Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Competition proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Competition proposal. Cremastra _talk 00:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Macrohectopus

I've created the page on the pelagic Baikal amphipod, but i've hit a snag as there remains some work to be done on expanding the sections that i couldn't do myself. Anyone interested in helping? Anthropophoca (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Anthrophoca. I usually work with decapods, but I'll happily take a look at what's there so far (at a glance, it's really good!) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is a $100 prize for most nature articles destubbed or improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your project, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Panarthropoda and Tactopoda should not be used as parents to taxa

Panarthropoda and Tactopoda should not be used as parents to taxa. Because they are not definite clades. Jako96 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO keep Panarthropoda, remove Tactopoda: as far as I was aware Panarthropoda is widely accepted as monophyletic, but the relationships of the taxa within it are still unsettled? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree re Tactopoda – an article on this as a proposed taxon is justified, but not as a parent for Arthropoda. Panarthropoda seems to have more acceptance, e.g. by the Paleobiology Database. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anything described as a "proposed clade" (there are 88 such articles with that exact phrase) should be a parent in a taxobox. Either it's solidly accepted enough to drop the "proposed", or it is too speculative to be included as a parent. Plantdrew (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Plantdrew. Jako96 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

In the case of Panarthropoda, the problem is the term "proposed clade". This is sourced to a 2008 paper. A Scholar search produces 1,560 hits, many of which clearly used the taxon in classification. It's clearly an accepted taxon for many sources, although its internal and external relationships are not uniformly agreed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

As an example, this 2024 paper says that all their analyses "found support for the monophyly of Panarthropoda". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hm, in the first place it seems Tactopoda was set as parent in Template:Taxonomy/Arthropoda without real consensus; from 2011 to 2013 it was Panarthropoda, with suitable refs added, then Special:Diff/567865328 changed it to Tactopoda and never changed the references (so it seems it was just arbitrarily asserted). This all took place before the protection level of the template was raised in 2016. Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I definitely support changing back to Panarthropoda. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

There, made an edit request at Template talk:Taxonomy/Arthropoda based on this discussion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done The parent of Arthropoda is now restored to Panarthropoda. Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguations for arthropod taxa, i.e. grasshopper, planthopper etc

I just made an edit on a wiki page for the orthopteran lineage Metrodorinae where a user (@Roy Bateman) had helpfully made several of the generic names into alternatives to stop them going to whatever other thing they were likely named after, e.g. historical figure, place name, etc.
e.g. Thyrsus (insect)|Thyrsus
e.g. Spartolus (insect)|Spartolus
etc

In general, i've been following the scheme given below (by Estopedist1), but it's now a while since that was updated and i'm not sure how it's viewed by the community?
See User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation
Following that
i.e. Thyrsus (grasshopper)|Thyrsus
i.e. Spartolus (grasshopper)|Spartolus
etc

Internally it doesn't really matter, although i've had cases where "Something (insect)" is indeed itself problematic where there's an actual homonym issue within insects, and there will be plenty of such cases if links are added to all the historic homonyms. Externally, the name used is of course linked on wikidata etc (but can work via redirects) but for example on the backend of iNaturalist the name of the wikipage is specified directly to link to the wiki page. Sjl197 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I would personally strongly urge that disambiguation titles be as specific as is possible without resorting to obscure names. If these are grasshoppers, then "(grasshopper)" is vastly preferable to "(insect)". The latter is for things like Zygentoma or Strepsiptera, where the order doesn't have a well-known "common name", or for obscure families under no broader umbrella. I might suggest a fair rule of thumb, if you scan from a species or genus page up the hierarchy, do you hit an article that has a common name as its title? If you do, then within orthopterans you might hit "grasshopper", "cricket", or "katydid" for certain things, but others won't hit any such page - and those obscure orthopterans that aren't grasshoppers, crickets, or katydids would merit an "(insect)" - a perfect example being Sia (insect). My two cents. Dyanega (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That seems pretty fair. Whether it's a disambiguation page or the search bar, having grasshopper, etc. makes it clear to searchers what they'll be ending up at and should get around most homonym issues. KoA (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, (insect) is broad enough that there are some unresolved homonyms (by unresolved, I mean specialist databases at say, the order level, treat a junior homonym as valid, and no replacement name has been published to resolve the homonymy). I think some of the Hemiptera "hopper" disambiguations (tree/leaf/plant/frog) are getting pretty obscure for non-entomologists, but on the other hand, I wouldn't expect non-entomologists to recognize (bug) as having a precise technical meaning.

Estopedist1's scheme never really had any discussion that would result in a consensus to follow it, and a lot of it is just notes about what disambiguators were in use without being any recommendation to use those disambiguators going forward (the green check marks on Estopedst1's page are my approvals to use those disambiguators going forward). I don't think Estopedist's framework is bad, but in practice it isn't necessarily being followed. I have put in some effort to standardize some of the disambiguators in use, but more work could be done. Plantdrew (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Note that you can search by titles for pages tagged with a WikiProject: this searches WikiProject Insects for titles with a parenthesis (with more than 2000 results, it is hard to get an overview of how often a given disambiguator is used, but you refine the search for particular disambiguators after seeing which show up in the results). Plantdrew (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sjl197:, in my earlier comment I wasn't paying very close attention to the particular case you brought up; I was thinking more about the general principles of which disambiguators to use.

The taxobox for Grasshopper has the taxon as Acridomorpha (which redirects to grasshopper). Acrididea has Acridomorpha in bold in the lead, and most of the body of the Acrididea article is a list of superfamilies in Acridomorpha (although Tetrigoidea is listed as a subdivision in the taxobox). I don't have any informed opinion about what taxon "grasshopper" corresponds to, but it seems that using (insect) instead of (grasshopper) for disambiguating Tetrigidae genera was a deliberate choice, made with the assumption that tetrigids aren't grasshoppers (or crickets or katydids). (see Talk:Grasshopper#Taxonomy for some discussion about what taxon grasshopper corresponds to; I don't think Estopedist1 had any idea that Wikipedia wasn't treating Caelifera as "grasshoppers").

Also, if you are changing the disambiguators used for red links, it is a good idea to click on the red-link and then check "What links here" to make sure you've caught all the instances where Wikipedia has that red-link. You changed Cleostratus (insect) to Cleostratus (grasshopper) in Tetrigidae, but it is still (insect) at Metrodorinae and at Cleostratus (disambiguation). Plantdrew (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly support (insect) as a disambiguation term: after all, botanist editors have no need for any of these contortions, since everything is simply "(plant)"!! There are several objections to doing otherwise, most importantly: (i) the terms can be plain wrong - as in some of the examples above - and (ii) obscure to non-entomologists (e.g. I see "(phasmid)" has been used for some stick insects/walking sticks). Cleostratus, Thyrsus and Spartolus are not grasshoppers, but groundhoppers (UK English) or pygmy devils/pygmy grasshoppers (is that correct @Dyanega?) in the US. I have long despaired about the use "(katydid)" for all Tettigoniidae: which is meaningless to a majority of the UK population. Incidentally, before 2017 certain WP editors insisted that "grasshoppers" were synonymous with Caelifera (until I asked where pygmy mole crickets belonged) - what a waste of time that was! I respectfully suggest to you all that there are more important things to be doing, such as actually writing the many thousands of genus pages still needed. Roy Bateman (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Roy Bateman:. Thanks for engaging and clarifying your view. Hopefully you'll be pleased to hear that i'm more than willing to revert all my "(grasshopper)" edits in Tetrigoidea and descendants back to "(insect)". I totally agree the creation of pages is far more important, it's what i was trying to do before being faced on backend of Metrodorinae with an existing page as Cota (grasshopper) next to Andriana (insect), then i foolishly started editing in a direction that proved contentious. Apologies!

I don't however think that "everything is simply "(plant)"!!" is a defensible position (whether you agree or disagree with them), nor is turning a blind eye to allow expansion of a plethora of "something (insect)". Had i seen the discussion about Tetrigoidea/Tetrigidae back then, i may have argued these seem tolerable as "grasshopper" under a looser definition, e.g. "grasshoppers and allies". However, that lacks precision, while instead e.g. "(groundhoppers)" might be defensible but to my view would be needless expansion of terms as happened in Hempitera etc. Anyway, those are all broader discussions, not for here. Sjl197 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Stuart - thanks for reverting: I do think using "grasshopper" here over-simplifies, potentially misleads and equally importantly diverts your time from more useful matters ... after all, for the purposes of dab, "(animal)" would suffice. I see you set-up Metrodora: I have made some edits - which I hope you approve of. I also notice that the family page needs an update - will do soon. It's good to see someone else taking an interest in these interesting but rather neglected insects! Roy Bateman (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sjl197 & @Estopedist1: FYI I see that Thyrsus has moved tribe and is monotypic - so the appropriate link is Thyrsus tiaratus (subfamily page changed). Roy Bateman (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all @Dyanega: @KoA: @Plantdrew: To clarify, it was the general viewpoint (i.e. general principles) that i was initially looking for advice on, especially if i'd missed where such had become more standardized. (Edit - here i recognise that in grand scheme of these insects, it's the "hoppers" and the "flies/midges/gnats" where if any calls for consistency are needed then those are the ones to focus on!)
Yet for Orthoptera, as Plantdrew then recognises "grasshopper" is one of many such terms where usage may be contentious (unless limits are defined, e.g. of course what is a "grasshopper" has changed over time and different viewpoints etc.).
To specify, indeed i was actually focusing on lineage Metrodorinae, those being Tetrigidae, which seem viewed as sister-group to Acridomorpha. While Acridomorpha seem defensibly "grasshopper" (reflecting how its presented on enwiki), then what are the allies? The family Tetrigidae are being called "groundhoppers, pygmy grasshoppers" etc. Hence these (Tetrigidae: Metrodorinae) are getting into Doug's issue of "those obscure orthopterans that aren't grasshoppers". Well, i'd chosen to edit several from "Something (insect)" to "Something (grasshopper)", but now openly questioning if that was too hasty (i.e. were fine as 'insect' or tolerably disambiguated as "grasshopper".
Per scheme: (Caelifera (inc. Tridactylidea vs. Acrididea (inc. Tetrigoidea=THESE vs. Acridomorpha=GRASSHOPPER))). See the scheme of Estopedst1 indicates "grasshopper" for any of the Caelifera.
//Else PLantdrew, thanks for tip on Cleostratus pages. I was planning to building some content for that (as Cleostratus (grasshopper) but then decided to stop until i'd worked out what disambiguation name. I think i've fixed all now to say Cleostratus (grasshopper) but all easily reversed. Hopefully consistent for time being. And no, i did not know the " "What links here" aspect, now i looked into it - that behaviour is familiar to me for how things are on wikispecies and here i found that as "Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title." Thanks, unless i knew it, i would likely have missed it on Cleostratus (disambiguation).

@Sjl197:, {{Reply to}} doesn't send if a notification if you don't sign your post (and you can't make it work just by going back and adding only your signature). Estopedist1's scheme is far more notes on existing practice (at the time it was written), then recommendations on best practices to implement. Midge/gnat/mosquito have all been changed to (fly). Ostracod/shrimp/prawn/amphipod are all now (crustacean). If Wikipedia isn't treating grasshoppers as being all of Caelifera, (insect) is better for non-grasshoppers. Plantdrew (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Pterygota § Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Pterygota § Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2025. Jako96 (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)