This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under "insects and other bugs" --> Diversity --> figure with header "Insects are extremely diverse. Five groups each have over 100,000 described species" the word "Bettles" should be changed to "Beetles" Finaledylctvm (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that that would be a backward step. Here's why. Many, most, readers now use small mobile devices. They see a tiny collage of 4, 8, 12, 16 teeny tiny leggy thingies with, um, legs or teeth or shells or somethings. Don't know, doesn't matter, move on, read.... it's simply useless as an experience.
With one insect there, those readers have a chance of seeing a 3-part body, 3 pairs of legs, a complex head, a long abdomen, segments even. A million times more useful, more to the point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion on this some months ago, see the thread above, but it seems to be being ignored by editors, so let's try again. The MOS indicates that the lead should have an image which gives an idea of the subject of the article. There is no call for the image to try to cover everything, and it's clearly impossible to do so in a large subject like this one. The body plan of an insect is however rather simple: 3-part body, 3 pairs of legs, appendages including antennae and mouthparts, and very often two pairs of wings. An image with an insect big enough to be intelligible and legible on a small screen, or in a thumbnail image, conveys this message clearly to readers; a composite image with a dozen or more micro-thumbnails crammed together may say "variety" but it also says "too small to see properly" to a large percentage of the audience. I'd say that a lead image should be exactly that: a single instance, big enough and clear enough to say just one thing: "insect". Scroll down in the article, and the physical diversity, the range of body plans for different habitats, the phylogenetic range, the various life-cycles, the different means of locomotion — diversity has many meanings for insects, and all are covered in the article: but they can't all be covered in the lead image, and nor should they be, it's at once impossible, unnecessary, and pointless to try. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not substantive objections. Gallery lead images are widely used for animal clades articles, e.g. Arthropod, Animal, Mammal, Reptile etc. There is no opinion other than yours that there should only be a single lead image, and several editors have objected to it, including me and LittleJerry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no justification for using unreadably small images. The function of Wikipedia articles is to inform readers. Images that can't be read aren't informing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a lot of justification for canvassing, either. Nor is there any policy which says that we must add "groups", i.e. illustrations of subsets of the article topic. An article on Castle does not need a lead image that illustrates forecastles and sandcastles or whatever, the job is best done with a single image that illustrates the article's key concept, its subject. We have multiple images, indeed a whole phylogeny in the article here. There is no point trying to make the lead image do a dozen jobs: it won't do any of them well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody else has expressed an opinion on this topic I would have also pinged them, regardless of what their position was, so it's not canvassing, but merely pinging previous discussion participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't refer to me as "Chap", that's insulting. As you rightly say, the collage is quite unrepresentative; as I've said, it's also hopelessly cluttered. If we are to have more than one image, I suggest one Neopteran (already done) and one Palaeopteran, such as a dragonfly. And we might include an Apterygote, like a silverfish, if we're really going to town on this one. The goal of representing full diversity in such a group as Insects I'd have thought plainly hopeless; the collage demonstrates exactly what can go wrong with naive attempts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To save faffing about, I've implemented a 3-part image; at least the insects are full-width within that scope, and the selection makes some kind of sense phylogenetically. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
