Talk:Banded sugar ant

message: What I gather from the film "Crocodile Dundee" is that they are called sugar ants because they taste sweet (if you hold the head and bite the end off). Is this true? I think its worth mentioning in the article if a source is found.
J1812 (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edibility 

message: Can someone tell me/cite what official organization has deemed this species' common name Sugar Ant? Sugar ant is a VERY common name for nearly any ant people find in their kitchens here in the US. Also, there are no common names for this species (Camponotus consobrinus) and no species associated with the common name 'sugar ant", according to the Entomological Society of America'sentsoc.org Insects and Related Organisms Sorted by Scientific Namehttp://entsoc.org/PDF/Pubs/Common_Names/scientific_name.pdf (pg 10) and Insects and Related Organisms Sorted by Common Namehttp://entsoc.org/PDF/Pubs/Common_Names/common_name.pdf (pgs 47-48), respectively. 
I feel like if we have a Wiki page titled Sugar Ant, it should go towards explaining that it (the term Sugar Ant) is a common name for many ant species. Even in the citation provided, the website has a page called sugar ants in which all Camponotus spp are considered sugar antshttp://www.ces.csiro.au/aicn/name_c/a_4155.htm.
I really beleive this page should be re-titled to scientific name or make some note that this is ONLY for AU.
Barbie (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: CSIRO deems this as its common name on its separate page. The Camponotus species listed in the sources you have provided only appear to be US based ants and they appear to have different common names, not "sugar ants" as you claim. I am certainly sure in the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Ants, Camponotus consobrinus goes under this name. They also go under the name "Banded sugar ant", although "sugar ant" is the most familiar term. Perhaps a note can be provided in the article explaining that this species is the most familiarised ant with this term in Australia. If you can provide more sources on this issue, I can happily rename the page to its other name "Banded sugar ant". Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sugar Ant" 

message: , I am nearly finished copy-editing this. It is a nice little article, and I enjoyed the process. I am not certain that it is ready for GAN, through no fault of your own; it seems as though the source material is a little thin. However, even if you wish to give it a shot, the first step is to address the several clarification tags within the article. Once you have done so, I would be happy to recheck this. Also, the article currently uses two citation styles concurrently; I'm going to go ahead and unify them. Feel free to revert if you have any objections. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the copyediting and adding the clarification tags, I'll get onto those when I have some spare time. Once I have clarified everything I will most likely leave you a note on your talk page so you can do a recheck. I'll nominate it for GA afterwards unless you can think of anything else which needs clarifying. Can you also elaborate on the source material being a "little thin" please? Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Burklemore1, I mean that the article is rather short, and so it might fail the comprehensiveness criterion at GAN. However, from my brief look at the sources, it seems as though this is because not much is known about them. For instance; how long do they live? What is the timescale of their various life-stages? Where do they mate? Why were the sub-species and the species itself reclassified? What other species is it related to? and so forth. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, okay I get what you mean now. For an ant that is among the most common in Australia, there aren't a lot of available sources that can cover your questions, and as you said, there isn't much known about them. Life expectancy for the workers and soldiers is unknown to me so far, but longevity has only been studied with the queens and this has been mentioned in the article. I could add a sentence about the species group it is apart of if that can answer your last question. I could also include the species apart of this group if you would like. Thanks for the answer by the way. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

text:  I was hoping to get feedback from Snowman about the medical aspects for that article, but unfortunately I never received a response. However I believe it's all resolved. As for the Sugar ant article, I have been going through Google Scholar but many sources aren't open access so I am unable to incorporate any info the sources may hold. As far as I'm concerned, the article is comprehensive in nearly all aspects, but most of the questions Vanamonde gave can only be answered through my personal observations, so I would be violating the original research aspect if I were to incorporate it into the article. I'll try and find more sources though. I know Bert Hölldobler has an unpublished report about a C. consobrinus queen living for 7 years that was mentioned in The Ants, as well as another source having a list of observed nuptial flights. Sadly the source didn't go in depth and no references were given, but I might go email the author though. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, lack of open access is not a problem, you can get all the unfree papers you need to improve any articles through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request Without that, I wouldn't have been unable to write most of the articles I've expanded. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, this will help me out a lot. Hopefully the sources will shed light onto some concerns! Burklemore1 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, just ping me when you've added the content, then I'll begin the review, unless someone else has already, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I was not aware of your response. I'll begin to do more scooping around. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , if you disagree with the move, you can make a formal move request to move it back, which will begin a discussion where you can argue for your case. Probably best to wait with the review until it is settled, so the article can be stable. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , I did thank the editor who renamed it since the name "sugar ant" is actually familiarised with many ants (especially Camponotus ants), but a requested move by the editor should have been done originally in my opinion. I'm not very fussed that it was changed anyway, but I hope other editors can give their thoughts about the change. As for the review, just feel free to start it whenever you feel the article is fully stable. Would you suggest to withdraw its nomination for the time being? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, the title isn't too important, but it may be a problem for the various links between pages if the article is moved several times, not sure. I can begin the review soon if you're not keen on requesting a move soon anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of preventing potential problems in the future, I think it's best to not request a move; I'm happy with the name anyway, not sure with others though. I would say that's its "proper name", despite most Australians familiar with the term "sugar ant". Just feel free to review when you feel like doing it. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Edit 

message: It first attracted my attention that "5 mm to 15 mm" was converted to "0.20 to 0.59 inches". That seemed to be unnecessary precision - "0.2 to 0.6 inches" would seem more appropriate. And then I scanned the rest of the article and found that there was not uniform use of the "convert" template. Elsewhere mm was some times converted by hand, rather than using the convert template. Ordinarily I would just go ahead and make the changes, using the convert template, and indicating the appropriate precision. But more caution seems called for in a featured article, so I'm asking for other opinions.     TomS TDotO (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it seems the convert template is at fault for the precise figures. So what are you suggesting, the use of the convert template or remove it altogether and round it off? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My first thought is to use the convert template in all instances wherever there are units in need of conversion, and use the convert template to specify appropriate precision. Unless there is some reason to do otherwise.    TomS TDotO (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine, I'm in agreement. If you want you can initiate these edits anyway, I wouldn't see why someone would oppose (even if it is FA). Burklemore1 (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of units 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Banded sugar ant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150329225012/http://tasfieldnats.org.au/TasNaturalist/Articles/1997/TasNat_1997_No119_WholeIssue.pdf to http://www.tasfieldnats.org.au/TasNaturalist/Articles/1997/TasNat_1997_No119_WholeIssue.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Banded sugar ant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402205928/http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9067869.pdf to http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9067869.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified