Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

Requested move at Talk:Eburia stigmatica#Requested move 15 June 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eburia stigmatica#Requested move 15 June 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated images?

I don't have expertise in this project's subject area, but does anyone else think the user Eastolany's uploads to Wikimedia Commons look suspicious? Every one of this user's images of insects is in at least one Wikipedia article; there are too many to list. Eastolany has also uploaded some "infographics" (1, 2, 3) which are quite obviously at least partly AI-generated, but which have Exif data stating that they've been taken with a Nikon D300S camera – surely incorrect. The images of insects have similar Exif data. The earliest was uploaded in August 2023. Most of them have very brightly-coloured backgrounds, which could be an artistic choice by a photographer, if a rather strange one to my eyes. Ham II (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The insect photographs are not AI. You can find them sourced to the user's own website (http://daankal.com/). A quick glance on the internet archive shows dozens of these photos taken in the years before the advent of usable AI. (For one example, https://web.archive.org/web/20170507232123/http://www.daankal.com/). CoconutOctopus talk 19:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Ham II (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Repost: Taxonomy system priority

Which taxonomic library system takes the highest priority? I'm working on expanding the article for the Schistocerca lineata (I know, not an important article, but I'm having fun with it), and have recently acquired the leading book with information on the species, which can be found under the pages "further reading" section. On the Wikipedia page, S. lineata is stated to be a species from the genus Schistocerca. However, according to this book, S. lineata is actually considered a subspecies of the species Schistocerca alutacea, which is in turn a species from the genus Schistocerca. But, no taxonomical library online shares this view. Should I change the article to reflect the book, or should I keep it as is agreed upon by most taxonomical libraries?

Schistocerca lineata LabraxPetasius (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The age of a source is an important factor. How old is the book? It's possible either the book or the databases are simply outdated. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked at the further reading section and saw that the book is from 1974. Without reading any other sources, I think it's highly likely that S. lineata has since been raised to a species in its own right and the book is out of date. Maybe one of the sources listed at Orthoptera Species File can tell you when that happened. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into that. Can I still use the book as a reference for expanding the article? LabraxPetasius (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Sources can be dated on one thing and reliable for another. But if you can find a more recent source that says the same thing, it might be best to cite that instead. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I found the paper that raised it to species level. It happened in 2004. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh thank you! I'll also look into that paper as a possible source to cite for the article, assuming I can get access to it. LabraxPetasius (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have any trouble with that, you can make a request at WP:RX. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Scratch that, you can read it at ResearchGate. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4)

The new Orthoptera Species File (OSF) has Schistocerca lineata as a species in superspecies Schistocerca alutacea (the older species file used species group, as did Song 2004). This is not in major disagreement with the book; it's relationship with other alutacea group insects is unchanged, just the rank used. I see no reason why the rest of the information in the book would be invalidated by this change. I changed the OSF reference in the article to use the new version of the website.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion of Anisoptera and Epiprocta classification

Editors may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Anisoptera. The proposal concerns recognising Anisoptera as a suborder of Odonata and removing Epiprocta from the principal hierarchy used by the relevant articles and automated-taxobox templates. Comments are welcome at the central discussion. John Tann (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Blaberoidea classification

The creation of the Blaberoidea has made me realize that the classification of the group on Wikipedia uses a different treatment than the Blattodea Species File (I assume that's the authority we're using); Ectobiidae encompasses the families Pseudophyllodromiidae, Nyctiboridae, and Blattellidae which are all treated as subfamilies of it, following a treatment from prior to 2017 (as can probably be seen here).

Is anyone here able to weigh in on this? I'm afraid i'm not knowledgeable on insect taxonomic authorities. Anthropophoca (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know the species files provide the best sources for the Polyneoptera. Since the switch to use Taxon Works, most are actively maintained and kept up to date.

For Blattodea they have recently merged the cockroach and termite Species Files, which leaves a strange higher taxonomy. The Termitoidae are treated as an infraorder rather than an epifamily sister to Cryptocercoidae. I assume that is because they need taxonomic space between Termitoidae and the families. Apart from this I don't know of a better sources for the species and family level classification.

For the changes you suggest, you'd be updating from an old version of the species file classification (e.g. see Ectobiidae) so it would not be changing the chosen source, just following changes made by that source.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:27, 19 October 2026 (UTC)