https://bugz.ento.org.nz/detail/e9fd2acf-de75-4dbb-ae63-2eaa5703d7d1)

First source is a list of type material described by Johan Christian Fabricius from material collected by the Endeavour voyage. Neocicindela tuberculata (referred to as Cicindela tuberculata in text) is included in this list.

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3857c303-efe0-4d95-9efc-ec26090cb8c3/content (page 113)

Second source more directly states that it was collected on the Endeavour voyage.

- Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by AxonsArachnida (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]