Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects/Archive 1

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects/Archive 1

Starters?

What's a starter? Something light to eat before a meal? AshLin (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What you mean? Like something you eat before you eat a meal... then yes your right. I guess it could be an insect if thats what you are asking. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they're asking what the difference between a starter and a member of the project is.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 23:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh! silly me :P It means the person who started the project, should I rename it? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 15:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Better? I guess the person who started the project can take the lead of the membership list. ZooFari 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems right to me, based on other projects.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects/Archive 1

Overview of the classification of insects

I think this should be changed to reflect actual taxonomy, I'll do it if so.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 23:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

lets just put this on it: (it's over there ==>)

I took it from Insect. This brings up another point, why isn't it finished?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 23:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, I put it their :P But what do you mean its "not finished"? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I take it back, I guess it's good enough. I just think we could include more taxonomic splits under neoptereans like holometabolism/hemimetabolism. Anyways, so can we just put this in place of the taxanomic section on the project page?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, this box is beautifully done.-FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Assessments template size

I think the assessments template's left image is a little too big. Can it be decreased? ZooFari 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done!! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

"Create insect families" ?

Would this goal be a little too much for Wikipedia? There are hundreds of insect families. If not, I'm all for it! I'd love to work on this. But if so, we would still include the more well known families, like ants for example (Order:Hymenoptera, Family:Formicidae). Perhaps they should all have a page but small ones. Or maybe at least a small section in their order page (or suborder or superfamily). --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 23:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I you where to look here and here, will explain a little> lol :P Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Off course we should have all families. We have every shitty town in the United States (which are 100.000's). I personally think we should have every species. I know this will never happen in our lifetime at the rate pages are made at the moment, but we can make a start.. I am working on moths at the moment, and I think I made about 5000 species pages about now. There are still thousands to do, but someday.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Have all lepidoptera families been made? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so. For some families all genera (with a list of species) have also been made for the most part. I am working on species mainly, so I'm not entirely sure. Anyway, I am trying to make articles containing at least location, wingspan, food plant, synonyms and genus authority. I dont really see the point in having an article just stating "this is a moth". :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

in the hundreds of years that making a page for every species would take, I'm sure some better thing would replace Wikipedia, or the entire internet. Anyways, I'm up for all the families if you guys think it fits within the scope of Wikipedia.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 12:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably true if one or two people are working on it.. But if more people would be working on creating these articles, we could come a long way. Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I have made well over 2,000 articles in one day... and I would have continued to do so, but people brought it to my attention that the taxa may not stay accurate, and how to know the refs are accurate too. And their can't be 20 different refs for each article (<- me be exaggerating) or else it will take much longer then a day! Is there any sites reliable or trustable to create thousands of articles based on it? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Identification project

We should make an identification project (if one hasn't been created yet) which would allow users to submit their images for identification. Then WP:INS members that specialize in identification can help out on the requests. What do you guys think? ZooFari 00:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That cool, a great idea. But wouldn't they just ask on the talk page? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If they aren't identified immediately, they could be transferred there for collective access for later identification. AshLin (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What we could do is create a sub page for requests on identification, and archive them separately into two groups: identified images and unidentified images. We could store unidentified images for later identification as AshLin suggested. ZooFari 06:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on that today, probably making a subpage, and then adding participants and a list of images that haven't been identified. Is that a good idea? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps we should create an image tag to tag unidentified images. This would then add them to a category of unidentified insect images. I could start on that while you make the sub page. Would that be a good idea? ZooFari 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats a great idea. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 10:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, new here. Is that sub-page up, and if so where? I have a couple of decent insect shots that would be nice to have ID'd properly before being uploaded to Commons. Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Page too long

The WikiProject page appears too long. Perhaps, the family list can be compressed with dashes as separators instead of one fanily per line in a list. Also list of stubs could be transferred to a project subpage. AshLin (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

there is no family list on the page. If you're referring to the taxonomy section I already started a section about this above. Actually, some Orders were missed, this list needs to be longer. Hey, you're in to lepidoptera: The butterfly page had (and kind of still does) a HORRIBLE opening paragraph. I changed a bare minimum about a month ago, the whole opener needs to be rewritten by an expert.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 12:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant this! Maybe the families can be closed together something like this or even this.

Don't mention Butterfly (groan)! The whole set of top articles in Lepidoptera require tons of work. I'm into creating Lepidoptera morphology from scratch using Google books & my small private collection. I have about 300+ edits, at least 300 more required to bring it to GA status before I go near any other top level article. Still, with about 1000 page views in last 45 days (excluding mine), I feel really good that I have met a need which was completely absent before! (Which is strange for Wikipedia)!

From this WikiProject POV, Insect morphology should be a real priority! AshLin (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that Lepidoptera morphology is very unorganized and confusing. Starting from scratch with your own info and information/refs and then adding info/refs from the previous article is the best way, thats why I use my sandbox a lot. I was ganna work first on lepidoptera first though. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to tackle Lepidoptera but remember butterfly and moth will have to be done along with it. Before we sort out 'Lepidoptera', we must be clear as to the scope of each of these articles. AshLin (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Now now I like bugs and I have a lot of them with me now lets look at it this way, if a page is too long the more the better. What is an encyclopedia but logic that that is said before is nonsense. Yous see only delete what is repeated and please keep what is needed.--Schmeater (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey AshLin, that's what I meant too. Those aren't families, those are orders, and like I said the list is incomplete and needs to be longer and they can't be organized like that because this section is (supposed) to represent the taxonomy, not just list them. I like my idea the best, (see above section where I propose a change to the taxa section).WHAT THE HECK!? that Lepidoptera morphology needs to be deleted. There is no need to explain holometabolism as a special case when four (I think) other orders to the exact same thing, some very similarly. I'll make a section on it.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Lepidoptera morphology Merge

It has been proposed that Lepidoptera morphology should be merged with Holometabolism and Lepidoptera. Please discuss this here.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 20:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Suggested scope of articles on insect morphology

Hi,

Insect looks good now, thanks to Bugboy52.40 and A little insignificant. It reads well and is of high quality, however, I have an observation about the coverage of the scope of morphology in the article.

The external morphology, head, thorax, abdomen, wings, etc which are so important to insect taxonomy barely get a look-in but the internal morphology is done in detail. Some important internal morphology aspects like excretory system , reproductive system etc are not given any mention at all. IMHO this fails the following GA requirement :

GA Criteria :
....
3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

....

So, I propose that :-

(a) Insect morphology : be developed into a comprehensive article with two subdivisions, internal and external morphology of insects. External morphology deal with external divisions such as head, thorax, abdomen, appendages and external parts/organs. Intrnal morphology dal with the systems - neurological, circulatory, digestive, muscular, excretory, reproductive, etc.

(b) The section on morphology in 'Insect' be a summary of the entire insect morphology article with that article as the 'main'. The missing data be merged in.

(c) Morphology of reproductive stages appear in appropriate detail in Pupa, Egg (biology), Caterpillar, Metamorphosis, Holometabolism, Endopterygota. Exopterygota, etc. If necessary, we may have Lepidoptera-specific versions of these organs besides the generic entomological ones. A summary of the morphology of the development phases appear in 'Insect morphology'.

(d) Subsequently, Lepidopteran morphology be thinned to remove the most generic data about insect morphology but keeping enough to make the article useful and relevant to Lepidoptera enthusiasts.

I'd like to have a generic schema approved from the community so as to avoid the unexpected merger proposals etc after so much work is put in.

AshLin (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The excretory system was included with the rest of the digestive system. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should leave the insect page alone, and expand on insect morphology, maybe combining it with lepodiptera morphology? I'll take the steeps to organize if we do. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Point noted about excretory system and also agree to leave Insect alone. Being GA it requires concensus to carry out major changes. Postpone that to much later, though my point still remains valid.

Agree to developing insect morphology but disagree to deleting Lepidoptera morphology, the order deserves its own morphological account. Besides there is an active WikiProject which is developing it. However, once insect morphology is done, we go through Lepidoptera morphology with a fine tooth comb and remove generic material. AshLin (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 10:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I was wondering if we were going to get around to something like this. I AGREE. This all sounds good and I would love to help. Also, the lepidoptera does NOT deserve its own morphology page. Lepidopterans do not have any sort of more special morphology than most of the other holometabolous insects, they just get more attention. Look at (probably) our best artice ants. On its main page, it has its own morphology section that also talks about general insect morphology too. I know that there are a lot of butterfly enthusiasts around here and butterflies are a popular thing to reference with holometabolism, but giving them special treatment is not within the scope of Wikipedia and may help to spread the myth that lepidopterans do have particularly special morphology when they don't.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 08:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, each order deserves its own morphology article. The morphology relates closely to the lifestyle of the particular taxa of insects - hence the morphology of Siphonaptera will explain how the basic insect morphology is adapted towards the life of a flea. The External morphology of Lepidoptera is focussed towards those aspects important to Lepidoptera such as wings, scales, proboscis, etc. A little bit of information overlap will take place between generic articles but that's quite okay. AshLin (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Lepidoptera and Insect scope of articles

There are currently a lot of lepidoptera-related articles that are not covered by insect-related articles. Including Lepidoptera morphology, Lepidoptera migration, Lepidopteran diversity, Lepidopteran hostplants, not really, though, Lepidoptera migration & Lepidopteran hostplants as much as they are more specific. Also Glossary of Lepidopteran terms should be moved to Glossary of Entomology terms or something similiar. Any thoughts? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Glossary of Lepidopteran terms should be moved to Glossary of entomology terms, since many of the terms listed there apply to most other insects as well. Any objections? ZooFari 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my saying so, but it seems that the WikiProject Lepidoptera articles are being targetted for merger. My suggestion is - Please develop the generic insect articles first, then we could appropriately 'thin out' the content of Lepidoptera articles to make them Lepidoptera specific. WikiProject Lepidoptera was the first insect order to have its WikiProject at a time when there was no one to champion the cause of insects. It seems unfair for articles which form the small corpus of this WikiProject already in existence to be considered for merger when the proposed targets are stubs, start or non-existance.

I'm not trying to show WP:OWN here but I feel we need tons of work to do (at least a thousand lines of new wikitext to be added on WikiProject Insect articles before we start carving up more specific articles. If WikiProject Lepidoptera has written articles that included stuff common to insects, it is because there was a huge gap of insect-related material. So could we have a little more tolerance for Lepidoptera articles and concentrate on generic Insect articles first. Once these insect articles are in decent shape, it will be the right time to cp ed the Lepidoptera articles which the wikiproject members will themselves be eager to do.

Yes, I agree to the proposal of merging Glossary but first please create a reasonable Insect glossary. Its been suggested before by Shyamal. On the other hand, Lepidopterans being an extremely large community do exist in a world devoid of other insect orders so even if we leave this article alone, its quite okay.

AshLin (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your right, but at least the glossary of terms should be moved? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 10:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, but all the best! This article IMHO was incomplete even in its present state. AshLin (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

sounds good to me. agree.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 08:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

A new box for the Insect orders showing typical characteristics?

Hi,

Should we have a box listing the typical characteristics of the order? For example, in the case of Lepidoptera, it would be a box which included the following text :-

Characteristics of Lepidoptera

• The body and appendages are covered by scales.
• The head has large compound eyes.
• The mouth parts almost always consist of a proboscis.
• The prothorax in the case of most species is reduced.
• Two pairs of wings present in almost all wings with very few cross-veins.
• Posterior abdominal segments modified extensively for reproduction.
• Cerci absent.
• Eruciform larvae with well developed head and mandibles.
• Number of prolegs in larvae 0 to 10 (usually 8).
• Pupae in most species adecticous and obtect, decticous in others.

Or perhaps a separate section? AshLin (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea.. something like the infobox that is used for Fungi? I saw that a couple of times when randomly browsing around. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I think it should go in a separate section. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How about for each article we have summery of the characteristics, and then have behavior and Life cycle as subsections? So what would be the characteristics of earwig (the current collaboration)? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dooded it! AshLin (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I too don't know what dooded it means, and I hate to break it to you AshLin, but the only things in that list that are specific to Lepidopterans is the scales and the number of prolegs on the larva. Everything else occurs in other insect groups. Anyways, I would like to know more about what you mean. Do you think we should do this on our project page or on Insect?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 08:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

It darsunt rane, it pores

Hi, Guys,

'Insect physiology' under preparation in a sandbox here. AshLin (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, aren't we working on this in Insect morphology? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the opening sentance of Morphology:

In biology morphology is the form, structure and configuration of an organism. This includes aspects of the outward appearance (shape, structure, colour, pattern) as well as the form and structure of the internal parts like bones and organs. This is in contrast to physiology, which deals primarily with function.

So, I propose internal morphology be discussed with physiology in Insect physiology.

Sigh - just when I thought I had the subject under control.

AshLin (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

needing members

Well I just joined WikiProject Insects. and i noticed there is barely any members. it there a reason for this?, maybe people just aren't interested in insects anymore. Also, what is the deal with the earwig business? I don't really understand what is going on there. --JamesDouch (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The insect Wikiproject was just created, like last week. And there is a collaboration to work on insect orders one by one to bring them to good article status, and Earwig is the first, and then probably Lepidoptera. You can join in if you want. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

oh, only last week. that explains it. --JamesDouch (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Earwig GA Review

The GA review for Earwig has began today, and it looks easy :P Bugboy52.4 | =-= 01:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't take these things for granted! AshLin (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha! I think it will do fine :-) ZooFari 04:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. looks like Earwig has gone completely gaga! AshLin (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Morphology & Physiology

Biology uses the term morphology and physiology to deal with form and function of the structure of an organism - morphology describes the parts, physiology how the systems work in the organism. So far we seem to have morphology articles only.

Take Insect as an example! Here we have a mishmash of predominantly physiology with a little bit of morphology thrown in. (That will need improvement eventually!)

From para 1 it can be inferred that WP should have two articles - Insect morphology and Insect physiology (sandbox). It is correct to have two articles for these aspects of insects.

My worry? That Insect morphology will be a very long and detailed article if the internal morphology are given in Insect morphology. We now have two options :

• Option 'A'. : A very long Insect Morph with external and internal morphology. A reasonably sized Insect physio.
• Option 'B'. : A reasonably sized long Insect Morph with external morphology only. A large Insect physio with internal morphology incuded.

Please comment! AshLin (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't just make one big Insect morphology and physiology article and a section in insect called Insect morphology and physiology? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope will really be too big. Just wait, once the basic morphology/physiology is in, the really cool adaptations will creep in and the articles will swell! AshLin (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I recently discovered a full fledged Insect physiology already exists. Lesson of the Day - first check to see an article exists even if it has not been listed anywhere you would expect to find it! AshLin (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Collaboration template

Just so the members know, the collaboration template at the top of the WikiProject Insects page should be presented as follows:

  {{/Current|file=|px=|topic=|article=|review date start=|review page=}}  

The picture goes in the file parameter and the size in pixels goes in the px parameter. There can only be two choices for the topic parameter: [[WP:GA|good article]] or [[WP:FA|featured article]]. The article undergoing improvements goes in the article parameter. The date the GA review starts (or candidate for FP) goes in the review date start and the link to the review/nomination page goes in the review page. If the article is not yet undergoing review, the review date parameter is left empty.

Maybe we should have an instructions page? ZooFari 00:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure.. and thanks, it looks nice! So, about Lepodiptera, anyone specific wanna help with this one? Cause Ill be tackling a little tomorrow! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Count me in! I'm just waiting for someone to work with me. Don't know where to start! ZooFari 03:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Expect infrequent edits from this Wikipedia:WikiOgre! AshLin (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A really valuable resource for use! AshLin (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Any Help?

Is any one going to help me with Lepidoptera? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would love to help!...but after looking over the page and the like 200 changes you've already done I honestly think that you have it covered for the most part. I'll still look over it and try to help but the article is so much better already.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 08:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Insect ecology - from redirect to stub!

I have broken the redirect in Insect ecology and converted it into a stub. It has a single generic opening sentence in the lead. feel free to develop alongside your other articles. AshLin (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Important WikiProject Notice

 Done --ZooFari 04:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Unknown insect, Katni, MP, India

Please help me identifying this insect (around 5 cm long, attracted by light at night). Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's some sort of sawfly.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk --Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

Alright I'm wrong. I study Hymenopterans, but my friend (who is mostly interested in cockroaches) know what it was right away. It is a hymenoptera but it's actually an ant male of the genus Dorylus. He said the common name for the reproductive form like you have here is sausage fly. Confusing, but fun to ID.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 15:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with ant articles

User:Gsautter (contribs) has created many ant species articles by copy-pasting from sources like this, which claims that "No known copyright restrictions apply." I'm not sure that is sufficient to satisfy WP:Copyright. However, even if copyright isn't an issue that articles are way too technical for Wikipedia. I have stubbed a couple of them down, but any help from people knowledgeable in this area would be greatly appreciated. Regards, PDCook (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be okay. See Plazi. AshLin (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK that is reassuring regarding the copyright issues, but the articles still need a lot of work. PDCook (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced these are legit with respect to copyright. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Direct copies of species descriptions from external website and please participate there; we could use a few more eyes on this problem. Kingdon (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Help requested for species of horse fly in Chile

I recently created the page Scaptia lata to accompany a photo taken on a recent trip of mine. A Google search found some relevant information and photos to tentatively identify the species. I found no authoritative sources to identify the species, however, and my identification, although probably correct, could be in error. The article could use the attention of an expert on flies. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about flies, but I know user Simuliid has made a lot of articles on flies. Maybe he can help you out..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unid beetle from Northeast India

Could anybody identify this beetle? prashanthns (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A bug actually ! A Scutelleridae - may be something near Scutellera nobilis. Shyamal (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for pointing out. A quick google search reveals that it seems to be bugging Jatropa curcas a lot! Most of the Scutellera nobilis seem to be green on top. This one is blue on top with red/orange below. Thanks. Will wait and see if anybody else wants to have a hand at the species id. prashanthns (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of confusion results due to misidentified specimens of Chrysocoris stolli. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Img renamed as scutellarid bug for now. prashanthns (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New bug article: Gargaphia solani

I have created a start-ish article on this species today. I have put it up for DYK; it still might need a little work so if anyone wants to add to it or provide feedback please do. I can't find an image for it which is a pity. I saw only a few online and none were freely licensed (and tracking down copyright holders for the other images is not worth the effort). I'm disappointed I had to put it in Category:Hemiptera; I thought we would have had deeper categories than order level but apparently we are that under-resourced when it comes to insects :( Richard001 (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a Spanish translator

I have just received several entomological articles from Argentina that contain original species descriptions in Spanish. Many of these species have never been described in English. I was hoping to find someone fluent in Spanish who could help me translate some of these descriptions for Wikipedia articles. Some of the descriptions are only a couple paragraphs long, so it would not require a huge commitment. For the longer descriptions, I would be willing to pay someone for the work. A passing understanding of arthropod anatomy would also be a plus. (For example, someone who could figure out that "ojos medios anteriores" means "anterior median eyes" not "eyes means listed above".) Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a Dragonfly

Anyone here got any idea what this is, please? File:BlueDragonflyInTheGrass20070521.jpg Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I wont be able to help, but someone who might would need the location you took the picture and possibly the time (what month of the year). Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I can help a little. First off, it's not a dragonfly, it's a damselfly. Second, if you want any more information than that it can get pretty tricky. If it's a common and easily identified damselfly, someone who knows off-hand may be able to help you. If it is not, you probably won't be able to find out what it is (that's vague by the way, do you want to know what species it is, or perhaps what its genus is or maybe what its common name is?).--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you took this picture in North-America, you can try Bug Guide: http://bugguide.net/node/view/15740 Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea where it was taken, folks - I didn't take it! Just thought it'd be more useful if it had a species! Colds7ream (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello people, it's defenitely a damselfly (I think we established that), but most likely a male Ebony Jewelwing (Calopteryx maculata). As the specimen is missing the white spot found on female wings. Hope that helped :) Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! :-) Unless there's any conflicting opinions, I'll update the image description accordingly. Colds7ream (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup at WikiProject Arthropods and the need to re-appropriate Insect articles

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Cleanup listing at WikiProject Arthropods features a large number of insect taxa and related articles. At present only two of us are cleaning up over there. We could sure use some hands over there, folks.

• Never knew it existed - thanks. Heds (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to change the wikiproject banner of insect articles to WikiProject Insects - after the article is cleaned up of course.

AshLin (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As in changing it to the insect banner FROM the arthropod ones?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 17:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyclommatus

There doesn't appear to be any central page for Cyclommatus, and even the species wiki doesn't have a page for Cyclommatus metallifer ([1]).

I left Cyclommatus metallifer as a redirect to Lucinadae for now, but it would be nice if you guys could start a page for it. Thanks!Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a page on jawiki: [2].Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, Dorcus hopei binodulosus.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a bee species

Hello. I am looking for the bee who made this honey. Can anyone help? Thanks a zillion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wild honey comes from a number of different species, all of which should be covered at the article honey bee. --innotata 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks very much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I went through every honey bee article and none describe underground hives and honey that is like rock. Is there any other insect that makes honey or huge, 40-pound disks of yellow sugar under the ground? If I can find out what makes this, then I can really improve the article. Thanks to anyone who can help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of the underground honey, though I have heard of all sorts of strange wild honey bees in Asia. --innotata 01:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For those who didn't follow what happened to the article: There is no such thing. It was a hoax.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Grading scheme

The project page section on article grading still links to the arthropods grading table, which now doesn't pick up insect artcles whose project tag changed. I presume this was intentional, so is someone creating a new script to report on the grading status of insect articles? Heds (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A related question: does WikiProject Insects have a table of Insect article statistics? If so, where is it displayed? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sting Pain Index Scale merge

(Regarding Starr sting pain scale vs. Schmidt Sting Pain Index)

Hi. I'm wondering if anyone has input on the merge suggestion at Talk:Starr sting pain scale. I've tried searching the various google indices, but could not find any conclusive evidence of which system the broader professional entomological community uses. Feedback or insight would be appreciated. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Need ID on photos

Can anyone help ID these photos, all on commons, please respond on my talk or on the commons photo page in question:

File:UnknownInsect.jpg File:UnknownBeetle.jpg File:UnknownLizardA.jpg File:UnknownLizardB.jpg

Thanks, -- Rlevse o Talk o 01:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Entomology

I was about to add some more content to Portal:Entomology, when I thought it might be better (more intuitive, simpler, more like other portals) if it were called Portal:Insects. Before undertaking a wholesale shift of all the relevant pages, I thought I'd check here first, in case anyone had an objection that I hadn't foreseen. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You have my vote. AshLin (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've been bold and moved it. I've also added some content (up to 44 DYK entries and 7 selected images, with plenty more available in both cases). The layout is more or less what I started with, and is not something I hold a strong opinion on. I think it's for the members of this project to decide what material is best suited to the portal. In the meanwhile, you might consider adding {{Portal|Insects}} (see right) to articles or, conceivably, to {{WikiProject Insects}}, as some other projects do. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! Now we need some people actually making some articles, it seems there aren't a lot of people interested in making insects related articles at all. Maybe this nice portal will help! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

help

one of the common dragon flies pictured in Tamil Nadu. --CarTick 12:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

guess i found the answer, Orthetrum sabina. unless another similar looking exists. --CarTick 13:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

look over this article

I just created a new stub (my first) and thought sombody had better check over it and check i haven't done anything stupid. Pyrgomorphoidea. I wasn't even sure if I should have created Pyrgomorphoidea since it has only one family, should I have just created the family page? Benjamint 05:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be at Pyrgomorphidae, but don't worry, it's not wasted effort, because we can move the article and just reword it slightly afterwards (see WP:TX for the background on article naming for monotypic taxa). Families and above shouldn't be written in italics, but again, that's easily fixed. The only other comment I would make is that ZipCode Zoo is not a very reliable source. Google Books can often provide some worthwhile references (Wikipedia prefers printed sources), or if you have to revert to the primary literature, Google Scholar. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sciomyzidae

Hello nice insect folks, I arrived at this fly article via a link from a slug article, and I noticed that two of the genus name needed disambiguating because they linked to irrelevant articles. One is Elgiva and the other is Limnia. Right now I have left them disambig'ed as Elgiva (Diptera), Limnia (Diptera), but perhaps you use something like Elgiva (fly) instead??? Sorry, I would not have changed them if I had more than half my brain in gear, but I was 100% in gastropod mode and unthinkingly disambig'ed them as gastropods (!) so I felt I had to try to do it better than that! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Atta columbica vs. Atta colombica

I can't figure out which is right. Google likes columbica a zillion to one. Other sources claim the opposite. Li'l help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, Acromyrmex lundii or Acromyrmex lundi? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so. If you limit Google to relevant articles by placing "Atta columbica" in quotes, Atta colombica wins by 19,000 to 5,000. Since that matches all the sources you have used in the article, this seems like a clear-cut case. Acromyrmex is harder to judge. It would depend, ultimately, on who or what the epithet commemorates. If it's named after a man called Lund, then it should be A. lundii (from the Latinised form of his name, "Lundius"), but if it's named after the city of Lund, then it should probably be A. lundi. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably named after Peter Wilhelm Lund. I can't find the original description online--it may be somewhere in this set, on a p. 206, but I can't locate it--but all taxonomic sources I could find say lundii is the original spelling (for example, this). Ucucha 12:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Stemonitis: I'm sold. I'll request the move.

Ucucha: I guess it doesn't need changing.

Many thanks to both of you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about requesting that move: I did it three days ago... --Stemonitis (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. I saw it right after I last posted but was having trouble connecting and couldn't reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Horntail is original research / first person. Needs cleanup.

Horntail is original research / first person, violating Wikipedia standards.

Tagged "may require cleanup / Please improve" since April 2009.

-- 187.105.7.193 (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dragonfly ID needed

Thanks Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Insects articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Insects articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (?) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help this new user

I am helping a new user get acquainted with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, however, he is working on insect articles which I don't know much about. I was hoping someone here could take a look at his work, see here. Long term coaching in this area, or adding the user's talk page to your watchlist would be fantastic. Thanks in advance. AaronY (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia