Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Arthropods 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.

Shortcut

WT:ARTH

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 4 months

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! User:Toxic Walker 17:31, 17 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Help for Corosalia article

Greetings, While working on Orphan articles (Category:Attempted de-orphan from April 2024), I found the Corosalia article. Asking for help to provide a Corosalia link in another article. My knowledge of insects is virtually zero, so I'm hoping another editor can get this done. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from it not being an insect (a minor point), the problem here is that the family it belongs to was recently completely reorganized, so the Wikipedia article on the subfamily that Corosalia used to belong to had over 100 genera removed and not re-added anywhere else in Wikipedia (as far as I can see). Corosalia is thus one of a large number of genera that no longer appear as links in any higher taxonomic rank articles. I'd be very surprised if there aren't a lot of harvestman articles that are now "orphaned" in this way. That's not going to resolve any way other than a new classification where all those genera can be assigned to subfamilies, unless you create a "List of Cosmetid genera" article that contains all of them and ignores the fact that most of them don't belong in a subfamily any more. Dyanega (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dyanega for explaining. Should the article just be PROD for now? It can always be "brought back" again in the future. I know Wikipedia encyclopedia is not a science textbook, so maybe remove the article. I am Okay with any course of action. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a valid one. I've added a list of genera unassigned to a subfamily to the family Cosmetidae article so Corosalia is unorphaned. The only other genus with an article is Abria which also is no longer an orphan. I've left the other genera redlinked, although they could be unlinked. — Jts1882 | talk 13:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thanks @Jts1882 for helping. I removed the orphan tag from Corosalia article. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improved Horseshoe Crab page to a good article

Just wanted to let you guys know that this vital article has been improved. It gets around 600,000 views (in the English version) each year, so yeah, definitely something important. RenaMoonn (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Acanthocephala terminalis article

There's a bit of a disagreement on the Talk:Acanthocephala terminalis page and I would appreciate if some more experienced editors could weigh in, specifically regarding the inclusion of some potentially self-published sources (1, 2, 3). I first brought this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects but did not receive any feedback, so I thought I would ask for some assistance here. Thank you. Ncb1221 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ovalipes catharus

Hey, fellow arthropod fan people. Yesterday and today, I spent some time cleaning up Ovalipes catharus because it was a complete mess. The sections on reproduction (student editor) and their relation to humans were fine, but the appearance, distribution, diet, and predators sections (seemingly contributed by one single-purpose editor in 2017) were mired in synthesis, outright misinformation, unintelligible nonsense, and high-school-essay-minimum-word-requirement-isms.

As I went through in a short period of time and rewrote basically half the article, I'm putting this here in case anyone wants to double-check my work and fill in any gaps I may have missed. I feel I did my my best to correct/reel in existing content and add new material, but I'm not a carcinologist and lack enough experience to feel fully confident in my work. This was done only as an emergency because of the egregious state of the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went overboard

Hi again. Following up from my previous post here: I've since improved Ovalipes catharus to good article status, and I've nominated it as a featured article. I'd be hugely appreciative if there's anyone here who's especially used to editing decapod articles (or marine biology ones in general) who could absolutely skewer me for all the things I probably did wrong at O. catharus but simply missed. Ultimately, I brought this to FAC as a stress test of the article's quality to improve it, not to get an easy award. Free barnstar for anyone who can find two (2) objectively incorrect things about the article as it exists at time you're reading this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. One thing, I think you typoed oxygeneios as oxygeneiosis

Perhaps also replace 'heavily influenced by' with 'strongly related to'

- Kweetal nl (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to consider that second one an objective mistake as the wording assumes cause and effect! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realizing now there's no such thing as a crustaceans barnstar yet. I hope you can wait on yours while I try my hand at making one. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks nice enough

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crustacean_barnstar.png Kweetal nl (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoooops. Well, uh, I guess I made a 2.0 version then. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]