# Talk:Neocicindela tuberculata

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)

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)

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)

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