Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects#Numerous genus-level templates.3F

Hi, this isn't really my area of expertise, but I figured I'd ask here. I do work on WP:POKEMON and there's a bunch of insect articles that fall under our scope. Frankly, I have no clue how anything related to these articles works, so I'd appreciate advice on how to proceed with them. Normally I'd just check the guidelines, but given they're stubs that have debateable claims to notability, and the guidelines on the front of Wikipedia:INSECT are a bit unclear, I figured I'd ask here since I'm very uncertain on how best to proceed. Articles in question are Binburrum articuno, Binburrum moltres, Mazuca strigicincta, and Nocticola pheromosa. Any help with assessing these is greatly appreciated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Pokelego999 All species are presumed notable: WP:NSPECIES. Cremastra (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Cremastra I ask more in the sense of when a species should be made into an independent article, or when it should be merged to the parent species. Apologies about the confusion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, I see, sorry. Well in this case there's plenty of information and these articles are actually relatively good. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of insect articles like this one, so this set is relatively high quality. Cremastra (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::@Cremastra I mean, even so, they are still short stubs that at a glance don't have much coverage. Just because they're better than other short stubs doesn't necessarily mean they should be kept; it just means one is slightly less worse than another. Are there any general guidelines for a level of depth that would make it so a merge would be unwise? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::None of these are even very stub like. Besides, there's always scope for expansion. I don't think there are any insect-specific guidelines, and I would warn you that such proposed merges are almost always opposed, especially for relatively good articles such as these. Cremastra (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm collaborating with an expert at UN FAO on the Tsetse fly to create all the tsetse fly species articles, FAO have also released maps on distributions of these species which is very helpful. I wanted to check here about what are the rules about subspecies, I can't find anything but I assume there must be well established guidance on this.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

: See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Insects#Criteria_for_inclusion. In general subspecies don't get articles unless they are very well known (some mammals and plants). With insects, so many of the species articles are short stubs, I don't think the issue of subspecies having articles comes up often. I'd suggest putting all the subspecies information in the species article to start with and only consider splitting off subspecies if there is too much material for one article on the species.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|Jts1882}} thanks so much for your quick and clear reply. OK, I'll just put everything in the main species articles. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi again {{u|Jts1882}}, can I ask your advice about subspecies articles again? Would this draft meet the requirements of having its own article on the subspecies? User:John Cummings/Articles/Glossina fuscipes martinii, I'm finding quite a lot of info and it has quite a few references as well. Each of the other subspecies would have a simailar amount of info. Thanks for your advice. John Cummings (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:::: Personally I don't see any particular reason to go for subspecies articles here. The distribution paragraphs could be added to the distribution section of the species article without unbalancing the article. There is nothing on other biological aspects (description, life cycle reproduction, etc) that is subspecies specific. Keeping the information in one good article seems the better option in my opinion.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: Hi {{u|Jts1882}}, thank you for the advice, I really appreciate. John Cummings (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I just made a page for Synergus, and I'm not sure what's wrong with the taxo box. It looks like there is an existing Synergus template. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Fixed now. The article taxobox had a mix of parameters from both the manual (Taxobox) and newer automatic (Automatic taxobox) templates. The tribe name had to be added to the existing taxonomy template, and then the line "| display_parents = 2" to the new Automatic taxobox to show the tribe (which otherwise is not shown by default). Loopy30 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a long shot, but is anybody able to ID the insect in the images at Hygrotechuis conformis? I've figured out that the name is a misspelling of Hygrotrechus conformis, which is a synonym of Aquarius conformis, but that is an American species and the images were taken in Spain (our article appears to have been copied from :gl:Zapateiro (insecto)). Plantdrew (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:It looks very much like Gerris lacustris, the common European pond skater. Compare with the photo [https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/invertebrates/bugs/common-pond-skater here] or :File:Common Pond Skater. Gerris lacustris. Gerridae - Flickr - gailhampshire (1).jpg and others in :commons:Category:Gerris lacustris. However, most Gerridae species can't be reliably identified from photos (I'm doubtful of the identification to species level of Gerris photos in Commons). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 26 April 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 10:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Everything on the Project page from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Insects#Participants on down is in three columns and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Insects#Insect_classification_overview includes a navbox that overlaps with text in the next column. I can't figure out what is causing the columns, and they are present when I look at revisions from years ago; I know it wasn't always like this though. I don't think there is really a need for the navbox, and removing it would solve the worst problem, but I don't know how to solve the column issue overall. Plantdrew (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:It was do to mis-formed column mark-up on the participants subpage, I got it fixed.--Kevmin § 00:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)