Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects

Common tiger beetle listed at Redirects for discussion

Common tiger beetle has been listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 7 § Common tiger beetle. Input from project members is appreciated. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Pterygota § Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonomy/Pterygota § Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2025. Jako96 (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:<Animal>s described in <year> with very confined scope submitted to CfD (again)

Includes bees, bugs, cockroaches, damselflies, flies, grasshoppers, sawflies, and wasps. @ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 30#Category:<Animal>s described in <year> with very confined scope.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

FLC

Hi all, so I currently have List of insect orders at FLC right now, and I'm currently struggling to obtain reviews + a source check. Its been open since June 20 and I'm worried it is in danger of being archived without any other community input, so I would greatly appreciate it if anyone has a minute to take a look at it and leave some comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of insect orders/archive1, thanks. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 00:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

An onslaught of seeming AI-generated additions to species articles

Hi. Apologies if you see this elsewher. I've crossposted it to various relevant projects; insect articles (moths, mosquitoes, etc) seem to be a common target of this stuff so I brought it here.

I've been tagging a huge amount of seemingly AI-generated additions to articles about species. Some are "sourced," some not. I suspect that they are due to AI tools that will "write" an article based on provided sources and/or search results provided in a prompt. What seems to happen is that the AI, unable to generate text on a topic, speculates on what may be "likely." At first I considered that maybe it's a copy-paste template because there are a few users who are prolific with these, or perhaps a sockpuppet situation, but I've noticed similar text pattern in other topics as well.

Some examples:

• Diff 1: While specific distribution data for *Amethysa basalis* is limited, members of the genus are generally found in tropical and subtropical zones. This user has added many many edits like this (though they're not the only one). The asterisks indicate markdown formatting, a common AI tell.
• Diff 2: Shell Characteristics: While specific morphological details are limited, as a member of the Modiolus genus, it likely.... A separate AI tell here is this puffery: "This inclusion highlights its relevance in studies of marine biodiversity in the South Atlantic region." Several drafts by the user have been declined for sources not matching text.
• Diff 3: Although specific conservation assessments for Halystina globulus are not available, deep-sea species in general are considered.... Not also the "is essential" editorializing.
• Diff 4: this remains unconfirmed without direct access to the original description and Specific details about its depth range or precise localities within the Philippine region are not well-documented in available literature, suggesting a need for further research. The "further research" editorializing is common. Note that this user's userpage also shows AI signs, like markdown link formatting.
• Diff 5: Specific morphological details about C. bialata are limited in the provided sources.
• Diff 6: While specific measurements are not widely detailed, it shares general characteristics with other species.... This user was blocked for ongoing LLM use. Note the plaintext "footnotes," also.

I could list a lot more but I really don't want to be here all day. Basically, we've been getting swamped with these edits for almost a year, it's worse than we thought, it shows no signs of stopping, and it is way too big for one person. and I'm not a biology expert by any means so I am of limited help doing anything but finding this stuff and flagging it to experts.

Anyway, wanted to bring this to your attention, hopefully people have bandwidth to help take it on. Please tag me if you have questions or remarks, or else I won't see it (because I am busy excavating slop).

Note to the future: I do not want a mass deletion campaign to be kicked off due to this and do not approve of any insults toward the authors involved. Please don't make me regret flagging this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Re:Taxonomy template issue

Hello,

I was trying to create a taxonomy template for the shore fly genus Actocetor, but while I was creating the page, it was showing a script error "Lua error in Module:Autotaxobox at line 230: attempt to index a nil value." Could anybody here try to fix this?

Link to the draft: Draft:Template:Taxonomy/Actocetor - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

For these as well -

Template:Taxonomy/Discostriata - Wikipedia

Template:Taxonomy/Trypetomima - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Playing with it, its something thats wrong with the AFC template and not the automatic taxoboxes. If you remove the AFC templates and the tagged out messages they render fine.--Kevmin § 15:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates cannot have extraneous material in them, like extra evaluated templates. The automated taxobox system expects a very precise format. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mitsingh: I've now removed the extra stuff. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Mitsingh (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:East African lowland honey bee#Requested move 17 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:East African lowland honey bee#Requested move 17 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)