Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects/Archive 4

Subcategories for Orthoptera stubs

I was over in stubs, and I noticed that there were close to 1300 articles in Category:Orthoptera stubs. They're nearly all now in Category:Caelifera stubs and Category:Ensifera stubs, which are roughly equal in size. The former is at least 50% Acrididae, and the latter is maybe 20% Gryllidae and 15% Rhaphidophoridae (maybe more - these numbers are based on fairly imprecise searches, because not all articles are uniformly categorized). I was thinking of setting up stub categories for those to further relieve the large categories, when it occurred to me to check in here. Probably should have done this sooner; I apologize for the oversight.

Is there a general principle to follow in choosing when to divide categories of insect stubs, and at precisely which taxonomic levels? I was mostly following what I saw with the various subdivisions of Category:Diptera stubs. Many stub categories exist between the ranks of order and family, and I think common sense answers most questions here, but it can't hurt to ask.

To specify the question to the current context, would it make sense to make stub categories for those three families I listed above (one under Caelifera and two under Ensifera)? No other single family seems to have more than 20 or 30 stubs, so those are the ones, if any are. Assuming that's done, are the two stub categories that I created and populated good for keeping? I mean, whatever doesn't fall into families could be upmerged back to the parent cat, if there's consensus for that move. Otherwise, they can remain, and the parent category can be kept fairly empty.

What do people think? When I thought of asking here, I had just proposed these new categories, but I can certainly close the proposal if it's out-of-line. Discussion here -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Go back to first principles: what is the point of stub categories? Surely to encourage editors to expand articles that interest them. So will dividing up stubs make this more likely? It depends on whether there are editors with narrower interests, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Diptera stubs is not a good example to follow. There's no reason to have stub categories for every minor rank in the taxonomic hierarchy. I don't do stub sorting myself, but I think if an order category is getting overly large, the first step would be to identify families with large numbers of articles and create stub categories for those families. If, after the larger families are separated out, the order category is still too large, then consider creating categories for suborders. So, yes, do create categories for Gryllidae/Acrididae/Rhapidophoridae. It's probably worth keeping the Ensifera/Caelifera categories, but in the future, consider doing things in the opposite order to what you did; create stub categories for large families first, then suborders if necessary. That is more efficient, as you won't spend your time putting articles in suborder categories only to go back later and refine those into families. I'd advise similarly for other ranks; do categories for the next lower major rank first, and then create categories for intervening minor ranks if needed. Plantdrew (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, I think the general consensus for stub editors is that overly large stub categories intimidate new users. If overly large categories are divided up, the larger category will still exist, so people can more easily navigate to their specific level of interest. @Plantdrew: I have been doing some research for this stub proposal, and I noticed that categorization is extremely spotty below the suborder level. Even Category:Orthoptera families only lists one subcategory, Category:Gryllacrididae. Do you know of any special process or method that taxonomic wikiprojects have for improving the taxanomic category tagging / organization of articles? I assume that it would make sense to have all the species articles categorized at the genus level, so I'm curious if there's a quick way to do it, or any existing tools to help with the process.-Furicorn (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Furicorn:, you are asking about regular categories, not stub categories? There are bits and pieces of a system that uses two parallel category trees all over Wikipedia's taxonomic articles, but it's only fairly well developed for plants (and is still incomplete even there). The way plants are done is described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization.

For one category tree, there are straight taxon categories that continue all taxa subordinate to the taxon for which the category is named. New subordinate categories should be created for subordinate taxa once there are enough articles to populate them (although that's not happening so much in practice). The vast majority of taxonomic articles are categorized somewhere in this tree. But there is certainly a need for work to refine the categorization in this tree, e.g. creating categories for large genera and diffusing species out of family categories into the new genus categories.

For the other category tree, the root is Category:Taxa by rank, and articles on taxa above species are placed into categories appropriate for the rank. Category:Orthoptera families is in this second tree, and it should only contain article on families (at least if the system described for plants is being followed). The Gryllacrididae article should be in Orthoptera families; the Gryllacrididae category, which includes articles on species and genera, should not be in Orthoptera families. If Orthoptera families were to have subcategories, they would be Ensifera families and Caelifera families. Many articles on higher taxa are yet categorized in the taxa by rank tree; there is a need for further work on that aspect. Taxa by rank categories will be smaller than the straight taxa categories, so are less in need of further refinement.

I haven't had a need to use it myself, but I suspect Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot would be quite useful for somebody needing an efficient way to refine categories on a large scale. Plantdrew (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was asking about regular categories, thanks for the explanation. Have you ever used Petscan? This is the primary stub analysis tool, and I'm struggling a little bit with how to turn your explanation of these two category trees into analytically useful combinations. For instance, let's say I wanted to see how many members of a broad stub category were also members of a more narrow non-stub category. Normally with nested categories, I could just poke around in the category tree a little, find a category at the relevant depth in the tree, and then look at the union of the stub and non-stub category to determine how many articles of interest exist. But I'm afraid I don't yet understanding well enough how the taxonomic category trees articulate. Maybe it would help if you walked me through how to navigate the two trees a little more, perhaps showing how to navigate the tree from kingdom to a species (or family or genus). -Furicorn (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Furicorn: as Plantdrew says, for many groups, the taxonomic category tree isn't well defined. There's been a tendency for a few editors to strike out on their own and 'fix' a few parts of the tree, leaving the rest untouched. There is a worked-out system for plants (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization), but even here, this scheme hasn't been followed consistently. For example, Category:Angiosperms is supposed to be the top-level taxonomic category for flowering plants and their subdivisions, as the description of the category says. So four of the subcategories shouldn't be there:

• Category:Angiosperm taxa and Category:Angiosperms by location shouldn't exist; they are classic constructions by now blocked editors (or sockpuppets of one editor), with no discussion and consensus
• Category:Flowers and Category:Fruit may or may not be sensible categories (I don't think they are), but they aren't taxonomic ranks, so shouldn't be here.

Whether it's worth sorting out is another matter. I have tried sporadically in the past, but rapidly became discouraged! Peter coxhead (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: When you say "Category:Angiosperms is supposed to be the top-level taxonomic category," what is the alternative to a taxonomic category in this case? Thanks for pointing me again to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization, I think I missed that the first time I was reading through Plantdrew's response. As I'm reading it though, it seems like Category:Angiosperm taxa is in the right place though - if it's not there, where would it be instead? Somewhere in Category:Taxa by rank? Or alternatively, what construct would someone use to navigate the subcategories of Angiosperms? I see for instance that Category:Insects has Category:Insect taxa, but maybe this is also wrong? I'm hoping to find at least one model category to help me understand better, as the Plant Categorization doesn't provide example categories for reference. Also, the fact that Category:Angiosperms by location is inappropriate - where is the appropriate location for geographic groupings ? -Furicorn (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Furicorn: when an article or category is placed in a taxonomic category, directly or indirectly, there should be an "is a member of" relationship. Thus Scilla hyacinthoides is a member of Category:Scilla which is a member of Category:Scilloideae which is a member of Category:Asparagaceae which is a member of Category:Asparagales which is a member of Category:Monocots which is a member of Category:Angiosperms. The category hierarchy is a (partial) taxonomic hierarchy. "Flowers" are not a taxonomic category and so not a member of Category:Angiosperms.

Category:Insect taxa, Category:Taxa by rank, and all such similar categories are Caftaric constructions with no consensus, and should be deleted or upmerged.

Category:Flora by continent should be the top level, with lower categories as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Again, Caftaric and sockpuppets/other editors have messed up a well-designed system beyond my time and energy to repair, at least.

Anyway, too much about plants here! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing Insect Taxonomy

@Plantdrew: @Peter coxhead: Moving this discussion here. So I'm working to try and understand the ideal categorization that should be implemented. For example, I'm looking at two Ensifera stubs for genera that are members of Gryllidae: Abmisha and Absonemobius. What are the ideal set of categories (excluding any geographic)? Am I correct that instead of Category:Orthoptera genera, the ideal categorization would be Category:Gryllidae, which would roll up to Category:Orthoptera? I was reading a little bit about Auto Taxobox, does that put in the right categories? -Furicorn (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Furicorn: They should have Category:Orthoptera genera in addition to a straight taxon category. For your two examples, the straight taxon category is at a vernacular name. Abmisha is in Category:Field crickets, and Field cricket is the title of an article about subfamily Gryllinae. Absonemobius is in Category:Ground crickets, and Ground cricket is a redirect to subfamily Nemobiinae. Your examples are already correctly categorized within the categories as they exist now. If there were articles written for several species of Absonemobius, Category:Absonemobius might be worth creating, and its parent would be Category:Ground crickets (as there are no Absonemobius species articles at present, it's not worth creating a category for the genus yet).

But wait!! There are a couple things here that aren't best practices for categorization. The category name should match the title of the main article on the subject of the category. Category:Ground crickets should be Category:Nemobiinae. And neither of your example articles mentions the subfamily anywhere. Categorization should be supported by text in the article.

Using vernacular names ("ground crickets") for category titles is pretty rare in taxonomic categories. And when there is a mismatch between category and article title, it usually goes in the other direction from ground crickets; the article title is a vernacular name and the category is at a scientific name. Using a vernacular name for the category makes sense in some cases (Category:Crickets?), but there should probably be a category redirect from the scientific name (Category:Gryllidae). If I come across a taxonomic article that is uncategorized, I open up HotCat and work my way up through the taxobox using HotCat's autocomplete until I find a parent taxon with an existing category. I don't really stop to think that some higher rank category might be at a vernacular name, and try that name in HotCat.

I do use PetScan, but I don't know how I could use it to find places where taxonomic categories are in need of refinement. Just browsing around Category:Crickets and working my way up, Cycloptilum has articles for six species, so Category:Cycloptilum might be warranted. Ceuthophilus has articles for 32 species; definitely time to defuse those to Category:Ceuthophilus and out of Category:Rhaphidophoridae. Category:Tettigoniinae shows several genera with articles on 5 or more species, genus categories could be created. Plantdrew (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Even Category:Crickets is a little sketchy. Is that supposed to be the same as Category:Ensifera? Not all Ensiferans are called "crickets" (the suborder also includes katydids), and there are species known as "pygmy mole crickets" among the Caelifera.

Reading the guidelines you're outlining here, I find myself wondering when subfamily categories should exist. How many genera and species should be a family cat before we want to split it into subfamilies? Or does it happen when we have enough genus categories showing up? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@GTBacchus: Cricket (insect) is about Gryllidae, so the category is for that family, not suborder Ensifera. Whether the cricket article should be rescoped to cover other families that are referred to as crickets is another question.

I wouldn't have split it into subfamilies myself. Categories should be split once they get beyond 200 members (viewing a category shows 200 members per page). They can be split before then, but it's not imperative. Across all the subcategories, there are 179 articles under crickets. And there are a few genera with a decent number of articles. I'd prefer to have categories for the large genera and avoided subfamily categories in this case. I'm not a big fan of categories for minor taxonomic ranks, as these ranks usually aren't shown in species level taxoboxes, so people categorizing on the basis of a taxobox won't think to try applying minor rank categories. Plantdrew (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article Cricket may be about Gryllidae, but Category:Crickets isn't quite limited to that family. It contains, for example, the article Mogoplistidae, which is about a different family of crickets. Maybe that shouldn't be there, but the name is ambiguous enough that somebody thought it fit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I personally feel like there's a case to be made that Category:Crickets should be a separate (albeit somewhat overlapping category from Category:Gryllidae. The common name has a different purpose and usage than the taxonomic, and it seems like no harm would come from adding Category:Gryllidae where relevant. It's too bad there's no way to indicate upmerged categories with templates like they do with stub categories. -Furicorn (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with a separate category for Gryllidae. There are precedents for that in some subcategories of Category:Birds by common name. Category:Finches includes birds from several families, although the Finch article is about family Fringillidae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs)

Are there similar situations with other common insect names - enough to warrant a Category:Insects by common name? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@GTBacchus: I think Category:Insects by common name would be something we'd have to encounter by becoming more familiar with this set of articles in the wikipedia, not sure how you could figure that out analytically. I do know there are several other animal articles with the common name as the primary (I'm think of Rorqual and Even-toed ungulate. Side-note, looking at the history of the German and English pages, I have a strong suspicion that Even-toed ungulates may have just been ported over from the German version, because interestingly it seems like German has developed German names to correspond to the Latin names for many of the taxonomic levels. -Furicorn (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Furicorn:, I was definitely thinking of it as am empirical question, not an analytic one. I just imagine others in the conversation here have more familiarity than I do with the articles in question. If this is a big-picture question that hasn't been explored much yet, then I guess we'll just learn as we go :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Categories for uncertain families

This might be the sort of thing that comes up all the time, but I haven't got experience with it, so I'll ask. I've been sorting through the Category:Orthoptera stubs. Three big families each has their own stub type now, and we were looking at the large suborder categories remaining. Over at /Proposals, Furicorn had suggested making family templates, which can sort articles into the suborder cats for now, and which can be easily split off for families that end up with a lot of stubs. While considering the pros and cons of that idea, I noticed something squirrely about the families in the Caelifera: Acrididae is huge, and there are two families, Romaleidae and Pamphagidae, which are treated by some authors as independent, and by others as Acrididae subfamilies, called Romaleinae and Pamphaginae. The best description I've seen of the taxonomic status of those two groups is at BugGuide here: [1].

As far as our articles, we have somewhat inconsistent categorization. See Abila (grasshopper) for a humble example. So.... is there any consensus on how to handle such situations? So far, I haven't sorted the stubs suffering from this ambiguity into Category:Acrididae stubs, unless there are some that slipped through. Is it desirable to make a choice, and either treat them consistently as families, or as subfamilies? Is there a particular source we look to for guidance in such decisions?

Thanks in advance for advice. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

First and foremost, try to keep Wikipedia internally consistent. Romaleidae and Pamphagidae are treated as families here, and it would take fewer edits to correct articles miscategorized in Acrididae than to treat these as subfamilies.

There's no one single source that is best to follow for all insects. In this case, Orthoptera Species File may be a good source to follow, and it treats these as families (see here).

In general, when you come across cases of taxonomic uncertainty, check out the links in the taxonbar at the very bottom of the article, and see if there is rough consensus in those sources. If there is substantial disagreement among the sources linked in the taxonbar, proceed carefully, and maybe ask for advice here. Taxonbar resources are of varying quality, so it may be the case that some of the lower quality sources are following an outdated classification. Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Thanks, is there an existing template or category we can slap on to ambiguous or conflicting taxa for tracking or flagging purposes? Also do you know if there a master list of the families of Caelifera and Ensifera from the Wikipedia POV? -Furicorn (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Furicorn: There isn't really any template or category like that. Category:Incertae sedis is perhaps the closest, but that's intended for cases where researchers have no clue where to place a taxon, not for cases where there's disagreement over what the rank should be. |Classification status= is used in a few taxoboxes to mention taxonomic disagreements. And some taxoboxes are set up to show multiple possible parent taxa; see e.g Pteris where two possibilities are shown for class.

There isn't a master list of families. Most of the articles on Orthoptera families (and superfamilies, infraorders and suborders) cite Orthoptera Species File, so it seems the OSF POV is the de facto Wikipedia POV. All the families should be in Category:Orthoptera families, but some may be missing. Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion link for grasshopper stubs

Readers here may be interested in the proposal I've just posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Subdividing Acrididae stubs. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Stephanus serrator

I have created the article Stephanus serrator but it has a problem in that the genus name in the infobox leads to an inappropriate page, and because it is an automatic taxobox, I don't know how to fix it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: see Template:Taxonomy/Stephanus now. When the genus article can't be at its name because some other article is, then you have to put |link=DISAMBIGUATED TITLE|GENUS in the taxonomy template.

There doesn't seem to be a genus article for Stephanus at Stephanus (insect) (or should it be Stephanus (wasp)? – I'm not familiar with the conventions in this case). Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I think either name would do. The trouble is, when I come across a similar situation in six months or a year's time, I will have forgotten what to do! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm always happy to try to answer questions about automated taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

'Insects described in' category tree mostly ok?

I'm standardizing all 'described in' category trees per the categorizing by year of formal description RfC, but only where reasonable. Looking down from Category:Animals by year of formal description, Category:Insects by year of formal description has many more levels than the 'default' case (e.g. Category:Birds by year of formal description), but this looks warranted given the size of many of the deepest cats (e.g. Category:Butterflies described in 1758 (154) & Category:Moths described in 1758 (317)). So I'm wondering, are there are any category layers that there is consensus to remove/merge/create/etc.?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Century vs. Year

The only irregularity I've noticed so far is Category:Insects by year of formal description is the only tree that doesn't use century cats. They do exist, but are instead under Category:Insects by century of formal description, so there's a bit of duplication there, but this seems desired, as it looks well-organized.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I worked on the arrangement of Category:Insects by year of formal description & Category:Insects by century of formal description and the moths and beetles subcats (mainly because the animals categories seemed to be mostly insects, and the insects were mostly moths or beetles). I have no objection to butterflies (preferably done properly) but see no need for say Category:Lepidoptera described in 1978. Oculi (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Oculi, due to your comments, and some reflection, I think that what's being discussed here (centuries) may or may not affect more than just insect cats; at the very least, input from the WP:TREE community is desired. I didn't want this to be a whole (even larger) restructuring, but it can be, if there's enough support in one direction. So it'd be better now to have centralized discussion over at WT:TREE#Any desire to eliminate 'X described in the YYth century' type container categories?. I'll amend my comments there slightly.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Lepidoptera

(duplicated for relevance) I worked on the arrangement of Category:Insects by year of formal description & Category:Insects by century of formal description and the moths and beetles subcats (mainly because the animals categories seemed to be mostly insects, and the insects were mostly moths or beetles). I have no objection to butterflies (preferably done properly) but see no need for say Category:Lepidoptera described in 1978. Oculi (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree; the Lepidoptera layer does seem unnecessary, as it contains only 2 categories, which can be elegantly put directly under insects, at the same level as beetles.

AddWittyNameHere, I've seen you had a major involvement in creating these categories. Are there any plans for an expansion large enough, or some other reason, that would warrant keeping them?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

'Lepidoptera described in YYYY' categories submitted to CfD

@ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 12#Category:Lepidoptera described in 1758, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects#'Insects described in' category tree mostly ok?.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Adelium / Adeliini

I found the article Adelium today, which is a genus of beetles. The taxobox puts this in the tribe Adeliini, but that is a tribe of wasps. I'm not sure which article is wrong, but it seems that there is a problem here. The WikiSpecies entry species:Adeliini refers to beetles.-gadfium 08:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Adeliini Kirby, 1828 (the beetles) appears to have priority over Adeliini (derived from Adeliinae Viereck, 1918) (the wasps). The underlying issue is having two genera whose names differ only in gender, Adelium Kirby, 1818 (the beetles) and Adelius Haliday, 1833 (the wasps), so that any family-group names formed from them in the normal way will be the same. Article 29.6 of the ICZN deals with this: "An author wishing to establish a new family-group name must avoid its homonymy with any known previously established names by forming an appropriate stem from the name of the type genus. ... As a means of avoiding homonymy between a new family-group name and a previously established one ... an author is advised to use the entire name of the type genus of the new family-group taxon as the stem." So as Adeliini existed already, it appears that the tribe of wasps should have been called "Adeliusini". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dyanega: you may be interested in this, as I see you are involved with both the ICZN and Hymenoptera. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As a temporary fix, I've made Adeliini a disambiguation page and moved the wasp tribe to Adeliini (wasp). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This source says explicitly that the beetle tribe name is a senior homonym of the wasp tribe name, and goes on to say that the case is to be referred to the Commission to resolve the homonymy. I can't discover whether this has happened or not; Dyanega may be able to help. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. This was far outside my area of competance.-gadfium 17:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks VERY much, Peter! It does look, from what I can glean myself, that this may be a genuine unreplaced homonym, and I've just contacted three chelonine braconid workers and one beetle worker who have all published pertinent works recently. Hopefully we can get this sorted out, but for now your edits are definitely the best possible approach as a stop-gap, and very much appreciated. Dyanega (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Web hits are pretty overwhelming referring to the beetles, so I think they could be returned to the base title (with a hatnote) once a replacement name for the wasps is published. Pertaining to a Taxacom discussion @Dyanega: commented on, sequence data for some undetermined wasp species is liable to cause some problems down the line. Plantdrew (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Oh no! BOLD has the wasps as well. If major genetic focused resources are pushing the wasp, maybe it is better to keep a dab page at the base title. Plantdrew (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Bioluminescent insects category

Hello, are all 2,100 species of Lampyridae bioluminescent? If so, then it could be possible to include the Category:Lampyridae as a subcategory of Category:Bioluminescent insects. --Snek01 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:JOURNALS needs help

Most of the top-cited journals without articles on Wikipedia belong to entomology. There are more than just the following (see WP:JCW/Missing1), but we've got

• Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Areas
• Annual Review of Entomology (redirects to Annual Reviews (publisher))
• Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification
• The Great Lakes Entomologist
• Insecta Mundi
• Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera
• Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute
• Tachinidae Resources

All of those are cited hundreds if not thousands of times. Help writing the journal articles (or website or whatever) would be greatly appreciated. We have a guide for that at WP:JWG, which means writing a solid journal article takes 20-30 minute. It's possible some of those don't warrant full articles, but could be sections in another article. E.g. maybe a dedicated section inside the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services article is best for Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Areas.

Thanks for any help you can give! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Revising Systematics and taxonomy section of Odonata

Please see my comment at Talk:Odonata. Jee 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Neuroptera quality and importance scale

As I am working on Neuroptera wikipages, I can't undestand why most of its families, are classified as "Low" in Importancy, as some of them are pretty common. As well, the Neuroptera page is classified as "B" in Quality, but it should be "Start" as most of the information is outdated and lacks pictures, and information in general. Is not a complain, I just want to know better how this project works. Thanks for the answers. LeónHormiga (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

100 C-class Beetles articles achieved

Dear WP:Insects participants,

Just a friendly note from the sub-project WP:BEETLES to say that our article achievements tracker has just ticked over to 100 -rated articles. Huzzah. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the 36,000 total beetle articles, but we are few and our combined workload is massive, so achievements should always be acknowledged. Happy to say, also, that the total number of listed participants in Beetles has risen from 6 in January 2017 to 11 in December 2018. If you haven't popped over to Beetles in a long time, come say hi - the project pages were updated last year.

Thanks to all who continue to participate in Insects and Beetles WPs, your work is appreciated.Zakhx150 (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Bookworm (insect), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

About: Aposthonia ceylonica

Hi all,
This critter has gained some media attention - some of it including Brexit satire - in 2019. More eyes on the article would be appreciated.
(And of course help improving it.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I will see if I can find out anything more about the insect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline in insect populations

I have my doubts about the accuracy of a new article Decline in insect populations, and have expressed my concerns on the talk page. Other views would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The topic in general needs more eyes from insect-related editors too. We've had problems in the past with editors trying to push the Insect Armageddon thing that's been popularized in the media while ignoring reviews and the like that tend to refute grand claims made with shoddy science while instead offering concern about declines in specific areas, certain groups, etc. The reviews are pretty nuanced on the subject (relative to what media releases on the recent big splash primary papers say at least), and we've had to content with some editor behavior problems on the related talk pages too making it difficult to keep discussion pointed on actual content.

That being said, the area to flesh anything out on this subject is at Insect#Diversity or the daughter article Insect biodiversity. The last paragraph of Insect#Diversity gives an overview of the subject that's largely been settled on so far, but I imagine that can always be fleshed out as more sources discuss limitations of the actual studies or those studies making far-reaching claims, actual declines in a non-hyperbolic context, etc. I tried to get the articles to at least have a decent summary like that, but I'd be glad to help out if others have ideas to tackling the subject further or new sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• More attention on this topic from experts would indeed be welcome. Sadly it doesn't seem to be correct that the science driving Insectageddon is 'shoddy'. Not a single scientists seems to be denying that insect declines are occurring worldwide, and only a handful seem to be disputing the view that enough data already exists to project that the planet is on track for catastrophic ecological collapse, unless the decline is halted. (The best sceptical sources so far seem to be Simon Leather , the Atlantic & Manu Saunders in her blog. If you guys are aware of better sources that contradict the warnings of catastrophic collapse & the many rigourous studies that support this, you'd be setting a lot of minds at ease. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up to other editors as this forum isn't an article where we solely focus on content, but I've been having to deal with disruptive behavior in this subject (that resulted their warning at WP:AE) quite a bit now from FeydHuxtable with relatively few other editors around to help. Add on them generally not listening to multiple expert editors despite the above claim (though we technically get any extra privileges), and we're definitely in a situation where we need more eyes on their edit warring and other behavior at the relevant articles. It's been pretty clear from the previous talk discussions they are having a lot of trouble with the nuances of the science, but they've been directly engaged in battleground behavior towards me as of the last AE, so I doubt anything is going to change with them regardless of what I say now. Not sure if anyone else will have better luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

An interesting take, though not an accurate one. I'd be happy to demonstrate with diffs if any are interested. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on insect declines

There's currently an RfC at decline in insect populations, specifically Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations#Use_of_sources_for_insect_declines that will be of interest to our members here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Review needed

Could somebody take a look at Draft:Trigonopterus mesai. It's a stub, or maybe not even that. I'm not familiar with our standards on insect articles, so don't know what we need to be acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Lepidoptera for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Lepidoptera is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lepidoptera until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Instructor requesting review for students' work

Students in my course just finished pages on Augochloropsis, Augochlorella, Nomada, Toxomerus, Bombus citrinus, and Eucera. Several of these are still classified as "stubs," though I think they've all advanced beyond that. It would be super helpful to them and me to have their completeness evaluated again. Thanks!! Muniche (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Upgraded all to C-class, although some are perhaps worth of B-class (Wikipedia assessmentS have nothing to do with letter grades for coursework; these are all probably worth an A grade). Plantdrew (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dyanega: - I see that Nomada and Eucera are already on your watch, but some of the others could benefit from your review. Shyamal (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

List of garden plants to feed honey bees in Canada up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• List of garden plants to feed honey bees in Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

plagiarism from termite page

the section on etymology on the termite page is exactly the same as the second paragraph of chapter 2 of "Termites and Food Security" verbatim. It looks like the book was published in 2018, but the paragraph has existed on wikipedia since at least January 5, 2015.Sbbarker19 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it was acknowledged, it would be ok, but otherwise not. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Liomymrex monotypic?

I've got some sources saying there is a second or more species on this genus while others say there aren't; any input? BugBaron (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If you follow up the links to taxonomic databases in the taxonbar of the article, GBIF, ITIS, etc. all list multiple species. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Bookworm (insect), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Insect-borne disease portal and related pages

Hello, I just created this portal: Template:Insect-borne diseases. Feedback/updates would be appreciated. I was inspired to create it after using and updating Template:Acari-borne diseases, using "Category:Insect-borne diseases" and other sources. The difference is that I decided to make the first grouping by the common name of the insect instead of the type of disease. Then the next grouping is the causative agent (first grouping of acari portal) - many of the insect groups only have one. There is wasted space since some insects don't transmit many diseases but this grouping seems the most logical to me. Mosquito viruses get an extra grouping since there's so many, mostly copied from the mosquito section of Template:Zoonotic viral diseases. There is also Mosquito-borne diseases for comparison. The last grouping is similar to the insect group of Template:Arthropod infestations, I just included it for completeness. I came across List of diseases spread by invertebrates which is very incomplete especially given that it includes non-human animal diseases like Bluetongue disease. It should include many more diseases than the insect portal and acari portal combined if the non-human diseases are included - regardless it should also include diseases spread by crustaceans (there's not that many).

Anyways, the new portal could be added to the bottom of the pages it contains if people think it's useful. "Category:Insect-borne diseases" will also need to be added to a few pages included in the portal that didn't have the category. Mthoma15 (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Decline_in_insect_populations#Confused_article

Can someone say something there so I can get that show on the road? Leo Breman (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Hirtodrosophila mycetophaga

Regarding the above article, a recent creation by a student editor, is Hirtodrosophila a genus or a subgenus? Taxonomic confusion in the speciesbox (genus listed as Hirtodrosophila but binomial given as Drosophila mycetophaga) and throughout the article it is called D. mycetophaga despite being titled at Hirtodrosophila mycetophaga. Thoughts? Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe Hirtodrosophila mycetophaga is correct, although it was originally described as Drosophila mycetophaga. The binomial and species are entered as Drosophila mycetophaga in the taxobox, but the genus entered as Hirtodrosophila. The Speciesbox is available to handle details, and can prevent inconsistencies. For example, you can replace the Taxobox (and the {{Italic title}} line) with the following. Incidentally, in this case the authority should be in parentheses, because the species was originally described under another genus.

{{Speciesbox

| genus = Hirtodrosophila

| species = mycetophaga

| authority = (Malloch, 1924)

}}

Bob Webster (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Edibobb, thanks, and thanks to Plantdrew for making the article consistent. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Want to determine this species of dragonfly?

Hi, these are links to two pictures of the same dragonfly on Wikimedia Commons. I could possibly use one of these photos on the Door County, Wisconsin article, but I don't know what species it is. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragonfly_Door_County.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragonfly_Ridge_Sanctuary_Door_County_Wisconsin.jpg

Thank you for your consideration.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I am a bit late but I will try helping you! The first dragonfly belongs to genus Sympetrum but I am not sure about the species. I have an idea about the second but I want to control well to be sure before telling you. Albert the 1st (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Both photos show Chalk-fronted corporal Somatochlora (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Author identification

Does anyone know the identity of the "Stevens" who is author of the family Thripidae and can that 1829 publication be located. Shyamal (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Shyamal, that would be James Francis Stephens. The family listing is on page 363 of the second part (note that there are two page 363's in the scanned document) The publication listed below can be found on the BHL here.

• A systematic catalogue of British insects : being an attempt to arrange all the hitherto discovered indigenous insects in accordance with their natural affinities.

'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, that is remarkable, many "reliable sources" list it as "Stevens". Have made the corrections at thrips and Thripidae. Shyamal (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

15,000 photos of plants, plant diseases, and plant pests now in the public domain

I am pleased to inform you that all images at https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotnelson/ are now CC-0 public domain. If you find any of use, please upload them directly to Commons using the template {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}, which contains the corresponding OTRS ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edna Mosher

Hello all,

I was working on creating Edna Mosher, an entomologist who did seminal work with Lepidopterean taxonomy, in my sandbox. An IP editor decided to submit the draft to articles of creation [2]. It was unfortunately declined [3] with the main reason being notability. I have done all I can with the sources I have access to. There are two New York Times articles that mention her: Dr Edna Mosher honored and something about a lawsuit. I don't know if the addition of either would change show she is notable, but if someone with a subscription (or access through an institution) could take a look at them to see if they'd help and/or add them into the draft, I'd be greatly appreciative. Or, if any of you have any entomology works that make mention of her in a way that would demonstrate notability and want to add it, that'd be great too.

Thanks! TelosCricket (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Insect articles moved to capitalized vernacular names

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

I started a move discussion at Talk:Trout Lily Miner Bee (--> Andrena erythronii) if anyone wants to weigh in. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 12:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

In a case where the title is clearly against MOS:LIFE, I think the correct process is to make such a move. Anyone who thinks the article should be at the vernacular name can then start a discussion to move it to the correctly styled version. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Asian giant hornet

I'm sure most have heard about it, but Asian giant hornet could use more eyes from insect editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion at Drain fly

I have started a move discussion to move Drain fly back to Psychodidae as the most common name for the family.--Kevmin § 18:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Identification help for Commons: Acrididae

see commons:File talk:Giant Grasshopper.JPG--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Jacy

Hi all, Whilst doing my duties for New Page Reviewing I can across a few recent pages by a new(ish) user. Their edits are large dumps of biological information, unformatted. Some are into existing articles, some are new articles. These seem to have been sent in various ways: draftified (see here) and copyedited (here), or PROD'ed.

I'd sent what I thought was a (friendly note to the user) but they have then thrown their toys out of the pram, deleted some of the things they added in, causing more problems. Basically this is a note to suggest keeping a vaguely watchful eye on these articles being flagged as the problematic articles have been made worse. C'est la vie. Zakhx150 (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a more efficient way to add species common names?

Hello! I'm a fairly new Wikipedia user and I've been updating/creating Wikipedia articles for species to include the standardized common names developed by a national working group in Canada. The process is really slow considering that I've got thousands of species to get through and a lot of the species don't already have Wikipedia pages. I'm wondering if there's another way to accomplish this task that's less labour intensive. For example, is it possible to add the common names to a species list page? Thanks in advance! --VioletBrew (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@VioletBrew: Welcome to Wikipedia. Genus pages often have common names following the scientific information, like Andrena could have a line:

• Andrena scutellinitens Viereck, 1916 – shielded miner bee

Generally, it is slow work though. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Thanks for the suggestion. Do you think I could also add the reference to the working group on the genus page? Maybe as a footnote? VioletBrew (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@VioletBrew: Yes, it could look like:

• Andrena scutellinitens Viereck, 1916 – shielded miner bee

References

for example. Feel free to use your own style though. Wikipedia allows for many styles. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Awesome! Thanks for your help! VioletBrew (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I'm wondering if you can help me fix this footnote issue I'm having on the List of Andrena species page. Since I cite the same reference for all of the common names I've added, the reference at the bottom of the page has a long list of superscripts for all of these citations. Is there a way that I can hide/remove them from the reference? Thanks again. VioletBrew (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@VioletBrew: It does look a bit odd, but I think it's supposed to be like that. I've seen it more extreme in other articles, so I wouldn't worry about it. Maybe someone else has an idea though. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @VioletBrew: These superscript collections in the reference section already represent the most highly condensed form of citation backlinking, since there needs to be a way to jump from the citation to each instance in the text. There's no way to make them go away; such long rows of backlinks are a common feature of big list articles. This shouldn't worry you unduly, though - stuck down there among the references, they are not going to interfere with reading the article per se. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike and Elmidae: OK, great. Thank you both for confirming. VioletBrew (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a page I have been working on - Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale

Since May of 2020, I have been making improvements to Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale page by organizing existing content (enhancing readability and updating reference links) and adding content for knowledge gaps (written information, photos, and references). Any constructive feedback you may have would be appreciated (please post on the talk page). Thanks in advance! LSBryce (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

For the interested

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ripipterygidae article revision

I've just revised and expanded Ripipterygidae. Any constructive feedback regarding anything to do with the content and/or formatting of the article would be appreciated (feel free to post on its talk page). Thanks! Spizaetus (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please review Cicindela hudsoni - there's some not right about this

Hi all,

• according to the Atlas of Living Australia reference, the species was described in 1997
• according to the BBC Earth reference, this critter won some sort of race against Periplaneta americana in 1996
• given that this is a species under the general topic Fastest animals#Invertebrates, it would be expected to have wide media coverage - which it doesn't appear to have.

The GBIF Identifier suggests that is as synonym of Rivacindela hudsoni...

Your thoughts about this?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem here. The species description is when the creature is formally described in a scientific journal and may be years after its first discovery. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Undergraduate students interested in writing about insects

Hello! I am an undergraduate student studying biology that will be working on writing Wikipedia contributions about insects, particularly flies. Chickfilkay — Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Speciesbox support for ranks between species and genus

At present, {{Speciesbox}} allows only one rank, subgenus, to be directly specified (i.e. not via a taxonomy template). All other such ranks need a taxonomy template to work with {{Speciesbox}}. Please see Template talk:Speciesbox#Ranks between species and genus for a request for comment relating to this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Entomoculture

I would appreciate a review of this draft. Should I accept it into article space?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of the content seems to be what could well be a section in Cultured_meat. Or perhaps a section in Insects_as_food? Shyamal (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Rhadine caudata

The article for Rhadine caudata could use another set of eyes. I had started a discussion on the Talk page but my edits were again reverted without any response. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

E.H. Strickland Entomological Museum references

The University of Alberta E.H. Strickland Entomological Museum recently changed their database so the references that used to go there no longer work. I'm in the process of updating those, but it's slow work and it won't be done real quickly. If anyone is interested in linking to their species descriptions, their search page is at https://search.museums.ualberta.ca/. Putting in a species name there will take you to a list of all the specimens they have of that species. If you click on one of them, the "View Species Details" link is right next to the scientific name. Hope that helps. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Insect Good Article Review

I have opened a GAR for the Insect article at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Insect/1, feel free to share your thoughts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Phylogeny at Neoptera

The taxonomist User:Nikita-Kluge is editing the Phylogeny section at Neoptera using his own publications, which appear to be based only on morphological evidence, and is inserting many names for taxa which are no longer used. The opinions of editors are invited on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Category for Gall Hosts

Any thoughts on the utility of creating a category for plant taxa that are hosts of galling species? Perhaps a similar category for plants that are hosts for leaf-mining species? Thanks.Friesen5000 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Utility (to whom?) is not the driving factor for categorization. WP:DEFINING is. We could make categories to suit every niche or arbitrary factor of interest, from galls to predators to "species described by Russian naturalists in English-language journals". But we try to avoid non-defining characteristics, or characteristics only relevant to a miniscule percentage of readers. A single oak species may be the host for dozens of galls and leaf-miners. It may also have cultural importance in Scandinavian folk tales. Such facets can be addressed in the text of the article as appropriate, but we don't need categories for either facet. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Don't we call that category "Plants"? - the idea makes no sense, as Animalparty says. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Coleoptera family-group names, additions and corrections

An article updating Bouchard et al. (2011)'s "Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)" was published last year by Bouchard and Bousquet, just so everyone knows:

• Bouchard, P.; Bousquet, Y. (2020). "Additions and corrections to "Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)"". ZooKeys. 922: 65–139. doi:10.3897/zookeys.922.46367.

I thought it might be useful to post it here for those working on Coleoptera, since for whatever reason this article doesn't seem to have attracted much attention here on Wikipedia so far (nor on some other websites, for that matter). I also left some notes on Talk:List of subgroups of the order Coleoptera#Additions and corrections to Bouchard et al. (2011) back in August to raise awareness of it, but nobody seems to have noticed as far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Cralosophus

As part of WP:NPP I came across an article that I think looks like a hoax. Could someone who is knowledgeable about nematodes have a look at Cralosophus and tell me what they think? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect URL parameter for ITIS references

There are a couple dozen instances of search_value=0, which at least in most of the cases seems to be in a link to ITIS. These should be fixed to point at the actual page about the taxon on the website. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Pluralization - mildly related to this project

Hi entomofans. I'm suggesting one of "Lepidopterae" or "Lepidopterans" at [[Talk:List of Lepidoptera that feed on Brassica#Propose moving to proper pluralization of title]]. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Source for Hemiptera tribes?

I was trying to provide Strachiini with some actually usable source (right now it has ... iNaturalist) and could not find any database that lists a tribe Strachiini. Turns out that is the case for most of the dozens of tribes listed at Pentatominae - they have no functional references. ITIS shows five, and that's the best I could discover. Any idea where these could be found? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The Pentatominae article has Biolib as a source, which includes Strachiini. The Wikispecies article on Pentatominae has a dead link to David Rider's website. A live version is here. ITIS is not comprehensive for some (many?) groups; coverage of taxa occurring in the US (and Canada) has been prioritized; ITIS's predecessor, NODC was focused on marine organisms (no geographical priority, but NODC was also far from comprehensive). I wouldn't rely on ITIS for any insects. Plantdrew (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Are we happy with BioLib.cz as a source? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with many below family classifications, regardless of the taxonomic group, is that you can find old systems based on morphological criteria (e.g. this 1979 paper for Western Hemisphere tribes of Pentatominae), but they rarely survive molecular phylogenetic analyses. A 2017 paper at doi:10.1111/syen.12224 has some relevant comments in the abstract: "Robust phylogenetic hypotheses have become key for studies addressing the evolutionary biology and ecology of various groups of organisms. In the species-rich heteropteran superfamily Pentatomoidea, phylogenies at lower taxonomic levels are still scarce and mostly employ exclusively morphological data."

My conclusion is that it's not worth going down to the tribal level at present unless and until there is a published classification based on extensive molecular phylogenetic analyses. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Cephalozygoptera rebuttal paper

Could someone with access to Nel & Zhengs (2021) Cephalozygoptera rebuttal add an entry to the general research list on 2021 in insect paleontology, or pass a copy on to me via email, so I can add it? thanks!--Kevmin § 18:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Megaceras briansaltini 24,846 828 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing Request

Hi There!

I've been working on the article Geophilus flavus, I was hoping someone would be willing to evaluate it and assign a new grading? It's currently at stub-class, however, I think it's been substantially improved since the last assessment. I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or editing tips.

Kind thanks,

--Witchruby (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Please feel free to chat on my talk page

--Witchruby (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bot to fix mismatched synonym authorities

1234qwer1234qwer4 noticed an issue with mismatched synonym authorities in about 500 taxon articles created by Qbugbot in 2018. We are planning to run another bot to fix it. Your input is welcome at the approval request, particularly as a sanity check to make sure we're not doing something very silly. Thanks! — The Earwig (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Renaming two pages for leaf beetle genera

Hi, I'd like to rename these two pages for leaf beetle genera, based on this article published last year: [4]

• Fidia Baly, 1863 → Neofidia Strother in Kumari et al., 2020
• Lypesthes Baly, 1863 → Fidia Motschulsky, 1861

I would do this myself, but unfortunately this seems to require a half-swap so I need some help from a page mover. Same goes for the taxonomy templates.

If it helps to know, the new names are accepted on iNaturalist, though not yet on BugGuide, ITIS and most other websites. I've also already updated the corresponding Wikispecies pages to use the new names. A checklist of species in both genera are included in the article for convenience (though strangely, Strother's Fidia chapini is missing with no explanation?).

Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Have made the move, let me know if anything else needs to be done. I have informed one of the paper' authors who I know about the missing species. Will update based on their response. Shyamal (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I assumed it might be a mistake, so on Wikispecies the best I could do was assume it had been moved to the new genus too. Though I couldn't really tell if that's acceptable to do on Wikipedia or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've now rewritten both pages to fit the new names and renamed all the Fidia species pages, and I've swapped the taxonomy templates over now that I've been granted the page mover right. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard from Strother via my contact that Fidia chapini should have been included in Neofidia but for an oversight. The author noted it as an irony as it was named after a colleague Joan Chapin who always stressed thorough proofreading of manuscripts! Shyamal (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Ah, thank you for looking into that, glad to know that little mystery has been solved at last. I don't think there's anything more that needs to be done with these pages now (except maybe updating all the other language Wikipedias to match them...). Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there's nothing more that is technical that needs to be done, the actual contents could be expanded and written better, but you get the idea. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Carey Equality

Could someone look this over? It came to my attention because it was assigned some nonexistent categories and there are no available sources for me to check up on the subject. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Can anyone decipher what the parenthetical and ambiguous link to Aptera in Rhopalosiphoninus latysiphon means? Ta, Narky Blert (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Aphids have winged and wingless (apterous) morphs. I have cut the jargon. Shyamal (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested

It has been proposed that Gamergate controversy be renamed and moved to Gamergate (harassment campaign). Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Of note is the counter proposal by some editors to move Gamergate controversy to Gamergate and move that article to Gamergate (ant). Precedent in the last 7 years has favored 'Gamergate being about the ant biology, given the several hundred year history of the entomology term, rather then the recent use of the term for the Gamergate controversy.--Kevmin § 22:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The current discussion is at Gamergate#Requested move 20 August 2021. It includes options to rename:

Gamergate → Gamergate (ant)

Gamergate (harassment campaign) → Gamergate

Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gamergate#Requested move 20 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gamergate#Requested move 20 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Glypta

I was cleaning up infobox image syntax and the image here is apparently (according to caption) of a species not listed in the article (there are only three). The source shows over a dozen, but not Glypta arctica. Other languages have a stub on this species. MB 03:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@MB: Glypta arctica is not listed on Fauna Europaea probably because it is not from Europe, which would make it out of scope for that website. Meanwhile, GBIF for instance records it from Canada and Greenland. Hope that helps as a starting point.

As for the state of the article itself, well, this appears to be one of the articles Estopedist1 recently created (I talked about his many new genera articles at WikiProject Tree of Life months ago, to save repeating myself here). Later, another editor must added an image to the article, presumably as part of WPWP 2021, though not being aware how incomplete the article itself was. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As an absolute minimum, Estopedist1's genus stubs should say "Species include:" because he made no attempt to produce a comprehensive list. The British and Irish Checklist alone has over 30 species. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I have gone and added all the species from GBIF (not including 17 unnamed/unranked), increasing the list from three to over 450. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 12:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

B-Class Review Request

Hello, fellow Insect Wikipedians! Could someone in the WikiProject please review the articles Polybia paulista and Roundheaded pine beetle to see if they qualify as B-class articles? If they don't, I'm willing to work with you to improve them to that point. Thank you! Gug01 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about Encyclopedia of Life

Hi all

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Kuschelydrus or Kuschelhydrus?

Our article says Kuschelydrus, and so does the sole reference. However, Smrz 1983 and Ordish 1986 say Kuschelhydrus; which feels a more natural spelling for a name containing a -hydr- root. Does anyone have access to Ordish 1976, the original description, to make sure? Narky Blert (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=X4YcDQAAQBAJ also uses Kuschelhydrus but the 1976 Ordish description paper does spell it Kuschelydrus. Shyamal (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search returned 19 hits for the original spelling Kuschelydrus and only 4 for the variant Kuschelhydrus. It's odd that Ordish gives a different spelling in 1986 that used in authoring the genus in 1976, but it does seem that the variant with h is just an orthographic error. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both! Narky Blert (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've created an {{R from mispelling}}, and added a footnote with a hidden link to this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Luthrodes boopis

Hi, I would appreciate any input on the AfC submission Draft:Luthrodes boopis as gbif has it as Deleted, and other sources such as iNaturalist and mindat are not good. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Luthrodes boopis might no longer exist as a species. Has the Luthrodes genus been undergoing taxonomic reorganization? That's something to look into. Gug01 (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that another reviewer accepted so now at Luthrodes boopis KylieTastic (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ismene (moth)

There's an AfD here that needs to be decided on subject / source knowledge rather than WP policy. Some comments would be welcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism via pseudo-nomenclatural change

The name Strumigenys ayersthey has been changed to Strumigenys longamaxilla throughout the page and via a page move for which there is no nomenclatural justification, which I see as an act of vandalism. See my recent edits on both pages and their talk pages for details. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

New articles list

Hello. Do you guys have a new articles list, similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/New article listing? I'm looking to try out my User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/AddTaxobox.js script on some insect articles, to make sure there's no "bugs" (har har). Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing for insects specifically, but User:AlexNewArtBot/ArthropodsSearchResult picks up new insect articles. New articles without taxoboxes are pretty rare though (I monitor all of the AlexNewArtBot reports for organisms). If you want to test your script, the best bet might just be to make new articles without taxoboxes yourself and then run the script. Plantdrew (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Plantdrew. I went through all the AlexNewArtBot reports in the biology section earlier, got about 100 edits in with the script. Some of them were minor MOS:ORDER stuff, but some were good time savers, such as adding a Taxonbar with the correct Wikidata ID, or replacing a general stub with a more specific stub. Is there currently an AlexNewArtBot report that just lists organisms/species? That'd be a great list for testing. If that report doesn't exist, I will consider creating it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae:, there isn't a report for organisms/species in general. I've thought about creating a rule-set for new taxon articles myself, but haven't gotten around to it. The current set of reports doesn't cover mammals, animals that aren't chordates/gastropods/arthropods, eukaryotes that aren't plants/animals/fungi, or bacteria (although the current reports may incidentally pick up articles on some taxa that aren't included; e.g. the -aceae ending for bacteria/plant families ensures that many new bacteria articles show up in the plants report). And with automatic taxoboxes some articles may slip through the cracks; a manual taxobox for an insect would include "classis=Insecta" which the arthropods rule-set looks for. With an automatic taxobox, somebody could write an article about a "weevil" (not a word the rule-set looks for currently), without ever mentioning the word "insect".

It would be easier to create a new rule-set that covers all taxa, than a rule-set that covers any of the subgroups currently without a new article report. An all taxa rule-set should give full points for the presence of any taxobox template, the phrase "is a species of"; and a bunch of points for "idae" and "aceae", etc. Whereas a rule-set for mammals would need to look for ungulate/bat/rodent/marsupial/cetacean/etc. (all being words that could occur in the place of any mention of "mammal"). If you're feeling inspired to create an all taxa rule-set, go for it! Plantdrew (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am feeling inspired :) My initial thought was to create it with the following two rules: article title must contain exactly 2 words (e.g. Genus species), and article body must contain the word "species". Then calibrate from there. Your ideas are great too and may be essential to filtering out false positives. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Created. Rules at User:AlexNewArtBot/Species, results at User:AlexNewArtBot/SpeciesSearchResult. Let's see how well it does and tweak from there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Plantdrew. The first run worked really well. We've got a big list and a false positive rate of only like 10%. I just made some additional tweaks that should reduce false positives even more. Exciting! –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Lycorma Genus

I have been working on the Lycorma genus and currently aim to bring it to good topic status. Lycorma delicatula (Spotted Lanternfly) was just promoted to GA and I've begun work on Lycorma imperialis. If I could have someone get good images for Lycorma meliae, Lycorma olivacea, and perhaps a couple more for Lycorma imperialis, that would be greatly appreciated. The current images online are limited and I am parsing through what little copyright free content there is. iNaturalist has very good images but nothing that is creative commons. Additionally, if someone wishes to help, the genus page Lycorma also needs serious work. I will likely create Lycorma meliae, and Lycorma olivacea within the the next week or so. Etriusus (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Some good news is that Lycorma meliae, and Lycorma olivacea have tons of images on Flickr. Lycorma imperialis, however, is substantially lacking in online images. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Etriusus (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I would want common names.

Excuse me, I do appreciate how all of these animal names are listed down since 1757-preasent.

But because I am autistic, I can't understand their scientific or in this case, Latin, names. I would most like like to see and know all of their names listed down, with their common names only.

For example, if you see these lists of the certain animals described. And because most of them are listed down in scientific names, I would want a whole list of common names for each creature from every genus.

Insects described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names. Beetles described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names. Butterflies described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names. Moths described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names. Amphibians described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names. Crustaceans described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names. Fish described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names. Molluscs described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names. Bivalves described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names. Cephalopods described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names. Chitons described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names. Gastropods described in the 18th-20th century‎ listed in common names. Nematodes described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names. Reptiles described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names. Spiders described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names. Starfish described in the 18th-20th century listed in common names.

It's just so that since I am working on some kind of article of Noah's Ark. So I was wondering that I would like to see all of these names listed down from all of these species described from the 18th to 20th centuries. And even if you do put their scientific or Latin names, at least have any who have common names be replaced with their common names.

Conthauberger (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)ConthaubergerConthauberger (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Conthauberger: I don't think I quite understand your request. There already exist categories by year discovered for most insects, although there are likely a number of pages lacking this category (a brief review of your edit history tells me you know how categories work). Likewise, there are still 10s of thousands of insect pages that have yet to be made on Wikipedia. Compound that with the fact there are ~8.7 million species in Animalia, and I don't think a comprehensive list is physically possible. The servers would melt if we made an article 100s of megabytes long and the manpower needed would be equally insane. Additionally, only some animals have common names, others lack common names or share them amongst a Family.

Perhaps more clarification is necessary. There already exists a Noah's Ark page and it wouldn't meet WP:NOTE to put every conceivable animal on that page.

Etriusus 19:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy pages

Earlier this week, along with applying some WikiProject Insects or subproeject tags on a chunk of taxonomy templates, I added the Hymenoptera task force to a larger set of talk pages added by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, but found by this query that there is an even bigger (preferably handled by a bot) list of pages, apparently tagged by the same user, that are using {{WikiProject Insects}} even though they should be in {{WikiProject Diptera}}. Since this seems to be done inconsistently on articles, I would like to ask whether replacing the tag by its subproject or just adding the latter is preferred. I've not seen the same issue with Lepidoptera and beetles by the way; these were all only tagged with the most specific project. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 12:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Should these two articles be merged?

Today I was editing the page for Lema daturaphila and saw there is also a page for Lema trivittata, which seems to be the same insect. It looks like L. trivittata might be an older synonym? EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. It looks like L. trivittata was thought to be a subspecies of L. daturaphila, but they are now considered different species. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Draft

Hello, I just finished up and submitted my draft for my first Wikipedia article. Should I add it to the Article Alerts section on the wikiproject page? I also added the WikiProject Insects and WikiProect Lepidoptera. If it is okay with you guys, I would like to get some feedback. I sincerely apologize if this is not the right place to talk about this. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. Jcuber17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Redlink species

Pseudagrion coeleste is an existing article. Pseudagrion coelestis was a redlink and since the common name for both was reported to be the Catshead sprite, I redirected it to the article. Just want to confirm this was correct. Thanks. MB 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD: Pseudatelus

Posted at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day:

Pseudatelus is scheduled for 5 July but the target article isn't up to scratch. It's very clearly a stub and it has a maintenance tag. Hence in its current form, we can't run it, but there is plenty of time to do something about it. I'll transclude this note onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects.

There's still tons of time to do something about it. Schwede66 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Are they the same?

I had seen this Wikidata item on Encarsia hansoni and noticed it had no Wikipedia article in English (it had 4 in other languages). So I created it. I then found Encarsia harrisoni and needed a critical eye to help me check if they were the same. Danidamiobi (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be distinct. Both are listed on the GBIF genus entry for Encarsia. Loopy30 (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; the primary issue of concern is editors creating large numbers of stubs. Articles on species are repeatedly brought up as examples. "Large numbers" is not defined, but from the positions taken by some commenters an editor who regularly creates one article a day might be considered to be engaged in article creation at scale. Plantdrew (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Polyneoptera taxonomy, Earwigs and Exopterygota

Something doesn't sit right with me about the state of the taxonomy in the Polyneoptera article: most of it right now is sourced from the Polyneoptera Species File website, with notable exception to the listing at "Perlidea/Plecopteroidea" which is sourced instead from Aristov (2014). Looking at Polyneoptera SF itself, however, it doesn't seem to be fully consistent in its own taxonomy itself currently: Dermaptera is no longer placed to magnorder nor superorder (the website's home page explains why there are no magnorders anymore at least) yet the related extinct order Protelytroptera is placed under Dermaptera's old home, the superorder Dermapterida (what I assume judging by other sources at least, as well as of course the similar name). It seems to be a similar story with Plecoptera, Cnemidolestida and Perlidea/Plecopteroidea, except Arillo & Engel (2006) for instance placed Plecoptera in a superorder "Plecopterida" instead (!). All this and further digging on Google has told me is that the higher classification for orders within Polyneoptera is still unsettled, and very different depending on who you ask exactly, with exception to Dictyoptera (and even then I can't be sure). What can be done about this mess on Wikipedia meanwhile? Should we discard any higher classification for the time being? Or should we stick to Polyneoptera SF more purely for extant orders, but not for the extinct ones? Something else?

On a related note, I recently discovered that the Earwig article alone was (and still is) the only member of Category:Exopterygota apart from Exopterygota itself, and likewise it was the only article for an extant insect order with Exopterygota as its parent taxon in its taxobox until I edited it recently. Does anyone know anything about why this was the case? (This came up when I was trying to figure out what to do with Protelytroptera in a discussion on WikiProject Palaeontology recently, if it helps to know) Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the webarchive, the speciesfile page for Dermapterida originally contained Dermaptera (2014 archive) as you surmised, but was removed by the next archive leaving an empty page (2015 archive). Then Protelytroptera was added in 2020 (e.g. Sept 26). For Wikipedia purposes, I don't think we should use unless it also contains Dermaptera. Place Protelytroptera in Polyneoptera, unless we can find a source putting it in Haplocerata with Dermaptera and Zoraptera (Kjer eta

In the automated taxobox system, Exopterygota now only contains Blattoptera, which redirects to roachoid. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep I saw that (re: Blattoptera), but nothing actually uses the Blattoptera taxonomy template except for two articles for extinct cockroaches: Aphthoroblattina and Archimylacris. So those two are the only articles left on Wikipedia using Exopterygota in their taxonomies at all, besides Exopterygota itself.

Honestly while what you say about Protelytroptera makes sense, this still leaves Polyneoptera's taxonomy on Wikipedia as rather... WP:SYNTH or something? Maybe I'm really just mostly bothered about the mixing of Polyneoptera SF with Aristov (2014), because I'm not sure if the classification in the latter is generally accepted or not. Particularly since it uses alternative set of names, e.g. "Forficulida" for Dermaptera, "Perlida" for Plecoptera and even "Gryllones" for Polyneoptera itself. Plus, Perlidea under this system appears to be non-monophyletic anyway, if Song et al 2016's phylogeny tree is any indication (as it includes every extant order except Orthoptera, Phasmatodea and Zoroptera). Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Cicindelinae -> Cicindelidae

Would there be any objection to following what has been well demonstrated in studies and is growing since 2020 and largely accepted as consensus? ie the treatment of Cicindelidae as a full family that is sister to the Carabidae (rather than nested within). This would affect categories, automatic taxoboxes, and stub templates. This was nearly fixed before being rolled back by User:Timrollpickering as an undiscussed move. Shyamal (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• References: doi:10.1111/syen.12440 doi:10.1111/syen.12506 doi:10.1111/syen.12508 doi:10.1111/syen.12324 Shyamal (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Tagging @Dyanega: @Timrollpickering:

You need to propose category changes at WP:CFD, not arbitrarily move some of them and leave other bits behind. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It is more than a category change unfortunately and involves some subject expertise. Maintenance and move of the category is less of an issue. Shyamal (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'm glad to see them as their own family again, but how stable is the reclassification in the literature? Is there any opposition/discussion like that going on, or has it overall been accepted? If it is the latter, I don't see any issue with moving them back to the original Cicindelidae. It's news to me, though I haven't checked in on this family for awhile.

Just also noting that I'm pretty sure a proposed change isn't need at CfD. If there is consensus at Tiger beetle that Cicindelidae is now the family, the categories just have to follow that change. KoA (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The category move interface seems to have created new rules "written in stone" warning that "Categories should not be moved without discussion and consensus at either Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy" - in any case I began Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_15#Category:Cicindelinae Shyamal (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support elevating subfamily to family. Dyanega recently asked me about editing tools that would make it easier to do large scale edits needed to update taxonomic articles, and Cicindelinae->Cincindelidae was one of the examples he gave where large scale edits are needed. It doesn't take a lot of edits to update automatic taxoboxes, and a bot will take care of the category if that is brought up at CfD. As a quick fix, the stub template could be redirected, but I think it would be better to update links to the stub template. There isn't any easy fix for articles with manual taxoboxes, and mentions of the (sub)family in the body of an article. Plantdrew (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, to clarify on CfD and my comment on it above, there shouldn't be a need for a full proposal, it would just be a considered a speedy uncontroversial change the bots could do instead by going that route.

I remember setting up AWB to restore beetle talk pages back when this wikiproject template was removed. I'm curious how easily that could be set to update to auto taxoboxes, but maybe a winter project I'll look into more too if no one else has an easier solution. KoA (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a script that can make it easier to implement Speciesboxes: User:William Avery/taxoboxalyzer. Plantdrew (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I was just at a conference where this topic came up, it sounds like carabid workers are almost universally on board with the treatment as a monophyletic sister taxon to carabids, and if there's any residual "controversy" it's the common problem of how to treat monophyletic sister taxa: sometimes people like to lump them, sometimes not, there is no objective criterion to prefer one approach over the other. We are left with trying to assess how the community consensus leans, and it seems to lean towards family rank, and this is understandable because the family can be readily and objectively diagnosed. This is sort of the opposite of the situation with weevils, where Curculionidae and Brachyceridae were recently treated as separate families with sister-taxon relationship, but brachycerids don't have even a single visible feature that can be used to separate them from curculionids, so the community has been fairly resistant to accepting the split. Dyanega (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There has been no objection either here or at CfD. Is there a best practice for how this should be done? Shyamal (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It's just awaiting a close at this point as of yesterday, though I'm not sure how often CfD is patrolled either. I'd give it a day or two before checking in with an admin, etc. Still, having to wait this long for what should be a simple change definitely seems to go against WP:NOTBURO policy. This may be a reoccurring problem if CfD "permission" is needed whenever taxonomic changes occur. KoA (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It has been closed and I have given it an AWB run. Shyamal (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wasp superfamily Chalcidoidea

As per this thread on Wikidata Biodiversity Project, many members of the 'garbage family' Pteromalidae have now been reclassified in this recent paper. If anyone is looking for a current project, apparently there are lots of new families, subfamilies, and tribes to add. Loopy30 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that is some revision of Chalcidoidea. There is a companion paper on the phylogeny that is still under review but available a bioRxiv (Cruard et al, 2023). Seems a bit odd that the taxonomy changes get published before the phylogeny they are partly based on.

Not sure how we should handle it. Wikipedia rules suggest we need to wait until the new taxonomy is picked up by secondary sources, although you could argue the taxonomy changes are a secondary source for the new phylogenetic hypothesis. Presumably Wikidata can act as the new taxa have been formerly published. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That said, the family list at Chalcidoidea was updated a week ago (this edit). —  Jts1882 | talk  12:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Harpalus numidicus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harpalus numidicus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpalus numidicus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

EvilxFish (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested changes to Termite cladogram and internal phylogenetic tree

Hi, I'm writing this on behalf of and at the request of User:Bardusquus, my friend who's much more knowledgeable about termites than I am but still somewhat new to editing and less familiar with some of the ins and outs of the encyclopedia.

He'd like to make some changes to the cladogram at Termite, particularly by adding the family Hodotermopsidae stating that the correct order would be "Mastotermitidae, to Stolotermitidae, to Hodotermopsidae, to Hodotermitidae, to Archotermopsidae" and provided me with the following reference images: [5], [6], [7].

I would perform these edits myself, but I'm far too ignorant on insect-related subjects and I've never edited a cladogram before so I'm afraid I'd mess something up.

Could anyone here verify that these proposed changes are accurate and, if so, edit the Termite article to reflect them?

Thank you,

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I would've simply asked at Talk:Termite but the WikiProject talk page seems to be more active than the article talk page  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that there Neoisoptera and Euisoptera were coined as nanorder and parvorder on the Wikipedia page for termites, and I have no idea where that originated. I like the general idea of keeping them in the cladogram, and also including Teletisoptera as a new clade under Euisoptera from which Stolotermitidae, Hodotermopsidae, Hodotermitidae and Archotermopsidae are included under. https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/syen.12548 Bardusquus (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Neoisoptera and Euisoptera are indicated in Fig 66 of the Krishna et al (2013) article cited for the cladogram and they are presented with ranks in the classification (starting p183).

As for your proposed change, I think an additional cladogram of molecular studies on extant termites is the best solution. We shouldn't add addition families to the cladogram showing fossil forms as that would be WP:synthesis. We also need the sources for those figures. I found the Wang et al (2022) paper for the second, but can't find the first. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There are two studies, the one which formally created the subfamily Hodotermopsinae (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.09.472027v3.full) and the one linked in my above post which officially elevates Hodotermopsinae to family status. I know Euisoptera and Neoisoptera are valid clades, however the reasoning for them being listed as parvorder and nanorder respectively alludes me. The Krisha et al (2013) article cited is outdated and I would source both studies I've posted as valid taxonomic changes for the cladogram, which would mainly consist of the reorganization of the families and new inclusion of Hodotermopsidae. Hodotermopsidae has no fossil taxa as far as I am aware, it is currently represented by one taxa, Hodotermopsis sjostedti. Bardusquus (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Both papers cited I might add have phylogenetic trees and analyses verifying the general order of known Isoptera taxa. I have access to the former paper which although focuses more on Hodotermopsidae and the phylogeny of Teletisoptera, is still in agreement with the general placement of taxa in the latter study. I have access to the former study, however I am unsure on how to send it through Wikipedia. Bardusquus (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Coccinellidae#Lady beetle naming

A discussion is in progress at Talk:Coccinellidae#Lady beetle naming about the status of vernacular names for these insects. Project members are invited to participate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment nomination of Colony collapse disorder

Colony collapse disorder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Africanized bee

Could someone have a look at Africanized bee? A new editor replaced and "Unreferenced section" tag with a source that does verify the entire Queen management section (or even most of it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Parabacillus hesperus

Y'all may want to look at this edit [8]. It appears to be a good faith addition (the editor only made two edits) but needs some copy-editing by an expert 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of the term "naiad"

I am working on improvements to the article Uropetala carovei, the New Zealand bush giant dragonfly. I have come across the term "naiad", but need some help. Several recent reliable sources use the term "naiad" in describing the immature form eg [9] and Milen Marinov; Mike Ashbee (2019). Dragonflies and Damselflies of New Zealand (1, first ed.). Auckland: Auckland University Press. ISBN 978-1-86940-892-3. OL 28725690M. Wikidata Q116734647. However, the article Nymph (biology) says that the term is no longer in favour, and cites a 2016 paper from Systematic Entomology.[10]. I am unclear about what term to use, and would appreciate feedback on the talk page of the Uropetala article. Marshelec (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In my reading of the 2016 paper, the authors actually state that it is not particularly problematic to use the terms. Here is a verbatim quote from the conclusion section (bolding mine) :

Evidence shows that the terms ‘larva’, ‘nymph’ and ‘naiad’ – particularly the latter two – refer merely to evolutionary grades rather than to distinct, nonhomologous types of juveniles. This does not mean that if they are defined on a descriptive basis they are not recognizable, and certainly the majority of juveniles are easy to be classified into one of them. They, however, do not have a biological meaning deeper than that of the term ‘maggot’ used for the characteristic larval form of higher Diptera, or ‘grub’ for that of chafers. Such terms are frequent in entomology and there is no need of eliminating them from our terminology, but one should not think that they have a precise biological definition and therefore a ‘correct’ (i.e. scientifically meaningful) use. Because the term ‘nymph’ – much less so ‘naiad’ – is already widely used in descriptive entomology, and can perhaps have some educational value when used for particular kinds of larvae, we find their usage acceptable, albeit not particularly useful. We encourage editors and reviewers to let the authors decide whether they want to adopt the established idiosyncratic terminology fixed by tradition or rather follow the homology-based terminology – none of the ways seem to cause any confusion. The worst practice would be to force the authors to use a particular kind of allegedly ‘correct’ terminology and thus prevent its natural semantic evolution.

- Redei, D., & Štys, P. (2016). Larva, nymph and naiad - for accuracy’s sake. Systematic Entomology, 41(3):505–510. doi:10.1111/syen.12177 Shyamal (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Pnigalio mediterraneus

Could someone who knows where the authoritative sources are check up on the synonymy of this species? CoL [11] has it as a synonym of Pnigalio agraules, however that doesn't seem to follow from their stated source dataset (Universal Chalcidoidea Database). (The Arthropoda Species File, suggested as a source on the main project page, doesn't even recognize the genus) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

doi:10.1080/00222930903105088 examines the issue. Have added it to the entry. Shyamal (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Didn't expect something this directly applicable. Thanks :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Tabanid common names

I started a move request over at Talk:Horse-fly#Requested_move_15_March_2023 that would benefit from more insect folks taking a look.

The short of it is that I ran into some issues with common names not redirecting to the correct taxonomic levels, so there's a couple moves listed there as I dug into things more. Horse-fly currently is the title of Tabanidae, but not all tabanids are horse flies, some are deer flies. Deer fly also redirects to just a single genus of deer fly rather than the entire subfamily of deer flies. I took a stab at lining things up a bit better, but definitely open to any better organizational ideas for article titles in the group. KoA (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

is Draft:Coalition for the Conservation of the Maltese Honey Bee notable

Is there a more specific page about notability criteria for this than WP:Notability - draft written by NahlaMaltija - does it meet notability criteria? - (I am a new draft reviewer and this is not my strong topic area) Thanks Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 00:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Japanese beetle, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Rank of Endopterygota

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Rank of Endopterygota that might be interesting to you and that would benefit from your input. Please come and help. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

ESA/JME Journal Access

Hi, I am looking to see if anyone has access to the following journal article:

• Some records of Tabanidae (Diptera) from British Honduras (Belize)
• by Williams, P
• published in the Journal of Medical Entomology, 1971, Vol.8 (1), p.98-107 https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/8.1.98

My online access to this journal through Scholars Portal Journals: BioOne is currently restricted to issues dating from 2000-2017 only. Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I can send you a copy I found easily using sci-hub! Send me an email if the hidden link here does not work Shyamal (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Shyamal, that worked! Loopy30 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

New planthopper classification

A new classification for planthoppers (Fulgoromorpha) was published in an article last year: https://doi.org/10.3161/00034541ANZ2022.72.4.011 Basically, it now includes three superfamilies Fulgoroidea, Cixioidea and Fulgoridioidea, plus several fossil families not placed to superfamily as well as several incertae sedis fossil genera.

Is it too early to adopt this on Wikipedia too? I don't think many subsequent articles (if any at all) have adopted this new classification yet, but on the other hand BugGuide and iNaturalist are already using it from what I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the standard is among folks who really focus on taxonomy articles here, but I'd usually figure that I'd want other sources to confirm that the change is being used. Sometimes new proposed changes just don't stick, and BugGuide / iNaturalist, while great for us entomologists, are tricky when it comes to wiki WP:RS on taxonomy. KoA (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I had a feeling other sources were needed myself, but so far I haven't found any publications using the new classification except from works by one or both of the two co-authors. If BugGuide and iNaturalist aren't reliable enough on their own then perhaps it's better to come back to updating the planthopper taxonomy at a later point. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I should say the flip side is that in smaller or less studied groups, it may take a long time to get that confirmation. Planthoppers though might not be so bad in that regard, so I'm curious what others think in this case. KoA (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The new version of the World Auchenorrhyncha Database splits Fulgoroidea into three superfamilies, although doesn't give a source for this treatment. It's not quite the same as Bourgoin and Szwedo (2023) in that it uses Delphacoidea instead of Cixioidea and retains the extinct Coleoscytoidea and Surijokocixiioideathe as superfamilies. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882 The article I linked was from 2022, not 2023, unless you meant the followup Zootaxa article (available via ResearchGate) by the same authors? But that article actually uses Delphacoidea instead of Cixioidea and retains the extinct superfamilies. It looks likely to me that it's the source for the World Auchenorrhyncha Database's Fulgoromorpha classification I expect. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the 2022 article (I got the year wrong). I found the 2023 follow-up article shortly after posting and it has a note explaining the priority of Delphacoidea. It does seems the likely source for World Auchenorrhyncha Database classification, which seems ahead of Bourgoin's own site FLOW (Fulgoromorpha Lists on The Web) in updating the classification (FLOW doesn't use multiple superfamilies). I think we can adopt the new classification as we have an independent secondary source. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea

Are Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea currently considered orders, or suborders of order Notoptera? Wikipedia currently reads as if everyone has considered them suborders of Notoptera since Arillo & Engel (2006). However, the note in Schoville (2014) suggests there is still some debate about this (at least, at the time it was written, anyway). Additionally, they are ranked as orders in the Species Files websites (both here and here) as well as Zhang (2011)'s Arthropoda classification from the "Animal biodiversity" Zootaxa volume. I have also seen a number of other articles treat them as orders, though sometimes this is merely implied by them being listed alongside other insect orders.

In short, it looks to me like a lot of scientists still consider them orders. Should Wikipedia be treating them as orders too? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think they are still mostly treated as orders. While I see the sense of some lumping of small orders, the Notoptera proposal doesn't seem to have caught on. In addition to your examples, the Kjer et al (2016, doi:10.1098/rsif.2016.0363) review seems to treat them as orders (Fig 4), although not explicitly. They don't mention Notoptera and use Xenonomia for the clade of Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea. Likewise there is no mention of Notoptera in the Wipfler et al (2019, doi:10.1073/pnas.1817794116) study on Polyneoptera.

On the subject of Species Files, they are in the process of updating them to a newer format (using TaxonWorks). All the Species Files websites were frozen on 14 August 2023, pending the update. SF Mantophasmatodea is the only one updated so far (the old version is available as an archive. It's a definite improvement and may make it possible for them to integrate them is a single system. Fortunately, it looks like all the species files links will continue to work for the new sites. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction. SF Mantophasmatodea was the only Species File updated as of yesterday. Several others including cockroach have since been updated. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

While it's still only preprint right now, an article from 2021 claiming to resolve the 'Zoraptera problem' also appears to treat them as orders, and seems to treat Notoptera as just an unranked (?) clade instead. Also of note is the fact Engel is a co-author, but I don't know if that means he has changed his mind or not about their ranks. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Engel is a coauthor, but not part of the main group doing the study, so I wouldn't take it as evidence of a change of position; he may just not have convinced his collaborators. However, it is further evidence that the proposal hasn't caught on. Most of the sources used in the articles use Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea as orders. A lot of the google results for Notoptera are derived from Wikipedia.

Until there is a new formal taxonomy of insects that we can use, I think we should use order for the Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea, but mention the alternative of these being suborders of order Notoptera prominently in the lede. —  Jts1882 | talk 

Cool then, that sounds like the best action for Grylloblattodea/idae and Mantophasmatodea/idae to me at least. What should happen with Notoptera then? It does seem like it's generally accepted these two orders (or suborders) are sister taxa, so Notoptera (= Xenonomia) could still be treated as a valid taxon or clade. But should it be treated as an unranked clade, or as a superorder following the Grylloblattodea Species File website [12] (as of writing, that is)? Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882 Sorry to ping, wasn't sure if you saw my last question here from a week ago about Notoptera. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to reply, but wanted to check use of superorder or unranked on other similar insect groups (there are inconsistencies). I'd keep Notoptera as a page, mentioning Xenomia as an alternative. Maybe a page move will be warranted in future. The old, now archived version of SF Grylloblattodea uses superorder, but I don't think the new version does. Unfortunately, the site is down at the moment. I suggest using superorder for now, as we can link to the archived version. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done There, Grylloblattodea and Mantophasmatodea should now be treated as orders across English Wikipedia (mostly), and Notoptera as a superorder, though I'm not entirely satisfied with my efforts to be honest. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: the new version of SF Grylloblattodea is working now, and it still uses superorder rank for Notoptera. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Updates to Species Files websites

As mentioned above the Species Files websites are in the process of being updated to a newer format (using TaxonWorks). All the Species Files websites were frozen on 14 August 2023, pending the update. Only a few of the new sites are currently available, e.g. SF Mantophasmatodea (the old version is available as an archive), SF Cockroach, SF Zoraptera, SF Isoptera, etc.. The upgrade raises a number of issues that affect the Wikipedia insect pages:

• The links to taxon pages no longer work. The main site domain name is unchanged (although upgraded to https), but the rest of the urls have changed.
• The new site also uses new taxon IDs, so getting a bot to edit the urls is not an option.
• As the ids are different, the {{taxonbar}} links no longer work. I changed the Wikidata formatterURL for Cockroach Species File ID (P6052)}, which works if you manually update the id (e.g. see Blattidae), but it will need a bot on Wikidata to fix this on the other Wikidata taxon pages.

Maybe the concerns are premature as the upgrade is in progress. Perhaps they will add redirects for the old links. Anyway, I thought it worth raising. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Update

• The following Species Files are now available in the new Taxonworks format: Zoraptera SF, Dermaptera SF, Grylloblattodea SF, Mantophasmatodea SF, Embioptera SF, Cockroach SF, Isoptera SF (revived after being deleted in 2020), Psocodea SF, Coleorrhyncha SF, Plecoptera SF, Orthoptera SF, Aphid SF
• The following are still in the frozen old state at their websites, but can be seen in preview on Github: Plecoptera SF, Orthoptera SF, Phasmida SF, Mantodea SF, Aphid SF, Coreoidea SF, Lygaeoidea SF
• The following look like they will be abandoned: SF Arthropoda, SF Polyneoptera and SF Paraneoptera
• In addition the 3i World Auchenorrhyncha Database] has been moved to the Taxonworks system: World Auchenorrhyncha Database

When the process is complete there will be Species Files databases for all the polyneopteran orders, as well Psocodea and parts of Hemiptera. Other parts of Hemiptera are covered by a different initiative at HemBases but only one of the seven databases is functional at present: Fulgoromorpha Lists On the Web. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The orthoptera and aphid species files are now live in the new format. I have a table keeping track at User:Jts1882/Phylogeny_and_taxonomy_resources#Species_Files —  Jts1882 | talk  11:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pharsalus#Requested move 14 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pharsalus#Requested move 14 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Updates needed for multiple protected taxonomy templates

Following my rename of the article Endopterygota to Holometabola (see the discussion above), I've learned that multiple taxonomy templates need to be fixed to account for this change properly. There are some other taxonomy templates that need changing for other reasons, however, so I've listed them all here.

• Template:Taxonomy/Hymenopterida: parent should be Holometabola
• Template:Taxonomy/Coleoptera: parent should be restored to Coleopterida
• Template:Taxonomy/Panorpida: parent should be <Aparaglossata
• Template:Taxonomy/Neoptera: parent should be Pterygota, skipping the clade Metapterygota (the relationships of Odonata-Ephemeroptera-Neoptera are not resolved, per above discussion) (Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC))

Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If we are following Kjer et al. 2016 (as we are at the Holometabola article) that source should be added to |refs= of the relevant taxonomy templates when the parents are changed. And Kjer should also be added as a source to all of the relevant articles (if the are better more recent sources for any subclades that contradict Kjer, those could be followed, but Kjer should probably still be mentioned as an alternative), with cladograms adjusted accordingly.

I see that at Panorpida the first cladogram is ostensibly following a 2005 source. The two cladograms at Panorpida#Antliophora are based on a 2022 source, with one of the cladograms largely consistent with the 2005 source (Siphonaptera embedded in paraphyletic Mecoptera), and the other consistent with Kjer (Siphonaptera sister to Mecoptera). Kjer is not a source in the Panorpida article. In this case we should probably have an Antliophora article (it's currently a redirect) to discuss the relationship of Siphonaptera and Diptera.

Panorpida has a (small) problem. More broadly, cladograms should be checked against sources, sources should be added to taxonomy templates, and child articles/taxonomy templates should be sourced and checked for consistency with parents. Plantdrew (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Apologies for the late reply, but I've been attempting to make sense of Panorpida's first two cladograms... they do appear to be partially following Grimaldi and Engel 2005 in that Hymenoptera is considered to be sister to Panorpida, rather than to Panorpida+Neuropteroidea (=Aparaglossata) as in Kjer and most other recent articles. However I don't quite understand where "Mecopteroidea" comes from exactly? Grimaldi and Engel (page 468, start of chapter 12) mention it only in passing, while saying they use Mecopterida in a more restrictive sense than Panorpida.

Checking page history, I notice that banned user/sockpuppet Quilt1 first added "Mecopteroidea" to Panorpida's cladogram in August 2020 with no explanation, Chiswick Chap repeatedly removed their edits, then earlier this year WikiCleanerMan re-added Quilt1's version of the cladogram but as a separate one to the one already there?? Quilt1 also added "Mecopteroidea" to the cladograms present in the articles Hymenoptera and Nannochoristidae, also in August 2020, and somehow that survived on those despite being added with no explanation in the first place. Other articles such as Pterygota and Neuropterida suggest that "Mecopteroidea" is a synonym of Antliophora, but this must be a different sense of "Mecopteroidea"? Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Plantdrew (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I can solve one small part of this mess. I've removed the first, surplus cladogram from the lead (?) of Panorpida – all of it was redundant to the other cladograms in the article, so the "Mecoperteroidea" has gone with it. The Antliophora discussion in that article (that's a redirect to Panorpida) is cited only to Meusemann et al 2020, it sounds as if Kjer ought to be cited there also. I quite understand why people make composite cladograms but they really are easier to verify if they come from a single source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Well shit. Template:Taxonomy/Hymenopterida has had parent changed. No offense meant to Monster Iestyn. Hymenopterida has one cladogram sourced to a 2005 book and tolweb (which AFAIK hasn't had updates in well over a decade and calls the parent Endopterygota not Holometabola). The other cladogram is sourced to Kjer (OK), but Kjer has no room for a node for Hymenopterida that wouldn't be a synonym of Endopterygota/Holometabola (maybe there's a paleontologicaly inclusive framework following Kjer with room for Hymenopterida, but being paleontologically inclusive is a huge headache). I really don't mean to derail an attempt to get insect classification abover orders standardized, but it is looking to be complicated. Plantdrew (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that's on me, I initially was asking the user who renamed the template for Endopterygota to Holometabola to also update Hymenopterida ...then Coleoptera, then I realised it was better to make a list here. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

As for Panorpida, Kjer does give the clade but under its alternative name, Mecopterida ...is there any consensus which name that clade should have? Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added a source for the recircumsribed Hymenopterida (to article and template). The restricted superorder is also used in the Systema Naturae 2000 classification. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I've updated Coleoptera and Neoptera as above. According to Kjer at al, Panorpida should be Aparaglossata, as Neuropteroidea is Neuropterida+Coleopterida. Is there a reason why Aparaglossata was crossed out and replaced by Neuropteroidea, e.g. a new source? —  Jts1882 | talk  10:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Whoops, I re-read Kjer's tree again later and somehow came to the wrong conclusion in my haste, I think. Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I think we should use Mecopterida. It's used in the reviews by Kjer et al (2016) and Engel & Kristensen (2013; doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153536), where the latter refer to Mecopterida as the "panorpoid orders". Mecopterida was also used by Kristensen (1998) and Whiting (2004; Table 21.2, p348), so it has a history of usage. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: I've changed the parent of Panorpida to Aparaglossata as requested. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Thanks! Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Pterygota systematics

Hi, I've recently happened to notice that Pterygota seems somewhat internally inconsistent: according to its taxobox, Ephemeroptera (mayflies) are sister to a clade Metapterygota (Odonata (dragonflies) and Neoptera), but the article text uses a classification where Ephemeroptera and Odonata are placed in a clade/infraclass Palaeoptera separate to Neoptera. These can't both be right, surely?

I looked up further and a number of sources from a decade ago or more (e.g. [13], [14], [15] and [16]) say the relationships between Ephemeroptera, Odonata and Neoptera are unresolved, and that there are three hypotheses for the relationships between these groups (Palaeoptera, Metapterygota and Chiastomyaria), two of which are actually being represented in the Pterygota article. Some of the sources I linked helpfully provide diagrams explaining the three, but come to different conclusions in some cases.

So, I must ask, since I may be reading outdated articles here: anyone happen to know if this particular problem has since been resolved at last, or is this still up for debate currently? Should the Pterygota article be rewritten to explain these neutrally, rather than favouring one (or rather, two at once as currently written)? Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It's probably still unresolved. I think the best review of overall insect phylogeny is Kjer et al (2016; doi:10.1098/rsif.2016.0363), with Fig 5 being particulaly useful. While that review is getting a bit dated, I haven't seen anything that changes the overall picture. A more recent study (Wipfler et al 2019; doi:10.1073/pnas.1817794116) provides some support for Palaeoptera, but the focus for their study was Polyneoptera. In my opinion, the taxobox shouldn't pick a hypothesis and should treat them as unresolved. There needs to be a choice for what phylogeny to show, but the text can explain the alternative hypotheses.

Another issue is the use of Exopterygota and Endopterygota in the taxobox and the text. Exopterygota is certainly paraphyletic and while Endopterygota is monophyletic, Holometabola has been the preferred name for some time. How to split Exoptergota is also still incertain. Polyneoptera seems monophyletic (see Kjer et al 2o16 and Wipfler et al 2019), but Paraneoptera (more properly Acercaria, see Appendix in Kjer et al 2016) may not be, with the position of Psocodea being uncertain. The Paraneoptera article shows the alternatives.—  Jts1882 | talk  07:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I see, thanks, I'll just assume that it's still unresolved then and try to rework the article with that assumption. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: While I'm at it, I'm going to get the ball rolling with renaming Endopterygota to Holometabola at last, because I can see it's long overdue. Though, do you think it's uncontroversial enough that I could just be WP:BOLD and rename it? Otherwise I'll start a move discussion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Check the talk page Talk:Endopterygota. I asked the question a year ago and someone asked it 12 years before. I think it's uncontroversial. It needs a page move over the redirect, otherwise I'd probably have moved it. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Fair enough. I have page mover rights so I can do it, doesn't even need a page swap since the redirect doesn't have any history beyond its creation. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: There, it is done, Holometabola is now the name of the article. Annoyingly though, I am unable to rename or edit Template:Taxonomy/Endopterygota, so I've made a technical request for a requested move, as well as a request to rename Category:Endopterygota. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that if Y is now the accepted name for the taxon previously known as X, then the preferred way of fixing the taxonomy templates is by:

• creating "Template:Taxonomy/Y"
• using |same_as=Y in "Template:Taxonomy/X"

Among other advantages, this allows |refs= to be used to support the synonymy. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks, though a little late, Template:Taxonomy/Endopterygota has already been renamed to Template:Taxonomy/Holometabola earlier. What I need now is help to update several more protected taxonomy templates (see below), since I do not have rights to edit any of them. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a while since I left an update here... I appear to have been sidetracked a bit from my original plan to update the Pterygota article, instead being involved in updating the taxonomy or phylogenies of higher insect groups more generally. (Whoops) In any case, I've recently looked through the page histories of Pterygota and Exopterygota and found that the "Systematics" sections in each have essentially been unchanged since Dysmorodrepanis wrote them in 2007, porportedly to streamline them with the systematics of the Insect article at the time? It's no wonder they look highly out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster Iestyn (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The ant genus Myrmecia

After an unintended Wiki-editing hiatus, I just got back in and did my "thing"--I saw that the category Myrmeciinae contained 90+ species in the genus Myrmecia. So I created a category Myrmecia. And now that I've migrated about 70 of those 90+ species, I wonder if I should have called the category "Myrmecia (ant)" to correspond to the article on the genus. Searching just the term Myrmecia gets a disambiguation page; among other things, there's also a genus of algae called Myrmecia (although it doesn't have a category; there's only the article on the genus). Uporządnicki (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It would probably have been better to match the category to the genus page title, but I don't think it necessary to change it. Neither of the other articles are likely to need a category: the skin condition won't have child articles that need categorisation and the genus of algae only has nine recognised species, none of which have articles., and even if they were all created they'd likely to be put in a higher category. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good. I hope nobody comes in to disagree. I'm willing to go through and change it all, but I'd rather not. I'll be more careful next time. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: there are some editors who strongly feel that category names should match the main article title's disambiguation, even if no other topics would merit a category (one case I saw was a genus that was disambiguated against an alternative name of a minor Greek diety; any category for the diety would just use the more common name for the diety, but the genus category ended up getting moved to a disambiguated name). If a category gets moved to a different name following a CfD, a bot will move the articles in the category.

If you're doing a lot of categorization work, you should know about Help:Cat-a-lot, a script which makes it easy to move many articles between categories. I haven't used it much myself, but as far as I'm aware it won't let you add sortkeys. However it would make it very easy to move all the articles from "Myrmecia" to "Myrmecia (ant)" if you decided to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll echo Jts's comment too. You're probably fine as-is with the ants seemingly being the most predominant topic, and if someone really wants to justify a change, they can work through that. I'd say you made a good-faith and reasonable effort on this, though as Plantdrew alludes to, there can sometimes be variable opinions on categories that still can catch anyone off guard at times. I wouldn't worry too much at this point. KoA (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: @KoA: No, no, I acknowledge, I made a mistake! I knew, as a rule, it should be that way, but I didn't notice the detail here until it was about done. And I'm a stickler for details; no sooner have I finished creating a category and populating it with 90+ items (one at a time), than I'm setting out to add sortkeys to about 150 of another bunch of ants--just so the whole page doesn't alphabetize to "D." I was just hoping it was forgivable, this time. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Stub template for Hemiptera

Could anyone please make the stub template for hemiptera clear? Personally, I feel like it is confusing. Thanks! PrathuCoder (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@PrathuCoder: are you talking about {{Hemiptera-stub}}? What exactly is unclear? Basically, that stub template shouldn't be used since there are stub templates for each of the suborders (while {{Coleorrhyncha-stub}} puts articles into Category:Hemiptera stubs, it could be made to populate Category:Coleorrhyncha stubs instead). Plantdrew (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! PrathuCoder (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

Under this WikiProject, there are 5 unassessed articles according to the servers as of Jan 9th. I assessed Diura chronus and Cyrtolobus dixianus. There are 3 other articles, which link to other wikis and are not Wikipedia articles. Is it supposed to be that way or does it have to be fixed? Thanks! PrathuCoder (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There have been some recent changes to how assessment of redirects works. I guess the interwiki redirects are an edge case that didn't get addressed when the changes were made. That needs to be fixed somewhere, but there's nothing you can do about it now by editing the talk page banners of those three articles.

Changes to assessment of redirects is also why there are now 1,536 articles categorized as Redirects with Low importance. Early on, class=redirect had to be specified. For awhile, redirects were automatically detected and classified as Redirect-Class if the class parameter was left blank. In the most recent changes, redirects are automatically detected and classified as redirects overriding any value in a non-blank class parameter. Plantdrew (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Ants Task Force - Task #5

I noticed that in the ants task force, task 5 is not mentioned. I'm planning to make the task to be expanding all subfamily articles to at least start-class. Is that good? Thanks. PrathuCoder (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Or not. It took me a minute to realize you were talking about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Insects/ant_task_force#Tasks_by_subfamily. The table of tasks that are done or undone isn't up to date (Proceratiinae genus articles have all been created). I don't see much point in adding tasks to track when we are not keeping up to date with tasks that are already tracked. There's plenty to do with the tasks that are tracked, and if I was going to recommend another task it would be to check that taxonomy sourced to AntCat was up to date and update the date that AntCat was checked (Proceratiinae cites AntCat as of July 2014, but is still consistent with AntCat as of January 2024). Plantdrew (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok sure, I'll follow your advice with that task. I'll also check and update everything on the tasks by subfamily table. Thanks! PrathuCoder (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find that many AntCat references, so I changed Task 5 to my own suggestion. PrathuCoder (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Armaniidae vs. Armaniinae

Armaniinae is mentioned as a subfamily in the Template:Ant Taxonomy, list of ant subfamilies and on antcat. However, Armaniinae is a redirect to Armaniidae which apparently is its own family. Which is right? Thanks! PrathuCoder (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither is absolutely right as it depends on the classification. There is another recent classification that includes Armaniinae genera in Sphecomyrminae (Borysenko, 2017), although Barry Bolton on AntCat is unconvinced (see Armaniinae). Generally, I think we are following AntCat for ants. We need to choose one classification for determining what gets an article and what goes in the taxobox, but the alternatives should be discussed in the text. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882 Ok. Should I add Armaniinae to the list of tasks by subfamily table in the Ants Task Force? PrathuCoder (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this needs a decision on whether to use Armaniidae or Armaniinae for the article. The article covers the alternatives so only needs slight modification if it is to be moved to the subfamily, which I think it should. However, let's wait and see if anyone else has an opinion. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! PrathuCoder (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We should go with the Antcat/Antweb placement, as stem-group subfamily is the more frequently taken stance in papers over the last 5 years now.--Kevmin § 18:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Looks like @Kevmin already did the move. PrathuCoder (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reworded the lede and part of the taxonomy section to reflect the page move. However, some of the references need double checking that they still support the text as written. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ant Task Force - Removing finished articles

Hello, in the Ants Task Force, under Todo there are quite a few articles with the template "done". I'm considering deleting them as it appears they don't serve any purpose anymore. Is there a reason I shouldn't, and the templates are still there? Thanks. PrathuCoder (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you should remove anything marked "done". Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. PrathuCoder (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hymenoptera Task Force Shortcut

A shortcut to the Hymenoptera Task Force would be helpful, like how the Ants Task Force has WP:ANTS as a shortcut. WP:HYMENOPTERA or WP:HYMEN would be good. Thanks! PrathuCoder (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)