Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods

Please help to check if my edit is proper.

Hello!

I'm a devotee of predatory arthropods and I'm new to here. I did a large-scale edit on the article of Peruvian giant centipede. Please have a look on it to see if my edit is proper or valid.

Cheers!

17:31, 17 June 2012‎ User:Toxic Walker (UTC)

Portal image

I propose changing the portal icon for Portal:Arthropods in the Portal template from Cercophonius squama.jpg to Butterfly icon (Noun Project).svg. The former may be a featured picture, but at these resolutions it's an unrecognizable blob. The latter is a clean, recognizable icon.

→
I originally suggested this as a template-protected edit request, hence the quoting, but I was told to establish consensus for the change first. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The pinned-style butterfly image is too abstract in my opinion, invites too many secondary meanings that scorpions don't have. I think a side-on view displaying both one of the wings and the segmented body would demonstrate the distinguishing features of arthropods much better. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A graphic trace of something like this, this, this, or one of these would essentially be what I'm talking about. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The first three would be worse than the scorpion at these sizes; a crop of the last one could work. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I just meant a trace of the silhouette, not the image itself. Orchastrattor (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see; my apologies. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

How typical of an arthropod is the butterfly? I think the image needs to show the jointed legs. An overhead view of a scorpion (), insect () or spider () might do. I found these examples with a quick look at various articles, so better examples should be available. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Maxillopoda

Maxillopoda used to be a article on a (non-monophyletic and now unaccepted) class of crustaceans, but was converted to a redirect to Crustacean in December 2022. However, the Crustacean article still links to "Maxillopoda" in both the Classification and phylogeny and Fossil record sections, which results in the article linking to itself via a redirect. Furthermore, the Crustacean article doesn't seem to adequately explain what Maxillopoda even is or was, in terms of what taxa it included. It wasn't until I looked back to the last version of the "Maxillopoda" article before it was turned into a redirect (here) that I learned anything meaningful about the taxon. This does not seem ideal at all to me.

So, I'm wondering: wouldn't it be better if Maxillopoda was restored as an article, but converted into an Obsolete arthropod taxa category article like Thysanura? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The change of the Maxillopoda article to a redirect was part of a much larger overall review of several crustacean articles discussed here. The Maxillopoda article was particularly vague and couldn't even describe what features (synapomorphies) were distinctive to that taxon. Loopy30 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Loopy30 I see, I was not aware of that review, thank you. But still there remains the issues of the circular redirect, and where a description of Maxillopoda (including its synapomorphies, if it actually had any) actually should go in the end, since a description does not exist at the Crustacean article currently. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Maxillopoda was a widely used taxon for some time and still appears in some non-scientific works. A comprehensive encyclopaedia should have an entry, even if it just explains the history and why it is no longer used, and where it's component child taxa are now classified. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It turns out one of the Maxillopoda links in the Crustacean article shouldn't have been there anymore anyway: the table of classes in Crustacea used to list Maxillopoda there (including Mystacocarida and Branchiura) until an IP editor significantly edited the table two years ago, and nobody corrected or edited out the text above the table referring to Maxillopoda. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible Renaming of Category:Anomalocaridids to Category:Radiodonta

Anomalocarididae is an outdated term, now only used for Anomalocaris and Lenisicaris. As the correct term for the group containing (the current definition of) Anomalocarididae, Amplectobeluidae, Hurdiidae/Peytoiidae and Tamisiocarididae is now Radiodonta, I suggest this category be renamed. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Anthogona Britannica

Apparently there is a millipede called Anthogona Britannica which is endemic to the British Isles. It doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Can we change this? Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Anthogona britannica, note capitalisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)