Talk:Cretalepisma

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Insects Low‑importance

	Insects portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by Plantdrew (talk · contribs) on 26 April 2024.

Hey[edit]

I couldn’t find many good sources for Cretalepisma. I just used a few other articles and some Wikipedia info as a source. But I just listed a main source. Any other sources anybody can find me? Thank you. yours truly, SAYITWITHYOURCHEST SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original description can be seen here. But if you can't find sources, maybe don't start an article? The image is probably copyrighted, the mention of the cockroach nymph and beetle is taken from the page where you got the image, and Cretalepisma is not a member of Archaeognatha. Plantdrew (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad about the genus. I just wanted to write more articles, so I was asking if people could help me. What’s wrong with asking for help or new editors? I’d ask you to speak kindly to me please. 74.110.125.90 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for the article for more information. I guess SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also that IP was me, but I forgot to sign in to comment. My apologies SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Think This Shouldn’t Be Deleted[edit]

I paraphrased the article and added another source (there’s only a few sources out there on this so it’s not really my fault there isn’t 3 sources). I also made the links align more with the text. from, SAYITWITHYOURCHEST SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT use AI image as reconstruction. HOW IS THIS ACCURATE? WHY THIS INSECT HAVE 7 PAIRS OF LEGS? It is IMPOSSIBLE to make accurate reconstruction using AI. Stop it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally didn’t use AI you’re just mad. 😭 SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I based it off of a photo found in Burmese amber of Cretalepisma. SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not AI, it is still inaccurate so should be deleted. It is important that images and recons are accurate to the source, which your image is not. If someone sees this because they want to reconstruct Cretalepisma, they may be misled and reconstruct it inaccurately. 72.83.94.244 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, do you just think everyone else is too stupid to notice the obvious use of AI? HuntsForBugs (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to see the proof? SAYITWITHYOURCHEST (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ta-tea-two-te-to, The current image is clearly that of AI, and has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia values accuracy and integrity in reconstructions/photos, AI images are indicative of neither. Next time, consider leaving the box empty, and either waiting for Creative Commons images, or by requesting images in Wikiproject Paleontology. Montanoceratops (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the images in question and a new hand-drawn drawing they posted on my talk page. While they apologized to me, their defense of the image was still like this. "I mean I know the website says not secure, but it looks pretty much how a bristletail or silverfish should look like. http://www.fossilmall.com/fossils/mya07/cetalepisma-cretaceous-fossil-amber-bristletail.htm I tried to make it look more life like" "I think it’s kind of rude you automatically accused me of using AI. I don’t even use AI I make digital art by drawing and coloring." However, compared to the newly posted hand-drawn one, this one is clearly questionable. Honestly, I don't think the new image is quite usable either, but they're still better than the others. Also, the fossilmail specimen is just "aff Cretalepisma kachinicum", so it is not officially confirmed that it belongs to this genus. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw original description[1] for if I can create rough reconstruction of that but to be honest photograph quality is not so good enough to reconstruct... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]