Hi, I was formerly an anonymous IP making tons of edits starting around the middle of last year until I made this account just now (17 March 2018). See Special:Contributions/82.9.105.98 for my old contributions. I'll probably make a bunch more now I have an account here.
C. elegans (disambiguation): Up until his ban on this wiki in 2018, User:Caftaric extensively edited this page and possibly created dozens of articles for species that can be abbreviated to C. elegans, which are probably all linked here. Unfortunately, from my experience, many of these are stubs, rather low quality, have incomplete references, are badly researched, and so on, making me question whether this editor had the competance to be editing organism articles (WP:CIR).
Examples of this to mention here that have me concerned about the mess he might have left:
Cyrtonus elegans was created in 2016 with the assumption that Chrysomela elegans was the protonym (the original name for the species), which was most likely copied from GBIF or Fauna Europaea directly. The protonym was actually Eumolpus elegans according to the actual scientific literature (I have documented this on the Wikispecies page). (This was how it looked originally when he created the article.)
Cicindela arbtrarily had a list of uses of "Cicindela elegans" in the middle of the page which was inserted by Caftaric in 2017 (and extended by other users later). I have since removed the C. elegans list but a permalink to the last revision with it can be found here.
On top of all this, Caftaric has repeated this on other wikis, to my knowledge at least Wikispecies and French Wikipedia.
Polyneoptera taxonomy on Wikipedia is a mess: in short, there is currently no accepted classification of the orders within it (at least from what I can see in the literature), and all superorders except Dictyoptera should probably be thrown out in favour of just a simple listing of orders, extant or extinct (it shouldn't matter that Polyneoptera Species File places some fossil orders in superorders, that's actually rather misleading or inconsistent on their part considering the notice on their home page). (Fixed) An explanation of the current lack of agreement here should also be given.
Syrian camel: is Camelus moreli still undescribed after all this time? (the article was created in 2006, so nearly 20 years ago now...) If so, shouldn't the article be worded to explain this situation clearly?
Okay, thanks to Google Scholar, I'm now aware Camelus moreli was described in a PhD thesis in 2019 (link, pages 167 to 175), but it's also clear that 1) the species is still unpublished under the ICZN to my understanding and 2) "Syrian camel" could easily also refer to another formally undescribed species, Camelus concordiae (pages 175 to 184 in the same PhD thesis), which was described from fossils collected from the same locality.
What should happen with the articles for superfamilies Tshekardocoleoidea, Permocupedoidea and Permosynoidea? They are no longer linked on this page, and probably none of them are valid under some recent classifications (e.g. some studies consider Taldycupedidae to be closer to crown-group beetles than Permocupedidae, implicitly making Permocupedoidea non-monophyletic)
Which families actually should be listed in this article anyway? The ones traditionally listed in it according to Bouchard et al. 2011? (Peltosynidae is not usually considered Protocoleoptera so it probably shouldn't be listed here)
Alternatively, code up a cladogram based on Boudinot et al. 2022 as Hemiauchenia suggested back in November 2022
Should Neogalerucella be treated as a valid genus, or as a subgenus of Galerucella? To make matters worse, Neogalerucella calmariensis and Galerucella calmariensis actually refer to the same species, but because of the unclear status of Neogalerucella it's not clear which name is better to use on Wikipedia. (They have been merged into Galerucella calmariensis for now, though this doesn't resolve the rank problem of Neogalerucella.)
Karl Anton Epiphanius Matzek: needs expanding based on biography in Neuer Nekrolog der Deutschen (see talk page)
Medetera: Should Asioligochaetus, Saccopheronta, Demetera and Medeterella be treated as synonyms? If so, they should probably all be turned into redirects. I may need a second opinion for this, particularly the latter two.
Entognatha: double check if is this paraphyletic, or polyphyletic? "the hexapodous condition of these animals has evolved independently from that of insects, and independently within each order" would suggest polyphyly, but (last I checked) the sources say it is paraphyletic? (Actually, is that statement even implying that Hexapoda is polyphyletic too??)
Pterygota: Are the relationships between Neoptera, Odonata and Ephemeroptera actually settled yet? Or does this article need to be fixed to be neutral on this matter?
According to sources such as [1] and [2] and [3], the three main hypotheses are:
With the above in mind, it is puzzling that the article's taxobox uses Metapterygota yet the text uses Palaeoptera! They can't both be accepted?!?
Form classification: Does the opening section need another look? Much of it appears to be lifted primarily from a single source, Bengtson (1985), and I don't know (as of writing at least) if it's recommendations and terminology are widely accepted or not, or whether it's just a single author's attempt to create order out of chaos from 40 years ago...
Franz von Paula Gruithuisen: Make absolutely certain that there isn't actually a pre-Wikipedia source for the "Baron" title before cropping the unsourced claim? Unfortunately that would make it far too late for the likes of [4] for instance, which I think probably copied the Wikipedia article?!?!
Odonata taxonomy: Epiophlebia and Epiprocta need updating: 1) Anisozygoptera is now generally considered a suborder again (and preferred over Epiophlebioptera), 2) Epiprocta is considered an unranked clade now rather than a suborder (or just simply not used). See Odonata#Taxonomy for some sources for this.
