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 articles
Ilybius ater 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 articles
Why not use the term "Britain", then set it to call Britain I. when someone clicks on it. That way we have a common description but the user is directed to an article which describes the territory precisely. The Insect Man (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I added a title to this section, we should also add appropriate headers.) The real problem here is that Insect Man appears to be unaware of the history, that the change from "British Isles" that kicked off your original edit was part of a pattern of widespread deletion of that term from all kinds of articles, regardless of the actual source or context. Sorry that you are caught up in that. On the actual issue here, there is no need for modification, since "British Isles" is a succinct, accurate description that matches the source and "Britain I" is obscure and known only to a few scientific readers. (HK, for your benefit, this argument will be used at other similar articles across the BI space if we are not to go back to having centralised discussions - as before, these would be best.) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James, I note what you say about British Isles. It should not be deleted for political reasons. Nonetheless, in this type of article, where accuracy is important, if we can be more specific than British Isles then we should try and be so, which is why I set up Britain I.. Stating "British Isles" could be regarded as imprecise, and if that's the reason for replacing it then it makes sense, at least to me. If it's been replaced fror other reasons, then of course consideration should be given to reverting it. I bow to your superior knowledge of the background issues here, so I won't be changing it again. Regards, The Insect Man (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
