Talk:Bertmainius tingle

Spiders Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders 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.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Bertmainius tingle is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Western Australia South West

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Australia South West, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the South West 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.Western Australia South WestWikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia South WestTemplate:WikiProject Western Australia South WestWestern Australia South West articles

Reference mess[edit]

I've fixed and completed all the ref. citation in the page, and moved them all into the refs section. Various of them were randomly dumped in "External links" and "Further reading", but zero of them that were are good material for either kind of section. They're all either good sources that should be cited inline, or they're trivial local newspaper cruft that should be removed if they're neither of use as citations nor are anything informative, beyond our article, that we should be directing our readers off-site to go read. A few of the things that were not in "Further reading" and also not cited inline might actually belong there, if they're tertiary sources and we don't need them as citations. I'll leave it to entomology editors to decide which sources are good to use; at least they're valid, complete citations now, not bare URLs that mostly didn't work any more due to linkrot. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]