Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods#Qbugbot, 20 sample pages

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)

: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)

::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)

::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)

:::This looks nice enough

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

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

Hello. As you can see from my post on this talk page, it appears that I have stumbled across a nomenclature error related to an arthropod. I've been trying to get in touch with an expert, but so far without luck. If anyone here could help me, I would much appreciate it. :User:An anonymous username, not my real name 18:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Competition proposal. Cremastra _talk 00:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I've created the page on the pelagic Baikal amphipod, but i've hit a snag as there remains some work to be done on expanding the sections that i couldn't do myself. Anyone interested in helping? Anthropophoca (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, Anthrophoca. I usually work with decapods, but I'll happily take a look at what's there so far (at a glance, it's really good!) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is a $100 prize for most nature articles destubbed or improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your project, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Panarthropoda and Tactopoda should not be used as parents to taxa. Because they are not definite clades. Jako96 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:IMO keep Panarthropoda, remove Tactopoda: as far as I was aware Panarthropoda is widely accepted as monophyletic, but the relationships of the taxa within it are still unsettled? Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree re Tactopoda – an article on this as a proposed taxon is justified, but not as a parent for Arthropoda. Panarthropoda seems to have more acceptance, e.g. by the Paleobiology Database. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think anything described as a "proposed clade" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22proposed+clade%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 there are 88 such articles with that exact phrase]) should be a parent in a taxobox. Either it's solidly accepted enough to drop the "proposed", or it is too speculative to be included as a parent. Plantdrew (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree with Plantdrew. Jako96 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::In the case of Panarthropoda, the problem is the term "proposed clade". This is sourced to a 2008 paper. A [https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Panarthropoda&hl=en&as_sdt=0%252C5&as_ylo=2020Google Scholar search] produces 1,560 hits, many of which clearly used the taxon in classification. It's clearly an accepted taxon for many sources, although its internal and external relationships are not uniformly agreed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::As an example, [https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/gbe/evae273 this 2024 paper] says that all their analyses "found support for the monophyly of Panarthropoda". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Hm, in the first place it seems Tactopoda was set as parent in Template:Taxonomy/Arthropoda without real consensus; from 2011 to 2013 it was Panarthropoda, with suitable refs added, then Special:Diff/567865328 changed it to Tactopoda and never changed the references (so it seems it was just arbitrarily asserted). This all took place before the protection level of the template was raised in 2016. Monster Iestyn (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I definitely support changing back to Panarthropoda. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There, made an edit request at Template talk:Taxonomy/Arthropoda based on this discussion. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{done}} The parent of Arthropoda is now restored to Panarthropoda. Monster Iestyn (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)