Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods/Archive 5

Hairy Lobster // Red reef lobster

The source article uses both term but either way it claim that this is the first live specimen found off Western Australia specifically near Dongara, Western Australia Gnangarra 09:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess this is Enoplometopus occidentalis, but until someone explicitly gives a scientific name, it won't be easy to be certain. There are quite a few species in the Enoplometopidae. (I really need to update reef lobster to include Hoplometopus, too.) --Stemonitis (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ok I'll wait for info to become available and once its on display I'll go get some pictures Gnangarra 10:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd, drastic jump in article traffic

Page views for Arthropod and Insect quickly doubled in the first week of March 2010, and have sustained that high level of traffic as of May 2010. The trend can be seen at http://emw.ath.cx/wikistats/?p1=DNA&p2=Insect&project=en&from=12/10/2007&to=5/21/2010&plot=1. Notice that other high-traffic articles, like DNA, don't show a similar spike. I can't think of a cause for this. What are others' thoughts? Emw (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Spider and Crustacean have also remained constant, FWIW. Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox

Since mid-2008 I've developed a set of tools and techniques that I've used in editing and reviewing articles - including stuff I've found hard to find from WP "official" sources. You might want to copy it from User:Philcha#Tools to somewhere in WP:Arthopod: userboxes don't live for ever; and your project should update your copy from the experiences from its members. I hope you find this helpful. --Philcha (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

At the moment, Mompha raschkiella has a picture of a leaf that has been mined by caterpillars in the taxobox. Can one of you find a picture of the actual moth? Also, where are good places to find free use images for insects? Joe Chill (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Arthropods to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR for article Krill

I have nominated Krill for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates for external links

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. --Snek01 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Italic titles (continued)

Recall this (now archived) discussion:

I found out yesterday that it is possible to italicise the main title of article of species and genuses - like on this article Thalassina for example (I don't mean by using ''Thalassina''). There seem to be a lot of articles where this hasn't been done. It can be done by removing the "name" section from the taxobox - this doesn't change the taxobox at all but does change the article's title. The diff for doing this to the above article is here if you're not sure what I mean. Hope this is useful! Smartse (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap! How'd you do that.....there are an awful lot of plant and fungus articles in that category...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I found that {{italictitle}} can also be used on pages such as Homo (genus) or if the name in the taxobox is a common name. Good isn't it! Smartse (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that project memebers discuss and settle on a single approach. Please add your support and arguments for options here. If there is a clear preference, my intention would be to use AWB to make bulk changes. Heds (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What if you create a bot that can do it? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to detect if the lowest taxon level in a taxobox is below or at genus level and automatically include the title case alteration. That would reduce any work. Shyamal (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Have started adding {{italictitle}} to pages using AWB, running through the categories listed here. I am restoring "name =" to taxoboxes as I go. It's not as fast as a bot, but allows me to avoid ltalicising atricles with common name titles and to capture the majority of articles and apply other formatting changes that might be required. There wasn't a huge response, but what there was was supported. I decided to run with it finally because even though there are multiple ways to bring about the italic title, I think it is safer to use a tool designed for the purpose, rather than one co-opted to the purpose. Heds (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy editing, Heds, all the best! An unglamorous but vital task. AshLin (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I might be a little slow, but let me get this right, It is important to get scientific names to be in Italics, but before now they haven't been, correct? so now what has to be done is manually change every taxobox to have these scientific names in italics. Why can't bot can't do it, is the task too difficult? If this all has to be done manually then there is an extremely large task, for WikiProject LIfe. --JamesDouch (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Some are correct, some aren't. For example, none within Category Lepidoptera were correct. In other categories, all are fine. It seems to be dependent on who's writing articles; their familiarity with convention and agreed Wikipedia policies. If a bot can do this, great. I don't have the skills to write one. But one thing I've noted in doing this manually (but with AWB to speed it up (takes about 10 minutes to do 100 articles)), is that editor discretion is required. For example, articles with common name titles clearly don't require italicising. If a bot can detect the difference between common and binomial names, that'd be great, but I can't imagine how.

Can't it just detect, as {{Taxobox}} does, whether the article title is identical to one of the fields in the taxobox? There won't be many cases (possibly not any) where the name appears in the taxobox, but is actually a vernacular name. I think a bot request should be pretty straightforward. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea re detection - out of my understanding. Having never made a bot request, would you mind making, which I can follow and learn from? Doing this by AWB has enable me to do a few other cleaning up, such as bold and italic markups within taxoboxes and lead-ins, so I don't mind the manual approach. That said, a bot running to tidy up new article titles would be a good thing. To date I have come across many articles with a scientific name for the article, and vernacular against "name =", if that's what you mean. Heds (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Progress is here.

I've never made a bot request, either, but I can look into it during the week. I think the code at {{Taxobox}} checks if the article title is the same as any of the "genus=", "species=", "binomial=" fields. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot requested

I have made a bot request here. If you see ways to improve the request, please do so (yes, it occurs to me now that I could have sought comments on it here first!). Heds (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with identification?

Hello. I've got two pictures here of an insect I found the other day on my kitchen counter. It's not a kind I've been able to identify from my books and my Googling, so I'd appreciate any hints anyone can provide. I know the photos aren't the highest quality, but hopefully they're good enough.

• 
• 

Kinda cute, isn't it? I'm guessing Diptera, but I can't figure anything more specific than that. Thanks in advance for any pointers. Oh, I'm in Denton, Texas, and it's June. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems more like Hymenoptera. Possibly Sphecidae Evaniidae - check with User:Dyanega Shyamal (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Compare http://bugguide.net/node/view/197758/bgimage http://bugguide.net/node/view/14267/bgimage (incidentally these do a good job of keeping cockroaches in check- as these are parasitoids of their eggs) Shyamal (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

After researching a bit and comparing lots of pictures, I think it was an Evania appendigaster in my kitchen. Knowing now that it kills cockroach eggs, I'm happy I didn't kill it. That's a friendly hymenopteran, and the first parasitoid wasp on my list. Thanks very much! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken link in Ostracod article

FWIW--the second link in the references section of the Ostracod article leads to a "page not found" page for me...I don't know how to track down the new url, if there is one, so don't want to mess with the edit myself.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C'est ma (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't see any similar content on their website, so I assume the page has been taken down. Thanks for letting us know; I have now removed the link. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Arthropods 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 Arthropods 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 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Eurypterida taxonomy inconsistencies

A number of pages about Eurypterida have two different classifications – one in the taxobox and one under the section header "Genera". I know absolutely nothing about these animals, but hopefully someone at this project can fix it. Here are the pages I found (there might be more): Rhenopteridae, Pterygotidae, Mixopteridae, Carcinosomatidae, Eurypteridae, Dolichopteridae, Megalograptidae, Mycteropidae, Stylonuridae. I only discovered this after inserting a taxobox in Stylonurina, so this box might be wrong too. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Spider ids?

Any help with id of these two spiders from Western Ghats? File:Unknown western ghats spider 1.JPG prashanthns (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Arthropods

I've been tinkering with Portal:Arthropods for some time now, and I think it's in reasonable shape. I'm sure there is still plenty of room for improvement, however, and I'd welcome suggestions about what else could be included. I have tried to keep the content fairly well balanced between the different constituent taxa, down-weighting those groups that have their own, separate portals (i.e. insects and crustaceans), but I've mostly just copied the form from the two existing arthropod portals, without employing much imagination. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New article in WikiProject

• Arthropods associated with sloths. AshLin (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! It's already good enough for a DYK entry. Do you plan to expand it further? If not, one of us can get on with nominating it, but if you will expand it even more over the next few days, then we can hold off until it's more or less complete. I think just the fact that there are moths specialised on living in sloth fur is astonishing enough for DYK. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Galeodes

A Galeodes sp.

I just noticed that this is used for a mollusc. Does anyone know if the name used for the solifuge (sole genus in family Galeodidae) is invalid ? Shyamal (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The spider genus is valid according to ITIS. The mollusc genus was renamed in 1817 to Melongena. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, have modified the page. Shyamal (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F

You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F --Philcha (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The redirect to sexual intercourse was restored. Please see follow-up discussion at Talk:Sexual intercourse#Article is overwhelmingly dominated by human sex. Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Merostomata and Eurypterida

Discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#Eurypterida - Class or Order (Please reply there, not here)

Wikispecies currently separates Merostomata from Eurypterida which has been promoted to Class status and attested by recent revisions. Please share your thoughts and opinions, I will start revising taxoboxes and whatnot soon.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Food web

Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any relevant contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive

I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include several about Arthropods . Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

4000th article

WikiProject Arthropods has just reached a milestone – our 4000th article! We haven't had so many since WikiProject Insects separated in April last year, at which point we were left with fewer than 2,500 articles. That increase equates to 40% growth per annum. The 4000th article was Branchinecta longiantenna – an endangered fairy shrimp from California – written by User:IceCreamAntisocial. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the state of the project's articles. None of the top-importance articles are below a B rating, none of the high-importance articles are below a C, or mid-importance below start-class. A mere 28 articles (0.7%) are tagged as needing cleanup (since "potentially dated" is not necessarily a sign of anything wrong), which is far lower than any comparable project I've seen. Aside from creating new content, which I am sure will continue, the one place where we could most improve is probably increasing the amount of recognised content. In May 2010, we had four Featured Articles, and now we only have two, although User:Sasata and others are working on restoring coconut crab to FA status. We have a featured portal, but no featured lists. We have 14 good articles, but rather biased representation: the only species-level good article which is not a crustacean is Andreacarus voalavo. It would be good to get some myriapods, trilobites and others up to that standard. If anyone has any suggestions of articles that they think are already good enough, or which could be with a little attention, please suggest them here (or directly at Wikipedia:Good article nominations). --Stemonitis (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Glossary - Crustacea

Hi! I'm searching a glossary/dictionary about Crustaceae. I'm aware of Holthuis book (An annotated and illustrated catalogue of marine lobsters known to date - here), which includes a glossary... Is there anything similar on the Internet? Here in the WP? Thanks! --92.195.3.220 (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Holthuis (1991) is available in a more web-friendly electronic format, including the glossary. There is also a very good resource maintained by Joel W. Martin of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, available here (usually; it seems to be offline for the moment). --Stemonitis (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I also found this one (Glossary - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). Not sufficient. For example, "branchia" is missing... ok maybe I have to write one by myself. A Glossary of botanical terms exists here; sadly no counterpart for crabs. Regards! --92.195.59.4 (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox

Hey! Why don't we use {{Automatic taxobox}}? It's the future! In Paleontology Project voted for changing their old taxoboxes for these others. 193.152.188.114 (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It moves the article content away from the articles themselves and allows single edits to propagate errors over vast numbers of articles, for starters. All its benefits can be achieved by other means. It's not the future, it's an alternative. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Allows single edits to correct errors over vast numbers of articles. 88.19.142.189 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, "propagate". In what circumstances do we have errors spread over vast numbers of articles? There may be out of date information, but not outright errors of the sort than vandalism produces; that's not at all the same thing. The problem you mention is one that simply doesn't exist. You cannot prevent errors in the taxonomic templates from vandalism and well-meaning but incompetent editors without adding page protection to the templates, and thus making it harder or impossible for unregistered users (such as yourself) to contribute. There are benefits to automatic taxoboxes, but as far as I can see, they are seriously outweighed by the disadvantages. Almost no-one finds them easy to use, which will be an enormous discouragement to new editors, and any changes to large numbers of articles can already be handled by the existing mechanism of bot requests. I think the restriction of taxonomic editing to a handful of cognoscenti is likely to produce a particularly unfortunate kind of elitism. There is nothing wrong with the existing taxoboxes, which are flexible and fairly readily understood (although even they are much too complex for uninitiated users). There is simply no need for conversion to an alternative system, even if it were thought to be beneficial. Which it isn't. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Arrow crab

Please see the image at Hydroid: Is arrow crab Stenorhynchus seticornis or Hyastenus bispinosus? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if the name "arrow crab" is used for both species (and possibly several others as well), but the primary use does seem to be S. seticornis. I've added a hatnote there to the second candidate. If others crop up, that hatnote can be changed to point to a full disambiguation page, listing all the creatures sometimes known as "arrow crab". Common names for crustaceans are rarely reliable. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Whale lice

Is Cyamus boopis the same as Paracyamus boopis? Please see: [1] and [2], [3], [4]

Thanks for any help you can offer. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same species. Hurley says so on page 64, and it also appears to be stated in Margolis (1954) (doi:10.1139/f54-020). That said, the genus Paracyamus doesn't seem to be in use any more; Margolis (1955) (doi:10.1139/f55-009) makes it a "direct synonym" of Cyamus. (In both cases, I've only seen what Google will show, or what's in the abstract.) This does mean, however, that any information on the species' biology can be included from papers dealing with "Paracyamus boopis", and Cyamus boopis could happily take some expansion. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you once again. :) I got confused searching for refs to expand the article. This is good news because there are those nice drawings I can add to external links section. Cheers! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrimps and prawns

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shrimp#Caridea, Dendrobranchiata, Shrimp and Prawns. Does the term shrimp refer to a taxon or to a common name, and what is the scope of the shrimp and prawn articles? – Epipelagic (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you help me identify some bug?

Hi. I'm usually not really interested in finding out the names and details of random species i encounter (birds, insects, shrubs, etc), but i found this particular one a bit unusual (it looked as if it had 5 antennae): image at TinyPic. Besides simply being curious about it, a second reason for which i want to identify this is to see if its article and/or the relevant commons categories have better images, because if they don't i intend to upload this to commons. :) TYIA. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Brevipalpus phoenicis

Hello. Could someone please take a look at Brevipalpus phoenicis#Moulting. Is the stylet visible? Is it feeding or just hanging on? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Help identify a Geophilomorpha caterpillar?

Name me!

Hi all, tonight I shot a caterpillar in my bathtub and I'm 90% sure it's Geophilomorpha, but trying to narrow down the species a bit. I have a detailed shot at File:Geophilomorpha in bathtub.jpg, detail of head at File:Geophilomorpha in bathtub - detail of head.jpg. It was about 3-5cm and has about 70 segments, far more than I've ever seen on a caterpillar before. Any help is appreciated! Dcoetzee 12:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

List of eurypterids deletion

I've nominated the page for deletion due to it being outdated and currently conflicting with a newer system in the main Eurypterid article. Comments appreciated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eurypterids.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Centipede number of legs

Does anyone have a suggestion on adding to centipede articles (articles on a family/genus/species of centipede) an infobox with several facts, one of which is the number of legs full-grown member of the species has?? Some things to know are:

The Wikipedia article Centipede reveals that the number of legs will always be divisible by 2 but not by 4. This rules out any multiple of 4 (including the popular 100.) The article mentions 5 orders:

• Scutigeromorpha (usually 30)
• Lithobiomorpha (usually 30)
• Craterostigmomorpha (not mentioned)
• Scolopendromorpha (usually 42 or 46)
• Geophilomorpha (usually 54 or more)

Georgia guy (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The number of legs should certainly be included in the article, but I don't think it's helpful to put it in an infobox, especially not a new infobox. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Centipedes are popularly known to have 50 legs, not 100. You may be thinking of millipedes, which are popularly thought to have 1,000 legs. LaesaMajestas (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Caridina cf. cantonensis var. blue tiger

Is this page within the scope of your work? If so, what should I do to include it in your project?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caridina_cf._cantonensis_var._blue_tiger LaesaMajestas (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Larry the Lobster

The usage of Larry the Lobster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Larry the Lobster (Saturday Night Live) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo available for Pagurus acadianus

Hi, I am really new here, and haven't got a clue how to do much of anything. I have a photo of my son (hands) holding two Pagurus acadianus. I was thinking it would make a good addition to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagurus page. It was taken at Burntcoat Head Park in the Fundy Basin. you can contact me to get the photo, or walk me through the steps to add it. Thanks, Delibread (27.07.2113) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delibread (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glomeridesmida

Hello Arthropod experts! This new article for review at Afc may be of interest to you. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's accepted now. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

electron microscope images

Hi All

I'm the Wikipedian in Residence at the Natural History Museum in London. I've been offered a small amount of time for someone to take electron microscope images of entomology specimens in the collection. What would be the most wanted images? Given the size of our collection we will probably have a specimen of most species you' d like. If you reply on my talk page in the few days that would be really good. Feel free to request images that have already been suggested, it will help me get an idea of the most wanted ones.

Thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that I've nominated Lists of Salticidae species for deletion as I believe the list is unmanageable (with over 5000 species) and redundant (since we already have List of Salticidae genera and species lists under each genus article). Please add your comments to the deletion debate. Thank you! Kaldari (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of spiders by country

Category:Spiders of Metropolitan France has been proposed for upmerge. Members of this project are welcome to join the discussion at CFD. DexDor (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for article reviewers

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to archived thread updated. JohnCD (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Isopoda

I have been expanding the article Isopoda and wondered about the classification of the group. My Invertebrate Zoology divides them into 9 suborders, ITIS has 10, BugGuide has 5 and WoRMS has 11. I will go with WoRMS unless anyone suggests differently. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 12/06

Draft:Caridina Cantonensis sp. Crystal Red. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Palaeocharinus

This article is being discussed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaeocharinus. It seems to be a valid encyclopedic topic. Any chance for improvements? Thanks for any help. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Page views

Monarch butterfly has been viewed 100,247 times in the last 90 days. See it here: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Monarch%20butterfly

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages for Arthropods

The talk pages for Arthropods should have {{WikiProject Arthropods|class=stub|importance=low}}<nowiki/> and not <nowiki>{{WikiProject Arthropods|Stub|low}} so the appropriate categories appear at the bottom of the page. Using {{WikiProject Arthropods|Stub|low}} means that the article shows the assessment but the categories at the bottom of the talk page do not show the class or importance. This Arthropods project should clarify this situation, and the template page should, too.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Genus names with parenthetical disambiguation

There seems to be disparity and inconsistency across animal article titles when the genus is a disambiguated title and there is no common name (e.g. Larisa (genus), Adela (moth)), and Carnarvonia (fossil)). Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)#Genus names with parenthetical disambiguation for discussion of whether a new naming guideline should inform animal titles. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Beetles

Who is interested in beetles? If you are, please join WikiProject Beetles now! To join, go to the section "Participants" and just add your name there. Gug01 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Horseshoe crab taxonomy

I recently updated the taxobox on Mesolimulus to be consistent with that of Limulidae. However, I notice that the latter taxobox is inconsistent with that of Xiphosura. It seems that Merostomata is now discouraged as a class. Could somebody help me sort this out? Then we can go and fix all limulid taxoboxes to be consistent. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeking access to an article in Arachnologisches Magazin

I've been working on expanding the article Ralph Vary Chamberlin, a prolific spider and myriapod taxonomist, and just thought I'd put out a request for anyone that might have access to the German publication Arachnologisches Magazin, which only appears in a few libraries on WorldCat (none of them in the United States).

• "Beruehmte Arachnologen: Ralph Vary Chamberlin, 1879-1967. [Famous arachnologists: Ralph Vary Chamberlin, 1879-1967.]". Arachnologisches Magazin (in German). 9 (5): 11–12. 2001. ISSN 0944-8667. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

If anyone has or could obtain the above article, or any other secondary sources that cover aspects of Chamberlin's research/life, and could email me a scan or photocopy, I would be very much appreciative. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Update, Disregard this, I've obtained a copy. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, FYI Ralph Vary Chamberlin is now a Good Article nominee. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Eucteniza (spider) GA nominee

FYI, Eucteniza is a Good article nominee. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Need help with accessing obscure primary sources.

Take a look at this page: Armadillidium

Many of the species links are red because these primary sources are highly obscure and hard to find. How can I access them for more info? MDaxo (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@MDaxo: A good place to find obscure literature is the Biodiversity Heritage Library (http://biodiversitylibrary.org/). Google Book search can also be helpful.--Animalparty! (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: So using this article (Armadillidium klugii) as an example, how can I find the original source from Brandt (Johann Friedrich von Brandt) that identifies the species? What about finding drawings of it, since there don't seem to be any photographs? Would like to read this: BRANDT, I. (1833): Conspectus Monographiae Crustaceorum Oni- scodorum Latreillii. – Byulleten moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispŷtateleĭ Prirodŷ MDaxo (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found that particular source online, but this paper lists Armadillidium albanicum and A. inflatum as taxonomic synonyms of A. klugii (different names for the same species), so searching BHL yields more sources: (http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/name/Armadillidium_albanicum) and (http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/name/Armadillidium_inflatum) which may have more info or images. I assume you're looking for photographs or drawings in the public domain (can be posted to Wikimedia Commons), otherwise Schmalfuss's 2013 "Revision of the Armadillidium klugii-group (Isopoda: Oniscidea)" has several diagrams and photographs. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There are also some illustrations of A. klugii, and Latrodectus tredecimguttatus in: Levi, H. W. (1965). An unusual case of mimicry. Evolution, 261-262. JSTOR requires subscription or institutional access, but I think you can get a limited free subscription. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images"

Please see discussion at Category talk:Wikipedia requested images by subject#Proposing to move this category and its children to "requested images (of/in ...)". Thank you for your time. JJ98 (Talk) 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

New Category:Penaeidae

While adding links to a marine biologist, I discovered a couple of articles which had been entered into a redlinked category. I have therefore created Category:Penaeidae as a sub-category of Category:Dendrobranchiata, populated it, and tagged its talkpage as belonging to this wikiproject. I hope this is helpful, DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong redirect?

I've just come across Pseudocandona pretneri which redirects to Typhlocypris cavicola. The genus is right, but should there be a separate page for Typhlocypris pretneri? Both cavicola and pretneri are listed on List of vulnerable arthropods. Le Deluge (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

While both species appear on the IUCN redlist, the RedList accounts for these species may be out of date: both Pseudocandona pretneri and Pseudocandona cavicola were last assessed in 1996, with the annotations "Needs updating". The two species appear to have been formally synonymized by Karanovic, 2005 (PDF p. 385: "Because of the similarity in valve shape, and because of the proximity of the localities where females and males were collected I here formally synonymize Pseudocandona pretneri with Typhlocypris cavicola (new synonomy)."), yet oddly this synonymy was not cited by Mori & Claude Meisch 2012, who list both but state "it appears that at least T. pretneri is a synonym with T. cavicola (Meisch & Mori, in preparation)", nor by Namiotko et al 2014, who state Typhlocypris pretneri is a comb. nov., and write: "Typhlocypris cavicola and T. pretneri are closely related species... The taxonomic status of both species should be checked after a careful redescription." From a simple Google Scholar search it seems there is a surprisingly large amount of research on this group, and perhaps there is a reason as-yet-unknown to me why the synonymy of Karanovic was not recognized: perhaps subsequent workers disagreed with the proposed synonymy, or maybe technicalities in publishing itself rendered it invalid? Since there are at are at least two hypotheses (distinct or synonymous species), the hypothesis with greater weight in literature (ideally secondary sources) should determine whether a separate article or redirect is warranted. In either case, a good article (or pair of articles) should discuss the different views. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

As you see fit - I'm not a specialist in this, I was just doing some work on redirects and thought it was worth flagging up to people who were in a position to make the call.Le Deluge (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about moving Antenna (biology)

There is currently a discussion at the antenna talk page about potentially moving "Antenna (biology)" to another page (such as "Arthropod antenna" or similar) to avoid confusion. Please comment if you have opinions on the matter. M. A. Broussard (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Families as plural

There has been a concerted effort recently, presumably by a single individual but from a range of IPs, to change the articles on a number of families under the aegis of the project from reading "Xxxxxxidae is a family ..." to "The Xxxxxxidae are a family ...". Although the word is grammatically plural in Latin, both normal usage in English and the majority of our family articles treat the word as singular, and such edits should therefore be undone, as far as I can see. I have tried to converse with the person doing it, hoping to get them to engage with the community better, but the changeable IP addresses make that difficult, and I have yet to receive a reply on any page. This patterns of editing is definitely something to look out for, and if anyone can elicit the motiviation behind the edits, I would be very interested to hear them. For now, though, it looks like persistent editing against the consensus. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this in a number of Hymenoptera-related articles I've run across recently. Perhaps they believe that the "technically correct" version is the version that should be on Wikipedia. I have to admit, though, that I personally agree with the general consensus of treating families as singular, and have been changing the language as I run across it. M. A. Broussard (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Portunus haanii

Portunus haanii should be Portunus gladiator, according to an extensive discussion in the Brachyura checklist by Ng et al. cited in Portunus ([see page 156-7 of this massive PDF]). However, Ng don't list as P. haanii as a synonym in the checklist entry for P. gladiator (on page 151). Additionally WoRMS has no record of Portunus haanii but lists Amphitrite haanii as a synonym of P. gladiator. P. haanii seems to be the name usually used in the fishing industry (and that name has been prominently linked in the crab meat article for years). I'm left wondering whether P. haanii has actually been published given it's absence in WoRMS and Ng's checklist (ironic, because Ng claim that the P. gladiator name has been avoided due to an unpublished potential homonym in Portunus based on Cancer gladiator). Any idea what's actually going on with P haanii? Plantdrew (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Artemia parthenogenetica

Any editing help would be appreciated on a draft article on Artemia parthenogenetica at Draft:Artemia parthenogenetica. Thanks. 2601:285:101:A67A:954D:D986:84B7:7F8B (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed, moved to article space and a few additions made. Good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the expert assist. 2600:380:5516:92A4:A2C1:81E4:CAD2:A591 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Huitaca boyacaensis is it a mite, or is it a harvestmen?

Experts on arachnids, mites, harvestmen, I have a question. I just created the article Huitaca boyacaensis‎ and the publication is available (found via wikispecies). I am not a biologist but looking at the photos in the publication the animal looks like a mite to me, not like a harvestmen (spider with long legs). Can anyone here help out? See also talk page of the article. Thanks and good day, Tisquesusa (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The suborder Cyphophthalmi, sometimes called "mite harvestmen", are definitely opilionids, i.e. harvestmen, but are rather different from other harvestmen. Animals that live inside leaf litter and similar habitats are usually much smaller than those that live on surfaces; compare goblin spiders with orb-weaver spiders. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Redundancies in the taxoboxes for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Venom of Scolopendra cataracta

Comment is invited at Talk:Scolopendra cataracta#Venom about the article section on the venom of the amphibious centipede Scolopendra cataracta. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - September - Arthropods

I've informed wikispecies, I inform you as well. This months on commons we have this challenge. You can upload some pictures or help with the categories and the description of pictures uploaded so far (not all the photographers are good biologist...). You can also vote starting from the 1st of October. Bye!--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Arthropods/Archive 5 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Arthropod species redirects nominated at RfD

A large number of redirects from the names species in the genus Engaeus to the article about that genus (e.g. Engaeus affinis → Engaeus) have been nominated at RfD. The Engaeus article is tagged by this project, so you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 21#Engaeus affinis. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)