Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Insects and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived 3 or more at a time by .

Acanthoxyla prasina - "the prickly stick insect" request for re-evaluation after re-write

We should have an article for stylus / styli

In a few of the most primitive insects (the Archaeognatha), the metasomal segments bear small, articulated appendages called "styli", which are often considered to be vestigial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasoma

Modern Archaeognatha and Thysanura still have rudimentary appendages on their abdomen called styli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_insects#Early_evidence

Etc - these are mentioned in about 10 existing articles.

Here's the existing disamb page for "stylus" / "styli" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylus_(disambiguation)

- ~2025-40964-19 (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Tables

I'm writing some paragraphs for Hypoponera punctatissima in hopes to expand the article and I'd like to feature the specific morphometric measurements of the ant. Could i use a table to present this information?

link to my sandbox FranticSpud (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's kind of a point with a table like that I'd be saying it might be drifting into WP:NOTJOURNAL territory rather than encyclopedic content. If I'm writing a species article, I'm usually avoiding technical WP:HOWTO information (and prose) on how an entomologist might identify the species. Usually it would be more generalized for an encyclopedic audience, but literature dealing with more specific ID could be cited for further reading. KoA (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AntWiki as a reference

Under the Resources section of the Ant task force subpage, AntWiki is said to be "good for finding references" which would imply it is not a reliable source to use. This has been seconded by another editor in the Teahouse when I asked about using AntWiki. However, I have seen in several articles AntWiki is used as a reference (Lasius genus, for example)

I'm confused as to the consensus surrounding AntWiki, and I think the wording of the ant task force subpage should be amended if AntWiki can be used as a reference, and tidying up the articles that do use it if it is unreliable.

Courtesy link to AntWiki's home page

Courtesy link to AntWiki's editing policies

Courtesy link to Wikipedia's reference policies

Im in a bit of a rush so sorry if this is hard to read or understand FranticSpud (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Antwiki runs into the problem of it being a wiki-style source, generally always to be avoided as a source. While it is closed site which only allows experts to contribute, I support the task force guideline of good for sourcing references, but not to be referenced as a stand alone, since any information ther SHOULD be cited and sourced to a peer reviewed or expert authored source already. That Lasius is using it should be fixed, it was one of only 6 edits performed by @Tboneboss99:.--Kev min § 17:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Karl Rost

The article Karl Rost has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Only passing mentions were found in searches of Google and Google books.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He's mentioned in Horn & Kahle, Ueber entomologische Sammlungen, Entomologen & Entomo-Museologie; roughly the same info. He's also with a few dozen valid species in GBIF. Seems unwise to delete. Kweetal nl (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive article on Grokipedia. While that is unusable, it can't all be AI hallucination, suggesting there is material somewhere. Probably borderline notability. — Jts1882 | talk 11:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed species?

Hi there! As I'm patrolling articles for NPP, I've noticed a few recently created articles for insects where the species may not be listed in common databases (e.g., Catalogue of Life or GBIF]] or sources seem sketchy, and I'm unable to find sources through Google Scholar. A source two is typically provided, though it's often over 100 years old. The age isn't necessarily a problem, but I'm curious if it's possible the species has since been renamed. Relevant articles include Machilis multispinosa, Machilis shiobarensis, Machilis oudemansi, and Machilis nipponica. I'd appreciate help from the community to help sort this issue out. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to TrueMoriarty as article creator. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look into it, I don't have too much time right now but I'll make an effort to. FranticSpud (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FranticSpud! No worries if you can't get to it quickly. I just wanted to put it out there so others who have more expertise in the area can look into it. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]